1
$\begingroup$

I'm not that deep in physics. But some days ago I read, there could be different coexisting universes, which could even share "space" (or what ever it is) where each of them could have absolutely different laws of physics.

Now when I'm thinking about the expanding of our universe is described by the speed of light what is an physical low by itself (isn't it?), Then I'm asking my self if there is another universe with physical laws where the speed of light is an 'uncountable'(I don't know what power would suffice what I'm going to describe) times of ours, or even its expansion is mapped to something completely different.

Would there be something in our known laws of physics disproving or even supporting that there could be an universe expanding with such an power that if it 'hits' our universe, our universe would just blown out of existence within some seconds of our known timescale?

$\endgroup$

closed as off-topic by John Rennie, user36790, Kyle Kanos, ACuriousMind, Carl Witthoft Dec 23 '15 at 15:01

This question appears to be off-topic. The users who voted to close gave this specific reason:

  • "We deal with mainstream physics here. Questions about the general correctness of unpublished personal theories are off topic, although specific questions evaluating new theories in the context of established science are usually allowed. For more information, see Is non mainstream physics appropriate for this site?." – John Rennie, Community, Kyle Kanos, ACuriousMind, Carl Witthoft
If this question can be reworded to fit the rules in the help center, please edit the question.

  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne: I just read about there is evidence of of an non-fatal collision our universe had which is observed by an in the article so called "scar" that shows an change in expansion on that point. So saying "There is actually no way to proof or disproof it, since we just can speculate" would be allready be an satisfying answer, not just comment $\endgroup$ – Zaibis Dec 23 '15 at 8:46
  • $\begingroup$ @CuriousOne: "I am not aware that we have any observations that would require any of these models as an explanation." please formulate your last 2 comments into an answer this is exactly what I wanted to hear. I didn't asked for proof or disproof. I asked about is proof or disproof even possible. And thats what you actually answered. $\endgroup$ – Zaibis Dec 23 '15 at 8:56
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I'm afraid there's a lot of "woo" out there Zaibis. It sells magazines and more. Ignorant people lap it up, and there are others who are quite happy to fill a need. And of course promote themselves at the same time. $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Dec 23 '15 at 9:57
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ @JohnDuffield: We may be disagreeing a lot, but on this one I have to agree. The abuse of theoretical speculation to sell garbage science to layman who can't tell the difference has become an industry. Unfortunately even serious theoreticians are participating. I can see the financial pressure (theorists are being paid scraps), but it devalues science as a whole at a time when we can't afford it. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 23 '15 at 10:13
  • $\begingroup$ And thats why I didn't asked about an theorie itself, and more for an clarification, to identyfy this is just speculation or not. concluding thats why your comment was satisfying for answer. $\endgroup$ – Zaibis Dec 23 '15 at 10:17
1
$\begingroup$

Science is only concerned about things that have been observed, it can't speculate about things that have not been. Can one make models of the universe that look like high quality theoretical physics should and that would allow a rapid phase transition of the entire universe? Models like that are circulating in cosmology, e.g. colliding branes, vacuum instability etc. but lacking any evidence they are indeed just speculation.

There is nothing wrong with that, science thrives on intellectual speculation. The difficulty is turning it into "knowledge" by comparison with observations.

I am not aware that we have any astronomical observations or particle physics data that would require any of these models as an explanation. I can tell you my personal preference and I see the big bang itself as a possible candidate for such a rapid phase transition. But that's really my personal choice of physical mythology, it's not physics per se.

$\endgroup$
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ "Science is only concerned about things that have been observed, it can't speculate about things that have not been." Now that has to be the most ironic statement I have seen on PSE $\endgroup$ – user56903 Dec 23 '15 at 9:09
  • $\begingroup$ @DirkBruere: It's simply the definition of science as a rational description of the natural world and method to its construction. Scientists can and do speculate about these things and that's among the best things in science. We can stand in our offices or next to our experiments with colleagues and talk about the fate of the universe in 1e100 years... and I love to do that. Science is not what scientists do all day, though. It's a very small subset of that, the distilled final result that gives a self-consistent picture of what is. $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 23 '15 at 9:15
  • $\begingroup$ Well done for starting to answer questions again, CuriousOne. And I like this answer, so +1. @Dirk Bruere : me and CuriousOne had a little chat. Fingers crossed I can turn him into one of the good guys. $\endgroup$ – John Duffield Dec 23 '15 at 9:47
  • $\begingroup$ @JohnDuffield: The OP asked me to and indicated that (s)he got what (s)he was looking for. I think that's enough, even though I am not sure that it even begins to cover the topic for my taste. Thanks for the up-vote! $\endgroup$ – CuriousOne Dec 23 '15 at 9:54
  • 1
    $\begingroup$ Science is absolutely concerned with things that have not (yet) been observed, but good theories are at least falsifiable. "if you point your telescope here you should see a previously unobserved planet" - the discovery of Pluto - is just one example. Maybe you and I are using "concerned with" in a different sense? Other than that I agree with you. $\endgroup$ – Floris Dec 23 '15 at 12:54

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.