Nature | News

Did a hyper-black hole spawn the Universe?

Big Bang was mirage from collapsing higher-dimensional star, theorists propose.

Article tools

Rights & Permissions

ARTIST'S IMPRESSION BY VICTOR DE SCHWANBERG/SCIENCE PHOTO LIBRARY

The event horizon of a black hole — the point of no return for anything that falls in — is a spherical surface. In a higher-dimensional universe, a black hole could have a three-dimensional event horizon, which could spawn a whole new universe as it forms.

It could be time to bid the Big Bang bye-bye. Cosmologists have speculated that the Universe formed from the debris ejected when a four-dimensional star collapsed into a black hole — a scenario that would help to explain why the cosmos seems to be so uniform in all directions.

The standard Big Bang model tells us that the Universe exploded out of an infinitely dense point, or singularity. But nobody knows what would have triggered this outburst: the known laws of physics cannot tell us what happened at that moment.

“For all physicists know, dragons could have come flying out of the singularity,” says Niayesh Afshordi, an astrophysicist at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics in Waterloo, Canada.

It is also difficult to explain how a violent Big Bang would have left behind a Universe that has an almost completely uniform temperature, because there does not seem to have been enough time since the birth of the cosmos for it to have reached temperature equilibrium.

To most cosmologists, the most plausible explanation for that uniformity is that, soon after the beginning of time, some unknown form of energy made the young Universe inflate at a rate that was faster than the speed of light. That way, a small patch with roughly uniform temperature would have stretched into the vast cosmos we see today. But Afshordi notes that “the Big Bang was so chaotic, it’s not clear there would have been even a small homogenous patch for inflation to start working on”.

On the brane

In a paper posted last week on the arXiv preprint server1, Afshordi and his colleagues turn their attention to a proposal2 made in 2000 by a team including Gia Dvali, a physicist now at the Ludwig Maximilians University in Munich, Germany. In that model, our three-dimensional (3D) Universe is a membrane, or brane, that floats through a ‘bulk universe’ that has four spatial dimensions.

Ashfordi's team realized that if the bulk universe contained its own four-dimensional (4D) stars, some of them could collapse, forming 4D black holes in the same way that massive stars in our Universe do: they explode as supernovae, violently ejecting their outer layers, while their inner layers collapse into a black hole.

In our Universe, a black hole is bounded by a spherical surface called an event horizon. Whereas in ordinary three-dimensional space it takes a two-dimensional object (a surface) to create a boundary inside a black hole, in the bulk universe the event horizon of a 4D black hole would be a 3D object — a shape called a hypersphere. When Afshordi’s team modelled the death of a 4D star, they found that the ejected material would form a 3D brane surrounding that 3D event horizon, and slowly expand.

The authors postulate that the 3D Universe we live in might be just such a brane — and that we detect the brane’s growth as cosmic expansion. “Astronomers measured that expansion and extrapolated back that the Universe must have begun with a Big Bang — but that is just a mirage,” says Afshordi.

Model discrepancy

The model also naturally explains our Universe’s uniformity. Because the 4D bulk universe could have existed for an infinitely long time in the past, there would have been ample opportunity for different parts of the 4D bulk to reach an equilibrium, which our 3D Universe would have inherited.

The picture has some problems, however. Earlier this year, the European Space Agency's Planck space observatory released data that mapped the slight temperature fluctuations in the cosmic microwave background — the relic radiation that carries imprints of the Universe’s early moments. The observed patterns matched predictions made by the standard Big Bang model and inflation, but the black-hole model deviates from Planck's observations by about 4%. Hoping to resolve the discrepancy, Afshordi says that his is now refining its model.

Despite the mismatch, Dvali praises the ingenious way in which the team threw out the Big Bang model. “The singularity is the most fundamental problem in cosmology and they have rewritten history so that we never encountered it,” he says. Whereas the Planck results “prove that inflation is correct”, they leave open the question of how inflation happened, Dvali adds. The study could help to show how inflation is triggered by the motion of the Universe through a higher-dimensional reality, he says.

Journal name:
Nature
DOI:
doi:10.1038/nature.2013.13743

References

  1. Pourhasan, R., Afshordi, N. & Mann, R. B. Preprint available at http://arxiv.org/abs/1309.1487 (2013).

  2. Dvali, G., Gabadadze, G. & Porrati, M. Phys. Lett. B 485, 208214 (2000).

For the best commenting experience, please login or register as a user and agree to our Community Guidelines. You will be re-directed back to this page where you will see comments updating in real-time and have the ability to recommend comments to other users.

Comments for this thread are now closed.

Comments

35 comments Subscribe to comments

  1. Avatar for Autymn C
    Autymn C
    There are no black holes. https://www.quora.com/Physics/Have-the-known-true-laws-of-physics-ever-been-broken-ever/answer/Autymn-Castleton
  2. Avatar for Jouni Valkonen
    Jouni Valkonen
    This is intriguing proposal. I have also thought that the topology of universe must be a surface of four dimensional hyperball. This means that it is possible to sail around the universe with warp speed capable spaceship. There is also interesting detail. As there are no boundaries in the universe, universe is gravitationally balanced. Therefore the geometry of universe appears as flat in CMB data and flatness problem is solved.
  3. Avatar for Luka Marinovic
    Luka Marinovic
    For some time I've been thinking about the idea that the edge of our Universe is not a beginning of the span Universe into nothing, but rather absorbing the external mater into our Universe. Imagine a 4D Universe like a surface of the lake (though it's a 3D only), and the on that surface you throw a rock and a wave begins to expand in 2D circular form. And the first wave is a expanding wave, like our "Event horizon" out of which we cannot see... If that is the case, a Universe would have "several waves" inside it, remnants from the early Universe expansion. While our continuum would be somewhere in the calm center of the newly formed structure bonded by the waves.... Also as you know the second law of thermodynamics, it says that nothing can be made with magic stick, only to be transformed from one form to the other form of energy. So our Universe "is probably" absorbing the external mater into it as it expands or contracts: http://phys.org/news/2013-08-cosmologist-universe.html ; either way if the total mass of the Universe is not constant - then: what is our Universe absorbing? And if that is a 4D Universe out there, of which one small portion can be changed into 3D mater. Then, what is happened to the rest of the 4D Universe that has been absorbed in our Universe? Is it the Dark mater or Dark energy, that we can't see? Is it the the "Dark" only Dark, because we can't see it with our own eyes & sensors? And how to make sensor sensitive to 4D mater in a 3D Universe? Maybe we should call it a Blind mater instead, if we find out that the Dark mater & Dark energy are remnants of the 4D Universe in our continuum... ;)
  4. Avatar for Samuel Blondahl
    Samuel Blondahl
    < Canadian Science Fiction author. I blogged a similar theory in January. It was light and meant as a musing more than serious science, but it made sense to me then, and it seems like serious scientists are agreeing now. Check it out. http://blondahl.blogspot.ca/2013/01/dark-supernova-theory.html
  5. Avatar for frank Toly
    frank Toly
    That was a really good article. A good read....I'm an undergrad Earth scientist and not a physicist...I agree with the theory though that we came from the end of a black hole (which i thought was called a white hole?? But i digress)..I also think all laws get re jigged via black holes to make new universes with slightly changed fundamental forces in each of them...One thing i don't understand is..Don't we live in a 4D universe also given we have 4 dimensions?... 3 spacial and 1 of time?..How can a 4D universe be a highther dimension than ours?
  6. Avatar for Roy Niles
    Roy Niles
    Has anyone considered that we already have a 4D universe, one dimension of which would be what John Archibald Wheeler referred to as its and bits of meaningful information, and which I would offer as a strategically evolving substance. I'm sure I will be insulted for having mentioned this, but what else is new.
  7. Avatar for Anthony M
    Anthony M
    Read my comments. Let me know what you think.
  8. Avatar for Tom Woolery
    Tom Woolery
    At least they are thinking outside the box, but hyper black holes from hyper stars in an extra-dimensional universe strikes me as a bit too speculative, and ultimately unnecessary, when there are far simpler and more elegant ways to connect the dots. Here's one, with three assumptions: 1) time itself is a dimension, which compresses inside a blackhole faster than the spatial dimensions, toward a null point. 2) the only known null point for time is the moment of the Big Bang. And so, 3). Every black hole in the history and future of our universe continually powers the Big Bang, creating a closed system which does not require hyper realities.
  9. Avatar for Anthony M
    Anthony M
    Other people making comments have made me start thinking about things in ways I haven't before. I remember an explanation of dimensions I held onto but couldn't or wasn't able to apply before now. (thank you for your comments) I think the true measure of knowledge is the ability to describe something you understand in an effective way to someone who doesn't. So think of 1 dimension. a point in space or a line. Depending on your perspective it could look like either. Think of 2 dimensions a square. Represent that in one dimension or better yet imagine the shadow that the 2 dimensional object would cast. Now think of a 2 dimensional representation of a 3 dimensional object. How you would draw a cube on a piece of paper. 2 over lapping squares with lines connecting the corners. Now think of a 3 dimensional cube being the shadow of a 4 dimensional object. So you have all of that straight. With that E=mc2 explains our understanding of matter and energy as it relates to other dimensions. So mass is static energy or our understanding of it. If you were a being capable of understanding 1 dimension and you were to get a 2 dimensional object and change your perspective. It would look like it turned from 1 point to and infinite instantly. imagine you were looking at pencil so that it only looked like the eraser. Then you were to change your perspective or turn the pencil. It would look like it became infinitely bigger instantly. When nothing of the sort happened. The only difference is our ability to observe it and our perspective. So in effect its mass and it energy just became the same thing. Which I think was his hit at explaining the limitation of our perspective and actual reality. So the same thing would follow from a 2 to 3 dimensional and 3 to 4 dimensional. A single point could instantly turn into an infinite expanse just by a change of perspective. Without having to explain how it grew so quickly etc etc etc. I think dark matter is attempting to grasp that change in perspective in terms of 3 dimensions. Which can go way beyond the 4 dimension. So E=mc2 is the description of 4th dimensional matter in 3 dimensional space. So if you were to ever reach "light speed" you would essentially exist in the 4th dimension and which in 3 dimensional space mean you had infinite mass and existed everywhere just like a 3 dimensional object would exist in 2 dimensional space. Neet stuff. Have a good one.
  10. Avatar for cassie thornton
    cassie thornton
    Hey Anthony, I am really interested in the visualizations you wrote, that really helped me to understand the 4th dimension in a new way (seeing a 3d object as a shadow of a 4d thing). Did you make up these exercises to help people move imagistically between dimensions, or are these standardly used by physicists? I would love to know more exercises for seeing abstract or difficult ideas in this way.
  11. Avatar for Tom Woolery
    Tom Woolery
    I really appreciate your comments. Very thoughtful. I realize that there are differences between the 3+ spatial dimensions and one temporal. Frankly, the idea of time as a temporal dimension has fallen out of popularity, though it has not been disproven. When speaking of dimensions I find it useful to maintain a distinction between mathematical dimensions and the universe. Space is dimensional, and yet it curves... Time is an arrow, and yet it dilates. I don't pretend that time isnt one-directional; it must be for our universe to operate. But if it is a dimension, capable of being elongated and compacted in much the same manner that 3-dimensional space warps, then it has some very interesting implications for cosmology which haven't been fully explored in thought experiments, including observable mysteries such as redshift, inflation, and dark matter/energy.
  12. Avatar for Anthony M
    Anthony M
    Yeah my comments are more about the 3+ spatial dimensions with the temporal be a result of our perceptions more so than it actually existing. Which would make the speed of which things happen no longer needing to be explained. Which E=mc2 would elude to. For instance. If you were a 2 dimensional being and you had a line segment orientated so that it looked like a single dot. Then you changed your perspective or the angle of the line from your ability to perceive 2 dimensions you would attempt to explain a 3 dimensional object in terms of 2 dimensions and time/speed. When the line didn't actually grow or shrink. So E=mc2 is more about the maximum speed with which our perception can change and an insight on our limited ability to perceive. As far as redshift I thought that was equivalent to a Doppler effect but with light. Inflation, see above. Dark matter/energy. If everything we see is the 3 dimensional "shadow" of a 4D universe and dark matter/energy doesn't cast a shadow or doesn't in a way we can as of yet perceive. Then it would only be able to be observed through its interaction with the 3D universe we can actually perceive. Have a good one!!!
  13. Avatar for Tudorel Stoica
    Tudorel Stoica
    So, I'm thinking the speed with which our 3D brane Universe is "expanding" must be a sum of the energy of the outer layer from the 4D star, minus the gravity force of the inner layer energy that created the 4D Hyper black hole, adding the gravity force of other nearby 4D blackholes that pull on our 3D brane Universe and again minus some sort of a friction force where our 3D universe collides with another 3D brane Universe. And i'm guessing that dark matter is the 4D field through which the 3D brane Universes expand in while dark energy is nothing more than electromagnetism and gravity considered at a 4D level.
  14. Avatar for zubair akram
    zubair akram
    I just want to know that when there was no universe the 4 D star and black hole were come from where? and havnt you checked how well managed this universe is ? can it be possible with out any manager if not then someone somewhere is managing it and if someone is managing then accept it is created by God don't waste the time in known things work for some unknown and helpful sir. Thanks
  15. Avatar for Alex M
    Alex M
    That is plain wrong thinking. If all people followed your seemingly simple logic, you would probably still be writing on paper with ink and think that the Earth is flat and everything else is rotating around it. Humanity needs to progress and learn more to be able to survive. One day maybe we will be forced to leave this planet, and when that time comes I am more willing to bet my life on the technology we might achieve by then, than let's say a "something" that may or may not exist at all.
  16. Avatar for jacorb effect
    jacorb effect
    The way I see it is that none of you are real and I only exist in a computer simulation. Given that, I found watching The 13th Floor kinda ironic. The 4D argument triggers a sense of deja-vu (which some would say is a glitch in the matrix). Either way it satisfies me and I no-longer need to worry my pretty little head over it anymore. This way I can stay lazy mentally without becoming religious.
  17. Avatar for Douglas Borsom
    Douglas Borsom
    Turtles all the way down....
  18. Avatar for Anthony M
    Anthony M
    Random Gibberish by a crazy person. Here is what I think. I have posted this a few places for awhile now. This article is an attempt to explain interaction between 4D and 3D and our limited interpretation of it. Here is my attempt to make it even easier. Lets say the universe is a bubble. Out interpretation of that bubble could be described as a projection caused by "light" coming from outside of the bubble to the inside of the bubble. The projection on the inside is our observable universe. With that said think about any difficult concept as it relates to that projection and the bubble. String theory. Easy. Your looking at the projection of a 4d particle on a bubble. The bubbles surface is not static. The sum of the movement equate to 0. they could look like a circle a line or a point depending on the perspective and the timeframe of the observation. Black hole. Easy. There is something blocking the projection of the light and or an absence of 4d objects to be projected. These are trying to reach an equilibrium on the surface of the bubble or collapse the hole. etc. Particle entanglement. Easy. 2 different projections of the same particle. If you can figure out how to manipulate the 4d object instead of the 3d projection you are manipulating them both. If you are observing the different 3d projections of the same 4d object then they behave the same way. Multiverse. Easy. Different light sources different frames of reference and different interactions of particles in the projection. Time. Easyish. The frame of reference for the projection. Each projection and the things in it only exist in that way in that frame of reference and interact in their own projection. So essentially it would be the same as 2 realities on 2 dimensional and perpendicular planes trying to observe one another directly. over time. Or each frame or independent projection existing as its on "universe" and timeline" independently of one another but because we are part of that "universe" our ability to understand real time is limited by the time and space that is represented by the projection we are a part of. It goes on and on. Each new complicated concept or question seems easily explainable. with 3 sentences. All matter is on a bubble. . (the opposite is possible but I don't want to think about it.) We can only perceive the projection of that matter caused by "light". This light could be one or multiple sources with the same or different characteristics. The final interesting question which is the only real one is the understanding our own perceptions of reality without actually being able to directly perceive that reality. Random gibberish that I think is interesting. Particles behaving differently depending on if they are being observed or not. (This was an interesting one for me anyway.) When you realize your not actually observing a particle directly but only a projection of it. And we could be looking at different projections of the same particle where time and type of projection would have an influence. Lets say there are 2 light sources from different angles with different polarities where the angle and light source could have different qualities. (speeds penetration, clarity, strength, absorption...etc) Or maybe this is just a way to explain everything by making up a small number of rules.
  19. Avatar for Michael Nicholas
    Michael Nicholas
    @Anthony M: Anyone who says "easy" after every idea they have, obviously accepting posited theories as truth proves that they don't fully grasp the concepts involved. As well, you still have to remember that while there are those who blindly accept "String Theory" as relevant because of their overwhelming desire to make sense of gravity not playing nice across physical disciplines, and their want for a simple path to Unification, most self-respecting scientists still believe String Theory, while brilliant in its imaginings, to be little more than a scientific philosophy, rather than a true scientific path to Unification, because even its own mathematics cannot be accurately tested and verified. Without the ability to test and verify, it doesn't matter how much fiction we create to attempt to unify disciplines, we're really no closer than Einstein was on his death bed. So, call others crazy while championing things which barely qualify to be held in the realm of theory, due to their lack of a testable substance. If the scientific method and empirical observation cannot be applied to a "theory," it's pure conjecture and fantasy, no matter how much convoluted math you use to attempt to prop up an imagining with no apparent basis in reality. Personally, I think pseudo-intellectuals just enjoy plugging "String philosophy" to help with their overreaching attempts to stumble and fumble around a universe that, in our own self-appreciation, we believe we understand far better than we actually do. Before a few years ago, we didn't even know negative energy existed, making the manipulation of space-time possible. Virtually all laws presently on the books will be radically redefined as we continue to dispel ignorance. Einstein was once quoted as saying, "Imagination is more important than knowledge." Recent developments have proven how true this is. If you wanted to show your intelligence, you could have simply given appreciation to the fact that others are attempting view the universe in new ways, and are brave enough to cast off old, unproven notions. Attempting to reverse engineer our understanding of the universe has been a difficult and arduous path, and will see our assumptions shattered many times more before we reach the truth. You have no right to call anyone else crazy, with any credibility. You, like the rest, are simply grasping at straws. Respect your confederates and peers, if you ever hope for anyone to take anything you think or say with any gravity attached. The best way to collaborate and break new ground is to show that you give the respect you anticipate from others. Not to dismiss someone else's view as "crazy." I guess this is why you're using this as a forum for your ideas, instead of sharing them with peers in the scientific community, for consideration. Don't assume that you're the only intelligent person on the forum. Intellectual elitism makes you look quite the fool.
  20. Avatar for Anthony M
    Anthony M
    That's pretty funny. In all of this drivel what did you contribute? Less than I did. What I am attempting to convey is a concept that I have thought about for a number of years and how it would make other "theories" easily understandable. This is the entire point of the article that I am responding to. Theories that align with portions of reality and make other theories better more accurate easier to understand and apply to reality.... (never mind) When I was referencing a crazy person I was talking about myself... you twit. That explanation of my post in itself make your entire response and the thought behind it pointless. Which in itself is entertaining. Lets continue anyway. " If the scientific method and empirical observation cannot be applied to a "theory," it's pure conjecture and fantasy, no matter how much convoluted math you use to attempt to prop up an imagining with no apparent basis in reality." That entire statement is broken beyond belief. What math is? number me use numbers? me not think so. Only have so many fingers and toes....oh me only use number 2 3 an 4. I no use take away or add. lol. The majority of everything in that statement cant be proven and can only be applied to incomplete or questionable theories. Most of these things have math behind them but are way beyond my ability to even want to attempt to understand. A theory is an idea based on observations that you think will align with other theories which by definition cant have a basis in reality... or it wouldn't be a theory. It would be a fact. You sir are an idiot. Take it from the fool you have so described. We can smell our own. In any case good try. I look forward to your response and the enjoyment which will come from reading it. Good day.
  21. Avatar for Gianlucca Nichele
    Gianlucca Nichele
    You used "your" instead of "you're". You lost all credibility to me.
  22. Avatar for Anthony M
    Anthony M
    Ignoring the secrets of the universe because of a simple grammar mistake is entirely "your" choice to make. Do you require the use of proper sentence structure in your verbal interactions with people and refuse to acknowledge the content of the conversation until they do it properly? If not then just pretend its story time and I am reading it to you. If so then the equivalent would be to dismiss the content or meaning of what anyone ever told you unless it was formatted perfectly. The reverse would be possible as well. You listen intently to properly formatted ideas even if the content has no value. Then, at that point choose to dismiss it or not. That methodology insures that the amount of useful information that you absorb is much less than it could be. It also fortifies the behavior. In my experience the people with nothing to offer or no other arguments generally draw attention to grammar mistakes. That and English majors. Who generally still have nothing to offer. Thanks for the comment. It was fun to think about!! Have a wonderful day.
  23. Avatar for Morgan Holt
    Morgan Holt
    I'm sorry, I really felt you were on to something. But then you wrote "its" instead of "it's" and I couldn't continue. ;-)
  24. Avatar for Steven Laube
    Steven Laube
    the idea of a object like a super massive black hole igniting is the basic of the big ban theory , its seems the others have missed" the point "
  25. Avatar for Steven White
    Steven White
    Re: Ed Sheppard's comment... Maybe human brains are the 2D branes to which you refer. Could human consciousness be the 2D brane that would be floating around in our universe to be the nested dimension above our 3D brane?
  26. Avatar for Kenneth Epstein
    Kenneth Epstein
    The Big Bang singularity can be explained as a simple mistake in the Standard Cosmological Model. To find out how to correct this mistake, see the following link: http://dx.doi.org/10.1155/2013/617142
  27. Avatar for Qwertius Maximus
    Qwertius Maximus
    Its an interesting idea. Unfortunately, (as has always been the case) with String Theory : there is no way of proving the concept. It cannot be tested in using empirically based evidence. Nor does the Mathematics behind it : offer up any conclusive proof. Last but not least, even if the theory of the Four Dimensional Bulk Universe had been proved : it merely shifts the problem up another level. What gave rise to the 4 Dimensional Bulk Universe ? Was it the result of a 5 dimensional star collapse. And did this arise from a 6 Dimensional Star collapse. This in turn leads to mathematical infinities that in themselves become infinitely self contradictory. In which case : infinities can even 'skip' numbers or entire 'sets' and still be 'infinite'. So where does this all lead in the end ? Down another Rabbit Hole ? I'm afraid only Alice in Wonderland has that answer.
  28. Avatar for Jitso Keizer
    Jitso Keizer
    The editors of Nature give space to an article in which mathematics and physics get confused, for in the first a point exists but in the latter it cannot since it has no dimensions. Black holes do not exist as Vasily Yanchilin explains clearly with words, maths and physical experience. Nature's editors still refuse to comment his important book "The Quantum Theory of Gravitation" (2003) and are therefore to blame. For they act like in the dark Middle Ages when unwelcome books, not respecting vested authority, were burnt. Good scientific approach is to deliver counter arguments. P.e. when Yanchilin explains the red shift of sunlight with faster second at the sun, while according the general theory of relativity this shift is caused by slower second on the sun and overcoming gravitational attraction of that star, but not the sum of both is measured! Yanchilin is the first to present a qualitative explanation of gravity with hypothesis that mass reduces the Heisenberg uncertainty. Thus in the half of a particle nearest to an external mass there will be less Heisenberg transitions to the farthest half than from the latter in the opposite direction. Net result is movement of the particle towards the external mass. I add that research should be done on not feeling inertial mass when an external mass is absent; like if there then exists balance. Vasily Yanchilin describes curvature of light near mass with the principle of least action: a photon tries to pass with as big steps (oscillations with low frequencies) as possible and a minimum of these. If Einstein were right with slower second near mass a hyperbole trajectory would be observed. In his theroy length and time are not considered in a right way: time is related to physical processes and when the unit of length shrinks near mass then the electrons will move in a shorter path with higher speed; thus time there runs faster because the electrons emit radiation with higher frequencies. In Yanchilin's words: when the unit of length shrinks all distances become bigger but when the duration of the second gets smaller all processes run faster, need less time on the clock of a distant observer. Black holes are based on the wrong assumption that time runs slower near mass (which is contradictory to the fast evolvements during the big Bang. I say that those affraid of Uniting Onstorming Back Holes should take a twin from a telepathic geranium plant and send it into outer space. When it then gets divorced by the nearing Black Holes its brother at your window wil get into shock, which can be measured as its leaves will tremble. Then before it is your turn there rests just enough time for a short prayer, schietgebedje in dutch language..
  29. Avatar for Gergo Soos
    Gergo Soos
    (Not )Finding the real matter in empty space and the fractal nature of our world really gives me the question if really the universe is expanding from a single dot. Certainly we have a wave function that is expanding, But I don't think there is a bulk of the universe expanding with any relativistic speed from another. More like having a vibrating fractal that is never the same, has no real end, mass, anything but a synus wave of light speed that is energy and one side attract other repels generating whatever 4 forces we know and constantly generating new "material" we currently cannot detect. This system would have a simple constant, have no start nor end, repeats itself by generating infinite possibilities, is bigger than Graham's number ( XD! ) and generates more problems any of us can currently count.
  30. Avatar for phil bradley
    phil bradley
    there right, this matches up with my theory, if you take it into account then there numbers will add up, space is a proton that has no electron and is so small we might not ever see it, its divides like a cell does, this is why space seems to be expanding faster and faster.
  31. Avatar for Jack Tallent
    Jack Tallent
    Theories like these just push the problem outward another level, it seems to me. Explaining the origin of the universe by postulating something "outside" of it (i.e. a higher 4 dimensional universe) is akin to cheating. Given this theory is correct, what is the origin of this higher dimensional universe? A 5 dimensional one, etc?
  32. Avatar for Ed Sheppard
    Ed Sheppard
    I'd find such speculation a bit more convincing if we observed 2D branes w/ closed 2D physics floating around in our universe.
  33. Avatar for Elena Espriella
    Elena Espriella
    time to bid the Big Bang bye-bye? Wasn't till yesterday when scientist vehemently held the Big Bang Theory as an almost fact of how space, time started? So very well time has always existed and will always exist, because there is no time, just changes of conditions of energy in a space or electromagnetic field as waves of light hit the eyes in intervals carrying the information about the change?
  34. Avatar for aaron antkowiak
    aaron antkowiak
    what if there was no explosion at all rather then a slow expanse or growth of the singularity. Then the thermal energy would be friction aggravated at the farthest reaches of our universe as the expanse happens. Isolating the residual heated areas to pockets as well as the perimeter of the expanding universe/hyper universe. As things expanded there may have been less room for friction other then isolated areas such as galaxies/nebula's where matter stuck around?. or maybe we are just living in an aftermath of an explosion as it sustains.
  35. Avatar for James T. Dwyer
    James T. Dwyer
    As I understand, the singularity is merely the product of maximally interpolating identified expansion. Couldn't the universe have simply begun as as a phase transition of a relatively static, existing, larger space - one that had already achieved thermal equilibrium?

Physics on two wheels

bike

The bicycle problem that nearly broke mathematics

Jim Papadopoulos has spent a lifetime pondering the maths of bikes in motion. Now his work has found fresh momentum.

Newsletter

The best science news from Nature and beyond, direct to your inbox every day.

Exclusive

crispr-human

Chinese scientists to pioneer first human CRISPR trial

Gene-editing technique to treat lung cancer is due to be tested in people in August.

Mega map

brain-map

Human brain mapped in unprecedented detail

Nearly 100 previously unidentified brain areas revealed by examination of the cerebral cortex.

Edited history

crispr

The unsung heroes of CRISPR

The soaring popularity of gene editing has made celebrities of the principal investigators who pioneered the field — but their graduate students and postdocs are often overlooked.

Lock-down

Turkey

Turkey purges universities after failed coup

Political turmoil spreads to education sector.

Nature Podcast

new-pod-red

Listen

This week, the perils of tech in health, tumour fighting bacteria, and the science of what sounds good.

Science jobs from naturejobs

Science events from natureevents