HeHe...haha....So this: "Mind not blown. The theory that the universe is more like a balloon and we exist on the surface is more mentally mind-blowing" Is science?
One school of thought from the world of String Theory: The universe may have once existed as a 10 [or 11]-dimensional hyper-surface. For some reason, there was a cataclysmic event, where this hyper-surface "collapsed" into the 4-dimensional universe that we observe today. This event is now known as the Big Bang. And the other 6 or 7 dimensions are now hidden but manifest as the forces of nature. It is mostly conjecture at this point but there is reason to believe it could be true.
One of the great mysteries in physics is that of the physical constants Speed of light c Planck constant h Gravitation constant G Boltzmann constant k Charge of electron e Permeability of vacuum ...Flux quantum Bohr radius etc No theory can yet explain why they all have the values they do. As far as we know, they could be random. But the trouble is, very slight variations in these values would mean that atoms could not exist. So it would seem that by the luck of the draw, the universe just so happened to have just the right fundamental constant values, so we can exist. Now isn't THAT special. We expect that eventually a theory will emerge showing that these must have the values they do. But then there is the concept of the multiverse. In some models, universes are constantly bubbling up out of the quantum foam, without end. Given that there are an infinite number of universes, all possible variations will occur. So every once in a while, against all odds, infinity wins and a universe with just the right constant values emerges; and atoms, and eventually life can exist. The odds against our existence could be billions or trillions or quadrillions, or a googleplex to one. Then again, maybe they had to have those values and existence was guaranteed. Or, as the religious folk like to imagine, God did it.
Well, me. I have a Theory of Everything somewhere around here if I could just find it. "We" meaning the human race; or the physics community as a whole, depending on the context. Heim Theory looked like it might account for the values of the constants. But I think Heim Theory has been pretty much discounted now. It seems that through some very complex and unintended circular reasoning, he appeared to have derived or "predicted" the values of the constants. But they were somehow built into his equations.
Never saw it. Actually I was simply pondering possibilities after reading a paper. I have since pondered anew. A black hole cannot be a conduit to another dimension, as it expands when devouring matter which indicates it must consume rather than become an expressway. Perhaps within the expanse a singularity begins within the singularity which eventually results in a "Big Bang" and another universe.
It is because we are human centric that we believe that life must exist elsewhere in the universe. I used to also believed that a form of life must exist elsewhere, but now, IMO the odds are just as likely that no other forms of life exist
Are we in an expanding universe (as implied in your thought exp)? Consider the possibility that universal c is not constant over time but changes in infinitesimally small amounts over time. Once emitted the speed does not change. It would not be possible to locally measure any change due to all measurements being carried out locally since all our common measurements are based on assumed constant c and the distance covered from say star light is beyond our experimental environment. What will this mean? 1. Energy is released into the universe due to delta c (E=h delta f). Could this change be exibited as source of gravity - unification of gravity with the other main forces?. 2. Universe is static? Evidence: Far distance galaxies appear to be traveling faster than our presumed constant c leading to adding other theories to account for this - dark energy, dark matter. My proposed theory is that light from a galaxy far away emitted at t=0 is emitted at speed c1. At t=0, the speed of any emitted light on earth will also be the same c1. At t=one billion years, this light reaches Earth at speed c1. However, over this one billion years, the value of universal c for any new light emitted has changed by delta c giving an observation of an expanding universe. But this observation is due to our not knowing that the light from objects outside our experimental environment is not traveling at our local c but at that speed of universal c one billion years ago and there is no way that we would recognize that.
I've never been a fan of constants . Those values are just what we measure at this moment of time and on Earth. We use one constant as a measuring tool to derive the other constants. We assume that they are universal constants and are constant since time dot (not quite time dot because big bang theory does not allow that) What happens if one "constant" changes.......
We don't use one to derive another. But the values depends on the units of measure. What happens if one changes? If the right one changes enough, atoms all come apart and cease to exist. The universe as we know it ceases to exist. That's the point.
No, you are not understanding my theory. The speed of light is "constant" in our time frame and location. This "constant" is used to define the meter. If this constant "c" changes locally, the "length" of the meter will also change. This change will not be observed by anyone in our time frame and location because of the use of c as a frame of reference. Those outside our time frame and location will observe that the two "constant" lengths of a meter will be of different lengths.
Ah, but I'm proposing that they are all related hence for my hypothesis that gravity (derived from changes in c in my proposal) is unified with the other forces. It was not that long ago that Maxwell identified light as being an electromagnetic disturbance, directly from his equations, c = one over square root ( mu nought times epsilon nought) = 2.998 * 10 power of 8 We don't know what happens if one "constant" changes and will never know if any change happens as we cannot observe it. Only those observers looking from the outside are able to observe this change. My proposal is that at time t, the "constants" are the same in the whole universe, at time t=t +t1, every constant changes. Previously I tried to do the maths to see if this proposal allowed a static universe but the maths became too complicated for me.
Why would the meter change? Maybe time would change and the meter would remain constant. Maybe the speed of light changes and space and time are unaffected. There is one model in which the speed of light changes in the early universe. The result is matter. Matter is how the excess energy of spacetime is conserved as the speed of the expansion slowed down.... IIRC So I guess you could say that under that model, matter is light poop.
What you are "proposing" means nothing without a mathematical model. You would have to derive the relationship you suggest or it is just mental masturbation. It looked for a time like Heim might have actually derived the constants, but not so. What we do know from Quantum Mechanics is that the stability of atoms depends on the values involved being exactly what they are. If they were any different the atom couldn't exist.
This is the equation for a Hydrogen atom. It requires that Planck's Constant and the Permittivity Constant, and Pi have exact values because it is an "exact solution", as opposed to an approximation or a result that has a range and can vary. The Permittivity Constant is related to the speed of light - another exact solution.
