• cynar@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          8 months ago

          Interestingly it’s possible the universe could be older elsewhere. One of the theories regarding the big bang is that space-time underwent a phase change. The higher level phase had sufficiently different physics to let the energy level equalise despite the speed of light limits.

          There is no reason the entire thing collapsed back into its current state at once. 1 theory has it happening as energy density dropped below a critical limit. Others have “bubbles” of “normal” space time forming, and expanding through the unshifted medium. There is no reason bubbles couldn’t be massively apart, temporally. The catch is, the bubbles will likely never have any communication, rendering the point abstract at best.

          There’s also no reason the bubbles collapsed the same way. Other bubbles could have a vastly different flow rate of time, or a different number of spacial dimensions.

          This is all head-of-a-pin physics however. As it stands, we couldn’t detect even a type 3 civilization out near the edge of our observable universe. That is also before light cone issues.

          • HopeOfTheGunblade@kbin.social
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            4
            ·
            8 months ago

            I’d be interested in reading more about this, if you have any pointers. It seems to me to be an interesting semantic question as to whether other bubbles of spacetime beyond our own, running at a different temporal rate (from the outside? By what universal clock?) count as part of our universe or not. From the description you gave, it seems like maybe even FTL wouldn’t be enough to reach them.

            • cynar@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              5
              ·
              8 months ago

              Not got anything to particularly hand. It’s mostly offhand articles and pub discussions (drunken freeform thinking is remarkably common and useful in physicists, let alone with undergrads). By its nature, it is into the realm of philosophy, rather than science. It is untestable, since there couldn’t be any communication with other bubbles.

              As for the time flow, it’s fairly arbitrary. We perceive ourselves moving through time via indirect means. Those are potentially an illusion, even in our bubble. The rate of entropy, or the speed of light could be vastly different. That would change the perceived “speed of time” (whatever that means!) compared to some arbitrary communal rest frame.

              The big issue is that we don’t currently understand our own space-time. Speculating on over variances is very much “how many angels can dance on the head of a pin”.

              If you want something a little more scientific, cosmic bubble theory is the current version of the theory.

              Oh, and the same base assumptions basically preclude FTL. In a relativistic universe, FTL is time travel, with all the resultant problems (tachyonic anti-telephone being just the most obvious)

        • DessertStorms@kbin.social
          link
          fedilink
          arrow-up
          3
          arrow-down
          4
          ·
          edit-2
          8 months ago

          Considering even the modest estimates of the size of the entire universe compared to the tiny sphere we can observe, I think it’d be pretty arrogant to think our spec is getting enough information to say anything about the universe as a whole is unlikely.

          • ✺roguetrick✺@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            5
            ·
            8 months ago

            This isn’t really a counterargument to what he said. The limits of our observable universe is the CMB. It’s the beginning of the universe. The farther we see, the more redshifted it is, the farther in the past it is. Hot, dense, and redshifted is the CMB.

    • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      6
      arrow-down
      3
      ·
      8 months ago

      Ooc how do we know it’s young? We haven’t exactly witnessed the lifespans of any other universes to compare it to!

      • Sylver@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        8 months ago

        No but we can estimate the total age before cosmic inflation renders the universe cold and so far spread out so as to be considered “dead”

        That timeline is around 10^27 years, of which we only right now have been around for about 10^9. So we are VERY young compared to the max age. On the cosmological timescale, we are still “being born”

          • spittingimage@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            8 months ago

            Another factor is estimating the total amount of hydrogen available to form new stars. The last estimate I heard was nine times as much as is currently bound up in stars.

            • Apytele@sh.itjust.works
              link
              fedilink
              arrow-up
              2
              ·
              8 months ago

              That’s fascinating I would’ve thought most of it is in stars and the rest is a miniscule amount by comparison like 98% or more was in stars or something.