Talk:Bubble universe theory

message: I hope this is original :P.
I had this idea floating in my head that we are in a zero-sum universe, all energy has its negative force and the net value is Italic textexactlyItalic text zero. Thus it may be assumed that this particular theory states that this universe may be artificially created if someone could manage to seperate out many forces that negate each other and 'sew' them up in an incoherent lump of slowly self-destructing mass of forces (Imagine a soup of equations.). (Imagine a computer crunching away at a soup of equations that finally computes to zero.)
The problem is who actually 'sewed' up our one or it spontaneously erupted a la a Natoinal Georaphic issue talking aboyt Einstein and a bubble universe, how and what is processing the soup of forces.
Pesudonym: Lord Hellraiser
Acronym of real name: KN
That's not stupid, see Inflation for Beginners, JOHN GRIBBINBarbara Shack 13:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Hmm. I have a (stupid [?]) theory 

message: and call it a CAULIFLOWER universe?  It seems to look that way, viewed from a few feet away..   As a maths person, my knowledge of physics is limited, but to me you guys (physicists/cosmologists) seem to be talking about things similar to General Relativity but  one of the higher dimensional versions coming from string theory, 
still in some way modeled on a pseudo- Riemannian manifold (one with an indefinite metric) which carries 
various scalar and vector fields,.. is that about right?  Then those fields satisfy various PDEs or variational principles or symmetry conditions, all
cobbled together as well as we know how?  Could
some references on this level be made available?  
What I wanted to get to is this: PDEs folks nowadays always keep a weather-eye out for WEAK SOLUTIONS..  Often there are those but entropy or other side conditions are imposed to pick out the good ones.  Especially in evolution equations such as the UNIVERSE, cauliflower or traditional.  The question is are there careful maths treatments of weak solutions for cosmology, especially at BIG-BANG time and anywhere on the margin of the underlying pseudo-Riemannian manifold?  Various guest speakers  gave negative answers.. One issue here is this:  Even if that discussion is done and satisfactory weak formulations of cosmology are found, the underlying manifold should be found as part of the answer not imposed apriori, because its topology, including holes, singularities, etc, is a main question in cosmology. Who knows, this could be fractal, not a manifold at all, with difficulties arising for PDE formulations
even if weak,  a CANTOR SET cosmological nightmare,
to be truthful, not MADE PRETTY (=KOΣMOΣ, MUNDUS) ...
About  the diameter (co-moving?) of the Universe 
@ 56 B L Y, is this a valid science concept (I think
probably not).. Skeptiker 16:08, 9 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Can we rename this version of multiverse 

message: It seems that the article at Chaotic inflation theory refers to this same phenomenon, and the two articles should be merged. But I don't know which term is more prevalent/appropriate, so I don't know which way to merge the two. Shadypalm88 01:42, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree they should be merged. Chaotic inflation is the more recent and technical term and returns more google hits (58,000 vs 15,000), so i suggest the bubble universe be merged INTO chaotic inflation.Joncolvin 08:34, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merger