Multiverses, March 1, 2006

Post a reply


This question is a means of preventing automated form submissions by spambots.
Smilies
:D :) :ssmile: :( :o :shock: :? 8-) :lol2: :x :P :oops: :cry: :evil: :roll: :wink: :!: :?: :idea: :arrow: :| :mrgreen:
View more smilies

BBCode is ON
[img] is ON
[url] is ON
Smilies are ON

Topic review
   

Expand view Topic review: Multiverses, March 1, 2006

by Martin » Fri Mar 10, 2006 6:05 pm

The Big Bang, as I understand it, is a falsifiable event that happened at the start of our observable universe? And a mystery behind it is how did energy transform into matter and where did the energy come from.

Is it unimaginable to think the energy released was a result of another universe's mechanics? I heard that energy never dies but only transforms. If this is true does it not support this possibility?

Furthermore, is it even harder to imagine that the big bang as we know it was NOT a singular event? That it could have happened more than once and possibly in multiple places.

If we measure the distance to the furthest point of light and say this is how old our observable universe is. Doesn't this give rise to the possibility that there are even farther points of light (galaxies/other universes), in which the light has not had enough time to reach us yet. Maybe at some point in the future the light from these even further galaxies/other universes will reach us. Or maybe there are reasons why the light will never reach us.

My philosophy is that “everything is relevant”. Even incorrect theories are useful in that they eventually help us to find a correct one.

by orin stepanek » Thu Mar 09, 2006 2:45 am

My thoughts on the matter; Parallel universes: probably not; Multiuniverses: maybe; endless universe probably. Although all are unproven, It's fun to fantasize. And who knows; someday we may find some answers.
Orin

by rummij » Thu Mar 09, 2006 12:54 am

[quote="BMAONE23"]13.7 Billion LY is only the distance that we can currently see from our point in space, but we can see 13.7 billion LY in any/every given direction. This creates a sphere of 27.4 billion LY of which we reside in the center. We cannot be in the exact center of the universe (just too convenient unless it was all was created for us) so we therefore must be outside the center making the universe much larger than 27.4 billion LY accross.

As our technology gets better, it will expand our view of the known universe thereby revsing its known size, estimated age and guestimated rate of expansion.

The new technologies abilities will increase faster than the current guestimated rate of expansion of the known universe so our knowledge will increase but we will never know for certain if our theories are accurate or not. Not until we rethink some of our interpretations of Einstein's theories and finally surpass light speed travel. One thing I have learned, thinking you can't is a self fulfilling prophecy.[/quote]



Wouldn't the objects being observed at a distance of 13.7 billion light years appear to have the position and state that they had 13.7 billion years ago? An object can change and move a helluva lot in 13.7 billion years.

We just can't detect whether there are objects 100 billion light years away, or a trillion light years away, or a trillion trillion. The light and radio waves haven't reached us.

Even if we assume that by a stunning coincidence there are no more objects beyond the furthest one we can detect, we still have no idea how far away the furthest one is right now, 13.7 billion years after it emitted the radio waves we are now detecting.

Seems to me whenever we attempt to estimate either the size or the age of the universe, we are actually measuring only our own faculties of perception and the speed of light.

by BMAONE23 » Tue Mar 07, 2006 5:58 pm

13.7 Billion LY is only the distance that we can currently see from our point in space, but we can see 13.7 billion LY in any/every given direction. This creates a sphere of 27.4 billion LY of which we reside in the center. We cannot be in the exact center of the universe (just too convenient unless it was all was created for us) so we therefore must be outside the center making the universe much larger than 27.4 billion LY accross.

As our technology gets better, it will expand our view of the known universe thereby revsing its known size, estimated age and guestimated rate of expansion.

The new technologies abilities will increase faster than the current guestimated rate of expansion of the known universe so our knowledge will increase but we will never know for certain if our theories are accurate or not. Not until we rethink some of our interpretations of Einstein's theories and finally surpass light speed travel. One thing I have learned, thinking you can't is a self fulfilling prophecy.

What Scientists Actually Believe

by Heliocracy » Tue Mar 07, 2006 1:55 pm

I think most of you are right, more or less. The idea that there are parallel universes was never suggested by an actual observation, and therefore there's no reason to believe they exist. It's a little like saying you believe in elves because you heard stories about Santa's workshop.

However, String Theorists do believe there are a total of eleven dimensions in our universe: One time dimension, the three extended spatial dimensions we're familiar with, and seven "curled up" dimensions whose spatial extent is too small to be seen with current technology. While we can't see these small dimensions, we can represent them with well-founded mathematics (i.e. we can attach a number to them). There's nothing in our everyday experience to suggest these extra dimensions exist, and there's no observation that points you toward this idea over any others, yet they may indeed play a crucial role in why everything is the way it is.

Can there be features of the universe which cannot be revealed by scientific inquiry? It's entirely possible. But to make conclusions without the ability to test them is a purely arbitrary exercise, and you will never learn anything useful from doing that. It's important to remember that the truth of physics may indeed violate our aesthetic notions--the ultimate theory of everthing doesn't have to be "beautiful" or "sensible," becuase both of those are merely human judgements.

Finally, I disagree that the size of the universe cannot be known. A variety of methods have pinned down the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, which tells us it's at least 13.7 billion light-years across. In addition, we already have a good idea of the current rate of expansion, and testable theories about how that rate has changed over time. When those "historical" expansion rates are better understood, the size of the universe will be experimentally verified.

by makc » Tue Mar 07, 2006 8:29 am

harry, start here.

by harry » Tue Mar 07, 2006 7:09 am

OK

Can someone define a multiuniverse or multiverse.

by astroton » Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:35 pm

makc wrote:what is untestable is "parallel universe". if another universe is not parallel, it may therefore intersect our, and so prove its existance.
Makc,

If the other universe has atleast a dimension that is common with our universe than it is not a parallel Universe. If this dimension is one of the recognized dimension, it could be found in near future. If the two universes are connected by hypothatical fifth dimesion (As example through blackhole-warm hole connection, energy string etc etc) than two such universes could have their own laws in their own (four?) dimensions with common dimension for energy loss from one to another universe.

It was also believed that the resultant rate of expansion of our universe is due to gravity from one universe affecting another.

All these are at hypothatical level. Nothing has been proved so far but, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Either us or our theories and math need further evolution.

Keep an open mind......

by harry » Sat Mar 04, 2006 10:53 am

Hello makc

I do not understand your statement.

I'm slow right now.

My brain has been burnt.

by astroton » Sat Mar 04, 2006 8:00 am

rummij wrote:
harry wrote:Hello all

Re the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060301.html

It states that :"Some multiverse hypotheses may therefore be great fun to think about but not practically falsifiable and therefore have no predictive scientific value"

I think the APOD gives us a round about nothing.

Still its worth stating that???????

As to the question. Is there Multi-universes?

If the Universe is all, how can all have parts.

So! No

I agree, 'multiple universes' is an oxymoron.

And if you ask 'how big is the universe?' the answer is in your question.
Universe linguistically is a word, which could be defined as, (Credit Dictionary.com)

· All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of intergalactic space, regarded as a whole.
· The sphere or realm in which something exists or takes place.

The word universe is in use from the time before, models such as big bang were hypothesized. With improved technology we have been able to put a limit to observable “universe”. Since than we have hypothesized existence of one or many such universes with their own laws. The new term derived to define many such universes is multiverse.

You need to understand when the word was coined and what has it come to define.

Besides, if you had told ppl of stone age that one day eletricity would power BBQs, they would have laughed at you the same way as you are doing to multiverse. If something can not be proved now with our limited knowledge, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Examples, existance of gravity before Newton. More complex theory of General theory of relativity to define some of the same phenomenas.

by rummij » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:31 am

[quote="fastartceetoo"]This stuff belongs on some mystic page, not APOD! It goes right along with such heady stuff as the long-running theological debate 'how many angels can fit on the head of a pin?'

All 'parallel universe' theories are absolutely untestable, and hence unverifiable, and hence have nothing whatsoever to do with science, or astronomy.

If these folks wish to contemplate that umpteen gazillion universes have come into existence since I started typing this message (oops! ...another gazillion! ...another gazillion! ...another gazillion!) I think that they should contemplate their theories--and their navels--elsewhere.[/quote]


Astronomy wouldn't exist without the much older astrology. Sometimes we don't give credit where it's due.

I also don't see how multiverse theory has anything to do with astrology, other than that both evidently produce questionable fantasy artwork.

by rummij » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:26 am

[quote="harry"]Hello all

Re the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060301.html

It states that :"Some multiverse hypotheses may therefore be great fun to think about but not practically falsifiable and therefore have no predictive scientific value"

I think the APOD gives us a round about nothing.

Still its worth stating that???????

As to the question. Is there Multi-universes?

If the Universe is all, how can all have parts.

So! No[/quote]


I agree, 'multiple universes' is an oxymoron.

And if you ask 'how big is the universe?' the answer is in your question.

Re: multiverse

by rummij » Sat Mar 04, 2006 7:21 am

[quote="ta152h0"]I agree, it belongs to the other APOD ( Astrology Post of the Day ). I remember the physics professor telling our class that if you can't assign numbers/units of measure to it, it doesn't exist .[/quote]

How big's the universe?

by astroton » Sat Mar 04, 2006 3:31 am

To not imagine a multiverse is denying science an opportunity. Every scientific theory began with a speculation. Some theories with assigned numbers have proved to be just a number game. The quest for further scientific explaination expires when you say "It can not be proven."

Keep an open mind, we may someday even be able to prove multiverse.

by orin stepanek » Sat Mar 04, 2006 2:14 am

Not to say they don't exist; but I have trouble with parallel universes. Multi universes; I can fathom as I believe that space is endless. Proving any of this could be very difficult. Anyway; for a negative APOD This subject has created a lot of responses.
Orin

by Martin » Fri Mar 03, 2006 7:53 pm

Better yet Mr. J D Writer....

Please tell me when has our world, galaxy or universe ever been bound by our infinite ability to comprehend it?

Is our world still flat? Is Earth the center of the universe? Is the smallest matter an atom? Is the most powerful explosion a super nova?...................................

It is ignorant to think- "because you can't see it, taste it, touch it, measure it, calculate it or predict it" that it doesn't exist. History has shown us time and time again that we were WRONG. I say let's keep an open mind, be humble and always entertain the possibility.

On Seeing Rightly

by kovil » Fri Mar 03, 2006 4:49 pm

In the illustrious words of those for whom the Sanskrit Language was invented and designed for, might have said;

See the truth in order to comprehend the truth, and the truth may be more subtle than you can ever imagine.

Sort of like how when walking along the road during the gloaming in India
and you, from the corner of your eye, mistake a rope lying on the ground
for a snake;
You first must have seen it,
then you jumped to the wrong conclusion,
but then you saw what it truly was and realized your mis-take.

You saw it first, veiled by the veiling power of Tamas,
Then you jumped to the wrong conclusion when it was mistaken for a snake, under the projecting power of Rajas.
Then when you see it rightly, and realize it is only a rope in the dirt, you are seeing it correctly with the revealing power of Sattva.

These are the 3 Gunas !

But this is a discussion of what the Universe looks like ! hahaha

And we expect we can see it rightly ? (more laughter)

If we cannot look upon the universe and laugh
or gape at it in astonished wonderment
then there is no hope for us.

by J D Writer » Fri Mar 03, 2006 2:35 pm

Martin wrote:In case you didn't know....

The Total Universe is not bound by our ability to understand and measure it. :shock:

How do you know this to be a fact? Sounds like more "wishfull thinking"

by makc » Fri Mar 03, 2006 12:08 pm

what is untestable is "parallel universe". if another universe is not parallel, it may therefore intersect our, and so prove its existance.

by harry » Fri Mar 03, 2006 5:39 am

Hello all

Re the link: http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap060301.html

It states that :"Some multiverse hypotheses may therefore be great fun to think about but not practically falsifiable and therefore have no predictive scientific value"

I think the APOD gives us a round about nothing.

Still its worth stating that???????

As to the question. Is there Multi-universes?

If the Universe is all, how can all have parts.

So! No

by Martin » Thu Mar 02, 2006 6:53 pm

In case you didn't know....

The Total Universe is not bound by our ability to understand and measure it. :shock:

Re: Well...

by Pete » Thu Mar 02, 2006 4:25 am

marges90 wrote:All science is theory until proven. To not ponder, is to not achieve.
Theories can never be proven, only disproven.

Sensational Speculation

by dbrownuu » Thu Mar 02, 2006 3:25 am

Like a lot of other folks, I found the artists rendering of some quantum speculation out of place on the APOD. I gave up reading Scientific American some mnths ago for the same reason - they seemed to be seeking something sensational to publish on the theory this would atdtract more customers. Well it lost one, and I now read with great interest the American Scientist, which has a healthy perspective on fancy speculation and a wonderful collection of articles which always teach me something I did not know I wanted to know!
I am hopeful the APOD will hear the voice of the People and give up any more of the nonesense none of us liked.

Re: Well...

by fastartceetoo » Thu Mar 02, 2006 1:34 am

marges90 wrote:All science is theory until proven. To not ponder, is to not achieve.
The point is, marges90, any 'multiverse theory' *cannot* be tested, hence it *cannot* be proven. This kind of 'pondering' will achieve exactly nothing.

People have every right to theorize anything; astrologers have every right to ponder or assert any belief. But APOD should not present it in the context of astronomy or science.

It does not constitute intolerance to point out that this was a poor choice of content for an astronomy site.

by l3p3r » Wed Mar 01, 2006 10:50 pm

agreed
i come to APOD to see fantastic images of REAL things

Top