LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksI stole this idea from a Nova episode with the same title and wanted to see the opinion of the forum as to which one they subscribe to and why? Just an interesting topic of conversation.
10Likes
September 27th, 2012, 01:32 PM
I stole this idea from a Nova episode with the same title and wanted to see the opinion of the forum as to which one they subscribe to and why? Just an interesting topic of conversation.
We have irrefutable evidence for our own universe, and no well accepted evidence for a multi-verse. The reason why Stephen Hawking accordingly prefers a multi-verse model, according to my recollection, is because the beginning of the Big Bang itself (BB) cannot be easily explained mathematically as to its cause, or the cause of the pre-inflationary big bang entity.Originally Posted by Out of the box
In a multi-verse model it seems that the same questions would still remain, but just pushed back to a cyclical or infinite progression. In my opinion this is a poor justification for proposing or believing such a proposal of seemingly vastly increased complexity.
Last edited by forrest noble; October 16th, 2012 at 03:34 PM.
Definately multiverse. IMO to think of the universe as a monoverse is a huge underestimation. Its not that small/simple im afraid.
Definitely universe.
We know the universe exists. The same is not true of the multiverse.
Due to the apparent anthropic principle, under which our universe seems to be fine-tuned in all its parameters to allow us and life to exist, there exists a powerful reason to believe in multiverses where no life can exist. In the case with multiverses, our own universe is rendered more random - less special - and the so-called anthropic principle can be set aside and ignored. If we like the idea of perfect randomness and disorder in nature, we should prefer the multiverse. If we see nature in terms of complex and systematic organization, we might be well satisfied with the one universe which we do observe.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
This link A Tour of the Multiverse « NOVA's Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality leads to a blog from a Cosmologist/Physicist that contributes to Nova explaining the reasoning behind multiverse thinking. She does a good job of explaining the rationale and more information is contributed in the comments after the blog.
What do you think?
See post #4
Why would the "Big Bang" be a unique phenomenon? What was the highly ordered pre-bang structure and why would it be unique? I know there is no evidence but I am just thinking out loud.
I vote universe.
The multiverse may just be our fertile imaginations at work. I don't know.
"The multiverse may just be our fertile imaginations at work. I don't know" - who sang this? there is no artist reference ?
I think it was just a musical, no singing.who sang this? there is no artist reference ?
Is that the Twilight Zone theme music I hear in the background when discussing the multiverse? I think the music is called The Twilight Zone
Multi....If you've seen one then you ain't seen them all.
from reading lawrence Kraus' book "Something from Nothing", he finds that the multiverse theory likelihood is strengthened, and really necessary, if Guth's Inflation Theory is correct and that appears to be a pretty sure thing.
Eternal inflation - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Multiverse. Best explanation for me (so far anyway) as to why our universe just so happens to be compatible with life to evolve.
But how’s that “bumper-car multiverse theory” holding out at the moment? The apparent evidence that our universe has “bumped” into 4 other universes causing bruises in the cosmic microwave. I believe there is new map data to be received next year that is hoped to backup this theory. I heard about this first only last month on a program called ‘Horizon: How big is the Universe’
Our universe may show bruises from smacking four other universes | DVICE
The scientist in this video expands on the Inflation theory multiverse: A Tour of the Multiverse « NOVA's Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality
Why do we need bubble universes? Academics, especialy cosmologists/theoretical physicists tend to bend mathamatical models to suit their own ends. Our universe could be infinate, there's always that possibility. Giordano Bruno, a 16th century Dominican priest, was burned at the stake by the Vatican in 1600 for promoting such heresies. He's something of a patron saint for SETI astronomers because he believed that an infinate number of planets existed with an infinate number of intelligent species inhabiting those planets. He believed the universe is infinate. So do I.
an infinite universe doesn't negate the possibility of a multiverse.He believed the universe is infinate. So do I.
Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe. Now if the universe was infinitely inflating, then a multiverse would be possible.
Right next to it?
Look into Hilbert's Hotel.
I stayed there once. I don't recommend it; room service takes forever to get to you.Right next to it?
Look into Hilbert's Hotel.
Good point. The reason the Vatican executed Bruno, was because there was no room for an infinate universe in their scheme of things. As they saw it, you could have an infinate universe, or you could have God, but you couldn't have both.Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe. Now if the universe was infinitely inflating, then a multiverse would be possible.
I agree that the Hilbert Hotel model makes just about as much sense, or lack thereof, as the multi-verse idea.
you actually answered your own question when you posted this page
A Tour of the Multiverse « NOVA's Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality
Even if we decided there is a Multiverse, at some point in the future we would contemplate a Super Duper Multiverse. There's no end to it.
As I understand it, universe is the name given to the totality of existence. A multiverse to me seems to be a contradiction in terms. I strongly believe that the universe has to be infinite. To think of something outside of the totality of existence must be a fallacy. When we discovered that our galaxy was not the only one, other galaxies were considered as being island universes, in hindsight that terminology seems very naive.
A finite universe would have to be surrounded by nothing. For nothing to exist, nothing can exist.
For somewhere “otherly” to exist that is different to our observable reality maybe a possibility, I have entertained such thoughts where such an existence is separated by infinity, and I suppose somewhere different way beyond our particle horizon could also be possible but for that, as yet, I can see no purpose.
Inherent in the idea of the multiverse is the impossiblity of observing one universe from another. You can only "see" what is in your own universe, regardless of the method you may use to do the "seeing". Said another way, "the universe is everything you can can detect around you". There may be multiverses but we can never detect them. Their existence must always be speculatory.
I Believe in a Muiltiverse -
An Infinite Number of Universes almost side by side in another "dimension" which we cannot see or understand.
Each Universe is Infinite - BUT - they are all different, Laws of Physics can be different, jumbled to whatever, in another "Parallel" Universe.
Some of these Universe may have Laws of Physics so weird that we could not exist there.
They may contain EXOTIC forms of Matter, if we could recognise it as such, or EXOTIC forms of Energy if we could understsnd them as such.
They could be the home to Mega Gravity, Mini Gravity, with the result of different Stable Elements -
They could be the home to Positive or Negative Gravity, Anti--Matter, or Monopoles.
I believe there is a hierarchy of universes, our universe is but a single branch spawned by a multiverse comprising of infinite possible timelines (yes i know, people love the idea that in another universe, hitler died before gaining power or XXX team won the XX cup in XXXX year), think of it as a string of fibre in a thread.
this goes further, there could be a greater plane of existence which incorporates our universe, theoretical physicists are using the term Metaverse, Xenoverse and Hyperverse to describe these higher universes, it is said that in these worlds, the physical constitution/laws can be drastically different.
I'll work with it. Maybe I can come up with a melody.
Some theorist and cosmologist say that the only way for us to be able to detected a multiverse if we were to some how to enter another universe or if another universe collided with our own. I really prefer to believe in the multiverse. It could also explain other demensions that are unimaginable at our current state.Another question to ask would be if there is a true end to the universe (or multiverse) and if there is some point in space were it does end. What is past that? Maybe antimatter or darkmatter.Even if we decided there is a Multiverse, at some point in the future we would contemplate a Super Duper Multiverse. There's no end to it.
Last edited by PhysicsApple; December 2nd, 2012 at 10:56 AM. Reason: Forgot words
If anyone can figure out if there is an end to space, and I mean an end as in it all ends be sure to tell me first.
[QUOTE=Out of the box;359746]
Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe. Now if the universe was infinitely inflating, then a multiverse would be possible.[/QUOTE0 Well I highly disagree with the universe being infinite because the only thing that is ever infinite is maths. I agree on infinite magnitude of growth but not infinite size.
George S. Patton
Ralph Waldo Emerson
over there *^points^.Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe.
you are assuming this universe is in a pre-existing space. it isn't. even if we were in a pre-existing infinite space there would still be room for another infinite universe. bit like there are an infinite number of odd numbers and if that is so then where do the infinite set of even numbers fit in?
nasty teacher - YouTubeMonty Python - Spam - YouTube
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
[QUOTE=Ricewind;363198]As I understand it, universe is the name given to the totality of existence. A multiverse to me seems to be a contradiction in terms. I strongly believe that the universe has to be infinite. QUOTE]
The term A-TOM means no-parts....or indivisible....and you can see.
It is only a problem of terminlogy...you can name tu the Universe we know as OUR UNIVERSE... (like a bubble)... but a lot of them could exist out there... and all them can be named as the WHOLE UNIVERSE....as a set of Universes...
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
Why when you talk about more universes (MULTIVERSES) ...you only think in Universes out of Our Univeres?
Why you don´t think and supose Universes whithin Our Universe...ei whithin the Planck Volume ?....smaller than th Planck Dimension?
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
the general accepted hierarchy is : universe (ours) -> multiverse -> xenoverse -> metaverse -> hyperverse -> omniverse
at the level of hyperverse, all possible sets of physics are possible (could have universes where electrons, protons and neutrons do not exist, all sets of theoretical implications would apply.
Generally accepted by whom?
What´s taht???.....
Observable universe = 17 billion ly
Universe = 156 billion ly
Multiverse = 750 billion ly
Wikiverse = 872 billion ly
Metaverse = 958 billion ly
Xenoverse = 6.5 trillion ly
Hyperverse = 17 trllion ly
Omniverse = 56 trillion ly
Shinoverse = 87 trillion ly
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
The 'heirarchy' seems to be prevelant among on-line gamers and UFOlogists.Generally accepted by whom?
This is the universe in which it is possible to raise the albedo of feces.Shinoverse = 87 trillion ly
Or where the dark matter is Shinola.
On the subject of which, I was mildly surprised to hear a senior female diplomat say of a foreign politician, "he doesn't know from Shinola". Even with the elision, it isn't very diplomatic language!
I´ll put names also for the negatives scales....What´s taht???.....
Observable universe = 17 billion ly
Universe = 156 billion ly
Multiverse = 750 billion ly
Wikiverse = 872 billion ly
Metaverse = 958 billion ly
Xenoverse = 6.5 trillion ly
Hyperverse = 17 trllion ly
Omniverse = 56 trillion ly
Shinoverse = 87 trillion ly
Dapifoverse= 10^- 50 metters
Alexverse = 10^-100 metters
Strangeverse= 10 ^- 1000 metters
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
So two things called "All." Thats dumb.
Its true there are more universes but it is not true that the big bang cant be explained mathematically. If you believe in multi verses math exists there too, uni- meaning one, verse being the explanation of the equation totaling the sums of every code in this infinite construct
Hi superjay79,
My opinion is differerent. In my opinion math is just an attempted analog of modeling reality that has nothing to do with reality itself. From my perspective, reality goes off and does its own thing while we make our best efforts to try to medel it methematically. If the BB is a valid theory, does not necessarily mean that it could be modeled mathematically. Remember, the BB is still theory. Still yet, multi-verse theory has no concensus evidentiary support. Most all realize that math can be modeled for everything real or fantistic....it is not true that the big bang cant be explained mathematically
"Verse" in this case only means a variation or mulititute, there is no "code" or "infinite construct" necessarily involved. There is no accepted evidence, other that theory and fringe proposals of evidence. I believe such ideas are at best no more than speculation that some consider theory -- concerning the present mainstream concensus. Can you find support to the contrary?.....verse being the explanation of the equation totaling the sums of every code in this infinite construct. .
Last edited by forrest noble; December 20th, 2012 at 01:35 AM.
so what is the next step for the Big Bang Theory? can it get any better than being "still theory"? all we can do is try to model reality, what else is there to do?If the BB is a valid theory, does not necessarily mean that it could be modeled mathematically. Remember, the BB is still theory.
Have a look to the following blog:
BBC - Science & Nature - Horizon - Parallel Universes - Transcript
There you can read:
MICHIO KAKU: "That there could be an infinite number of universes each with a different law of physics. Our Universe could be just one bubble floating in an ocean of other bubbles."
MICHIO KAKU: In another universe the proton may be unstable, in which case atoms would dissolve and DNA cannot form and therefore there's no intelligent life in these universes. Perhaps it's a universe of electrons and electricity, perhaps a universe of lightening bolts and neutrinos, but no stable matter.
MICHAEL DUFF: The other universes are parallel to ours and may be quite close to ours, but of which we'd never be aware. They may be completely different with completely different laws of nature operating.
ALAN GUTH: It may not all have life, but some fraction of them will have life and whatever that fraction is if there's an infinite number of these universes there'll be an infinite number of universes that have living civilisations.
NEIL TUROK: And the Big Bang is the aftermath of some encounter between two parallel worlds.
NEIL TUROK: The existence of branes before the singularity implies there was time before the Big Bang. Time could, can be followed through the initial singularity.
MICHIO KAKU: The latest understanding of the multiverse is that there could be an infinite number of universes each with a different law of physics. Big Bangs probably take place all the time. Our Universe co-exists with other membranes, other universes which are also in the process of expansion. Our Universe could be just one bubble floating in an ocean of other bubbles.
George S. Patton Ralph Waldo Emerson
There is the hard work of discovery of reality still to do. Voyager has yet to break out into interstellar space and to quantify the magnetic field and particles there. NASA is still working hard to discover and explain the mysteries of our own star and the workings of our immediate planetary environment. Once these things are known we can more confidently theorize about what lies beyond.
Respectfully submitted,
Steve
In my opinion, the next "step" for the BB model will be a major test. When the James Webb goes up, the BB theory predicts that the most distant galaxies are/ will be observed to be much younger and smaller. Presently there appears to be much evidence to the contrary. If the James Webb strongly confirms these predictions, then those observations would contradict "older universe," and "infinite universe" models. If instead the James Webb finds old appearing very large galaxy clusters in the most distant universe, I expect theorists will first propose hypothesis to extend the age of the universe by about double its present age. If this is the case, eventually I think the BB model will be entirely replaced based upon the evidence at that time. This is no more than maybe 10 years away from now.
I see the main problem with the BB model and other mainstream theories in physics today is that I think that much evidence to the contrary is rationalized away or swept under that rug to keep the theory "neat and clean" -- based upon my own research and studies. Any internal controversy rarely sees the light of day, concerning public knowledge of internal theoretical controversy and mainstream theoretical dissent....all we can do is try to model reality, what else is there to do?
care to give examples of contrary evidence that is being swept under the carpet concerning the BBT? i find this reasoning bad. if this is the case then every cosmologist must be in on this scam, oh except for the bean spillers. it just doesn't make logical sense. i mean the nobel prize is given to new discoveries not ones that just prove an existing one to be correct.I see the main problem with the BB model and other mainstream theories in physics today is that I think that much evidence to the contrary is rationalized away or swept under that rug to keep the theory "neat and clean" -- based upon my own research and studies. Any internal controversy rarely sees the light of day, concerning public knowledge of internal theoretical controversy and mainstream theoretical dissent.
There is no ''scam and no conspiracy." There, however, is much evidence to the contrary concerning very large, old appearing galaxies, galaxy groups and clusters at the edge of the observable universe. This is not common knowledge. If such interpretations are valid then they could be interpreted as being a contradictions of the BB model.
Here's just a few of what appears to be a great number of contradicting observations:
http://www.nasa.gov/vision/universe/...t_cluster.html
http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2008/07/080724113045.htm
http://outreach.jach.hawaii.edu/pressroom/2008_nam2008b/index.html
http://www.universetoday.com/2006/06/07/extreme-galaxies-help-explain-the-early-universe/
CfA Press Room
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/050927_massive_galaxy.html
Massive Distant Galaxy Calls Theory into Question | Space.com
http://www.stsci.edu/institute/conference/may_symp/supportingFiles/poster63
http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=543
http://www.futurity.org/science-tech...kingly-modern/
http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/entertainment/stellar-explosion-is-most-distant-and-brightest-object-visible-to-the-naked-eye_10029822.html
http://www.universetoday.com/10313/young-universe-was-surprisingly-structured/
http://www.sciencenews.org/view/generic/id/346987/description/Clutch_of_distant_galaxies_reveals_the_infant_univ erse
http://www.centauri-dreams.org/?p=16488
Just use any search engine to find observations concerning "old appearing large very distant galaxies and clusters"
One of many modern BB Critical Summaries:
http://www.davidpratt.info/cosmo.htm
Last edited by forrest noble; December 21st, 2012 at 11:29 AM.
read the first one from NASA. I can't see the problem. they admit the theory still may need tweeking. isn't that how science progresses? anyway these are just preliminary findings.Here's just a few of what appears to be a great number of contradicting observations:
then read
Massive Distant Galaxy Calls Theory into Question
by Robert Roy Britt, Senior Science Writer
the theory talked about here is galaxy formation not Big Bang Theory.
Curious About Astronomy: Why does the apparent density of galaxies drop off at larger distances?
couldn't see anything relevant in the above link.
seems as if it is all about galaxy formation which i would imagine is a sub-set in the BBT. doesn't seem to in any way put the basic BBT into question.
If the observations, and related links, were obvious contradictions then everyone would have heard of it. I'm giving you a preview. My prediction, based upon the links I presented, is that the BB model will be in question within 10 years and will be on its way out within 15 years. First I expect will be revised concerning its age and and other theoretical tenets -- to eventually be replaced based upon what I believe will be the realizations of the contradicting observations of the James Webb telescope at that time.
Last edited by forrest noble; December 22nd, 2012 at 03:33 PM.
I think the point is that, what we are seeing at the limit of our observations are galaxies that appear to be rather mature. The look back time puts the latest Hubble observations at Z=11.9 between 600 to 380 million years after the BB. They have yet to find the light signature for the primordial population ||| stars. Perhaps we should take the red shifts at face value and expect to find a whole lot of universe between Z=12 and the CMB at Z=1,000.
BBC News - Hubble Space Telescope achieves deepest cosmic view yet
All those links show is that we do not yet fully understand how and when stars and galaxies formed, but there are no contradictions there. For as long as I have been studying cosmology, it has been estimated that stars and galaxies probably formed some time between 100 and 500 million years after the Big-Bang, and so far we have no observations that contradict this.
| « Black hole inside earth? | Sunrise Summer Solstice, Sunrise Winter Solstice. » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
