Notices
Results 1 to 59 of 59
Like Tree10Likes
  • 1 Post By forrest noble
  • 1 Post By bulle
  • 1 Post By Dotini
  • 1 Post By Chrispen Evan
  • 1 Post By pineapples
  • 2 Post By tk421
  • 1 Post By forrest noble
  • 1 Post By Sealeaf
  • 1 Post By forrest noble

Thread: Universe or Multiverse

  1. #1 Universe or Multiverse 
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    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.

    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.
    msafwan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Posts
    36
    Definately multiverse. IMO to think of the universe as a monoverse is a huge underestimation. Its not that small/simple im afraid.
    PhysicsApple likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Definitely universe.

    We know the universe exists. The same is not true of the multiverse.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    16
    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
    Out of the box likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    See post #4
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    I vote universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    The multiverse may just be our fertile imaginations at work. I don't know.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Dec 2010
    Posts
    117
    "The multiverse may just be our fertile imaginations at work. I don't know" - who sang this? there is no artist reference ?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by tszy View Post
    "The multiverse may just be our ... imaginations ....
    who sang this? there is no artist reference ?
    I think it was just a musical, no singing.

    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Radioactive Isotope zinjanthropos's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2005
    Location
    Driving in my car
    Posts
    3,812
    Multi....If you've seen one then you ain't seen them all.
    All that belongs to human understanding, in this deep ignorance and obscurity, is to be skeptical, or at least cautious; and not to admit of any hypothesis, whatsoever; much less, of any which is supported by no appearance of probability...Hume
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    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
    Layman likes this.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Forum Senior pineapples's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2011
    Location
    Ireland someplace
    Posts
    359
    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
    PhysicsApple likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    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
    The scientist in this video expands on the Inflation theory multiverse: A Tour of the Multiverse « NOVA's Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Forum Freshman pogomutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern Colorado, 8000' up.
    Posts
    32
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    He believed the universe is infinate. So do I.
    an infinite universe doesn't negate the possibility of a multiverse.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Forum Sophomore
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    121
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    an infinite universe doesn't negate the possibility of a multiverse.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe.
    Right next to it?

    Look into Hilbert's Hotel.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Forum Isotope
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Location
    Western US
    Posts
    2,640
    Quote Originally Posted by SpeedFreek View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe.
    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.
    SpeedFreek and Markus Hanke like this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Forum Freshman pogomutt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    Southern Colorado, 8000' up.
    Posts
    32
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    an infinite universe doesn't negate the possibility of a multiverse.
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    I agree that the Hilbert Hotel model makes just about as much sense, or lack thereof, as the multi-verse idea.
    SpeedFreek likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    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.
    you actually answered your own question when you posted this page

    A Tour of the Multiverse « NOVA's Physics Blog: The Nature of Reality
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Forum Freshman Ricewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    South Molton, Devon, England
    Posts
    31
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Posts
    985
    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.
    AnthonyChan likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2011
    Location
    East Anglia - England - Moving
    Posts
    80
    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.
    If I wasn't so stupid - I might know what I was doing
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Location
    Nashville
    Posts
    317
    Quote Originally Posted by tszy View Post
    "The multiverse may just be our fertile imaginations at work. I don't know" - who sang this? there is no artist reference ?
    I'll work with it. Maybe I can come up with a melody.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    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.
    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.
    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.
    Last edited by PhysicsApple; December 2nd, 2012 at 09:56 AM. Reason: Forgot words
    Reply With Quote  
     

  33. #32  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  34. #33  
    Forum Freshman PhysicsApple's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Location
    Illinois
    Posts
    39
    [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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  35. #34  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Out of the box View Post
    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.
    Definately multiverse.

    M-DIMENSIOM
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  36. #35  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Actually, if the universe was infinite where would you put another universe.
    over there *^points^.

    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?
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  37. #36  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Definately multiverse.

    M-DIMENSIOM
    Monty Python - Spam - YouTube
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  38. #37  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Strange View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Definately multiverse.

    M-DIMENSIOM
    Monty Python - Spam - YouTube
    nasty teacher - YouTube
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  39. #38  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    [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...
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  40. #39  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by zinjanthropos View Post
    Multi....If you've seen one then you ain't seen them all.
    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?
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  41. #40  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    11
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  42. #41  
    Universal Mind John Galt's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    14,169
    Quote Originally Posted by Halibonga View Post
    the general accepted hierarchy is : universe (ours) -> multiverse -> xenoverse -> metaverse -> hyperverse -> omniverse
    Generally accepted by whom?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  43. #42  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by Halibonga View Post
    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.
    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
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  44. #43  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Quote Originally Posted by John Galt View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halibonga View Post
    the general accepted hierarchy is : universe (ours) -> multiverse -> xenoverse -> metaverse -> hyperverse -> omniverse
    Generally accepted by whom?
    The 'heirarchy' seems to be prevelant among on-line gamers and UFOlogists.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  45. #44  
    Anti-Crank AlexG's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2012
    Posts
    2,810
    Shinoverse = 87 trillion ly
    This is the universe in which it is possible to raise the albedo of feces.
    Its the way nature is!
    If you dont like it, go somewhere else....
    To another universe, where the rules are simpler
    Philosophically more pleasing, more psychologically easy
    Prof Richard Feynman (1979) .....

    Das ist nicht nur nicht richtig, es ist nicht einmal falsch!"
    Reply With Quote  
     

  46. #45  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,530
    Quote Originally Posted by AlexG View Post
    Shinoverse = 87 trillion ly
    This is the universe in which it is possible to raise the albedo of feces.
    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!
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  47. #46  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    Quote Originally Posted by dapifo View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Halibonga View Post
    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.
    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
    I´ll put names also for the negatives scales....

    Dapifoverse= 10^- 50 metters
    Alexverse = 10^-100 metters
    Strangeverse= 10 ^- 1000 metters
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  48. #47  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2012
    Posts
    21
    So two things called "All." Thats dumb.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  49. #48  
    New Member superjay79's Avatar
    Join Date
    Nov 2012
    Posts
    2
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  50. #49  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Hi superjay79,

    ...it is not true that the big bang cant be explained mathematically
    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.
    .....verse being the explanation of the equation totaling the sums of every code in this infinite construct. .
    "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? Granted, there could never be evidence to the contrary, concerning exta-dimensional multi-verses -- as there could never be evidence against anything that does not exist.
    Last edited by forrest noble; December 20th, 2012 at 12:35 AM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  51. #50  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    If the BB is a valid theory, does not necessarily mean that it could be modeled mathematically. Remember, the BB is still theory.
    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?
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  52. #51  
    Universe Supervisor dapifo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2012
    Posts
    435
    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.
    "If everyone is thinking alike, then somebody isn't thinking". George S. Patton
    "Science does not know its debt to imagination". Ralph Waldo Emerson

    "Why settle with the known models and patterns (but not underlying laws) of Our Universe , if we might understand them better if we could puzzle out them from outside its limits?"
    (The common sense)
    Reply With Quote  
     

  53. #52  
    Forum Freshman
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Posts
    16
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    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?
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  54. #53  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    If the BB is a valid theory, does not necessarily mean that it could be modeled mathematically. Remember, the BB is still theory.
    so what is the next step for the Big Bang Theory? can it get any better than being "still theory"?
    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.

    ...all we can do is try to model reality, what else is there to do?
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  55. #54  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    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.
    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.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  56. #55  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    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.
    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.
    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 10:29 AM.
    Ricewind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  57. #56  
    Forum Senior
    Join Date
    Sep 2012
    Location
    Western Australia
    Posts
    316
    Here's just a few of what appears to be a great number of contradicting observations:
    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.

    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.
    Sometimes it is better not knowing than having an answer that may be wrong.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  58. #57  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    I live in Los Angeles but travel a lot and spend some time in Mexico.
    Posts
    1,509
    Quote Originally Posted by Chrispen Evan View Post
    Here's just a few of what appears to be a great number of contradicting observations:
    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.

    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 02:33 PM.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  59. #58  
    Forum Freshman Ricewind's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2012
    Location
    South Molton, Devon, England
    Posts
    31
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  60. #59  
    Quagma SpeedFreek's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2011
    Location
    London, UK
    Posts
    2,786
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. From Strings to Multiverse ...
    By Strings to Multiverse in forum Introductions
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: June 27th, 2012, 02:13 PM
  2. Multiverse
    By deanmullen10 in forum Physics
    Replies: 2
    Last Post: May 2nd, 2010, 04:48 PM
  3. The Multiverse??
    By skeptic in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 1
    Last Post: March 14th, 2010, 01:20 PM
  4. multiverse physics
    By mobc in forum Physics
    Replies: 3
    Last Post: December 26th, 2009, 09:41 AM
  5. Is There A Multiverse
    By Big Walt in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 12
    Last Post: June 13th, 2008, 02:21 AM
Bookmarks
Bookmarks
Posting Permissions
  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •