LinkBack URL
About LinkBacksLike Stars Could there be a billion plus universe's. Each with its own distinctiveness
unique from every other universe. I would appreciate any thoughts on this.
4Likes
February 15th, 2012, 03:02 AM
Like Stars Could there be a billion plus universe's. Each with its own distinctiveness
unique from every other universe. I would appreciate any thoughts on this.
Has no one got any thoughts on this,
If you define universe as everything there is, then there aren't any "other" universes. If there were other universes we would have no way of finding out about them, so they might as well not exist. You can imagine other universes if you want, but it is not a scientific concept, because there is no way to investigate it scientifically.
Thanks Harold for that, but thinking hypothetically, If our universe is still expanding and into what we don't know. And we our not sure how it all began .What if it was created within a Multiverse ,as I will phrase it. imagine the can of wormholes that would open
I think Harold14370 makes a good point. If you want a Multiverse with dimensionally separated universes, what problem(s) do you think might it solve? Hawking likes a multiverse model because BB mathematics breaks down in the beginning. I think it is a very unlikely model, however, because there would seem to be no evidence at all to support it. Some who have claimed such evidence I think have their basis in pure science fiction.
On the other hand there is no reason or evidence that I know of that such a model is impossible.
Last edited by forrest noble; February 21st, 2012 at 03:49 PM.
Thinking hypothetically implies that you have a hypothesis. What does the multiverse hypothesis explain better than alternative hypotheses? The hypothesis cannot be tested, because as soon as you find some evidence, that becomes just part of the same old drab universe.Originally Posted by Genesis
What's the matter, isn't the old universe big enough for you?
Yes I think the one we are in is big enough, but as we know, our universe is still expanding, but into what we do not know.
My thoughts were. If we were part of a multiverse,and within the multiverse we had many expanding universes.pushing and bumping into each other,
expanding and shrinking Where their paths crossed what would we find, and more important what could be created.
It seems you want to know about the validity of the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. I'm no expert on these matters (Understatement alert!) but if i'm reading wikipedia right then it would seem that this interpretation, which has cosmological implications that are along the lines of your inquiry, is an alternative interpretation to the nature of the wave function in quantum mechanics. More specifically it's an interpretation which discards the notion of wave function collapse, instead all outcomes of a measurement are considered to occur simultaneously. Further details seem a bit beyond my grasp at the moment so i'll just leave it at that before i possibly say something wrong(er).
could cosmic microwave background.noise be made by a multiverse collision. Also are measurements consistent all over the universe.
Yes. This makes sense now.
I'm moving this to new hypotheses because it has taken a direction which is outside the bounds of mainstream cosmology. While multiverse hypotheses have been advanced by cosmologists, they are not used to explain cosmic microwave background radiation. CMBR is well explained by standard cosmology, and in fact, is considered to be evidence for what is commonly called the "big bang."
At what makes sense now
I would agree with the first sentence, but I'm not certain about the rest of your post.
The 19th century French philosopher, Auguste Comte, believed there were limits on what we could know and, for example, stated humans would never be able to work out the chemical composition of the stars. At the time there "was no way to investigate it scientifically" but that did not mean the question was not valid, scientifically, and, within decades, we were able to provide answers.
It may be that the idea of "other" universes is not a scientific "concept" but that kind of statement suggests it is possible to predict certain limits to scientific and technological advances far into the future.
Harold is right. I will add a few more gestures.
A multiverse is by definition, a universe existing alongside many other ''universes''. As Harold has noted, this presents a very important philosophical question of what is a universe, as to us, a universe is by definition ''everything''. If language breaks down as a complication of understanding what a multiverse theory or parallel universe theory could mean is an indication of some serious physical problems of the theory. It was recently announced by scientists whom... my too infallible brain can remember at this moment in time... determined that the only ''realistic type of parallel universe theory'' was in fact Everett's original dissitation. I might add just for historical reference, the poor man was so effected by the public in the sometimes harsh peer review of science, that after his paper on a global wave function, he gave up physics for good. He became a fat lazy man unfortunately, a booze-obsessed reject who today, is glorified in collosal means.
Now this is not to say however that Everett's theory purports to reality for there exists a problem in the statistics. In his theory, you require an infinite amount of parallel universes, and everytime each one of these universes have an action being made, it splits into as many different universes as it can in proportion to the statistics. So if for instance you flipped a coin a 100 times you would create slightly overuniverses in his model.
Any reasonable scientist could not support this model. It is so presumptuous on levels which cannot even be measured or experimentally-varied.
With the single every thing Universe . And,If it is still expanding, why do we not have matter deterioration , shrinkage or collapse of mass and energy. And if we are expanding
pushing out the bounds of time and space why is there no tell tale signs.
Matter does not ''deteriorate'' or ''collapse'' or ''shrink'' because of a steady balance of negative and positive electromagnetic forces. A simple atom for instance would gobble up an electron in under a microsecond if the elecromagnetic force was not stable inside of the atom.
what about stretched.?
Cosmological redshift is taken as a telltale sign of expansion. Do you find otherwise, and if so, what sort of signs would you expect to see?
Cosmological redshift is taken as a telltale sign of expansion or is it. How do we know it is not distortion attracted by something we cant measure,as yet.
It's pretty easy if you look at the evidnce and understand the explanation.
How would "distortion attracted by something we cant measure" produce what we see?
That's what gravity does.
The fact that you gave, makes me wonder, that if the universe, were still expanding, with no constraints. Why is every thing so balanced as you state. and not unstable.
The main reaon an electron does not give away energy in the form of radiation and fall into the center of atoms is because of the Uncertainty Principle coupled with the wave theory of matter.
The universe is not expanding "into" anything.
CMB is extremely consistent (isotropic) in all directions (as predicted by the big bang theory).
Almost isotropic. It is usually within a 10,000th degree of error.
That's not error, it's the measured anisitropy.
CMB is extremely consistent (isotropic) in all directions (as predicted by the big bang theory).[/QUOTE]
If This is so does would that imply we were at the center of the universe or does the distance, of a few million light years, make no difference. As CMB is extremely consistent (isotropic) in all directions
It is assumed that we are not a special place in the universe (the cosmological principle) and therefore the CMB would be equally isotropic wherever you measured it.
That seems reasonable. Basically what we would need in order to test multi-universe theory would be a theory about how the other universes interact with our universe, so we could measure events within our own universe and compare them against that model. Right now all multiverse theory appears to predict is some stuff about black holes, and that the random behavior of subatomic particles will be random. Neither of those predictions will suffice to give us any more information right now, nor something we can test against. We need more to go on.Harold is right. I will add a few more gestures.
A multiverse is by definition, a universe existing alongside many other ''universes''. As Harold has noted, this presents a very important philosophical question of what is a universe, as to us, a universe is by definition ''everything''. If language breaks down as a complication of understanding what a multiverse theory or parallel universe theory could mean is an indication of some serious physical problems of the theory. It was recently announced by scientists whom... my too infallible brain can remember at this moment in time... determined that the only ''realistic type of parallel universe theory'' was in fact Everett's original dissitation. I might add just for historical reference, the poor man was so effected by the public in the sometimes harsh peer review of science, that after his paper on a global wave function, he gave up physics for good. He became a fat lazy man unfortunately, a booze-obsessed reject who today, is glorified in collosal means.
For composition of stars, we mostly use spectral analysis because we know that different elements emit different spectra of light when they get really hot. We learned to analyze the stars by first devising a theory of how those stars would interact with us on Earth.
Do you think there could be variations in the C.M.B.R readings in the vicinity of known Black holes. As we know it is consistent throughout Our Universe. would there be anyway of testing this.?
| « Deriving Gravimagnetic-Spin Relationships for the Angle Between two Spin-Vectors with a Magnetic Moment | why i wanst taught about the minto wheel in thermodinamics » |
| Bookmarks |
Bookmarks |
