Notices
Results 1 to 31 of 31
Like Tree4Likes
  • 1 Post By forrest noble
  • 1 Post By theQuestIsNotOver
  • 1 Post By Geometrogenesis
  • 1 Post By Genesis

Thread: Like Stars Could there be a billion plus universe's

  1. #1 Like Stars Could there be a billion plus universe's 
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  2.  
     

  3. #2  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Has no one got any thoughts on this,


    Reply With Quote  
     

  4. #3  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  5. #4  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  6. #5  
    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 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 02:49 PM.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  7. #6  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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
    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.

    What's the matter, isn't the old universe big enough for you?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  8. #7  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  9. #8  
    Forum Professor wallaby's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Location
    Australia
    Posts
    1,521
    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).
    Reply With Quote  
     

  10. #9  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    could cosmic microwave background.noise be made by a multiverse collision. Also are measurements consistent all over the universe.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  11. #10  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    Location
    grail search
    Posts
    811
    Yes. This makes sense now.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  12. #11  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    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."
    Reply With Quote  
     

  13. #12  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    At what makes sense now
    Reply With Quote  
     

  14. #13  
    Forum Ph.D.
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Posts
    894
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  15. #14  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  16. #15  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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 over universes 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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  17. #16  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  18. #17  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  19. #18  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    what about stretched.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  20. #19  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    8,822
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  21. #20  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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.


    Reply With Quote  
     

  22. #21  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    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?
    Reply With Quote  
     

  23. #22  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    what about stretched.?
    That's what gravity does.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  24. #23  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    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.
    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.
    westwind likes this.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  25. #24  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    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.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  26. #25  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    If our universe is still expanding and into what we don't know.
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    but as we know, our universe is still expanding, but into what we do not know.
    The universe is not expanding "into" anything.

    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    could cosmic microwave background.noise be made by a multiverse collision. Also are measurements consistent all over the universe.
    CMB is extremely consistent (isotropic) in all directions (as predicted by the big bang theory).
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  27. #26  
    Suspended
    Join Date
    Feb 2012
    Posts
    475
    Almost isotropic. It is usually within a 10,000th degree of error.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  28. #27  
    Comet Dust Collector Moderator
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    New Jersey, USA
    Posts
    2,848
    That's not error, it's the measured anisitropy.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  29. #28  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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
    Reply With Quote  
     

  30. #29  
    Brassica oleracea Strange's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    喫茶店
    Posts
    16,522
    Quote Originally Posted by Genesis View Post
    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.
    Without wishing to overstate my case, everything in the observable universe definitely has its origins in Northamptonshire -- Alan Moore
    Reply With Quote  
     

  31. #30  
    Time Lord
    Join Date
    Mar 2007
    Posts
    8,046
    Quote Originally Posted by Geometrogenesis View Post
    Quote Originally Posted by Harold14370 View Post
    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.
    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.
    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.

    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.
    Some clocks are only right twice a day, but they are still right when they are right.
    Reply With Quote  
     

  32. #31  
    SEEKER Genesis's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2011
    Location
    52 degrees North
    Posts
    159
    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.?
    Reply With Quote  
     

Similar Threads

  1. How can we see galaxies from 13 billion years ago?
    By Fishguy2727 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 30
    Last Post: October 2nd, 2011, 12:06 AM
  2. Can we see our sun 4 billion years ago?
    By inite in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 5
    Last Post: February 23rd, 2010, 01:20 PM
  3. 3 billion watts shot into the ionosphere. what happens?
    By spitdatroof in forum Earth Sciences
    Replies: 7
    Last Post: January 25th, 2010, 03:55 AM
  4. 13 billion year old GRB
    By Arch2008 in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 24
    Last Post: June 17th, 2009, 02:16 PM
  5. Why can we see 13 billion year old light sources?
    By Andy in forum Astronomy & Cosmology
    Replies: 9
    Last Post: September 20th, 2007, 08:09 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
  •