Plentyoffish dating forums are a place to meet singles and get dating advice or share dating experiences etc. Hopefully you will all have fun meeting singles and try out this online dating thing... Remember that we are the largest free online dating service, so you will never have to pay a dime to meet your soulmate.
     
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Alternative multiverse theories?      Home login  
 AUTHOR
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 25
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?Page 2 of 2    (1, 2)
I thought what dark matter was or wasnt was still being heavily debated, or am I confusing it with antimatter?

The point I was making though, and I am strugging with knowing what the "accepted term" would be is a "volume" that our iniverse hasnt expanded into "yet"

I know we cant physically travel to the outside edge of our universe, but niether can the countless scientists who have theorised about what is at that outside edge or beyond it. Not being able to actually go there till some form of travel effectively capable of many times light speed doesnt stop it being open for consideration or theorising

What I was saying is that some claim that literally "nothing" exists outside the universe, not an empty void, but quite literally nothing at all, not even a void

And that the absolute only "stuff" (not exactly scientific I know lol) in existence is within the bounds of our universe

Rather than a "volume" being there first that the universe itself is in the process of expanding into which I "believe" to be far more reasonable

I really dont even see why it would need to be complicated by extra dimensions other than to make extra funding more likely tbh

And despite what you said about infinity, I really dont have any problem at all with thinking about something being "infinite", its as reasonable a concept as finite is,

so for me the idea that theres an infinite "volume" within which one or more hubble universes or even an infinite number of hubble universes are expaning into in various places and with various ages is no more impossible to imagine than a forest of trees equally too vast or numerous for me to count

The "volume" between those universes could however be a variety of things I would guess, from an absolute and totally perfect vaccum to a near vaccum with very sporadic hydrogen content or even due to the lack of strong gravitational bodies to attract matter even a fairly (compared to our local space) populated vaccum with a much higher density of atoms but what the "volume" is actually comprised or might be comprised of in itself isnt overly relevant, just the belief that there is a "volume" there first and that a hubble universe expands into it rather than nothing existing except that expanding hubble universe
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 26
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 2:19:36 AM
The point I was making though, and I am strugging with knowing what the "accepted term" would be is a "volume" that our iniverse hasnt expanded into "yet"

The reason you haven't found such a term is because there is no reason the universe needs to be expanding into anything. As a conceptual example consider the surface of a sphere (like a globe) to be the universe. In that case, the universe is a 2 dimensional manifold. It contains no central point. Little ants walking around in this universe will never find the center because the ``center'' of this universe is not a part of the manifold. Because we live in a universe with 3 spatial dimensions, our universe, is (spatially) a 3 dimenional manifold into which the 2 dimensional sphere is embedded. It need not be so. There is no reason to assume that one manifold is embedded in another, higher dimensional manifold. If that 2 dimensional sphere IS the universe, then, by definition, that's all there is. It is not filling up some 3 dimensional space ``outside'' of it.

Ditto for our universe. Our universe has 3 spatial dimensions, so imagine it to be a 3 sphere (a 3 dimensional, spherical surface or manifold. Picturing this literally is probably impossible, though.) One might embed this in a 4 dimensional manifold, but again, that isn't necessary. There's nothing that requires a 3 dimensional manifold to be embedded into a 4 dimensional manifold. A three dimensional manifold is a manifold in its own right, just as is a 2 dimensional or 4 dimensional, or whatever dimensional manifold.

Indeed, such a requirement would be unphysical, because by the same argument, the 4 dimensional manifold would need to be embedded in an a five dimensional manifold, ad infinitum and all you get is a fancy version of, ``It's turtles, all the way down.''

There's nothing that requires our universe be expanding into anything. The notion that it has to be expanding into some ``larger space'' is an artifact of human perception, not a restriction on nature.


The "volume" between those universes could however be a variety of things I would guess, from an absolute and totally perfect vaccum to a near vaccum with very sporadic hydrogen content or even due to the lack of strong gravitational bodies to attract matter even a fairly

Unfortunately, what you're describing is not what you think you're describing. What you're calling space between universes is really just some space between parts of the same universe, except you're calling those parts different universes. The spatial part of the universe contains all of the space that exists, literally, by definition of what ``universe'' means.

If you want to read a story written about a race of people who are two-dimensional and what three dimensional objects would look like to them, read ``Flatland.'' It was written by someone in the late 1800's and once you can picture what a 3-d object looks like to the inhabitants of Flatland, you can extend that to imagine what a 4-d object would look like to us. Since what the universe would be expanding into, if that were actually the case, you will then understand what it would mean to have space between different universes, which is nothing at all like you are imagining it.

http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/

So far, we are only cobering Euclidean manifolds. Once you throw time in as a 4th dimension, you have a non-Euclidean manifold and the situation becomes a lot more difficult to picture. The best way to try to include time as a fourth dimension is picture the universe with the entire past and future laid out as if it were another spatial dimension. Then your life would be represented by a line (i.e., a world line) running between two points on that map. (That's still not really accurate, but it's a good way to get a handle on space and time being geometry.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 27
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 4:39:44 AM
But it does seem to be a pretty widely stated case that our universe is (or appears) to be expanding, the definition of what is "a universe" (assuming there could be more) again isnt so hard when you date its origin, I think ours is claimed to be just under 14 billion years old

So another that was 21 billion years old, and yet another only 10 billion years old all spaced lets say for arguements sake 50 billion light years apart would reasonably be classed as "seperate universes"

Going back to the forest analogy, trying to claim those three were "the same universe" would be similar to saying three oak trees of different ages based on the fact theyre all oak trees and are all in the same forest are infact just three parts of the same oak tree and that everying in the forest due sharing the same space is now also all part of one forest sized oak tree

If there was an intelligent type of blood cell circulating the human body it would also be likely they would "assume" that their enviroment was unike, that outsides its seemless endless bounds there was nothing else due to its seemingly infinite vastness and the fact it was all they could see, touch or measure

But that wouldnt be acurate either

Infact another way of looking at is, is (taking the claims the universe is expanding), is it simply a case that the universe expands?

If sand runs from the top of an egg timer into the bottom because sand is visible and touchable we tend to view it in terms of the sand moving from one place to the other, but at the same time air is moving to the top half of the egg timer too.

So if the universe itself is categorised more in terms of the tangible matter it consists off rather than the entire volume of space it occupies then as the matter expands into additional volume by the same token it could also be said that the surrounding volume is also expanding into the gaps between the expanding matter, or that rather than expansion as such as that is from a singular perspective, both are merely "mixing"

And yeah I know in theoretical terms nothing "needs" to exist other than the universe, but niether did other continents need to exist before we started travelling by sea, other galaxies didnt need to exist before we had equipment powerful enough to see them but were equally theorised about despite not "needing" to be there

Nature generally though does tend to have a habit of generating pretty much everything in seemingly boundless quantities rather than singularities otherwise it wouldnt be "surprising" for there to only be one black hole, one star of each type or size, one moon per planet, one planet of each type or just one pair of each species of plant or animal

As that certainly isnt the case my reason I guess for feeling a "multiple adjacent hubble universe" (jeez, I seem to be adding an extra word every time lol) would be the most likely actuality although wholly unprovable (and disprovable) is that it would be far more "natural" model than one that assumed only one and no other matter in existence anywhere or even before 13.7 billion years ago

That kind of view IMO has its basis in the same subconcious drivers as the seemingly inate need for us as a species to create or seek out some form of "faith" to cling to or gain some form of comfort from and our predisposition to view ourselves as "special" within the universe. Infact almost a natural progression of that outlook.

As first we had views that a piece of land was "it", then when that went we reverted to the world being flat with an edge to it, then we clung to beliefs like the earth was the centre of the universe and the sun revolved around it (still a feeling of importance in the universe), theres religion itself which still pretty much postulates mankinds "uniqueness" in the entire vastnes of space and then the final chapter when most others have been disproven or arent so widely indoctrinated is to just drop the "specialness" basis to us being in the one and only hubble universe in existence anywhere ever
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 28
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 5:27:25 AM
All of which is speculation and conjecture Mike. It's about the data and what's coming off the telescopes.

Unfortunately, some of the data would have to come off an infrared telescope many times larger than the planned James Webb space telescope since the structures that might actually have the information from further back actually requires that level of resolution.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 29
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 6:15:52 AM
Actually, it wouldnt be able to come off ANY telescope

Unless you could invent a telescope that could see light that hasnt even reached our universe yet then you wouldnt be able have data

You cant physically see something that no light or radio waves have reached earth from yet

That is also true for what we do class as the universe too, what we see is millions of years out of date and doesnt in any way reflect what the universe currently looks like and anything several hundred million years old in the universe that is more than that distance from us in light years wouldnt even be visible yet

So anything outside of our own universe also most definitely wouldnt be visible to us with any telescope niether would an absence of anything if indeed visually detectable in some way

So the assumption theres nothing other than our hubble universe isnt based on "data" to begin with, just assumption

To highlight that again as I already have earlier

A universe that had been in existence for 20 billion years but which was 30 billion light years away at its closest edge wouldnt become visible to us for another 10 billion years or so (on a tuesday I think)

So I think you would struggle to find "data" that proves its not there same as you cant find data that can categorically state how many of the suns we can see at the moment are actually still burning, many could have fizzles millions of years ago and there could be thousands of new ones the light from which hasnt even reached us yet

For all we know prominent constellations could have been eradicated by suns going super nova, undetected black holes or anything else that could negatively affect the lifespan of a star

Which we wouldnt know for ridiculous legnths of time probably far in excess of the entire combined lifespan of mankind on earth from prehistoric times till we finally manage to wipe ourselves out completely

So "data" is a pretty irrelevant concept really, its a bit like looking at a census from Sumerian times in order to figure out what healthcare budget you will need in the year 2099
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 30
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 9:01:16 AM
The point, Mike, is that all of this amounts to little more than sitting around and contemplating the number of angels that can dance on a pin.

I do know it has been hypothesized that IF there were preconditions to the universe and IF the universe has ever interacted in some sort of higher dimensional space with other "outside" universes, it should show up at some scale of the universe but not at our present level of imaging technology.


http://www.universetoday.com/82097/evidence-of/
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 31
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 9:10:11 AM
That would sum up a LOT of theories about the universe too though, but small fortunes have still been spent on research trying to prove or disprove them though

And the universe expanding into a perfect void wouldnt "show" anything surely

Either way, the question was posed due to someone asking me what my view was on the topic, at which point I realised that it would make more sense to just know the name of an "off the shelf" theory that postulates the same thing rather than having to sit and try to explain it

A bit like avoiding having to say

"That thing that stops people tying nets over the top of apple trees, that smashes plates and makes you need air in your car tyres"

Rather than just saying "gravity"
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 32
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 4:44:28 PM
But it does seem to be a pretty widely stated case that our universe is (or appears) to be expanding,

I think you missed my entire point. Yeah, the universe appears to be expanding. Your idea that it has to be expanding into some pre-existing space is a conceptual problem for you, not a limitation on nature.

And the universe expanding into a perfect void wouldnt "show" anything surely

You have to get the idea out of your head that the expansion requires something to expand into. It doesn't.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 33
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/1/2011 6:32:14 PM
I havent said it "had" to, I have just said that I think it makes far more sense if was than if it wasnt as I do find the idea that theres 13.7 (27.4) billion light years of "something" and that is the entireity of existence

That would fit nicely in a bible of ome decription, but seems the least likely possibility back here in reality though

But that isnt me saying it "has" to in the slightest, but as I do also think its more likely theres multiple universes rather than just ours then obviously that in itself would kinda need "volume" for them all to exist in and volume between them too

But I'm still only saying what I "believe" or would favour in a multichoice question, and not claiming its the only possibility or a known fact

Simply that its the "possibility" I prefer and the one I think is most likely
 abelian
Joined: 1/12/2008
Msg: 34
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 2:52:15 AM

Simply that its the "possibility" I prefer and the one I think is most likely

The ``possibility you prefer'' is a non-sequitur, not a possibility. It's like saying you prefer squares to have five sides.
 JustDukky
Joined: 7/8/2004
Msg: 35
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 9:08:12 AM
I came across this today and thought I'd contribute it to the discussion as a point to ponder.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencetech/article-2056018/Laws-physics-change-depending-universe.html
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 36
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 10:57:34 AM
Intriguing if not entirely conclusive. Before anything can be concluded, however, they still have a lot of other observations to make. If the laws of physics are not "universal," then this will likely have other consequences that will have to be observed.

But it's definitely intriguing.
 MikeWM
Joined: 2/7/2011
Msg: 37
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 1:21:42 PM

The ``possibility you prefer'' is a non-sequitur, not a possibility. It's like saying you prefer squares to have five sides.


Excuse my dimness, but that seems like a dreadful analogous comparative

The simple observation that theres no process I am aware of in nature that is unique in its singular occurence by itself would seem to make the possibility that if this universe exists and formed from (allegedly) a big bang of any of the current theoretical types then it would seem to be more probable that other universes exist that also started in the same or in similar ways to this one

The fact they would be impossible to detect not only makes the idea unproveable, but impossible to disprove too as a universe whos entire lifespan is still shorter than its closest points distance from earth in light years would be completely undetectable

So, as with so many things the absence of proof isnt proof of absence



Re the link about the laws of physics, is claiming the laws of physics would be "different" elsewhere a bit like a really severe ego shining through?

Sure a more correct statement would be something like "we suspect that we know much less about the laws of physics than we previously thought, as it seems other factors can introduce effects that our current understanding doesnt allow for"

Meaning that rather than "new" and interchangeable "laws" they could just simply be observing quite standard functions of the existing laws, but ones our limited knowledge and experience of the universe meant we werent capable of imagining to begin with, or that rather than laws working entirely differently in different parts of the universe, they simply exhibit different characteristics depending on influencing factors

Similar to us being unaware water could also be a gas until the first person actually boiled it and went "WOW" kind of thing, until then people could have assumed water could only be a liquid if they lived in a warm area, they travel north and WHOA! this water is solid, that defies the laws (as we knew them) of nature, then someone tries to boil a dodo egg and OMG, this magical liquids physical properties work different on this island (and can you cut my bread into soldiers when its done)

The laws affecting water didnt change, the understanding of the complexity of those laws however did

Maybe its just two different ways of saying the same thing, but the way it was worded, almost as though its suggesting that our current knowledge is still "complete" because its not new "aspects" of the laws of the universe, but some magical place where entirely new laws supplant all existing ones kind of undertone I was getting
 stargazer1000
Joined: 1/16/2008
Msg: 38
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 3:40:16 PM

The simple observation that theres no process I am aware of in nature that is unique in its singular occurence by itself would seem to make the possibility that if this universe exists and formed from (allegedly) a big bang of any of the current theoretical types then it would seem to be more probable that other universes exist that also started in the same or in similar ways to this one


Actually, these are two related but independent proposals.

Specifically:

Proposal A: " theres no process I am aware of in nature that is unique in its singular occurence by itself "

Proposal B: "would seem to make the possibility that if this universe exists and formed from (allegedly) a big bang of any of the current theoretical types it would seem to be more probable that other universes exist that also started in the same or in similar ways to this one"

A does not support B. The universe exists, yes. It's possible that other universes exist, yes. However, given that we have so little information from a: the initiation of the big bang and b: any - if there is any - "preconditions" to the big bang making any logical assumptions about it.

That's not to say it's not hypothesized and even theorized (mathematically, anyway) that other universes exist. But any of the conditions of this universe would have no other bearing on anything other than the existence of this universe, including its physical laws.


The fact they would be impossible to detect not only makes the idea unproveable, but impossible to disprove too as a universe whos entire lifespan is still shorter than its closest points distance from earth in light years would be completely undetectable


Problem with trying to predict science...it has an unfortunate tendency to surprise one. However, the burden of proof is always on those who make the positive existential claim.


Re the link about the laws of physics, is claiming the laws of physics would be "different" elsewhere a bit like a really severe ego shining through?


How is observational evidence "ego?" The article speaks of specific obervations that were made that hint at the possibility. However, before it can be definitively stated that this is, indeed, the way it is, further observations are required, not just of the initial phenomenon, but also of additional phenomena that are the direct consequence of these "changing" laws.


Sure a more correct statement would be something like "we suspect that we know much less about the laws of physics than we previously thought, as it seems other factors can introduce effects that our current understanding doesnt allow for"


I think that's already what's being stated. So you're not really saying anything new. The fact that they're observing an apparent change in the laws of physics is significant in and of itself. Confirming (or disproving) it is the job of researchers now.


Meaning that rather than "new" and interchangeable "laws" they could just simply be observing quite standard functions of the existing laws, but ones our limited knowledge and experience of the universe meant we werent capable of imagining to begin with, or that rather than laws working entirely differently in different parts of the universe, they simply exhibit different characteristics depending on influencing factors


But...that's already a consequence of the observations being made and announced. So, again, nothing new here.
 Dave_eh
Joined: 10/29/2011
Msg: 39
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 6:48:59 PM
Cool topic.

I havn't read the other responses yet and my education level is lacking as well but it's something I've thought about many times.


The problem I have found is that all the references I have found that seemed they might be along the right lines so far dealing with multiverses arent even similar as they seem to center around concepts such as parallel universes, divergent universes and those sort of concepts


It's weird because whenever I've heard or saw concepts of parallel universes, each universe has the same beings occupying it as the other universes but everything is different. I think that has more to do with differing timelines than other actual universes. I think that if we zoomed back far enough, they would all start at the same anomaly (a.k.a, the big bang) and thus, different versions of the universe instead of different universes.

The same problem would apply to divergent universes because the universe includes everything that exists. How could we have more than one "everything that exists"?

To me, if we were able to zoom back far enough to see beyond the big bang, we would eventually start to see other anomalies until an infinite amount of big bangs could be seen going off.

That is how I see a multiverse but it would still be one place even if it contains many "universes".

It would be a multiverse style universe.
 Dave_eh
Joined: 10/29/2011
Msg: 40
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/3/2011 6:52:06 PM
Hmm... No edit time anymore?


Where as my own view/belief whatever you'd call is would be more along the lines of likening our universe to one oak tree in an endless forest of oak trees. Where each is unique but also might have some similarity too but arent occupying the same space time, volume of space and that would form and die at vastly varying times but are still by definition all "oak trees" but with some degree of potential ability to interact on some levels if close enough, or not if further away


Fractals are everywhere.


Not sure how clear that analogy might be, but any nudges towards an existing theory that might fit the bill would be appreciated


It sounded clear to me... Have you ever heard of the Mandelbrot set?
 aremeself
Joined: 12/31/2008
Msg: 41
view profile
History
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 11/4/2011 12:16:30 AM
another theory would be that there is only this universe, the only one we will probably ever see with any certainty.
 BackToTheLandOrBust
Joined: 7/23/2012
Msg: 42
Alternative multiverse theories?
Posted: 8/19/2012 8:36:49 AM

Dreams. We see things that happened long ago, things that havnt happened or just us but unfamiliar surroundings.. whos to say when we dream we dont either go forward or backward in time, and those dreams that are us yet unfamiliar surroundings, arnt us ina different dimension, concurrent with the one we are aware of?? dejavu, folks who can see things before they happen..how is all this possible, because there is multiple "you's" on multiple dimensions..it all fits together eventually


Metaphysical science which is just becoming less of a "woo-woo" subject now in the 21st century because of various opportunities to understand that people who are legitimate mediums, channelers, psychics have a gift to peer into these different dimensions. Amazingly, the ancestors of indigenous peoples or shamanic tribes who center their beliefs in spirituality and the connectivity of all things have their time "in the sun" now to reveal their knowledge to all the skeptics. Even the Bible has passages where dreams were interpreted for kings by those with these talents.

"Life is but a dream" has a new meaning now.
Show ALL Forums  > Science/philosophy  > Alternative multiverse theories?