Multiverses, March 1, 2006

[astroton]

what is untestable is "parallel universe". if another universe is not parallel, it may therefore intersect our, and so prove its existance.

Makc,

If the other universe has atleast a dimension that is common with our universe than it is not a parallel Universe. If this dimension is one of the recognized dimension, it could be found in near future. If the two universes are connected by hypothatical fifth dimesion (As example through blackhole-warm hole connection, energy string etc etc) than two such universes could have their own laws in their own (four?) dimensions with common dimension for energy loss from one to another universe.

It was also believed that the resultant rate of expansion of our universe is due to gravity from one universe affecting another.

All these are at hypothatical level. Nothing has been proved so far but, it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Either us or our theories and math need further evolution.

Keep an open mind......

[harry]

OK

Can someone define a multiuniverse or multiverse.

[makc]

harry, start here.

[Heliocracy]

I think most of you are right, more or less. The idea that there are parallel universes was never suggested by an actual observation, and therefore there's no reason to believe they exist. It's a little like saying you believe in elves because you heard stories about Santa's workshop.

However, String Theorists do believe there are a total of eleven dimensions in our universe: One time dimension, the three extended spatial dimensions we're familiar with, and seven "curled up" dimensions whose spatial extent is too small to be seen with current technology. While we can't see these small dimensions, we can represent them with well-founded mathematics (i.e. we can attach a number to them). There's nothing in our everyday experience to suggest these extra dimensions exist, and there's no observation that points you toward this idea over any others, yet they may indeed play a crucial role in why everything is the way it is.

Can there be features of the universe which cannot be revealed by scientific inquiry? It's entirely possible. But to make conclusions without the ability to test them is a purely arbitrary exercise, and you will never learn anything useful from doing that. It's important to remember that the truth of physics may indeed violate our aesthetic notions--the ultimate theory of everthing doesn't have to be "beautiful" or "sensible," becuase both of those are merely human judgements.

Finally, I disagree that the size of the universe cannot be known. A variety of methods have pinned down the age of the universe at 13.7 billion years, which tells us it's at least 13.7 billion light-years across. In addition, we already have a good idea of the current rate of expansion, and testable theories about how that rate has changed over time. When those "historical" expansion rates are better understood, the size of the universe will be experimentally verified.

[BMAONE23]

13.7 Billion LY is only the distance that we can currently see from our point in space, but we can see 13.7 billion LY in any/every given direction. This creates a sphere of 27.4 billion LY of which we reside in the center. We cannot be in the exact center of the universe (just too convenient unless it was all was created for us) so we therefore must be outside the center making the universe much larger than 27.4 billion LY accross.

As our technology gets better, it will expand our view of the known universe thereby revsing its known size, estimated age and guestimated rate of expansion.

The new technologies abilities will increase faster than the current guestimated rate of expansion of the known universe so our knowledge will increase but we will never know for certain if our theories are accurate or not. Not until we rethink some of our interpretations of Einstein's theories and finally surpass light speed travel. One thing I have learned, thinking you can't is a self fulfilling prophecy.

[rummij]

[quote="BMAONE23"]13.7 Billion LY is only the distance that we can currently see from our point in space, but we can see 13.7 billion LY in any/every given direction. This creates a sphere of 27.4 billion LY of which we reside in the center. We cannot be in the exact center of the universe (just too convenient unless it was all was created for us) so we therefore must be outside the center making the universe much larger than 27.4 billion LY accross.

As our technology gets better, it will expand our view of the known universe thereby revsing its known size, estimated age and guestimated rate of expansion.

The new technologies abilities will increase faster than the current guestimated rate of expansion of the known universe so our knowledge will increase but we will never know for certain if our theories are accurate or not. Not until we rethink some of our interpretations of Einstein's theories and finally surpass light speed travel. One thing I have learned, thinking you can't is a self fulfilling prophecy.[/quote]



Wouldn't the objects being observed at a distance of 13.7 billion light years appear to have the position and state that they had 13.7 billion years ago? An object can change and move a helluva lot in 13.7 billion years.

We just can't detect whether there are objects 100 billion light years away, or a trillion light years away, or a trillion trillion. The light and radio waves haven't reached us.

Even if we assume that by a stunning coincidence there are no more objects beyond the furthest one we can detect, we still have no idea how far away the furthest one is right now, 13.7 billion years after it emitted the radio waves we are now detecting.

Seems to me whenever we attempt to estimate either the size or the age of the universe, we are actually measuring only our own faculties of perception and the speed of light.

[orin stepanek]

My thoughts on the matter; Parallel universes: probably not; Multiuniverses: maybe; endless universe probably. Although all are unproven, It's fun to fantasize. And who knows; someday we may find some answers.
Orin

[Martin]

The Big Bang, as I understand it, is a falsifiable event that happened at the start of our observable universe? And a mystery behind it is how did energy transform into matter and where did the energy come from.

Is it unimaginable to think the energy released was a result of another universe's mechanics? I heard that energy never dies but only transforms. If this is true does it not support this possibility?

Furthermore, is it even harder to imagine that the big bang as we know it was NOT a singular event? That it could have happened more than once and possibly in multiple places.

If we measure the distance to the furthest point of light and say this is how old our observable universe is. Doesn't this give rise to the possibility that there are even farther points of light (galaxies/other universes), in which the light has not had enough time to reach us yet. Maybe at some point in the future the light from these even further galaxies/other universes will reach us. Or maybe there are reasons why the light will never reach us.

My philosophy is that “everything is relevant”. Even incorrect theories are useful in that they eventually help us to find a correct one.