Image: Photograph by Levi Brown
In Brief
- The notion of parallel universes leapt out of the pages of fiction into scientific journals in the 1990s. Many scientists claim that mega-millions of other universes, each with its own laws of physics, lie out there, beyond our visual horizon. They are collectively known as the multiverse.
- The trouble is that no possible astronomical observations can ever see those other universes. The arguments are indirect at best. And even if the multiverse exists, it leaves the deep mysteries of nature unexplained.
More In This Article
-
Sidebar
The Case for Parallel Universes
-
Overview
The Inflation Debate
In the past decade an extraordinary claim has captivated cosmologists: that the expanding universe we see around us is not the only one; that billions of other universes are out there, too. There is not one universe—there is a multiverse. In Scientific American articles and books such as Brian Greene’s latest, The Hidden Reality, leading scientists have spoken of a super-Copernican revolution. In this view, not only is our planet one among many, but even our entire universe is insignificant on the cosmic scale of things. It is just one of countless universes, each doing its own thing.
The word “multiverse” has different meanings. Astronomers are able to see out to a distance of about 42 billion light-years, our cosmic visual horizon. We have no reason to suspect the universe stops there. Beyond it could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes, with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions. Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.
This article was originally published with the title Does the Multiverse Really Exist?.
Already a Digital subscriber? Sign-in Now
If your institution has site license access, enter here.
See what we're tweeting about
148 Comments
Add CommentHow can we see out 42 Billion light years when the universe is only, at the most 14 billion years old? Even if you count 14 billion looking in one direction and 14 looking in the opposite your still talking a huge discrepancy in numbers here.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI caught that too right away - must be a misprint, 42 billion. 14.2 maybe? I just read elsewhere 13.8. All the "time" estimates are whacked anyway, time got as distorted as space in the expansion, so ANY number is just stupid guessing. A wild guesstimate reference point at best. Great fun to think about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI know multi-universes exist; I wake up into a new one every day. Surely this reality was not the one I was born into, educated in, and learned in. This reality is not what I expected at all.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisscience has gone mad in this fields. It seems that scientists in theoretical modern physics have forgotten that not so long ago Ether was proven wrong.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSeems that research in this areas are just trying to match general relativity impact on science, and doing so they let their imagination go to far.
The article states:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Astronomers are able to see out to a distance of about 42 billion light-years, our cosmic visual horizon."
This is an imagined horizon, based on a post emission extrapolation of the effects of some presumed model of universal expansion to the relative location of the emitting object. In other words, it is an attempt to determine a 'current' location for an observed object.
As I understand, any references to objects greater than about 13 billion light years away include an attempt to estimate where the emitting object might be 'now', since it also existed in spacetime that has expanded since the observed light was emitted.
IMO, such efforts presume far more information than is actually available. All that can actually be determined from observed light is that it appears to have traversed expanding spacetime for up to 13 billion years, based on cosmological models estimating distance derived from redshift. Observations of distant type Ia supernovae yield different results, presumed to be produced by a recent (about 5 billion light years ago) acceleration of universal expansion...
As described in more detail by jtdwyer- things were moving at the time they emitted the light we see now. They assume at this point they are now 42 billion light years out. It still doesn't add up because space time is curved. I don't really understand it either, but it isn't a typo.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthe Kahn Academy (search youtube for kahnacademy) has a really good presentation on the expansion of the universe. Yes, we base our universal horizon on where objects should be now based on their emissions 13 billion years ago. Where the horizon is exactly doesn't really matter, but the fact that we've seen photons that have been traveling for around 13 billion years means that our universal horizon is MUCH bigger than 13 billion light years because of the expansion that has happened over those 13 B years. Kahn also says that if you were an observer at the edge of our universal horizon and looked back at the matter that would eventually become the Milky Way galaxy, you would see it as it was 13 billion years ago, just like we see them today!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHi! It is not a misprint! The number is larger because the Universe has been expanding during it's lifetime. So the 13.7 billion years of "existence space" has been "stretched out" to around 42 billion years of "actual space". Space-Time is curved and dynamic locally due to mass... but on large scales, astronomers find it very flat - the Original Big Bang Model couldn't explain this....but it was one of the problems that was cleared up when the "inflationary" portion was attached to the Big Bang Model. Hope that helps to visualize!
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this* Be One with the Field
Mankind will be extinct before our scientific "knowledge" could get the tinniest physical proof of at least a second universe, should it "really" exist.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis is what's so wonderful about science. The more it "finds" the less it "knows".
Yes, cosmologists make the case for the expanded relative location of now unobservable objects but, contradicting the statement in this article, astronomers do not make any claim of observing objects more that 13Glya. As I understand, there is no direct evidence supporting cosmologists' highly presumptive claims.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this42 billion light-years? I thought "our cosmic visual horizon" was about 47 billion light-years.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe diameter of the observable universe is increasing at about 1.2 million miles per second. In other words, the matter that originally emitted the CMB radiation is currently moving away from us at 600,000 miles per second. The speed of light is 186,000 miles per second.
The photons of the CMB were emitted 380,000 years after the Big Bang (about 13.75 billion years ago). Some might think that the matter that emitted the CMB radiation was 13.75 billion lights from us when it originally emitted the photons. It was actually only 42 million light years away (million, not billion). Space expanded during that 13.75 billion years of time to make that 42 million light years into a distance of about 47 billion light years.
Maybe that's the source of 42 billion light years (an error).
42 billion light-years doesn't add up. We can see out to about 13.3 billion light-years, about 500 million light-years short of the presumptive Big Bang horizon. Assuming that horizon is and has been receding from us at something approaching the speed of light, that would put the edge of the universe at a maximum 27.6 billion light-years, unless of course we are prepared to admit super-luminal expansion, which I'm not.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould the author explain how he arrives at 42?
Listen to Cramer , he is the only one who has got it right.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this186,000 miles per second is the maximum speed that light can travel in vaccuum space but space itself is not limited to that speed and can expand faster. See Cramer's explanation...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe hypothesis of multiple parallel universes arises primarily because of the paradox generated by the observed existence of life and consciousness. There are two prevailing explanations for this: 1. The natural laws and physical constants of our universe were deliberately and precisely "tuned" before the Big Bang in order to enable life like ours to exist; and 2. An infinity of universes exist, and our own is a fortunate one in which life as we know it is possible. To this I may propose a third possibility: 3. Life and consciousness are primary, precedent, and causal, and retroactively bring about the very conditions which subsequently enable their own emergence. This last idea may sound strange, yet it is consistent with the observed laws of quantum physics. Namely, human consciousness is indeed subjective in the world of physical matter; and furthermore, reverse time travel is observed in some subatomic particles ("chronons" or "tachyons"). In fact, I myself have personally experienced countless "miraculous encounters" in which I thought about or spoke of a certain person and then, the same day or the next, in a very large metropolis like Moscow or New York, I met that very person by remarkable coincidence somewhere in the vast subway system. We may think our encounter sent reverse time signals to my consciousness the previous day -- which is certainly one possibility. Alternately, we may hypothesize that my thought generated action-at-a-distance which brought about the desired meeting. These "miracles" are very familiar to me. Yet neither of them contradicts the New Physics. In my opinion, it is not necessary to postulate a multitude of parallel universes. Rather, acknowledging one God (of the Judeo-Christian tradition and scripture), we know that His Will and plan, combined with human desire, will, responsibility, and action -- are sufficient to play a subjective and determinant role in our one universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI understand that it is an outcome of Quantum Field Theory that has something emerging from nothing, including multiple universes and being created for infinity.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNow my head hurts.
It would seem to me that if you're going to posit an existence that is outside of perception, whose existence can't be falsified, and is infinite for the sake of explaining the anthropic principle
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisyou might as well be honest with yourself and call it theology.
As a religious person I have no problem with people positing as truths things that can't be scientifically verified; as an engineer, I do have a problem with them calling it science.
And once one is abandoning the realm of science, what commends an infinite multiverse in which every possible idea exists over an Abrahamic conception of the absolute Infinite?
Speculation is part of the game. In point of fact, if science were conducted solely on the basis of available data a lot of what we've discovered would never have been discovered. It's a creative enterprise and coming up with ideas of what might be happening based on observations requires that creativity. Speculation should be taken with a grain of salt, particularly when it doesn't present any avenues for immediate testing but it should not be discouraged entirely. There was a time when people bemoaned ever knowing what stars were made of. They were simply too far away... No one then had any idea that spectroscopy would become possible and allow them to know. In other words, predicting what we can and can't divine with continued work is both silly and intellectually lazy. These ideas are the grist upon which science works. They have even recently found that string and M theory may, in fact, have some testable elements that are coming into play with the LHC. Wouldn't it be interesting if after all the hubbub about it not being "real science" some of those ideas paid off?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMicha,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat scientist is positing any multiverse hypothesis as a truth? Please provide a name.
You have provided a false equivalency. I am assuming that you, as a religious person, believe your god is an absolute truth, not an hypothesis. Isn't that what faith is? [I don't believe in god, but I believe there is a possibility of god.]
What's "outside of perception" is a matter of opinion. There are many things that were once "outside of perception." Does that mean that imagination should not be a part of science? Nobody is claiming there is a significant level of certainty about the existence of parallel universes, but there are people claiming the existence of god with absolute certainty. There might be many ways that another universe could interact with our own. What about dark flow or the Great Attractor? What would happen if two universes collide? How do you know there are no links through black holes, other dimensions, or quantum entanglement?
Exactly, maybe I wouldn't have wrote my reply if I had read yours first.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisoops, should be "have written."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe multiverse is more than plausible. It will be of interest how Science embraces the scientific search and or intuitive explanation in the future.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSome unknowable's today, may find answers tomorrow, but we do have limitations based on finite mathematics, which stumbles at the quantum or infinite reality of "Infinities." To read more on this subject, please review this article link below: I hope it bears some view of the scope and excitement, the future of physics holds for us: www.otterthink.blogspot.com . First article is: "Everything is Nothing and Nothing is Everything." (This speaks to the multiverse and other ideas such as multiple time directions.) Hope it is worth your time... And Thanks to Scientific American, along with New Science and other physics journals, the public can engage in the pursuit of knowledge, which will alter the world far more than any politician, as we approach knowledge today at breakneck speeds, versus the brilliant ancients of our past. Thank You, Russ Otter
Cramer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWho said anyone asserted the multiverse hypothesis as truth? My problem with it is topic, not certainty. Similarly, the definition of religion is topic, not the believer's certainty.
1- By definition, a multiverse means things beyond our sphere of observation. Otherwise it would still be within our universe. I therefore do not thing that "outside of perception" is a matter of opinion, but of definition of the word "universe". If we found we could interact with something we thought was a different universe, we proved it wasn't a distinct universe.
2- Since another universe is defined as an existence that is outside the reach of our empirical testing, it's not falsifiable.
3- Therefore thinking about them -- even the thought "there is no multiverse" -- is not science. One can't even suggest it as a hypothesis, defend that hypothesis or attach it and still be doing science.
4- An infinite number of universes is just as theological as the Abrahamic concept of a personal G-d.
5- Rather than being a scientific hypothesis, the concept of a multiverse is a religious one. Religion isn't defined by certainty, but by topic.
I don't really want to get into the topic of religious belief because it's both off topic and not easy for me to do in English. English was shaped by generations of Christians; as a rabbi, I relate to faith in different terms. "Faith" isn't even the right term; I just don't want to translate Jewish theological jargon.
Now, I don't consider that a death knell. I have no problem contemplating the possible truth of religious claims. I do have a problem with people who make religious claims claiming they're scientific ones. Whether we are talking about Creationism or the Multiverse.
Or are you really asserting that the difference between the questions of whether Creationism is science or hypothesizing the multiverse is revolves around the confidence of the believer?
Because inflation is the expansion of space itself which is not restricted to the maximum speed of light. Matter is restricted to the maximum speed of light in a vacuum. Inflation, supposedly, expanded the universe by many billions of light years instantaneously.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHello rmaconald76,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour clarification is of value, as it points to a different perspective. However, it also assumes that Space itself was non-existent, if I take your point correctly. I would content, that Space and Time are immutable, as immutable as they are to a finite understanding. They must always exist, as the Alpha and Omega, are only "limited Word" terms, as Infinity has no beginning and no end. Even we as finite players inside of infinity, are irrelevant to the immutable nature of Space and Time... Other's will differ no doubt, even I suggest in other articles that space and time for instance, as evidenced by "Entanglement" do not actually exist, as all things respond as being local. But for finite review of such entangled particles, they are actually separate. The Big Bang, is assumed to have had "Inflation" to occur, it is not a proof, albeit, a thoughtful intuition. In other words: Space did not Inflate, it was already there... And the Speed of Light in such a theory was clearly violated. Just as entanglement, acknowledged by Einstein, was too Spooky to actually deal with... In a Relative sense or differently said: Finite defined practical sense. Such subject matter is very fickle and absolutes are hard to come by. So with great Respect to your comments to Joe, and to others, I will say only that we are limited in our understandings, and in my view always will be... Perhaps, you might want to be bored by my own thoughts on this and other issues at www.otterthink.blogspot.com Again, with thanks and respect for your contributions. Sincerely, Russ Otter
Micha,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI do not agree with your definition of a multiverse. Even Brian Greene said that it is best to avoid defining a multiverse, parallel universes, or any other synonymous term. He merely examines the possibility of "realms that challenge convention" by what we now believe our universe to be. Your point on a "distinct universe" is purely semantics.
If someone came up with some scientific basis for the hypothesis of a creator, then I would consider it science. Our world as a computer simulation would be attempting to do that. However, I do not know if there is a scientific basis for that hypothesis. From what I know, it doesn't seem so. Einstein had a scientific basis for his theory of relativity before he had any ideas of how to prove it. One being the constancy of the speed of light that seemed possible due to the null results of experiments like that of Michelson and Morley.
And I agree with you that any theory solely based on the anthropic principle and infinity is not science. However, I would not equate it to religion unless a significant amount of believers thought it to be certain or almost certain (no experiment needed -- only faith). I don't see that with all multiverse theories.
Yes, certainty is part of the equation. Religion allows people to accept creationism without proof from an experiment. I can name many people who say they believe in a god or creationism based only on faith. I don't know of any reputable scientists who have made similar claims about the existence of a multiverse.
It is difficult to draw the line between science and non-science. But if a hypothesis is not based in science, that does not mean it's proof is based on faith (religion).
[BTW, theology can be considered a science. It is the study of religion. It can include anthropology, psychology, sociology, etc.]
Dr. Ellis is correct when he says all the multiverse theories, including one he did not mention, that quantum theory forms a new universe with every action, does not meet the simplicity test of Ockham's razor. Unfortunately, Dr. Ellis does not come up with a theory required to explain the strong and weak anthropomorphic principles as well as the uncertainty of quantum theory. Might not God, the creator, be Ockham's best answer for simplicity and omnipotence. Of course God brings up other questions but the "God the creator" theory has the potential to meet all the criteria for Ockham and science. Moreover, much of Jewish tradition explains original creation metaphorically and that creation, in fact is continually taking place, just like quantum theory
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt's a space-time dilation thing - Gen Relativity's fault. In the early universe, space-time was stretched dramatically so that we can actually see light coming from more distant parts of the observable universe. I've seen a variety of values, from 42 B to 93 B to 156 Billion light years of observable universe, each with no explanation, so not really sure which is most accurate. Could possibly be radius as opposed to diameter, but no one seems to say anywhere that I can find. Now that the universe's expansion rate has increased, we'll slowly start to lose sight of more distant regions until eventually, we won't be able to see anything but our galaxy, and then nothing at all. We won't be around at that point, however.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course my point about "universe" is pure semantics. I said so myself...
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"1- <b>By definition</b>, a multiverse means things beyond our sphere of observation. Otherwise it would still be within our universe..."
That said, when we speak of multiverse theory we don't mean other galaxies. In all four levels defined within the article, the common theme is that each universe is observationally distinct. I'm using that point to show that the definition of "other universe" is incompatible with the definition of "scientific process".
Semantics -- but two definitions that do not coincide.
-micha
Fundamental constants are finely tuned for life (this is the same or similar to the anthropic principle). I cannot understand why it is so widely accepted. It is simply a reversal of cause and effect: life, through evolution, is finely tuned to the environment it is found in. So far life is found in even the harshest environments on earth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWe are probably also defining life to narrowly. Self replicating, evolving systems could in principle occur at vastly different scales and based on totally different scales and and involving different chemical elements.
Interstellar space is infinite there is no beginning and no end to space. Perhaps you can move in one direction for an infinite journey and never come to an end.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt will take a Bionic Brain to solve the riddle of life and space. In the meantime we humans can only believe in what our limited brain can conceive
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this. . . or perhaps you come exactly were you were at the beginning of your journey (if you can live long enough) !
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAndy,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLook up "comoving distance" and you will find your answer. It's simple calculus.
OK.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisso what?
Will the Earth supply enough trees for our cooking fires when the other resources run out?
For us mathematicians the central problem with the "multiverse," stated clearly by Ellis, is that "...it is more a concept than a theory." We need definitions to prove anything about it. Lacking such precision, I have made up a simplified model of the universe using lattice theory and proved some interesting things about it. The most interesting aspect is how easily such a concept gives rise to easily stated conjectures that are provably out of the reach of string theory, quantum mechanics and general relativity. Here is the arXiv article:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thishttp://arxiv.org/abs/1009.2058
Cramer- We know then, that thirteen billion years ago the universe was expanding and probably accelerating. How then do we subsequently know what those farthest out systems have been doing during the intervening 13.7by? Could they have slowed,stopped or reversed direction? Has space begun contracting again at that distance, or is it still expanding away from us? Is there any way to know for sure what is going on after the light we are now seeing started on it's journey?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnother thought, Around the immediate area of the singularity from which the big bang originated, gravity would have been extreme and have had an enormous affect on space time, slowing it down. As space expanded the effects of the gravity well would ease at an exponential rate, causing a rapid relative acceleration as time sped up. This was still happening in the 13.7 bly of observable universe, but at some point of saturation, it seems the acceleration of time would end, and the observable acceleration of distant galaxies would cease. This could already have happened, but not yet be observable.
What is fascinating is how old this question actually is. Philosophers debated this long ago. It looks like our telescopes have brought us no closer to a solution.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut we already have the solution. There is only one universe (uni = 1). The universe is a single unified whole. Plato could explain everything in the world, he just needed another world to do it. Now modern scientists can explain every observable event in the universe, they just need an infinite number of universes to do it.
I would like to point out that for every universe you add there must also be an interface, a system by which the two universes interact. At this point you should recognize that your "explanation" is spiraling out of control.
What's worse is this sort of thinking has real world effects: a government that can fix the economy if only it can spend ever more money, or that can fix our people if only it can apply ever more force, or that can fix our society if only it can have ever more sacrifice.
The story is older than you know.
Infinity is not a number. It's a placeholder for numbers. Nothing is infinite.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPostman,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOf course, it is impossible for us to know exactly what is going on at this moment 46 billion light years away. However, the CMB radiation is highly isotropic. Our entire observable universe is isotropic. There is no reason to believe that the matter that emitted the CMB photons is experiencing anything different from what we are experiencing. The Copernican principle still shows to be holding.
There is no "immediate area of the singularity." I don't think you can think of gravity in the Big Bang as you think of gravity of a star or a black hole. Spacetime exists outside those entities. What exists outside the Big Bang? Is there spacetime to bend outside the Big Bang (i.e. universe)? If our whole universe is inside the gravity well, what is the dilation happening relative to? Wouldn't gravity net out for most of matter (especially the matter from what we are made)? And dark energy is also winning against gravity or the whole thing would of collapsed. At what point in time would it even matter?
A cosmologist could better discuss these questions.
Oh really? Please tell us more.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisDear joe the light year is a different thing and u are comparing the wrong ones.........
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead --MISJUDGEMENTS BY NEWTON and BALLOON INSIDE BALLOON THEORY OF MATTER AND ANTIMATTER ON OPPOSITE ENTROPY PATH PRODUCING GRAVITOETHERTONS WE CALL DARK ENERGY. The papers were published by DURGADAS DATTA in ASTRONOMY.NET in year 2002 in ASTRONOMY.NET.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is so much richness that we have yet to discover in the “universe.” String Theory predicts 10 dimensions plus multiverses and parallel universes. Supposedly there are 28 variables or constants that the 6 extra dimensions can dial up or down to determine the characteristics of a given universe: strength of gravity, mass of electrons, quarks, muons, neutrinos, the God particle or Higgs boson, the speed of light/planck’s constant, etc.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt may be true that we can only exist in one particular setting. And given the 28 variables, there could quite possibly be over 300 octillion (that’s 300 followed by 29 zeros) different types of universes. If there are multiple copies of any given combination then who knows how high the number of universes could go.
You may exist in some of the other ones too, by the way.
http://thefunctionallunatic.wordpress.com/2011/05/13/strong-ai-in-the-6-unseen-dimensions-answers-to-all-questions-of-existence/
YvF
let us assume that the universe began with an expansion from a state of extreme density (which i do). the notion of singularities (for black holes and for the big bang) are derived from general relativity which is a classical not quantum theory of gravity. if space is discrete then singularities can not exist. if there is a limit on the amount of information that can be contained in a discrete unit of space (which would be relatively small compared to that contained in the entire universe) then the universe began with either a finite or infinite amount of smallest discrete units of space. if we suppose that the universe began with a finite amount of smallest discrete units of space then there had to be a center of the universe at the big bang. if this is true then we would not observe the homogeneity that we now observe (because there would variation in strength of the gravitational force throughout the initial protouniverse as it expanded. if on the other hand, there was infinite number of smallest discrete units of space at big bang initiation, then the universe literally expanded from everywhere at the same time. in other words the universe always remains infinite in extent and the only thing that ever changes is its relative density during the cyclic process. moreover, if the strength of the gravitational force is uniform throughout these infinite space-time units then we would observe universal homogeneity. however, there has to be a minmal range of the gravitational force for there to be a smallest discrete unit of space. this can be achieved if one postulates the existence of a repulsive force (an antigravitational force) which has a range that is limited to the size of the smallest discrete unit of space. it may be that there exists an inherently unstable relationship between this force and the gravitational force that is responsible for cosmic evolution via a cyclic process.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany stars are forming galaxies and all the galaxies
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiswe call Universe. Multiverse is a invalid word used only by crazy phsicists who do not know well their own native language.
to continue my prior discussion, it would seem that if the presence of the gravitational force (and antigravitational force with subplanck length range) is universal throughout infinite space (which i do believe), and infinite in range (which i do not believe incidentally,) then all parts of the infinite unverse would influence each other gravitationally (especially prior to initial expansion) and hence influence the evolution throughout the infinite cosmos. this is why i do not believe in the multiverse.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat would you like to know?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI want to know everything that you believe nobody else knows.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHahaha! That would be cool if we could just ask each other that. Hmmm.... How about something a little more specific?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI wasn't referring to anything personally related to you. I have no interest in how you personally attend to your bodily functions.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWell that narrows it down, slightly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere is little I know that no one else knows Cramer. Others have access to this universe that we are discussing, and have had access for quite some time. There is no telling what others have learned from it.
Perhaps the topic is what do I know that someone doesn't know, someone like you. I don't know you very well so let me ask you a couple of questions: Do you posses consciousness? And are your senses a valid method of apprehending reality?
This will help me describe a path to the topic I am addressing.
I get lost when I lose sight of my house, so those distances don't mean much to me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou said, "There is little I know that no one else knows Cramer."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou previously said, "The story is older than you know."
So, I guess you have already shared some of that little amount.
Two questions of more importance to you: Do you possess consciousness? Are you aware of your environment and other consciousnesses?
The last I read, Hubble had recorded images of galaxies about 13.5 billion ly out. There may be galaxies as far out as 42 billion ly now, but I don't think anybody is claiming to see that far.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"You previously said, 'The story is older than you know.' So, I guess you have already shared some of that little amount."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMany people already know this story. If fact I read it in books written by other people. Plato, Aristotle, Parmenides and others. So I think you are confusing the phrases "no one knows" and "I don't know".
My other question was meant to determine if you believe that you posses a volitional consciousness. It is quite common in academia for people to refute this.
"Many people already know this story."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thiscontradicts
"The story is older than you know."
Or do you believe other people simply do not know when Plato and others in our civilization lived?
Why to you claim to know what I and other people know?
Who is "you" in your assertion?
Although you might be learning "the story" for the first time, others (including many SciAm commenters) have known "the story" long before you.
Parallel universes have a mathematical base, like the imaginary numbers with root of minus one have very good solutions, even if they are . . . imaginary. God or any Intelligent Designer are only Logic, like it is seems logic if I say: Since I don't trust God I never say the truth.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"In the past decade an extraordinary claim has captivated cosmologists:"
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am not sure where you are going with this, Cramer. But that's ok, as long as it goes somewhere.
I am pointing out that, since everyone commenting has read the above statement, and no one has mentioned that this investigation greatly precedes the time-frame mentioned in the article, and no one else has mentioned that it is in fact a much older story, that has already been resolved by some people, that the people reading this article, and involved in the discussion that is going on, don't know the full context of the topic.
Now please tell me that you already knew all of this, and you are aware of the connection between the ancient arguments and the one in this article and that is the point you are trying to make. You are aware of these old arguments and how they relate to this story?
Or are you just objecting to the phrase "older than you know" because it presumes a lack of knowledge and you are sure I couldn't know that.
If you know the ancient roots of this issue you are welcome to mention it.
When astronomers are looking out into 42 billion light years that is described as the edge of our "cosmic Horizon", I am assuming (if this is not a typo) that the clarity of what they see with current detection equipment at 13-15 billion years of light travel, allows them to assume an added 28 billion light years of possible light or particle detection. I also image that if the big bang occurred in an infinite space that was a vacuum, it may be possible that the speed of light may have been exceeded and has traveled further. There is no mention of whether anything has been observed past 13-15 billion light year horizon. I would hope that clarification will be provided in the next issue
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article disappoints with speculative inconclusiveness. No doubt that is a testimony to our cluelessness and ignorance.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe improbability of all this allows many to feel a religious origin of this grand experiment that created a universe that can contemplate it's own existence. Whether one believes it a religious, or scientific, or spiritual event, matters only if the other two are mistaken as scientific.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe great minds of the World now know that our Universe was not created out of Chaos but Created with Certainty. Atomic and Subatomic particle seem like complexly assembled Compounds and Mater with opposite anti-mater particles, now it is becoming apparent they were Created to be assembled and disassembled allowing for Multiverses of which our Universe is just one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading some posts of Atheists who have anti-God beliefs it becomes clear they are promoting "Chaos" as their Theory of everything, shame on them, unable to contribute to Science's most relevant theory of Multiverse in an intellectual way.
CERN has broken open the Atom in a way that has lead to new understandings of subatomic particles and their function within the Atom.
Physicists have proven that Black Holes do not destroy or created information, energy but show they are reduced to wavelengths that vibrate after entering the Black Hole and on upon exit it is Postulated that they are then reassembled to their exact origin.
Black Holes have the capacity to collect matter, energy in quantity sufficient to produce a Universe at it's exit and cause inflation of a new Universe.
It is Theorized that Black Holes may link together both in the Parent Universe from time to time and their tails may also link funneling information and matter into the new Universe. It is gravity that pulls the tails of Black Holes together which is beyond the visible spectrum of Humans sight or detection.
Multiverse Universes are logical and mathematically viable offering an alternative to the current Chaos theory that is all but dead except in the minds of Children. The Creation Theory is born out of Atomic and Subatomic particle certainty, Electrons and anti-electrons have protons and anti-protons which orbit in predictable paths that only allow Chemical Compounds to form if their order is certain. Quarks and anti-quarks orbit and spin allow Protons orbits in exact certainty creating 100% pure Chemical Compounds, their is no Chaos. Multiverses give Certainty to Creation, God is responsible for assembling matter and anti-matter that gives life to our Universe. Our Universe is Finite! not Infinite, it was Created and assembled.
The great minds of the World now know that our Universe was not created out of Chaos but Created with Certainty. Atomic and Subatomic particle seem like complexly assembled Compounds and Mater with opposite anti-mater particles, now it is becoming apparent they were Created to be assembled and disassembled allowing for Multiverses of which our Universe is just one.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisReading some posts of Atheists who have anti-God beliefs it becomes clear they are promoting "Chaos" as their Theory of everything, shame on them, unable to contribute to Science's most relevant theory of Multiverse in an intellectual way.
CERN has broken open the Atom in a way that has lead to new understandings of subatomic particles and their function within the Atom.
Physicists have proven that Black Holes do not destroy or created information, energy but show they are reduced to wavelengths that vibrate after entering the Black Hole and on upon exit it is Postulated that they are then reassembled to their exact origin.
Black Holes have the capacity to collect matter, energy in quantity sufficient to produce a Universe at it's exit and cause inflation of a new Universe.
It is Theorized that Black Holes may link together both in the Parent Universe from time to time and their tails may also link funneling information and matter into the new Universe. It is gravity that pulls the tails of Black Holes together which is beyond the visible spectrum of Humans sight or detection.
Multiverse Universes are logical and mathematically viable offering an alternative to the current Chaos theory that is all but dead except in the minds of Children. The Creation Theory is born out of Atomic and Subatomic particle certainty, Electrons and anti-electrons have protons and anti-protons which orbit in predictable paths that only allow Chemical Compounds to form if their order is certain. Quarks and anti-quarks orbit and spin allow Protons orbits in exact certainty creating 100% pure Chemical Compounds, their is no Chaos. Multiverses give Certainty to Creation, God is responsible for assembling matter and anti-matter that gives life to our Universe. Our Universe is Finite! not Infinite, it was Created and assembled.
Ronald Nussbeck
So how does One go about proving the existence of a Multi-Verse? Well for starters you have to “define” what is meant by the term Multi-Verse. If you mean the existence of a “Totality” whose constituent components are multiple Universes each existing within the framework of the overall Totality, but evolving according to their own set of specific Physical Laws then there are endless possibilities for such Universes. Now if we make the further assumption that all such Universes share a common ancestral bond in the form of a matrix composed of Space-Time itself as its “Fabric Base” then we can speculate on the existence and inherent characteristics of such entities. I submit that any attempt to prove the existence of such entities by referring to observed results of experiments carried out on the “ Non- Space-Time constituent parts” of our own Universe would be pointless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe correct approach would be, as I see it, to speculate on how we would expect the fabric of our “Local Space-Time” to behave if “It” were part of such a “whole”. Now lets imagine that The Totality of Space-Time is not Uniform and is in a state of continuous evolution then it is natural to assume that their would be areas of, for want of a better analogy, high and low densities of Space-time. Now if this were true and we were to make the assumption that the “Natural” state of Space-time was such that it was constantly attempting to achieve a state of “Potential Equilibrium” then under certain specific conditions, it may be possible to observe this evolution of Space-Time.
Now if we were to assume that the creation of “Matter and Energy” within a region of Space-Time tends to raise the “Potential pressure” that a region of Space-Time exerted on the Totality of the whole then it would be natural to assume that such a region would tend to expand toward any region of “lower potential pressure”.
Since such an outward accelerating expansion of our region of Space-Time has been observed, thus this may lend some credibility to the Multi-Verse Theory.
I believe that it is only through observations of the fabric of Space-Time itself that such a theory will be proven or disproved.
Multiverse Theory cane out of a void, Dark Matter (Energy). It became clear to Physicists that the expansion of our Universe was caused by external forces and like most everything humans do the first time it is wrong, we believed Dark Matter to exsit and to be the culprit. Multiverse is so right it's like rain on a spring morning, it works mathematically and it allows us to understand the most important fundamental of our Universe, the beginning, how it began, and that we are in a finite Universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAs man started to unlock the mystery of the Atom we found it to be similar to Christopher Columbus finding a Trident Nuclear Submarine, he knew it worked but thought it came from Chaos, just appearing almost magically.
The Atom is a complex assembly of 5 forces, yes, 5. First, Strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetic, gravity and anti-gravity. The last, anti-gravity, it is what a Positron displays with certainty flowing away from grvitational bound bodies. Empirical evidence as provided by NASA scientists show photographic visual evidence of Positrons created in Earths upper atmosphere by lightening strikes but also confirmed by Fermi's Gamma-ray burst monitor, Fermi's detected the signal of positrons annihilating on the spacecraft, twice, some of the particles reflected off a magnetic mirror point and returned. It is also verified that the Positrons flowed up Earths electromagnetic field by Fermi and out into space, this alone proves Positrons are not gravitationally bound.
Multiverse Theory accounts for how Universes reproduce using Black Holes as birthing chambers with only one theoretical question remaining, do Black Hole tails connect with one another beyond our sight because they twist space and time so they are hidden from us?
That answer is likely yes and would solve the Multiverse question, Black Holes were necessary in the creation process of Atoms, this way they could be broken down by Black Holes and transmitted to other Universes with all their information and energy intact and reassembled in the New Universe just like what happened in our Universes birth.
All Universes would contain the same information, it is the laws of physics, for all purposes they would be identical to our Universe even containing the same life forms down to the exact identity of all life forms duplicated. The matter exiting the Black Hole would assemble in the same order as the Parent Universe, this would mean Planets, Stars and Galaxies and us would be identical.
Ronald Nussbeck
13.8 billion years is a time unit. A light-year is not a time unit, it is a distance unit. Light travels at a well-known finite speed. Seeing years into the past should not be compare to seeing light-years away. there is no discrepancy. They know what they are talking about.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo me, as a retired experimental physicist, the string theory calculations and other descriptions of multiverses look like mathematical masturbation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNot much in the way of intellectual debate, sounds like you had water with your wheaties this morning and this is the best you could come up with for a rebuttal?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat intellectual debate are you envisioning? The amount of likely fruitless speculations is downright depressing.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSycamore the naysayer,
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisEverybody's wrong about something...and in your case probably about most things.
You remind me of two individuals with identical thinking as yours?
When the Paris Exhibition closes electric light will close with it and no more be heard of.
- Erasmus Wilson (1878) Professor at Oxford University
Radio has no future.
- Lord Kelvin (1824-1907), British mathematician and physicist, ca. 1897.
For me your just a road sign that says DEAD END, when in fact the road is now connected to a massive Super hwy, but someone forgot to take down the sign....
Ronnie, the Super hwy metaphor is somehow misleading in the face of severe experimental obstacles fundamental physics is beginning to grapple with. I don't think we are gonna pull off once again the Einstein's feat of general relativity: guessing the grand design by means of pure thought.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBlack holes are the obvious candidates for gateways to other "universes" or whatever yet quantum gravity (is it the right metaphor?) remains elusive. We can hope to decipher the fine print in CMB; that could provide crucial restrictive clues. Otherwise reaching out to the cosmos seems to be forever confined within the modest and unreliable resources men can muster up here on Earth. As for small scales/high energies the interesting physics may be pulling back just enough to remain beyond our technological prowess.
I would qualify your picture, Ronnie, as a no overly attractive myth with a considerable probability to turn out (overly) inferior to whatever reality might turn out to be :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI agree with you on several issues, Black Holes are the most likely candidates for creation of Universes and for good reasons. Our Universe according to WMAP has confirmed with very high accuracy and precision that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThis would give credit to the Theory that Black Hole Tails sink under their enormous weight and could entangle out of observational view, draw in your mind a mental picture of a flat Universe and 100 billion Black Hole Tails dangling and twisting under gravity towards one another into a Super Tail. If this Theory is correct there is sufficient energy to "Inflat" a new Univeres.
Mathematically Black Holes do not create or destroy energy or information and thus at some point must release the confined material, ergo, Multiverse.
Multiverse actually solves the Dark Matter and Dark energy equation simple by removing it and adding Multiverse. You don't have to be Einstein to do this math and make it fit tightly, we must not over look Multiverse and Creation.
The (SM) Standard Model is now outdated with the newest CERN findings for the Higgs boson. The Higgs is to particle physics what the Holy Grail is to Christianity. Scientists are working tirelessly at two massive labs to unravel the mystery shrouding the all-important particle and explain away some major inconsistencies in the Standard Model of particle physics. Fermilab have been able to narrow the range in which the Higgs particle seems to be hiding with the help of data generated from atom smashing at the Tevatron. Atoms hold the key to proving Multiverse, if they are proven to disassemble in Black Holes and ressemble on exit we will have reached "Certainty" of Creation.
Ronald Nussbeck
I would hope Scientist would focus on Multiverse, prove it or disprove it, for now the math looks compelling, we live in a Multiverse of Universes.
Why do you allude to Holy Grail of Christianity, Certainty of Creation etc., those seem unnecessary and irrelevant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMultiverse is or are in the Nature (perhaps . . . but one con easily substitute the word Nature with God or Creator, it doesn't matter at all). In the Nature there are many intelligent things and many not so intelligent things, and one can easily see them all, just reading all these comments.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAh! Black Holes, those unseen destroyers of Space and Time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAre they the Primordial Gravitational Vortices left by ancient cataclysmic forces that tore at the very Fabric of Infinite Space-time? Or, are they simply the leftover progeny of some unknown form of existence forged in the furnaces of long extinct Super-Singularities?
All the while Mathematicians furiously try to calculate them.
Theoretical Astrophysicists Speculate on their birth, their effect on their surroundings, and whether or not they are Mortal things.
Astronomers meticulously manipulate monstrously complicated mirrors and radio telescopes trying to peer through their shrouds hoping for a glimpse at their internal organs.
Experimental Physicists construct huge electro-magnetically driven machines to pulverize Matter into its minutest parts hoping to answer questions posed by their Theories.
Artists attempt to capture their images on canvas and in the pixilated world of computers screens.
Poets struggle to translate the Artists’ renderings into spoken language, guided by the emotional Tsunamis flooding their senses as they gaze upon them.
To me, they are Mythological Mental Sirens whose very existence enchants me, and the death throes emanating from doomed Matter, as it is torn asunder, draws me toward them on waves of Logical thought both wondrous and frightening.
For therein is where Matter in all its many configurations, has its most obvious effect on Space-time, and where Space-time is unwillingly compelled into giving us just the tiniest glimpse of its innermost make-up. Then again maybe I just “think” too much.
Why do you allude to Holy Grail of Christianity, Certainty of Creation etc., those seem unnecessary and irrelevant?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAnswer:
By the old Guard of Academia these terms would be unacceptable and cause for sanctimonious blasphemy of science but a new "Intelligence Quotient" is being applied, one that says Chaos as Academia has ministered is a lie. Certainty of Creation is formulated around the Atom and it's parts, it is a master piece of work, positive and negatively charged particles or no charge at all are the binding agents, color and anti-color determine compounds while orbiting anti-matter and matter particles hold it all in place. There is nothing random or Chaotic about atoms, rather they are fundamentally perfect, creating compounds that give us the water for existence. Chaos is no longer applicable and is ridiculous at it's roots, one would have to believe everything is made from complete madness in our Universe and what lies beyond, sad, that is just not the case.
You wonder if Creation is relevant, yes, of course, it's a much more intellectual view than the chaos teachings of Academia.
Atoms are hardly more than emergent phenomena from quantum fields in the same sense that our bodies are from atoms and molecules. I don't know if quantum fields are chaotic or no, it doesn't strike me as relevant or even meaningful.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe so called physical reality is in fact nothing other than ... mathematical structures. For murky reasons some mathematical abstractions have apparently acquired the virtue of objective, "material" existence. If one pauses and thinks about it, all physics becomes mathematics. Will all would-be purely imaginary mathematical structures emerge one day as objective/material in the empirical/physical sense? That's a million dollar question :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLet me address both the Atom and mathematical structures issues so we can be clear about Chaos and it's perception by some Scientists.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAtoms are the foundation of the internal clock work for all life, all matter, all Compounds, all energy in the Universe. That said, Theoretically the Higgs Boson is a Quantum Singular Wavelength Vibration Harmonic that can be described as Singular vibrating wavelength with (24) alternating color (red, green, blue), charge(+/-) and force (SN/strong nuclear, WN/weak nuclear, EM/electromagnetic and G/gravity)(^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^). The order of the Quantum Singular wavelength is presented as, ^R+SN/^R-SN/^G+SN/^G-SN/^B+SN/^B-SN/^R+WN/^R-WN/^G+WN/^G-WN/^B+WN/^B-WN/^R+EM/^R-EM/^G+EM/^G-EM/^B+EM/^B-EM/^R+G/^R-G/^B+G/^B-G^.
Quantum Wavelength vibrations harmonics control all atomic alignment of atoms employing Wave harmonic orbital alignment vibration code that is locked inside the Quantum Wavelength. The Universe was Created using this Quantum Wave that carried the instruction for all atomic construction (DNA) necessary for the basis for life at the moment the Universe was born.
The Quantum Wavelength is the genesis of life which contain all the information for the "Construct" to create the chemical compounds that can be found equally distributed across the Universe. At the moment the Universe was created the Quantum Wave existed with complete instructions on how to build a human life form to an algae plant, atoms are created.
The Theory that everything has a Mathematical Structure and can be calculated is leading science to see "empirical evidence" exists that everything in the Universe can be calculated mathematically and confirming Design. We will understand once the riddle of the Atom has been unraveled and a mathematical formula assigned to each atom like the periodic table of elements. Everything is made up of atoms, it simply makes up all matter and has a mathematical formation.
Chaos is a theory that emerged 1700's by Intellectuals who used no mathematical underpinnings for this theory but it fit the Liberal anti-God mentality of the era. Academia has clung to these ideas like hillbillies to their guns refusing to advance science in a direction allowing a Creation theory to advance. Rather, Chaos, everything from nothing, disorder, the only way this is possible is if mathematical structures are not solvable, simply, math would not work to solve problems, everything must be Chaos. The new intellectuals understand math and how it works to solve problems, ergo, Creation.
Ronald Nussbeck
Their article is based on assumptions. It would be more 'safe and sane' to base these assumptions on the realities we find around us and what we know to be fact.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe article presented here attempt to stimulate creative thinking for the benefit of mankind. Scientific American articles are filled with Mathematics of beautiful theorems, they are utterly outstanding ideas collected in a single media and should be celebrated works of art the same as literature, or music. There publication creates Mona Lisas, Hamlets, in the minds of men who achievements repay society in endless work of geniuses as fascinating as Leonardo, Einstein, Shakespeare, and Beethoven. The truth and dedication of their work shines brightly like the morning Sun in the eyes of a driver headed East. For those that can recognize their genius and contribution to humanity you are wiser and brighter than most.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRonald Nussbeck
Multiverse and Paralel Universe are in fact different things, the multiverse has a logic origin when you accept that space/time has no beginning and no end, in the endless pace/time you will always (if you could travel endelssly) meet with yourself. The problem is do we exist in a infinity, is it possible in an infinity to reach the now place ?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBoth the multiverse and the paralel universes can be thought of also as a totality of non causal grains existing in a "fifth" dimension, the Total SIMULTANEITY, in this dimension all possible time and place grains of all possible universes are simultaneously present in a form that we cannot be aware of, it is our consciousness that is able to form life-lines in this Total Simultaneity.
We have problems in imagining the 10^500 universes at once all of them causal in time and space, but if you try to imagine an ALL IN ONE extra dimension, (starting after 10^-48m (not the Planck length but the INTEGRAL IBIS instrument length) and the Planck time, so everywhere) the universe becomes easier to understand.
keep on thinking free
Wilhelmus
The Pre-eminent theory of Multiverse is a direction that will over take the Big Bang Theory with relative ease for several reasons. Our Universe, according to WMAP has confirmed with very high accuracy and precision that the universe is flat with only a 0.5% margin of error, with that in mind all other Universes would be flat in an endless row one on top of another. You must see in your mind a picture of our Universe from outside of it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisImagine the flat Universe looking from a distance with it's 100 billion + Black Hole tails dangling down, their gradational pull makes most if not all of them connect in what you would envision as a "Super Tail" that will become the birthing chamber for a new Universe.
Once the Super Black Hole tail reaches critical mass it erupts pouring out it's contents as seen by Hubble looking backwards in time at our Universes birth.
Multiverse is so probable it must be, the Super Tail's discharge mathematically causes Inflation of the New Universe and the distribution of matter/antimatter, atoms, chemical compounds...
Black Holes take in atoms at the event horizon and strip them down into their smallest component, a wavelength and on exit the atom is reassembled as we see in the birth of our own Universe. Time may only be relative to us and not to the creator or Multiverse, it is only a preseption created by man, time is a measurement.
Multiverses would have the same laws of physics as our Universe, they would be formed in exactly the same way, all the matter would be expelled identically to ours with the formation of chemical compounds and the same life forms would exist. The difference in life forms would be evolutionary one's, the older Universes would be more advanced but a side note, with limited chances for differences in life forms we would be duplicated over and over again in each Universe. The next and most important prospect for Mulitverse is that our closest neighbor Multiverse Universe would be closer than the nearest Star, it might even be easier to travel between Universes than in space, no micro object to dodge or radiation.....
It would seem that Multiverse would offer a few other benefits for travelers, they would know exactly where to go in the Child Universe (Below) to find life, it would be a duplicate of their own just much younger.
Multiverse could answer questions about visitation to our planet and who has been visiting?
On pages 40-41 are 3 squares. In each are circles to represent universes. Two suggestions: 1. make the circles spheres; 2. instead of 42 Billion light-years as radius, make it 42 Million, because that was the radius when some of the oldest light we see was emitted. All the red circles (spheres) were that small then also.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne thing to note: the white circle has material in common with six red circles. If they are spheres then the white sphere has material in common with 14 other "universes". From the information we are receiving from those 14 universes, the material we have in common is exactly the same as everything inside our sphere and is governed by the same laws, and the space in those red spheres is expanding at the same 72.5 km/sec/mpc that the space inside the white sphere is expanding. Presumably each of those 14 red spheres has material in common with 13 others beside the white one, and so on infinitum.
We get information from a minute part of each of the 14 red ones that touch our white one. If ours had a radius of 42 million light-years, then the sphere (which contained all 14 red and the one white) had a radius of 126 million lys then, and has a radius of 126 BILLION light-years now. The white occupies only one sixteenth of the space. That super-universe, as far as the information we will ever be able to get can give us, is governed by the same laws and is of equal density as the part we can see.
There is no way for information from one atom outside the red super-universe to get to us in the center - unless there is some way other than electromagnetic radiation or gravity, talking in our scientific language, to get it here.
. reply to TreeLuvBurdpu
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"Infinity is not a number. It's a placeholder for numbers. Nothing is infinite."
That is what Jonathan Edwards said in 1720 in his little piece "On Being". He wrote: "Nothing is God." It is an interesting little piece.
Dear Gentlemen. I have a question:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould we explain the acceleration of our universe expansion by the presence of the mass of adjacents universes instead of the hypotetic black matter?
Or do I forgett something?
Ronnie, I feel compelled to strongly disagree with what looks to me as a basically mythological picture of yours. Exactly the ultimate "chaos" lays in the base of physical reality, the utterly non-deterministic "collapse"/localization of the non-local wave functions into the local/"material" reality, available to us empirically, in physical experiments. Already Hegel deduced, by means of his impeccable logic, that everything is from nothing, those are identical, the same. Quantum Mechanics only added to it flesh and bones, precision, technical operationalism. Probability and statistics are legitimate areas of mathematics (measure theory), highly developed and sophisticated. Chaos you seem to dismiss is in fact surely and fruitfully amenable to mathematical treatment.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAt one time I had the same thought. It seemed more logical to me to believe that the Law of Gravity was at work as opposed to some unknown effect from some theoretical Anti-Matter or Dark Matter etc. I pictured a “Halo” of sorts of super-massive Singularities surrounding our Universe, perhaps as left over remnants of dying Universes, and tearing it outward. As the Matter got closer and closer to the Singularities it would naturally accelerate. However when I thought more about it I realized that it appears that it is actually Space-Time itself that is expanding and accelerating and carrying embedded Matter along with it and Since the Law of Gravity deals with the attraction between two bodies both of which have Mass and since I know of no way determining if there exists a similar Universal Law of attraction which works on Space-Time in a similar fashion I had to abandon that theory, for now.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCurrently there is a Theory that Anti-Matter is the force driving the expansion. It is postulated that Anti-Matter and Matter are in fact repelled from each other and that Dark Matter my in fact contain or be this Anti-Matter. One thing such a Theory has going for it is the fact that such a theory would be supportive of a sustainable Universe, in the long term, since if it were not the case that Matter and Anti-Matter repelled each other our Universe may have annihilated itself eons ago.
However I am still puzzled because this still does not address the fact that it is Space-Time that is expanding and accelerating. Unless there is direct strong connection between Matter, Anti-Matter and Space-Time which dictates that what ever happens to one is directly transmitted to the other two. If it is not the case that all three are “strongly coupled” to each other One would expect that Matter and Anti-Matter would hurl away from each other but possibly only causing a ripple in the Fabric of Space-Time itself.
Here are 6 galaxies: ABCDEF. B is receding from A at 0.2c; C is receding from B; D from C; E from D; F from E - in each case at 0.2c. How long has this been going on? 13.75 billion years. So 13 Gyrs ago, when the visible U was less than a billion years old, B as already receding from A at 0.2c. But at that time the distance between A and B as 0.05 of what it is now, that is, if they are 2.75 billion light-years apart now, they were only 0.1375 G apart then. And F was receding from A at c.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBut in the opposite direction from B are galaxies LKJHGABCDEF. A is receding from L at c, but F is receding from L at twice c. In 13.75 Gyrs no light from L,K,J,H or G has reached F. A observer in F may speculate about LKJHG's existence but even 100 billion years from now he will not have any information about them. Any one of them could be gobbled up into a black hole, but no resulting light or gravity wave from that event will ever get to F.
And beyond F are galaxies MNO...Z, all of them still in our UNI-verse,each receding from its neighbors at 0.2c. Each can see the same NUMBER of galaxies that we can, but none in M or beyond can see us. Somewhere beyond ZZZ, which is receding from us at 1000 times the speed of light, we might speculate about one other universe. But if B could explode into a million pieces yet no information about that ever getting to L, then certainly no information from another universe beyond ZZZ will ever get to any galaxy in any part of the universe visible to us.
So Ellis is right - any talk about another universe is NOT science, and no theory about such is testable. Besides, even if we find some way to test the theory, that still won't DISprove God. If we are going to be scientific we will still have to find a cause. An agnostic makes himself the ultimate, the only god he can believe in.
I'm curious about the way the pictures were drawn. They seemed to imply that all the multiverses had not only begun at the same time but also had the same expansion rate (because they were all the same size). Surely, that is not what they are postulating, is it?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYour Statement Sycamore, "Probability and statistics are legitimate areas of mathematics (measure theory), highly developed and sophisticated. Chaos you seem to dismiss is in fact surely and fruitfully amenable to mathematical treatment."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisChaos being considered amenable to mathematical treatment is possible if you wish to deal in abstract De Moivre's Theorem is a relatively simple formula for calculating powers of complex numbers, Chaos is not a Theorem. The Intellectuals during the time of the Renaissance and Scientific revolution started by Galileo and his predecessors gave rise to a movement to challenge the Church's authority for it's being adverse to science and to question if God existed, they called it Chaos. It did not matter that there was no scientific basis for Chaos, Academia needed Chaos rightly or wrongly it was the birth of atheism. In my previous posts I showed it remains clear that God and Creation are the works of our Mathematical Universe, it's a Universe that everything can be solved with absolute accuracy using it. Chaos on the other hand can not have a mathematical solution for all components, information would be lost, energy could be destroyed, atoms would not be 100% pure, it is obvious that Chaos is at deaths door step.
Multiverse.
When we build a 3-D model of the Universe, space as we know is flat, the model will look more like liquid laying in the bottom of a bathtub.
Black Holes will look just like whirl pools dangling below in the 100's of billions collecting and forming Super Tails. We will then be able to test gravity's effect on these and determine at what point matter will break free from the Super Tails of Black Holes and if they will form a new Universe and Inflation in creating a Multiverse setting.
Ronald Nussbeck
Unfortunately I find your account not exactly scientific and/or rigorous, Ronnie. I'm a bit surprised that most folks here don't seem to stick to reliable science and ponder vague metaphors or myths instead :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI am surprised that some people cling to Chaos with no scientific basis, there reasoning rooted in atheism, a hate of religion and a pathological denial of existence of Creation.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLooking closely at Chaos is like trying to measure Voodoo, a belief in something that has no mathematical validity. You speak down as if to silence me or stifle my ideas or curtail my thinking, for what reason, you have not provided one single scientific realism for Chaos.
The old men who sit in the Ivory Towers of Academia vomit profusely at the thought of Creation and therefore profess Chaos as reality, not...
For to long the Institutional establishment has dictated it's Serial lie about the Universe and it's order of existence, their house is built on quicksand and is going to disappear soon.
Intellectuals can think for themselves, their minds are no longer controlled by men with alternative motives founded in hate for religion and God. I tell you that Creation is mathematical while Chaos is fractured, yield of live a lie, it is up to you.
Ronald Nussbeck
It was not clear to me from the article whether the idea of parallel universes is/can be independent of multiple universes. Can any one help clear my muddied universe?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe Theory of Parrallel Universes is of Fiction most likely, alternative universes, thousands of Earths with you on each one, dimentions such as in fiction with no reality as a basis.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMultiverse is the hypothetical possibiltiy that multiply universes where created over Epoch. The idea that only one universe was created is a low probablity, rather, universes maybe recycled?
Ronnie, Creation is by no means antithetical to Chaos. Atheism and the hate (or love) for religion and God are completely irrelevant here. I have provided the ultimate single scientific realism for Chaos that is Creation: the inescapable unpredictability of the emergence of local "material" world from the utterly non-local, entangled world of quantum probability amplitudes.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisBy the way, Ronnie, Creation and Chaos are rather inadequate terms to begin with, let alone God, religion or any kind of theism. One should just follow the mathematical trail and try to interpret what the latter is telling her/him.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe question is how did the universe come to be, was it Chaos or Creation, is there more than one universe?
The answer is we just don't know but quantum mechanics and cosmologists are creating a model that will answer this question and WMAP gives us the information we need to complete it.
My favorite Chaos theorist is Stephen Hawking's, he believes that the universe came out of "nothing." for him it arose as a quantum fluctuation with literally no pre-existing state, rubbish, there is no scientific basis for this, only his hate for God who he credits for his condition. Hawking's goes on to say, no space, no time, no anything exsited but this is this a man with an idea with zero plausibility? Saying the universe arose out of simply Chaos is pure idiocy, it takes no thought only a blank mind or a hateful one who could say this without honesty.
Space, time, gravity and energy have order, each is rooted in a mathematical foundation, this is not Chaos.
Chaos was first spoke of by Lucretius in a passage from De Rerum Natura, Lucretius proposes that the universe arises as a quantum fluctuation. His work was follow by David Hume as well as by Ludwig Boltzmann, of course none of these men knew anything about modern cosmology, gravitation or quantum mechanics, so how come Academia immediately grabbed the idea with so much vigor, it was purely antidotal, the Church fought science, for them the Earth was the center of the universe and everything revolved around it, science had an axe to grind for killing or jailing scientist who believed the Sun was the center of our Solar system, Chaos would serve their purpose, revenge.
Now comes the theory of Creation, a model of the universe in which every detail can be solved mathematically, it's every part calculable, it is in fact a model that has been tested over time, it's the course that stands a fighting chance of capturing the truth, math won't lie. Chaos on the other hand can not be as Hawking's said, "there was no pre-existing state, no space, no time, no anything, the universe came out of nothing."
I will not concede to an ancient sect of hatemonger ors who's science is rooted in a disdain for Church, rather let us move forward with open minds leaving Chaos to go the way of Homo erectus.
Ronnie, I have to say that you are less than respectful to Stephen (Hawking), with no reason whatsoever. And the question is not "Was it Chaos or Creation?" at all, seeking for the truth has nothing to do with mythology.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have been reasonable and respectful up to the point you cast aside the Creation and Multiverse theory and became pointed at me.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou also say I have disrespected Stephen Hawking, not true, Hawking has made huge mistakes and must be held accountable for them. Hawking argued for 30 years that a Black Hole destroys everything that would fall into it, destroying information and energy completely, this was his basis for his Chaos theory.
On July, 21, 2003 Hawking presented his latest position on Black Holes at the Science conference in Dublin, Ireland, the new position came to be known as the "Black Hole Information Paradox." In essence, Black Holes never destroy information or energy captured within them, they merely transfer the information or energy.
Hawking abandoned his Chaos theory of Black Holes disintegrating energy, mass and matter after leading scientists contradicted his quantum theory position. Hawking now knew that information could be lost or destroyed and his 30 years of teaching this position was flawed.
Again, this year, Stephen Hawking set the universe a blaze saying, "No God; heaven is a fairy tale," seems as if scientists who were once theoretical physicist, cosmologist are making controversial claims that have no basis in scientific fact. Hawkings previously has attacked religious faithful for lack of clear rational thought and believing in an after life. Hawking has been wrong before, he is using what I call Voodoo rather than science, I was right about Black Holes from the beginning but Hawking would not listen, now, most likely I am right again about Creation and Multiverse, he has crossed the line, not me.
It is not only rational but reasonable for me to question the motives and the science of Hawking, if anyone is to be muzzled it is Hawking not me. It was me who first postulated that Black Holes do not destroy information, matter, energy or information, rather, black holes transfer information to new universes in a creation process called "Universe Birthing."
I stand for honesty, integrity and the pursuit of truth, I have felt you have dogged me and have been in pursuit of me since I opened on this board? I find Creation and Multiverse theory as being one, connected to each other and is gaining in acceptance by scientists who are not prejudiced by past teaching by Academics.
Ronald Nussbeck
For me the discussion has been over due, yes many Academics forbid discussion of Creation and most likely Multiverse since it is a path that may lead to heaven?
What is Creation, Heaven, Church, even God? These are vague, almost meaningless just words. Hawking was wrong about the information loss in Black Holes yet we don't have slightest idea about the quantum interior of those holes or if and how they (purportedly) give birth to Multiverse(s). With respect to the latter our ignorance is devastating.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisA post on Peter Woit's "Not Even Wrong" blog from July 8, 2011 entitled: "Higher Speculations", briefly discusses a book by Helge Kragh, "Higher Speculations: Grand Theories and Failed Revolutions in Physics and Cosmology." It's a history of some other theories of physics and cosmology that were once very popular. But, also fell under the auspices of 'beyond the domain of science.' The fact is, without empirical evidence, no scientific theory, no matter how 'elegant', can survive the scrutiny and principles of the scientific method. If a theory is not falsifiable, or 'beyond the domain of science', then it isn't science. Period.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHere is an excerpt Woit quoted from Kragh's book:
"From its beginnings in 1867 to its end at about 1900, the [vortex] theory was frequently justified on methodological and aesthetic grounds rather than its ability to explain and predict physical phenomena. In an 1883 review of ether physics, Lodge described the vortex atom theory as ‘beautiful’ and ‘the simplest conception of the material universe which has yet occurred to man’. He added, just as Michelson would do twenty years later, that it was a ‘theory about which one many almost dare to say that it deserves to be true’."
Sound familiar?
Slight correction in the typo above. I believe the above quote regarding the 19th century vortex theory should be:
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this"that it was a theory about which one may almost dare to say that it deserves to be true."
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe quantum interior of black holes maybe of great importance but knowing how black holes disassemble atoms and how they are reassembled by them on exist is the ultimate question which solves the latter.
Both energy and information can change form but can not be created or destroyed, they could only be transferred from one location to another by a Super Massive black hole.
At the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second all the material needed to create the stars and galaxies in our universe existed, the same amount of matterial could be collected, stored and found exiting the constraints of a Super Massive black hole tail.
The univeses expansion is what is know as "inflation," scientist 25 years ago having no clue of how this happened and called it the Big Bang. There is another scenario now offered, one that replaces long held ideas, and WMAP (Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe) may give the answer of how universes gives birth to a new child.
First, let us look at some facts, our universe has an estimated 100 + billion black holes, we know that black holes combine on the surface and seen as galaxies colide.
It is reasonable to presume that many if not all black holes combine below and beyond sight and that they would at least produce some Super Massive black holes tails.
The Super Massive black holes power to crush all matter is undisputed as the ultimate power source in the universe. It is also reasonable to postulate that once the pressure and heat rise to the level seen in WMAP at the first instant of creation it maybe the same amount produced by a Super Massive black hole on exit.
A Super Massive black hole could create the same conditions and results found in WMAP at the beginning moments of our universes creation. The prospects for creating a new universe from a Super Massive black hole is 93% and would cause identical Inflation scenario seen in the corresponding WMAP. Matter from a Super Massive black hole does not vanish, at some point space releases the contents, we know that massive amount of energy will tear a hole in space momentarily.
Admittedly, solving this problem will take a Super Computer to calculate but the amount of matter released which is equal to the heat produced by the energy contained within it. A Super Massive Black Hole could create the conditions we see by instantaneously releasing all the stored energy at one moment. This also could prove that the expansion would create a faster than speed of light growth from a subatomic sized particle as seen in WMAP.
Ronald Nussbeck
Why "knowing how black holes disassemble atoms and how they are reassembled by them on exit" should be of such importance? Atoms are just emergent and bounded phenomena at lower temperatures. Black holes radiate particles or may prompt Bangs, which should take care of the atoms.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisRead balloon inside balloon theory of matter and antimatter universe on opposite entropy path producing dark energy or ether by annihilation at common boundary and injected into our universe to manufacture all laws and give gravity and expansion of our universe including dark flow and these are FIVE GOD FORCES which LHC will confirm from next collision may be.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have a simple question regarding the postulated accelerating expansion of space within our Universe. It is simply this. Why is this expansion not discernible at the Quantum level and if it is taking place at that level why does the structure of Matter seem to remain coherent in spite of it? Am I to understand that this expansion is restricted to the Macro Universe exclusively? If this is unclear to anyone I will attempt to explain in more detail if requested.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisExpansion overpowers gravity on much larger scales; on smaller scales, say those of galaxies and even smaller, gravity manages to hold stuff together.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisthank you for the reply. I have another question. WHY?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe ultimate WHY won't be ever known. Energy and matter are amenable to attractive gravity but vacuum/empty space under some circumstances can expand explosively, courtesy of so called scalar or inflation fields possessing repulsive/"dark" energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThank you again for your reply, but if what you said regarding Gravity overcoming the expansive force in cases where the distance between Matter falls below some arbitrary “threshold” is true, does anyone, to your knowledge, currently know where that threshold is? In other words this would imply, for want of a better term, that there exists a “Law” governing and describing the relationship between Matter, Gravity and the Expansive Force of expanding accelerating Space and that such a Law should be able to be expressed Mathematically.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAlso if this is indeed the case then there must be an exchange of energy between the expansive force and the force of Gravity so has anyone, to your knowledge, observed and/or measured such exchange, or the effects of such an exchange?
I think that such a threshold can be pinned down empirically by measuring space's (increasing) expansion rate and matching it up to the grip of gravity, which we know how to assess. Unfortunately, so far the expansive force/dark energy is poorly understood and any talks about the interaction with gravity and other forces are rather premature.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI would tend to agree that any talk of a possible connection between Gravity and the Expansive force would be Premature if One actually had a professional reputation and their Livelihood to consider when wildly speculating about something like that, but since I have no such worries and since I am at an age and stage where Ego is irrelevant, such concerns are a non issue to me. I thank you for your thoughts and the time you took to reply to me. I am in the process of assembling one particular train of thought about this whole question of Universe vs Multi-Verse that I intend to throw out here for anyone interested shortly.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIn fact expansion is somehow bounded to gravity. In Einstein's General Relativity gravity exert not only the energy-impulse tensor but the pressure as well. And pressure could be negative which results in ... anti-gravity, i.e. repulsion and expansion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThere ya go! Now all we have to do is get out of these trees and take a look at the Forest.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI guess we've been waiting for a while now to look at your Forrest/Grand Design. Still don't worry - our disposition is good and our patience limitless :)
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisSorry about that, but the density of the vegetation in here is a bit thicker than I thought and my compass has been acting up, but like you may disposition is good and my patience is limitless.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisPerhaps while your waiting maybe you could think about this. If a living Being were to be accelerated to their maximum physically attainable, and biologically sustainable velocity with respect to their local frame of reference, would the effects of Time dilation be felt at the cellular level to the extent that they would for all intents and purposes be immortal with respect to their not so accelerated fellow Beings? In addition if they were to achieve such a state as a result of a circular orbital motion about their Home Planet would they be able to watch the Evolution of their Planet take place Frame by Frame, so to speak, or would the world below appear to them as a spinning blur or could they even see their world below? Also how would “they” appear to the lesser-accelerated Beings on the Planet below?
Also since we know that E=MC2 defines the relationship of Energy to Matter in our Space-time, is it possible that their exists a similar relationship between Anti-Matter and its counterpart Anti-Energy and if so what Mathematical form would you expect such a relationship to display? Also if a mathematical formulation of such a relationship were possible what form would you expect the equivalent of the speed of Anti-Photons to play in such a relationship? After all if Anti-Matter exists is it not reasonable to make such an assumption, given what we know about the relationship between Energy and Matter and the Velocity of Light? I am of course assuming that we agree that without the existence of Energy there could be No Matter and hence the existence of something called Anti-Matter must by logical assumption predict with 100% certainty the existence of Anti-Energy whether or not we are able to empirically detect it at this point in Time.Or is there perhaps a mathematical formulation that describes a relationship between Anti-Matter, Energy and C.
E=MC2 holds for anti-matter and all Energy as well.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAcceleration can get you younger in case you survive it :) . Circling above a planet is equivalent to free fall or moving with constant speed (inertial motion) in absence of gravity. One has to feel the acceleration or her weight in order to get younger; say, if you are suspended off a hook in a gravitational field, you will remain younger than the free circling counterpart at the same height.
The notion of "parallel universes" lying out there beyond our visual horizon, has nothing to do with Hugh Everett's many-worlds interpretation (MWI) nor with Tegmark's "Ultimate Ensemble".
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisHowever, as nature is symmetric, I understand that the multiverse, the many-worlds, exist simultaneously as in a (n,m) = (3,3) space-time continuum, where time is 3D.
In my opinion, there is not sufficient evidence for anything to do with "multiverse" to be a theory. Right now it is just a leap of the imagination. I think it is mostly based on mathematics, and while math may or may not be the language of the cosmos, of reality, it doesn't mean that it cannot be beguiled to allege answers that are not correct.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe notion of other univeres occurred to my simple mind when I was 27yrs. younger.If the objects,unlike a firecracker explode and then the energy dissapates, Is it so hard to open your awareness that this phenomenom of objects in the universe are moving away at a accellerated rate, gaining energy.Where if you where to guess, and why could it not be possible to a universe, or several,than much stronger than the one we are believed to be THE BIG BANG result? Please dont.Further,lets not even touch on this once pristen planet,and the ways it has allowed so many things to just fall into place for us to screw up.P.S.isn't the human cell the most fascinating form.We must have just decided to crawl from the ocean one summer day!HA,HA.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisth
In place of multiverses we can suppose a continuous and infinite universe. The matter in this universe can pulse in cycles of attraction, explosion (big bang) and expansion. This way we can have simultaneously places were parts of this universe are in attraction, places were there is expansion and sometimes explosions. In place of different universes we can have just "cells" in different conditions. The "dark matter" can result just from gravity from bodies outside of our observable universe.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisConsider if you will, the following scenario. What if it were the case that in areas of Space with Baryonic Matter such Baryonic Matter interacts with the postulated Dark Matter (DM) and or Dark Energy (DE) in such a way as to raise the density of the local DM or DE surrounding it. This may not be so far fetched as it seems at first glance when One considers that it is believed at present that DE or DM may contain, or indeed be, Anti-Matter, which may interact with Baryonic Matter in a repulsive fashion. If such were to be the case then would it not be normal to assume that the repulsive force exerted between the DM and or DE and the Baryonic matter would tend to increase the density of the surrounding local DM and or DE until an equilibrium of sorts were obtained; at which point the DE or DM would then enclose the Baryonic Matter in much the same way as a bottle floating in an Ocean may encloses a written message? The Message in this case would be the Baryonic Matter with the DM or DE being the bottle adrift on the Ocean of Expanding Space. If this were to be true then this would seem to indicate that DM and or DE are the Cosmic Adapters connecting Baryonic Matter and expanding Space in such a way as to transmit the force of expanding Space to the Baryonic Matter. This does not, of course, make any assumptions regarding the, existence of, or characteristics of, the necessary Cosmic Adapters connecting DM and or DE to expanding Space itself, but it would answer one question regarding why Baryonic Matter is seemingly carried along with expanding Space for without such a connection it would be reasonable to assume that expanding Space would simply slide around and past any Baryonic Matter encountered during its expansion.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhy is it that in quite a few of the articles that I have read about other worlds in our own universe and about different theories on other universe, they assume that the rules as we know them will, without a doubt, apply? I understand that science is not about conjecture, except for the initial idea or question of an unknown, but to blindly set our rules as the standard for everything seems less than scientific to me. Our own planet, as limited as it is in the big picture, has proved what we know to be wrong many times over the last few hundred years as great minds work out the answers to the questions. Yet our scientist still utter phrases like this; "Eash has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate in all." How do we know this to be true?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisCould you please give detailed elucidation?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this“The cosmos began 13.7 billion years ago with the big bang. A fraction of a second after the beginning, the universe was a hot, formless soup of the most elementary particles, quarks and leptons.”
(The Origin of the Universe by Michael S. Turner. Scientific American Sep 2009 page 22)
“The word “multiverse” has different meanings. Astronomers are able to see out to a distance of about 42 billion light-years, our cosmic visual horizon. We have no reason to suspect the universe stops there. Beyond it could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one we see”
(Does the Multiverse Really Exist? By George R.F. Ellis. Scientific American Aug 2011 page 18)
When did exactly the Big Bang happen and where are we looking beyond 13.7 billion years?
Dr Rashid A. Seyal
If you are enclosed within a cell, a table, a moon like Europa which is covered in ice that becomes your universe. In a sense each one of these exist with in a multiverse but the hitch has always and probably continue to be egocentric and to this day that philosophy continues to fail.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe early science believed the universe was what revolved around the earth until overturned by Copernicus to a world that orbited around the sun, later verified at a high cost by Galileo. Until Hubble it was thought that the Universe was the Milky Way and then based on Hubble's research and the red shift observed it was discovered not only was the Universe made of many galaxies but that they were on the whole moving away at geometric rates meaning some of the Galaxies were already moving so fast they were out of site by reason of relatively they were expanding their distance faster than the speed of light making them invisible to us.
It is becoming more apparent that we are placed in a small speck of what may well be a much larger universe and with the horizon we have it appears homogenous but it may be an illusion. Also this implies that the same rules may not apply and this holds true.
My bottom line is we understand 2 to 4% of what the universe is made of and the rest of it is 20% dark matter and 70% dark energy and this applies only to the horizon we have at our view.
One possible answer of the conundrum of 42 billion light years could be simply the fact that our view of the universe in either direction can only extend back to what we call big bang. If we agree on that and that their are other objects between here and 13 billion years then the view from that position would be able to see 13 billion years from its place in the universe. So the bottom line is that it may be where you are looking from and the ratio of time involved since it all began.
What I want to see is us stop trying to act as if the universe is an egocentric experience. It is subjective and based on any two observers and what they are trying to observe after transferring the relativistic differences between the observers. In short it appears subjective and if that proves true the ideal of parallel universes is the least issue physics has to deal with. I would start by looking at fractals and chaos and the concept that Escher might have been on to something with realities that spatially wrap in on themselves.
Again that has been the flaw of mankind since the beginning. We refuse to relinquish the ideal that we are not the center of the universe. I would look around yourself and start to see each person is a multiverse of sorts and we have such a small view of the so called universe we are associated with, by which I mean we can explain anywhere from 2 to 4% of the matter we recognize and the rest we use the label dark as in we don't know what it is.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI also think based on newer more aware views we are starting to realize that the homogenous look we appear to have may be because of a horizon issue. What I do know and has been proven time after time is every time we put a limit on the universe it gets exponentially bigger and we become smaller and smaller. I celebrate the fact that we realize this and by keeping your eyes and ears open maybe you will too. But by putting the blinders on you will never break free of the wiring you are born with and what a waste of a brain that can be aware of it's limits and transcend them.
I think that Manderbolt and his concepts of fractals and Escher's self contained space which wraps in on itself allows for a singularity that would have all the complexity we see yet when I look at infinity it seems to be flawed by the +1 rule. So I am looking for the person that can show me infinity that allows for +1 and big bang. Smolin in his book 'Life in the Cosmos' did a fair job in showing how life sustaining universes would clump together and non sustaining universes would shrivel for lack of ability to procreate so to speak. But a self contained fractal still holds the most appeal for me at this point.
I signed up just to answer this question.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe reason we can see out much further than 13.8B years is because of the expansion of the universe. Knowing the age of the universe isn't as simple as "how many lightyears out can you see?" because it is also expanding.
Because a light year is a measure of distance not time.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAgain a light year is a measure of distance not time. So 1 light year doesn't equal 1 year.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisYou know what still amazes me is that an article appeared on Dec 14, 2010 almost a year ago that described a method of delivering prolific amounts of just in time H2 and O2 that was sustainable and the return on the input was something like 3,000 times more out than fuel in.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisTo this date there are 4 postings on this article and yet we are up to 133 responses on something that will not solve one problem here on earth. If anyone of you pseudo and real scientist give one itsy bitsy crap about our planet visit this article and try to picture what they are talking about. I remember when H2 was discussed as a real alternative to hydrocarbon burning and storage was always the issue. With a little imagination I think once you read this you can catch the ideal of just in time delivery of this method and the ridiculous cost savings we would see.
Carbon has many uses but burning it is the worst of them. Nano technology, graphine, artificial diamonds are all being produced and carbon composites and ceramics are harder yet more malleable than any metal so we should be using what we have way too much of for real answers.
All that said if you can get your minds back here on earth take a look at this posting. The saddest part is that the knowledge has been there since 1993 and it sits not hidden just ignored (also the page has a Shell advertisement on it Hmmmm) http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=hydrogen-production-comes-natu&posted=1
I hope at least one of you posters of multiverses will come down to earth and give this a view.
Until someone enters and comes back from another universe, or a probe does the same, the idea of a multiverse is interesting for about one second.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIts more like theology than science.
Have you considered birth or cell division as multiverse inter travel. If you were locked in a cell your universe would be very defined by the walls of the cell with some diffusion occurring but not recognizable at your protoplasm level. Kind of like dark matter and dark energy.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisNormen
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisI have some basic problems with the concept of a multiverse. The term multiverse, doesn't matter, level I or II, to me it is seemingly not well defined.
Level II multiverse seem to me to be quite easy to accept. They came into existence by a similar process as happened to our universe. All began with the Big Bang. Space and time was created and bore our universe. There is no reason why this should have happened only once. Those universes are completely seperated (don't know by what, but it cannot be space-time)and there will be no interaction among them. They even could penetrate each other without the chance for us to notice this.
But I have problems with Level I multiverse.
They lie beyond the Cosmic Visual Horizon (CVH)!? To me the reason of CVH is inflation and the finit speed of light!? If I'm right then beyond the CVH there is nothing else but the rest of our universe which we cannot see and hence not interact with because of the horizon problem.
On the other hand, if this is thought to be the border of our universe, how then can light go beyond it. Our universe is a closed system. Light cannot leave it. Light is bound to our space-time??
That means, that we cannot detect the border ouf our universe. The only means we have is light. But light, at the end will travel on a closed loop. So we cannot find out whether we are in the middle or at the border of our universe. It looks the same in all direction wherever we are.
Can somebody dispose my uneasiness?
I think level II is probably the correct answer to the way we would observe a multiverse with each one self contained. I am not so sure about no interaction though in Smolin's Life in the Cosmos he describes universes built by black holes and groupings of universes like ours because the numbers hold up and it is capable of creating other universes with similar rules which to me follows a fractal pattern.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisWhat I have issues with is the concept of infinity and if you take infinity off the table it means we exist within a singularity so my fractal view would resemble an Escher painting with space self wrapping around itself which means it appears infinite but it is not but on the same note it is complex.
Again we have to also assume that if life exist on Europa it would appear to be contained entirely within the moon with no space visible once you hit its crust of ice. So we may have more issues than we can discover based on horizon's and what material we are searching for. We only can account for 2 to 4% of the matter in our visible universe and the rest we declare dark energy or dark matter which we can see the effects but not the particles or energies that are associated with them.
I guess this doesn't dispose of your uneasiness after all.
Universal horizon sounds like the highest row of seats at a covered sports arena or where you'll sail over the edge of the universe just as multiverse implies multiple universes but sounds more like describing the earth as multi-neighborhooded.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt was stated that an observer near the edge of the universal horizon would see the milky way or what was to become...let's cut to the chase we see the light emitted xlightyears ago...what does that observer see when turning 180 degrees...a wall?...or could it be another observable universal horizon so now that point 2xlightyears from us regardless of expansion. at this moment in real time we are seeing the horizon as it was lightspeed ago...is it not possible that from that observation point we might appear as the radiation background...is it not possible that from every point in the xyz there will be an universal horizon...
Screw the big bang...let's call it the awakening, the unfolding, the expanding in breath of the unknowable that which is..
Did the big bang point have a location in metric space?...if so what was outside that point?..what was it that the expansion took place in? the fact that we observe the known universe in all directions and perceive a horizon seems to imply that we are the point of the big bang and i would venture to say that another sentient being observing the universe from elsewhere in the cosmos under similar relatively stable observable conditions would experience a similar perception having their own horizon..if we take as an example the time it took supposedly for our solar system to produce the sentient lifeforms we are, then possibly how many generations of sentient being lifewaves in the observable universe according to proposed age range of same.
Is it not possible that the point of the big bang was everywhere and nowhere originating from a higher dimension and acting throughout space?...what can be outside of space?...i would imagine that even no space is something in which case it would be more space.
do we know if expansion is equal everywhere...do we comprehend what everywhere even means. is our playing field not necessarily multiversed in metric space time but overlapped in dimensional frequency and or mode variations...is it unexplained phenomena doesn't necessarily originate from distant galaxies but right here from a playing field beyond all but few's ability to perceive...just as our nerve endings and senses allow us to perceive and experience our existence i imagine we may function the same for a higher order of...
We have a much more realistic physical possibility - the periodical 4D-Multiverse structure with physically identical sub-universes -just like ourself. These unierses/antiuniverses are placed very densely 1000.000.000.0 universes /1cm - they exist so near to each other and simultaneously. Evidence to this periodical concept are cosmological - observational Dark Energy and Dark Matter discoveries (see "Gribov Multiverse" in Google or the link with the e-Journal publication http://www2.hu-berlin.de/leibniz-sozietaet/journal/archive/13_12/01_gribov.pdf
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisMy periodical (matter/antimatter) waveguided 4D-Multiverse concept is much mote easy and realistic: it looks as a 4D-mica-cryst and elexplains: (see, please the e-Journal published paper in Berlin (Humboldt Univ. http://www2.hu-berlin.de/leibniz-sozietaet/journal/archive/13_12/01_gribov.pdf )
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this(1) the interconnected nature of Dark Energy (DE) and Dark Matter (DM) & the flatness of our Universe/Multiverse & the accelerating expansion & the “bubble” large-scale structure, with the estimated theoretical ratio DE/(DM + Ordinary Matter) ~74%/26%, that is very near to the recently done measurements. The DE&DM, etc data work as evidences for it);
(2) realizes massive-quantized – elementary, hyper-periodical fermions / antifermions, with the string-like properties without singularities; the GR-like black holes also free of singularities;
(3) predicts antigravity in the future antihydrogen (or positronium) -gravity test (preparing in CERN and in the Mills lab -US);
(4) explains the Cooper-like (e-/e+) composite-ghost nature of the total supersymmetry (SUSY), providing zero (superfluid vacuum) energy density and its weightlessness;
(5) predicts natural absence of the hypothetical elementary SUSY sparticles (never detected at CERN);
(6) predicts absence of the “elusive” Higgs bosons, naturally excluded by the holistic waveguided rest-mass creation mechanism (e.g. at CERN in the LEP experiments). These negative data are also revolutionary);
(7) predicts existence of plenty (physically equal, gravitationally interconnected) parallel, dark Universes, with enormous density of hyper-civilizations (placed proximally near 10 -100 light minutes in a R4-distance around via Milky Way galaxy)!
Once upon a time people thought the earth was the center of the universe. Now there are those that think our universe is unique. I don't see any reason to suspect that, unless someone can discover the cause of the big bang, and show why that cause was necessarily unique. Haven't we just modernized our expression of vanity?
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisAssuming the "multiverse" really exists, I am now questioning what contains the multiverse itself; or does the multiverse contain unlimited universes floating among each other in a vast sea of nothing? It would be reasonable to assume that there must be a container for the multiverse just as planets are contained within galaxies and galaxies are conatined within the universe. Furthermore, this leads me to suspect that this theory will lead to a never-ending explanation.. Galaxies are contained within the universe, the universe is contained within the multiverse, the multiverse is contained within blank... And so on.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisLight-years are a measure of distance, not time..
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisOne and the opposite direction is not enough. We look up, left and right - 3-dimensional space.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes perfect sense. The Universe started with a big bang and everything started moving and expanding at high speed. It's been doing this for over 14 billion years so conservative estimates of the size of The Universe are that it is 78 - 99 billion light years across. So the fact we can see only 42 billion light years in a given direction it makes perfect sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisIt makes perfect sense. The Universe started with a big bang and everything started moving and expanding at high speed. It's been doing this for over 14 billion years so conservative estimates of the size of The Universe are that it is 78 - 99 billion light years across. So the fact we can see only 42 billion light years in a given direction it makes perfect sense.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe notion of of branching univeres is just that, a notion. It doesn't even qualify as a scientific theory, because it cannot be tested or verified. There isn't a lick of empirical evidence to support the notion. About all the notion is good for is it provides the basis for some fantasy fiction. Some folks attempt to cling to the notion for no better reason than they resent the alternative: that our universe was created by a Creator God. It's become evident that the universe is made to permit life as we know it; man isn't adapted to the universe, the universe is made for the convenience of man (& perhaps some LGM, Little Green Men, as well, out there somewhere).
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to thisThe notion of multiverse does not qualify as scientific theory, because it cannot be tested or verfied. But as someone said earlier, "speculation is part of the scientific process." At least speculating about the multiverse has provided the basis for some very readable science fiction.
Reply | Report Abuse | Link to this