[FMcGaffer (OP)]

Are there any mathematics that address the effect neighboring universes may have on our universe...for instance dark matter or energy, could they be the effect of other universes gravitational forces into our universe?

[yor_on]

That's a pretty neat idea. In string theory gravity is about the only thing that can cross a event horizon from the inside, and so it is from all other physics I've seen too.

[Pmb]

Are there any mathematics that address the effect neighboring universes may have on our universe...for instance dark matter or energy, could they be the effect of other universes gravitational forces into our universe?

No.

Consider the two dimensional analogy of our universe. Suppose ours and the other  uiniverse were both closed meaning that they had a finite amount of space to them and the geometry analogous to a sphere. See the figure at the bottom of the following page
http://home.comcast.net/~peter.m.brown/religion/the_word_god.htm

The two spheres cannot be thought of as being close to or far from each other. They merely exist. If one expand then it can't "bump" into the other one. All that happens in each universe occurs on the surface of the sphere, ours on ours and theirs on theirs. So nothing in our universe can interact with anything in the other universe unless a tunnel is created connecting them. When that happens they are no longer two universes but the same universe with a more complicated geometry.

So the answer to your question is no.

[yor_on]

That depend on how you define it I think. If you want it to be closed from all observers then you would be right. If you assume that what we see is something described from constants we should be able to define, then that won't state what this universe 'is', more than it are restricted inside those parameters, from where we are and in what we measure.

And 'gravity' as Branes in string theory, I think is one of those things able to cross universes, if I remember right? Defining it as a particle universe won't solve it either, as I think. There is always one more thing waiting for us  and the puzzle is not laid yet.

[FMcGaffer (OP)]

Thank you I believe your comment is more relevant. It seems the other gentleman's analysis is limiting. I would love to know if any mathematicians have run the numbers on this question. As I would like to see if the forces of gravity could be a contributing factor in our rapid expansion etc.

[Bill S]

[quote = Pmb] Can it be said that the scientist from our universe is the god (lower case is used to respect the God of my religion) of the child universe he created? [/quote]

Surely not, as he/she did not create the false vacuum, but simply caused the universe to develop from pre-existing material.

BTW, does anyone in physics still accept David Deutsch's argument that the double slit experiment provides "proof" of the existence of  other universes, and their influence on ours?

[Bill S]

[quote = Pmb] Can it be said that the scientist from our universe is the god (lower case is used to respect the God of my religion) of the child universe he created?

Surely not, as he/she did not create the false vacuum, but simply caused the universe to develop from pre-existing material.

BTW, does anyone in physics still accept David Deutsch's argument that the double slit experiment provides "proof" of the existence of  other universes, and their influence on ours?

[/quote]

[Bill S]

What happened there? I must have created an extra post. 

[yor_on]

Got to admit that I found the old version, of this web site, to work better. There you could link directly to a post. Still have to find where I can do this in the new version. Also it is rater annoying to find that each time one correct some spelling, the time it takes for it will be set as rather longer than it was from the point of view of me correcting it in 'real time'. A proof of multi verses possibly? That last one also seem to have to do with the amount of words written. But never the less, I still like it, and you can 'take away' a double post by 'Remove' if you like.

[FMcGaffer (OP)]

Leaving any form of god out of the answer, has anyone postulated gravitational influences of "universes" having effects on our universe? It's intriguing for me to consider Lagrange types of areas within our universe caused by competing universes gravitational pull and the rapid expansion being caused by other universes attracting our matter toward themselves.

[yor_on]

You could probably make a pretty good SF on that assumption, the problem being that we leave what we measure for philosophy there. To me a lot of science have a direct connection to it, in philosophy driving ideas, that then hopefully becomes tested in some way. But I don't expect anyone to be able to answer that one.

[syhprum]

I have read somewhere that asymmetries in the CMBR might be due to adjacent "universe's" but I am far from convinced.
I think our universe is surrounded by an impenetrable barrier much like a BH.

[dlorde]

I have read somewhere that asymmetries in the CMBR might be due to adjacent "universe's" but I am far from convinced.
I think our universe is surrounded by an impenetrable barrier much like a BH.

I understand that the latest data from the Planck satellite suggests that those apparent asymmetries were artefacts of the low resolution of previous data.

I'm not sure how our universe can be surrounded by an impenetrable barrier - surely it has no 'outside' from which anything can attempt to penetrate. Unless, of course, you define 'universe' as some subset of a metaverse where the universe subsets are physically adjacent (e.g. saying that whatever is beyond the observable universe is another universe). But in that case, there's no reason to believe there's any barrier - why shouldn't the universe extend smoothly out beyond the observable?

[syhprum]

I seem to have expressed myself rather badly I was trying to say that you can never pass out of the universe because as you say there is no "outside" hence nothing outside can be influencing us, I can almost understand those that invoke the idea of a god as some of these ideas are difficult to comprehend.

[FMcGaffer (OP)]

Not sure what the "SF" acronym means but, the multiverse model should be easy to extrapolate for theoretical physicist. Granted it is ethereal and as such unobservable today. History shows we thought ourselves to be the center of the universe (and now perhaps universes). Mathematics proved our position in the solar system and subsequently in the universe long before we could observe and verify with instruments. I am curious if anyone is pursuing this as I would love to read about the physics involved and how it would be computed.

[Pmb]

History shows we thought ourselves to be the center of the universe (and now perhaps universes).

Actually that was only up to a couple hundred years ago. Now we operate according to the principle of mediocrity which basically states that we should not consider ourselves to be on a special planet circling round a special star that has a special place in a special galaxy.

Mathematics proved our position in the solar system and subsequently in the universe long before we could observe and verify with instruments.

That is quite incorrect. Math can never prove such a thing. Math is merely a language which we use to describe the world around us, i.e. to describe nature. Where did you get the idea that proved our position in the solar system and subsequently in the universe? It's quite wrong.

I am curious if anyone is pursuing this as I would love to read about the physics involved and how it would be computed.

If you're asking for a mathematical proof that we're not the center of the universe then you have the wrong idea. Math can't prove that. Observation and deduction is what proves that. Math only comes in when we want to precisely describe such things.

[dlorde]

Not sure what the "SF" acronym means ...

'Science Fiction' ?

[Pmb]

It's intriguing for me to consider Lagrange types of areas ...

What do you mean by "Lagrange type areas"?  Are you using an anaology to Lagrange points?

[FMcGaffer (OP)]

Pmb
The first rebuttal you have misses my point...I was merely alluding to how we thought we were the center and special universe in the same way we thought we were the center and special world before Copernicus did the math and later Galileo did the observations. Although, I do appreciate you restating the obvious which no one was disputing.
 The point I was trying to make which was lost on you is that mathematical modeling can expose possibilities and enlighten us things to be proven later with observation. Which is quite right.
And in reference to your third comment the question I pose is whether gravitational forces outside our observable universe may have an influence on our universe. I was not asking about us being the center of anything ever.
Finally to reiterate,  I am curious what the "SF" meant and if the accelerated expansion could be due to external forces like other "multiverses/universes" pulling at us. I was hoping mathematical modeling may help explain the phenomenon. We speak the same language and look how misinterpreted my question is to you...it's amazing anything gets done in this world. haha

[Pmb]

Pmb
The first rebuttal you have misses my point...

Please clarify what you meant when you wrote effect neighboring universes may have on our universe....