What is the current thinking about there being more than one Universe?

  • 33 Replies
  • 8366 Views

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
What is the current thinking about there being more than one (maybe many) Universes?  Since Universe is an all encompassing meaning, What will we name them?  Does anyone think that the reason for acceleration of expansion of the Universe may be the pull of gravity from other Universes?   Thanks for your comments.  Joe L. Ogan
« Last Edit: 26/11/2009 04:30:30 by chris »

*

Offline wolfekeeper

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1092
    • View Profile
It's difficult to prove, but as far as Quantum Mechanics is concerned, one of the main explanations seems to say that the universe is splitting all the time into sub universes.

They also join again though, provided they do that quickly (and you can see them joining fairly easily). If they're separated for too long then they go their own way, because they're incompatible.

There's no known connection with expansion of the universe though; although there are some guesses.

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
If you regard our universe as the ultimate system in which galaxies and our solar system are subsystems, then I see no reason why it should not be that somewhere out there in the wild blue black yonder, there should not be other similar systems. These other 'universes' may well have an effect on our universe.

Perhaps one day in the next few 1000 billion years these universes will encroach on each other, just as the ripples from a number of stones thrown into a pond would do.

Alternatively, the continued acceleration of the universe may be because it hasn't yet reach its full speed. 13 - 14 billion years is not a long time (by universe standards), so it may not reach its full speed for quite some time to come.

There again, perhaps it will continue to accelerate, after all, there is nothing to stop it accelerating, is there? Or is there???
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Alternatively, the continued acceleration of the universe may be because it hasn't yet reach its full speed. 13 - 14 billion years is not a long time (by universe standards), so it may not reach its full speed for quite some time to come.
I've never heard the idea that the universe might have a 'full speed'. We are talking about the spacial dimensions expanding at a constantly increasing rate here, aren't we?
This suggests that dimensions might have a upper elastic limit. Have we any reason at present to believe they do?

*

Offline Don_1

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 6890
  • A stupid comment for every occasion.
    • View Profile
    • Knight Light Haulage
Alternatively, the continued acceleration of the universe may be because it hasn't yet reach its full speed. 13 - 14 billion years is not a long time (by universe standards), so it may not reach its full speed for quite some time to come.
I've never heard the idea that the universe might have a 'full speed'. We are talking about the spacial dimensions expanding at a constantly increasing rate here, aren't we?
This suggests that dimensions might have a upper elastic limit. Have we any reason at present to believe they do?

Nope, certainly not. It was pure conjecture on my part.
If brains were made of dynamite, I wouldn't have enough to blow my nose.

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
You can define the 'universe' in a couple of different ways.

You can define it as being totality of everything, in which case other universes are not possible because if they exist then they are part of the everything that defines the universe.

On the other hand though, you can define the universe as a subset of a larger superset, in which case other subsets might also exist.  These other subsets may have partial, or no overlap with ours, so there's the possibility of parts of our universe existing in another universe, and visa versa.  Most string theories define our four-dimensional universe as a subset of a higher order dimensional universe.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
Thanks, Lee.  I appreciate the explanation.  Joe L. Ogan

*

Offline variationz

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • 32
    • View Profile
    • Fundamental Theory Of Existence.
More than one Universe or World is impossible and here is the answer...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26911.0

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
More than one Universe or World is impossible and here is the answer...
http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=26911.0
  Try the "Big Rip Theory"  Regards, Joe L. Ogan

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
I beleieve Dr Smolin has made his contentions on this matter clear. He said that there is really essentially only one universe, and time is also essentially local. But its an interpretation but one i liken myself too.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Besides... its a bit of an ad absurdum concerning other universes, when the term universe is really meant to mean it encompasses everything.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
There is a hypothetical Reality Theory. In it there are a couple of postulates from which develop the totality of our observed universe.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Maxwell.

Postulate: Time and space are invariant. Poincare; Lorentz.

Those two postulates alone demand and predict all relativity phenomena, as Poincare and Lorentz demonstrated. All of the predicted phenomena are exactly as is observed. There has never been any observation of any phenomena that would suggest one of the postulates may not be reality.

So the empty space we can sense has two properties; they are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Our sensible universe exists within those two properties of empty space.

There may very well be other properties of empty space that we can not sense. Whole other universes that sense these other properties might exist in the same place and time as our own without interference.

Of course that is speculation, as is the question.
« Last Edit: 27/11/2009 12:52:48 by Vern »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
There is a hypothetical Reality Theory. In it there are a couple of postulates from which develop the totality of our observed universe.

Postulate: The final irreducible constituent of all physical reality is the electromagnetic field. Maxwell.

Postulate: Time and space are invariant. Poincare; Lorentz.

Those two postulates alone demand and predict all relativity phenomena, as Poincare and Lorentz demonstrated. All of the predicted phenomena are exactly as is observed. There has never been any observation of any phenomena that would suggest one of the postulates may not be reality.

So the empty space we can sense has two properties; they are electric permittivity and magnetic permeability. Our sensible universe exists within those two properties of empty space.

There may very well be other properties of empty space that we can not sense. Whole other universes that sense these other properties might exist in the same place and time as our own without interference.

Of course that is speculation, as is the question.

It might be a lot of speculation, but where i have bolded, i tend to agree wholeheartedly.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Farsight

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 396
    • View Profile
What is the current thinking about there being more than one (maybe many) Universes?  Since Universe is an all encompassing meaning..
There's only one universe Joe, just as there's only one everything.

Does anyone think that the reason for acceleration of expansion of the Universe may be the pull of gravity from other Universes?
Not me. The universe exapnds because space has its stress-energy described by a tensor. Stress is like pressure. Space has a pressure. Hence it expands.

*

ScientificBoyZClub

  • Guest
it's string theory or there could be lots of universe. which are not even been detected by Hubble space telescope !!.......
String theory says about existence of multiverse in higher dimensions..
which can not be seen or touched.
which has it own time coordinates.

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
The term 'universe' has become rather ambiguous of late.
Yes, it does mean 'all that there is', but is commonly used to describe our four observable space-time dimensions and all contained within.

Multi-verses are purely conjecture at present, but I think it makes sense to keep the work universe for 'our' space & time and add an extra term - like 'multi-verse' for the next level; proven or not.

Does anyone think that the reason for acceleration of expansion of the Universe may be the pull of gravity from other Universes?
As far as I know, no current M-theory allows gravitational interactions between particles in different universes.

*

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
There seems to be at least two concepts about what other universes mean. To me the universe means all that we can sense with our senses as they are amplified by mechanical means. Other universes would be some parallel existing void filled with things that it can contain.

As soon as we can sense this other universe, to me it becomes part of our own. It seems that String and M would have the other dimensions interact and so would then not be in the class of Other universe as I feel it.

Of course anyone making a theory is free to define Universe as they like.

*

ScientificBoyZClub

  • Guest
There seems to be at least two concepts about what other universes mean. To me the universe means all that we can sense with our senses as they are amplified by mechanical means. Other universes would be some parallel existing void filled with things that it can contain.

As soon as we can sense this other universe, to me it becomes part of our own. It seems that String and M would have the other dimensions interact and so would then not be in the class of Other universe as I feel it.

Of course anyone making a theory is free to define Universe as they like.
how on earth can we find or travel into world of Higher Dimensions ?
we got 12 dimensions.
we know only 4d ??
how physics would solve this problem ??
exploring higher D??

I think we need to USE the gravitons.

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
There seems to be at least two concepts about what other universes mean. To me the universe means all that we can sense with our senses as they are amplified by mechanical means. Other universes would be some parallel existing void filled with things that it can contain.

As soon as we can sense this other universe, to me it becomes part of our own. It seems that String and M would have the other dimensions interact and so would then not be in the class of Other universe as I feel it.

Of course anyone making a theory is free to define Universe as they like.
how on earth can we find or travel into world of Higher Dimensions ?
we got 12 dimensions.
we know only 4d ??
how physics would solve this problem ??
exploring higher D??

I think we need to USE the gravitons.

Yup, gravitons would be start. If we could even observe the small levels in which the dimensions are curled up would also be noval.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline peppercorn

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1466
    • View Profile
    • solar
Of course anyone making a theory is free to define Universe as they like.
Well, to a point!
I've noticed some individuals on this site have a habit of using scientific terms (like Light) to mean just about anything they like!  IMO, this seems dangerous to accept this habit as it then undermines any sensible debate on their ideas.

Talking of which, M-theory & multi-universe theory are completely different concepts, are they not? [I think I got them confused earlier there myself!]

Dimensions ?
we got 12 dimensions.
we know only 4d ??
There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.
« Last Edit: 01/12/2009 16:28:52 by peppercorn »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Of course anyone making a theory is free to define Universe as they like.
Well, to a point!
I've noticed some individuals on this site have a habit of using scientific terms (like Light) to mean just about anything they like!  IMO, this seems dangerous to accept this habit as it then undermines any sensible debate on their ideas.

Talking of which, M-theory & multi-universe theory are completely different concepts, are they not? [I think I got them confused earlier there myself!]

Dimensions ?
we got 12 dimensions.
we know only 4d ??
There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.

Time being a physical direction is not so direct, i must had however.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline LeeE

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 3382
    • View Profile
    • Spatial
There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.

I'm not so sure of that.  Consider two bodies, one that undergoes no acceleration and one that does.  The body that accelerates will experience time dilation.  After a given period of time t for the non-accelerating body, the accelerating body will not have existed for the same length of time i.e. the non-accelerating body with be t old but the accelerating body will be < t old.  If they both occupy the same time dimension then it would seem that after the period t the accelerating object will not yet exist whereas the non-accelerating object will.  In practice of course, both bodies exist simultaneously, regardless of their rate in time i.e. they share the same instant of 'now' even though they're traveling at different rates through time, which in turn suggests that they are at the same point in at least one temporal dimension, even though their own temporal dimensions have diverged.
...And its claws are as big as cups, and for some reason it's got a tremendous fear of stamps! And Mrs Doyle was telling me it's got magnets on its tail, so if you're made out of metal it can attach itself to you! And instead of a mouth it's got four arses!

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
There is only direct evidence for 4 dimensions at present.

I'm not so sure of that.  Consider two bodies, one that undergoes no acceleration and one that does.  The body that accelerates will experience time dilation.  After a given period of time t for the non-accelerating body, the accelerating body will not have existed for the same length of time i.e. the non-accelerating body with be t old but the accelerating body will be < t old.  If they both occupy the same time dimension then it would seem that after the period t the accelerating object will not yet exist whereas the non-accelerating object will.  In practice of course, both bodies exist simultaneously, regardless of their rate in time i.e. they share the same instant of 'now' even though they're traveling at different rates through time, which in turn suggests that they are at the same point in at least one temporal dimension, even though their own temporal dimensions have diverged.

Just to add, the point of ''now'' in time has a special name. It's called asymptotic time.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
asymptotic would mean no symtotic time to me.  Does it have a different meaning in scientific parlance?  Joe L. Ogan

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
asymptotic would mean no symtotic time to me.  Does it have a different meaning in scientific parlance?  Joe L. Ogan

Yes it has a different parlance.

What is the time that every human being on the worldd comes to agreement on? This is the time that is called asymptotic.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
Interesting.  I did not think that one could ever get everyone to agree on anything.  Grin.  Thanks for the definition.  I had never heard the word before.  Joe L. Ogan

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Interesting.  I did not think that one could ever get everyone to agree on anything.  Grin.  Thanks for the definition.  I had never heard the word before.  Joe L. Ogan

Of course we can. It's called syhncronocity.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Then we just come to accept that time we experience is asymptotic... meaning that our time we have come to agree on (lets say) the UK, can be made sense of the time experienced by the US, which is about 7 hours behind us.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
Mr. Scientist, You are surely increasing my vocabulary.  (Syhncronocity)  This is the closest that I could find to the spelling (synchronicity).  Is that it? Thanks.  Joe L. Ogan 
« Last Edit: 01/12/2009 22:01:10 by Joe L. Ogan »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
You're welcome. Anytime.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
You're welcome. Anytime.

I am not sure that you will get the question that I asked above:  The closest that I could find to the spelling was Synchronicity.  Is that the correct spelling of the word that you used?  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
Synchronicity - yes... how did i spell it last time... either way, sorry for the literal mistake.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶

*

Offline Joe L. Ogan

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 476
    • View Profile
I believe that you spelled it as:  syhncronocity.  No problema, we have the correct spelling now.  Thanks, Joe L. Ogan
« Last Edit: 02/12/2009 00:31:40 by Joe L. Ogan »

*

Offline Mr. Scientist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • 1451
  • http://www.facebook.com/#/profile.php?ref=profile&
    • View Profile
    • Time Theory
fine then.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZGcNx8nV8U

''God could not have had much time on His hands when he formed the Planck Lengths.''

 ̿ ̿ ̿ ̿̿'\̵͇̿̿\=(●̪)=/̵͇̿̿/'̿'̿̿̿ ̿ ̿̿ ̿ ̿

٩๏̯͡๏۶