Multiple Universes!!!
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
05-07-2017, 02:18 PM
Multiple Universes!!!
Everyone's favorite. Lets see if I can have a civil conversation on this site without being chased out by an angry mob.

Let my be clear, much of what is stated here is my opinion on the topic, and not proven or disproven information. Personally, I am a hardcore fan of the multiple universe hypothesis. Everything written or stated on the subject of Multiple Universes is opinion. There has been no universally agreed upon math or hard data that is in any way irrefutable on the subject, and as such, remains opinion and speculation. However, taking a catalog of such speculations and opinions and understanding what is being said in both math and words on the subject is excellent science in the making. I am not going to go into depth in the math (yeah!) because most of it is too complex to reduce to the middle algebra level that most people can understand. For example, when we start discussing 11-dimensional infinite membranes coalescing in an infinite domain to form the 4- dimensional space-time scaffold of a new finite universe, we’re screwed.

In general, I think most physicists ‘believe’ that the Multiple Universe scenario is a likelihood. Just as many scientists believe that the universe is too big for humans to be the only intelligent life, many physicists think on the lines that the formation of our universe is not likely to be a singular event, but that ‘universes’ formed and are forming in numbers, very large numbers. Membrane Theory is a model I find compelling. Membrane Theory suggests that a universe forms whenever two infinite membranes make physical contact. This, in turn, suggests that there are a very large number of universes with varying properties. Other models look at gravitation, dark matter, and so on, and render compelling arguments for a Multiple Universe scenario. Gravitation, for instance, is thought to be a seemingly week force because it is spread out thin throughout the ‘Multiverse,’ leaving its potency in any one universe weaker than the other forces of nature. More recently, dark matter models have rendered compelling arguments that the material in question exists in some alternate universe or universes and leaves only a trace of mass to be detected in our universe.

The fact of the matter is that the mass of the universe that we know is mostly unaccounted for. What we think we know makes up less than 10% of the expectation value of the mass of the universe, which also is a number that is reverse engineered from unexplainable observations. In short, with respect to the mass, size, and number of universe(s) we are clueless and making the whole thing up as we go along. As I mentioned, back in Einstein’s day the Milky Way was the entire cosmos, Andromeda was just a nebula in the Milky Way, a small yet somehow infinite universe, static and eternal. Less than a century later the physical cosmos is 1022 times larger than the Visible Horizon (a trillion, trillion times larger) and quite finite in its age, having a solid beginning (the Big Bang) and the upper limit of the present. Thus, the universe is about a million, trillion, trillion times larger than a century ago, but less than 14 billion years old (nothing compared to infinity). So the answer is yes, we are making this up as we go along.

As for the obvious paradox regarding the size and shape of the Milky Way being the entire universe, less than 200,000 light years across, yet infinite, I turn you to what is known historically as the Shapely-Curtis Debate. This was a highenergy debate between these two men in 1920. Shapely took the Milky Way being the universe approach, and Curtis took the approach that observed spiral (in particular) nebulae were in fact distant galaxies, a word taken from the term ‘Island Universe,’ first coined by 18th century philosopher Kant, who was apparently knowledgeable of astronomical phenomenon. This was all happening live in real time in an auditorium, each man calling expert witnesses and so on over the course of a day of debate. The interesting point to this is that the issue was a debate, not an evaluation of hard data. The hard data would all become apparent within a decade. Nonetheless, as I have stated, history echoes Hubble’s discovery as revolutionary, yet does not point out that Hubble was one among a crowd looking for a route to finding the answer to a prominent question in Physical Cosmology of the era. His redshift data indicated distances that were convincing enough to the scientists of the era, who simply wanted the issue resolved by compelling hard data.

The history books go on about a discovery, such as Hubble’s discovery of redshift data making Andromeda another galaxy… You get the highlights but the details of all of the arguments and counter arguments, countless papers written, and so on, are too much history for history to present. The fact is that the problem of how small the Milky Way is was a loud debate among physicists; its age being infinite was simply a ‘Steady State Theory’ that was long abandoned but remained unresolved. The flurry of ideas was crazy, but unlike today, these scientific issues never made it to the press. Today every little anomaly seen in deep space makes headline news on Yahoo. In the midtwentieth century, most people were oblivious to the flurry of activity in the sciences.


In general, the Physics community accepts the Multiple Universe Theory to be correct and true at least to some degree. The absolute proof of it, however, is not, at least, seemingly evident. However, the apparent accelerating rate of expansion of the Universe may actually be the smoking gun for the Multiple Universe Theory. All one need consider is that our Universe is contained within a larger system whose expansion is decelerating more rapidly than our local universe because of its immense size and age. We will discuss that in a bit more detail later. I think I briefly discussed this in another chapter as well.

The Multiverse concept, then, has several different theories that have been classified by Max Tegmark. All together, these individual speculations on what form another or many other universes might take are grouped together and called the 'Multiverse.' I will present them here as classically categorized and organized by Tegmark. Keep in mind that although many mainstream Physicists across many disciplines accept that there is a Multiverse, a few do not. None of these have presented any ideas 'why not' other than that we currently have no proof; which may be sufficient. In addition, it is certainly unknown which, if any, are correct, and more than one sub classification might, and probably does exist. Again, there may be and probably is a set of systems we have not even conceived of.

Keep in mind the difference between inflation, Big Bang, and Observable Universe. Inflation may be on a scale we cannot comprehend, perhaps infinite (increasing without bound, but already so large it is beyond human comprehension). The Big Bang is limited to the Observable Universe. The Observable Universe is how far light can travel in an expanding system over the 13.6 billion years since the Big Bang, very roughly 47 billion light years in radius. If you are confused that light should only travel 13.6 billion light years in 13.6 billion years, keep in mind that the light is traveling in a system that also is expanding as the light travels – sort of like riding a bike forward on a forward moving train. In addition, Special Relativity limits things to the speed of light where General Relativity does not. Special Relativity says things cannot move faster than light relative to one another. In General Relativity, there is no 'other,' just the Universe itself, thus no such limitation. Alan Guth’s ‘Inflation Model’ actually increases this girth of our cosmos by about 23 orders of magnitude, that’s a trillion, trillion times larger than formerly considered.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 02:38 PM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
You're already banned. Drinking Beverage

Here's a rule of thumb for aspiring trolls, as soon as you start talking about "The Multiverse!" to prove some bizarre pet theory of yours, you'll pretty much be dismissed.

I'll reserve judgement until I see reputable scientists talk about this. Scientists are very careful about the language they use and the claims they make. If such care is not in your posts, then it's pretty much discarded by me.

I can't speak for others on this forum, but when you start making wild claims based on scant evidence, your credibility is falling off of a cliff.

Gods derive their power from post-hoc rationalizations. -The Inquisition

Using the supernatural to explain events in your life is a failure of the intellect to comprehend the world around you. -The Inquisition
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like TheInquisition's post
05-07-2017, 02:41 PM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
And in THIS universe, you're just a memory........




It's like that in all the better ones.........

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes onlinebiker's post
05-07-2017, 02:47 PM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
(05-07-2017 02:38 PM)TheInquisition Wrote:  You're already banned. Drinking Beverage

Here's a rule of thumb for aspiring trolls, as soon as you start talking about "The Multiverse!" to prove some bizarre pet theory of yours, you'll pretty much be dismissed.

I'll reserve judgement until I see reputable scientists talk about this. Scientists are very careful about the language they use and the claims they make. If such care is not in your posts, then it's pretty much discarded by me.

I can't speak for others on this forum, but when you start making wild claims based on scant evidence, your credibility is falling off of a cliff.

QUANTUM MECHANICS

The moment he typed those words the case was settled: woo peddler hiding behind stuff he doesnt understand himself.
Virtual photons coming out of "absolute nothingness" Facepalm

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Deesse23's post
05-07-2017, 04:09 PM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
(05-07-2017 02:18 PM)mmhm1234 Wrote:  Everyone's favorite. Lets see if I can have a civil conversation on this site without being chased out by an angry mob.

Let my be clear, much of what is stated here is my opinion on the topic, and not proven or disproven information. Personally, I am a hardcore fan of the multiple universe hypothesis. Everything written or stated on the subject of Multiple Universes is opinion. There has been no universally agreed upon math or hard data that is in any way irrefutable on the subject, and as such, remains opinion and speculation. However, taking a catalog of such speculations and opinions and understanding what is being said in both math and words on the subject is excellent science in the making. I am not going to go into depth in the math (yeah!) because most of it is too complex to reduce to the middle algebra level that most people can understand. For example, when we start discussing 11-dimensional infinite membranes coalescing in an infinite domain to form the 4- dimensional space-time scaffold of a new finite universe, we’re screwed.

In general, I think most physicists ‘believe’ that the Multiple Universe scenario is a likelihood. Just as many scientists believe that the universe is too big for humans to be the only intelligent life, many physicists think on the lines that the formation of our universe is not likely to be a singular event, but that ‘universes’ formed and are forming in numbers, very large numbers. Membrane Theory is a model I find compelling. Membrane Theory suggests that a universe forms whenever two infinite membranes make physical contact. This, in turn, suggests that there are a very large number of universes with varying properties. Other models look at gravitation, dark matter, and so on, and render compelling arguments for a Multiple Universe scenario. Gravitation, for instance, is thought to be a seemingly week force because it is spread out thin throughout the ‘Multiverse,’ leaving its potency in any one universe weaker than the other forces of nature. More recently, dark matter models have rendered compelling arguments that the material in question exists in some alternate universe or universes and leaves only a trace of mass to be detected in our universe.

The fact of the matter is that the mass of the universe that we know is mostly unaccounted for. What we think we know makes up less than 10% of the expectation value of the mass of the universe, which also is a number that is reverse engineered from unexplainable observations. In short, with respect to the mass, size, and number of universe(s) we are clueless and making the whole thing up as we go along. As I mentioned, back in Einstein’s day the Milky Way was the entire cosmos, Andromeda was just a nebula in the Milky Way, a small yet somehow infinite universe, static and eternal. Less than a century later the physical cosmos is 1022 times larger than the Visible Horizon (a trillion, trillion times larger) and quite finite in its age, having a solid beginning (the Big Bang) and the upper limit of the present. Thus, the universe is about a million, trillion, trillion times larger than a century ago, but less than 14 billion years old (nothing compared to infinity). So the answer is yes, we are making this up as we go along.

As for the obvious paradox regarding the size and shape of the Milky Way being the entire universe, less than 200,000 light years across, yet infinite, I turn you to what is known historically as the Shapely-Curtis Debate. This was a highenergy debate between these two men in 1920. Shapely took the Milky Way being the universe approach, and Curtis took the approach that observed spiral (in particular) nebulae were in fact distant galaxies, a word taken from the term ‘Island Universe,’ first coined by 18th century philosopher Kant, who was apparently knowledgeable of astronomical phenomenon. This was all happening live in real time in an auditorium, each man calling expert witnesses and so on over the course of a day of debate. The interesting point to this is that the issue was a debate, not an evaluation of hard data. The hard data would all become apparent within a decade. Nonetheless, as I have stated, history echoes Hubble’s discovery as revolutionary, yet does not point out that Hubble was one among a crowd looking for a route to finding the answer to a prominent question in Physical Cosmology of the era. His redshift data indicated distances that were convincing enough to the scientists of the era, who simply wanted the issue resolved by compelling hard data.

The history books go on about a discovery, such as Hubble’s discovery of redshift data making Andromeda another galaxy… You get the highlights but the details of all of the arguments and counter arguments, countless papers written, and so on, are too much history for history to present. The fact is that the problem of how small the Milky Way is was a loud debate among physicists; its age being infinite was simply a ‘Steady State Theory’ that was long abandoned but remained unresolved. The flurry of ideas was crazy, but unlike today, these scientific issues never made it to the press. Today every little anomaly seen in deep space makes headline news on Yahoo. In the midtwentieth century, most people were oblivious to the flurry of activity in the sciences.


In general, the Physics community accepts the Multiple Universe Theory to be correct and true at least to some degree. The absolute proof of it, however, is not, at least, seemingly evident. However, the apparent accelerating rate of expansion of the Universe may actually be the smoking gun for the Multiple Universe Theory. All one need consider is that our Universe is contained within a larger system whose expansion is decelerating more rapidly than our local universe because of its immense size and age. We will discuss that in a bit more detail later. I think I briefly discussed this in another chapter as well.

The Multiverse concept, then, has several different theories that have been classified by Max Tegmark. All together, these individual speculations on what form another or many other universes might take are grouped together and called the 'Multiverse.' I will present them here as classically categorized and organized by Tegmark. Keep in mind that although many mainstream Physicists across many disciplines accept that there is a Multiverse, a few do not. None of these have presented any ideas 'why not' other than that we currently have no proof; which may be sufficient. In addition, it is certainly unknown which, if any, are correct, and more than one sub classification might, and probably does exist. Again, there may be and probably is a set of systems we have not even conceived of.

Keep in mind the difference between inflation, Big Bang, and Observable Universe. Inflation may be on a scale we cannot comprehend, perhaps infinite (increasing without bound, but already so large it is beyond human comprehension). The Big Bang is limited to the Observable Universe. The Observable Universe is how far light can travel in an expanding system over the 13.6 billion years since the Big Bang, very roughly 47 billion light years in radius. If you are confused that light should only travel 13.6 billion light years in 13.6 billion years, keep in mind that the light is traveling in a system that also is expanding as the light travels – sort of like riding a bike forward on a forward moving train. In addition, Special Relativity limits things to the speed of light where General Relativity does not. Special Relativity says things cannot move faster than light relative to one another. In General Relativity, there is no 'other,' just the Universe itself, thus no such limitation. Alan Guth’s ‘Inflation Model’ actually increases this girth of our cosmos by about 23 orders of magnitude, that’s a trillion, trillion times larger than formerly considered.

So much random unrelated crap.
Thanks for a perfect example of the *Gish Gallop*.

Insufferable know-it-all.Einstein God has a plan for us. Please stop screwing it up with your prayers.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
05-07-2017, 04:10 PM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
(05-07-2017 02:47 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  QUANTUM MECHANICS

The moment he typed those words the case was settled: woo peddler hiding behind stuff he doesnt understand himself.

Virtual photons coming out of "absolute nothingness" Facepalm
He may or may not understand what he's referencing, and "absolute nothingness" tends to be layspeak for what scientists call vacuum, but it's a real phenomenon, and it's been achieved experimentally.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Dr H's post
06-07-2017, 12:42 AM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
(05-07-2017 04:10 PM)Dr H Wrote:  
(05-07-2017 02:47 PM)Deesse23 Wrote:  QUANTUM MECHANICS

The moment he typed those words the case was settled: woo peddler hiding behind stuff he doesnt understand himself.

Virtual photons coming out of "absolute nothingness" Facepalm
He may or may not understand what he's referencing, and "absolute nothingness" tends to be layspeak for what scientists call vacuum, but it's a real phenomenon, and it's been achieved experimentally.

Yeah, but, this "absolute nothingness" isnt so absolute at all. It has space from which virtual particles are popping out. If he is gonna use such misleading terms including the buzzword "absolute" for something nothing but absolute, the first thing he should have done is define his terms. But he didnt come here to discuss and learn, he came to preach, like so many.

I am wondering anyway why all those creeps with their woo are coming to this atheist ( = not scientist) website to pontificate about science. Why not go to where real scientists are....but i probably already know why.

Ceterum censeo, religionem delendam esse
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
06-07-2017, 03:49 PM
RE: Multiple Universes!!!
(06-07-2017 12:42 AM)Deesse23 Wrote:  Yeah, but, this "absolute nothingness" isnt so absolute at all. It has space from which virtual particles are popping out. If he is gonna use such misleading terms including the buzzword "absolute" for something nothing but absolute, the first thing he should have done is define his terms. But he didnt come here to discuss and learn, he came to preach, like so many.
A hallmark of woo science is that the key terms seldom get specifically defined.
Doing that would eliminate wiggle room, and make it harder to shift goal posts when necessary. Wink

Quote:I am wondering anyway why all those creeps with their woo are coming to this atheist ( = not scientist) website to pontificate about science. Why not go to where real scientists are....but i probably already know why.
Yep. They get shut down even faster on the science websites than they do here.

--
Dr H

"So, I became an anarchist, and all I got was this lousy T-shirt."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Dr H's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: