2-Universes - Need help

[scomil39]

The latest issue of Sky and Telescope magazine (December I think) has as its feature article a piece on some of the latest theories on the origin of the universe. In it are discussions of such topics as dark matter and dark energy and also the related topic of string theory. Another recent publication I found on the Wal-Mart newsstand is a special issue of Discover magazine entitled “The Visible Universe”. It also has an article discussing dark matter and dark energy. As many people may or may not already know, these theories seem to at least mathematically indicate the possibility of alternate universes. However, in neither of the two cases mentioned above do they discuss the question about being able to move between or communicate between two universes.<br /><br />My question is: do the mathematics rule out such a proposition? What do these theories indicate about such a question?<br /><br />Would alternate universes occupy the same space but just be imperceptible to each other or would they be separated physically?<br /><br />I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around the concept of two universes. What is a universe? I thought it was the name we have given to everything. <br /><br />Thoughts anybody?<br />

 

[vogon13]

<br /><i>Would alternate universes occupy the same space but just be imperceptible to each other or would they be separated physically? </i><br /><br />Both.<br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

LOL I'd recommend not to do much brain wrapping around that idea if you hold sanity dear<br /><br />IF you could move or even communicate in any fashion between those 'universes', then they would both be just one universe by default, just because of that possibility<br /><br />other universes would have to be by definition unknown and unknowable by any means, else it would be part of this universe we live in<br /><br />more than one 'UNI'verse is plain nonsense and don't be fooled that some folks with titles to their names throw such terms around and get respect from community, part of science community was always intellecutally corrupt in any age and ours is no exception <br />if things will go well, people will one day look back upon our times and see such talk as ridiculous, same as we now see some (for us now) ridiculous beliefs that went on in science centuries ago<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[scomil39]

vanDivX<br /><br />That sounds like a perfectly plausible answer based on logical reasoning. By definition a UNI-verse means ONE. So there can't be TWO UNI-verses. That was just to easy.<br /><br />However, the next question that pops into my head is, can there be more than one diminsion of reality in the universe? I'm not even sure I know what I'm asking here?

 

[scomil39]

"Both"<br /><br />Your kidding right? I know the propensity of Vogons to play around with humans liks a cat playing with a mouse. <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[scepterium]

"I am having a hard time wrapping my brain around the concept of two universes. What is a universe? I thought it was the name we have given to everything."<br /><br />Me:<br /><br />Yes thiat is correct, which is why the theory really holds no water so it is pointless to wrap your brain about it although what their really theorizing is that the universe may have alternate dimensions that are much like our visable universe. Part of the reason why they say "there could be alternate universes than just one" is because it gives more kick then saying "alternative dimensions" I think. It's true that a lot of whacky theories scientists and cosmotologists come up with these days confuse most people and have many contradictions but hopefully that will end someday.<br /><br />

 

[scomil39]

I'm pretty sure that in the Sky & Tel article they use the phrase "alternate universe" or actually "bubble universes" There are some graphics in the magazine that depict cones arising out of some background I suppose represents space and time. Within these cones are depicted little galaxys etc.<br /><br />However, I'm not sure the word universes is the correct word to describe these ideas. It by definition seems to indicate all there is.<br /><br />I believe that in most literature I've come across concerning string theory, the word used is "diminsions"<br />Although, I'm not sure I fully understand what another diminsion would be.<br /><br />Some of these ideas just do not lend themselves to being represented acurately in graphic form on a piece of paper or being thought of outside of a mathematical framework. Therefore, it is probably useless to spend much time trying to imagine it in your mind.<br /><br />However, if these theries do postulate the existence of extra diminsions, then the question of transiting and communicating between them certainly seems to beg to be asked and I'm surprised I havn't seen more speculation on this. But then again I havn't read a great deal on the topic.<br />

 

[docm]

The proper term is "multiverse", and Wikipedia has a good article;<br /><br />http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_%28science%29<br /><br />Cosmologist Max Tegmark classifies types I - IV, only one of which (IV) involves string theory (actually M-theory; M=membrane, which is an extension of string). <br /><br />Multiverses are not only implied by string/M but by some interpretations of quantum mechanics and various theories of cosmic inflation. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"can there be more than one dimension of reality in the universe?"<br />-------<br /><br />space is what it is and the three dimensions are not something physical built into it, the spatial dimensions are our invention, our way of getting handle on space and it is usefull from certain point of view to consider time as fourth dimension, mainly to facilitate certain way of describing reality within the realm of relativity theories and it carries no meaning in ordinary folks' lives for whom time is time and space is space<br /><br />now in mathematics it is usefull to employ n-dimensional abstract mathematical 'space' because it allows one to manipulate 'in tandem' in one algebraic term many variables that are in some ways interrelated as a single unit and the result is great economy in calculation that yields elegant solutions<br /><br />unfortunately due to confusion in many physicists minds the concept of n-dimensions got carried bit by bit into real physical picture until today it is stock and trade of even popular science magazines as well as serious scientific publication and what you gonna do if it doesn't bring any real progress in science, it puts bacon on table of tenured and not tenured scientists and so they will continue spouting it and public likes it because it gives the world mystery flavour and they don't give a hoot about how real world is made up, they want to hear what science fiction tought them when they were brought up<br /><br />to this day there is not one iota of evidence that some hidden extra dimensions exist out there and there is no real benefit to science from those theories that talk about those extra dimensions, IMO that talk about extra dimensions is a cope out if you can't find any real solutions to problem in physics, you start theorizing about extra dimensions as a way to explain what you can't explain otherwise (and which is is found in the end perfectly explainable in terms of normal space time - except that very little is being explained <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

i can accept parallel universes or realms, dimensions, within this one, which is infinite. there are as well levels of consciousness that are universes unto themselves. <br /><br />"2 universes" assumes containment and finiteness of the universes. and i see no such containment to the cosmos. it is beyond the infinite.

 

[scomil39]

docm,<br /><br />Thanks for the link. I have only scanned over the article at this point but I will eventually go back and give a good read. What would we do without good ole Wikapedia - The Free Encyclopedia ! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />vanDivX,<br /><br />I undestand what your saying when it comes to weather or not some of these theories will ever yield any pratical or "usefull" information. Whenever I read one of these articles that thought is always in the back of my mind.<br /><br />But everything starts out as some kind of speculation designed to explain some aspect of nature. These ideas will eventually either be discarded due to a lack of evidense or a lack of a way to proceed or they will be refined to better explain what is being observed. In the mean time no one knows what type of information may be gained and eventually find its way into the pratical world that I live in <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> Therefore its good to allow this kind of thing to proceed. I guess <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br /><br />bonzelite,<br /><br />"there are as well levels of consciousness that are universes unto themselves.<br /><br />I'll have to think about that <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br />

 

[alokmohan]

The existences of other universes is old topic.

 

[bonzelite]

scomil, consider that consciousness is a vast scape. our minds that reside within the <i>consciousness, which is beyond only the mind</i> are as well vast. one can consider the mind as a dimension. as well, we have this mind residing within another consciousness dimension. <br /><br />what is this dimensionality, then? it is not known. it is deeper than the earth's oceans' abyss, and as uncharted as the cosmos. yet occupies no physical space. this is for all purposes a parallel universe unto itself, within the physical cosmos --an inner space of no physical volume yet comprising as much vastness as a continuum of the infinite. the mind inside the consciousness is, then, a realm within a realm; a nested universe. <br /><br />take this, then, to an en masse level of the earth's populations of living organisms; take this down to the cellular level whereby each individual cell, with it's nucleus and mitochondria and DNA ---all communicate with each other as individuals, each cell having it's own level of consciousness. <br /><br />each cell is a universe. contemplate, then, the number of cells that are in existence at any given time, each with a consciousness, and we have quadrillions of universes acting in concert. one human body is comprised of such a network. <br /><br />

 

[scomil39]

So is it possible that our universe is just a "cell" which along with billions of other "cell universes" combine to make up the physical part of an unimaginably vast biological organism who dwells in an even larger unimaginably vast universe and so on and so on?<br /><br />I postulate that everything is part of something larger than itself. For example, the observable universe and everything that exists is part of something larger.

 

[bonzelite]

yes

 

[scomil39]

Is it also possible that we are full of crap ? <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[scomil39]

hello alokmohan,<br /><br />The topic of other universes is currently making a comeback as is evidensed by the latest issue of Sky & Telescope magazine (December) and also a special issue of Discover recently put out call "The Unseen Universe.<br /><br />I'm sure the theoies have been around awhile but I wonder what is driving thier current reimergence in the popular literature.<br /><br />BTW, Does anyone think we will solve the riddle of dark matter / energy? I realize Boreman has a thread on it but I have not had the time to read his entire thread.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />Is it also possible that we are full of crap ? </font><br />yes.

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />BTW, Does anyone think we will solve the riddle of dark matter / energy? I realize Boreman has a thread on it but I have not had the time to read his entire thread.</font><br /><br />to sound official is to call anything unknown "dark" or "black." this is science saying i don't know what is going on.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />to sound official is to call anything unknown "dark" or "black." this is science saying i don't know what is going on.</i><br /><br />I have to disagree somewhat. I would say that they don't know what it is. They do know what is going on by the effect that dark energy has on the accceleration of the universe. And dark matter's concentration around the exteriors, and possibly interiors of galaxies. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

Be careful what you say, it may not suit well with "text-book scientists" of this forums.<br /><br />One thing is obvious to many the physical shape, size, structure, contents of this universe is totally a construct of our own physical attributes (products of our sensory processes).<br /><br />This universe created us by following certain laws (call them laws of physics or nature). <br /><br />If the universe can also use a different set of laws and create something else, then multiverse means two perceptions of the same universe by two different 'entities'. Question is can the universe do it? Can it use different sets of laws?<br /><br />We'll be able to 'understand' entities which are created using the same laws as ours. Understanding other universes (I hate the word 'parallel') depends on the amount of overlapping of their sets of laws and our sets of laws.<br /><br />Just some thoughts.<br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[vandivx]

"BTW, Does anyone think we will solve the riddle of dark matter / energy?"<br />-----------<br /><br />you bet your shoes on it that somebody will solve that riddle (don't think it would be group effort with 20+ signatures under a paper), I even believe that it has been solved already for some years but the solution is being withheld, same as it happened in the past in sciences for various reasons, Newton for example did that on probably more than one ocasion I believe, I think Galieo postponed some ideas of his for posthumous publication (or was it some other astronomer in those days, I am bad historian)<br /><br />obviously the 'dark' riddles would have been solved long ago by your everyday kind of scientists (who typically publish as soon as they get any results) if it was solvable in terms of today's run of the mill physical theories (or their variants) but the thing is those dark riddles are not of that kind (that should be plenty clear now after decades of failed investigation), riddles like that come very sparsely, perhaps once a century (but there is no hard rule on that) and those who solve them come around about as often as that (again nor hard rule of some fate involved)<br /><br />let me see, now we have just a century gone past since Einstein started shining in scientific universe in 1905 and so the time is ripe for another genius if I am not mistaken <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> that is unless he already goes to waste in another universe where we won't know of his existence...<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

<font color="yellow"><br />I have to disagree somewhat. I would say that they don't know what it is. They do know what is going on by the effect that dark energy has on the accceleration of the universe. And dark matter's concentration around the exteriors, and possibly interiors of galaxies.</font><br /><br />you mean the expansion of space-time when you mention acceleration of the universe? if this is what you mean, then space-time is not proven nor necessary to exist as a concept. it is an invention of einstein only; that is all that it is. it does not describe the reality of the cosmos.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />space-time is not proven nor necessary to exist as a concept. it is an invention of einstein only; that is all that it is. it does not describe the reality of the cosmos.</i><br /><br />Ok Bonzelite, from reading your posts, you hate BB (I also have some doubts). Now, you're knocking Einstein. So, in your opinion, what does describe the cosmos better than BB and Einstein? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[bonzelite]

the cosmos is in a constant state of becoming. it is ever evolving and changing. matter cannot be created and was not created. it always existed. spacetime is not a description of reality, and is the highly creative opinion of one person. <br /><br />there is no such "fabric" of a stretching and ever-accelerating spacetime. this implies "spacetime" is "something," a material substance or structure. and it is not. <br /><br />spacetime is an invented term and that is all that it is.