A New Perspective Of Universe

[MickeyMcFarland]

For the earliest model to suggest this the way I have I welcome all to engage with me on this understanding of the cosmos.

Hello everyone,

Please do not dismiss this idea outright; let's discuss it and aim to bring a better understanding of the cosmos to the world! I propose that what we traditionally label as galaxies are not merely galaxies. Instead, each galaxy is a separate universe within a vast multiverse.

I understand the initial inclination to reject this notion, but consider it deeply, and you may find it plausible. When we look at what we call galaxies, we are actually observing other universes in a multiverse matrix, much like seeing ourselves through a funhouse mirror.

The Analogy:

Let's simplify the cosmos by relating it to the conception of a baby from a single egg cell. The singularity that birthed our cosmos can be compared to this initial egg. Just as a fertilized egg begins to split and form more cells, the universe expands and forms new "galaxies," which I suggest are actually separate universes.

Currently, we believe our universe contains about 2 trillion galaxies. Over 13.8 billion years, we've gone from a singularity to 2 trillion galaxies/universes. If we view a billion years as equivalent to a week in this analogy, our cosmic "baby" is about 14 weeks old.

Galaxies/Universes and Cell Division:


In this analogy, just as a baby grows from one cell to 2 trillion cells, galaxies/universes multiply. If 2 trillion galaxies have formed in 13.8 billion years, this suggests an average of 2.8 new galaxies per week. However, when accounting for supernovae, galaxy deaths, and mergers, the actual rate might be closer to 5.6 new galaxies per week.

This process mirrors the rapid cell division in a developing embryo, which later slows as the organism matures. Similarly, galaxy formation was likely rapid initially and has since slowed.

Central Mechanism - The Heart:


At the center of each galaxy (universe) is a supermassive black hole, functioning like a heart that regulates the self-sustaining processes within that universe. This doesn't change existing data but rather offers a new perspective on what we're observing.

Diverse Evolutionary Histories:


Understanding galaxies as separate universes helps explain their diverse evolutionary histories and processes. This perspective allows us to appreciate the wide variety of cosmic phenomena without forcing them into a one-size-fits-all model.

Addressing Fermi's Paradox:


This idea might also shed light on Fermi's Paradox. Just as cells have membranes, universes may have boundaries (like the Oort Cloud) that prevent easy travel between them.

Atomic Scale Analogy:


On a smaller scale, consider the molecules making up a cell as groups of solar systems within a galaxy. Solar systems are the atoms, with stars as nuclei and planets as protons and neutrons. On Earth (a proton), life forms like muons try to understand the vast organism they inhabit, paralleling our quest to comprehend the universe.

Dark Energy and Unified Physics:


This multiverse perspective could also provide insights into the mystery of dark energy. If each galaxy is a separate universe, the observed acceleration of cosmic expansion might be a result of interactions between these universes, influencing each other through forces we do not yet fully understand.

Unifying Relativity and Quantum Physics:


By considering galaxies as individual universes, we might find a framework that unifies general relativity with quantum mechanics. The behavior of each universe (galaxy) could reveal connections between the large-scale structure of space-time and the quantum properties of particles within it.

Conservation of Energy:


In a multiverse model, the principle of conservation of energy can still hold. Energy might be transferred between universes in ways that maintain the overall balance, much like energy conservation within a single universe.

Breaking the Stalemate:


This new perspective could help break the current stalemates in cosmological models. By rethinking galaxies as separate universes, we open new roads for theoretical exploration and empirical validation, potentially leading to breakthroughs in our understanding of the cosmos.

Conclusion:


This analogy aims to illustrate how little we truly understand and to encourage new ways of thinking about the cosmos. Let's explore this idea together and see where it leads.


Thank you.

 

[Gibsense]

Let's simplify the cosmos by relating it to the conception of a baby from a single egg cell. The singularity that birthed our cosmos can be compared to this initial egg. Just as a fertilized egg begins to split and form more cells, the universe expands and forms new "galaxies," which I suggest are actually separate universes.

Why not stick with the word 'Galaxy'? It is only a word change and does not change any analogy you may make.

 

[MickeyMcFarland]

Why not stick with the word 'Galaxy'? It is only a word change and does not change any analogy you may

You aren't wrong I think my reasoning is to try to get the understanding across. Really cause I didn't think about that end of it. Yet I do feel that we have an idea about what a multiverse is and I think we weren't understanding multi galaxy in same terms. If that makes any sense to you?

 

[MickeyMcFarland]

Why not stick with the word 'Galaxy'? It is only a word change and does not change any analogy you may make.

Thank you though that's a good point. May I ask what you thought of the concept of it?

 

[COLGeek]

So, how can each galaxy be its own universe (note not using capital U), if we occupy the same space? Or, is the idea more of a practical notion as there is no technology that would allow us to span galaxies?

 

[MickeyMcFarland]

We don't occupy the same space or the same time as other galaxies. When we observe galaxies, we are seeing light that has traveled for millions or even billions of years to reach us, meaning we see them as they were in the distant past, not as they are now. Similarly, any hypothetical observers in those galaxies would see us as we were millions or billions of years ago.However, we do occupy the same cosmos. Think of it as different regions within a vast multiverse framework where each galaxy is a separate universe with its own unique properties and evolutionary history. The distances and timescales involved are so immense that, practically speaking, each galaxy functions as its own universe.

This perspective aligns well with the multiverse concept. In a multiverse, different "universes" can exist within the same overarching structure, each with its own unique conditions and histories. While we share the same overarching cosmos, the vast distances and time differences mean we can only study and understand other galaxies from a great remove, both spatially and temporally.

This view also highlights the limitations of our current technology and understanding. As we continue to explore and develop new technologies, we may gain better insights into these distant "universes" and their connections within the multiverse framework.

 

[COLGeek]

We don't occupy the same space or the same time as other galaxies. When we observe galaxies, we are seeing light that has traveled for millions or even billions of years to reach us, meaning we see them as they were in the distant past, not as they are now. Similarly, any hypothetical observers in those galaxies would see us as we were millions or billions of years ago.However, we do occupy the same cosmos. Think of it as different regions within a vast multiverse framework where each galaxy is a separate universe with its own unique properties and evolutionary history. The distances and timescales involved are so immense that, practically speaking, each galaxy functions as its own universe.

This perspective aligns well with the multiverse concept. In a multiverse, different "universes" can exist within the same overarching structure, each with its own unique conditions and histories. While we share the same overarching cosmos, the vast distances and time differences mean we can only study and understand other galaxies from a great remove, both spatially and temporally.

This view also highlights the limitations of our current technology and understanding. As we continue to explore and develop new technologies, we may gain better insights into these distant "universes" and their connections within the multiverse framework.

So other than semantics, your definition is based on practical application. Yes?

This last response sounds very AI written, by the way.

 

[Gibsense]

We don't occupy the same space or the same time as other galaxies. When we observe galaxies, we are seeing light that has traveled for millions or even billions of years to reach us, meaning we see them as they were in the distant past, not as they are now. Similarly, any hypothetical observers in those galaxies would see us as we were millions or billions of years ago.However, we do occupy the same cosmos. Think of it as different regions within a vast multiverse framework where each galaxy is a separate universe with its own unique properties and evolutionary history. The distances and timescales involved are so immense that, practically speaking, each galaxy functions as its own universe.

This perspective aligns well with the multiverse concept. In a multiverse, different "universes" can exist within the same overarching structure, each with its own unique conditions and histories. While we share the same overarching cosmos, the vast distances and time differences mean we can only study and understand other galaxies from a great remove, both spatially and temporally.

This view also highlights the limitations of our current technology and understanding. As we continue to explore and develop new technologies, we may gain better insights into these distant "universes" and their connections within the multiverse framework.

Eventually, if some models of the future are correct (all non-gravity-bound regions become isolated such that communication with other regions - galaxies & their cluster sisters- becomes impossible) then in the future your ideas could be justified but for now they are a stretch too far.

 

[MickeyMcFarland]

So other than semantics, your definition is based on practical application. Yes?

This last response sounds very AI written, by the wa

Eventually, if some models of the future are correct (all non-gravity-bound regions become isolated such that communication with other regions - galaxies & their cluster sisters- becomes impossible) then in the future your ideas could be justified but for now they are a stretch too far.

Yes, my definition is based on practical considerations. While current scientific understanding might not fully align with this idea, I see it as practical because the characteristics we associate with the multiverse can be observed in galaxies. Given that we only see galaxies as they were millions or billions of years ago, their present states are unknown. Many could be more advanced than us, similar to us, or desolate at this very moment. Across all possible galaxies, various scenarios could be playing out, much like we expect in a multiverse.

This diversity and independence in the state and development of galaxies reflect the vast possibilities inherent in the multiverse concept. This perspective either negates the need for a separate multiverse or redefines our understanding of the universe and the role of galaxies within it. By viewing each galaxy as a potential independent universe, we acknowledge the complexity and vastness of the cosmos, which aligns with the idea that anything and everything possible is happening somewhere out there.

 

[MickeyMcFarland]

So other than semantics, your definition is based on practical application. Yes?

This last response sounds very AI written, by the way.

As for my responses, I do use AI to check my punctuation and spelling, and to help ensure my points are clear and well-structured. This helps me think through my responses more thoroughly and sometimes sparks additional details. However, I assure you, the ideas and answers are my own, with AI providing support in the structuring and clarity of my communication.

This isn't an issue, is it? I'm committed to transparency, so if necessary, I can provide a full transcript of my process to show that these are my ideas and answers.

 

[COLGeek]

No, not an issue when used as you described. But, when used it is fairly obvious.

 

[billslugg]

The Universe is defined as "all there is". There can only be one of these. There cannot be anything "outside" of it. Any "alternate reality" anyone speaks of exists within our one Universe.

 

[Gibsense]

This diversity and independence in the state and development of galaxies reflect the vast possibilities inherent in the multiverse concept. This perspective either negates the need for a separate multiverse or redefines our understanding of the universe and the role of galaxies within it. By viewing each galaxy as a potential independent universe, we acknowledge the complexity and vastness of the cosmos, which aligns with the idea that anything and everything possible is happening somewhere out there.

Cocievably, but only just, this may be a future reality:
Due to the expansion of the universe, a galaxy finds itself isolated. The central Black Hole eventually absorbs all associated mass. The black hole by a process of quantum fluctuation or reversed time direction transforms into a White Hole thereby starting a new universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Mickey, welcome to the forum, and thank you for the extensive question.

First, I would like your comments on:

Universe and universes - some conformity please.

Many of us are familiar on when it is appropriate to use a capital U or small u. Korzybski (Science and Sanity) clearly teaches that "the map is not the territory". Some find it easier to understand "the menu is not the meal". The words are not the reality they may purport to describe. :)...

forums.space.com

which, I believe, you will find relevant to your question.

I have a couple of points, one critical, and one in which you might find some agreement.

Right at the beginning you state:

I propose that what we traditionally label as galaxies are not merely galaxies. Instead, each galaxy is a separate universe within a vast multiverse.

Now, I am sorry but this is just semantically untenable. This is just playing games with words!
You are saying "let's call galaxies "universes" and call the "Universe" the "Multiverse".
This achieves nothing whatsoever, except confusion.

I think I understand what you are trying to do, but, if so, this is not the way!

If you read the reference above you will see my use of a Flatlander analogy.
This suggests that a being with an understanding of 3 space dimensions (like humans) could understand there being multiple (even billions) of what flatlanders would (each) consider their own (personal or group) universe. The analogy can be widened to consider spacetime, but this is easier.

If you have come across Alfred Korzybski Science and Sanity you will recognise "The Map is not the Territory", otherwise stated as "The Words are not the Reality". This is General Semantics".
You cannot solve the problem just by changing the words. You are not affecting the underlying reality, which you are trying to describe, even just one jot.

I hope you find this useful

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

On reading further, I find:

Understanding galaxies as separate universes helps explain their diverse evolutionary histories and processes. This perspective allows us to appreciate the wide variety of cosmic phenomena without forcing them into a one-size-fits-all model.

This essentially means exactly the same as my flatlander analogy, but without the "wordgames" involving galaxies and universes. Each flatlander (or "universe" of flatlanders) can read what he wishes into "his" own "universe" and even the D+ being (being able to perceive higher dimensions) can see these differences.

Whilst I completely agree with Billslugg, I think that my analogy shows that there can be different perceptions of "universes" according to different viewpoints (literally), all, of course, included in the overall blanket "Universe".

Cat

 

[Gibsense]

Whilst I completely agree with Billslugg, I think that my analogy shows that there can be different perceptions of "universes" according to different viewpoints (literally), all, of course, included in the overall blanket "Universe".

Maybe you need to publish a new word e.g.' Motherverse' ; any ideas anyone?