Is the universe really what it seems?

Status
Not open for further replies.
W

weeman

Guest
How can we be sure that our universe is the only universe? There are theories to multiple universes and parallel universes. Could it be possible that our entire universe exists within a single atom of an entirely larger universe? Maybe thats what exists within each atom of our universe, an entire universe!<br /><br />It's sort of like Men in Black, where a whole universe/galaxy exists withing a marble, and larger creatures, who exist in a larger universe, are simply using us for entertainment. <br /><br />Since we know nothing about what happened before the big bang, it is hard to know for sure if our universe is all that there is. Many physicists say that our universe expands only into itself because the universe is all that there is. I can completely understand this, but this theory has to depend on the fact that our universe really IS all that there is!<br /><br />Are there any studies in present day science, or science a million years from now, that could help prove the fact that our universe is the only universe?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
Q

qso1

Guest
weeman:<br />How can we be sure that our universe is the only universe? There are theories to multiple universes and parallel universes.<br /><br />Me:<br />No serious scientist I know of has ever claimed to be sure that ours is the only Universe. Universes existing inside atoms are certainly possible as far as I'm concerned because we don't have enough evidence to refute them. Bottom line, we cannot be 100% certain.<br /><br />weeman:<br />Since we know nothing about what happened before the big bang, it is hard to know for sure if our universe is all that there is.<br /><br />Me:<br />You bet.<br /><br />weeman:<br />Many physicists say that our universe expands only into itself because the universe is all that there is.<br /><br />Me:<br />Two types of physicist here. One who states it the way you say he/she does in which case, they are not very good physicists. The other will tell you that the Universe we are able to directly observe is the Universe we know. They will add that if there is something beyond in both space and time, they cannot observe it or get any direct evidence for it and are not likely ever to be able to do so. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>
 
W

witgenestone

Guest
What about the last question. How will anyone be able to prove that there are more universes?
 
S

SpeedFreek

Guest
I doubt they will be able to <b> prove </b> it at all. By definition the universe is all we can know about. If we see anything else, it becomes part of our universe!<br /><br />So by definition, multiple universes have to be mutually exclusive. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>
 
K

kyle_baron

Guest
<font color="yellow"><br />How can we be sure that our universe is the only universe? There are theories to multiple universes and parallel universes.</font><br /><br />You have to choose between universes, and dimensions. Multiple dimensions can exist in our universe. Microscopic blackholes created at Cern (hopefully later this year) would prove that multiple dimensions exist. I believe that there is only 1 universe with multiple dimensions. On the other hand, some physicists (Linde) believe that bubble (multiple) universes were created at the BB. Similar to a pot of boiling water. They say that there is no way to come in contact (or prove the existance) with another bubble universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>
 
A

alkalin

Guest
I think the Cern data, even if successful, might show there are fundamental flaws in our thinking in terms of things like dimension. This term relates to math concepts to make reality simple, but dimension can involve so much more at each level that is very little hinted at in physics so far. <br /><br />I feel there are definite other parallel universes, but they cannot be adequately described by the simple math ideas of dimension, because this tends to put them in terms of our world and understanding. They need much more freedom from our limits. So I think of them in terms of energy levels rather than dimensions, but energies that do not readily interact with our material levels.<br /><br />Anyway that’s my four cents worth. Inflation, ya know.<br />
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
weeman,<br /><br />although I do not believe for now in simulated universes theory, and since you look for exotism, I draw your attention to this hypothesis and the arguments from Nick Bostrom below (that you might know already):<br />http://www.simulation-argument.com/simulation.html<br />I am not convinced, for metaphysical reasons but I must admit the rationale is challenging...<br /><br />Also, how science might help us to detect simulation effects:<br />http://www.simulation-argument.com/barrowsim.pdf<br /><br />Best regards.
 
E

emperor_of_localgroup

Guest
There are many reasons but I'll mention only 2 to emphasize why I think reality is not what meets the eyes.<br />1) Our vision-brain system is in total control of our perception of the world. For this reason I have a nagging suspicion there's something else, an alternative reality (truth), alternative universe, or who knows what?<br />2) Right now 'time' is our only non-physical dimension. Question is are there other non-physical dimensions that we are not aware of or we are still incapable of detecting them? There is no reason for ESP people to be delighted by that thought. <br /><br />BTW, I don't want to jump into any bandwagon at this point. I like to stay independent politically and scientifically. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
"How can we be sure that our universe is the only universe?"<br /><br />I turn your question around and ask you what makes you sure that there are other universes<br /><br />have you got some positive evidence on hand to show that that is so? an evidence that we could argue against or accept it? or as is more likely, those other universes are just a figment of your imagination? (and might I add not even very original at that)<br /><br />thing is the onus of proof is on him who makes an assertion, it is you who has to support what you suggest, show what positive evidence you have of those universes, I think all you have is that there are theories out there about other universes... but in time there were theories of anything you can imagine including the black magic that public believed in because they always believed in authorities, that includes boundless faith in todays scientists' theories<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
H

h2ouniverse

Guest
Humm<br />I did not know about Doomsday Argument. Thanks for the info. This looks completely silly to me, for human development is completely non linear, under conscious control. And the mathematical base for this rationale is highly disputable. The simulated universe argument, on the contrary, is more qualitative so more challenging, and quite consistent with computational/configurational views of reality (Universe as a Computer, Information theories,...).<br />Regards
 
M

makuabob

Guest
Those two are very good points.<br /><br />I've kept a book for many years now (SEEING by John Frisby) that explores how the mind/sight union can be --and often, is-- tricked or misled. It includes a comic strip that is read one way ("right-side up") then the other way. Weird!<br /><br />Until recently, time WAS the only accepted (by 'established' science) non-physical dimension. With the work of Martin Tajmar, through a grant from the ESA & the U.S.A.F. Research Office, three years of experiments and painstaking analysis have shown that a non-Newtonian gravitational force exists. Tajmar's experiments made it go one way, then the opposite!<br /><br />Surprising?,... WOW! You bet!! Yet, Burkhard Heim predicted it more than half a century earlier. His unified field theory, driven by his desire to find a space drive that would actually get humans to other star systems, was made public in the mid-1950s (think Star Trek). Since a very intense magnetic field ( />20 Teslas, high even by today's standards) is needed to 'engage' the two additional non-physical dimensions Heim added to unify Einsteinian physics with quantum dynamics, we can't fully check Heim's theory,... yet.<br /><br />Through complex mathematical operations, Heim deduced that two more forms of gravity must exist. One would come to be known as Dark Energy (his term is "Quintessence") which is slightly positive (attractive) out to 15 x 10^7 Light-Years, where it diminishes to zero and is then slightly repulsive beyond that until, at the edge of the universe, it returns to zero.<br /><br />Much more important to us here on earth is that other 'new' form of gravity predicted by Heim's work. By engaging the fifth and sixth dimensions with a very intense magnetic field ( />20 Teslas), virtual electron-positron pairs can be conjured from the vacuum and used to convert photons to "gravitophotons" (Heim's term). This 'messenger' particle comes in two polarities: attractive and repulsive. Line these up in the up-down a
 
W

weeman

Guest
<font color="yellow"> I turn your question around and ask you what makes you sure that there are other universes </font><br /><br />I have no proof or facts. It is just a question that asks of our knowledge of the universe. <br /><br />Many physicists believe in one universe, while many others believe in multiple universes. <br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
W

weeman

Guest
<font color="yellow"> I doubt they will be able to prove it at all. By definition the universe is all we can know about. If we see anything else, it becomes part of our universe! </font><br /><br />I'd say that makes perfect sense Speedfreek <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>
 
V

vandivx

Guest
<font color="orange">I have no proof or facts. It is just a question that asks of our knowledge of the universe.<br /><br />Many physicists believe in one universe, while many others believe in multiple universes. </font><br /><br />we have no 'knowledge' whatsoever of anything that wouldn't be part of 'uni-verse' or in other word part of 'one complete reality' or part of 'all encompasing reality' as the word universe could prehaps be translated<br /><br />how telling that you talk about 'belief' of so called 'scientists', science is not concerened with beliefs but with facts, evidence, proofs etc.<br /><br />that said I can conceive of 'outlying parts of the universe' which are unlike the universe as we know it in our region of it, say our region of universe that we are capable of observing is expanding and it is expanding into some other part(s) of universe that is contracting and in which physical reality is quite different from ours <br /><br />I do not mean there would be different physics in that contracting region that would contradict our physics as we know it but that the laws there are of such kind that we are yet to find out about<br /><br />say we know from our particle accelerators that heavy and shortlived particles exist as counterparts or otherwise for most of the normal particles, like there is muon which is just heavy electron and nobody knows why it should exist at all, I have a theory that those exotic particles can come to the fore and become run-of-the-mill particles in such part of universe in which the space has contracted enough for our ordinary particles to have been replaced by these exotic ones which then are long lived as ours today are (or else the time in such contracting region runs slowly enough so that those short lives change into long lives - it is all relative as they say) <br /><br />in such part of universe where this would happen there would be different physics and very likely (more likely pretty certainly) it wouldn't be possib <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts