Question Is there multiverse?

[Trevize62]

A hundred years ago, and especially a hundred and fifty years ago and more, our whole modern world might have belonged in some section dedicated to science fiction. Some people never actually worked in the evolution of Computer and Information Technology; never actually lived within the expanding evolutionary / revolutionary dimensions of that seemingly almost incredibly ancient time to this modern time like I did.

Furthermore, "I remember you" should be 'I remind you'. And yet furthermore, you have no place, that I know of, to be reminding me of any such thing. So leave it be. Your replies are getting farther and farther off topic (in particular concerning the multi-dimensionality (the multi-dimensionalities) of multiverse -- they don't have such narrowly confined limits as you would try to imply and force upon people).

First, English is not my mother language and I think an error like this is excusable.
Remains the fact that we cannot assume that a computer simulation can be predictive of the nature of things.
Also, I do not claim that the multiverse does not exist, but only that for now is only a conjecture, that we don't know how could be confirmed or denied, so at the present is not a scientific hypothesis.

 

[Catastrophe]

Do you consider that, when one refers to multiverse, one may hae in mind alternate reaalities?

Cat

 

[Atlan0001]

First, English is not my mother language and I think an error like this is excusable.
Remains the fact that we cannot assume that a computer simulation can be predictive of the nature of things.
Also, I do not claim that the multiverse does not exist, but only that for now is only a conjecture, that we don't know how could be confirmed or denied, so at the present is not a scientific hypothesis.

Now this I accept! And, though I maintain what I said about the multiverse, I back off otherwise. Thank you for your clarification.

 

[Atlan0001]

Do you consider that, when one refers to multiverwe, one may hae in mind alternate reaalities?

Cat

Come on Cat, spell better. Or was it intentional?

But, if you were addressing me, to answer your very good question, YES! I, among and following others, claim such alternation is an intrinsic property of multiverse.

 

[Catastrophe]

Come on Cat, spell better. Or was it intentional?

But, if you were addressing me, to answer your very good question, YES! I, among and following others, claim such alternation is an intrinsic property of multiverse.

Thank you. You noticed a rare one (now edited out).

I do think that multiverse / alternate connection could make sense of many things.

Cat

 

[Trevize62]

Thank you. You noticed a rare one (now edited out).

I do think that multiverse / alternate connection could make sense of many things.

Cat

But this is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that has nothing to do with cosmic inflation except the fact to be equally unsupported.

 

[CometEarth]

Is there a Multiverse?

I was always certain that there are multi(s) in our Universe.

 

[Catastrophe]

Is there a Multiverse?

I was always certain that there are multi(s) in our Universe.

What is your definition of multiverse? Then we may be able to talk. Cat

 

[Trevize62]

What is your definition of multiverse? Then we may be able to talk. Cat

This also is different from inflationary multiverse.

 

[Catastrophe]

This also is different from inflationary multiverse.

OK. What is your definition?

Cat

 

[Trevize62]

OK. What is your definition?

Cat

The only suitable definition is a multiplicity of universes. Different kinds of multiverses are proposed: inflationary, quantistic, brane-universes etc., but there is no evidence that they effectively exist and no suggestions of the possible methods to detect them. These are the reasons why I think this matter is highly speculative.

 

[Catastrophe]

"These are the reasons why I think this matter is highly speculative."

I agree with that. But I prefer:

"My only suitable definition is a multiplicity alternative universes "

Cat

 

[josefnspace]

"It's a perennial sci-fi favorite: other worlds, other universes, other possibilities, right beyond the bounds of the known cosmos or just a flick of a magic device away."

Does this not summarise it well?

Cat

Clarke's Three Laws.

 

[Catastrophe]

From Wiki:

These so-called laws are:

1. When a distinguished but elderly scientist states that something is possible, he is almost certainly right. When he states that something is impossible, he is very probably wrong.
2. The only way of discovering the limits of the possible is to venture a little way past them into the impossible.
3. Any sufficiently advanced technology is indistinguishable from magic.

And the relevance is?

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

My personal opinion is that we have just 1 universe an endless sea of quantum fluctuation.
Infinite numbers of big bangs in every possible stage with lots of areas just not massive enough to become BB's inside the endless fluctuation universe.

And reason for it all ... Empty/void space had potential energy that spawned fluctuation that created permanent particles until it reached an energy balance.

JMO

 

[Trevize62]

The problem is that there is no objective feedback on the existence or non-existence of some form of multiverse. Every claim about this argument is arbitrary., and a discussion on this argument is out of place in a scientific discussion.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

The problem is that there is no objective feedback on the existence or non-existence of some form of multiverse. Every claim about this argument is arbitrary., and a discussion on this argument is out of place in a scientific discussion.

The cosmic microwave background image points to a collision with another BB.
That is speculative proof that at least we have more than 1 BB, and probably a reason for the BB is the collision.

If the forever can make 2 of something it's likely it can make an infinite number of them.

2 BB's doesn't mean we have 2 or more universes.
Could simply be 2 or more BB's in 1 much grander endless universe

 

[Trevize62]

The cosmic microwave background image points to a collision with another BB.
That is speculative proof that at least we have more than 1 BB, and probably a reason for the BB is the collision.

If the forever can make 2 of something it's likely it can make an infinite number of them.

2 BB's doesn't mean we have 2 or more universes.
Could simply be 2 or more BB's in 1 much grander endless universe

"Speculative proof"? A proof must be concrete, not speculative.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"Speculative proof"? A proof must be concrete, not speculative.

I'm not sure concrete proof will ever exist but dents in the microwave are just 1 clue.
Great attracters or dark flow is another.
They are difficult to explain without an external gravity attraction driving them.

Seeing Galaxies older than the BB are another clue.

I tend to think the entire idea of a BB as the universe is wrong.
IMO the universe is endless quantum fluctuation and BB just 1 event in it.
Having quantum fluctuation as the endless universe gives us a reason and start to everything including BB's , BB collisions and all the matter and energy that exists in them simply as an energy balance of fluctuation.
One BB as the entire universe really has no good reason to exist or become a BB.

JMO

 

[Trevize62]

The proofs of Einstein's general relativity theory are concrete, founded on more a century of observations that have confirmed all its predictions, and the same assertion can be made for quantum theory.
Moreover, since there is no way to reach experimentally the energy level at the moment in which BB started, we could never investigate what effectively happened in that circumstance.
For this reason, we'll never know the exact nature of this event, that I agree could have happened more times, representing something as a"transition phase" in the history of the universe, but this is not relevant with the possibility (that remains opened ) that some kinde of multiverse may exist or not.
I also remember you that no galaxy older than Big Bang has been detected, the most ancient ever observed being Gn-z11 , which was born 440 millions year AFTER the Big Bang (observation confirmed in december 2020).

 

[CometEarth]

This also is different from inflationary multiverse.

There is only one universe. We are in the galaxy. There are many galaxies. There are multi galaxies in only one universe of expansion. Like you develop in the womb so do galaxies. The galaxy takes it's space. It couldbe that we will see a wider bigger expansion to the closest and smaller expansion and one day be closer to Jupiter instead of Mars or Venus. Some planets will return and some will take a long back stance.

 

[Catastrophe]

Do you have anything to substantiate this:

"and one day be closer to Jupiter instead of Mars or Venus. Some planets will return and some will take a long back stance."

Cat