What do u all think? one thought tells me to think there is a multitude of them but not prospering at the same time but merely one at a time.
You can get rid of multiple universes easily by simply defining the universe as everything. Are there other dimensions besides the 4 we're aware of? Yes, most likely... string theory for example relies on a lot of other dimensions existing and interacting with our own.
ahhh...because if the universe is an infinite amount of space then it is, like u say is everything... so that would meen then that if the big bang happens every so many years then still it is happening in the same infinite space which is this "one" universe. hmmmm......good point i see it clearer now thx for the input.
Try also the idea that what we can observe and call the known universe, probably caused by a big bang, is just a bubble, and just one of an infinite number of such bubbles making up the real much larger universe than is normaly considered.
ahh but before the big bang there was the universe and in it was hydrogen gases among other gases that some how became volitale up to the point of explosion. (well thats what astronomers claim that is) this is of course if i see your point correctly as the big bang made the universe. is this right?
No that's not right. Think of what the astronomers say about what they can observe of the known universe including the big bang, as just a bubble. Now consider an infinite number of bubbles, each with its own big bang, all occuring at differrent times and concurrently throughout the universe. Think big. Cris
Cris, i understand your thinking, so what would u call these bubbles? ....i hope u arent implying that i think small. this is the second time u seem to have belittled me. (1st time u told me i'm mentaly unstable) perhaps u dont intend to and i can understand that, we are all human and one humanistic trait we all have is offending people without knowing it. Well time for bed, talk to u all tomarow. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
well i read your reply on the other thread about my mental stability and was glad to see u were joking and can only assume that u are not implying on purpose that i think small. (i tend to really pick up on tiny judgments and disrespect of others towards me often which unfortunatly leaves me with very fiew friends, but i guess i would rather have a true friend than a false one. of course i must remember that most people are probably unaware of there offensive actions, and i try hard to remember that.) Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Aware, Yes maybe you are slightly too sensitive. But no the 'Think Big' suggestion was not a criticism but was intended as a helpful comment. Many people while they understand the concept of the big bang have difficulty going to the next order of magnitude and imagining many of them. From your post I perceived you hadn't quite made that jump yet so my 'think big' statement was a clue to help you. Try this link as well - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html The first paragraph states my perspective. The rest of the article goes deep rather quickly. Alan Guth is a professor at MIT. Take care and have fun Cris
interesting reading thx for the link. if there is multiple "big bangs" why do u think we haven't seen there cosmic radiation, like the one astronomers study right now? is it because those wakes just havent come into viewing yet? did i miss this in the reading or do they explain this in the inflation theory?
Distance. The article mentions that collisions between bubbles would be rare. It seems likely that perhaps any radiation just hasn't had time reach us, or if it has it is going to be extremly faint.
I still go for the Single universe. And to me, the bubblegum universe is not very attractive either. Ocham where is your razor?
Merlijn, But the multiple bubbles theory also only assumes a single universe. What you seem to be saying is you prefer a single big bang. But then is that really the simpler solution (re Occams razor)? You are still faced with how a single big bang was started, and from where. An infinite universe where the big bang is not unique is elegantly simple and consistent with the entire history of man’s discoveries of the universe. And by that I mean that man has consistently taken the supremist arrogant perspective that he is unique and must be at the center of the universe. Remember that at one time it was felt that the Earth was at the center and the sun, moon, and stars revolved around the earth. After that it was the sun at the center. As each scientific discovery enhances our ability to probe further, we consistently see we are not unique. The assumption that there is only one big bang is again demonstrating man’s arrogance. Simply on the basis of our perfect 100% record of always assuming we are unique and then discovering we are not, to me indicates that, in the absence of evidence that multiple big bangs is the safer bet. Cris
ignorant rather than arrogant I was expecting a reply like this... Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! "and consistent with the entire history of man’s discoveries of the universe." that's very obvious. But does that make it all true? not necessarily... but you are right it is something to consider. (haven't we had this exact same conversation a while ago? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) Anyway: if there are multiple bigbangs but the distance between them is so large that there is no interaction between the different universes, there is no reason why we should be worried about them: they are not part of our world. hence occam's razor. BUT the multiple universe theory by David Deutsch is not at all concerned with such cosmological events. On the contrary, it is about quantum phenomena. it is a way to explain the somewhat srange behaviour of our universe at quantum level. BTW why do you call the "me in the center" view so arrogant? I think it is just natural. I have only my own eyes to see with. it is just reasonable that I initially assume that I myself am the centre of the universe. Only after some pondering I realise that others have their own viewpoint, after which I realise that it's the earth, not me that is the center. After that I see that not the earth, but the sun .... etc. It has nothing to do with arrogance- it's just that scientific discovery is a special case of growing personal insight. And this personal quest is also inside out. Remeber how your parents used to be Gods to you when you were a small child? Now you realise they may be, on a cosmic scale, not that significant. I think that it's ignorant rather than arrogant. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! byebye Merlijn
If you're saying there's a distance between big bangs, you're saying there's a larger super-universe there containing each other universe. (You can't have distance unless there's non-empty space.) So you're left having to explain the origin of the super-universe. This would be impossible from our perspective, correct? Simply another brick wall for knowledge?
Hoth, There has been a similar discussion before -and I was referring to itwhen I wrote :" (haven't we had this exact same conversation a while ago? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!) " here is that thread I guess one could argue that there is no beginning (in time) and that there is no end (in size) of the "MEGAuniverse". Or that there is noexplanation, whatever.... it doesn't make sense to me, so I can't tell. :-D have fun
Hoth, If you take a big bang and the matter and energy that results, and then call that a universe, then yes in this model there is a super-universe that contains many such big bang universes. But the term ‘universe’ means everything so we need to say ‘universe’ instead of ‘super-universe’ and something like ‘bubble’ to describe what is currently being referred to as the known ‘universe’ that began with a big bang. I think it is just a matter of terminology. Why? And why are you assuming that space between big bangs has to be empty anyway? No. An origin would require its own origin etc., etc., that would be an infinite series. Every way you consider this there must be an infinite object. Infinity simply means no boundaries, no beginning and no end. All we are saying here is that the universe is infinite, i.e. it has no boundaries. Cris
Hi Merlijn, Similar, but I hadn’t seen Alan Guth’s work at that time. No not quite, Guth merely states that collisions would be rare, bubbles might well collide. But being worried is not the issue. I was arguing more from the perspective that we should not assume that our observed big bang is the only one. Do you mean parallel universes? And the single photon with diffraction grating interference demonstration? Or do you mean something else? But parallel universes would not be inconsistent with a multiple-bubble universe; both could coexist. Yes fair enough. Religion in the past tended to set the stage for what people were meant to think and gave explanations for origins, and their perspective is that mankind is special and the center of everything. That is arrogant because man seems to be no more than a tiny speck in an unimaginably huge universe. So sorry I need to put the religious issues aside sometimes. After some thought I’d prefer to say man “lacks evidence for further conclusions”, rather than say “ignorant”. That’s only slightly different, but more precise I think. Cris
Cris, Yes I do mean parallel universes, but David Deutch himslef uses the term multiverse (short for multiple universes), so I thought I should do the same. Of course the two (bubblegum and parallels) are not at all inconsistent. But both could very well be interpreted as begging for multiple big-bangs (even thought the parallel universes may all be facets of a single omniverse created in a single BigBang.) My "why worry"-point was to say: can we call phenomena that in no way influence 'our' ME-bubble (Matter-Energy) part of 'our' universe? -BTW There is only a thin line between this subject and the subject of Karma, 'astral'-bodies and the like... if you get what I am getting at. Erm now you lost me. Did you or did you not get that my position is that religion is not to blame for the "me in the center" view of the world? Merlijn P.S. I have to admit, I am not familiar with Alan Guth's work.
Merlijn, Sorry, I was being too cryptic. I was trying to explain that it was me that was blaming religion for the 'me' in the center scenario. Or IOW I was agreeing with your position. As for Karma and astral-bodies: No I wouldn't support that view. While I can see that the multi-bubble universe could be simply an extension of known phenomena that we largely understand, multiverses represent quite a differrent claim that would be difficult to support, much like a claim for the supernatural. Alan Guth and infinite big bangs - http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/guth_1.html Cris
