Beyond the Void: The Evidence of Multiverse is Mounting

I see that many of you are slightly taken aback by the fact that the southern hemispherical void has not been found and you couldnt be more wrong it is there

the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) mapped out a region in the Eridanus Constellation which had cosmic microwave background radiation (CMB) that was cooler than the surrounding area. Such a large, cool region is estimated to be only ~0.2% likely to occur in the primordial CMB.In August 2007, Rudnick, Brown & Williams [5] found a dip in NVSS galaxy number counts in the Cold Spot, suggesting there might be a supervoid there. McEwen et al. [6] independently found the correlation using a wavelet analysis of the entire area of sky covered by the survey, though they did not explicitly advance the supervoid suggestion.

Although large voids are known in the universe, a void would have to be unusually large to explain the cold spot, perhaps 1000 times larger in volume than expected typical voids. It would be 6-10 billion light-years away and nearly one billion light-years across, and would be perhaps even more improbable to occur in the universe than the WMAP cold spot would be in the primordial CMB.

en.wikipedia.org...

It is centered at the galactic coordinate lII = 207.8°, bII = −56.3° (equatorial: α = 03h15m05s, δ = −19d35m02s).

It is in the Southern hemisphere of the Celestial sphere. The anisotropy of the star density in the night sky makes the galactic coordinate system very useful for coordinating surveys, both those which require high densities of stars (at low galactic latitudes) and those which require a low density of stars
In August of 2007 two papers appeared within days of each other on astro-ph. Both have used an extragalactic survey (the NVSS) to demonstrate that the density of radio sources as projected on the sky is anomalously low in the direction towards the Cold Spot as predicted. The first[5] used a wavelet analysis of the entire area of sky covered by the survey, while the second[6] examined the number of sources and smoothed brightness distribution at the position of the Cold Spot alone. arXiv (pronounced archive, as if the X were the Greek letter χ) is an archive for electronic preprints of scientific papers in the fields of physics, mathematics, computer science and quantitative biology which can be accessed via the Internet. ... The NRAO VLA Sky Survey is a radio survey and associated astronomical catalogue which was generated using the Very Large Array (VLA)

www.nationmaster.com...

so it would seem that there has been a corresponding void found below the celestial equator.






[edit on 15-11-2008 by constantwonder]

prevenge:
imagine a latticework of Octahedron shaped universes
all tightly packed together going on forever.

And those "universes" are connected to one another along their edges? Ok. You now have a single three-dimensional universe with a bunch of arbitrary octahedronal borders within it.

or maybe packed into another shape.. which is packed into others.

"Packed into?" How many dimensions of space is this occupying? In what manner are they connected? Are they at all?

wecomeinpeace
the theory that this void is the mark of a parallel universe is testable. The theory stands or falls based on the prediction of a matching void in the "southern hemisphere" of the universe.

The article does state this...but how does it make sense? If two three-dimensiona-universes are adjacent to one another, you would expect all points within one to be "connected" to the corresponding point in the other.

What possible model of multiple universes is there that would predict two patches of "empty space?"

What does "area without matter" have to do with extradimensional space?

Sunsetspawn
the squeezing of our universe by another would cause spacetime to
warp in the opposite direction that it normally does under the influence of mass.

...ok, so we're arbitrarily assuming that these two universes are connected only at the poles? And we're assuming that those connections are connected in such as way as to allow forces to be conveyed between the two universes through in ways that are not possible through the points at which these universes are not connected? And we're assuming that "poles" even exist based purely on the extend of this universe that we happen to be able to see based on the light that is accessible to us? And we're assuming that the connections between these universes exert torsion forces on one another?

Why are we assuming these things to explain a big patch of empty space?

Would that be a collision of universes?
Would that be another big bang?

Do you worry about the space above your keyboard "colliding" with the space below your keyboard?

ezziboo
the "multiverse" theory suggests that other universes may "operate" via totally
exotic physical properties and this area could be one of those multiverses.

Let's reduce this to two dimensions so we can type it:

XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXX XXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXX XX
XXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXX XXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX
XX XXXXXXXXXXXXX
XXXXXXXXXXX XXXX
XXXXXXXXXXXXXXXX

X's are stuff. Blank spaces are not stuff. Do you look at this and conclude that the space in the middle is extradimensional space? Why not? It's a great big patch of no-stuff! Isn't that basically what this article is proposing?

this area could be one of those multiverses.

No.

It may be an area devoid of stuff. It may even be an area with unusual properties. But if it's an observable area of space, within the area of space of our universe, it is not a "different" universe any more than the area of space in the above field of X's is.

To convince me that this area may be in any way extradimensional I'm going to need to at least somebdy claim that it has extradimensional properties. So far, they're not even speculating that it does. They've simply said that it's empty. What does this have to do with extradimensional space?

My suspicion is either that the journalist is badly misreporting this, or the scientists involved used the word "universe" is an extremely metaphorical sense, sort of like saying that "the bottom of the ocean is its own universe."

Frankly, I'd wager it's the center of the universe, the magnetic zero point from which we were scattered in the long distant past...hence the emptiness.

Say it with me now: Electric Universe.

I had a quick look through the previous posts in this topic but I apologise if anyone else has posted something like this already, its a quote of a reply I gave in another topic about this very discovery:

Originally posted by CuriosityStrikes
I heard this might have been a mistake.

SOURCE

Now you see it, now you don't. A giant hole in the cosmos that shocked astrophysicists last year may not exist after all. A re-examination of the area has found that the "void", which supposedly contained far fewer stars and galaxies than expected, could be a statistical artefact.

Original Topic

Access to the source was originaly only available to subscribers but now its for free.

[edit on 15/11/2008 by CuriosityStrikes]

no the article is not saying this space is extra dimensional its saying it may be the imprint of another universe I.E the many worlds theory. The extra dimensional theories out their say that these extra dimensions would exsist inside our universe all around us as if we were floating in higher diemsional space. They would also exsist in other universes aswell...

Its like Michio Kakus Bubbles in a tub explanation where there are many many universes floating inside a higher dimensional space.

so if another soap bubble was nuding up against ours it would bend and warp the space in that area causing the matter near it to move away or slide down the slope of the curved space caused by the nudge creating an area of void in our bubble.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by constantwonder]

Originally posted by constantwonder
no the article is not saying this space is extra dimensional its saying it may be the imprint of another universe I.E the many worlds theory. The extra dimensional theories out their say that these extra dimensions would exsist inside our universe all around us as if we were floating in higher diemsional space. They would also exsist in other universes aswell...

Its like Michio Kakus Bubbles in a tub explanation where there are many many universes floating inside a higher dimensional space.

so if another soap bubble was nuding up against ours it would bend and warp the space in that area causing the matter near it to move away or slide down the slope of the curved space caused by the nudge creating an area of void in our bubble.

[edit on 15-11-2008 by constantwonder]

This is EXACTLY how I imagined it when I was reading the description. It kind of makes scenes when you think about it, but I'm also going to read up on this a little bit. Thanks for the links.

lads clearly this is proof that god exists as we now have a valid place as to where heaven is located!
It makes just about as much sense as saying that this is proof of a multiverse.

The universe is vast and beautiful. I hope we never understand it all. Maybe we occupy the same space. Maybe our universe borders the next. And maybe every single thing that could have happened has happened, and is happening in a parallel universe. If this is hard to understand fear not, for there is probably a universe in which you do.

Originally posted by defcon5

Even you yourself are using a site on the Theory of Evolution in your post.

The referenced website may discuss the subject of evolutionary theory, but that is not pertinent to my selection of it as a reference for the scientific definition of the term "theory". That should be quite clear, as the subject of evolutionary theory never came up in my post. It was simply a website that provided a good summary of the scientific use of the term "theory".

You and Nola, and ostensibly the individuals starring your comments re: the term, seem to be woefully unaware of science's use of this word. Regardless of what you would like to believe, the term "theory" is never used carelessly in official scientific pronouncements. Certainly, theory can be used more loosely in casual scientific discussions, if one were so inclined, but proper science organizations do not apply the term loosely to ideas. Wikipedia sums it up quite well in their explanation of the use of the word:

Even inside the sciences the word theory picks out several different concepts dependent on the context. In casual speech , scientists don't use the term theory in a particularly precise fashion , allowing historical accidents to determine whether a given body of scientific work is called a theory, law, principle or something else. For instance Einstein's relativity is usually called "the theory of relativity" while Newton's theory of gravity often is called "the law of gravity." In this kind of casual use by scientists the word theory can be used flexibly to refer to whatever kind of explanation or prediction is being examined.

Finally, in pedagogical contexts or in official pronouncements by official organizations of scientists one gets a definition like the following:

According to the United States National Academy of Sciences,

"Some scientific explanations are so well established that no new evidence is likely to alter them. The explanation becomes a scientific theory. In everyday language a theory means a hunch or speculation. Not so in science. In science, the word theory refers to a comprehensive explanation of an important feature of nature supported by facts gathered over time. Theories also allow scientists to make predictions about as yet unobserved phenomena.

A scientific theory is a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world, based on a body of facts that have been repeatedly confirmed through observation and experiment. Such fact-supported theories are not "guesses" but reliable accounts of the real world. The theory of biological evolution is more than "just a theory." It is as factual an explanation of the universe as the atomic theory of matter or the germ theory of disease. Our understanding of gravity is still a work in progress. But the phenomenon of gravity, like evolution, is an accepted fact."

The primary advantage enjoyed by this definition is that it firmly marks things termed theories as being well supported by evidence. This would be a disadvantage in interpreting real discourse between scientists who often use the word theory to describe unsupported but intricate hypothesises. However, in an educational or mass media setting it is almost certain that everything of the form "X theory" is an extremely well supported and well tested theory. This causes the theory/non-theory distinction to much more closely follow the distinctions useful for consumers of science (should I believe it or not).

As far as String Theory is concerned, this is absolutely a highly speculative area of science. Within the scientific community, String Theory has numerous detractors--it is not at all comparable to the theories of evolution, gravity, or the like. This is one very famous example of the term "theory" being used loosely. Following the strict scientific definition of "theory", as most international scientific organizations would, String Theory is not actually a theory at all. Wikipedia again clears this one up quite well:

The term theory is regularly stretched to refer to speculation that is currently unverifiable. Examples are string theory and various "theories of everything". In the strict sense, the term theory should only be used when describing a model derived from experimental evidence and is provable (or disprovable). It is considered sufficient for the model to be in principle testable at some undetermined point in the future.

I am not discussing this thread's original subject, or the disputable veracity of evolution--I am only pointing out the severe error in a previous comment to the effect of "a theory is just a guess...take it with a grain of salt". This was absolutely indicative of the kind of willful ignorance that the scientific community has been fighting. When you suggest that the term "theory" means "just a guess", you call into question every single idea that science is based upon--not just the ideas that you don't like or believe. "Theory of Gravity? That's just a guess! In fact, why don't you test it? Go jump off a cliff!" I somehow imagine it would be difficult to find someone to take you up on that offer.
Theories in science are ALWAYS susceptible to being disproven. This is the very nature of science--you can never, never entirely "close the book" on a subject. The idea of science is that things are testable, that information is always coming in, and that one day something may very well appear to turn an official theory, an accepted fact of science, on its head. We may have mountains of evidence to support a theory as being true, but it would be unscientific to say "All right then, it's done. We've solved it. Don't touch it again." This doesn't mean that the idea is certifiably false or that we shouldn't believe it.
I am a bit saddened by the fact that it is even necessary to dispute the ridiculous assertion that the word "theory" in a crime novel (as in "I have a theory! The burglar came in while the maid was sleeping and then...") is remarkably different from a scientific "theory". Scientists don't just sit around with their buddies, spouting out ideas at random and presenting them to the public under the term "theory". This is ridiculous and every one of you should know better.

[edit on 15/11/08 by paperplanes]

reply to post by LordBucket

i thought you made the best points, and in a very easy to understand way i might add. this indeed may be a very intriguing area of space or "no space" or whatever, but it IS testable as to wrether or not it's a different universe, and no results on that. i always thought the universe was everything....how could we have multiple everythings? are they proposing there were multiple big bangs? or reverse big bang happening at the exact moment ours started? i do believe in parallel worlds and such, i think i even did the "impossible" and retained a memory from a parralel existance before, i still have both memories, one true, one not, but both are eral to ma, this causes problems sometimes in my logic.

reply to post by constantwonder


I don't see why this calls for a paradigm shift since the existence of other universes is, historically speaking, inconsequential. It's like saying "I just found out that a supermodel has been living next door for the past ten years - this changes EVERYTHING!" WTF?

I see that a couple of members have posted links to sources that show that the theory of the big hole in the universe may be a a combination of researchers using selective data and coincidence.

These posts seem to have been largely ignored ... ???

Here is another article casting doubt over the "gap"that comes from the same source as the OP.
False alarm

Smith and Huterer claim that by making equally valid (though different) choices regarding the luminosity cut-off and the area of the cold spot to concentrate on, you can make the void disappear. Smith says, you can even find a region with an unusually high number of galaxies within the cold spot with the same degree of statistical significance. Since Rudnick’s paper did acknowledge certain “statistical uncertainties”, this news doesn’t come as a huge surprise for some.

“I think Smith and Huterer have made a good case that there is no void in the radio data at this location,” says WMAP theorist David Spergel of Princeton University.

So what are all your thoughts after you read this?

Originally posted by LordBucket

Sunsetspawn
the squeezing of our universe by another would cause spacetime to
warp in the opposite direction that it normally does under the influence of mass.

...ok, so we're arbitrarily assuming that these two universes are connected only at the poles?

Hmmm... You didn't quote me writing anything about poles, and I didn't write anything about poles anywhere else. My sources don't mention poles either. I can only assume you're talking about Laura Mersini-Houghton's prediction that there should be another void in the opposite hemisphere from our perspective. So, no, nobody's arbitrarily assuming anything about poles. And as for that arbitrary assumption being about hemispheres, since I am neither privy to Mersini-Houghton's data nor observations, I cannot elaborate on her theory. I do have some ideas of my own, but it's late and my ability to concieve multiple spacial dimensions is limited. Also, I don't know the specific multi-dimensional geometry being used in the most recent M-Brane theory.

And we're assuming that those connections are connected in such as way as to allow forces to be conveyed between the two universes through in ways that are not possible through the points at which these universes are not connected?

You don't understand. Nobody said that two universes are connected at specific points. You've come to erroneous conclusions and you are now basing your critique on those conclusions. Here's the most basic video I can find to help clarify the subject.




The theory is that another universe has come close to our universe within the multidimensional hyperspace, there is no specific connection. Also, yes, gravitational forces are theorized to bleed into nearby universes, and perhaps even influences the soup in which the branes float. In fact, Michio Kaku has theorized that dark matter may be gravitational interference from a parallel universe.

I can't seem to get this next video to embed properly (in the preview) so here's a linkwww.youtube.com...

And we're assuming that "poles" even exist based purely on the extend of this universe that we happen to be able to see based on the light that is accessible to us? And we're assuming that the connections between these universes exert torsion forces on one another?

You're on about "poles" again. Please show me where I mention "poles."

And yes, "poles" aside, see my video above for what the leading physisists in the field theorize about gravity influencing parallel dimensions.

Why are we assuming these things to explain a big patch of empty space?

The patch of space simply matches a prediction that Mersini-Houghton made. She has more predictions that should come true IF her theory is correct.

Would that be a collision of universes?
Would that be another big bang?

Do you worry about the space above your keyboard "colliding" with the space below your keyboard?

Do a little looking in the current view on the big bang. Start with my first video. Universes collide = big bang.

How Presumptuous!

What experience of other paralell universes does the doctor base her diagnosis on? This is obvious to her and her alone.

If paralell universes are infinite and impinge upon the periphery of our own then we should see ourselves in an icosahedron of impinging universes, not merely with one lonely neighbor. This does not pass the sniff test. Beware of science in times of financial woe. The reach for grants becomes more and more strained, and pulp fiction becomes an alternative refuge for the disenfranchised.

Originally posted by Lecter
Big bang was the result of a parallel universes crashing with another one. Could this be the location of where it originated? Very interesting....

The location of the big bang is everywhere. The universe was a point at the time of the big bang. So the big bang was everywhere at once, then it started to expand.

This subject has become untenable and difficult. It is spiraling out of control, where I know not, somewhere between complexity and chaos.

Why cannot a void simply be what it is, instead of all this other garbage? Certainly we are making something simple overly complex.

Originally posted by LordBucket

hypothesis; she describes the hole as “… the unmistakable
imprint of another universe beyond the edge of our own“.

There is a large area devoid of matter. Check.
Therefore that area connects to an alternate universe. Huh...what?

How exactly does this make sense?

The huge voids are marks of repulsive forces acting on matter, originating in another universe. As crazy as it may sound, it is probably the truth. The large scale structure of the universe is still unexplained by mainstream astrophysicists.
Wikipedia article about Voids.

Dark matter / dark energy nonsense is going to be solved by admitting another invisible universe exists, and it interacts with us only through gravitation.

www.bigravitytheory.com...

[edit on 2008-11-18 by nablator]

reply to post by nablator


I reviewed the BGT and your void reference. I submitted your BGT for further review.

In the meantime, I am taking the void issue as what it is, a void. Not trying to avoid the issue

We have a slew of theories, mostly covering smaller bits of the puzzle and certainly not all applicable. I think we are still way out from having a GUT or TOE. Not that it cannot be done, I don't believe we have enough knowledge, and no opportunity as of yet to measure our models against models of other intelligent sources.

Originally posted by Sunsetspawn
Here's a little food for thought. If this hypothesis is correct, could this opposite spacetime warping ever reach a critic limit, say, an infinite amount, like how a black hole is a seemingly infinite curviture caused by mass with zero volume? Would that be a collision of universes? Would that be another big bang? Are we about to witness the birth of another universe, and perhaps the death of ours? With such reveresed gravity, the explosion would accelerate outward at the same speed at which matter accelerates inwards towards a singularity. Maybe it will only be a localized big bang, a white hole perhaps? This is all speculation, anyway...

What is shared next is not based on scientific research or observation, it is from a direct experience that sounds pretty crazy, so you are warned in advance.......

Background:
I've been journeying in Awareness layers for well over 30 years, have seen things before they have come about in our reality, and learned a lot about what exists around us, what we are besides the limited perception level of being human, etc, etc.

The experience:
Almost 8 years ago I had a question whether our universe has a boundary, so I decided one night to find out by journeying in higher-awareness. After a hazy patch I found myself quite near what appeared to be a membranous skin of a massive bubble... which "our universe" is encased within.

Because I was not in a physical form I could easily pass through the membrane to the outside. What I saw there was beautiful to me, and it affirmed the spiritual perception of "as above, so below". There were billions of bubbleverses just like ours. And it reminded me that were we to view ourselves at a sub-atomic level we would see something very similar... billions of energetic spheres.

As I watched I saw two bubbleverses touch each other so very lightly, not an impact only a touch, and when they touched a huge amount of energy was released which looked to me like a Big Bang scenario.

From this I understood that there is a Multiverse, and not necessarily does it have to be populated with "Parallel Worlds", which in itself is a misnomer. And, that new bubbleverses are created regularly from the coming together of other bubbleverses, much like how we conceive our children.

See? I told you it would sound weird. So thanks for letting me share.

Be well.

reply to post by Tayesin


fantastic explanation

star