Scientists believe that they have discovered another Universe

i think this would probably fall into the catagory of type one parallel universe.

Its merely an extension of our own space thats beyond our light horizon. . . .

reply to post by jkrog08

Great post. Thank you for your contributions. I see you are a fan of Michio Kaku also. I actually got to talk to him at a conference a few years ago. It was the second best moment of my career, next to the one where I had lunch with Carl Sagan back in the 1970's at a conference. Carl had just spoken to a group of over 1,000 of us, and after his talk, he was corralled by a few asking questions. I walked up, just as he was finished talking to the others. I started talking to him about LaGrange points. He interrupted me, and asked if I wanted to go to lunch with him. Needless to say, I did. He was so down to earth (no pun intended).
Anyway, forgive me. I regress. My students used to tell me the same thing.

Thanks again for the post.

reply to post by jkrog08

According to the mainstream (and commonly accepted in theoretical physics communities) cosmological and theoretical physics communities are the four different types of "parallel" universes.

I've read your original thread on this, jkrog08. I have also read Max Tegmark's May 2003 Scientific American article on which you based it. You are right that various conceptual 'universes' are discussed by cosmologists. However, these discussions are speculative. The only kind of universe we actually have any evidence for the existence of is the

Level One Universe
These exist in our own space-time and are simply an extension of our own infinite universe....

Actually, these so-called 'level one universes' are just parts of the same universe we live in, parts we humans have no access to because they lie outside the range of our electromagnetism-dependent sensors. Strictly speaking, to call them 'other universes' is to violate the Copernican Principle. They are all the same universe. They were formed in the same Big Bang, arose from the same original singularity.

The 'dark attractor', if it exists, almost certainly occupies a level one universe'--our universe, in fact.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by jkrog08

 

You are right that various conceptual 'universes' are discussed by cosmologists. However, these discussions are speculative. The only kind of universe we actually have any evidence for the existence of is the
Level One Universe

I also value jkrog08's contributions and I find the discussions about different types of other universes fascinating, but they are indeed speculative as Astyanax says. Even the evidence for dark flow is debatable and only one possible interpretation of the evidence but if there's any real evidence for the other 3 types (2,3 and 4) other than mathematical speculation, I've never seen it.

I don't see any reason why some creative mathematicians can't speculate a few more types of universes also, as long as they don't have to prove they really exist, so maybe in a few more years perhaps we can have type 5 and type 6 universes also, which will also be speculative.

It seems like in some scientific fields, the hypotheses are used to setup experiments which prove or disprove the hypotheses and then the results are published if the hypothesis was confirmed. But is it unique to cosmology that we seem to get fed unproven hypotheses like the type 2, 3 and 4 universes? And could this be because it may not even be possible to prove or disprove some of these other types of universes with our current technology?

I have a passionate love of science, and even things which haven't been seen (or detected) or proven yet, like gravity waves, which hopefully can be either proven or disproven. But speculative theories which cannot be proven nor disproven like some alternate universe theories, make me wonder where to draw the line between science and science fiction if there's never any real proof.

I wonder how many universes there may be. If this is only one of several. I go crazy thinking about stuff like this. Just like the beginning of the universe. Where did it all come from?

reply to post by Arbitrageur

But speculative theories which cannot be proven nor disproven like some alternate universe theories, make me wonder where to draw the line between science and science fiction if there's never any real proof.

When Einstein first delved into the theory of relativity, the same was said about him, as was Galileo before him.
Michio Kaku has run into the same criticism for his works on M-theory, and 11 dimensional space. That does not mean that such work should be considered science fiction. Theory is not fiction, it is merely the potential explanation of existence, regardless of what form that existence takes.
No one really knows how far science will take us, but I ask you to go back about 150 years, when "scientists" "speculated that humans could never ride trains that exceeded 60 mph, because "all of the oxygen would be sucked out of the cars", and they would suffocate.

Centuries from now, if humanity does not destroy itself, those novo humans will look back and wonder how WE could be so ignorant.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by Arbitrageur

 

But speculative theories which cannot be proven nor disproven like some alternate universe theories, make me wonder where to draw the line between science and science fiction if there's never any real proof.

When Einstein first delved into the theory of relativity, the same was said about him, as was Galileo before him.

I'm glad you mentioned Einstein because his work was unproven, which I don't have a problem with. And I don't have any problem with the unprovable either in the realm of science fiction, I like that as well as science. What I have a problem with is the unproveable in what we call "science".

For example Einstein said if his theory was right, we should go observe eclipses and that would provide proof if gravity was really bending the light or not as his theory suggested.

So what experiments or observations are proponents of type 2, 3 and 4 universes suggesting we can do or make to either prove or disprove those ideas? What I have read is that perhaps it's not even possible to prove or disprove them, and if so are the topics really within the realm of science if the methods of science (observations and experiments) can't confirm them? (maybe someday we will have new technology to prove or disprove them and then they will seem to me to be more within the realm of science).

They make for great science fiction though, when the actors can enter an alternate universe where everything's almost the same but just slightly different.

But I agree completely we will know far more in several hundred or several thousand years than we know today. However I'm not sure if type 2, 3, or 4 universes are topics we will know more about if we never figure out a way to prove them.

I've followed this thread and while the findings are totally fascinating, I agree with many others saying that "another Universe" bit is way too speculative. The thread is named in a sensationalist way, which is unfortunate. Otherwise, great material.

reply to post by Arbitrageur

So what experiments or observations are proponents of type 2, 3 and 4 universes suggesting we can do or make to either prove or disprove those ideas? What I have read is that perhaps it's not even possible to prove or disprove them, and if so are the topics really within the realm of science if the methods of science (observations and experiments) can't confirm them? (maybe someday we will have new technology to prove or disprove them and then they will seem to me to be more within the realm of science).

That is exactly my point, namely that some day we(future humans) may be able to prove what to us today seems like science fiction.
If 2,000 years ago, someone had posed that man could fly to a moon in a ship, they would probably have been crucified or thrown to the lions. The fact that it may have seemed like "science fiction" (or whatever they called it) does not take away from the fact that it was possible.

reply to post by buddhasystem

I agree with many others saying that "another Universe" bit is way too speculative. The thread is named in a sensationalist way, which is unfortunate.

Actually, if you read the entire link, that is exactly what is said:

Laura Mersini-Houghton of the University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill, thinks the flow is a sign of a neighbouring universe. If the tiny patch of vacuum that inflated to become our universe was quantum entangled with other pieces of vacuum - other universes - they could have exerted a force from beyond the present-day visible horizon

It is not sensationalistic, if that is what is stated in the link. You may not agree with Houghton, but that is what she believes, as do several of her associates.

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
....What I have read is that perhaps it's not even possible to prove or disprove them, and if so are the topics really within the realm of science if the methods of science (observations and experiments) can't confirm them? (maybe someday we will have new technology to prove or disprove them and then they will seem to me to be more within the realm of science).

Well, if science requires that only methods of observations and experiments can prove anything to be true or existent, then we may never really know what's out there beyond our universe (or within in it for that matter). So maybe these topics fall into the category of philosophy. After all some of the most genius scientific minds in human history were also philosophical by nature.

All the complex mathematical equations in the world will never explain the universe for what it is, never. We've got only 5 senses with which we can observe the physical world in a 3D (or 4D) realm. Theories point to a universe with 11 dimensions...11.... how do we even think we stand a chance at explaining the universe and then debate about it as if we have the whole thing figured out and that one theory is more wrong or correct than the other. Wouldn't an infinite space offer an infinite amount of possibilities? We might as well be ants trying to explain the universe.

We're so small compared to this thing that we exist in the realm of invisibility, on just the galactic scale alone, never mind about the universal scale.... yet look what's happening in the world of invisibility..... so what of the things we can't see?

We've tried to break matter down to it's smallest component and still can't find the end...it seems now that matter doesn't actually exist--- it's just vibrating energy.. The universe runs infinitely in both directions!

Someone earlier said that they believe the universe is a spherical bubble of infinite space and that there are other bubbles like it out there... Now I'm a laymen, so bare with me here, but how can we give infinity a shape? How can infinity exist next to infinity? Isn't the universe, "our" universe, supposed to be infinite? Maybe someone can clarify...

I don't claim to have or know the solution to this riddle in the slightest bit. But I do know it's going to take a lot more than just science and math to get the whole picture.

Peace


[edit on 21-11-2009 by PhotonEffect]

Originally posted by Razimus
I doubt another universe would have different physics,

No, there are infinite universes in the Multiverse and eventually a lot of them do have different laws of physics. It's just a matter of picking the right universe out of infinite many universes and every "plausible" scenario must exist in the Multiverse.

[edit on 21-11-2009 by sphinx551]

Originally posted by Arbitrageur
but if there's any real evidence for the other 3 types (2,3 and 4) other than mathematical speculation, I've never seen it.

What about time slips and deja vu?
www.abovetopsecret.com...

[edit on 21-11-2009 by sphinx551]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

Well, if science requires that only methods of observations and experiments can prove anything to be true or existent, then we may never really know what's out there beyond our universe (or within in it for that matter). So maybe these topics fall into the category of philosophy. After all some of the most genius scientific minds in human history were also philosophical by nature.

Actually, there are fantastic examples in history of how brilliant men DID CORRECTLY theorize what later turned out to be proven. Democritus and Leucippus, both ancient Greek philosophers, correctly "theorized" that all matter was made up of atoms, or as they called them, "invisible" particles.

The fact that we cannot currently detect something is not necessarily a barrier to theorizing, what may later become a scientific fact.

we can only hope that in this second universe, it's exactly the same as ours except everyone wears cowboy hats.

reply to post by ProfEmeritus

Nice one, Prof. It's a fact that science is as much a creative endeavour as an exploratory one, and that the best theories are the ones verified after the fact. Relativity is like that, and both its elegance and its seeming infinity of nested implications have the quality of a great work of art. Quantum mechanics, in which theory has mostly followed observation, is inelegant perhaps precisely for this reason.

That was not exactly your point, I know, though it is related. But I think both the anticipatory conjectural leaps made by the likes of Democritus (his atomic theory is the paradigmatic Western example of the kind of predictive insight you mention) have less to them than meets the eye. Think about it like this: we are human beings. Human beings are, in quantum-mechanical terms, measuring instruments or 'observers' of a certain type. We know that reality looks different to different instruments; you could say (though only metaphorically) that the universe shapes itself to the eye that sees it.

Is it then so surprising that our concepts should be later confirmed by observation, when the instrument of observation is also the agent of conception?

If ancient Hindu metaphysics--for example--echoes, or parallels, or has congruences with, say, modern theoretical physics, it does not necessarily mean those starveling sages had some magical way of understanding the fundamentals of reality that was lost to us and which we are now slowly rediscovering. It means only that the human brain apprehends the world in certain ways, and is given to forming concepts that are morphologically similar no matter what the actual subject-matter.

Under it all, reality remains unchanged, though each observer apprehends it differently.

Originally posted by ProfEmeritus
reply to post by PhotonEffect

 

Well, if science requires that only methods of observations and experiments can prove anything to be true or existent, then we may never really know what's out there beyond our universe (or within in it for that matter). So maybe these topics fall into the category of philosophy. After all some of the most genius scientific minds in human history were also philosophical by nature.

Actually, there are fantastic examples in history of how brilliant men DID CORRECTLY theorize what later turned out to be proven. Democritus and Leucippus, both ancient Greek philosophers, correctly "theorized" that all matter was made up of atoms, or as they called them, "invisible" particles.

The fact that we cannot currently detect something is not necessarily a barrier to theorizing, what may later become a scientific fact.

Thanks ProfEmeritus-

I think you've corroborated my point a bit,- Im glad you pointed out the two ancient Greeks, Democritus and Leucippus, who correctly theorized that matter is made of "invisible particles" or atoms... and yes, they were philosophers...not scientists or mathematicians or physicists per se... they were philosophers first- although back then all these subjects were somewhat interwoven. Different schools of thought combined to help establish the big picture-


It's estimated that everything we know about our universe comprises only 1% of our knowledge about it...almost nothing, yet look at how much 1% actually is... and there's still 99% that we don't know about it... things are minds could not comprehend I would imagine...

And now there could be another universe out there!? Sheesh now what...

Hopefully that universe which scientist discovered will be where:
Columbus never came to America in 1492.

or

The Roman Empire has never fallen and there was no "Dark Age".

I would be greatly interested in how much different history would have been if it happened that way.

Lets see... there ia a rather large superstructure of Galaxies ((~1400))
which are moving toward a 'dark' point in space.

A theory is made which offers us the possibility that there is a
Dark Attractor outside this visible Universe either 'pulling' or 'attracting' this cosmic super structure of Galaxies towards itself.

Has anyone seen those weird anomalies where a paper cup with ice cubes in it...is still standing intact After the eye of a category 4 hurricane and the flurry of attending tornados around the Eye had passed over just that picnic table with the cup of ice, a mere 10 minutes before...?

How about; either this theorized Dark Attractor...or the super-structure of Galaxies itself... were eeriely outside the force & unknown physics of when the Universe itself went into a period called 'Inflation'...
a era immediately on the heels of the BigBang when the string energies went hyper light-speed and the Universe instantly became a Billion (or so)Light-Years large in the first 1 Trillionth of a second?

What IF this large super-structure behaved like that singular cup of ice cubes in the Eye-of-the-Hurricane...part of yet independent of this Universe
and the large 1400 Galaxy super-structure is not traveling towards anything.... instead we are the ones receeding away from It.


just pointing out there's other ways of reasoning & logic, not just the models of mechanics the academics & theorists insist on using...


thanks,



[edit on 23-11-2009 by St Udio]

reply to post by PhotonEffect

I think you've corroborated my point a bit,- Im glad you pointed out the two ancient Greeks, Democritus and Leucippus, who correctly theorized that matter is made of "invisible particles" or atoms... and yes, they were philosophers...not scientists or mathematicians or physicists per se... they were philosophers first- although back then all these subjects were somewhat interwoven. Different schools of thought combined to help establish the big picture- It's estimated that everything we know about our universe comprises only 1% of our knowledge about it...almost nothing, yet look at how much 1% actually is... and there's still 99% that we don't know about it... things are minds could not comprehend I would imagine...

You are correct. Pontius Pilate asked "What is truth?". Jesus responded with silence. Perhaps that said more than any words could have said.

Two Thousand years later, we still have no definitive answer.

Science and Philosophy are not as far apart as some would believe. Both involve perceptions of "facts", which in themselves are subject to debate.

We indeed know very little about existence. I dare not even call it the "universe" because we cannot even agree what that means.

I think you understand the situation well, though, my friend. Whether it is 1% we comprehend, or one-millionth of one percent, it is a very small and insignificant parcel of knowledge. Only an arrogant person would claim to understand existence well.