Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

reply to post by stirling


You're right on stirling,
just think about how great it is we are all actually discussing these concepts.

Only a short while ago, most people would not consider let alone much going on outside of the solar system, and now a short while later, here we are, quite a number of us, seriously discussing the feasibility of our Universe being just one among many others, and theorising about the structure a Multiverse might take.
I think it's great we do this, i really do.

I think the similarities between structures from the very small to the very large in our universe is amazing, perhaps telling of the true nature of things.

The way i see it is an atom looks similar in structure to planet and moon system. A planet and moon system looks similar to a solar system. A solar system looks similar to a spiral galaxy, which in turn would go on to be similar also. I wouldn't be surprised if or when they discover the Higgs Boson, they'll realise there are even smaller sub particles within the Boson, all looking structurally similar to..the structure of a multiverse perhaps!

That's what i think could be happening on the macro scale with multiverse. Each universe acting as an electron, a moon, a planet, a solar system, or a galaxy would.

We have a nucleus, a planet, a star, the galactic center cluster all looking remarkably similar in structure to each other, albeit on widely different scales of size. Perhaps the multiverse will also contain a tight grouping of universes that are at the multiversal center, much the same as the galactic center, a star or even the nucleus of an atom.

Fascinating thread, thanks OP.

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by HexagonSun

 

Disheartening to think that much of what I studied and learned in school about physics today is pure fiction.

Are you being sarcastic? Can't tell from your post

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to

 

I just dont like when he agree with the NWO. But seems that this will be a necessary evil.

Hey right on, I'm with you on that too... I just can't fathom to join the NWO so we can move on to a Type 1 civilization... lol

if science has found only four (4) places on the observable Universes' outer shell, then the multi-verse cells/foam/bubbles is still in its own infancy.

consider a normal skin cell...it is surrounded by 8 or more other cells that press against its sides,
so too should this universe...unless of course this universe is located on the outer surface (skin) of the macro form that all these numberous universe's combine to make up.

i might go along with the (ancient Indian-Hindi) concept that the whole creation is in the form of a Turtle...

but that our universe may well be only one section of the Turtles shell (do you visualize that ? ... that might be the explaination of only 4 boardering contacts on the outer surface of our universe) just observe a turtles shell matrix of geometric forms, there are usually 5 facets that border the adjacent forms.... trippy

reply to post by imitator


If you think about it there probably is another 11 versions of you and your BRAIN makes only one choice in this universe out of the others.does this make sense,in otherwords the choice you make is determined by alternative versions of you,or a complete reparticleization of you in another universe as part of the string that reverberates between the multiverse and indeed our own universe.You essentially are a record of a type within our universe and another is in the others,predeteremining or rather defining your choice in this one.
Its a bit back to the futurey but could be relevant and might explain how we are conscious in the first place.

reply to post by spikey


This fractal dynamics fascinates me too.

* There is no precise meaning to the term "very irregular ".
* When we say "size" can be no doubt of its concept, since the term can have several meanings (eg "size, " importance-in the sense of value, "" order of arrays in the matrix representation of a group, "" degree "," a vector space, the number of vectors of its base, "an area, the minimum number of coordinates needed to establish unequivocally their points, " etc.).. But in the case of fractals, dimension means strictly "irrational or fractional number that characterizes the geometry of a fractal.. "
* There are many ways that an object can be self-similar. You can try to explain as a kind of fractal "identical twins", where there is equality in the physical resemblance, but their 'personalities'are different. "This occurs when the curves are initially fed by the same data, but at some point, a shift in the values of the data, for example, when we observe two fractals on a scale of 1:1, these are exactly the same appearance, but if we look at a 1:1,000,000 scale, the figures observed are quite different.
* Not everyone has fractal repetition, depending on the data entered (especially in the time domain) does not take into smaller scales look the same, showing distortion of the figure.

reply to post by St Udio


Ahh yes, but what if the universes in the multiverse are actually acting like neurons as opposed to electrons..picturing a human brain cell, there are only normally 3 or 4 connection points for synapses to connect.

Maybe we are seeing not 4 'bruises' from collisions, but instead are seeing the attachment points for the multiversally macro scaled version of a synapse? Maybe this is how universes within a multiverse 'communicate' with one another.

Maybe a multiverse is a part of a macro mind, a multiversal conciousness.

reply to post by HexagonSun


New discoveries in Physics since 1980

1980: Frederick Reines, Evidence of Neutrino oscillations
1980: DESY, measurement of gluon spin
1980: Alan Guth inflationary early universe
1981: Witten, Schoen, Yau positive energy theorem in general relativity
1981: Green and Schwarz, Type I superstring theory
1981: Binnig, Rohrer scanning tunneling electron microscope
1981: Witten and Alvarez-Gaume Difficulty of getting standard model from 11-D supergravity because of chiral modes
1981: Alexander Polyakov Path integral quantisation of strings, conformal symmetry and critical dimension
1981: Linde, Albrecht, Steinhardt new inflationary universe
1982: Green and Schwarz, Type II superstring theory
1982: Alain Aspect an experiment to confirm non-local aspects of quantum theory
1982: Darnstadt element 109, meitnerium
1982: limits on proton lifetime rule out many Grand Unified Theories
1983: Carlo Rubbia et al, W and Z bosons at CERN
1983: Andrei Linde chaotic inflationary universe
1984: Green and Schwarz, anomaly cancellations in superstring theory
1984: Darnstadt element 108, hassium
1985: Gross, Harvey, Martinec, Rohm, heterotic string theory
1985: David Deutsch, theory of quantum computing
1986: Bednorz and Mueller, high temperature superconductivity
1986: Abhay Ashtekar, new variables for canonical quantum gravity
1986: Geller, Huchra, Lapparent, bubble structure of galaxy distributions
1987: , supernova 1987a
1987: Masatoshi Koshibas, detection of neutrinos from a supernova
1988: Atiyah, Witten, topological quantum field theories
1988: Smolin and Rovelli, loop representation of quantum gravity
1989: SLAC, evidence that number of light neutrinos is 3 from Z width
1989: Tim Berners-Lee, The World Wide Web
1989: Bennett and Brassard, first quantum computer
1990: John Mather, black body spectrum of cosmic background radiation from COBE
1991: CERN, confirmation that number of light neutrinos is 3
1991: Connes, Lott, particle models from non-commutative geometry
1991: BATSE, Gamma Ray Burst distribution is isotropic
1992: Mather and Smoot, angular fluctuations in cosmic background radiation with COBE
1993: Aspinwall, Morrison, Greene, Topology change in string theory
1994: Philip Gibbs, event-symmetric space-time
1994: Fermilab, Top Quark
1994: 't Hooft, Susskind Holographic principle
1994: Seiberg and Witten, Electro-magnetic duality in supersymmetric gauge theory
1994: Hubble Space Telescope, Evidence for black hole at the centre of galaxy M87
1994: Peter Shor, factorisation algorithm for a quantum computer
1994: Hull, Townsend, Unity of String Dualities
1994: Darnstadt element 110

Edward Witten
1995: Witten and Townsend, M-Theory
1995: Joseph Polchinski, D-Branes
1995: Cornell, Wieman, Anderson Bose-Einstein condensate of atomic gas
1995: CERN, Creation of Anti-hydrogen atoms
1995: Mayor and Queloz, first extra-solar planet orbiting an ordinary star
1995: Darnstadt element 111
1996: Strominger, Vafa, D-branes and black-holes
1996: Cumrun Vafa, F-theory
1996: Steven Lamoreaux, measurement of Casimir force
1996: Darnstadt element 112
1996: Banks, Fischler, Shenker, Susskind, M-theory as a matrix model
1997: BepoSAX, location of Gamma Ray Bursts demonstrates that they are extragalactic
1997: Juan Maldacena, AdS/CFT duality
1997: SLAC, photon-photon scattering produces electron-positron pairs
1998: Perlmutter, Garnavich et al, supernovae observations suggest that the expansion of the universe is accelerating
1998: Super-Kamiokande, neutrino oscillation demonstrated
1998: CERN, Fermilab, time reversal assymetry observed for K meson decay
2000: Fermilab, tau neutrino observed

Not the classical i mean.

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by stirling

 

I think the similarities between structures from the very small to the very large in our universe is amazing, perhaps telling of the true nature of things.

The way i see it is an atom looks similar in structure to planet and moon system. A planet and moon system looks similar to a solar system. A solar system looks similar to a spiral galaxy, which in turn would go on to be similar also. I wouldn't be surprised if or when they discover the Higgs Boson, they'll realise there are even smaller sub particles within the Boson, all looking structurally similar to..the structure of a multiverse perhaps!

That's what i think could be happening on the macro scale with multiverse. Each universe acting as an electron, a moon, a planet, a solar system, or a galaxy would.

We have a nucleus, a planet, a star, the galactic center cluster all looking remarkably similar in structure to each other, albeit on widely different scales of size. Perhaps the multiverse will also contain a tight grouping of universes that are at the multiversal center, much the same as the galactic center, a star or even the nucleus of an atom.

edit on 15/12/2010 by spikey because: typo

I like the way you explained your vision of it. I definitely think there is a fractal nature to everything, more than we already know. But we are always left with the question of whether or not it just goes on forever.

reply to post by RUSSO


Yeah the frractalization of the universe or multiverse is definetly a valid observation and as you know has been around for quite some time and seems to figure in why the multiverse is being taken seriously,from quantum to standard general,to multiverse to...well the sky`s the limit.Fractals are the model that is opening the door I think.

reply to post by gringoboy


Agreed. Fractals are pretty amazing.


Fundamental Physics Laws Change Depending on When and Where You Are, New Study Says

Physics in another universe coulb be totally different.

www.popsci.com...

Originally posted by spikey
reply to post by St Udio

 

Ahh yes, but what if the universes in the multiverse are actually acting like neurons as opposed to electrons..picturing a human brain cell, there are only normally 3 or 4 connection points for synapses to connect.

Maybe we are seeing not 4 'bruises' from collisions, but instead are seeing the attachment points for the multiversally macro scaled version of a synapse? Maybe this is how universes within a multiverse 'communicate' with one another.

Maybe a multiverse is a part of a macro mind, a multiversal conciousness.

I've thought about this too, whether or not the universes touch or not. There's so many possibilities. If they do touch, I wonder if they aren't connected in some way constantly transferring matter or dark matter or who knows. Like an intake. Maybe black holes are just the drains.

Everything that exists is fractal-like. Down to the microscopic plane, and all the way up. The same laws of physics apply, and there are many many similarities in shapes and function. Why would you think that it stops at the universal level? (they're going to have to rename the 'universe' eventually...) Our universe might be an electron flying around a nucleus of an atom in a much bigger universe, for all we know.

reply to post by RUSSO


This then means time dilation changes and gravity changes can occur then according to this paper and puts a new slant on what we concieve as real,imagine waking up like dr who ,how freaky.time changing because it does`nt exist .

reply to post by T0by

You have watched too much Sci-Fi if you truly beleive it. Time is a constant, you cannot change it, bend it, have an alternative of it. Every formula has constants, our universe is the most complex of formulas. Sun's are constants, inhabitable planets are constants, few habitable ones, moons, stars, light, dark....all constants.
That's logic, anything else is dreams, stories and unprovable theories.

Are there more universes? Sure, that's plausible.

Or possibly, like Dr. Kaku said about umbilical cords to baby universes sprung from ours, maybe black holes are part of those umbilical cords?

reply to post by SpaceJ


Exactly what i think too.

I've been thinking about Prof Kaku's version of the parallel universe
theory. His version basically says that "baby" universes form on the
surface of our universe under black-hole scale concentrations of mass,
and eventually they tear off completely, severing the "umbilical cord"
that is a black hole in a parent universe, feeding a a white hole in the
fledgling universe, which is simply spewing out matter and energy (this
is no different from them big bang our universe experienced) So, for
every black hole forms in our universe, it spawns a big bang that grows
into a child universe... matter and energy keep getting funneled into
this black hole, and out into this parallel universe big-bang event and
eventually when it's had enough it disconnects itself.

This makes all sense to me.

Stuff like this makes me cry.

How many times have I lived before but am not aware of any of them.

reply to post by CanuckCoder


Time is not constant if you came anywhere near a black hole you would realize time is not constant,it is constant to your senses but you just need to look at the big players in the universe and it becomes evident Time is not constant,things speed up ,infact as Kaku explained the universe IS SPEEDING UP

reply to post by SpaceJ


Yeah, i know.

Cheers for the comments too.

I think we humans have trouble with working out whether it ever ends or not, is due to our having trouble picturing exactly what limitless actually is.

Infinity is a strange concept, it's difficult to grasp isn't it.

That not a failing in us, it is probably just due to our limited perception of scale caused by being effectively marooned here on Earth or in our star system. If we travelled further and faster into the cosmos, i feel we'd be more equipped through directly experiencing hugely greater scale, to better visualise and understand a physical reality that is literally without limit.

Maybe it doesn't go on forever, maybe it goes on long enough to create a specific form or structure, maybe it's the Turtle that was mentioned just now in another post, maybe for all the religious folks it's the mind or even the whole being of god. Maybe it's a person typing away at a keyboard...an unimaginably gigantic keyboard of course!