Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

reply to post by gringoboy


But to what the universe IS SPEEDING UP is my next logical question...

A new singularity?

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
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.

I don't think there is any need for renaming; much like the atom, the 'indivisible' unit from which everything is made, was not renamed when it was found that this was not the case.

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by SpaceJ

 

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)

This makes all sense to me.

edit on 15-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

Yes, it's the idea that makes the most sense to me. I need a way to understand black holes, and so far that is the best. I've seen that some people dislike Kaku's work, but I don't really understand why that is. His ideas and other similar theories are the only ones I've ever heard that made close to total sense, as close as you can get. I think it's a beautiful explanation. It is very elegant as they say, which is kind of funny when you think of the amount of chaos involved in the process. The concept of black hole umbilical cords is pretty bizarre though, like when trying to explain it to someone not familiar with the idea, they just think you're nuts.

Wonderful thread. But a discovery like that does not at all surprise me.

I totally agree with Thomas Campbell that our existence is within a virtual environment.
This environment does ONLY consist of information and consciousness. The information is the data, the consciousness is the computer that processes (read / write / modify) the data. Out physical world is nothing else than a rendered EXPERIENCE of some of the data that exists.
However this virtual environment is so incredible complex and vast it just blows everyone's minds.

The physical reality that we currently explore with physics is not at all everything that's "out there". The idea of a virtual reality however unifies normal and paranormal observations and for me is the only reasonable explanation for EVERYTHING.

I made a wonderful little thread about reality and stuff... but just almost no one was watching?

Maybe you could give it a look here:

www.abovetopsecret.com...



Thank you.

See you in our next reality soon... 2012 is ahead...

reply to post by RUSSO


Spot on,if other universes are leaking gravity into ours then eventually common sense would determine a new singularity as the gravity and other forces converge to a equaling of the forces,recreating the M-brane Big bang.
this is not fiction,I mean was it 2008 that the Lhc collected a particle weighing massively more than it should thus indicating it has came from another universe which has`nt escaped the scientists observations

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Not sure if this has been answered, but "everything", "everywhere" really only applies to our Big Bang. If a separate Big Bang occurred, it would be considered a separate Universe.

Think of it in the same was as a galaxy. All galaxies are massive and composed of essentially the same material, but are created by themselves and separated by vast distances.

reply to post by tyranny22


Considering our own bodies function because of bangs so to speak with our heart,it does`nt take much to envisage universes as hearts beating there own rythns like music ,a symphony bouncing and forming each universe and eventually what our eyes perceive.OUR UNIVERSE

reply to post by gringoboy

Will LHC Experiments Point to the Existence of Another Universe?

New Scientist asks: Could the elusive Higgs boson finally be in sight? On his blog, physicist Tommaso Dorigo of the University of Padua writes about talk of a tentative hint of the Higgs at the Tevatron, a particle accelerator at the Fermi National Accelerator Laboratory in Batavia, Illinois.

"It reached my ear, from two different, possibly independent sources, that an experiment at the Tevatron is about to release some evidence of a light Higgs boson signal. Some say a three-sigma effect, others do not make explicit claims but talk of a unexpected result," wrote Dorigo.

Source

OR:

Physicist Jerry Wheatley, a close friend and author of The Nature of Consciousness: The Structure of Reality, has this to say about the Higgs Boson:

"The Higgs boson doesn't exist. It doesn't exhibit mass. It is the "particle" that gives rise to particles exhibiting mass: those that do exist. The Higgs is not part of reality. It is what generates reality. The Higgs is more properly associated with "potentiality" rather than reality. It turns out potentiality is more real than "reality." It is potentiality that underlies quantum nonseparability. Therefore, reality is a projection of potentiality and hence is illusory."

religious [people have been saying it all along their is heaven and hell, many layers of heavens, many heavens, and now science is just verifying it...took them long enough

reply to post by Insipid2000


No, you are wrong. It doesn't matter if it appears "disconnected", or if it has different laws. The definition of "universe" is "the totality of known or supposed objects and phenomena throughout space; the cosmos; macrocosm".

By definition, no matter what, there will always be ONE universe. Any new "bubble" they find is just another section/part of the ONE universe.

reply to post by THE_PROFESSIONAL


You could say alot of previous thinkers had answers but in symbolical versions,the greek gods,yeah suppose jesus with his "my father has many mansions in his kingdom" or something like that.Maybe thats why he was percecuted ,but thats way of the topic,its about Kaku,science,our new reality.Our new vision of future and our place in it,tinier and tinier,russian doll syndrome.

reply to post by tyranny22


You are wrong too. Please do look up the word "universe". It is the totality of everything (including every phenomena) in all of space. That means ANYTHING you find in space is a part of the universe. It has nothing to do with the Big Bang like you said. "Everything" means "everything", not just "everything from the big bang" like you claim.

I realize this is semantics, but it is correct. There is no such thing as "multiple universes". Maybe multiple parts/sections of the universe, but those sections/parts are parts of the totality of the entire universe. Their terminology is incorrect.

Am I the only one that knows the definition of universe around here?

I liked one of Kaku's answers to the question when/how will the universe end:

We now believe that the universe is speeding up. It’s actually accelerating, in runaway mode which means that in stead of dying in a big crunch, we’ll probably die in a big freeze. We’re not positive. We don’t know if this will keep on going for billions of years. But if so, the universe is in a runaway mode. It means that one day, perhaps when we look at the night sky; perhaps we’ll see almost nothing because the distant galaxies are so far that light cannot even reach our telescopes. Not a pleasant thought. But our universe may eventually die in a big freeze rather than a big crunch.

Nobody knows when this big freeze will take place, or if it will ever take place. However, estimates have been made, perhaps hundreds of billions of years, perhaps trillions of years. One day it will get so cold that you’ll look at the night sky and it will be almost totally black. All the stars will have exhausted all of their nuclear fuel, the universe will consist of neutron stars, dead black holes, the temperature will reach near absolute zero, and at that point even consciousness, even thought itself, cannot exist. and some people think that perhaps the laws of physics are a death warrant to all intelligent life; that we’re all going to die when the universe freezes over.

But you know, there’s a loophole. There’s a loophole in the laws of physics. you see, trillions of years from now, perhaps intelligent life will be able to master what is called, “The Planck Energy.” The Planck Energy is the ultimate energy. It’s the energy of the Big Bang. It’s the energy at which gravity itself begins to breakdown.

Escape to a parallell universe
He goes on to say that perhaps in trillions of years from now some intelligent civilization mastering Planck energy could use it to travel into a parallel universe to escape the demise of our own. Compares it to Alice entering the looking glass.

reply to post by RUSSO


Starred, and flagged for this. It is very exciting if they can confirm the evidence.

IMO it was always a given that there are multiverses, and they are eternal.

Hannes Olof Gösta Alfvén was right all along.

ALFVEN VERSUS THE BIG BANG

For 30 years, based on plasma physics, Alfven and his colleagues proposed an alternative cosmology to both the Steady State and the Big Bang cosmologies. While the Big Bang theory was preferred by most astrophysicists for nearly 30 years, it is being challenged by new observations, especially over the last decade. In particular, the discovery of coherent structures of galaxies hundreds of millions of light years in length and the large-scale streaming of superclusters of galaxies at velocities that may approach 1,000 kilometers per second present problems that are difficult, if not impossible, to reconcile with the Big Bang theory.

To Alfven, the problems being raised were not surprising. "I have never thought that you could obtain the extremely clumpy, heterogeneous universe we have today, strongly affected by plasma processes, from the smooth, homogeneous one of the Big Bang, dominated by gravitation."

The problem with the Big Bang, Alfven believed, is similar to that with Chapmans theories, which the scientific community accepted mistakenly for decades: Astrophysicists have tried too hard to extrapolate the origin of the universe from mathematical theories developed on the blackboard. The appeal of the Big Bang, said Alfven, has been more ideological than scientific. When men think about the universe, there is always a conflict between the mythical approach and the empirical scientific approach. In myth, one tries to deduce how the gods must have created the world - what perfect principles must have been used."

To Alfven, the Big Bang was a myth - a myth devised to explain creation. "I was there when Abbe Georges Lemaitre first proposed this theory," he recalled. Lemaitre was, at the time, both a member of the Catholic hierarchy and an accomplished scientist. He said in private that this theory was a way to reconcile science with St. Thomas Aquinas' theological dictum of creatio ex nihilo or creation out of nothing.

But if there was no Big Bang, how -and when- did the universe begin? "There is no rational reason to doubt that the universe has existed indefinitely, for an infinite time," Alfven explained. "It is only myth that attempts to say how the universe came to be, either four thousand or twenty billion years ago."

"Since religion intrinsically rejects empirical methods, there should never be any attempt to reconcile scientific theories with religion he said. An infinitely old universe, always evolving, may not, he admited, be compatible with the Book of Genesis. However, religions such as Buddhism get along without having any explicit creation mythology and are in no way contradicted by a universe without a beginning or end. Creatio ex nihilo, even as religious doctrine, only dates to around AD 200" he noted. The key is not to confuse myth and empirical results, or religion and science."

Alfven admited that his plasma universe theory may take a long time to penetrate the popular consciousness. "After all," he asserted to a group of physicists, "most people today still believe, perhaps unconsciously, in the heliocentric universe." The group, at first incredulous, quickly nods in agreement as Alfven continueed, "every newspaper in the land has a section on astrology, yet few have anything at all on astronomy." ...

www.tmgnow.com...

Therefore, reality is a projection of potentiality and hence is illusory.

This remember me of buddhist concept of reality:

Some consider that the concept of the unreality of "reality" is confusing. They posit that, in Buddhism, the perceived reality is considered illusory not in the sense that reality is a fantasy or unreal, but that our perceptions and preconditions mislead us to believe that we are separate from the elements that we are made of. Reality, in Buddhist thought, would be described as the manifestation of karma.

Other schools of thought in Buddhism (e.g., Dzogchen), consider perceived reality literally unreal. As a prominent contemporary teacher puts it: "In a real sense, all the visions that we see in our lifetime are like a big dream [...]".[1] In this context, the term 'visions' denotes not only visual perceptions, but appearances perceived through all senses, including sounds, smells, tastes and tactile sensations.

Originally posted by RUSSO
reply to post by gringoboy

 

Physicist Jerry Wheatley, a close friend and author of The Nature of Consciousness: The Structure of Reality, has this to say about the Higgs Boson:

"The Higgs boson doesn't exist. It doesn't exhibit mass. It is the "particle" that gives rise to particles exhibiting mass: those that do exist. The Higgs is not part of reality. It is what generates reality. The Higgs is more properly associated with "potentiality" rather than reality. It turns out potentiality is more real than "reality." It is potentiality that underlies quantum nonseparability. Therefore, reality is a projection of potentiality and hence is illusory."

edit on 15-12-2010 by RUSSO because: (no reason given)

Oh that's great. So now there's no reality either. What does that mean for the fish bowl? Maybe every universe is just parallel and it is every possible potentiality of the same...thing. But does that really mean nothing is real, or that reality is an illusion? I mean what determines reality. We are back at semantics.

reply to post by RUSSO


totally however our brains are holograms and we are projections of a Simm game and percieve only what the matrix lets us see,even more
However fractals ,this new knowledge is opening new doors.
www.youtube.com...

Originally posted by Vilkata

Originally posted by jessejamesxx
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.

I don't think there is any need for renaming; much like the atom, the 'indivisible' unit from which everything is made, was not renamed when it was found that this was not the case.

If they don't rename the universe from 'the universe', they'll have to change the definition of it then, which is what I was getting at.

reply to post by RUSSO


A virtual reality pretty much sums it up In it there is space for spirituality and physicality - and a lot of other stuff. But it is not necessarily and strictly correlated as we think that it is. In the "modern times" we went down a misguiding path - that's really a pity. I think we must go backwards quite a bit to understand how things really work.

Just like any experience consciousness can make - the physical experience is only ONE of them. We have just forgotten that there is MORE than that!!

Originally posted by gift0fpr0phecy
Am I the only one that knows the definition of universe around here?

Did you not read my reply? I said pretty much the same as you. Just less aggressively