PDA

View Full Version : multiple universes are real.... cooooool



jin choung
04-15-2003, 04:05 AM
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000&pageNumber=1&catID=2

for those of you who are pop physicists and sci fi fans, it seems like multiple universes are real... and are more consistent with observable phenom than not.

i guess it's the sci fi nut and dreamer in me but i really like the idea that the universe that we live in is strange and the possibilities are greater than we can imagine....

neat stuff.

jin

mattclary
04-15-2003, 11:22 AM
Holy crap! That's a brain twister! The universe as an information storage device predicts all possible quantum states would be repeated, including that cup of coffee sitting on your desk. Very cool!

harhar
04-15-2003, 09:08 PM
Even if the universe is infinate, there are differenet sizes of infinity, like Cantor proved there are more integers than primes even though there are infinite number of both kinds. Hell, I don't think any mathematican truly understands the meaning of infinity.

The articles claims that multi-verse concept is as well tested as the theories of relativity and quantum mechanics, that sounds rather absurd. For starters, relativity and quantum mechanics are the least tested theories in physics. The multi-verse theory is even less tested.

The level1 multi-verse theory in the article sounds like it's saying one's life will be repeated forever. When the universe first began, it's size is small, the probability of another you exist is tiny. When space expand, the probability of another you exist increase, and as the universe keep expanding, the probability of other yous exist keep increasing, and since space = time, it sounds like repeating cycle.

The level2 multi-verse is simply unpredictable, since different universe will have their own physical law.

For level3 multiverse to happen, new universes would have to be generated at every moment. the new generated universe would keep losing symmetry compare to the original universe, until it grow into a totally different universe, and it itself will keep generating universes that keep lose symmetry, and hence infinity... The article seems to think the different universes splitted from a single universe can somehow remerge, but that would violate thermal dynamics and doesn't seem likely.

BTW, Occam's razor is over rated. Newtonian physics is simpler than Quantum mechanics and relativity, but guess which ones are more accurate.

jin choung
04-15-2003, 09:40 PM
hey harhar,

pretty strong take you have on it.... but since it is scientific america we're talking about, i'd just as soon think that what they're saying is plausible....

besides, unless we have a pretty darn advanced degree in physics, it may be a futile task in trying to pick such things apart. though just saying, 'heck, that sounds like hooey', is at least an honest gut reaction.

jin

Rory_L
04-16-2003, 12:03 AM
I`m going to hitch a ride on `Rosebud II` and cruise on into The Negative Zone wit Reed Richards!

Heck that sounds like hooey to me :D

R

jin choung
04-16-2003, 01:46 AM
hey rory,

that's cool. i'll bet it sounds like hooey to me too. but as mulder's poster says, 'i want to believe'....

it would be so cool to think that there are billions and millions of earths out there representing every possible possibility.... that everything that can be or COULD HAVE BEEN actually IS....

and that there are billions of me's out there and in one of them, there is a version of me that is not pasty, not 130lbs soaking wet and phenomenally successful with the ladies.... that just appeals to my sense of justice.... :)

jin

Lamont
04-16-2003, 12:09 PM
Hmm, then I should go through the alternates and kill my own self in each one.... thus becoming stronger... of course I'd score with whom ever my alternate self was dating/married to at the moment before I split.

Rei
04-16-2003, 12:18 PM
I didnt know Lamont was going to be the One!

They cant exist, read a proper journal - New Scientist -

Rei

Lamont
04-16-2003, 12:30 PM
Hey Jin,

I can loan you some Mojo.

Rory_L
04-16-2003, 07:52 PM
Hey Jin,

I just can`t resist a smartass reply sometimes! Really, the idea of multiverses is something I also hope is true. That and the Loch Ness Monster, but hopes are fading on that one. :) The one I`m really holding out for is intelligent life out there. In an infinite Universe can`t the possibility of that be infinitely probable? The problem is in finding and communicating with them. It`s just our luck that if we ever manage to get to their planet, we`ll find a `gone to lunch` note!

R

mattclary
04-17-2003, 06:51 AM
Based on this theory, the Loch Ness monster does exist... somewhere. ;)

Rei
04-17-2003, 11:19 AM
If anyone would wish to read a good book on the subject, i recomend 'The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy'

42

Rei

mattclary
04-17-2003, 11:24 AM
Or "The Number of the Beast"

jin choung
04-17-2003, 11:25 AM
and not at all that implausible if you also consider someWHEN....

jin

jin choung
04-17-2003, 11:29 AM
DC comics' crisis on infinite earths has this motif as well.... not really scientifically grounded but revolutionary in that dc was prescient enough to explain their world by means of a 'multiverse'.

jin

Hurben
04-18-2003, 02:49 AM
I think we're better off attempting to communicate to all of the weird and wonderful animals here on Earth. Intelligent Life?? Who says they aren't?
I get the feeling that any life-forms we encounter outside of Earth will not only be incomprehensible and altogether altruistic, but treat us like every other animal on Earth does.

Well,at least it certainly goes a long way in justifying the 'Back to the Future' trilogy.

Rory_L
04-18-2003, 04:06 AM
Originally posted by Rei
If anyone would wish to read a good book on the subject, i recomend 'The Hitchhikers Guide To The Galaxy'

42

Rei

Penguins on the starboard bow, captain!

I thought the concept behind the `Heart of Gold` was inspired!

R

Rei
04-18-2003, 11:24 AM
I like that book, mainly because Marvin is so like me (which cant be good):

Spider Robot D: So they left you here with nothing?

Marvin: Yes, appauling isnt it.

SPD:I feel so angry about that, that I am going to destroy this wall, in fact I am going to destroy the celing too. In fact I am so disgusted that they would do that, that I am going to destroy the floor too.

...

SPD: Hell's Bell's. *thud*

Marivin walks of complaining about everything as usual.

(this made me laugh out loud!)

Rei

Rory_L
04-18-2003, 09:23 PM
I love Sirius Cybernetics Corporation`s talking doors. Share and enjoy! Share and enjoy!

Did you guys ever hear the radio show? It came before the books and TV serial and was even funnier than them. Hunt for it: you won`t be sorry, so long as you know where your towel is! :D

R

Rei
04-19-2003, 03:37 AM
Yeah, i have listned to all of the origanal Radio series. They are really good, but the book is just as good. (trilogy in 4 parts)

And Ive just got my towel right here!

Rei

blinblue
04-21-2003, 10:00 AM
Their idea has a very slim chance of being real, it is like saying that if you gave 100 monkeys all the time in the world they would make Shakespeare. While that is slimmly possible, it is extreamly unlikely. It is also like saying that if you told your CD Burner to randomly put 1's and 0's on the disc, you would in a inifite time later have a document that proves that it is impossible to prove that there is a other world just like ours...
Space IS infinite, but that doesn't mean that there are worlds beyond a centain point.

jin choung
04-21-2003, 11:20 AM
actually,

ernie wright had a really good take on it.

if you have a pattern of finite complexity but infinite time and space, the signal or pattern will repeat.

jin

Rei
04-21-2003, 11:40 AM
what you have to remember, when talking about this, is that:

Space is infinite. Populated Space isnt.

This means, that while there is a small probablility of these random things, it is most likly that they dont exist.

Rei

jin choung
04-21-2003, 02:45 PM
actually,

the idea that even "empty" space is infinite is NOT a common one. i think most physicists have intuited that there is a LIMIT, a finite demarcation of SPACE/TIME... hence, the entire notion that you hear about the universe is EXPANDING or CONTRACTING or whatever.

that would be nonsense if space infinite - and yes people, we are talking about completely empty space.

that's one of the reasons why the article is so surprising... it seems that there's a lot of reasons to believe that space is indeed infinite.

the other part is that most of the mass that is out there is not visible to us.

so....

if space/time is indeed infinite, and there is a finite combination of complexity that the "stuff" can take, by DEFINITION, the combinations will repeat.

this is NOT a function of randomness... it's almost a signal processing idea....

jin

blinblue
04-22-2003, 09:28 PM
Originally posted by jin choung
actually,

the idea that even "empty" space is infinite is NOT a common one. i think most physicists have intuited that there is a LIMIT, a finite demarcation of SPACE/TIME... hence, the entire notion that you hear about the universe is EXPANDING or CONTRACTING or whatever.

that would be nonsense if space infinite - and yes people, we are talking about completely empty space.
jin
The main reason I don't like the idea of a finite space is that, WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE?. Is there some sort of wall keeping you from going farther? if there is, what is on the other side, nothing? But space IS nothing, space is the lack of stuff. There has to be something on the other side. If you plot all of space on a XY grid (and lets say for the moment that space has a limit, and that it is changing) you would see that it stops at a certain number (thus becoming finite), lets say that it stops at 10, what is at 11? Why would space contract or expand? Anyway, I am getting sleeply and i need to head off to bed. My parting words:
Space is infinite
Einstein is wrong about time dilation (don't get me started on that)
I am RIGHT :)

jin choung
04-22-2003, 10:42 PM
"The main reason I don't like the idea of a finite space is that, WHAT IS ON THE OTHER SIDE?"

actually,

again, this is something that ernie wright brought up that was a wonderful example:

ok, you and i live in 3d space right, but let's say that for the sake of argument, we look at our world as 2d space (they do this all the time to tell you how worm holes would work).

further, let's say that our 2d space is the skin of a balloon.

let's draw some points on the balloon too to represent either stars or systems or whatever.

now,

when we start to inflate the balloon with air, the points that we've drawn on the SKIN of the balloon get farther and farther apart... the universe is expanding just like most physicists believe it to be right now. and yet, and yet, it is FINITE.

the universe is the skin of the balloon and that skin is indeed finite.

but THERE IS NO OTHER SIDE. the surface of the balloon has no other side.

again, for the sake of the example, we've remapped 3d space onto 2d space so it would be mistaken to look at the 'inside volume' of the filled balloon vs. the outside. in our example, the inside volume would be 'hyperspace'.

of course, what that means is that if we could completely traverse the universe, we would eventually 'WRAP AROUND' back to where we started....

so that's a way to conceptualize a FINITE and expanding universe that has no 'outside'.

jin

p.s. you run into your dilemma in the big bang as well.... if you concede that all matter - indeed, all time and all space is from the concentrated mass that existed 'pre big bang', you come to the question, "what the hell was outside the mass?" because it would be completely incorrect to say that the mass existed in 'empty space'... empty space came from the pre-big bang mass.

at that point, the answers are that it's just like our balloon example with all the balloon having collapsed into a superconcentrated mass and/or the question doesn't make sense outside of our limited understanding, or we don't know.

this is similar to philosophical discussions about god. i think most people instinctively think that god would live within space and under time like we do but if god exists and he created time and space, he would be completely outside and not bound by time or space at all. time does not pass for god. he does not move through space. he would look on time and space from the outside like a painting or a marble.

Hurben
04-22-2003, 11:54 PM
I think that each solar system is a cell inside another living creature.. the sun being the nucleus and the planets being the protons and electrons.

Lots of solar systems make up some living tissue of something living and that living organism lives on a planet.. this is where scale becomes infinite.

Then inside of us in each cell is a solar system made up of people like us and so on and so on.

mattclary
04-23-2003, 07:24 AM
I think the universe exists on the back of a giant turtle. ;)

I like what you said, Jin. I like the idea of a cyclical universe, one that implodes and explodes, it eliminates the need for a clearly defined beginning and end. Recent evidence shows the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Now consider this in light of Jin's description of the baloon. What if space-time slides across the surface of a finite borderless hyperspace? What if this acceleration is the universe having started on the downslope on the opposite side of the "baloon"? Somewhere I read (maybe this article) that at one point the expansion of the universe slowed down then it started accelerating. What if the big-bang set space-time sliding across the "baloon", gravity tended to slow the expansion, but at some point there was more mass "across the horizon of the baloon" causing space-time to begin accelerating again. At some point all would meet again in a cataclysmic crash(uh, ya think?!), forming a new singularity and a new big bang.

Like all the "qoutes". Maybe somehow we could use a "LASER" (in Dr. Evil voice) to measure the universe... :)

blinblue
04-23-2003, 11:27 AM
Well anyway, I still believe what I believe. And I think it is useless to argue about it, as neither of can prove it. No one can go to the edge of space (or lack there of), so I doubt that there is anyway to even be close to proving it.

blinblue
04-23-2003, 11:32 AM
Originally posted by Hurben
I think that each solar system is a cell inside another living creature.. the sun being the nucleus and the planets being the protons and electrons.

Lots of solar systems make up some living tissue of something living and that living organism lives on a planet.. this is where scale becomes infinite.

Then inside of us in each cell is a solar system made up of people like us and so on and so on.
Yup, I have thought of that also, it kinda seems weird, as we always think of humans as being the "smart" things in the universe, but we could be just a little tiny thing on a electron. Or you could go even farther and say that the "Creature" (the one that is made up of out planets) is living on a planet that is also just the cell of another thing....

Hiraghm
04-23-2003, 12:04 PM
If space is finite, then perhaps time is finite as well?

Instead of an endless series of collapses and expansions, perhaps there's only one. If space can loop so that if you go far enough around you end up where you started... why shouldn't time?

Rei
04-23-2003, 02:16 PM
Finite space is what it states to be, finite. There is a limit where beyond there is no more... no anything. However infinite space, which is Everything, has no limit. Do not try to understand this concept, for that is imposible to do. With this you must try to understand that there is nothing outside of infinite space, as the name implies.

Of course at the other end, there are Infinitesimals, which are smaller than zero point zero reccuring one, but still greater than zero itself. To understand learn calculus.

Rei

Heimhenge
04-30-2003, 12:44 AM
3D space can be finite in _volume_ but have no boundries.

If that sounds like a contradiction, drop down one dimension and imagine the surface of a sphere ...

That 2D surface is finite in _area_ but it also has no boundries. You can keep going round and round that surface without ever getting to an edge.

To do this the 2D surface of the sphere has to curve through a 3rd dimension to connect up with itself in all directions.

For 3D space to do this it must curve through a 4th dimension to connect up with itself in all directions.

To make more sense of this, read "Flatland - A Romance of Many Dimensions."