View Full Version : Why isn't there more universes
cosmictraveler
07-13-09, 04:32 AM
If the universe started when two sub atomic particles collided, then why hasn't another universe started in the last 13 to 14 billion years? It would seem that more particles would have collided by now forming a new universe but none has done so. Where exactly did those sub atomic particles come from anyway? Did they just form on their own or ???:confused:
prometheus
07-13-09, 04:34 AM
What makes you think "the universe started when two sub atomic particles collided?" If you're referring to the LHC's media hype, the LHC is not going to recreate the big bang itself, but the energy that was seen a little after the big bang.
cosmictraveler
07-13-09, 04:37 AM
What makes you think "the universe started when two sub atomic particles collided?" If you're referring to the LHC's media hype, the LHC is not going to recreate the big bang itself, but the energy that was seen a little after the big bang.
So what do you think created the universe then, many people believe that is how it all began.
prometheus
07-13-09, 04:54 AM
So what do you think created the universe then, many people believe that is how it all began.
It's not something that current theory can answer satisfactorily so what people believe is pretty much speculation. String theory is the most prominent theory of quantum gravity at the moment and there are some ideas in it that there is a "hyper-verse" that is full of branes. Every so often these collide, creating a universe. There are quite a few problems with this type of model though, and my understanding of them is far from complete. The question of what came before the BB and what caused it may be a question we can never answer, at least scientifically.
If there are two particles and nothing else, then that's the universe.
Walter L. Wagner
07-13-09, 12:44 PM
The question presumes that the universe 'started', i.e. it has a starting point in time. Alternatively, variants of the BB theory do not have a 'starting point', and the universe has always existed; merely evolving over time to what we now see.
If the universe started when two sub atomic particles collided
If there are two particles and nothing else, then that's the universe.
The question presumes that the universe 'started', i.e. it has a starting point in time.
Yes and no.
He writes that, yes. But then he goes on to say there already was something.
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 12:53 PM
who says there aren't more universes?
who says there aren't more universes?
I do. It's nonsense.
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 12:55 PM
ok. you are a physisyst?
ok. you are a physisyst?
No, but I do know the definition of the word 'universe'.
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 12:57 PM
so does the dictionary.
so does the dictionary.
I have yet to see a dictionary that knows anything :p
I'm not sure what point you're trying to make here though.
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 12:59 PM
universe is everything.
when there was nothing, was there still a universe?
So what do you think created the universe then, many people believe that is how it all began.
Many people?
Which people?
universe is everything.
when there was nothing, was there still a universe?
What do you mean 'still' ?
And, no, nothingness is not a universe.
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 01:03 PM
what if nothingness can be a universe. can there be multiple universes?
what if nothingness can be a universe. can there be multiple universes?
No. Wtf? You can't have multiple nothingnesses.
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 01:04 PM
what if universe is something that only exists in the human mind as a concept. can there be multiple proper universes?
what if universe is something that only exists in the human mind as a concept. can there be multiple proper universes?
Examine your question, please :bugeye:
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 01:06 PM
i examined it.
"universe" does not equal "universe proper".
statement valid.
{end string}
//s
tuberculatious
07-13-09, 01:15 PM
shouldn't it be 'are' in the title of the thread? Now the topic seems biased to a single universe.
The question presumes that the universe 'started', i.e. it has a starting point in time. Alternatively, variants of the BB theory do not have a 'starting point', and the universe has always existed; merely evolving over time to what we now see.
What Walter said,this makes the most sense to me.I can't imagine a starting point from nothiness.
Also there could be untold numbers of Universes,there is just no way at this time in our understanding of things to know.To us the Universe seems very very large,almost beyond our abilities to imagine it.However our Universe could be
very very tiny,like a speck of dust in the grand whole.Any talk on this subject
should not cause any arguments,after all we have no idea either way.
The question presumes that the universe 'started', i.e. it has a starting point in time. Alternatively, variants of the BB theory do not have a 'starting point', and the universe has always existed; merely evolving over time to what we now see.
What Walter said,this makes the most sense to me.I can't imagine a starting point from nothiness.
Also there could be untold numbers of Universes,there is just no way at this time in our understanding of things to know.To us the Universe seems very very large,almost beyond our abilities to imagine it.However our Universe could be very very tiny,like a speck of dust in the grand whole.Any talk on this subject
should not cause any arguments,after all we have no idea either way.
vBulletin® v3.8.1, Copyright ©2000-2009, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.