Other Universes

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Apoloto, Jun 16, 2011.

  1. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Hi!
    I'm a HUGE astronomer nut

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    So, like most astronomer nuts, I wonder

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    : Do any of you believe in other universes? Personally, I think that there are like alternate timelines with things that could be as subtle as say there's one less atom in a different universe, to the entire human race having been wiped out in the 1700s or something.
    So, I'm just wondering what you think.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    This sounds more like a science fiction fan than an astronomy fan. I am bit of an amatuer astronomer and I know many amatuer astronomers and I don't think any of them think there are "like alternate timelines" except in Spielberg movies. Could be wrong, I have not specifically asked but it seems like it would have come up in conversations.....
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    I believe the only way you might be able to justify time travel and get away from the paradox of going into the past and killing your father or mother before you were born, is if time lines can split into parallel universes. One in which you were born and one when you weren't born. However, that would require a belief that time travel is possible and I'm not quite there yet.

    Also, welcome to the forum.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Well, I guess you're right. I just see on Science, especially in shows like "Through the Wormhole" or "Scifi Science" where I see a lot of astronomers who talk about other universes. Also, by alternate universes, I don't just mean alternate timelines, I mean ACTUAL existences. This may be a bad example, but I also mean kinda like how Narnia and Charn are different universes, and they have nothing to do with ours.
    And yes, I am a Spielberg fan.
     
  8. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Thanks! I'm glad to have an acquaintance with you!
     
  9. Dr Mabuse Percipient Thaumaturgist Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    714
    Some of the double and triple slit studies at the particle level have lead scientists to speculate about simultaneous but separate realities. Something like you describe.

    You stop at a crossroads, you decide to turn right. In that line of thinking, you may have decided to turn left also, and that spun off into another reality that continues on separate from what you perceive as your reality.

    It's interesting stuff.
     
  10. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Here are some links you may find interesting:

    The following quote from Laure Mersini-Houghton (LMH) seems appropriate to introduce the concept of multiple arenas and their formation from events that occur on an on-going basis across the landscape of the greater universe:
    http://arxiv.org/abs/0909.2330
    Scientists continue to wrestle with the enigma of time. Is time a dynamic or a fundamental property of spacetime? Why does it have an arrow pointing from past to future? Why are physical laws time-symmetric in a universe with broken time-reversal symmetry? These questions remain a mystery. The hope has been that an understanding of the selection of the initial state for our universe would solve such puzzles, especially that of time's arrow.
    In this article, I discuss how the birth of the universe from the multiverse helps to unravel the nature of time and the reasons behind the time-reversal symmetry of our physical laws. I make the distinction between a local emerging arrow of time in the nucleating universe and the fundamental time with no arrow in the multiverse. The very event of nucleation of the universe from the multiverse breaks time-reversal symmetry, inducing a locally emergent arrow. But, the laws of physics imprinted on this bubble are not processed at birth. Time-reversal symmetry of laws in our universe is inherited from its birth in the multiverse, since these laws originate from the arrowless multiversal time.

    LMH is an Assoc. Professor of Cosmology, Particle Astrophysics, String Cosmology, High Energy Physics, in the Department of Physics and Astronomy, at the University of North Carolina, and has interest in Early and Late Times Universe, Dark Energy, Observational Constraints on Theoretical Models in Cosmology, Phenomenological Implications of String Theory, Transplanckian Physics, Extra Dimensional Scenarios and Brane-Worlds in Cosmological Issues.

    I became aware of her work by viewing the six episodes of, “What Happened before the Big Bang”, the BBC Horizon 2010 series on YouTube.

    Let me know what you think to the links.
     
  11. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Very interesting links! I do not agree with, however, how they think that time has an "arrow". Personally, I don't believe that time flows, but that we flow through it, since it's a fourth dimension. Still, very interesting.
     
  12. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    To Dr Mabuse

    Yes, that's pretty much what I've been thinking of! Also, have you ever read the Michael Chrighton novel Timeline, or see the movie, because that's where I've seen this double and triple slit theory before. And yes, you're right, it IS very interesting stuff, because it really makes you think, doesn't it?
     
    Last edited: Jun 17, 2011
  13. KilljoyKlown Whatever Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,493
    Speaking of "Through the Wormhole" next week they are doing a program on the perception of time. Should fit right in with this topic.
     
  14. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Oh, great! I'll be sure to see it!!!
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    if you like speculation about this universe this guy has some good stuff

    http://www.nickbostrom.com/

    not so much alternative universes more of a "are we living in a simulation" theme.

    if you want many worlds and multiverse then david deutsch "fabric of reality" is a good accessible read.
     
  16. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    Your questions aren't ones that can be answered easily, many because their are no single definitive answers since the questions touch upon multidisciplinary subjects.

    After all you aren't querying about Astronomy but Cosmology, there is also elements of Philosophy, notably Existentialism, on top of that there is also discussion of both Physics and Theoretics that extends beyond Scientifically proven to Fringe Concepts. (e.g. Not just dealing with proven results but hypothetical realities)

    I can't say that I speak for science or that I am an authority on the subject, what I can say however is that I've spent a fair bit of time delving into a number of theoretical fields, while also trying to get to grips with the current understanding in regards to multidisciplinary Sciences.

    My current "perception" of the universe is:
    • It's Digital
    • It's more than one Emulation existing as a Composite.
    • There is a multiversal structure which is required to create these emulations from "a" Finite resource, with finite energy, in finite time with finite manpower.
    • It's initial capable of allowing recursion (part of the supersymmetry and multiversal framework)
    • It's Designed not Entropic. (Order doesn't exist within Chaos, Chaos is designed to exist within Order.)
    • It's design to run within "Default" parameters should "Entropy" undermine Symmetry. (If a particular task isn't repeated and the understanding isn't discovered of how the universe works, it doesn't suddenly stop working, it continues to exist.)
    • "Default" isn't the only running mode, there is potentially the capacity to generate an "Override", however this requires understanding the universe before actually being capable of doing it and being authorized to conduct the "Override".
    • Understanding the universe at this level would and does mean rewriting physics constants parameters, potentially meaning that current everyday physics would have to be re-evaluated.

    What this perceptions implies is:

    Parallel Universes are part duplication and part one in the same as an initial universe (This is similar to the concept of Particle Waveform Duality). There would be initially no difference because such differences require the capacity to observe difference to be generated (Namely they require the capacity to create a paradox). No such paradox would be created naturally since the process is artificial in design and exists as apart of a method to develop a super-symmetry coordinate system to allow mathematically positioning which in turn allows communication between "nodes".
    I would go into more detail however it's a very compounded subject and it's best to keep any discussion in bite-sized pieces, to aid in both clarity and digestion.
     
  17. markl323 Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    166
    i'm not an expert but i have some related questions:

    1) is there some physic law that says "no two things can occupy the same spot in space-time?" if so, would this be a problem with multiverse models/theories?

    2) many also claim that time is a man-made concept. it doesn't exist in reality. i take it to mean that everything we feel an experience at the present is all there is to the universe. no past and no future. therefor, you can't go back because there is no "past."

    we know that we can go "forward in time" (significantly, not 0.00001 second like an astronaut) when we travel at a speed close to c. and this is probably possible in the future if we ever harness the required amount of power to reach such speed. however, i'm not sure if this is really "time" traveling or just "delayed" aging. to me, true time traveling would be like taking a man and putting him in the future instantly. meaning, if bio-science is advanced enough, and i believe it will be at some point in the future, we can freeze a man, revive him 100 years later and this is still "time" traveling as in the case of high speed time traveling. in other words, true time travel will never be possible time doesn't really exist.

    thoughts?
     
  18. Apoloto Eat your veggies now SHEWT EP! Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    34
    Hmm

    Well, I still believe that time is a fourth dimension, and that everything flows through it. However, by other universes, I wasn't exactly talking about alternate timelines. I meant different settings, like how Narnia is in an entirely different existence from earth. (Man, I have use that example a lot)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  19. nietzschefan Thread Killer Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,721
    Umm Time is the 4th dimension isn't it?
     
  20. wellwisher Banned Banned

    Messages:
    5,160
    Time travel is possible, but only in a very limited way, since it would take a lot of energy to perform. Let me show how this is possible, while also showing some of the limitations due to energy considerations.

    To begin, we have a group of friends inside a stationary space craft. They are having a fun party and run out of beer. Two of the friends leave the space ship, to make a packie run for more beer. After they leave, the space ship takes off and approaches the speed of light, where there is very significant time dilation. In their reference, minutes appear to pass. But in the stationary reference years pass.

    When the spaceship finally returns, everyone on the ship is still partyling since only a few minutes passed in their reference. The two friends who made the packie run are now several years older. When they meet again, but only within the space-ship, the two friends will go back into time, years before, with their friends still at the same party, just like they remembered in their past.

    One of the two packie run friends, through the 20/20 hindsight of water under the bridgge (several years of time passes) realizes that he always liked his friend Sue, but never said anything to her. Now he has a chance to change the future by telling her in the past.

    The friends, on the space ship, will all travel to the future, if they go outside, to balance the past and the future. One of the two friends making the packie run, was a twin. Now his brother gets to see his own future; what he will be in several years. The other twin gets to relive his past before all the burdens of young adulthood.

    It is all very limited but not impossible.
     
  21. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    The simplest way to equate this is to apply that any volume of space has a maximum energy level that can be achieved. This doesn't just mean pure energy but also that there is a limit to the density of matter or level of quantum compression.

    In the Recursive Composite Emulation theory that I've been looking at, this volume maximum is actually an emulated volume that's parameters are defined by a composition of universes, in essence it would be a bit like every atom in the universe being emulated individually by a separate universe. Creating such a composition of universe emulations allows for such emulated volumes to be "Non-Volatile", this basically means that they are separate from one another and you can compress two volumes to exist in the same space and become one volume.

    Obviously the RCE theory I'm penning doesn't have two universes occupying the same space, but again the main reason for that is due to the method of placement through super-symmetry to generate a coordinate system.

    What we use to measure time is a man-made concept, time itself is just a passage of events, from one event to the next. There is a past and a future and they only seem like they aren't tangible from the present because of our limited scope of observation. (We still see the universe from a Planar perspective and observe events linearly.)

    The past and the future both exist, otherwise you'd never observe a present. They just don't interlink linearly.

    What you are talking about here is the subject of "Time Dilation" when traveling which is often suggested to be down to distortions of spacetime. The main point here is that any volume containing a significant amount of energy or density in matter is going to have a greater amplitude of dilation,when a volume becomes more "vacuum" you get as close to the "base" or spacetime (Due to the absence of matter there is nothing to distort space), however this distortions are relative. You might have a space exist in a solar system effected by the solar system, while a space outside of a galaxy would be effected by the overall galaxy more than being effected by a single solar system the galaxy contains.

    As for "Delaying Aging", aging is the passage of various chemical events within DNA, attempting to freeze does indeed slow the chemical process however it does not halt it completely. Creating such "Stasis" could however have side effects, like for instance if the chemicals are suppose to be produced in a particular order to maintain life but due to the temperature particular stages are slowed down further than other stages, the result is a fragmentation of key events resulting in a path of events being broken. (In other words it would likely cause death)
     
  22. Stryder Keeper of "good" ideas. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    13,105
    You've hit the common mis-interpretation that time travel is possibly by travelling faster than light, this however is not the case.

    Think of these questions:
    • How long would you take to accelerate and de-accelerate from lightspeed?
    • What distance would you have covered?

    To "safely" accelerate to anywhere near lightspeed isn't going to be like a Ferrari Enzo doing 0-60 mph in 3.1 seconds which will squish you deep into your bucket seat, accelerating anywhere near lightspeed would take Months and there there is slowing down which will take at least as many Months if Inverse thrusters are as efficient at slowing as forward firing thrusters for acceleration.

    Then there is the whole point about navigation, you don't do this all in one straight line, it wouldn't be feasibly mainly because of the amount of fuel you'd require, instead your course would take you through multiple planetary orbits around a star to accumulate a form of slingshot speed. In fact you could probably spend months going around the same star system until you'd built up your travelling speed.

    Then there is the point you make about "time dilation", Time marches on when you are travelling, it doesn't go back. If you travel out and then back you won't return before you left, for instance if I travelled 1 week out at half of light speed and then returned at just under light speed (ignoring acceleration/de-acceleration issues), I will have still travelled for 1 1/2 weeks, I don't pass myself or see myself passing by etc.

    You'll notice I didn't say going faster than the speed of light and the reason I didn't say you could do that is simple, it is a "violation". If you could go faster than light then any specific volume could end up coexisting in a different volume and since volumes are suppose to be "non-volatile" it would break fundamental physics laws. (As well as cause memory leaks in an Recursive Composite Emulation environment, data integrity is a key issue when dealing with such volumes.)
     
  23. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    I have a paragraph or two that relates to what you are saying:

    Maybe it could even be a postulate of Stryder's model. It states that it is the nature of energy within any energy environment is to equalize its density across the environment.

    The definition of an energy density environment is that any volume of space that contains energy can function as an energy environment as long as the energy in that environment can be equalized across the environment. The density of a gas equalizes in its container, the density of a liquid free of gravity equalizes in spherical drops, etc. The density of wave energy in an energy environment trends toward equalization of energy density.

    Particles will equalize their density across the environment, and if the energy environment is within a single particle space, or even smaller as in a single wave energy convergence (if we think that particles are composed of wave energy), the wave energy converging in that space trends toward equalization too. That means that the converging peaks of wave energy occupy the same space, an energy density environment, and the wave energy in that space is equal to the sum of all the wave peaks that are converging there.

    Each of the converging waves contributes a portion of its spherical wave front to the space at the point of convergence. This is not literally a point though; it is a patch of space that contains converging waves that cannot quite collapse to a geometric point due to a natural limit to energy density in space.
     

Share This Page