Is it possible for laws of physics to support the "Multiple Universe" theory? I'd like to see a discussion on this theory and hear what evidence supports this theory. It may also be important to touch upon the Dream plane as it may relate to this topic, some believe that dreams allow us to experience the lives of those in parallel universes...

Yes, it would be possible. The "Laws of Physics" could be different in other universes, because they are seperate from our universe.

Good question, Seeker.

I believe that there are not only other universes, but a hell of a lot of them, as in just maybe INFINATE. But who's for sure? If the universe was created in a "big bang," like scientists believe happened, then why just one "big bang?" Why not lots and lots of them? I seriously doubt that our own existance is an isolated case.

But the thing to truly ponder is what kinds of other universes are out there? How will the physics vary from this one to the next and how would it effect the developing life organisms on the planets within them, (just like gravity has had it's effect on us.)

I, as well, would like to see a discussion start up here. There are many variations on this topic to discuss.

I would like to hear from Boris on this topic, if he'd like to give input..

I, as well, would like to hear Boris' input on this whole multi-verse bit.

MaTTo

Maybe I can give a little hints on this topic before Boris does he's more popular then I am, darn
Inflation theorie talks about different universes, I don't know if you heard of it before, it is a theorie of how the mechanism of the Big Bang worked. First of all you need to realise universes consist of more dimensions then the usual three that we can imagine, so we have this multi-dimensional space that is filled with universes like our own.
What are the parameters that can differ in these universes ? Well, the 'universal constants' for one like lightspeed, electron charge, planck's constant, ...
I would assume that only a specific combination of these constants can lead to a universe filled with matter, life and ultimatly consciousness. This means however if it would be possible to travel between these universes, we would die instantly because the elementary paricles of our body don't obey the laws of the other universe, this would destroy their cohesion if it wouldn't destroy themselves all together.

An other possibility for multiple universes is one of the interpretations of quantum mechanics. To explain for example the two slit experiment where a particle appears to go between two holes at the same time, one has proposed that there are actually two parallel universes interfering with each other, one universe where the particle goes through one hole, an other where it goes through the other. Once the observer looks at the particle he is in one of the two universes and these are parted forever. This is a bit like the Tron-computergame that was very popular in the eighties, I don't know if you know what I'm talking about and it's kind of hard if you haven't seen the Disney movie of the eighties, one of the first movies where computer rendered pictures where prominent. You had this race of cars and when they turned they made a 90 degree turn, this is exactly how to picture a descision event in parallel universes, at the point of descision (observer looks at particle) the universes split at 90 degree angle and move away in separate dimensions.

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

LOL. Plato, I wasn't aware of a popularity contest!

Anyway, I wasn't going to comment much on this because I am not a believer in multiple universes. But since there's all this popular demand, I might as well say something

The quantum interpretation Plato mentioned annoys the heck out of me. There's nothing mathematically wrong with it, except that new universes are being continually created in exponentially growing numbers that boggle the mind -- with no end in sight! The universe as a whole is continuously creating new matter and energy out of nothing (entirely duplicating itself, actually) -- with every single tiny quantum measurement! With every impacting photon, with every tiniest field disturbance, the entire universe doubles in size. This is like a googolplex (10^(10^100), roughly the number of elementary particles in the universe) of new universes being created at every instant, with each of those universes creating the same amount of new universes the next instant -- the resultant numbers since the Big Bang defy naming, description, explanation or comprehension! It's creation taken to an absurd extreme -- and I don't like extremes, or absurdities.

On the other hand, there are theories of a multiverse that branches off into specific universes like ours -- each universe with different physical laws or constants. Well, I guess if you want to believe in that, you are free to do so. However, to me it smells like afterlife all over again -- only this time it's for our universe rather than our souls. You see, some people aren't quite comfortable with the eventual thermodynamic death that awaits everything we know and love.

I entertain this upstart (and in many peoples' opinion ridiculous) idea that there is a cosmic matrix that gives rise to our universe. I'm talking about an absolute, fundamental underlying entity that generates the physical reality. Given that, our physical laws and constants are indeed not arbitrary, nor accidental -- but direct consequences of the properties of this cosmic matrix. There may indeed be other dimensions of which we are not even aware. However, I believe there is only one universe.

But until I can put up some actual proof for my claims, you are free and encouraged to believe absolutely anything you like!

------------------
I am; therefore I think.

I didn't expect Boris' opposition to the whole theory of the possibility of an infinity of other universes but somehow I knew he'd come with an opposing viewpoint. It makes things worth looking into though. Thanks for replying.


[This message has been edited by SeeKer (edited June 27, 1999).]

I know this may sound funny but as funny as it mite seem it's vary real
There is what is known to me as "The Burning Universe Of Righteousness"
Out there. It is about 100 times larger then our entire cosmos and looks like a
Real tight Giant burning spiral galaxy. Our cosmos is just a house in the outer darkness
Like a seed in a garden our cosmos lives.
Our creator is a consuming fire like the book said at his presents heaven & earth will melt
And there will be no place found for them for he will fill both heaven & earth.
For what is man but a breath in my nostrils.

You will find we live in a round somewhat flat cosmos on the face of the deep with a great outer darkness without That's why evil is cast OUT TO THE OUTER DARKNESS.


Think what you want. But I know what I saw and what I saw was the entire cosmos go up in smoke in the blink of a eye & the cleansing fire of the lord create a New Heaven & A New Earth

"Light Never had to come to us from the stars But rather it left all but the path"
for all was light until god separated the light from the darkness


Wizz! Wizzoneal@netscape.net

Ok, ahuh rightous universes ? Whatever.

Boris,

I was just putting a little spark in the discussion but I know you are the most popular .

Any way, my basic problem with multiple universes is once you assume they are there, there is no reason why there shouldn't be an infinite number of them. There are some very uncomfortable existential proplem with this because an infinite number of universes means an infinite number of Plato's who are writing to an infinite number of Boris', makes you wonder who's the real me in that huge crowd...

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Rightous universe? *caugh* brain scan *caugh*

Plato, we didn't want to discourage your postings on this forum. I don't know about everyone else, but I know that I am as curious to what you think equally with that of Boris' answers too. Sometimes you have the same answers, but then sometimes you have opposing answers, which is important for this forum.

This isn't a popularity contest, and your answers are just as equally important as anyeone elses, except for Richard O'Nial's, his doesn't count.

MaTTo

[This message has been edited by MaTTo (edited June 28, 1999).]

Right Plato, don't feel discouraged at all. I for one wanted to know what Boris thought, who has given the board an opposing viewpoint...which we all really want.


That Rightous Universe piece flew right over my head...

[This message has been edited by SeeKer (edited June 28, 1999).]


[This message has been edited by SeeKer (edited June 29, 1999).]

Common you guys, I was only kidding. There are no hurt feelings involved here !
Thanks for your concern though...

------------------
we are midgets standing on the backs of giants,
Plato

Plato, hehe ok well as long as no one is hurting on the inside in this debate ...

And Seeker, I wouldn't try getting this guy to explain the whole damned rightous universe thing all over again.

MaTTo

From a metaphysical and quantum viewpoint, suppose we literally create reality by our collective thoughts/actions. There could be an alternate reality for every possible future. That could explain how prophecy works. They kind of latch on to one of these probable realities. However, if we (in this case as a species) choose a different path, then the prophecy may fail. That's why none are 100% accurate.

Dr. Sten Odenwald wrote,
"It is fair to say that everything that came out of our most recent Big Bang is its own self-contained universe defined by its own unique space-time and set of natural laws. There are some theories that suggest that other universes can exist that are completely separate from our own, and not detectable by any conceivable experiment either now, or in the infinite future. Multiple universe just refers to this possibility since these other universes have their own separate space-times which have nothing to do with ours." (Source: http://image.gsfc.nasa.gov/poetry/astro/q1841.html)

By this definition it would seem to me a futile exercise using our laws of physics to support the "Multiple Universe" theory.

A "parallel universe," on the other hand, may simply be modern terminology for that world the soul travels to and commonly called, "life after death." The world of dreams, indeed, may be part and parcel of this "parallel universe" that knows nothing of the natural laws inherent within this plane of existence in which we presently live and move.

------------------
dumaurier

I'm posting this to a number of the G.A topics.

What would a universe look like with the following assumptions/characteristics:

1.Time had no beginning, so is infinite;
2.The universe has no physical distance limits, so one could go an infinite distance in any one direction, and not return to the starting point;
3.The universe has no limit on the quantity of mass and energy;
4.Multiple Big Bangs are occurring at an infinite number of places;
5.At an infinite number of places in the universe, galaxies are converging on an already huge "black hole", soon to reach Big Bang mass;
6.After a Big Bang in one area, galaxies and other mass/energy are still converging on the
area, imparting rotational energy to the expanding mass/energy;
7.Some Big Bangs would have the mass/energy to collapse again;
8.Big Bangs with low mass/energy expand until individual mass/energy elements are
captured by a nearby "Big Bang convergence area" (destined to be a Big Bang)?

I would call this a "New Steady State" theory.


------------------
Bruce Harrington

Whoa dude that message about righteous universes majorly cracked me up, I hope that was the point for the author's sake :-) Anyway I think that there may be multiple levels of different universes. What this means is that universes are related to other universes in groups, and these groups are related to larger groups in a different way, sort of like how stars form galaxies and galaxies from superclusters and superclusters form universes. It is hard to speculate on how these universes might be arranged with eachother, Ill leave that to someone else.

I have a question. It is about infinity. Someone said something about an infinite number of other universes if I am not mistaken. Did you mean infinity or just a lot? I wasn't aware that we could actually reach infinity. It seems that no matter how close you get you will still be 1 less. Actually you'd be miilions, billion, usncusnillion off. You would seem to still be infinitely far away from your goal even if you had a billion universes already. If our universe is infinitely old then why weren't we around an infinite amount of time ago? Time is still passing. Can you get higher than infinity? If we are still moving forward an infinite amount of time could not have passed. I don't think an infinite task can be completed.


The link below talks about "multiple universes." Its from 1993.
http://www.reasons.org/resources/apo...antummech.html

Vinnie

Praise Jesus!!!

*** Steadystate: Your first three axioms describe the Plasma Cosmology; I know only a little about it. It doesn't seem to be discredited, but it hasn't gained much acceptance either. The fourth axiom assumes that a Big Bang requires source mass in order to create the universe. I'm not sure that it's needed, but if it can be used, then the results would likely end up as a new universe whose dimensions are orthogonal to the infinite parent's dimensions (and likely to its siblings' dimensions). 5: is there a Big Bang critical mass? Inflationary theorists have considered masses ranging from 10 pounds down to microgram scale. 6: could the infalling galaxies interact with the bubbles' membranes?

*** Trillion1: Hi! Glad you could make it, I haven't seen you here before. How's everything been going elsewhere? Still holding down the fort for rational thinkers everywhere, I hope? lol

*** ilgwamh: I agree with your logic of infinities, but your URL link's reporters don't have their facts straight (such as Alan Guth, not Man Guth), they exhibit a a most unprofessional glossing over of facts (for example, Bishop Usher thought of the tree in his yard not existing when he wasn't looking at it. He may have been a bishop of the church or it might have been his name, I'm not sure, but I know that the Omega point (minus a god-like evolution scenario) was the original work of a devout Christian. Would you say that he was a heretic? or just that this fact is irrelevant when we're trying to slam a physicist?); overall, they're doing what most people are guilty of- rearranging things to suit their purpose.

------------------
Este est percepi - to be is to be perceived.
:-) -R.