“Other Universes are Pulling on Our Universe” — New Planck Data Triggers Controversy

Discussion in 'Science & Society' started by mohitnigam, Oct 25, 2013.

  1. mohitnigam Registered Member

    Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of ‘multiverse’ revealed for the first time by a cosmic map of background radiation data gathered by Planck telescope. The first ‘hard evidence’ that other universes exist has been claimed to have been found by cosmologists studying new Planck data released this past June. They have concluded that it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by the gravitational pull of other universes.
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. paddoboy Valued Senior Member


    Do we have a link to the official article??
    I have another possible alternative though, that someone could comment on.....
    What if the Isotropy and homogeneity we see in the observable Universe did not follow suit in the Universe as a whole?
    What if beyond our Hubble volume, there was a really gigantic cluster/wall/conglomeration of galaxies that was exerting the pule being attributed to other Universes.
    Could this be a valid explanation???
    Just playing the devil's advocate with a possible alternative solution. What do others think?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Got it!!!


    the article concludes with the following which I see a good reason to reproduce......

    " Such discoveries force a whole new set of ideas onto the table which, even if they turn out to be wrong, are the greatest ways to advance science and our understanding of everything. One explanation that's already been offered is that our universe underwent a period of hyper-inflation early in its existence, and everything we think of as the vast and infinite universe is actually a small corner under the sofa of the real expanse of reality. Which would be an amazing, if humbling, discovery."
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    Hmmm, funny, no more comment from the thread initiator.....


    "Dark Flow" sounds like a new SciFi Channel series. It's not! The dark flow is controversial because the distribution of matter in the observed universe cannot account for it. Its existence suggests that some structure beyond the visible universe -- outside our "horizon" -- is pulling on matter in our vicinity.

    So, with regards to their hypothesis, wouldn't it be a simpler to just surmise that maybe the Isotropy and homogeneity that we see in our observable Universe, may not apply fully beyond the visible horizon?...Using Occam's razor of course.......
    Not that I have anything against multiple Universes theories, just that our own Universe is far far more then just what we are able to observe, and the assumptions of Isotropy and homogeneity just may not hold.

    If that was the case, would that then invalidate Guth's Inflationary epoch?
  8. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Only that single post made to the whole site. I've seen incognito writers drop lengthy lone-ones before in online forums, without even a link, to promote their books or published works. But seldom a hit-and-run that's just the barest nugget about a research release.

    Wonder what happened to that oft-sung chorus of "other universes" either being untestable or "overly useful". Such pessimism initially presupposed and favored by armchair-lecturing scientism, then perversely adopted by creationist / ID folk (very bottom quote as example).


    "Ten or 20 years ago, I was a firm believer in naturalness," said Nathan Seiberg, a theoretical physicist at the Institute, where Einstein taught from 1933 until his death in 1955. "Now I'm not so sure. My hope is there's still something we haven't thought about, some other mechanism that would explain all these things. But I don't see what it could be."

    Physicists reason that if the universe is unnatural, with extremely unlikely fundamental constants that make life possible, then an enormous number of universes must exist for our improbable case to have been realized. Otherwise, why should we be so lucky? Unnaturalness would give a huge lift to the multiverse hypothesis, which holds that our universe is one bubble in an infinite and inaccessible foam.
    In such a picture, not everything about this universe is inevitable, rendering it unpredictable. Edward Witten, a string theorist at the Institute, said by email, "I would be happy personally if the multiverse interpretation is not correct, in part because it potentially limits our ability to understand the laws of physics. But none of us were consulted when the universe was created."

    "Some people hate it," said Raphael Bousso, a physicist at the University of California at Berkeley who helped develop the multiverse scenario. "But I just don't think we can analyze it on an emotional basis. It's a logical possibility that is increasingly favored in the absence of naturalness at the LHC."

    - - - - - -


    "In the previous post we showed that it is faulty to use the multiverse theory to explain anything because it is a theory which can equally explain everything. Therefore, explaining fine tuning with a multiverse is a 'multiverse of the gaps' argument which is desperately put forth to deny the indications of Intelligent Design. In this post we will put that problem aside and explain why we believe that multiverse theory is not even science, but is rather bad philosophy of science."
  9. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    Max Tegmark's "Level I" type of multiverse (of 3 more) also seems grounded in the consequences of such a vast version of "this" one universe, but minus that involving mutability in its laws, general tendencies / properties. [Or maybe not, since he could be referring alone to the replications of our known cosmic neighborhood]. Ergo, all his doppelgangers of ourselves arising as some possible patterns monotonously exhaust themselves broadly, yet still endlessly refine themselves in narrower variations (James Dean didn't die young and became even more famous, James Dean lived long but never became an actor, etc).

    Tegmark: The parallel universes of your alter egos constitute the Level I multiverse. It is the least controversial type. We all accept the existence of things that we cannot see but could see if we moved to a different vantage point or merely waited, like people watching for ships to come over the horizon. Objects beyond the cosmic horizon have a similar status. The observable universe grows by a light-year every year as light from farther away has time to reach us. An infinity lies out there, waiting to be seen. You will probably die long before your alter egos come into view, but in principle, and if cosmic expansion cooperates, your descendants could observe them through a sufficiently powerful telescope.
    Another possibility is that space is infinite but matter is confined to a finite region around us--the historically popular "island universe" model. In a variant on this model, matter thins out on large scales in a fractal pattern. In both cases, almost all universes in the Level I multiverse would be empty and dead. But recent observations of the three-dimensional galaxy distribution and the microwave background have shown that the arrangement of matter gives way to dull uniformity on large scales [...] Assuming that this pattern continues, space beyond our observable universe teems with galaxies, stars and planets.

    Observers living in Level I parallel universes experience the same laws of physics as we do but with different initial conditions. According to current theories, processes early in the big bang spread matter around with a degree of randomness, generating all possible arrangements with nonzero probability.
    Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? The life of this person has been identical to yours in every respect. But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on.

    The idea of such an alter ego seems strange and implausible, but it looks as if we will just have to live with it, because it is supported by astronomical observations. The simplest and most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 10^28 meters from here. This distance is so large that it is beyond astronomical, but that does not make your doppelgänger any less real. The estimate is derived from elementary probability and does not even assume speculative modern physics, merely that space is infinite (or at least sufficiently large) in size and almost uniformly filled with matter, as observations indicate. In infinite space, even the most unlikely events must take place somewhere. There are infinitely many other inhabited planets, including not just one but infinitely many that have people with the same appearance, name and memories as you, who play out every possible permutation of your life choices.

    --Parallel Universes, Scientific American​
  10. paddoboy Valued Senior Member

    The observable universe grows by a light-year every year as light from farther away has time to reach us.

    But that isn't taking into consideration that the further we see, the faster we observe the expansion rate.
    Now since the galaxies are expanding along with space/time [analogous to dots painted on the surface of a balloon being blown up] those galaxies will eventually be red shifted beyond our view and our observable horizon.
    Eventually, as our local group of galaxies merge, and the distant ones expand with space/time beyond our horizon, our galaxy will be literally alone.

    And when the expansion rate reaches 'c ' our observable horizon will not grow anymore.........
  11. C C Consular Corps - "the backbone of diplomacy" Valued Senior Member

    I felt his "your descendants could observe them through a sufficiently powerful telescope" was way out there in terms of optimism. LOL

Share This Page