# big bang "pillars" of proof

Discussion in 'General Science & Technology' started by EmptyForceOfChi, May 4, 2007.

Not open for further replies.
1. ### H4rd2bmeGuest

So is the notion here that there is, in fact, only one universe (as the name suggests) and that it is infinite? Or many "universes" comprising a multiverse? If we consider our universe infinite, then the theory/concept of a big bang or expansion becomes impossible since then it would take an infinite amount of time, and an infinite amount of energy to reach the size ∞. Since it's likely the universe is still expanding it can't be expanding to ∞ + x

3. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
We need to get some definitions straight first. What do you understand by 'Universe'?

"Main Entry: uni·verse
Pronunciation: 'yü-n&-"v&rs
Function: noun
Etymology: Middle English, from Latin universum, from neuter of universus entire, whole, from uni- + versus turned toward, from past participle of vertere to turn -- more at WORTH
1 : the whole body of things and phenomena observed or postulated "

So, by the very definition, the Universe is everything. Therefore, there can be only one Universe. A 'multiverse' is what then? A Universe cut up into arbitrary chunks?

The Universe is not infinite, btw. It's 14Bn light years across, give or take. Big, but not infinite. Relativity states that nothing can move faster than the speed of light, and things moving opposite directions at c from any reference point can only move away from each other at c too. Therefore, no matter how you figure it, the Universe is as 'wide' in light years, as it is old in years.

5. ### H4rd2bmeGuest

Well then, there ya go! But the hypothesis that a universe outside our own makes the usual definition obsolete when used in those circumstances. What if outside our own little bang and resulting distribution of energy, exists other bangs with repective resultant distributions. I've never read of or heard someone speak of these other universes as part of our own universe. Often we find our knowledge or theory expands beyond the simple definition of a word. While I appreciate the grammar lesson, there is no way you could have overstepped the term multiverse in your studies of cosmology and that which pertains to what may exist outside our known universe, as indeed there are likely many universes.

7. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
No it doesn't. Universe is all that exists, so if something else exists, it's part of our Universe, period.

Where is the boundary, for things to be 'outside', you seen a fence up there anywhere?

What other Universes? There are none.

The only way there could be more than one universe (small U) is if somehow there were different physical rules, with completely different, non-overlapping dimensions, except maybe one, that we could detect an anomaly through, but were unable to actually travel into the other universe due to the dimensional contraint. It would still be part of the 'Universe' however, because it would be taken care of by the definition of Universe being the sum of everything that exists.

Now, I know some people feel clever bandying around such terms as 'multiverse' and it's very popular amongst Marvel comic fans to bring the dead back to life, but please, have a think about how something could qualify as not being part of our Universe first eh?

8. ### H4rd2bmeGuest

No it doesn't. Universe is all that exists, so if something else exists, it's part of our Universe, period.

No. Not period. Because you said so, does not make it "period".

Where is the boundary, for things to be 'outside', you seen a fence up there anywhere?

We can't se it so it isn't there kinda thing?

What other Universes? There are none.

Really? I feel like Galileo.

The only way there could be more than one universe (small U) is if somehow there were different physical rules, with completely different, non-overlapping dimensions, except maybe one, that we could detect an anomaly through, but were unable to actually travel into the other universe due to the dimensional contraint. It would still be part of the 'Universe' however, because it would be taken care of by the definition of Universe being the sum of everything that exists.

Or there could be evidence of other universes which begin from singularities much like bubbles forming in a pot of boiling water, or perhaps two branes interacting together. Or... wait. Have you even read Hawking?

Now, I know some people feel clever bandying around such terms as 'multiverse' and it's very popular amongst Marvel comic fans to bring the dead back to life, but please, have a think about how something could qualify as not being part of our Universe first eh?

Marvel comic fans? In actuality, the fact that you know what that means says something about you (because I have no idea what that even means). Wow. I have only been here a few days and came here to talk about science and science-related issues. I'm not here to get anyone's dander up. the notion that something exists outside our known universe is nothing new. Maybe I just hit a few bad first notes or something but the close-mindededness and arrogance so far is unbelievable. You must be one of those nerdy little guys/girls that had sand kicked in your face and now use the internet to slam others with your intelligence, poking fun at them in the process. Well anyway thanks for laying down the law there on the whole cosmological idea of multiple universes. You heard it here first!

9. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
If the two regions of space are causally disconnected (i.e. not causally connected), would they not qualify as "different universes"?

That is, if I can never talk to a region of space, shouldn't it qualify as it's own universe? (I don't know the answer to this question.)

Last edited: May 16, 2007
10. ### H4rd2bmeGuest

So are you asking whether or not the universe (or what we refer to as THE Universe) is a closed system?

Because if it's not, or there are additional systems out there, we need to invent some new words it seems.

11. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
OK, first how do we detect this region of space? Set up some definitions and we can talk.

The problem I have is with a boundary, some impass, where space changes, and we cannot go. There has to be a boundary change between Universes, but quantum mechanics tells us what about boundaries?

12. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
I didn't say so, the dictionary did. I'm just trying to get a common frame of reference for debate, and using the established terms seems the best approach. If you want to use a different terminology, do so, but don't misappropriate accepted words.

Have you noticed a phenomena that can only be explained by a relationship with another Universe? Even if postulations about there being a singularity at the centre of a black hole are correct, physics breaks down at a singularity, and we cannot see through it. So we cannot prove anything beyond. This is just another example of the boundary problem.

Physics breaks down at a singularity. What is the boundary condition between bubbles? And yes, I have read Hawking.

[/quote]

Nice rant, but you still haven't explained how something can be 'outside' our Universe, but detectable from it. I think it's just your lack of eloquence leading to frustration, so I'll let this ad-hom go this time. If you want to talk physics, talk physics, leave the pop-psychology for another day.

13. ### SingularityBannedBanned

Messages:
1,287
And what if theres a wormhole between them

14. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342

With different laws of physics at either end, that meet in the middle?

What do you think would happen if you tried travelling along this wormhole, and came out at the other end?

15. ### EmptyForceOfChiBannedBanned

Messages:
10,848
you would turn into an inside out pink sock puppet.

peace.

16. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
Well, maybe not. I think what would happen is that every atom in your body would just disentigrate. Quarks would stop interacting inside neucleons, electrons would float away from neuclei. Things would literally dissolve like sugar in water, I think.

17. ### H4rd2bmeGuest

Now you insult my intelligence by equating me to some ranting pop-psychologist? Not without first reducing me to some comic book-reading revivalist. Well I'll concede then. You'll let it go? I have a better idea. How about I let you go...

From another user:

"wow, 5 post's and he says what i could not in 2k+...good job...

...Bravo.-hiyo"

Remove my membership and any post I ever contributed. I no longer have any desire to be a member of whatever this is (psiforums being a misnomer). But I'll be sure to direct everyone I meet that desires to ridicule and be ridiculed to come here straight away.

18. ### IceAgeCivilizationsBannedBanned

Messages:
6,618
Oh come on H4, we got your back.

19. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
So you haven't got an answer to the boundary question? You could admit that before you cower off.

20. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
By definition it's not detectable...that's what causally disconnected means. But if the inflationary paradigm is right, and evidence from WMAP suggests that it is, it seems that we may be led to such a conclusion.

Well it doesn't matter because we'd never get anywhere near a boundary, unless we were to find some way to travel faster than light.

21. ### BenTheManDr. of Physics, Prof. of LoveValued Senior Member

Messages:
8,967
You people are all wrapped up in the semantics, I think.

22. ### phlogisticianBannedBanned

Messages:
10,342
Well, without experimental proof, where are we?

Exactly, and untestable hypothesis at best. We need a grand unified theory, and then examine it for anomalies.

All we could say, is that it's not impossible for another universe with different dimensions to exist. We could not prove one does. It's a thought experiment at best. For any proof, we need some dimensional overlap, an observable ramafication in our Universe, that cannot be explained by what we know to exist here. If you think that may be inflation, that could be exciting, or we may just find something mundane to explain it. I'd prefer excitement, but somehow think it's going to be a simpler answer, if soluble at all.

23. ### H4rd2bmeGuest

Had to take that last jab? Get that last word huh? Who could have predicted that? Like a wind-up toy! Well, before I even waste another moment of my time discussing universal wavefunction, MWI, or any approach to solving some of these greater problems, you have to answer a question for me, phlog.

You have over 3000 posts here. Even at a paltry 3 minutes per post, that's over 150 hours of posts alone, not including reading other posts and thinking on them: 2-3 posts per day per year for at least three years! Other than coming here to offer a sarcastic quip or insult, what the bloody hell else do you do?

This must be a huge part of your life. So unless you're saving all your posts to eventually compile something that might actually be published, you couldn't have much else so you can have it. It's alllll yours tiger.

So answer that question and then I will cower away.

I will cower off. I WILL COWER OFF IN FEAR! Not just because I can't afford to waste another moment of my time on your disrespectful, self-involved internet ramblings but because I am indeed afraid. AFRAID, of becoming something, ANYTHING resembling yourself. That is something I will not do. So just do what I asked, and remove my username and posts. I don't wish to be a part of whatever this is. You're still king.

I have the time to be involved in intelligent, thought PROVOKING (not shattering) discussion, but I can find abuse and insults anywhere. To the members I did talk with briefly, thank you for your time and discussion. If we talk about many worlds or anything regarding multiverse theory, we are on philosophical ground. Which is okay because philosophy is the father of all sciences and most of what exists today in quantum theory is philosophical in nature. Make no mistake about that.

And to you phlog, all I will give you is a variation on a very old line - "I don't want to be a part of any club that would have YOU as a member."