It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Doesn't Science tell us a Level 1 Multiverse must exist?

page: 1
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:02 PM
link   
I think Max Tegmark does a good job of breaking down the 4 different Levels of Multiverses. As he says, a Level 1 Multiverse is unremarkable.

space.mit.edu...

The fact that space is expanding faster than we can observe it means there will be other observable pockets. Objects don't just vanish because we can no longer see them. If space expands ad infinitum, then there's an infinity of these observable pocket universes.

How can this be refuted?

I think in Pop culture, a Level III Multiverse is the one people focus on. This has to do with Quantum Mechanics and Schrodinger's Cat. Is there a mechanism to "collapse" the wave function. At this point, the answer is no so every probable state must exist but the Jury is out on Level III's. Penrose proposes a self collapse due to Quantum Gravity.

So, Level I's must exist. It's very simple. Space expands faster than we can observe it so our observation is limited to our observable pocket.




posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   
Pretty sure this was the basis of Stephen Hawking's last paper.




posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:36 PM
link   
I'm at the end of the level IV multiverse now, can't get past the boss to get to the next level.

Seriously, the answers are within how time actually works from the the point where this universe exploded into existence out to the farthest reaches of its expansion. And how time changes across that expanding universe.

Someday, they'll figure it out.

What can be observed and measured provides extremely limited information. Theoretical physics can't even get it yet.




posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:40 PM
link   
Funny just before I seen this thread I found this.

Chaos makes the multiverse unnecessary



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:41 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
I was a proponent of the multiverse theory, but it's just a romanticized theory in order satisfy einstein "spookiness at a distance" aka schrodinger's cat


but this video is by my favorite theoretical physicist

and this theory makes much more sense than other theories.




posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:47 PM
link   

originally posted by: neoholographic
How can this be refuted?

How do these guys get paid for this kind of pinhead angel counting?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: neoholographic
I was a proponent of the multiverse theory, but it's just a romanticized theory in order satisfy einstein "spookiness at a distance" aka schrodinger's cat


but this video is by my favorite theoretical physicist

and this theory makes much more sense than other theories.



Like I said, people are confusing a Level I Multiverse with a Level III Multiverse.

You mentioned Schrodinger's Cat and again, that's dealing with a Level III Multiverse. A Level I Multiverse is just observable pockets in expanding space. These observable pockets must exist. Objects don't just vanish because we can't observe them. Eventually, there will be no stars in the night sky that come from galaxies outside of the Milky Way because they will have expanded outside of our observable pocket.
edit on 29-11-2018 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 05:57 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: neoholographic
I was a proponent of the multiverse theory, but it's just a romanticized theory in order satisfy einstein "spookiness at a distance" aka schrodinger's cat


but this video is by my favorite theoretical physicist

and this theory makes much more sense than other theories.



Do you have a short version, or at least an excerpt of that nearly-two-hours-long lecture? Surely there is at least an excerpted quote of the man if "everything" is "astonishingly simple"...
edit on 29-11-2018 by IndyFront because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 06:02 PM
link   

originally posted by: IndyFront
Do you have a short version, or at least an excerpt of that nearly-two-hours-long lecture? Surely there is at least an excerpted quote of the man if "everything" is "astonishingly simple"...

He said,"It's just like that one Star Trek where Spock had a goatee."



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 06:19 PM
link   

originally posted by: IndyFront

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: neoholographic
I was a proponent of the multiverse theory, but it's just a romanticized theory in order satisfy einstein "spookiness at a distance" aka schrodinger's cat


but this video is by my favorite theoretical physicist

and this theory makes much more sense than other theories.



Do you have a short version, or at least an excerpt of that nearly-two-hours-long lecture? Surely there is at least an excerpted quote of the man if "everything" is "astonishingly simple"...


Neil Turok is essentially saying what I'm saying. He just thinks the Universe is cyclical. So you have one universe that occurs over and over again. The same thing except he says this universe keeps collapsing and expanding. I haven't seen any mechanism that can cause the expanding universe to collapse.



We also agree, along with Hawking in his last paper, that a random Multiverse with all of these different laws of physics doesn't make any sense. So these observable pocket universes will look just like ours just with different outcomes.


edit on 29-11-2018 by neoholographic because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 07:22 PM
link   
Definition:

Universe = The Universe is all of space and time and their contents, including planets, stars, galaxies, and all other forms of matter and energy. While the spatial size of the entire Universe is still unknown, it is possible to measure the observable universe.


So if the definition of universe is all encompassing, why are they always trying to expand on it?

Wouldn't it be interesting if the universe isn't expanding at all but is relatively static and all connected.

I never understood how they could apply a metric for sound waves to visible light. Redshift does not denote a galaxy moving away from us, but the age of said formation.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:20 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

What does space expand in to?



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:25 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

Space expands faster than it is observable but light can bend space? That seems like a paradox.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:28 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic

And this is all based on the fact that light has always been a constant but a little further digging would refute that.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 09:34 PM
link   
a reply to: ClovenSky
I always found it quite amusing that most people (even scientists) act like we have enough observations to support these theories. Technically when we use even our most powerful devices when making an observation of the observable universe, we don't know how much of the universe we are actually looking at. All we have are best guesses, as there is no observable pattern as to where the Big Bang occurred, just a general direction. Then we can take into account that everything we observe is based on the speed of light and or other wave types. Due to this our observable universe is limited, and with no evidence of the exact location of the big bang occurring in our reference observable universe we can't accurately predict the age, nor size of the universe as a whole.

As for the redshift, the only real way to tell is getting multiple measurements of the light from the source and comparing them to each other, and that will tell us if there is acceleration or deceleration, and from that secondary observable characteristics (however not necessarily anything from that observed object itself just its surroundings). But as you said they could be a general color because they are different materials being fused due to age.

edit on 29-11-2018 by dubiousatworst because: clarification



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 10:17 PM
link   
a reply to: neoholographic
Erm, pockets of observable universe isn't exactly a multiverse. Someone's observable universe may be overlapping with ours. The pockets aren't a real physical entity, they're more like rainbow which appears to every observer, an illusion based on perception.



posted on Nov, 29 2018 @ 10:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: odzeandennz
a reply to: neoholographic
I was a proponent of the multiverse theory, but it's just a romanticized theory in order satisfy einstein "spookiness at a distance" aka schrodinger's cat

I think the multiverse is necessary to explain the Big Bang. Something doesn't just pop up out of nothing, complete with energy, matter, and its own physical laws. More like our universe is just one of many (infinite number of?) "bubble universes" that pop into existence due to quantum effects in vacuum (which is endless and eternal).
edit on 29-11-2018 by wildespace because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:01 AM
link   

originally posted by: dubiousatworst
a reply to: ClovenSky

All we have are best guesses, as there is no observable pattern as to where the Big Bang occurred, just a general direction.


It should be noted that there is no "general direction" as to where the Big Bang (as the theory goes) occurred. The Big Bang and the subsequent expansion occurred everywhere. Where you are sitting is just as much the "center" of the Big Bang as is some other spot 10 Billion LY away. The oldest galaxies we see can be found in every direction from us, not just one direction. And if you went 10 billion LY away, the oldest galaxies as seen from there would be in every direction from you.

Think of the universe as the surface of a balloon. For this analogy, even though the balloon is just a 2D surface, let's consider that a stand-in for 3D space. That is to say, the 2D surface of the balloon is the entire universe; what's inside and outside the balloon should be ignored for this analogy.

As a balloon inflates, the entire surface expands in every direction, but there is not one place that could be considered the center of that expansion. Any and every single spot on that balloon could be seen (from the viewpoint of each spot) as the center of the expansion of that balloon, because that expansion happens equally from any given point. The expanding universe could be thought of the same way as the inflating balloon; the expansion of the universe occurred (and still occurs) everywhere simultaneously with no common center of expansion.

And the Big Bang should be thought of as an expansion of space, not and expansion in space. There was no "place" within our universe for the Bing Bang to happen because our universe did not exist.

Granted, something might have existed before our universe, or our universe might exist "inside" some multiverse (or whatever you might want to call it). But the Big Bang and our physics deal with our universe. The Big Bang Theory is mostly silent on what, if anything, existed before the Big Bang, or why the Big Bang happened, or "what banged?". It is only meant to describe how the universe we have today emerged from the Big Bang -- not how or why it banged (or what banged) in the first place.


edit on 30/11/2018 by Soylent Green Is People because: (no reason given)



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 09:46 PM
link   
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

No. That is crap. Explain how and why. Not just the explanation of what other people think happened. Seriously. Explain the big bang and why it happened. I'm very interested in anyone explaining this. Because it's ridiculous. If you still subscribe to this notion then you are a fool.



posted on Nov, 30 2018 @ 11:31 PM
link   

originally posted by: Toolman18
a reply to: Soylent Green Is People

No. That is crap. Explain how and why. Not just the explanation of what other people think happened. Seriously. Explain the big bang and why it happened. I'm very interested in anyone explaining this. Because it's ridiculous. If you still subscribe to this notion then you are a fool.

A false vacuum decayed to a lower energy state, causing a "bubble nucleation". Our universe is that bubble.

There you go, nice and simple.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2 >>

log in

join