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.

 

Multiverse = Several Big Bangs in One Universe?

page: 1
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 12:42 AM
link   
I've just been browsing around on here when an idea came to me.

The universe is infinate. That's what most scientists agree on.
Most of those believe in other universes (Multiverse).

Well, if the universe is infinate, then could it be possible that another Big Bang - or maybe even a few - has happened in some distant part of this infinate universe?

Would you say that the areas surrounding these Big Bangs are seperate universes in their own right?

What I'm getting at is if the product of our own Big Bang is set to expand across the universe, and others are doing the same elsewhere, then at some point they will surely meet?

You could take this further of course. We have a solar system, in a cluster of our own, inside just one of millions of galaxies. Maybe the total of all our galaxies are simply a larger cluster is some massive structure, which if viewed from a great enough distance might resemble a huge galaxy? Each one of these clusters (the results of a Big Bang) Would be a single universe, which is where the 'multiverse' comes in. Problem is, where do you draw the line? This line of thinking could just go on and on, the size of these structures becoming infinate in size themselves.

No-one can possibly know for sure what goes on in the farthest reaches of space, I believe I'm right in thinking we only fairly recently saw the outer edges of our own Big Bang.

I don't know how possible this may be, or if anyone else has ever thought of it. It just struck me a moment ago so I thought I'd put it 'out there' to see what you guys think. I'll post anything I find.

Hope it got you thinking either way, comments/thoughts welcome.


Kyle.

EDIT: For spelling and grammar


[edit on 20-8-2010 by kai22]




posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:00 AM
link   
Well how much energy is needed for the big bang? I would think such a reaction would call for all the available energy that exists so maybe in a sense you are right. They would just be smaller versions of this big bang, I would think. So maybe the other universes would be a lot smaller in scale.

I for one could never wrap my head around the concept of universes. How is something infinite? It had to start at one point, it would seem.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:09 AM
link   
Well that's just it, how can something be infinate in size? But on the other hand, how can some thing as large as a universe end? The only explaination I've heard about the infinate universe is that it's circular, a ring that simply comes back on itself. But how can it go in a loop (which if you think about it has only two directions) when it must be infinate in all directions?

I've just read something about the 'String Theory'. I'm sure I've heard of it before to be honest so I'll do some digging, see what that come up with.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:13 AM
link   
There are some who think that black holes might actually feed into singularities in other dimensions / universes and that each of these could have given rise to a big bang of its own.

BTW your thoughts on what the universe would look like if you were much, much, much larger also applies in the micro. You could say that an atom would look a lot like a galaxy if you could shrink down small enough.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:17 AM
link   

Originally posted by Hefficide

BTW your thoughts on what the universe would look like if you were much, much, much larger also applies in the micro. You could say that an atom would look a lot like a galaxy if you could shrink down small enough.


Very true. In fact a friend of mine told me about a video he saw demonstrating just that, going from atom to galaxy. I'll see if I can find it anywhere



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:18 AM
link   
reply to post by kai22
 




The universe is infinate. That's what most scientists agree on.
No they don't...they think our universe is spherical or a disk shape, I forget...you must be careful to distinguish between just our universe or a "space" (I think that's the best word to use) where many universes exist within, which is a multiverse.



Well, if the universe is infinate, then could it be possible that another Big Bang - or maybe even a few - has happened in some distant part of this infinate universe?
If the "universe" (see what I mean) is infinite, than it's impossible that other Universes don't exist.

EDIT:


You could take this further of course. We have a solar system, in a cluster of our own, inside just one of millions of galaxies. Maybe the total of all our galaxies are simply a larger cluster is some massive structure, which if viewed from a great enough distance might resemble a huge galaxy? Each one of these clusters (the results of a Big Bang) Would be a single universe, which is where the 'multiverse' comes in. Problem is, where do you draw the line? This line of thinking could just go on and on, the size of these structures becoming infinate in size themselves.
Check out this thread I made a while ago. I basically talk about what you are getting into, and also in reverse, zooming in.

[edit on 20/8/10 by CHA0S]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:19 AM
link   
I tend to feel the universe is more than what we can observe with our 5 senses. For me there seems to be a unique relationship with my mind and the universe. If considering the law of conservation of energy, and we are a product of that energy, since it changed form, than whats to say we don't return and do all this again?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 01:55 AM
link   
reply to post by CHA0S
 


I'm unsure how you quote quotes so I've had to do it this way...


"The universe is infinate. That's what most scientists agree on."

"No they don't...they think our universe is spherical or a disk shape, I forget...you must be careful to distinguish between just our universe or a "space" (I think that's the best word to use) where many universes exist within, which is a multiverse."

My bad. I thought it was generally agreed that the/our universe is infinate in itself and may/may not form a ring of sorts. I also thought that this/our universe was theorised to be one of many, but not in the way I was talking about.


"Well, if the universe is infinate, then could it be possible that another Big Bang - or maybe even a few - has happened in some distant part of this infinate universe?"

"If the "universe" (see what I mean) is infinite, than it's impossible that other Universes don't exist."

I can see where I've made a mistake here. I was talking about our area of space being one universe, while simultaneously referring to space as a whole as a universe. But would that make our universe (the area of space in which our Big Bang occurred) part of the multiverse (space as a whole)?
I believe that's what I was talking about in the first place.

I also believe I've confused myself...

I'll go check out the thread you mentioned, and return when I've regrouped my thoughts.


Thanks either way.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:06 AM
link   
Infinite universes are possible - theoretically - because infinite overlapping dimensions are a possibility.

Besides, the concept of "infinity" allows for an infinite number of infinite spaces within it. That's why it hurts the brain so much to think about it!



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 02:16 AM
link   


Besides, the concept of "infinity" allows for an infinite number of infinite spaces within it. That's why it hurts the brain so much to think about it!



You're not wrong there


Just had a look at your thread, very good reading
The video of the Mandelbrot set is fascinating, and yet I've never heard of it before


As you've no doubt guessed I have a high interest in this area of science, but a low understanding of it.

I'm just about to read your paper on Enforced Logic - Reality and "Magic". Am I right in thinking this involves noetic science?

EDIT: OK, just read your paper.

Firstly.. WOW
I've read about people being able to manipulate reality using belief, but I've never seen it put in writing how it might work.

Secondly, I noticed that it was over a year ago when you wrote it, and you never responded to the people who asked for a video... why is this?

I'm not saying I need to see proof to believe, I just wondered why you never provided a video of these 'abilities'?

Either way, both the thread and the paper were excellent, I've S+F both of them


[edit on 20-8-2010 by kai22]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:13 AM
link   
reply to post by kai22
 




I'm just about to read your paper on Enforced Logic - Reality and "Magic". Am I right in thinking this involves noetic science?
No idea what noetic science is actually, might have to look that up. Yes, that is one of my longest and most thought out threads, but also one of my first. As I've said before, take it with a grain of salt because back then my knowledge of the physics involved was a little less developed and I'd probably change a few things in it now.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:20 AM
link   
reply to post by kai22
 




Secondly, I noticed that it was over a year ago when you wrote it, and you never responded to the people who asked for a video... why is this?
Ok, to be honest I did practice it for a period of time, and I believe I was getting small objects to move slightly on rare occasions, but 99% of the time I got nothing. As I said, my friend actually managed to witness it once, well he says he seen it, and I saw it too, and felt it move up my hand. I knew I wouldn't be able to get it on video though, and I didn't even bother trying, I haven't really tried it much since then, I sort of lost interest and started studying the Alien subject a lot after that. I still believe it's possible though, and most of what I write in that thread is still basically how I think it works.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:24 AM
link   
This is what I've taken from wikipedia.

Noetic theory is a branch of metaphysical philosophy concerned with the study of mind and intuition, and its relationship with the divine intellect. Among its principal purposes are the study of the effects of perceptions, beliefs, and intentions on human consciousness. The theory of noetics centers around the idea that the human mind is capable of affecting work or events or even doing work in the physical world. It is suggested that thought and spirit are not, in fact, imaginary, but are Bose or photon based, meaning essentially that the mind can be quantified by formulae which describe quantum materials such as light. This is a radical conclusion where many people think thoughts are weightless. Just as gravity affects all matter, so do thoughts to an apparent lesser degree. Psychokinesis, more often called telekinesis, is concerned with the direct influence of mind on matter. Noetics is controversial, but research grounded in scientific approach has brought the subject into a more serious light in recent years. Many members of academia in the fields of medicine, biology, psychology, philosophy, and physics believe in and study the effect of thoughts on the physical world, from health effects to throwing dice. Though skepticism has often surrounded this field of science, research aims to both quantify and make known the power of the human mind. It won a special highlight in the Dan Brown book, The Lost Symbol, where noetics were a central theme.

In The Lost Symbol, it tells of how a fictional scientist is experimenting with Noetic Science. One test she tries is to take two bowls/globes (one or the other) of water and influence them as they freeze. Basically, she concentrates positive thoughts at the first bowl, which goes on to freeze completely clear. The second is subjected to negative thoughts and freezes cloudily, with cracks etc. A small example of mind over matter I suppose.

I think I've managed to pull this thread off topic, not good considering I was the one to start it
Nevermind eh?

EDIT: It is also believed that our ancestors had a much deeper understanding of this than we do today.

[edit on 20-8-2010 by kai22]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 03:36 AM
link   
reply to post by kai22
 


There are some scientists who think the universe is infinite, the
most commonly accepted theory is that it is limited to what
we can see with a low level tech.

bigbangneverhappened.org...

This scientist with the smallest budget of the hot fusion designs
looks to be closest to achieving the goal of usable power.


Google Video Link


It will take more than a handful of scientists to make any head way
with the majority though.

It is mostly theory at this point.

Some are finding or theorizing things that are shaking the current
structures of physics, and the LHC may confirm them soon.

www.telegraph.co.uk...

Looking forward to seeing if they are right.





[edit on 20-8-2010 by Ex_MislTech]



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:12 AM
link   
reply to post by Ex_MislTech
 


Interesting, thanks for sharing


I've yet to look through all the content but after reading the article in the link you posted, I realised that there was a strange thought going on...

Garrett Lisi believes the universe is in the shape of an E8, decribed here -

"The most elegant and intricate shape known to mathematics, called E8 - a complex, eight-dimensional mathematical pattern with 248 points first found in 1887, but only fully understood by mathematicians this year after workings, that, if written out in tiny print, would cover an area the size of Manhattan. E8 encapsulates the symmetries of a geometric object that is 57-dimensional and is itself is 248-dimensional."

The E8 looks like this -



Our universe could look like this? I remember making similar patterns with Spirograph!


Seriously though, it sounds like a promising theory. Bizarre, but promising



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:15 AM
link   
reply to post by kai22
 


You brought up the Mandlebrot set earlier. The e8 picture brought that to mind.

I've always had a tugging gut feeling that fractals have a great deal to do with how the universe is stitched together - time, space, all of it.

Thoughts?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 04:47 AM
link   

Originally posted by kai22
The universe is infinate. That's what most scientists agree on.
Most of those believe in other universes (Multiverse).
You mean infinite? Source?

My sources say something different:
en.wikipedia.org...

The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the visible universe (also called the particle horizon) is about 14 billion parsecs (46.5 billion light-years) in any direction

The visible universe is thus a sphere with a diameter of about 28 billion parsecs (about 93 billion light-years)
Whether the universe is infinite beyond the observable universe, or whether there are other universes beyond our universe, is unknown.

Here is a claim the opposite of yours but I'm not sure this one is true either:

uk.answers.yahoo.com...


Q: Is a flat universe necessarily infinite in spatial extent?
A: We don't know, but most scientists believe on the basis of imperfect evidence that space is not infinite. It is certainly the case that the universe is not *necessarily* infinite, either in spatial or indeed in temporal extent.


The shape of the universe seems "flat" though as Michio Kaku says, there may actually be some small cuvature to it that's hard to see the same way it's hard for an observer on the Earth to see the curvature of the Earth.

Are people taking surveys of what scientists think to determine what "most scientists" think? I would accept such a source but I'm not aware of it for this topic.



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:02 AM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I didn't use a source. To be fair, I didn't think I needed one (at the time anyway). Simply because I assumed that was what most people thought.
I've already been pulled up on this (thinking that most scientists believe the universe is infinite) in this thread, did you read the replies?

Plus, as you rightly pointed out, you're first source only talks about the 'visible universe', what's past what we can see? I was talking about the universe/multiverse as a whole.

Also, if the universe is not infinite, then how does it end? What comes after that end?



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 05:32 AM
link   
Measurements from WMAP

The WMAP spacecraft can measure the basic parameters of the Big Bang theory including the geometry of the universe. If the universe were open, the brightest microwave background fluctuations (or "spots") would be about half a degree across. If the universe were flat, the spots would be about 1 degree across. While if the universe were closed, the brightest spots would be about 1.5 degrees across.
Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error.


Ok, the universe is flat, fair enough.

The shape of the universe is determined by a struggle between the momentum of expansion and the pull of gravity. The rate of expansion is expressed by the Hubble Constant, Ho, while the strength of gravity depends on the density and pressure of the matter in the universe. If the pressure of the matter is low, as is the case with most forms of matter we know of, then the fate of the universe is governed by the density. If the density of the universe is less than the "critical density" which is proportional to the square of the Hubble constant, then the universe will expand forever. If the density of the universe is greater than the "critical density", then gravity will eventually win and the universe will collapse back on itself, the so called "Big Crunch". However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever.

Source

So chances are it IS infinite? Just my interperatation....



posted on Aug, 20 2010 @ 06:21 AM
link   

Originally posted by kai22
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 


I didn't use a source. To be fair, I didn't think I needed one (at the time anyway). Simply because I assumed that was what most people thought.
I've already been pulled up on this (thinking that most scientists believe the universe is infinite) in this thread, did you read the replies?


You didn't believe this reply did you? It's completely wrong about the shape of the universe, it's flat, or so close to flat we can't tell the difference:


Originally posted by CHA0S
reply to post by kai22
 




The universe is infinate. That's what most scientists agree on.
No they don't...they think our universe is spherical or a disk shape, I forget...



Plus, as you rightly pointed out, you're first source only talks about the 'visible universe', what's past what we can see? I was talking about the universe/multiverse as a whole.

Also, if the universe is not infinite, then how does it end? What comes after that end?
I already answered that, we don't know. If Michio Kaku is right, and the universe appears nearly flat but it's really not, then if you keep heading in one direction, it might be like heading in one direction around the Earth, you might never reach the end and may end up right where you started. But we have no evidence for this shape, just Michio Kaku's opinion.

On the other hand we don't know if there's an end to "space-time", trying to go past the end of space-time might be like walking into a wall. If there's no more space in a room, you can't go any further. Spacetime might be like that but the edge of the universe, if there is one, is too far away for us to be able to answer that question in the foreseeable future.



new topics

top topics



 
3
<<   2 >>

log in

join