Astronomers Find First Evidence Of Other Universes

Originally posted by SpaceJ
reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

 

But universe under current connotations means what could potentially become just our brane, so then you'd have to at least dedicate a new term for it, which they already have with the word brane I suppose.

Brane is a dimension. Up/down, left/right, forward/backwards, that is 3-dimensional, a.k.a. 3-branes.

You are mistaking branes for universes for some odd reason. No matter how many branes our universe has, there is still only ONE universe.

Originally posted by SpaceJ
So if this becomes accepted truth, then what we used to consider the universe would in turn become redefined at a brane only, and the universe expanded to encompass all branes.

You are using an incorrect definition of "brane". Universe has and always will be defined as "EVERYTHING". No expansion required.

Originally posted by SpaceJ
Because we need a way to define things in terms of locality outward. Solar system, galaxy, universe, no longer, it would be solar system, galaxy, brane/bubble/choose your favorite word/whatever, universe. A new term is required to differentiate our old view of the universe from our revised view.

Yes I agree, a new term should be made. But, "universe" will ALWAYS be last on the list because "universe" contains ALL of EVERYTHING by definition. Brane already has a definition, so that wouldn't be the correct term either.

The word "world" has multi definitions, and one of those definitions can be used.

Solar system, galaxy, worlds, universe. Something like that... The universe contains multiple worlds.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy

I agree with you on the definition of Universe.

The term, if it is to mean anything or have a reason for existing as the term implies, is that it means everything that exists, will exist, and no longer exists. Everything we can observe and can't observe. Everything in every dimension and beyond. Everything we can think of and can't think of. All mutliverses, metaverses, and parallel unvierses.

It goes beyond totality to infinity.

This definition is considered the broadest definition possible of "Universe".

And so, the term "Multiverse" is actually a sub-category of Universe. Multiverses are how one would divide the Universe up across dimensions.

The "observable" Universe too, is how we would divide up the Universe based on what humans can see so far with the technology we have. This "observable" Universe is the one that we are familiar with, the one with hundreds of billions of galaxies, about 13.7 billion years old, the one we live in.

The idea is that even though human's begin to understand and learn of more and more of the Universe, we will never actually be able to understand all of it, because it is infinite. But that's a matter for another discussion.

Anyways, I agree with you.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


Its going to be quantumverse,universe,membraneverse,multiverse and so onand so on...fractals forever man.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


And I never, ever said that universe wouldn't always be last on the list. ALL I was saying is that a new term must be inserted in between galaxy and universe. We are saying the same thing. I will agree on the term world to end the silly argument. Galaxy, world, universe. Okay?

But depending on what theory you are following, some do include a new term of multiverse which would in a sense make universe not the last thing on the line.

The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James.[1] The various universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes.

It gets confused when you introduce the concept of parallel universes, because the universe in this definition is not the only universe which defies our definition of universe as you say. In this thought it would be galaxy, universe, metaverse/multiverse. I prefer metaverse in this example.

Regardless, the only thing I'm seeking here at the moment is a common word we can all use for where you choose the word "world". That's all. Because then it becomes easier to talk about it, without everyone confusing what you mean by the word universe, and without having to say "other universes" or "our universe".

Probably be a ultraverse as well ontop
So quantumverse,universe,membraneverse,multiverse,ultraverse,quadultraverse,hexultraverse...trioaverse,anything mathematical to infinity,at least I agree there.

reply to post by gringoboy


The last will just be infiniverse.

Oh, that's already a term...

(Tibetan Buddhism): Infiniverse-everything that exists,seen or unseen. The universe is the observed part(material substance)of the infiniverse.

Our 'reality' is composed of 99.99999% empty space, all the way down to the subatomic level. An actual mass particle has yet to be seen.

reply to post by SpaceJ


Exactly,the fractal russian doll

one word.

MULTIVERSE!

No, universe will always be last by definition. Universe means EVERYTHING. How many times do I have to repeat that?

The word universe derives from the Old French word Univers, which in turn derives from the Latin word universum.[6] The Latin word was used by Cicero and later Latin authors in many of the same senses as the modern English word is used.[7] The Latin word derives from the poetic contraction Unvorsum — first used by Lucretius in Book IV (line 262) of his De rerum natura (On the Nature of Things) — which connects un, uni (the combining form of unus', or "one") with vorsum, versum (a noun made from the perfect passive participle of vertere, meaning "something rotated, rolled, changed").[7] Lucretius used the word in the sense "everything rolled into one, everything combined into one".

Universe = 1

You can divide 1 as much as you want; 0.1 or 0.01 or 0.001 etc., and give it as many names as you want; solar system, galaxy, world, etc. however.... NOTHING will EVER be greater than ONE (universe).

Yes, the word universe is used in many different contexts, but the absolute definition of universe is ALL, EVERYTHING, the WHOLE, everything combined into ONE.

This is not a silly argument. This means the astronomers are not exactly correct when they claim they found "other universes". What they found is other parts of the universe. They may have discovered "parts" of the "whole". If you were to travel to these parts, you will still be in the same universe, just another part.

That is all I am saying...

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


I agree with you that by that definition they are inaccurate in what they say. But some models theoretically do say that the universe is basically "everything (we see) rolled into one." Meaning that there are multiple universes relative to its inhabitants, that make up the greater multiverse/metaverse/infiniverse/russian doll/whatever pleases you. I'm not saying this is what I agree with, I'm just saying that is why they are using the term universe in the way that you feel is wrong. I'm saying your point needs to be directed at those who propose parallel universes, not me, I totally agree your opinion is accurate and validated, but according to them and that...

Because that is where the confusion on the term universe is coming from. To some (like the people who wrote the article) the term universe would be what you call world, and in place of your definition of universe is the word multiverse.

Superb post, and an even better thread! Once again I'm drawn into the cycle of logging on to ATS at 1 in the morning after finishing my work for a 'quick look' and ending up with about 3 hours sleep... DAMN YOU

Really interesting to see so many knowledgable peoples views on this theory though. Astro physics (as well as particle physics, quantum mechanics etc) absolutely fascinates me, but gets me very confused and lost If only they mentioned some of this when we did science at school i would have ended up doing something with my life that was much more useful and interesting!

With my very limited knowledge, the cyclic universal theory always made more sense to me, expansion, contraction, boom repeat repeat and on and on we go.

So a massive thanks for this enlightening and thought provoking post! It's always nice to have your horizons expanded and change the way you look at life!

I find it hugely exciting with all the recent discoveries in the last few years when it comes to space and physics theories and discoveries how rapidly we are learning new things about existence itself. As technology grows at ever increasing rates, so does our knowledge of life itself. I can still remember when we first got our ZX Speccy, and just twenty years later the levels we are at know. It just makes me excited to get old and see what amazing new things we will have learnt. Maybe by the time I retire I might actually get a chance to read up on some if it... assuming I live that long

Truly exciting times, for those that bother to find out about these things anyway

ps. and only one mention of NWO and God in the entire thread... that has to be a record for an ATS thread

I often like to have the thought that somewhere in an alternate universe there is a really awesome version of me that is having a great life. Like today for example, I thought to myself, "awesome me in Universe B must be having a great day, today!"

Very, Very Interesting Things they find there..But like the party ripper i am so..The findings don´t prove that´s any linkings between the different universes..until then lets start hoping..

reply to post by RUSSO
If our sun is just one of many stars in our galaxy and our galaxy is just one of many in our universe, why shouldn't our universe be one of many? I've never believed in the "one universe theory?" Who knows what's out there beyond the boundaries of our universe or if we'll ever discover it.

Originally posted by yrwehere1
reply to post by RUSSO

 

If our sun is just one of many stars in our galaxy and our galaxy is just one of many in our universe, why shouldn't our universe be one of many? I've never believed in the "one universe theory?" Who knows what's out there beyond the boundaries of our universe or if we'll ever discover it.

See, this is what I mean. Yrwehere refers to what you (gift) call "world" as universe. And the confusion ensues. And nobody is technically right or wrong, because it is all just language, and we are all meaning the same thing in essence.

I know this has been stated before ,but I too for a while have thought of our universe as a bubble in a sea of other bubbles. Then, I have also thought that maybe black holes were really travel tubes to these other universes.

However, I like the idea that was stated earlier about how when we dream we are transported to other universes. I'm not trying to say that this idea is grounds for why we dream,but it makes me wonder if our dreams are just doors to other worlds. I for one have had some pretty horrible dreams and because of that I really hope that those dreams are not apart of other worlds because that is not a life I would want to experience in what we call reality. I also read somewhere else online (I don't remember what site) that it could be possible that our dreams are reality and when we are not dreaming we are in what is call the matrix . But I still like the idea.

Great thread...S and F.

reply to post by SpaceJ


There are many who are butchering the definition of universe. It has never meant "everything (we see) rolled into one". It has always been "everything (we see and can't see) rolled into one" or "everything that exists and doesn't exist"....

If you read the article they say:

These guys start with a different model of the universe called eternal inflation. In this way of thinking, the universe we see is merely a bubble in a much larger cosmos. This cosmos is filled with other bubbles, all of which are other universes where the laws of physics may be dramatically different to ours.

The above quote is littered with what appears to be confusion by the author and or astronomers. I understand their context and all.. however... there is no such thing as "other universes". That is like saying "other everythings" by definition.

The "larger cosmos" that is "filled with other bubbles" that they talk about IS THE UNIVERSE. The bubbles are not "other universes" a.k.a. "other everythings", they are only sections of the one universe.

You can't have multiple "everythings". There is only ONE everything. Again, I understand the context they are using, and saying that everything we have detected so far is a "universe", but that is the incorrect terminology.

In fact they haven't even proven that there is an "outside" or even an "edge" of the universe yet. So to claim there is something "outside" or even a "bubble" is incorrect and reaching.

I am simply making fun of the errors in their thinking, and making fun of science's way of dividing everything.

Science, today, is making everything too complex. What they do is take one sum of things (existence) and divide it into a million pieces and give each piece a name. If they continue on this path, they will end up with infinite pieces, and trying to understand how all the infinite pieces interact in chaos, and they still wont understand the purpose of the whole or sum they divided in the first place. It's quite funny.

This is cool. The universe is a bubble pressed up against other universes in an infinite sea of universibubles. And were all inside of super massive black holes. Not to mention the extra dimensions we can't even perceive. The nature of reality is infinitely complex.

reply to post by gift0fpr0phecy


And in going with that model, they use the term universe differently, because the other bubbles wouldn't function based off the same physical laws of space and time, etc, as our own bubble:

Definition as connected space-time See also: Chaotic Inflation theory

It is possible to conceive of disconnected space-times, each existing but unable to interact with one another. An easily visualized metaphor is a group of separate soap bubbles, in which observers living on one soap bubble cannot interact with those on other soap bubbles, even in principle.

According to one common terminology, each "soap bubble" of space-time is denoted as a universe, whereas our particular space-time is denoted as the universe, just as we call our moon the Moon. The entire collection of these separate space-times is denoted as the multiverse.[15] In principle, the other unconnected universes may have different dimensionalities and topologies of space-time, different forms of matter and energy, and different physical laws and physical constants, although such possibilities are currently speculative.

Multiverse and physical cosmology

Some speculative theories have proposed that this universe is but one of a set of disconnected universes, collectively denoted as the multiverse, altering the concept that the universe encompasses everything.[15][73] By definition, there is no possible way for anything in one universe to affect another; if two "universes" could affect one another, they would be part of a single universe. Thus, although some fictional characters travel between parallel fictional "universes", this is, strictly speaking, an incorrect usage of the term universe.

The disconnected universes are conceived as being physical, in the sense that each should have its own space and time, its own matter and energy, and its own physical laws — that also challenges the definition of parallelity as these universes don't exist synchronously (since they have their own time) or in a geometrically parallel way (since there's no interpretable relation between spatial positions of the different universes). Such physically disconnected universes should be distinguished from the metaphysical conception of alternate planes of consciousness, which are not thought to be physical places and are connected through the flow of information. The concept of a multiverse of disconnected universes is very old; for example, Bishop Étienne Tempier of Paris ruled in 1277 that God could create as many universes as he saw fit, a question that was being hotly debated by the French theologians.[74]

There are two scientific senses in which multiple universes are discussed. First, disconnected spacetime continua may exist; presumably, all forms of matter and energy are confined to one universe and cannot "tunnel" between them. An example of such a theory is the chaotic inflation model of the early universe.[75] Second, according to the many-worlds hypothesis, a parallel universe is born with every quantum measurement; the universe "forks" into parallel copies, each one corresponding to a different outcome of the quantum measurement. However, both senses of the term "multiverse" are speculative and may be considered unscientific; no known experimental test in one universe could reveal the existence or properties of another non-interacting universe.

Andrei Linde's Stanford Uni link, the eternal chaotic inflation proponent