Evidence of Parallel Universes

reply to post by petrus4


Thank you very much. I have a physics background and I know what limits there are in our universe, and there are certainly signs pointing toward the existence of God, but yet those people who say things like "science is everything" are so ignorant it is not even funny. I could not even begin to dumb down some of the things for them to understand as it is beyond their level of comprehension.

Originally posted by chr0naut

OK, here's my 2c worth in explanation:

In an ideal theoretical universe there'd be as much antimatter as there is matter. There isn't, there's far more matter here, and this idea of Supersymmetry is broken in the universe we observe.

There appears to be approximately five times the supersymmetry breaking energy in this universe than would be expected (which explains why we see more matter than antimatter).

It is theorized that this is because the primeval energies which gave rise to matter in this universe was split between other universes, which have their own preferential "flavour" of matter, at a time when all the universes touched each other at the singularity (the universe/multiverse before the big bang).

When the Big Bang did occur, multiple universes were nucleated (like bubbles being formed) and began expansion from a single point. Initially, there was overlap, but eventually the outer boundary of each bubble (its horizon), detached, taking its bit of reality with it.

For universes where the symmetry breaking energy was high (like ours) these universes would expand. For universes where the symmetry breaking energy was low, the matter and antimatter would annihilate causing the bubble universe to become non-viable and cease to exist (not enough energy to sustain its space-time horizon).

It was then theorized that closely adjacent universes might have "stolen" the symmetry breaking energy from each other and this would have left areas of low symmetry breaking energy where they "touched" at, or just after the singularity. The effect you'd see in each universe would be areas of relatively empty space (little matter) and a corresponding flow of dark energy, which would be frozen in place by the expansion of each of the universe/s.

These "empty" areas would most likely be located at the top or "North" of the universe and the bottom, or "South" of the universe. and would also be aligned to the overall polarization of the "dark flow" (the entertainingly nicknamed "axis of evil"). This North & South does not refer to the Earth's North or South.

I am not sure I fully understand all the theory and math and this is really a cruddy explanation outside the papers of Laura & Co, so take it with a grain of salt. It's just an analogy.

edit on 15/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Is that all it meant, well why didnt they just say that

Thanks for trying dude but you may as well be speaking another language

Originally posted by petrus4

These scientists came up with a theory, about how parallel universes work. They expected to find a particular kind of evidence in a certain place, which they would interpret as supportive of their theory...and apparently, they did find it.

The evidence they were looking for, apparently had to do with the difference in energy (I think thermal or heat, specifically, from the article) that they would expect to be able to detect between our universe and another one. How they are able to detect anything at all from another universe, of course, is something I don't understand in the slightest.

Thanks for dumming it down that much for me LOL

If they want this news/ theory to get any recognition they are gonna have to phrase it the way you did, what you said is clear, makes sense, doesnt confuse with a heap of technical jargon and gets the point across.

Greatly appreciated

Originally posted by IkNOwSTuff

Originally posted by chr0naut

OK, here's my 2c worth in explanation:

In an ideal theoretical universe there'd be as much antimatter as there is matter. There isn't, there's far more matter here, and this idea of Supersymmetry is broken in the universe we observe.

There appears to be approximately five times the supersymmetry breaking energy in this universe than would be expected (which explains why we see more matter than antimatter).

It is theorized that this is because the primeval energies which gave rise to matter in this universe was split between other universes, which have their own preferential "flavour" of matter, at a time when all the universes touched each other at the singularity (the universe/multiverse before the big bang).

When the Big Bang did occur, multiple universes were nucleated (like bubbles being formed) and began expansion from a single point. Initially, there was overlap, but eventually the outer boundary of each bubble (its horizon), detached, taking its bit of reality with it.

For universes where the symmetry breaking energy was high (like ours) these universes would expand. For universes where the symmetry breaking energy was low, the matter and antimatter would annihilate causing the bubble universe to become non-viable and cease to exist (not enough energy to sustain its space-time horizon).

It was then theorized that closely adjacent universes might have "stolen" the symmetry breaking energy from each other and this would have left areas of low symmetry breaking energy where they "touched" at, or just after the singularity. The effect you'd see in each universe would be areas of relatively empty space (little matter) and a corresponding flow of dark energy, which would be frozen in place by the expansion of each of the universe/s.

These "empty" areas would most likely be located at the top or "North" of the universe and the bottom, or "South" of the universe. and would also be aligned to the overall polarization of the "dark flow" (the entertainingly nicknamed "axis of evil"). This North & South does not refer to the Earth's North or South.

I am not sure I fully understand all the theory and math and this is really a cruddy explanation outside the papers of Laura & Co, so take it with a grain of salt. It's just an analogy.

edit on 15/4/2012 by chr0naut because: (no reason given)

Is that all it meant, well why didnt they just say that

Thanks for trying dude but you may as well be speaking another language

It is, a bit.

The "Parallel Universes" theory sould really be changed to the "Alternate Universes" theory the idea that multiple universes were created during the big bang is way easier to prove than there being an infinate number of parallel universes running parallel alongside of ours splitting with every decision anyone in the universe makes. think about it.

Originally posted by fixer1967

Originally posted by intrptr
From another member:

From what i understand, and put as simply as i possibly can, they found two 'dark' spots. One above the universe, the other below.

I have a question:
If this is the correct simple interpretation of the situation... how can the "other parallel universe" be affecting this one if it is parallel?

I thought that parallel means "next to" but "separate from" or "having no effect upon"? Like two parallel lines

_______________________________________________________________

_______________________________________________________________

They do not intersect or overlap and should not at any time. Otherwise they are no longer "parallel." If a permanent manifestation exists of something that is parallel then how can that be (parallel)?

edit on 15-4-2012 by intrptr because: deletion

The parallel universe may or may not be 100% parallel for one thing. And one theory is that the "walls" between parallel universes can be very thin in places. So thin in fact a gateway or door between the two may open. This opening could be on the size of an atom and last only a nanosecond or be large enough and stay open long enough for people or planes or cars or anything else to pass though. It would be a one way trip and it could be sometime before you even knew that anything had happened. From what I have to understand is that the term "parallel universe" refers more to the actions going on in the other parallel universe than a real direction of travel

reply to post by fixer1967


Read much Stephen King? He calls doorways between universes "thinnies".

From the Dark Tower condordance:

"Thinnies are places where the fabric of existence has almost entirely worn away."

If the subject of parallel worlds interests you, you should definitely read his Dark Tower series...

I am glad to see this getting some research done to this. It is amazing to think about such possibilities. Even if these cold spots are found years later not to be universes then there is still something there worth studying. An obvious problem is that it is a ridiculously long distance to go for close up study.

I don't know about predictions but I saw a youtube vid of Dr. Michio Kaku saying alternate realities exist, they just don't tell their physics students because they don't want them freaking out and running to mom. It's on youtube tho, Dr.'s work, annoyed I haven't seen her name too but oh well that can change. I will spend some more time on her website when I get the chance. So there has obviously been proof for awhile it just seems to be getting more solid, I believe in it...

I see no evidence. I see lost of predictions.

Originally posted by THE_PROFESSIONAL
reply to post by petrus4

 

Thank you very much. I have a physics background and I know what limits there are in our universe, and there are certainly signs pointing toward the existence of God, but yet those people who say things like "science is everything" are so ignorant it is not even funny. I could not even begin to dumb down some of the things for them to understand as it is beyond their level of comprehension.

Wow. You KNOW what limits hter eare in our universe.... since when did you necome all knowing?

Since when did a physics background make someone more knowledgable than one without in relation to the universe and things within it?. Keep in mind, in the Bible, seeing as you are referring to God in your post, the things of God confound the mind. You cannot use your mind to understand God, even He says that!

we all agree particles disappear and appear throughout the universe, isn't that enough evidence of parallel universes/dimensions

what we see in the cosmos is happening right in front of us all the time............this ones a good story

thanks

Originally posted by wolfboss1
we all agree particles disappear and appear throughout the universe, isn't that enough evidence of parallel universes/dimensions

what we see in the cosmos is happening right in front of us all the time............this ones a good story

thanks

That is an interesting idea that virtual particles are oscillating between adjacent universes.

However, I think that Laura's theory defines these alternate universes differently.

reply to post by chr0naut


Parallel? Adjacent? Alternative? Uni?

Just simply call it the multiverse. If we live in a multiverse, then many simultaneous events can occur. The light slit experiment, and Schroedinger's Cat are explained. We haven't defined a multiverse yet, but when it is, I'd think the model would help to explain a lot of the natural phenomena we've been curious about.

Parallel denotes an infinite number of universes, and I was never comfortable with that.

I'll espouse a multiverse where a parallel universe doesn't exist until we realize it. It would dictate a quantum cohesive state that is formed when enough potential energy is realized.

The biggest question, at this point, is how much does human consciousness affect such states of reality?

If you can grasp the Cat Theory, then it's only a small step to realize that the multiverse is a set of potential states. A sum of macroscopic events reflecting the nature of the microscopic ones. It cannot be the opposite.

reply to post by Druid42


"The biggest question, at this point, is how much does human consciousness affect such states of reality?"

Is the probably a good question. What you just explained, I theorized earlier on in this forum. I'm actually glad that I'm not the only person to question this idea.

Is there any research or theories done on this topic regarding this question? If I'm not the only one to think of it, I'm sure far more intelligent people in the scientific area probably has.

reply to post by TheProphetMark


It'd be the topic of a new thread in Philosophy and Metaphysics.

Is there any research or theories done on this topic regarding this question? If I'm not the only one to think of it, I'm sure far more intelligent people in the scientific area probably has.

It'd be good to discuss this more. Off topic here.

reply to post by Druid42


I agree it would be good to discuss it Care to create the thread since you seemed to have worded the theory a lot better than I did which makes me believe you'll create a better introduction for it.

Please let me know if you do create it

reply to post by TheProphetMark


Thread created: HERE.

The evidence of parallel universes would be exhibited by our perceptions of them, not just the mathematics. I don't like the word parallel. I prefer multiverse.

Our perceptions of such a reality are growing everyday.

Originally posted by Druid42
reply to post by chr0naut

 

Parallel? Adjacent? Alternative? Uni?

Just simply call it the multiverse. If we live in a multiverse, then many simultaneous events can occur. The light slit experiment, and Schroedinger's Cat are explained. We haven't defined a multiverse yet, but when it is, I'd think the model would help to explain a lot of the natural phenomena we've been curious about.

Parallel denotes an infinite number of universes, and I was never comfortable with that.

I'll espouse a multiverse where a parallel universe doesn't exist until we realize it. It would dictate a quantum cohesive state that is formed when enough potential energy is realized.

The biggest question, at this point, is how much does human consciousness affect such states of reality?

If you can grasp the Cat Theory, then it's only a small step to realize that the multiverse is a set of potential states. A sum of macroscopic events reflecting the nature of the microscopic ones. It cannot be the opposite.

What everyone seems to be forgetting is that there is an alternate explanation for the apparent "consciousness creates reality" theory.

What if the quantum reality only makes us able to make a particular conscious choice.

I.e: the choice is the outcome of reality, rather than the reality being the result of a conscious choice.

If this is the case it implies that what we believe is "consciousness" is merely a perceptual trick & we got duped.

Originally posted by Labdarex
This is an interesting topic not just for us but for the whole scientific community since Einstein's prime days. It's just a matter of time until someone would make a machine that can test out for Parallel Universe(s) and Multidimensional planes, but for now everything is just a theories derived from Special math and Quantum Physics. Really amazing isn't it!

Yes this machine prototype is with me and was invented by me.
But to cross the threshhold of this universe is not entirely safe