Planck Space Data Yields Evidence of Universes Beyond Our Own

Originally posted by vind21
There is a fundamental flaw in all of the reasoning posted here.

If we are talking strictly about gravity as the driving force of the universe, whether its "standard gravity or repulsive gravity" and you are saying that galaxies collect matter while it also generates "space" then you are in contradiction.

If you can never have 0 energy then there will always be mass in space and a true vacuum would never exist. This is a circular argument. You can't have the spontaneous generation of space without energy you can't have energy without mass.

This goes back to E=mc^2 and then takes you Ric = 0.

The princaples of hawking radiation are in direct cintradiction to the findings of these experiments. This is why the results matter so much. Once again we are going to have to band aide GRT to make it match.

this is the second major finding coming from planck that produce unexpected and "damaging" results for GRT.

Maybe its time for a different approach. Gravity is not the only answer.

edit on 20-5-2013 by vind21 because: (no reason given)

Ah there is energy because you cant have 0 energy this is the problem. So a lack of energy is potential energy or basically dark energy as we are calling it. Even Einstine eluded to this when he talked about his cosmological constant his math led him to the same conclusion. Albert Einstein was the first person to realize in his gravity theory with a cosmological constant is that empty space is not nothing. He just couldnt believe it was true and thought he was making a mistake but looks like he got it right. In his model with the cosmological constant there is two things he discovered one that space can indeed be created. and next that energy was a property of space itself meaning empty space contains energy.And as more space is created more energy would be created causing the universe to expand faster and faster. His equation exactly matches our obsevations problem is no one can figure out why the cosmological constant has to be there???

Now there is a couple of different theories as to dark energy the simplest is as i explained earlier of virtual particles create a negative attraction to each other when they pop back out. However there are a couple of others such as a fifth element so to speak this is what cern is looking for. A new dynamical energy fluid or field basically something that fills all of space but something whose effect on the expansion of the Universe is the opposite of that of matter and normal energy. And if these options are wrong then Einstine was wrong and we need a new theory of gravity but I never bet against him hes done very well so far.

A Universe is the body of space created by a vast explosion of combustible gases ever growing within a boundary of radiation created by the initial blast. All of the objects within this defined area are the inhabitants of what we call our Universe.

Once we have the ability to observe other universes, if we ever do, then we will have to start naming our own and others.

So technically speaking it is like setting off a water proof firecracker whose blast underwater creates a bubble that never stops growing unless if theories prove to become law then collapses in on itself.

Originally posted by Aleister
One question is if the universes are separated or right up against each other. Since our home universe is expanding, it grows larger by the nanosecond, and unless the bubble effect is occuring where all the universes are rubbing up against each other and bubbling upwards then they must be separate (or some of the other ones are shrinking to make room for the space being created).

Perhaps the central universes ( bubbles ) are not shrinking as much as they are being compressed by the expansion of neighboring universes like our own. If this is the case, could this compression have caused what we think of as the big bang or in this case the Big Re-Bang.

Originally posted by 3NL1GHT3N3D1
reply to post by Slugworth

 

If universe means totality of existence, that means there is no such things as other universes because if there were, our universe wouldn't be the totality of existence. Basically, there can't be more than one totality.

Interesting find nonetheless.

what if there is some sort of barrier or field preventing us from existing there? not only something preventing us from GOING there but from actually existing there.

reply to post by Wrabbit2000


What, like when the branes of separate Universes collide? I think this has been theorized already. Nothing good comes of it, if I recall.

Originally posted by Blister
reply to post by Wrabbit2000

 

What, like when the branes of separate Universes collide? I think this has been theorized already. Nothing good comes of it, if I recall.

If the theory is correct a new big bang starts and a universe is created so I guess that's good. Now I guess if it happens in your universe I'd say that could be bad

gravity is weak but also applys its small power over many objects over great distances. the earth spins fast yet gravity still keeps you locked to the ground even though had i been spinning the same speed on a merry go round id be thousands of miles through the air by now, so just how weak is gravity on those terms? i mean its not strong but push come to shove its gotten the best of me now and then.

Originally posted by Slugworth
reply to post by 3NL1GHT3N3D1

 

I think it depends on your definition of universe. In common usage the universe is the totality of all existence, but in some more scientific language it is limited to observable existence.

Basically then in Laymens terms what you see is what you get!! with a little "Shrodinge'rs Cat Theory" thrown in for good measure, basically saying that nothings certain until you observe it....

PEACE OUT!!!!

reply to post by Fromabove


I have often wondered the same things. It would then follow, however, that we might be made of universes, which are made of universes, which are made of universes...and so on - turtles all the way down.

This opens so many possibilities in the realm of science and science fiction. I wonder if it would be possible to exit our own universe and explore another. What if there's intelligent life in those universes? Would the laws of physics be different?

I heard in a TED Talk by Brian Greene (can be found here) that String Theory predicts the possibility of universes existing beyond our own, and it could be radically different because the strings vibrate in different dimensions than the ones in our own. Could this be what these universes are?

Absolutely brilliant and amazing, thanks for sharing.

Originally posted by Quarky
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I have often wondered the same things. It would then follow, however, that we might be made of universes, which are made of universes, which are made of universes...and so on - turtles all the way down.

This opens so many possibilities in the realm of science and science fiction. I wonder if it would be possible to exit our own universe and explore another. What if there's intelligent life in those universes? Would the laws of physics be different?

I heard in a TED Talk by Brian Greene (can be found here) that String Theory predicts the possibility of universes existing beyond our own, and it could be radically different because the strings vibrate in different dimensions than the ones in our own. Could this be what these universes are?

Absolutely brilliant and amazing, thanks for sharing.

Even though it would make a cool book the answer is no there are no microverses hey i just invented a new word i think. Any way no atoms are not like solar system no protons and electrons dont travel in orbits. Now as far as visiting another universe the answer is maybe just depends on which theory of the multiverse is correct. But i dont know if id want to take the trip because the laws of physics could change and you never know what might happen to you.

Originally posted by Quarky
reply to post by Fromabove

 

I have often wondered the same things. It would then follow, however, that we might be made of universes, which are made of universes, which are made of universes...and so on - turtles all the way down.

This opens so many possibilities in the realm of science and science fiction. I wonder if it would be possible to exit our own universe and explore another. What if there's intelligent life in those universes? Would the laws of physics be different?

I heard in a TED Talk by Brian Greene (can be found here) that String Theory predicts the possibility of universes existing beyond our own, and it could be radically different because the strings vibrate in different dimensions than the ones in our own. Could this be what these universes are?

Absolutely brilliant and amazing, thanks for sharing.

Even though it would make a cool book the answer is no there are no microverses hey i just invented a new word i think. Any way no atoms are not like solar system no protons and electrons dont travel in orbits. Now as far as visiting another universe the answer is maybe just depends on which theory of the multiverse is correct. But i dont know if id want to take the trip because the laws of physics could change and you never know what might happen to you.

reply to post by pavil


Laura Mersini-Houghton is just one brilliant scientist. A real go getter in science today. Especially ground breaking theoretical science about our Universe and the multi-universe idea. There are others as well do so many cool things. I hope to find any recent peer reviews on this matter. Thanks for sharing.

If true we have to stop saying the universe. .but how are we gonna call it then? And how old are the other ones?

I wonder how they will further test this. There has to be some other signs that would point to something outside of our known universe. It's kinda interesting that as we gain the ability to look deeper into things ie Atomic or Stellar, that we see just more and more layers to things. Looks like we still have more to find out.

So in plain english:

"We have no freaking clue what we're talking about, but it sounds really cool "

I'm one to believe that eventually it will be discovered that the "multiverse's" share resources.

I actually feel ths way about the Higg's Boson too. As it travels through each dimension/'verse, it imparts some mass on each.

I have often wondered if the expansion of our universe could be explained by other universes pulling on our own. I personally believe however that science does not actually understand gravity, how it works. I think that they are missing something having to do with magnetic charges and fields. Both the equation to explain the force of gravity and the force of a magnet pulling on metal are inverse equations that are identical. Is this just chance, or is there a deeper meaning behind these equations? How something like that could have been overlooked is not surprising to me.

This idea has been proposed in the past, but like many other ideas, it was never paid much attention to. I could be wrong though, but just because physics turned out a certain way does not mean it is correct. I can imagine there being an infinite number of universes outside our own. Maybe black holes somehow connect multiple universes. That is not very likely, but possible. If there is a big enough black hole, but it would have to be massive, a person could actually enter it without being stretched into oblivion. But they would die less than a second after entering. They say that if a person could do this, they would actually see every single thing that the black hole had ever eaten. And if they looked the other way, they would see every single thing the black hole would eat in the future. It has to do with the effect gravity has on time. It slows it to a near stop when it is that powerful, although it will continue in its relative fashion in a place like earth, where the gravity is about 32 ft s ^ -2.

The above explains everything being discussed in this thread. The below may as well, but it's rather tangential.

Based upon multiverse theory the nearest Parallel Universe is about 10x10 to the power of 14 light years away from this one. Lets keep in mind that if one were to review books related to astronomy fro the 50's, one would find that the Milky Way Galaxy was referred to as a Island Universe. By the way at the time the galaxies and the extent they were observable, defined them as Nebulas. Also a rather cool conclusion is that in the 70's the Vatican only acknowledged the existence of the Milky Way Galaxy and Andromeda (beyond that the rest was lights in the sky).

What we call the Universe today is in general an object about 13.8 years old and roughly 85 billion light years wide.

Based upon the evidence provided by the Planks Satellite this object was created by what is apparently
more mature versions of itself.

Implied is that we are part of some fractal in the mathematical sense and perhaps that reality to us transcends anything we today as a norm consider relevant.

We are akin to facet in a diamond.

Any thoughts?

reply to post by Kashai


The science stated here is dealing with Physical Universe(s). This is not the MultiVerse theory where our present universe has many dimensions and is in the realm of quantum physics. Basically, we do not, (or did not) know that our present universe may have boundaries that border on the existence of other "Universes". We have such limited information to go on, that educated conjecture is probably as good as we can do at this juncture.