Universe or Multiverse ?

In recent years, advances in physics and cosmology have given the "multiverse" idea a plausible scientific basis. Its new lease on life can be traced to the popular theory of inflation, which held that a split second after the Big Bang the universe abruptly jumped in size by a huge factor. In the variant introduced by Andrei Linde, inflation spawns a network of branching "bubble" universes with different laws of physics operating inside of them. It has become fashionable to invoke some species of the multiverse theory to account for the well-known examples of parameter fine-tuning associated with the emergence of life in the observable universe where Earth has its home. The possibility of many universes raises deep scientific, philosophical, and theological questions. How does the multiverse modify our understanding of the ultimate origin of the physical universe in time? Does the cosmos reproduce forever? Can the multiverse theory be made consistent with Occam's razor? Is the theory falsifiable, and if so, how? If our universe, subtle, beautiful, and intelligible as it appears, is just, in Martin Rees's phrase, "one island in the cosmic archipelago," can it really be so special after all?

If this is true then there must be many other universe now, at least as many as there are Black Holes in our universe. It is now believed, based on observations that many galaxies have Black Hole objects in their dense centers. There are also Black Holes scattered throughout the galaxy, and presumably similarly through other galaxies.



These other universe in turn may have Black Holes in them giving rise to Baby Universes. Similarly, our universe could the be the outcome of a Black Hole in a "Parent Universe".

www.astronomy.pomona.edu...'s%20mutliverse.html

www.wholeearthmag.com...

www.mira.org...

Well, perhaps our universe is not infinite, but there's maybe an infinity of universes !

Any one here want to express any feelings or opinons ?



[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Salem]

I can agree with that but I think what ultimately is going to take the 'cake' so to speak is going to be the "Unified Theory"/The Theory of Everything or better known as the "SuperStrings Theory".

www.wikipedia.org...
www.superstringtheory.com...
www.sukidog.com...

I think that Protector would have a really good comment to this article you have posted Salem, if he ever gets to see it.

regards
seekerof

Ever see the movie "The One" I kind of think its like that. Tons of universes, all different from one another, but all parallel at the same time.

Some more links

Quantum computation or theorie of everything
www.pathcom.com...

Ancient Sanskrit and Chinese texts discuss the Multiverse.
www.skywatch-research.org...

A View of Inflation--Eternally Going on Somewhere in the Multiverse
www.physicstoday.org...


I really think that physic is fascinating, from any answer we find appear a bunch of questions.

I can agree with that but I think what ultimately is going to take the 'cake' so to speak is going to be the "Unified Theory"/The Theory of Everything or better known as the "SuperStrings Theory".

www.wikipedia.org...
www.superstringtheory.com...
www.sukidog.com...

I think that Protector would have a really good comment to this article you have posted Salem, if he ever gets to see it.

regards
seekerof

I agree you, but it's so complex that there's many theories that are emerging to explain the multiverse.
Any way, it's probably the most important Breakthrough of Quantum Physics.
Thanks for your reply.

Peace Salem.





[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Salem]

[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Salem]

Yes, indeed Salem. It is a major Breakthrough for Quantum Physics, to say the least. The ramifications are yet to be felt.

BTW, like your new avatar, looks sweet!

regards
seekerof

[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Seekerof]

Yeah there's many ramifications to be felt, but it's a new step in the human perception of the world/universe. First we thought that the earth was flat/dish, that the sun was turning around the earth, that the universe was infinite, that there was just one universe... Perhaps there's more than one multiverse? Who know ?

Btw thanks for the avatar.

I believe in the multiverse... I believe that in some way they are connected, perhaps through blackholes or wormholes, but they are not parallel to our universe... I believe each of the universes have there own characteristics... because like they say... no two things are alike... however, they may very well be parallel to ours...

I agree you when you say that they are not parallel, I think the multiverse looks more like some "bubbles" with diffirent sizes and different shapes.

like that



[Edited on 3-7-2003 by Salem]

To me universe and multiverse are the same they are endless.

Actually a universe and multiverse can't be the same do to the fact there is only one universe in a universe, hence the prefix uni- which means 1, and a multiverse which is multiple universes, hence the prefix multi- meaning more than 1.

I posted my idea of the "multiverse" somewhere else here.

I didn't start believing in it because of quantum physics.

I got it out of the continuity devices of the Silver Age Of Comics.

I became a true believer. It helps me to work out how the world works.

I like that drawing in the beginning. I've never seen anything like that before. It seems to have problems in the fact that nothing can exist in the direction of the pull of the blackhole or wormhole... that is probably incorrect. A blackhole grabs spacetime and pulls on it. Think of playing a game of tug of war with a bedsheet. One person squeezes the end of the sheet together with their hands and continues to twist it, adding tension to the rest of the sheet. After enough tension is added, everyone else loses grip of the sheet and it goes flying toward the twisted end. That concept of the sheet is similar to a black hole.

The multiverse is an idea of multiple universes either existing as different moments in time or as slight differences in time or completely separate universes, altogether. Scientists are starting to believe that our universe is actually apart of a bigger body that exists and the multiverse is not the case, but other universes similar to ours could exist in the greater universe beyond. Of course, we don't really know for sure.

Just so everyone knows, Bubble Theory has been proven wrong by Stephen Hawking, so I doubt you'll hear too much of that from the science community anymore.

You've probably ever heard about the "superstrings" theorie of Muchio Kaku ?

He was one of the guys that formulated Superstring theory. It uses 10 dimensional hyperspace to explain the universe as microfibers of spacetime (or something of that sort) nicknamed "strings." Superstring just refers to the higher dimensions being added to the basic string theory.

if the frequency of light is 144(just an arbitrary figure), and is an amalgam of two sine waves, one electrical at ninety degrees to a magnetic one, you can merely double the frequency to 288, and have another energy in the same space at the same time. perhaps time goes twice as slow in the dimension one octave up from this one.
a phi spiral has no beginning and no end.
platonic solids can nest eternally inwards and eternally outwards. once again, this creates the possibility of different patterns existing in the same space at the same time. it's all about frequency and perspective. there can always be a finer vibration.
if it is possible, it is probable.

yes i to believe the univerese is not just one but many. we have not even begun to see what is out in space. we must explore the vast and endless space. Maybe there is a nother solarsystem with life on it like on earth.

"if the frequency of light is 144(just an arbitrary figure), and is an amalgam of two sine waves, one electrical at ninety degrees to a magnetic one, you can merely double the frequency to 288, and have another energy in the same space at the same time. perhaps time goes twice as slow in the dimension one octave up from this one."

I assume you are referring to reducing the period of a sine wave. Also, you are adding harmonics to the lightwave. My thought would be to stay away from adding harmonic qualities until you understand the subject in a bit more depth. As far as reducing the period, yes it should slow the speed down to half that of its regular velocity through a vacuum.

"a phi spiral has no beginning and no end.
platonic solids can nest eternally inwards and eternally outwards. once again, this creates the possibility of different patterns existing in the same space at the same time. it's all about frequency and perspective. there can always be a finer vibration.
if it is possible, it is probable."

Fibonacci sequences (and phi) have continual patterns (the sequence that leaves grow in nature for example). Light, however, maintains a constant frequency, it does not naturally grow by a sequence. Now lasers do use the concept of resonance to increase the output of the wave (more energy for your buck). As far as the Platonic solids (basic shapes combined in continual patterns), I'd say that your idea is what Chaos theory was designed for, specifically "Fractals." This explains continuing patterns to infinite ends. Still, light does not change frequencies by nature. Something must force it to change states from that of the vacuum... in otherwords, it must change mediums. If you like Chaos theory and learn a lot about it, the NSA might be happy to hire you.

For those who want to know more:
There is a picture of the EM waves on this site and an explanation

Originally posted by Protector
"if the frequency of light is 144(just an arbitrary figure), and is an amalgam of two sine waves, one electrical at ninety degrees to a magnetic one, you can merely double the frequency to 288, and have another energy in the same space at the same time. perhaps time goes twice as slow in the dimension one octave up from this one."

I assume you are referring to reducing the period of a sine wave. Also, you are adding harmonics to the lightwave. My thought would be to stay away from adding harmonic qualities until you understand the subject in a bit more depth. As far as reducing the period, yes it should slow the speed down to half that of its regular velocity through a vacuum.

"a phi spiral has no beginning and no end.
platonic solids can nest eternally inwards and eternally outwards. once again, this creates the possibility of different patterns existing in the same space at the same time. it's all about frequency and perspective. there can always be a finer vibration.
if it is possible, it is probable."

Fibonacci sequences (and phi) have continual patterns (the sequence that leaves grow in nature for example). Light, however, maintains a constant frequency, it does not naturally grow by a sequence. Now lasers do use the concept of resonance to increase the output of the wave (more energy for your buck). As far as the Platonic solids (basic shapes combined in continual patterns), I'd say that your idea is what Chaos theory was designed for, specifically "Fractals." This explains continuing patterns to infinite ends. Still, light does not change frequencies by nature. Something must force it to change states from that of the vacuum... in otherwords, it must change mediums. If you like Chaos theory and learn a lot about it, the NSA might be happy to hire you.

For those who want to know more:
There is a picture of the EM waves on this site and an explanation

a fibonacci sequence requires three numbers to define the sequence. as the sequence gets qualitatively higher, the ratio between adjacent numbers gets closer and closer to the phi ratio. the phi ratio sequence is the only sequence that can be defined with only two numbers. it has no beginning and no end. all other sequences require (at least) three, and have a beginning.

i do not believe in particles. particles are an imaginary way to understand waves.

now, all these definitions of light use our linear time understanding. i do not believe in linear time. i believe in energy soup, time being another form of energy. i have a theory that there are levels(densities and dimensions) of energy, and we only percieve a certain bandwidth/azimuth. the human brain operates between 0 and 20 some hertz(some yogis have been measured at 40 and higher). our perception and measurement of time is based on certain cycles. the sun, the moon and spin of the earth, mostly. yet, we all notice that time changes for us, under certain conditions, ie., extreme boredom or stress(like a car accident).
our vision has a frame rate. if we could slo-mo or fast forward reality, we might be able to see other shapes which are hidden from our perception. like the way a single row of led's can cause the impression of words in our minds(i think you know what i'm talking about), by side scrolling text.
also, this theory of ninety degree electro magnetic waves leaves 359.99999 degrees of free space on the axis.
didn't they tell us in school that we're mostly space?

N.S.A. wanted john nash. didn't work out well, i heard. they don't want me, i'm just a fringe lunatic. my house is full of butterflies flapping their wings. i'm so ignorant, i don't even know what time it is.

i was going to try and explain my wild ranting more, but i'm tired and have a long drive ahead of me.
protector, you have a good mind. don't believe everything the teacher says, though. science is the new dogma.

"a fibonacci sequence requires three numbers to define the sequence. as the sequence gets qualitatively higher, the ratio between adjacent numbers gets closer and closer to the phi ratio. the phi ratio sequence is the only sequence that can be defined with only two numbers. it has no beginning and no end. all other sequences require (at least) three, and have a beginning."

You are probably right. I'm not a mathematician. I'm a physicist, so I'll take your word for it... unless I find proof otherwise .

"i do not believe in particles. particles are an imaginary way to understand waves."

Particles are an imaginary way to understand any form using a dot or sphere. The problem is, people actually believe particles are dots or spheres and not just a way to represent what the "particle or wave" actually look like. A true particle could look like a figure 8, but the public would still think its a dot. Oh well... I suppose ignorance is bliss for some people.

"now, all these definitions of light use our linear time understanding. i do not believe in linear time."

Linear time is real, but Hawking and another scientist are working on imaginary time as being a 2d quality to that linear (1d) timeline. Time is linear, but it may be more.

"i believe in energy soup, time being another form of energy."

Time is a part of space, what we call spacetime. Energy is a property of spacetime. I believe time is just a quantitative way to understand 3 dimensional movement... as we would normally define time. Energy is more of a quality that forces motion and transformation. There is probably a link, but I doubt it is direct, such as energy-->time (energy implies time). Time probably shows that energy does exist, but I don't think we should go as far as to say that time is a result of energy... although it could be with a whole lot of physics, math, and philosophy. I prefer to stick to relationships that are more direct and much less abstract in connection to one another.

We could argue that all things are related, but putting a rhinosaurous and a bottle of beer on the same plane is a waste of time. I fear that arguing that energy and time are closely related leaves out too many other factors and are thus not directly related. Maybe you see it otherwise.

"i have a theory that there are levels(densities and dimensions) of energy, and we only percieve a certain bandwidth/azimuth."

Densities can relate to dimensions and consciousness levels. However, density is a word used for having 3 dimensions. You should say that you believe in multiple dimensional levels of energy and believe those to be in waveform. Seeing only single bandwidth means that there is only one wave, which is probably way too elementary for you to base a high level theory on. The idea of vibrational energy has flaws. The reason for this is that vibrations are seen as linear and cannot form complex objects. Once you start to add more dimension to vibrations you start to use different terms to describe the effects. Basically, thinking of vibrations is a good start, but you have to get much more detailed if you want to have a good base theory... such as vibrating strings throughout 3 dimensional space (string theory). Don't confuse the methods in which your eyes see with how physics and matter/energy actually interact with the universe. You would be shot down very quickly in a room full of smart people (and smarta$$es ).

"the human brain operates between 0 and 20 some hertz(some yogis have been measured at 40 and higher)."

I have no idea. I hate biology, so I stick to physics.

"our perception and measurement of time is based on certain cycles. the sun, the moon and spin of the earth, mostly."

I believe science has started to move beyond that and dealt with quantum time, as well as relating time to the "beginning" of our particular universe. Perception is important, but mathematics and physics have helped to get rid of many false perceptions and have a good foundation for study of the fourth dimension.

"yet, we all notice that time changes for us, under certain conditions, ie., extreme boredom or stress(like a car accident)."

That's because your brain speeds up when flooded by chemicals and the body flooded by adrenaline. Those highs cannot be biologically sustained for long. The perception of time changes, but time itself is not actually changing.

"our vision has a frame rate."

18 frames per second... give or take a couple.

"if we could slo-mo or fast forward reality, we might be able to see other shapes which are hidden from our perception."

Shape is not hidden from perception, but higher dimensional figures are. This is a matter of us not having the sensory organs to detect anything above standard time. If you would like to know what higher dimensions do, then math has already does the work.

Welcome to your first glimpse of the 2 interacting objects in the 4th dimension

"like the way a single row of led's can cause the impression of words in our minds(i think you know what i'm talking about), by side scrolling text."

Yes, but again those are "optical" illusions for the ways our eyes work and the way our brains interpret symbols. That touches on psychology and performance magic.

"also, this theory of ninety degree electro magnetic waves leaves 359.99999 degrees of free space on the axis."

Well, the 90 degree EM wave is just a matter of orientation of the waves. The strength of the fields vary throughout the rest of the orientation. Basically, the 90 degree angle keeps balance between the forces and gives light its particular properties.

"didn't they tell us in school that we're mostly space?"

Yes... which should be appended to say mostly spacetime and energy waves in what you might call a "soup." Still, the science is much more realistic about how to view that logically. Philosophy adds that, "we are not atoms, but shadows of atoms. Less than one percent material and the rest is the motion of electrons that you see.

"N.S.A. wanted john nash. didn't work out well, i heard. they don't want me, i'm just a fringe lunatic. my house is full of butterflies flapping their wings. i'm so ignorant, i don't even know what time it is."

You are smart enough to use your brain to come up with possible solutions... one day the NSA may be interested in your application.

"protector, you have a good mind. don't believe everything the teacher says, though. science is the new dogma."

Actually, most of my research was done outside of the classroom. I found that the library is just as smart as a good professor. Late fees are far less than the tuition to take all of the class required to be as learned as I am. I perfer to see myself as self-taught, but regulated and reinforced by formal class. Science is not a dogma, but idiots who claim to be using science make us look like we are full of doggie-do.

Good thing many scientists are guys like me (and maybe smarter... maybe ).