BS: Could there be multiple universes?

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:33 PM

how did you get there Giok?

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: John MacKenzie
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:18 PM

Of course there are parallel universes, that's what accounts for ghosts, We all inhabit the same space at different wavelengths, and sometimes when they get too close, we can almost see the people in another dimension. This is why they appear to walk through walls, because those walls don't exist in their world.
G

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Big Al Whittle
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:09 PM

Mudcat is the ultimate alternative universe.....imagine a world where someone gives a shit about what you think.....where your intimate thoughts are preserved for posterity.......

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 05:34 PM

ah, yes...'perhaps'. We can't see it, feel it, measure it...but we can talk about it.

*shrug*..if we can't TELL either that we are affected by something, or that it exists at all, speculation about its nature is but a game...perhaps...

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: GUEST,282RA
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 04:45 PM

What if dark matter is matter in a parallel universe? Perhaps it warps space that is close to our own but does not interpentrate it so it is not perceptible to us but the effects of that warpage are felt in our universe but we can only understand it as some kind of invisible matter clumping our universe together.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 03:33 PM

A very nice commentary, Wolfgang. It even hints at the semantic issues of referring to "physical law" as if it were a set of rules which were 'followed' as the Universe took shape, instead of just being the relationships we discover.

When someone suggests there 'may' be other universes where neutrons and protons had slighly different weights, and thus don't combine, I see the point, but I also suspect that part of BEING neutrons & protons...etc..IS their weight relationship, and that the very speculation makes little sense. In any case, I can't see how we could ever test the hypotheses about alternate universes...even if we can 'describe' them mathematically.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:39 AM

What I mean by that is, it has been suggested that that is analogous to assuming that a TV programme is generated by the TV set.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: McGrath of Harlow
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:37 AM

...thought is generated by the brain... That's a hypothesis in itself.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Wolfgang
Date: 26 Jun 07 - 06:25 AM

A fine an easy to read commentary:

We will never explain the cosmos by taking on faith either divinity or physical laws. True meaning is to be found within nature (link to GUARDIAN)

Wolfgang

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 26 May 07 - 08:57 PM

gee...you ARE getting close, Amos.... ;>)...but even that bowl of water metaphor is dangerous, as it tends to give substance TO space.

I know...lots of debate over whether 'space' is curved...positively, negatively, or just flat. Some of those theories and equations require one or the other. .....Now I wonder what 'shape' space might have been one second before the 'big bang'.(if there was one)....and if that shape changed a few seconds after the big bang. Well, what I really wonder is whether 'space' makes any sense without things 'in' it.

Was there at some 'time', NO-thing? And if so, was there any space to be curved? Is 'space' only a name for that not-solid area between the solid stuff we care about and can weigh, measure and take pictures of?
I am, of course, heading in my usual direction of wondering just how our obvious need to name certain aspects of whatever passes for reality also affects how we construct theories about the ultimate nature of things.

" Most pure-physics models are pretty dull about this.."

Yep...kinda dull. It is a lot more interesting to manipulate terminology and imagine META-physical realms where dimensions and planes of existence and entire universes can be tossed about with impunity. Entire religions have been built on these imaginary realms...(Oahspe, Urantia). We make fun of them, but talk seriously of wormholes into other universes where physical laws are 'different'.

It's an interesting feeling to have evolved into a being with a physical brain complex enough to ask these questions and wonder ....ummm...how we can ask these questions! Just being able to contemplate our own existence seems to imply ALL the other questions - even the ones we can't answer. "Can God make a weight he can't lift?"...Can Man ask a question he can't, by definition, ever answer?.......me, I suspect he sure enuf can....

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 07 - 08:58 PM

Bill:

I think this depends entirely on what you consider space tiself to be, and whence it cometh. Most pure-physics models are pretty dull about this, citing space as the thing you find energy in, and energy as the things you find in space. Very circular and indicative that there is somer underlying paradigm, or assumpiton, that just begs to be discovered. Of course it is very disturbing to think about a defintion for space itself, since we are accustomed to mostly being inside "it" (or "them" depending on your definition). It strains the brain like a fish trying to describe water. But that is not grounds for rejecting the question.

Thought itself, it seems to me, creates a variety of dimensional-like constructs in its exercise and may have more to do with the kind of space we see than one would suppose.

Just messing with you, though, Bill. I know this is all silly stuff, since thought is generated by the brain which is safely and permanently located in space, and therefore space can only be some external bowl of water in which we swim, I guess... :>)


A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Donuel
Date: 25 May 07 - 08:11 PM

I created a character that could travel in the Z axis of space and effectively step into a preferred mirrored universe.

While he can get out of tragic situations, each Z axis side step causes him to become left handed instead of right and visa versa.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 25 May 07 - 07:37 PM

I have a suspicion that the 'variables' are actually pretty UNvariable....some things just make more sense than others.....and before you suggest that my idea of 'sense' is narrow & rigid, Amos..*grin*, I still would be willing to bet 25¢ that most theoretical varients will remain that way. Equations are fun, but we can always describe things we can't really conceive of or explain in any useful manner.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 25 May 07 - 06:16 PM

No reason why not. The notional 4D frame of our apparent universe strikes me as arbitrary as all get-ut. Left-corkscrew space, three-vector time, and self-multiplying energy would be fun variables to start a universe with, I think.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: GUEST,Ed
Date: 25 May 07 - 05:59 PM

Why not a triangular universe?

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:32 PM

Heisenberg. You can never demonstrate which route the last photon actually took. Discrete energy levels are measurable - within what we know of measurement of energy. What if one did not recognise the concept of vorticity in measuring water-flow energies? What we cannot prove is that ther eis a photon or quark, or subatomic particle.   What we can at best show is that the gross evidence is consistent with them.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:17 PM

The construction, however, does reflect the reality as far as we have tested it Richard. Discrete energy levels and particle entanglement are testable actualities. Why do you think quantization is just a "construct" ?


A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:11 PM

100

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Richard Bridge
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:10 PM

Since quantisation is a construct, not reality, it follows that there is no reason to hypothesise mutiple reality.

THe question cofuses the analytica tool and the actuality.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Donuel
Date: 24 May 07 - 02:25 PM

Bill thats a drawing of a concept of the emergence of quanta at the quantum level oppoing into our reality and its loopy ride back to where it came from.

There are so many different perspectives one can imagine to depict the quantum chaos ride between here and there.

for example the camera of the mind could look at only the barrier, or only one side or both.

I have made so many computer generated pictures of this phenomena I bet I got it right at least once. I use chaos and fractals in polar distortion filters and wave generators in all sorts of combinations. I keep the ones that offer an ineffable beauty.

be it modern art of doodling the quantum universe it is visually appealing.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 24 May 07 - 12:30 PM

Here's how you get there

(I think Google is working on a map)

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 24 May 07 - 10:06 AM

Ambiguity is not the answer. I think. But it might be the question.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: MMario
Date: 24 May 07 - 08:35 AM

and only on alternate tuesdays during months with an "r" in them.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:53 AM

Maybe.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:53 AM

No.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: gnu
Date: 24 May 07 - 06:53 AM

Yes.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: GUEST
Date: 23 May 07 - 08:06 PM

a2xt3
------------ = nxt/mn + >d=fxl/2 L
c24352 (hd4)


      NOPE!

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 07 - 04:44 PM

Very different kinda thing; they are working from hard facts and extrapolating using proven mathematics, not philosphical imponderables.

Important differentiation.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: MMario
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:49 AM

no - because there has been some serious mathematical analysis of various phenomenon that fit into the multiverse theories. But whether or not there is or will be "proof" - who knows.

Who ever thought there'd be imaging microscopes that could resolve detials smaller then the wavelength of visible light?

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: An Buachaill Caol Dubh
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:42 AM

Does anyone else think that the current trend for Scientists to be chatting about this kind of "multiple universe" theory - and getting research grants to do it - is the modern equivalent of Mediaeval Theologians disputing about how many wings angels had; or dancing on pinheads, of course?

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 23 May 07 - 10:01 AM

Most people, I think, have built their palisades form against such abilities because they have had too much random and difficult experience when "open". Knowing is a non-local occurence which gets put into localized bottles in order to appear sanitized.

A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Donuel
Date: 23 May 07 - 09:24 AM

Don Firth,
I had some leakage yesterday.

I was in a hypnogogic reverie when I realized that a friend of mine was feeling worried about his elderly father inlaw being ill.

Having no earthly way to explain how I knew this, my inclination to call and give him my condolences and good wishes for his father in law was overpowered by my past experiences of telling people things I should not know anything about and creating suspicion and uneasiness.

He stopped by the next day and said his father in law was ill, but also his dad and mom were also hospitalized.


Time information "leakage" is common.

The 9 year old MIT egg experiment is proof.

Gaining some imperical way of means of understanding it may come from a breakthrough in cosmology.

Such information in the hands of organized religion or warring nations is discomforting.

Do we want to know?

I believe most people do not.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 22 May 07 - 06:23 PM

very....ummmm...enlightening.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: GUEST,jaminjo
Date: 22 May 07 - 12:05 PM

Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
No
Yes
Yes
YES
YeS..etc

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: John O'L
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:07 PM

"If you are one of those people who believes that the observer matters, then you have a problem with quantum cosmology, because if you apply quantum physics to the whole universe you can't get outside the universe to observe it."

Couldn't any (or every) person in any or every universe be regarded as an observer? Why the need to get out of it? Or does "the observer" mean something different in quantumspeak?

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Don Firth
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:41 PM

". . . what if all the atoms are really little planets?...and we in turn are just atoms in someone else's universe?"

Fun concept, Bill.

Wa-a-a-ay back, I bought a book entitled Adventures in Time and Space ed. Raymond J. Healy & J. Francis McComas (Random House, Aug '46, $3.00, 997pp.). One of the stories it contained was "He Who Shrank," by Henry Hasse (Amazing, Aug. '36), in which the protagonist is an unwilling participant in an experiment that caused him to shrink, and continue shrinking. He would fall into matter (piece of paper on a desk), emerge as a gigantic being in a "universe," diminish in size until he floated down onto an electron (orbiting its nucleus like a planet orbiting a star), become "normal size" for the beings there, have lots of adventures, then dwindle and vanish, and the whole process would happen again as he entered layer after layer of smallness. Spoiler Alert:   the man who quotes the "shrinker's" narration is a science fiction writer—here on Earth. The shrinker finishes his narration—up to that point—as he diminishes and disappears into a sheet of typing paper. Just passing through on his way to. . . .

I'm guessing that the story was the basis of the movie "The Incredible Shrinking Man," although the screenplay—and the novel—are credited to Richard Matheson. Good special effects for a 1950s movie, but the scope of the short story was much more sweeping and awe-inspiring. Remake scheduled to come out in July, 2008. There was also a novel on the same theme: The Girl in the Atom. Not great.

The anthology contained some of the classic classic science fiction stories from the pulp SF magazines in the 1930s. Several of them emerged later on in longer form—movies.   At least the movies were based on the short stories. One was "Who Goes There" by Don A. Stuart (Astounding, Aug. '38) on which the movie "The Thing" was based. James Arness (later, Matt Dillon of "Gunsmoke") was The Thing. But the "thing" in the short story was far more scary. Alien. Deadly. And it could assume any shape. Could have been the guy sitting next to you and you wouldn't know it until too late. Antarctic setting. They had to get the thing before it occured to it to surn into a seagull and fly away North.

Another was "Farewell to the Master" by Harry Bates (Astounding Oct '40). This was the germ of the movie "The Day the Earth Stood Still."   The story concludes with a man carrying a dead alien humanoid to a parked spaceship with a huge robot standing motionless beside it. The man say, "I'm sorry about your master." To which the robot intones, "You are mistaken. I am the master." The movie was considerable expanded, with an anti-war, anti-violence theme. Classic film.

The anthology includes Isaac Asimov's "Nightfall" (Astounding Sep. '41) and "Black Destroyer" by A. E. Van Vogt (Astounding Jul '39). And a couple dozen others of comparable quality and vintage. One of the best $3.00 investments I ever made.

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Donuel
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 11:08 AM

"Over & over many people make a kind of jump - from giving a concept a name to acting as though it acquires some sort of reality "
Bill D

Yeah Bill its called a hypothesis.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:56 AM

"...a kind of jump - from giving a concept a name to acting as though it acquires some sort of reality from the naming.

"That's kind of like what happened in religion isn't it, Bill. Didn't God/Allah acquire substance the same way??"

...might be....I suspect something like that. Enormously complex cultural/personal process based on 'real' experiences with creative interpretations. Honest people making the best guess they can to account for phemomena of interest...like death and thunder and the sun & moon and dreams.

But an honest guess is not necessarily the correct guess....and once the DIShonest get ahold of it, strange things can happen.

It is not a matter of 'proving' that those guesses were wrong...in fact, some of them 'might' be right...but rather, the burden of proof is on those who choose to adopt the results of the guesses AS truth. I just choose not to buy into a belief system developed that way without better documentation.....kinda stubborn that way.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 10:23 AM

But when it comes to quantum physics the situation is dramatically different. ..quantum phenomena enfold or entangle the observer with the observed in a manner that simply can't be untangled. This entanglement seems to bring something like 'mind', something like 'observer', into nature in a very intimate way. Now that is anathema to most scientists, who struggle to keep mind and subjectivity out.

Aye, there's the rub.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:38 AM

so, here we go again!

excerpts from conversations between Professor Paul Davies and Phillip Adams. (they've been discussing quantum physics, and move on to parallel universes..


Paul: That's right, but the question is, are all these possibilities really there? Are they co-existing in parallel? Or is there only one reality, one universe, and if so, how does it get selected from the myriad realities on offer?

Phillip: Parallel universes — a mind-boggling notion. Are you suggesting that there are universes in which Tony Blair lost the last British general election?

Paul: That's right, yes. According to the theory — if you subscribe to this particular many-universes interpretation (which many of my senior colleagues do, I might say) — these contending realities are really there. In other words, quantum physics tells us that there isn't one universe — there is an infinity of them. All of the different possibilities, all of the things that are possible at the atomic level and above, are really happening somewhere. Not over here or over there in our space and time, but in some parallel reality.

Phillip: Are there Luddites who take an alternative view to this, who are hostile to this interpretation of quantum mechanics?

Paul: Yes, there are. I would say that during my career there's been a decisive shift towards the many-universes view of interpreting quantum mechanics. Possibly a majority of the senior figures working in this area of theoretical physics now would regard themselves as backing the many-universes theory...

Phillip: I'm very grateful that we don't notice bizarre quantum effects in daily life, Paul.…. But I've got a terrible feeling that another interview is being conducted in an identical room where you're taking a completely different position.

Paul: Yes, that is exactly right according to the many-universes view. Not only are there all these different realities, but many of them are inhabited by beings who are almost carbon copies of ourselves. So there will indeed be another universe somewhere with a Paul Davies and Phillip Adams having a slightly different — even infinitesimally different — conversation!

Phillip: This raises the issue of the way the human mind is entangled in the ultimate reality of the cosmos, because you are now dealing with our perceptions of it.

Paul: Indeed. That's actually the whole point. The really disturbing thing about quantum physics is that it does seem in some way to involve the observer. It entangles the observer and the observed in a very intimate way. You see, in the old-fashioned classical physics, the observer was just there for the ride. But when it comes to quantum physics the situation is dramatically different. ..quantum phenomena enfold or entangle the observer with the observed in a manner that simply can't be untangled. This entanglement seems to bring something like 'mind', something like 'observer', into nature in a very intimate way. Now that is anathema to most scientists, who struggle to keep mind and subjectivity out.

The question is how to interpret the rules of quantum mechanics when applied to the entire cosmos. If you are one of those people who believes that the observer matters, then you have a problem with quantum cosmology, because if you apply quantum physics to the whole universe you can't get outside the universe to observe it. The universe is everything that there is. There are no external observers, by definition.

The many-universes people are okay on this point because they can just assume that all possible universes that can exist get created, and then act out their alternative histories in parallel. So, for example, just as we see a universe like ours which is expanding from some initial singularity to an uncertain future, well there would be another universe which has not expanded so far as ours and would already be collapsing. There would be yet another that would be expanding much faster, and would already be nearly devoid of matter because the galaxies would have flown very far apart. All of these universes are there together.


full discussion here..

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: freda underhill
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 09:28 AM

There are truly parallel universes - I just posted quite a long post to this thread and it disappeared to.. somewhere!

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: nutty
Date: 19 Apr 07 - 12:59 AM

Over & over many people make a kind of jump - from giving a concept a name to acting as though it acquires some sort of reality from the naming.

That's kind of like what happened in religion isn't it, Bill. Didn't God/Allah acquire substance the same way??

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:55 PM

"Small fleas have larger fleas
Beneath their feet to go on;
And these in turn have larger still;
And larger still, and so on."

A guy I knew 40 years ago...(who never even went to college, but knew I was) came up to me one day with this "what if all the atoms are really little planets?...and we in turn are just atoms in someone else's universe?"

It's SUCH an easy thing to toss about...and often good fun.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Amos
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:48 PM

It is also interesting to consider that all scale is a function of viewpoint, and imagining a very very huge universe in which to be is comforting to a species of small bipeds who can't even get off one third-rate planet. But it als means that space and its boundaries may be nothing more than an artifact of looking out. If so then the notion of " universe" as "everything" is just an anthrocentric conceit.


A

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Don Firth
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 11:06 PM

Possibility (there are serious scientists who consider it a likelihood):    A massive star imploded into a black hole. The result was a Big Bang and another universe began. Us. Here. And in our universe, every time a massive star implodes into a black hole, another universe starts. And they, in turn. . . .

And, of course, the universe from which our universe sprang was created the same way.

Big fleas have little fleas
Upon their backs to bite 'em;
And little fleas have littler fleas,
And so ad infinitum.

And then there is the little matter of eleven dimensions. They're right here, but we're able to perceive only three, and have a sense of the fourth.

All of which boils down to this:   hard-headed "realists" shouldn't necessarily be so phlegmatic about such things as paranormal phenomena. They might be "leakage" from other dimensions.

(Cue Twilight Zone theme.)

Don Firth

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Bill D
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:34 PM

doesn't everyome know the old joke about the elderly lady at the astronomy lecture?

"...Oh, thank goodness! I thought you said 10 MILLION years!"

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Donuel
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 10:23 PM

No collapse in this universe.

Aunti Gravity will keep our family of galaxys
movin on out until
the last cold spark
sputters
into
darkness.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Peace
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:36 PM

Add mass.

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: catspaw49
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:35 PM

Fart a lot............

Spaw

Subject: RE: BS: Could there be multiple universes?
From: Gulliver
Date: 18 Apr 07 - 08:33 PM

I did a bit of googling on this and there are a lot of theories out there--enough to keep me reading until the end of the week at least--and lots of them deal with multiverses, etc.

Which got me to thinking about our own universe collapsing on itself in a few gazillion years. Shouldn't we get off our butts and do something about this? What can we do to save the universe?