Different Universes...

[Thomas Wood]

When the big bang created matter and anti-matter,could there have been another universe created of the opposite matter?

 

If so if we managed to enter it would we annialate (sp?) instantly?

[danny8522003]

Yes, there could be other Universes made of anti-matter. If we were to enter one we would be anihilated.

[Severian]

Yes, there could be other Universes made of anti-matter. If we were to enter one we would be anihilated.

 

And where are they? Any anti-matter created at the big bang, which magically wandered off to 'be a new universe' someplace else, is still embedded in the same space-time. So where is it?

 

To answer the original question, no there are not 'other universes' made of antimatter.

[Xyph]

There could be if they were spawned by a different Big Bang.

[Maioux]

Could the other universe be Andromeda perhaps?

[Xyph]

That's a galaxy.

[BigMoosie]

To answer the original question, no there are not 'other universes' made of antimatter.

 

You cannot dismiss the possibility without proof.

There is nothing to support extra universes but there is nothing to refute them either.

[arkain101]

I am beginning to think we need to re-invent part of the human language to explain and understand what we refer to as the universe.

I think sometimes that it is false to think that a universe is a limited quanity of somthing. There for the word for universe should not be directed towards the meaning of a kind of collection of all. Rather it should be look at as a name for what exists.

Like pointing at the sky and saying sky instead of pointing at the sky and saying that is the sky.

Universe could be unlimited, infinate in everyway.

 

There is apparent proof, however they discovered I am baffled to know, that this apparent universe has an age, a begginning, and there for has a maximum quantity in which functions along balance and relationships.

It is that approach that I think is far too close minded, far too human minded, far too inside the box to grasp what universe means and is.

[Severian]

You cannot dismiss the possibility without proof.

 

I can actually, since it is a logical fallacy.

 

In order to be defined as another 'universe' there can be no interaction between our universe and the 'other univese'. If there were, then it would not be a different universe - it would be part of our universe. But if there is no interaction, then nothing in the other universe can ever effect any observables in our own universe, and hence (on a sceintific level at least) the other universe does not exist. (This is the correct application of Occam's razor by the way.)

[swansont]

If there were regions of antimatter, the boundary between that region and one of matter would be experiencing annihilations, and would be a source of characteristic radiation of those interactions. This hasn't been observed.

[Bettina]

Occam's razor, or with me its "keep it simple stupid", doesn't always work. The police enter a room a few moments after a gunshot. A man is holding a smoking gun and a dead person is lying on the floor. The simplest assumption is that one man shot the other.

 

The real story is that the dead man committed suicide in front of his friend and falls to the floor. The gun lands at the other persons feet. The friend picked up the gun out of reflex just as the police came in.

 

Also, to say that another universe doesn't exist because we can't see it is something I don't buy. Because our universe came into existence is self proof that it could happen. So, with that, it could happen in other parts of the void too, even many universes. I may be wrong, but I'm very open minded.

 

Bettina

[BigMoosie]

I can actually' date=' since it is a logical fallacy.

 

In order to be defined as another 'universe' there can be no interaction between our universe and the 'other univese'. If there were, then it would not be a different universe - it would be part of our universe. But if there is no interaction, then nothing in the other universe can ever effect any observables in our own universe, and hence (on a sceintific level at least) the other universe does not exist. (This is the correct application of Occam's razor by the way.)[/quote']

 

If a tree falls in the woods...

[AI_Interface]

When performing experiments involving small particles like electrons and photons, physicist have observed that these particles are interfering with identical 'mirror' particles. These 'mirror' particles behave exactly like the electrons and photons we observe in our universe but they only interact through interference on the quantum level.

 

This means that there are other universes existing in parallel with our own. These universes only interact through the effects of quantum interference and are hence undetectable on the macroscopic scale.

 

Does this not qualify them as other universes? How are they apart of our universe if there is no exchange of matter/energy?

[Severian]

Occam's razor' date=' or with me its "keep it simple stupid", doesn't always work. The police enter a room a few moments after a gunshot. A man is holding a smoking gun and a dead person is lying on the floor. The simplest assumption is that one man shot the other.

[/quote']

 

That is not Occam's razor - that is a dumbed down 'popular scince' version of Occam's razor. Occam's razor is the principle that if a part of a theory has no observable effect, then it should be removed.

[Severian]

When performing experiments involving small particles like electrons and photons' date=' physicist have observed that these particles are interfering with identical 'mirror' particles. These 'mirror' particles behave exactly like the electrons and photons we observe in our universe but they only interact through interference on the quantum level.

[/quote']

 

I am not at all sure what you mean by 'mirror particles'. I suspect you are refering to parity symmetry, which says that the law of physics when observed in a mirror should look exactly the same. This 'parity symmetry' is actually violated by electroweak interactions. Is this what you are refering to?

 

If it is, then the 'mirror particles' are just particles with the opposite parity, but they are still normal particles living in our own universe.

 

(Maybe this is not what you mean though, since this has nothing to do with the interference.)

[Martin]

Hi Severian,

your use of Occam's Razor got me to look it up and I found a page at John Baez website about it:

http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/General/occam.html

 

here is a sample, in case anyone is curious about the history of the Razor:

 

---quote---

Occam's (or Ockham's) razor is a principle attributed to the 14th century logician and Franciscan friar; William of Occam. Ockham was the village in the English county of Surrey where he was born.

 

The principle states that "Entities should not be multiplied unnecessarily." Sometimes it is quoted in one of its original Latin forms to give it an air of authenticity.

 

"Pluralitas non est ponenda sine neccesitate"

"Frustra fit per plura quod potest fieri per pauciora"

"Entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem"

 

In fact, only the first two of these forms appear in his surviving works and the third was written by a later scholar. William used the principle to justify many conclusions including the statement that "God's existence cannot be deduced by reason alone." That one didn't make him very popular with the Pope...

---end quote---

 

there is lots more

[GeminiinimeG]

to us the universe seems to be made up of al the stars planets and other celestical bodies, what about super small organismas, this planet seems to them like their universe, perhaps were one litle part of some being, and he is part of another beig and this keeps on going on to infinity, who knows its probable but theres no proof to it and its just speculation =D

 

By the way guys last i heard were not able to see past a certain point in any given direction so you cant say it ends right there can you, but you cant prove that it is bigger than that, perhaps thats the end of our universe and theres another after that?

[Martin]

...

 

Also' date=' to say that another universe doesn't exist because we can't see it is something I don't buy. Because our universe came into existence is self proof that it could happen. So, with that, it could happen in other parts of the void too, even many universes. I may be wrong, but I'm very open minded.

 

Bettina[/quote']

 

Bettina, I like this statement of attitude very much. It is not a scientific attitude, which is all right because one only needs the traditional scientific method when one does science. It is an excellent tradition with a glorious history of success but it does not need to be followed in every branch of life.

 

Severian and Tom Swanson already answered the question of this thread, so why should I feel there is more we could talk about?

 

To summarize, the kickoff post asked what if our Bang made two "universes" one of matter and one of antimatter.

 

1. even if there were a region of our universe containing mostly antimatter it would be confusing to call it a "universe". It would just be a region, not a separately evolving spacetime begun with its own Bang. (I think Severian pointed this out.)

 

2. In fact the Bang is supposed to have produced roughly equal amounts of Anti and Normal matter all jumbled randomly together and they DID annihilate, and Normal was in a slight majority and that slight majority is what was left. This agrees with experimental particle physics results I believe. Swanson pointed out that there is no evidence of any pockets of Anti----we would see constant gammaray glow coming from the annihilation at the boundary----the evidence is that all the annihilation happened very quickly after the matter formed: no residual pockets.

 

3. So Wood, the Original Poster, is taken care of. He was imagining our one single Bang producing two regions (which he mistakenly called "universes") and he has been assured that this simply did not happen----the evidence is very clear about that.

But now comes the HAIRY part. You Bettina change the question and say what if there were two bangs.

 

4. Now the key issue is what Severian raised about observability because this decides whether or not it falls within the precincts of Science or is, say, more properly a LITERARY idea. having two bangs each producing its own expanding spacetime but no experiment in WorldOne being able to detect anything about WorldTwo is a perfectly good literary notion. And might possibly construct a FAITH with that as a feature---maybe with some moral or spiritual connection if by some strange mixup they were being punished for our sins and we for theirs (which might explain a lot since doesn't it always seems to be the wrong people )

 

5. But if something doesnt have any empirical consequences then it is not part of science.

To be a part of science a model or a notion or a formula describing things has to be able to MAKE A PREDICTION that allows it to be tested and to be discarded if it predicted wrong.

And any part of a theory that you dont NEED to make the prediction but which is just extra baggage going along for the ride, well, you drop it.

 

Some allowance is made for half-baked scientific ideas that are not YET testable if they look like they are promising theories-in-the-making which will in time be testable.

 

6. So the big question is this: if you have a picture in mind where there are TWO or more bangs, then are they connected in some way that would allow your picture to make some distinctive prediction about some future observation so that it could be TESTED?

 

If it is testable then it could be considered part of science. If not, then it could be a good literary idea or the basis of an intriguing mythology, and it would be all right to believe in it, it merely wouldnt be a scientific theory.

 

 

Science theories are mainly not to be believed in anyway, they are primarily something to use for making predictions and to keep on testing and to use as provisional explanations until they can be disproved or replaced by better. Maybe my view is too limited, but I like thinking of them that way

[danny8522003]

When things bubble around at a quantum level where wormholes and things are made, there could be universes created there within this one. Time for them would be considerably slower than ours and so what would be a nano-second in this Universe might be 20,000 billion years in another. An anti-matter Universe like this could probably form, could it not?

[Severian]

2. In fact the Bang is supposed to have produced roughly equal amounts of Anti and Normal matter all jumbled randomly together and they DID annihilate' date=' and Normal was in a slight majority and that slight majority is what was left. This agrees with experimental particle physics results I believe. Swanson pointed out that there is no evidence of any pockets of Anti----we would see constant gammaray glow coming from the annihilation at the boundary----the evidence is that all the annihilation happened very quickly after the matter formed: no residual pockets.

[/quote']

 

That is possible, but that is not the commonly accepted viewpoint. The more common idea is that there were identical amounts of each produced, but that the laws of physics are slightly different for matter and anti-matter, known as CP violation, which resulted in the mismatch in modern day. We already know that the laws of physics are CP violating but so far we have not found a big enough CP violating effect to cause such a big asymmetry between matter and anti-matter.

[Bettina]

Thanks Martin. You are correct in every detail. I've been finishing up a book called "Stephen Hawkings Universe" by David Filkin. In it he speaks of a young physicist, Andrei Linde, who thought that because quantum mechanics allows particles to pop in out of nothing, the universe may have done the same.

 

A tiny vacuum of energy that popped in from nothing, but failed to pop back out and instead, it expanded rapidly becoming our universe. There could be many of these universes.....not just our own. He speculates we are just one bubble next to many. However.......sigh.........It can't be proven so it isn't science.

 

I love this kind of stuff, but I'm not interested in the universe as much as I am as to what caused it.....thus my dilema...and I wouldn't put this anywhere near mythology. To me, our universe is nothing special and not unique.

 

Thanks for the explanations. You have a nice way with words.

 

Bettina

[Severian]

I know Andre Linde. Nice guy, and very smart, but certainly not a young physicist anymore...

[Bettina]

I know Andre Linde. Nice guy, and very smart, but certainly not a young physicist anymore...

 

It didn't say how old he is now.

 

Bettina

[Martin]

Severian, thanks for kindly correcting my explanation of why ordinary matter is more prevalent than anti.

 

So at the very first (if I understand you), at the very highest temperature at which particles could exist, the two kinds are made in exactly equal numbers. particles+antiparticles exist in equilibrium with light.

 

then space expands a bit and things cool just slightly (but are still VERY hot) and get less dense and somehow then there are possible some decay processes which just slightly favor OUR kind over the anti. Or some other kind of asymmetric process.

 

And particle theorists and experimentalists have been able to study these processes so to speak in the laboratory, so that with fair confidence one can model in some detail what was going on----and say why various species formed in various proportions.

 

You are encouraged to expand on this, or correct the story further. It is really interesting and several of us probably appreciate it.

 

Maybe one can even say at what temperature the predominance of our kind could occur and the remaining anti could be wiped out.

 

 

That is possible, but that is not the commonly accepted viewpoint. The more common idea is that there were identical amounts of each produced, but that the laws of physics are slightly different for matter and anti-matter, known as CP violation, which resulted in the mismatch in modern day. We already know that the laws of physics are[/b'] CP violating but so far we have not found a big enough CP violating effect to cause such a big asymmetry between matter and anti-matter.

 

no Andrei Linde would not be a spring chicken any more. I somehow think of his heyday as the 80s

 

but he co-authored a famous paper in 2003----Kachru Kallosh Linde Trivedi

[Martin]

...

Thanks for the explanations. You have a nice way with words.

 

Bettina

 

I notice you take some care with your writing too, even though it is just posts, and people seem to like the threads you start or contribute to, probably because more fun to read. Anyway thanks.