Multiverses

[SamBridge]

In order for gravitational information to flow, it requires space. Another universe wouldn't have space connecting itself with out universe, so I assumo gravity can't affect that other world

Unless gravity effected the higher dimensional membrane that the other universes lie on...

But mostly, what it's looking like isn't a multiverse in the sense of realities being inlaid in each other, but rather that because "nothingness is unstable" and there's no real reason the think the big bang itself was the start of literally "everything", the big bang we think we've found could easily just be a random fluctuation among many other random fluctuations, and because we don't know of anything that can limit big bangs from happening, we just say there could be an infinite amount of them which leads to the theory of every possible universe occurring. Assuming that's how it all works, we don't actually know. Maybe for some random reason there just actually was a single big bang 13+ billion years ago and that's it, or we're in some higher dimensional hypersphere that 3 dimension-ally has no "outside." and we're trapped.

But before any of that, there was a problem with saying "outside the universe." Astronomers tried looking for a "closed universe" curvature which would equate 3-D space to being on the surface of a higher dimensional sphere that folds back in on itself so that physically, there was no "outside", but astronomers had no luck there and space still looks flat according to numerous telescopes.

So instead, since there can't be anything "outside" of "everything", and we don't know what was there before the big bang, we instead say "well there had to be something" and so try to adopt different models that harness higher dimensional manifolds in which to place different big bangs so that we can explain how it would make physical sense for the universe to appear to be flat and not have any issues with linearly tracing time back to before the big bang and linearly tracing space to some arbitrary boundary of the universe. Not that everything's fixed and ready to go, we still need the evidence.

The reason dark energy matters in this is if we say the universe is only 13.8 billion years old, but we still see no boundary whatsoever and see some galaxies that far back with no sign of matter suddenly ceasing to exist, then the universe is either older, a hypersphere, or it expanded faster than light at some point. We see no evidence for a hypersphere, so that just leaves an infinitely long stretch of space filled with matter, or a fast expansion. If we say the uiverse is older, then where do we stop saying the universe is older? Since we can't model what would prevent the universe from being older, that means the universe is indefinitely old which conflicts with our models of a big bang being the birth of the physical matter we see. So, physicists are trying to make sense of the universe expanding at a faster rate in some multi-verse complex where big bangs are just random fluctuations.

 

But the way I see it personally is the same problem still exists. Where did that higher dimensional multiverse manifold come from?

Edited April 3, 2014 by SamBridge

[Schneibster]

I'm not that good on my astrophysics, but considering many models point to a multiverse, why couldn't the effects of gravity of the outside universes be propelling the increased expansion of our own? the "dark energy" we indirectly detect is speeding up the expansion of our own universe, but as i mentioned, couldn't the gravity from neighboring universes be pulling on each other and driving this expansion?

 

Good question; as a schneibster (i.e. asker of inconvenient questions), I give you a +1.

 

The answer is, gravity acts at the speed of light. Other cosmoses that are "nearby" (whatever that means) to us, are still so far away that their gravity cannot have reached here by now. And they're getting further; because of dark energy, if they didn't get to us by seven billion years ago, they're not ever going to, because expansion started accelerating then and that means it's too late.

[SamBridge]

I think the only way to really confirm some type of dark energy is to have a telescope powerful enough to see far enough away that the acceleration of space is greater than light or at least fast speed, which must be trillions of miles away at least. How else could it really be confirmed? People make it in a lab?

Edited April 5, 2014 by SamBridge

[Schneibster]

I think the only way to really confirm some type of dark energy is to have a telescope powerful enough to see far enough away that the acceleration of space is greater than light or at least fast speed, which must be trillions of miles away at least. How else could it really be confirmed? People make it in a lab?

 

Davidivad will tell you that eventually, yes, we might find out there's a quantum field theory for gravity that will tell us the difference (if any- it's entirely possible it's just gravitons in some unknown odd state or other) between dark energy and regular gravity.

 

But right now, the proof we have is based on our standard distance measurement techniques. We could have a two page discussion about Cepheid variables and such, but the fact is our best long range marker is a particular type of supernova that has a very strong correlation between its intrinsic brightness, and the decay over time of its light curve. Thus, by measuring the light curve of such a supernova, we can determine its distance. This therefore means we can determine the distance of any galaxy such a supernova occurs in very very accurately. And these supernovae, called Type 1a, are visible for tens of billions of light years; and luckily, they even occur in galaxies that are very young so we can measure the distances of galaxies almost all the way back to the Big Bang and out to the Horizon of the Visible Universe, currently 13.6 billion light years away.

 

Now, in addition to being able to measure the distance of these galaxies, we can also measure their redshift; and this not only allows us to calibrate the Hubble Flow, but to see if it is changing over time. And in fact, it is. What we see is, for the first seven billion years or so, our universe was expanding more and more slowly as the gravity of the matter in it pulled against the outward momentum; however, about seven billion years ago, that deceleration stopped, and acceleration started. That acceleration is "dark energy."

 

So as you can see, the evidence for "dark energy" is pretty much incontrovertible.

[davidivad]

i agree.

the evidence for dark energy is incontrovertible. in my opinion.

it can be measured in a lab.

[Schneibster]

Yep, and it's called the "Casimir effect."

[SamBridge]

i agree.

the evidence for dark energy is incontrovertible. in my opinion.

it can be measured in a lab.

Not quite. If the history of science has taught us anything, it's that we're always further from the truth than we think. We have some measurements of a few galaxies which we think can potentially model a time that frankly no one we know has been around to observe. We still can't confirm if a big bang happened at all, and if it did, whether or not it was a purely local phenomena or the actual start of "everything," not that it being a "start" would make physical sense either, any visible or testable quantity of dark energy, proof that acceleration can't be described from intrinsic curvature of space over large distances, a consistent and proven of what gravity or really any other force actually is, what space even is and if it's quantized, why time appears to only move forward, ect, there's plenty of room to make changes. With new theories, we even could theorize three different ways to travel faster than light despite that for a period in science, the speed of light was the limit.

Edited April 5, 2014 by SamBridge

[Schneibster]

You're living in the 1960s.

 

The CMBR is the proof of the Big Bang. That dispute was history fifty years ago.

 

Not to be disrespectful, but this is pretty disappointing. You're just dismissing evidence you've never seen. Sorry if I upset your applecart, but none of your claims hold water. At the end of your rant, you are dismissing relativity.

 

Which is a hundred years old.

 

C'mon, man, stop being silly. Nobody's lying to you here.

Edited April 5, 2014 by Schneibster

[davidivad]

while i am inclined to agree with scheibster, there are other theories floating around out there.

 

take for instance the steady state theory.

there are also possible mathematical solutions that can explain red shift under a different light.

however, these theories do not give us anything new or prove what inflationary theory already does so well.

i will keep an eye out in case they figure out how to do something that inflationary theory cannot do.

for now i will stick to the idea that space "pushes" at two plates.

[Schneibster]

I'm pretty good with five plus sigma results. And they're a lot more significant than that, by now.

 

I think with the latest data, that we've been discussing, finding the gravity wave signatures in the CMBR, it's pretty much over. It was still possible to argue against inflation before that. I don't think it is any more. It's too successful. I should note for all readers that inflation has gone from success to success and is currently making repeated predictions that are all coming out correct.

 

I think the biggest question, davidivad, is whether the magnitude problem in the measured Casimir force with respect to the predictions of the magnitude of Λ are being resolved. That's always been the fly in the ointment.

[davidivad]

there are some new papers out on the subject. i haven't had the time to read any.

i think will have to read more tonight over some coffee.

that's the greatest thing about science, there is always new material.

i will respond on this paper after i have read it.

[Schneibster]

I was fairly convinced when I saw the film of Andrei Linde quaffing champagne.

[SamBridge]

You're living in the 1960s.

 

The CMBR is the proof of the Big Bang. That dispute was history fifty years ago.

 

Not to be disrespectful, but this is pretty disappointing. You're just dismissing evidence you've never seen. Sorry if I upset your applecart, but none of your claims hold water. At the end of your rant, you are dismissing relativity.

 

Which is a hundred years old.

 

C'mon, man, stop being silly. Nobody's lying to you here.

The cosmic microwave background isn't "proof", it's that we use it to model what we think was a more dense state of the universe which as I said could have been a purely local phenomena and could have any number of explanations which is true. At the end of my "rant", I'm acknowledging that what I assume is "special relativity" and general relativity" was build after people like you said time was universal and that it was ridiculous to think otherwise, and then said people said "it's ridiculous to think you can go past the speed of light" and even. No one's saying relativity is flat out wrong and that honestly seems like a strawman to dismiss other possibilities you don't like. The best scientists always doubt previous information to keep an open mind in order to make new discoveries, and its ridiculous to not be open minded. We don't have enough information to completely determine anything, and when we look billions of years into the past with telescopes, we don't see any border to the universe and we still see randomly isolated galaxies. If I have a telescope that can see 15 billion years of space, do you think I am going to see a big bang? Because we can see over 13 billion years of space and no one sees anything resembling a giant explosion. On top of that, a giant explosion being the start of everything doesn't seem make physical sense in the first place, so if anything, you should be eager to have a better model.

 

We simply do not have enough information to confirm anything, it's not more complicated than that.

 

 

that's the greatest thing about science, there is always new material.

 

And that's how you should know not to automatically assume any model is 100% correct.

Edited April 6, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

we are inside the explosion according to the theory.

and the explosion is so big that we cannot pick a central point.

therefore for all intensive purposes, you can pick any point in space and you are at the center.

we cannot prove otherwise, so it is useful.

so much for an answer, but that is what we have so far until something better comes along.

[SamBridge]

we are inside the explosion according to the theory.

and the explosion is so big that we cannot pick a central point.

therefore for all intensive purposes, you can pick any point in space and you are at the center.

we cannot prove otherwise, so it is useful.

so much for an answer, but that is what we have so far until something better comes along.

We still can't say it was any sort of "explosion" even with today's models, that's just multi-media hype, and saying "the explosion is so big it doesn't have a center" doesn't make logical sense. Jupiter is big, but that doesn't mean it doesn't have a center. The Sun is even more huge, but we can still calculate an approximate center. "You can pick any point and you are still at the center" is not indicative of flat space either, that proposition is modeled in curved space which is why science shows like Nova use the surface of a balloon to illustrate that model because 4-D space would only be the surface of a higher dimensional shape that can be modeled as a sphere which was a proposed theory within the last century, and the surface of a sphere itself has no "center".

All we think we can say based on our evidence is that the matter and energy inside our observable universe appears to have spread out, and that it looks like this matter and energy use to spread out at a slower rate. We still can't even observe the fabric of space itself. We cannot prove there was or was not a center because we simply do not have enough information. There's too many gaps to fill and thus no reason to act like any part of describing the entirety of the universe is incontrovertible.

Edited April 6, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

consider it a management level decision.

 

can you prove that any other location is not the center?

consider it a local phenomenon.

 

we also consider any particular part of space to be roughly the same as the rest although it is clearly not.

if you do not like this idea i would consider filing a complaint with management.

wherever that is, lol

[SamBridge]

consider it a management level decision.

 

can you prove that any other location is not the center?

consider it a local phenomenon.

 

we also consider any particular part of space to be roughly the same as the rest although it is clearly not.

if you do not like this idea i would consider filing a complaint with management.

wherever that is, lol

Consider it a science decision: Can you prove there even could be a center or not be a center? Can you even prove the big bang happened? If we can't even prove the big bang happened, then there's obviously gaps to fill in that model.

[Schneibster]

The cosmic microwave background isn't "proof", it's that we use it to model what we think was a more dense state of the universe which as I said could have been a purely local phenomena and could have any number of explanations which is true. At the end of my "rant", I'm acknowledging that what I assume is "special relativity" and general relativity" was build after people like you said time was universal and that it was ridiculous to think otherwise, and then said people said "it's ridiculous to think you can go past the speed of light" and even. No one's saying relativity is flat out wrong and that honestly seems like a strawman to dismiss other possibilities you don't like. The best scientists always doubt previous information to keep an open mind in order to make new discoveries, and its ridiculous to not be open minded. We don't have enough information to completely determine anything, and when we look billions of years into the past with telescopes, we don't see any border to the universe and we still see randomly isolated galaxies. If I have a telescope that can see 15 billion years of space, do you think I am going to see a big bang? Because we can see over 13 billion years of space and no one sees anything resembling a giant explosion. On top of that, a giant explosion being the start of everything doesn't seem make physical sense in the first place, so if anything, you should be eager to have a better model.

 

We simply do not have enough information to confirm anything, it's not more complicated than that.

 

And that's how you should know not to automatically assume any model is 100% correct.

 

Where did the CMBR come from, then? And how come it's the same in areas separated by 26 billion light years?

[ACG52]

Consider it a science decision: Can you prove there even could be a center or not be a center? Can you even prove the big bang happened? If we can't even prove the big bang happened, then there's obviously gaps to fill in that model.

You are misusing the word 'proved'. It is certainly possible to disprove an idea, but Science doesn't 'prove', The Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have for the observed evidence. So far, there is nothing observed which the BB doesn't explain. That's what a science decision is.

[SamBridge]

 

Where did the CMBR come from, then? And how come it's the same in areas separated by 26 billion light years?

How about from random stars radiating that energy from that time period and they've taken 26 billion years to reach us?

You are misusing the word 'proved'. It is certainly possible to disprove an idea, but Science doesn't 'prove', The Big Bang theory is the best explanation we have for the observed evidence. So far, there is nothing observed which the BB doesn't explain. That's what a science decision is.

Eactly, science doesn't "prove", it tests for information to use for a model. There's plenty of things that the BB can't explain with our knowledge like where the edge of the universe is, if it has one, if we're in the only universe, why/how space is expanding or why dark energy was even created, if it really was an event that created matter and energy, if matter existed before the supposed big bang, where the big bang could have even come from, how you could count back to before time, how such an explosion could even "start" time, ect. There's all sorts of problems with saying "a giant explosion was the start of everything," there's many things we don't have ironed out. The Big bang has some evidence, but depending on what type of big bang your talking about, it's not necessarily the best model, because all we can really confidently observe is galaxies in our local observable universe appeared closer together and what seems like the expansion of space that is itself accelerating, and that's it.

Edited April 6, 2014 by SamBridge

[ACG52]

 

 

There's all sorts of problems with saying "a giant explosion was the start of everything,"

Yes, there is, which is why that's not what the theory says. And given that you keep repeating explosion, and harping on edges and centers show that you do not understand the BB at all.

[Schneibster]

How about from random stars radiating that energy from that time period and they've taken 26 billion years to reach us?

 

 

It's microwave. Stars don't radiate that much microwave.

[davidivad]

do you agree that objects in space are getting farther apart?

How about from random stars radiating that energy from that time period and they've taken 26 billion years to reach us?

Eactly, science doesn't "prove", it tests for information to use for a model. There's plenty of things that the BB can't explain with our knowledge like where the edge of the universe is, if it has one, if we're in the only universe, why/how space is expanding or why dark energy was even created, if it really was an event that created matter and energy, if matter existed before the supposed big bang, where the big bang could have even come from, how you could count back to before time, how such an explosion could even "start" time, ect. There's all sorts of problems with saying "a giant explosion was the start of everything," there's many things we don't have ironed out. The Big bang has some evidence, but depending on what type of big bang your talking about, it's not necessarily the best model, because all we can really confidently observe is galaxies in our local observable universe appeared closer together and what seems like the expansion of space that is itself accelerating, and that's it.

 

do you agree that objects in space are getting farther apart?

[SamBridge]

Yes, there is, which is why that's not what the theory says. And given that you keep repeating explosion, and harping on edges and centers show that you do not understand the BB at all.

Or you can not shamelessly strawman (which shows a completely disinterest in the truth) and both acknlowedge the context of what I said which is davidivad calling it "an explosion with no center" and also put any effort into reading my posts where I said in the first sentence of post #15 that the big bang was not an explosion which further illustrates the fact that you care not about the discussion but rather appearing like you're smart about something. Don't post if you don't have anything meaningful to contribute.

 

 

 

It's microwave. Stars don't radiate that much microwave.

You asked for some explanation, I gave you one that I thought of. I don't know if its correct, but I can't completely trust any other given model is completely correct anyway, we still have steps to make. Besides, stars do radiate microwaves even if its not as much as optical light. Why don't we see an optical light background and an ultraviolet background and an x-ray background and ect? The observable universe supposedly use to be a lot more energetic, so where did all the super-high energy gamma rays go? Some of them got redshifted I suppose, but then that means there should be an influx of at least ultra-violet light from that time period in the same manner as the CMWB.

 

do you agree that objects in space are getting farther apart?

 

do you agree that objects in space are getting farther apart?

I agree that we observe many objects getting further apart from us from our own frame of reference, the extent and cause of which is not clear. Like I said, I think dark energy is "an" explanation to try and account for holes in other models and explain something which we don't know the cause and extent of, though not the only one. And we still can't even agree on how a universe might have actually been started, we just don't have enough information. If we treat that expansion linearly and we model the universe purely through the model you propose, we find the universe gets extremely hot and dense, but to what extent, for how long, and what was before that, and why wouldn't that all just be trapped inside a single black hole if it was so dense only to be so spontaneously radiated? Or was it radiated more gradually over millions of years? If it was, how do we see the galactic development we see so early on from the proposed big bang? Where did all the space come from? How exactly was it created? Is there a limit to space-time since it appears flat? You can go back in time indefinitely? If so, why? If not, why? So is the universe even older then? What could even cause a big bang? What medium was there to create one? It was a random fluctuation of what exactly? We have little to no observations to suppose claims dealing with those questions. Sorry to break it to you, but an actually accurate model is probably beyond you lifetime away.

Edited April 7, 2014 by SamBridge

[davidivad]

"Sorry to break it to you, but an actually accurate model is probably beyond you lifetime away."

 

you are correct.i believe our disagreement may be due to my consideration of popular vote within the community of science.

since i do not have all the answers, i use a sort of statistical approach to attack the problem.

the way i see it the dice of probability lay in my favor because i use popular vote (only from professionals of the community).

i may be wrong, but i have effectively reduced the likelihood.

of course this has no bearing on you, but i urge you to consider the things you don't yet know.

you will laugh about it later on.

 

yeah, who am i kidding. carry on the good fight.

Edited April 7, 2014 by davidivad