New theory I thought of.

[donsimon]

Sometimes I think that the universe is a conscious being, forged by the networks of dark matter, which are similar to the patters of neurons in a brain, thinking maybe we live in somebody's brain, while there is another universe inside my brain, that's probably why we only use a small part of our brain at a time.

So we are inside eternal brains. Because the brain that we are inside is proberbly inside someone elses brain; and so on.

And a billion years to us might be only a year to the the persons brain that we are inside. Which means that the brain that they're inside 1 year = 1 billion years to them is 1 billion*1 billion = "1e+18" years to us and that can go on forever, if we just move a little further out it starts getting really big. So who know? Maybe the universe is forever.  (But ofcourse if 1 year to the person that we are inside is 1 billion years the universe could end in 75 billion years.

But then the universe that the person that we are inside is gonna end in 75 billion years aswell.)

And by that I can conclude that if we are actually inside another humans brain who is inside another humans brain.. so on and so on.

The human race will live forever. (Because the universe that we are in might end, but the uniserve that they were in will still be. 

Sorry if I made some mistakes through out theory, I'm only a 15yr old Danish student.

[Endy0816]

The thing about using only part of your brain is a myth.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ten_percent_of_brain_myth

 

We'd see outside influences impacting our Universe if we were in a brain(viruses, rna, etc). Most "Universe within a Universe" hypotheses have similar issues.

[ajb]

Branes maybe, but not brains.

 

The similarities of the pictures you show is striking, but it does not point to the conclusion that the Universe is a brain.

[Ten oz]

I accidentally gave the OP A neg rep point. Can someone please assist me with or direct me in how to remove it?

I don't think OP's deserve neg reps points. People should not criticized for sharing a thought.

[Mordred]

I removed the neg rep for ya

[Ten oz]

@ Mordred, thank you.

 

@ the OP, philosophically your theory is cool. I can imagine TV shows or games based on the premise. However no evidence is provided to support it. So there isn't much here to discuss. What are the working theories that support our universe is inside of another and what math supports that? What of forces; does each universe (mind) have there own forces and physics? You alluded to each universe having different time.

[Peace]

I'm fairly new here also, but welcome to the site, donsimon.

 

It's an interesting thought, and it's certainly good to think creatively.

 

Not speaking to the likelihood of the idea, all I would like to point out is the difference between theories and hypotheses. In non-scientific usage, the words have come to sort of mean the same thing, but in scientific usage, they are very different.

 

A hypothesis is basically an idea. A theory is an hypothesis that has been very thoroughly tested, and not found to be false so far.

 

Outside of scientific discussion, there may not be a distinction for many people, but within scientific discourse, there's a large difference.

Edited December 27, 2014 by Peace

[arc]

If there could be any similarity it would likely be found in fractal geometry.

[Dekan]

Suppose the Universe is a Brain, like depicted in donsimon's OP. Then won't it work very slowly.

 

I mean, the Universe is at least 26 billion light-years across. This huge distance must make thought processes within the Brain, take billions of years to complete.

Which will make the Brain very slow to respond to events. Could that explain why it doesn't intervene in current human affairs - because they happen too fast for the Brain to keep up with?

[Peace]

If there could be any similarity it would likely be found in fractal geometry.

 

Or a holographic universe, which would also be a fractal.

[ZVBXRPL]

Your theory is very interesting. Looking at those 2 pictures of the brain and the Universe does lead to some fascinating thought processes. We don't have to necesarily be part of a huge living organism and all the galaxies and stars etc are part of this living organism, but the concept of infinite substructure and each level of substructure resembling all other levels is really interesting.. If your theoretical huge living creature looked down a microscope, into what he views as the microcosm, maybe he would see "us" as being the same as we observe the atomic world or subatomic world. Or maybe we look like a cell and he hasn't discovered a powerful enough microscope to see what lies beyond yet

Edited December 28, 2014 by ZVBXRPL

[Delta1212]

Suppose the Universe is a Brain, like depicted in donsimon's OP. Then won't it work very slowly.

 

I mean, the Universe is at least 26 billion light-years across. This huge distance must make thought processes within the Brain, take billions of years to complete.

Which will make the Brain very slow to respond to events. Could that explain why it doesn't intervene in current human affairs - because they happen too fast for the Brain to keep up with?

The other possible point to contend with, if I just go along with this for the moment. How aware are you of what is going on with individual cells in your own brain, and how able to intervene would you be even if you were aware of what was going on?

[ZVBXRPL]

Suppose the Universe is a Brain, like depicted in donsimon's OP. Then won't it work very slowly.

 

I mean, the Universe is at least 26 billion light-years across. This huge distance must make thought processes within the Brain, take billions of years to complete.

Which will make the Brain very slow to respond to events. Could that explain why it doesn't intervene in current human affairs - because they happen too fast for the Brain to keep up with?

From our perspective it will appear very slow indeed, but maybe not from it's perspective. Consider how we measure time. We observe that the Earth travels around the Sun and we call the time taken for this, a YEAR. That seems fairly long from our perspective, but how about if we were the size of an atom. It would seem like an eternity for the atom.

 

Smaller always seems to be faster and larger always seem to be slower. Microcosm from our perspective seems to be operating at blinding speeds, yet macrocosm from our perspective seem to be operating at very slow speeds. The imaginary creature would have a completely different perspective for microcosm and macrocosm. Our macrocosm would be it's microcosm.

 

Also, until Relativity goes from theory to LAW, you have to consider the possibilty that there is no speed limit for the Universe. The brain of this creature could use methods of transport and motion that we are not even aware of. We already know about the phenomena of quantum coupling. This is an interesting phenomena, because at present it is believed that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light. However, it is possible that deeper into the microcosm there is a connection between these 2 regions and so information and messages can be relayed back n forth and to us they appear to be instantaneous, but from their perspective it is just really fast, like light speed seems really fast from our perspective.

 

Light speed from the perspective of the huge creature may appear to be instantaneous.

[swansont]

 

Also, until Relativity goes from theory to LAW, you have to consider the possibilty that there is no speed limit for the Universe

 

Um, no. That's not how science works: theories do not grow up to be laws. If you have questions on this, you should start a thread to discuss it.

[Strange]

I mean, the Universe is at least 26 billion light-years across.

 

The observable universe is about 90 billion light years in diameter. The whole universe is vastly bigger, if not infinite.

Also, until Relativity goes from theory to LAW, you have to consider the possibilty that there is no speed limit for the Universe.

 

Nope. Until you have some evidence that the theory is wrong, we have to assume that it is correct (based on all the evidence we have so far).

[ZVBXRPL]

 

The observable universe is about 90 billion light years in diameter. The whole universe is vastly bigger, if not infinite.

 

Nope. Until you have some evidence that the theory is wrong, we have to assume that it is correct (based on all the evidence we have so far).

What about the problem with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Do you not think it may be possible that the reason there is a problem between the 2 theories is that one or both theories could be wrong?

[Robittybob1]

What about the problem with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Do you not think it may be possible that the reason there is a problem between the 2 theories is that one or both theories could be wrong?

I have seen papers which suggest 3 dimensional time unifies those two theories. I'm just not good enough with the math to know whether that is really true or not.

[ZVBXRPL]

I have seen papers which suggest 3 dimensional time unifies those two theories. I'm just not good enough with the math to know whether that is really true or not.

Does that mean they give up adding more and more space dimensions and so started on time now?

Which is more plausible, space has 3 dimensions and time is just time, or space has 11+ dimensions and time has 3 dimensions?

What number of dimensions do you have to arrive at before pausing to ask the question "am I getting carried away a bit here?"

[Robittybob1]

Does that mean they give up adding more and more space dimensions and so started on time now?

Which is more plausible, space has 3 dimensions and time is just time, or space has 11+ dimensions and time has 3 dimensions?

What number of dimensions do you have to arrive at before pausing to ask the question "am I getting carried away a bit here?"

You wanted to know if Relativity can be aligned with Quantum theory and as I said 3 dimensions of time is said to allow this. Does it really matter how many dimensions time has?

[Bignose]

What about the problem with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Do you not think it may be possible that the reason there is a problem between the 2 theories is that one or both theories could be wrong?

I think we know that both theories are 'wrong' in that they are obviously incomplete. We know that we can't marry the very large with the very small yet.

 

However, it must be acknowledged that both theories are also very 'right' in that, in their domains of validity, they have been supremely successful as making very accurate predictions.

 

Any new idea that comes along will subsume all the successes of both GR and QM.

 

As a meta comment, this is exactly what GR did with Newtonian mechanics. Physics knew Newtonian mechanics wasn't completely right. They had some known cases, like the precession of Mercury, that couldn't be explained with Newtonian mechanics. Then relativity came along, and was able to make predictions that agreed with what was observed. But the really great thing was that in relativity, if you take the equations and apply them to things that aren't very large, or things moving nowhere near the speed of light, they reduce back to the tried-and-true Newtonian mechanics.

 

This is what the idea that unifies GR and QM together will have to do. This super-idea will have to make the same predictions GR does in the domain of near light speed and very high accelerations, and it will also have to make the same predictions QM does in the domain of the very small. Because we know that GR and QM are both very, very good in their specific domains.

Edited December 29, 2014 by Bignose

[Strange]

What about the problem with quantum mechanics and general relativity? Do you not think it may be possible that the reason there is a problem between the 2 theories is that one or both theories could be wrong?

 

There is no evidence currently that either is wrong. Any future theory will have to produce the same results, so it is hard to know in what sense they could be "wrong".

I think we know that both theories are 'wrong' in that they are obviously incomplete.

 

Yes, in that sense.