Hard evidence for other universes?

[Alexander1304]

Hello All,
I found this article:
Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map | Daily Mail Online

"Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005.
Now that she has studied the Planck data, Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven.
Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own.

She said: 'These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang.
'They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen.'


What do You guys think?

[mathematic]

Definite maybe.

[ACG52]

Dr Mersini-Houghton is certainly not averse to publicity.

[Endy0816]

Yeah, her name keeps cropping up in similar circumstances...

 

I'm going to wait for something more substantial before reaching a conclusion.

[TJ McCaustland]

Exciting! If this proves correct I wonder if future peoples could see their younger selves in other universes...... That would be....... Interesting......

Edited October 24, 2015 by TJ McCaustland

[Sorcerer]

The conclusion, if we assume the effect comes from outside the observable universe would be that there are other entities which act in a way analogous to how gravity works, so it then becomes reasonable to assume that there are bodies with mass which are external to our observable universe.

 

By definition the universe would then have to be expanded to included higher dimensional space or a greater 4d timespace and these entities. (Higher dimensional space or a greater 4d space is necessary because otherwise over what space is the gravity able to effect us?).

 

To assume that these massive bodies have any other property such as ordered systems of matter which might resemble our universe however is completely conjecture. It is just as likely that they are inert, homogeneous and uniform.

And to assume that this implies there are an infinite number of observationally separated spaces which resemble our own would be an assumption cut down by Occams's razor.

[michel123456]

Now that I have learn it from Swansont, I vote for Betteridge's law.

[Asimov]

Alexander1304:The Universe is all of time and space and its contents. Wikipedia. I have read this or similar since I could read.How can one have more than one of everything? Does this theory and others that propose more than one universe require a new definition of universe or is this a contextual thing were broad meanings are taken for the word universe and the physicist uses different definitions based on context.This is done in physics and other fields.Photons are said to have no mass but have momentum.You know what momentum is..

[Bill Angel]

Hello All,

I found this article:

Is our universe merely one of billions? Evidence of the existence of 'multiverse' revealed for the first time by cosmic map | Daily Mail Online

 

"Laura Mersini-Houghton, theoretical physicist at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, and Richard Holman, professor at Carnegie Mellon University, predicted that anomalies in radiation existed and were caused by the pull from other universes in 2005.

Now that she has studied the Planck data, Dr Mersini-Houghton believes her hypothesis has been proven.

Her findings imply there could be an infinite number of universes outside of our own.

 

She said: 'These anomalies were caused by other universes pulling on our universe as it formed during the Big Bang.

'They are the first hard evidence for the existence of other universes that we have seen.'

 

 

What do You guys think?

 

She still seems to be the only researcher who has come to the conclustion that the Plank data supports her multiverse hypothesis.

 

In the article The Kavli Foundation Q&A: What Has Planck Taught Us About the Early Universe? (published in February of 2015) there is no mention of the Plank data supporting her hypothesis. This article is an interview with Dr. George Efstathiou, director of the Kavli Institute for Cosmology at the University of Cambridge and one of the leaders of the Planck mission.

 

In the article Beyond the Outer Limits: Maps of radiation left over from the Big Bang may show traces of universes besides our own. (published in October 2014) Dr. Efstathiou asserts that he and his team were examining the Plank data to see if there were in fact anomalies in the cosmic microwave background radiation that would present a compelling case in support of the mutiverse hypothesis. He did not choose to discuss the multiverse hypothesis in his subsequent interview (February 2015) which would seem to indicate that the Planck data analysis did not present a compelling case in support of Laura Mersini-Houghton's hypothesis.

Edited October 25, 2015 by Bill Angel

[Airbrush]

There is no mention of "dark flow" in this article. Is dark flow a different motion?

 

Does the multiverse hypothesis support a finite universe?

 

Maybe the universe is just a region of expansion, so there can be other big bangs? But if another universe is close enough to ours would we not detect a region of collision between the expanding gas from two adjacent big bangs? Or would such a collision be outside our observable universe?

Edited November 2, 2015 by Airbrush

[Strange]

Maybe the universe is just a region of expansion, so there can be other big bangs? But if another universe is close enough to ours would we not detect a region of collision between the expanding gas from two adjacent big bangs? Or would such a collision be outside our observable universe?

 

There is a whole class of big bang models which involve local expansion and/or multiple "bangs". My (limited) understanding is that in most these these, the separate universes would be causally disconnected by distance (and speed of separation). Mersini-Houghton's model seems to one of the exceptions.

[TJ McCaustland]

If this is true, then wouldn't that mean that there's now hard evidence for wormholes of a sort as well? Because it seems that if we live in a universe that doesn't have any connection in quantum state or physical link to another then that means that that other universe technically doesn't exist relative to us at all because it has no affect on our universe and therefore means nothing to us? That would also mean that if there is no evidence for theory (Because evidence must be observable) then this could be horribly wrong (As for the theory) but still be right AT THE SAME TIME because there ARE other universes. Another Schrodinger's cat!

If this is true, then wouldn't that mean that there's now hard evidence for wormholes of a sort as well? Because it seems that if we live in a universe that doesn't have any connection in quantum state or physical link to another then that means that that other universe technically doesn't exist relative to us at all because it has no affect on our universe and therefore means nothing to us? That would also mean that if there is no evidence for theory (Because evidence must be observable) then this could be horribly wrong (As for the theory) but still be right AT THE SAME TIME because there ARE other universes. Another Schrodinger's cat!

Now the question is who wants to pet Schrodinger's Cat?

[Sorcerer]

If this is true, then wouldn't that mean that there's now hard evidence for wormholes of a sort as well? Because it seems that if we live in a universe that doesn't have any connection in quantum state or physical link to another then that means that that other universe technically doesn't exist relative to us at all because it has no affect on our universe and therefore means nothing to us? That would also mean that if there is no evidence for theory (Because evidence must be observable) then this could be horribly wrong (As for the theory) but still be right AT THE SAME TIME because there ARE other universes. Another Schrodinger's cat!

 

Now the question is who wants to pet Schrodinger's Cat?

The "universe's" could only be causally connected at the first moment of time and then diverge. One would be visible to us as we observe the causal cascade from that moment. IE there would be a mark left in the altered distribution of matter and energy, but no further influence from that point onwards.

 

Without wormholes there could still be causal influence over a higher dimensional space, certain parts, eg forces like gravity, would need to exist over this higher dimension, but other parts, eg fermionic matter, only exist over the standard 3 + time.

[TJ McCaustland]

The "universe's" could only be causally connected at the first moment of time and then diverge. One would be visible to us as we observe the causal cascade from that moment. IE there would be a mark left in the altered distribution of matter and energy, but no further influence from that point onwards.

 

Without wormholes there could still be causal influence over a higher dimensional space, certain parts, eg forces like gravity, would need to exist over this higher dimension, but other parts, eg fermionic matter, only exist over the standard 3 + time.

Interesting , Especially how fermionic matter would only exist in our dimension without wormholes..... now that doesn't really make sense that there would be all that space with no matter in it, which even though matter itself is unlikely, an entire multiverse devoid of matter is far more unlikely.

[Phi for All]

Interesting , Especially how fermionic matter would only exist in our dimension without wormholes.....

 

I forget, which one is OUR dimension?

[TJ McCaustland]

 

I forget, which one is OUR dimension?

Whoops. Universe sorry.

Whoops. Universe sorry.

Dimensions are transcendal......

[Phi for All]

Dimensions are transcendal......

 

Are they?

[pantheory]

I could be wrong, not the first time of course, but I would eat my hat if this was evidence for another universe. Before when observing such galactic motions it was attributed to one or more "great attractor(s), " dark flow(s), etc., in our universe.

 

My single hat is not straw so it would be a "hard chew," but the evidence must be very conclusive before I would acknowledge being wrong, not just speculation like I consider this article. Something like the evidence Hubble found concerning other galaxies. I believe the universe is a far simpler place than multiple-universe models all would suggest. IMO multiple universes are currently not needed to explain anything other than as supposed evidence to support other speculations.

TJ McCaustland,

 

Now the question is who wants to pet Schrodinger's Cat?

 

I would be game for it as long as the pussy was warm and well, instead of cold and dead. After all Schrodinger knew his way around the bedroom according to history, and could "properly" set up an experiment there according to his own tastes , as well as a different one in the lab.

Edited December 2, 2015 by pantheory

[TJ McCaustland]

 

Are they?

Well yes, everything is 10 dimensional and 3 dimensional and 5 dimensional at the same time, it's just its 5 dimensional and 3 dimensional in quantum state, and 3 dimensional in reality, So yes I am indeed a 10 dimensional being, and you are as well, but we are also 3 dimensional beings in our understanding and reality because our intellect is 3 dimensional

[Phi for All]

Well yes, everything is 10 dimensional and 3 dimensional and 5 dimensional at the same time, it's just its 5 dimensional and 3 dimensional in quantum state, and 3 dimensional in reality, So yes I am indeed a 10 dimensional being, and you are as well, but we are also 3 dimensional beings in our understanding and reality because our intellect is 3 dimensional

 

In some theories, but certainly not the most widely accepted. You say this like it's fact.

 

Right now, what we know is that our eyes can see in two spatial dimensions. A single temporal dimension allows us to perceive movement, which allows our brains to infer a third spatial dimension. We think we see in 3D.

 

String theory, M theory, there are models that use higher dimensions, but from what I've seen, they've fallen out of favor. Relativity uses just four dimensions.

 

I still don't understand what you meant by "transcendal". Transcendental is the closest I could find, but it doesn't make sense. What is it you think dimensions are?

[TJ McCaustland]

 

In some theories, but certainly not the most widely accepted. You say this like it's fact.

 

Right now, what we know is that our eyes can see in two spatial dimensions. A single temporal dimension allows us to perceive movement, which allows our brains to infer a third spatial dimension. We think we see in 3D.

 

String theory, M theory, there are models that use higher dimensions, but from what I've seen, they've fallen out of favor. Relativity uses just four dimensions.

 

I still don't understand what you meant by "transcendal". Transcendental is the closest I could find, but it doesn't make sense. What is it you think dimensions are?

Dimensions are quantum states of space and matter. Nothing more.

[imatfaal]

Dimensions are quantum states of space and matter. Nothing more.

 

 

!

Moderator Note

 

T J MacCaustland

 

Please stop advancing highly speculative and personal ideas in the main fora. The speculations forum is the home for ideas which are not yet backed up by evidence - especially if there is no mathematical model at the base of the new idea. It is acceptable to discuss String Theories as they currently stand in the main fora - they are currently (although to a diminished extent) studied and researched at academic institutions with the full knowledge that they are strictly hypothetical at present but have a beautiful mathematical foundation; but your own personal take on them is not OK - nor can these ideas be used to contradict accepted and evidenced physics.

 

do not reply to this moderation. report this message if you need to argue