• ESA's Planck telescope yields evidence of universes beyond our own
    155 replies, posted
[QUOTE=laserguided;40733088]This is a joke right? Nobody knows.[/QUOTE] well johnny seems to have an idea of what they wouldn't be like
[QUOTE=TheHydra;40733770]well johnny seems to have an idea of what they wouldn't be like[/QUOTE] Isn't Johnny's major physics or something like that? I'd hope he would.
[QUOTE=TheHydra;40733075]can an actual science person explain what infinite universes would mean and what they would be like[/QUOTE] Depending on the theory, if each universe conceived it's own laws: many would be lifeless and barren, or one big clump (which can plug into the Big Bang + Natural Selection of Galaxy type shit); but if it was a truly infinite amount of universes, it could be expected there was an alternate version of you at any given point of time; but they are in a different material-location, not a different time-location (Suffice to say, it wouldn't work like Portal 2's multiverse, where it's all in one "location""
[QUOTE=TheHydra;40733770]well johnny seems to have an idea of what they wouldn't be like[/QUOTE] I can't say for sure, but people seem to think infinite immediately implies anything that can happen will and that's not true.
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;40725246]Here's a cool image for the size of the universe. Linked because fucking huge [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_(JPEG).jpg[/url][/QUOTE] I feel so fucking weird right now.
Let me try to sort my thoughts on this, as this is something I've thought about before. Now, as far as we know, space itself is infinite right? A big never ending realm of darkness. Ever since I first learned about the big bang/the creation of our universe I kind of just figured that our universe was one of many big bangs within that same infinite realm of space as our own. Basically that universes form in space similar to how other galaxies and other galactic structures form at within universes given the right conditions. Think of it like this, leave earth for any direction and continue past all of the galaxies and nebulae and solar systems until you actually exit our universe. At this point you're just in an empty void, but you keep going for some time and eventually reach a different universe. Am I on the right track here? The idea of additional universes doesn't seem too far fetched to me at all, that there could be any number of others just as random and chaotic as our own. But I get confused when I see people talk about universes, many make it out like other universes would be mirrors of our own rather than being unique. That just doesn't seem right to me, that's almost parallel to saying the sun revolves around the earth. I speculate the life would drastically different given that evolution is random mutation. When people talk about mirrored universes and alternate versions of themselves, wouldn't that be more along the lines of a different dimension? Or am I vastly misunderstanding the definition of universe?
OMG bioshock infinite was right
It would be pleasant if we tried to ever cross into another one and it was true that all logic and physical processes were different (though not necessarily exclusive) to each universe and the clashing of physics and logic and things created a bubbling error within the larger multiverse and we and our universe and that other universe was eliminated to prevent a larger surge from running through the whole of everything, else all of tangible and intangible reality shatter and break. Like a machine killing a process to prevent a larger error from occurring. I really wish that would happen, just to spite everyone who thinks we'll become an immortal, godly species.
[IMG]http://i.imgur.com/prnG238.jpg[/IMG]
Or if we do ever manage to cross over without breaking everything, we end up in a static universe where there are infinite dots of colour constantly shifting because for everything to be complete there must be a universe where there is just coloured static with each dot of light being anywhere and everywhere and the static fills us and swallows us and dissolves us into colourful dots because for everything to be complete there has to be a universe that is staticy and [i]also[/i] assimilates all matter into more static.
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;40725246]Here's a cool image for the size of the universe. Linked because fucking huge [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_(JPEG).jpg[/url][/QUOTE] so huge it just blew up my router :c [sp]not literally[/sp]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40734173]I can't say for sure, but people seem to think infinite immediately implies anything that can happen will and that's not true.[/QUOTE] Something that always bugs me in sci-fi is when a change in the timeline can radically change one thing and leave others unchanged. Like how in The Sound of Thunder, changing the time line made it so someone else was elected president, and word were spelled phonetically, yet it otherwise seemed to be the same world. You'd think a chain of events large enough to change how English worked would have changed enough along the way to result in a completely different world. That sort of idea is why I think there isn't infinite possibilities. To have an alternate universe where something was slightly different, you'd have to have a chain of events going to the big bang that resulted in the change, and I reckon even the slightest difference darning those initial moments could result in a vastly different universe.
If there's pull from one universe to another, then what is in between the two? Absolute nothing?
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40731910] [citation needed] I'm not sure the "speed of light" even has much meaning when you're talking about distance between universes. These are not other patches of stars inside our spacetime, but completely different spacetime manifolds from ours.[/QUOTE] I'm not sure whats meant by manifolds, so minor clarification is requested. However, the only thing that can effect light is gravity or solid objects. Like if you were to stand next to a black hole and shine a flashlight over it, it would bend the beam to the black hole. So the space between the universes as far as I understand is void only populated by gravitational forces, likely strong ones as we probably haven't seen any evidence of light occurring from them. My theory is that light speed in these void areas between universes in reduced due to the gravitational forces, so the term "Light Speed" may be relative in this case. But this is mere speculation, as I only have a GED and don't fully understand physics. Please correct me if I'm wrong/misinformed.
[QUOTE=Cone;40725221]i'm kind of skeptical, i feel further research is necessary[/QUOTE] Seconded. "Statistical anomalies" [B]sounds[/B] like another way "not statistically valid, but a model involving multiverses would produce results like this"
[QUOTE=Scientwist;40736288]I'm not sure whats meant by manifolds, so minor clarification is requested. However, the only thing that can effect light is gravity or solid objects. Like if you were to stand next to a black hole and shine a flashlight over it, it would bend the beam to the black hole. So the space between the universes as far as I understand is void only populated by gravitational forces, likely strong ones as we probably haven't seen any evidence of light occurring from them. My theory is that light speed in these void areas between universes in reduced due to the gravitational forces, so the term "Light Speed" may be relative in this case. But this is mere speculation, as I only have a GED and don't fully understand physics. Please correct me if I'm wrong/misinformed.[/QUOTE] The reason we only expect to see gravitational effects from other universes is because all forces except gravity are confined to their own universe. (with mathematical justifications I'm sure, but not that I can understand yet) It seem to me that hypno-toad's claim that universes are moving away from each other faster than the speed of light can't be true because then gravity from other universes couldn't interact without our universe, since the gravitational force propagates at the speed of light. Of course, you can't directly observe other universes regardless, since there is no electromagnetic interaction between the universes, but the point stands.
It would be amazing if it's true, but I kind of doubt it. [QUOTE=Mingebox;40736085]Something that always bugs me in sci-fi is when a change in the timeline can radically change one thing and leave others unchanged. Like how in The Sound of Thunder, changing the time line made it so someone else was elected president, and word were spelled phonetically, yet it otherwise seemed to be the same world. You'd think a chain of events large enough to change how English worked would have changed enough along the way to result in a completely different world. That sort of idea is why I think there isn't infinite possibilities. To have an alternate universe where something was slightly different, you'd have to have a chain of events going to the big bang that resulted in the change, and I reckon even the slightest difference darning those initial moments could result in a vastly different universe.[/QUOTE] Yeah, the idea of alternate universes where everything is exactly the same but people drink tea instead of coffee (etc.) is pretty unlikely, assuming the laws of physics are even similar, it's extremely unlikely that anything would line up (And even small changes have snowball effects) For every alternate universe that's similar, there would be trillions that have nothing at all in common. For there to be an alternate version of somebody then the timelines would have to match exactly, something as simple as one parent having a different meal one day would cause it to go out of sync, etc.
[QUOTE=Mingebox;40736085]Something that always bugs me in sci-fi is when a change in the timeline can radically change one thing and leave others unchanged. Like how in The Sound of Thunder, changing the time line made it so someone else was elected president, and word were spelled phonetically, yet it otherwise seemed to be the same world. You'd think a chain of events large enough to change how English worked would have changed enough along the way to result in a completely different world. That sort of idea is why I think there isn't infinite possibilities. To have an alternate universe where something was slightly different, you'd have to have a chain of events going to the big bang that resulted in the change, and I reckon even the slightest difference darning those initial moments could result in a vastly different universe.[/QUOTE] it's a statistical certainty that with infinite chances every possible outcome is realised. it's not only likely but also certain that once, somewhere there will be another human race (or anything else you can imagine that's possible, unless every universe is destroyed)
[QUOTE=zombini;40725482]If this is true, anyone up for forming an interdimensional corporate body to enslave other races?[/QUOTE] HL3 plot twist - we were the Combine all along.
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;40725246]Here's a cool image for the size of the universe. Linked because fucking huge [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_(JPEG).jpg[/url][/QUOTE] I had [URL="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w097Q0fZE-A"]Vigil[/URL] playing when I clicked that link, I have no words.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40731910]Sure. That's already what I was talking about. But it doesn't matter. Just because you're not likely to get much better evidence any time soon doesn't mean that you can just shout "OMG OTHER UNIVERSES" because you see a thing that could maybe be caused by them. You have to develop a working model which can make observable predictions and test them with a high degree of accuracy.[/QUOTE] There are plenty of very solid working mathematical models that predict scenarios very similar to the implications of these findings, and this is the first corroborating evidence. The exact implications are still somewhat ambiguous, but nonetheless the basic finding suggests something that at minimum radically alters the notions of the more conservative and minimalist models of the universe. In this realm of the very broad mathematical models you're unlikely to ever prove anything within even 50% of a doubt, so really the only other option is blind conservatism. I suppose this ventures more into the realm of philosophy or discussion, but even the most basic principle of existing is already an infinitely complex parable when compared to the notion of complete non-existence, why in fuck would all that exists simply be arbitrarily confined to our universe and the one single big bang? Why are the universal constants so conspicuously and suspiciously perfect in every single way? Earth is a pretty perfect planet and biosphere, however we can acknowledge that among a sea of planets it's likely that one of them will have the perfect conditions for life, why the hell wouldn't that apply to the universe as well? [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] why do I keep getting page king :tinfoil:
Reminds me of this one time this homeless wacko in San Fransisco was trying to convince a crowd of people he was from a different dimension. According to him, everytime he jumped it carried him to another "earth". It was amusing and frightening at the same time.
[QUOTE=Mike Tyson;40725246]Here's a cool image for the size of the universe. Linked because fucking huge [url]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/b/b6/Earth's_Location_in_the_Universe_(JPEG).jpg[/url][/QUOTE] what kind of person makes something like this but does it sideways so it's hard to see
[QUOTE=Megadick;40737461]what kind of person makes something like this but does it sideways so it's hard to see[/QUOTE] In the other universe that same image perfectly fits the computer screen
[QUOTE=hypno-toad;40737166]There are plenty of very solid working mathematical models that predict scenarios very similar to the implications of these findings, and this is the first corroborating evidence. The exact implications are still somewhat ambiguous, but nonetheless the basic finding suggests something that at minimum radically alters the notions of the more conservative and minimalist models of the universe. In this realm of the very broad mathematical models you're unlikely to ever prove anything within even 50% of a doubt, so really the only other option is blind conservatism.[/QUOTE] I used to love radical physical theories but after a few years of actually being a physics student I realized that conservatism is A VERY GOOD THING in science. Sorry, but "I'm 50% sure of this" doesn't cut it to a room full of people to whom you're proposing a new theory. We detected inhomogeneities in the CMB? Great, but you have to show me why that definitely means it's being caused by other universes we can't see. Like I said originally, this is a small amount of evidence for a very big claim behind it. [QUOTE=hypno-toad;40737166]I suppose this ventures more into the realm of philosophy or discussion, but even the most basic principle of existing is already an infinitely complex parable when compared to the notion of complete non-existence, why in fuck would all that exists simply be arbitrarily confined to our universe and the one single big bang? Why are the universal constants so conspicuously and suspiciously perfect in every single way? Earth is a pretty perfect planet and biosphere, however we can acknowledge that among a sea of planets it's likely that one of them will have the perfect conditions for life, why the hell wouldn't that apply to the universe as well?[/QUOTE] I don't claim "THIS IS ALL THERE IS SCIENCE SAYS SO" but this is all we can observe directly. To claim that other stuff exists is a big claim which takes a big pile of evidence before it can be treated as likely. Also, I take issue with the notion that constants are somehow "perfectly tuned." [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] I would be willing to bet the majority of cosmologists who have heard of these inhomogeneities do not see them as evidence of other universes. That requires a theory like M-theory, which isn't being taken very seriously by the community at large at the moment.
This means somewhere, starwars is real.
Wouldn't we have to stop using the word Universe then? I mean having more than one UNIverse is kinda purpose defeating
[QUOTE=Falchion;40736704]it's a statistical certainty that with infinite chances every possible outcome is realised.[/QUOTE] Very much not true at all. For instance, if there were countably many infinite universes, it wouldn't even be possible for every possible outcome to be realized in one of them.
[img]http://i1207.photobucket.com/albums/bb480/Yumekichi11/pictures%203/e4f5e3e6.jpg[/img] [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] Kudos to whoever gets the reference, and it'd be scary as hell if it became possible... [editline]22nd May 2013[/editline] [sp]Steins;Gate[/sp]
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40743725]Very much not true at all. For instance, if there were countably many infinite universes, it wouldn't even be possible for every possible outcome to be realized in one of them.[/QUOTE] wrong [quote]Cosmologists such as professor Alexander Vilenkin from Tufts University [16] and Massachusetts Institute of Technology professor Max Tegmark suggest that if space is sufficiently large and uniform, or infinite as some theories suggest, and if quantum theory is true such that there is only a finite number of configurations within a finite volume possible, due to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle, then identical instances of the history of Earth's entire Hubble volume occur every so often, simply by chance. Tegmark calculates that our nearest so-called doppelgänger, is 1010115 meters away from us (a double exponential function larger than a googolplex)[/quote] Quantum theory states that, when considering the planck units, there's a hard limit to how accurately you can measure distance. This means there are a finite number of possible locations and velocities of every particle in the universe, and for a volume of finite size, a finite number of possible states. and given infinite tries, any finite state must occur somehow
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.