ESA's Planck telescope yields evidence of universes beyond our own
155 replies, posted
[QUOTE=Megadick;40747822]
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[/QUOTE]
You're assuming the universe is in a closed system and isn't expanding providing an infinitesimal amount of more locations for a particle to be. We also don't know how large a universe is when it is " formed " to provide initial starting positions and velocities for particles. We don't even know how many other universes there are, or if there are particles which can travel between universes, or any other vital information to support a finite number of states. If particles can travel through universes then there is an infinite amount of possible states if we assumed an infinite amount of universes.
There's no guarantee that something must happen even when given an infinite amount of tries, as one event could always happen continuously, or two events, and no such event must be compelled to happen ([url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinite_monkey_theorem]Gambler's fallacy[/url])
[QUOTE=Megadick;40747822]Quantum theory states that, when considering the planck units, there's a hard limit to how accurately you can measure distance.[/QUOTE]
Not all (and I'd venture not most) physicists hold that quantum mechanics space is discrete. It's still not really clear what the significant of the Planck length is. (It's still not even clear what a "measurement" is) It's all highly speculative since we can't probe anything remotely as short as the Planck length, so to flatly state that I'm wrong is silly.
[QUOTE=Megadick;40747822]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[/QUOTE]
It doesn't matter. That snippet you quoted says that the universe could be infinite. (or at least must be sufficiently large for that to work) If that is the case, you could have an infinite number of particles, and then even if they each only had two possible states they could be in, the number of possible states for the universe would be uncountably infinite.
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
Not to mention. This all assumes a lot of shit like the laws of physics are the same across universes, and that there is an equal chance of finding any configuration etc. (I don't take issue with the idea that there may be another human race in another universe, just that "anything that can happen will")
[QUOTE=Se1f_Distruct;40747671][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]
god dam it what's from it's bugging me now I want to know :(
[QUOTE=theevilldeadII;40750237]god dam it what's from it's bugging me now I want to know :([/QUOTE]
It says right in the spoiler. :v:
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40748235]Not all (and I'd venture not most) physicists hold that quantum mechanics space is discrete. It's still not really clear what the significant of the Planck length is. (It's still not even clear what a "measurement" is) It's all highly speculative since we can't probe anything remotely as short as the Planck length, so to flatly state that I'm wrong is silly.
It doesn't matter. That snippet you quoted says that the universe could be infinite. (or at least must be sufficiently large for that to work) If that is the case, you could have an infinite number of particles, and then even if they each only had two possible states they could be in, the number of possible states for the universe would be uncountably infinite.
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
Not to mention. This all assumes a lot of shit like the laws of physics are the same across universes, and that there is an equal chance of finding any configuration etc. (I don't take issue with the idea that there may be another human race in another universe, just that "anything that can happen will")[/QUOTE]
Aren't you familiar with the theory that if enough (immortal) monkeys with typewriters smash the keys on their typewriters at the same time, one of them will ultimately write the whole production of shakespeare?
[QUOTE=Falchion;40750815]Aren't you familiar with the theory that if enough (immortal) monkeys with typewriters smash the keys on their typewriters at the same time, one of them will ultimately write the whole production of shakespeare?[/QUOTE]
Again, this is a Gambler's fallacy and you are assuming that all monkeys must be compelled to eventually type Shakespeare's production while this is not true as other events can occur multiple times in place of every event happening once.
Somewhere, in one of these universes, I will actually be awesome. :v:
[QUOTE=Falchion;40750815]Aren't you familiar with the theory that if enough (immortal) monkeys with typewriters smash the keys on their typewriters at the same time, one of them will ultimately write the whole production of shakespeare?[/QUOTE]
Assuming the monkeys are a substitute for true randomness it's possible that they could write an infinitely repeating sequence of As and never write anything coherent
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40725856]Chill out guys
This is a tiny bit of evidence for a very big claim.[/QUOTE]
This is exactly how we proved the existance of dark matter. By observing its gravitational affect on the objects around it.
Wonder if those tiny quantum fluctuations at the big bang were different in the other universes, or whether they're all just perfectly identical synced replicas of this universe.
In which case it wouldn't even matter that there was an infinite amount of them. We are them and they are us.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;40752591]This is exactly how we proved the existance of dark matter. By observing its gravitational affect on the objects around it.[/QUOTE]
I don't think the existence of dark matter is really proved, is it?
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;40752591]This is exactly how we proved the existance of dark matter. By observing its gravitational affect on the objects around it.[/QUOTE]
"Proved the existence of dark matter"
We haven't done that yet. It's the most common theory explaining the effects we see, but it hasn't been proven. (and will likely remain proven until we detect some)
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
[QUOTE=Falchion;40750815]Aren't you familiar with the theory that if enough (immortal) monkeys with typewriters smash the keys on their typewriters at the same time, one of them will ultimately write the whole production of shakespeare?[/QUOTE]
Yes, and that relies on the assumption that what the monkeys are typing is essentially random.
[editline]23rd May 2013[/editline]
even then it's not certain that they will type it, though there event does have probability one
[QUOTE=Se1f_Distruct;40747671]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]
It's kinda a different concept but I guess if the universes are infinite it's somewhat similar :v:
I am always boggled by the "map of the universe" we've seen, or any pictures stitched together described as images of the whole observable universe
It just raises so many questions in my head. For example, say you wanted to take pictures of the mountains around you while you stand on flat ground. You could use a panoramic lens or stitch together many smaller photos to make one continuous image.
But how do you do the same when you're standing on a sphere and your "mountains" are space, extending out in every direction including back through the Earth below your feet?
Once you have this map, the shape and dimensions of which are incomprehensible to me, how can you compress it down to a 2D image on a computer screen?
How can we designate any part of it as the "northern" or "southern hemisphere?" What is(are) the reference point(s)?
Universes, man.
[QUOTE=DChapsfield;40753381]I am always boggled by the "map of the universe" we've seen, or any pictures stitched together described as images of the whole observable universe
It just raises so many questions in my head. For example, say you wanted to take pictures of the mountains around you while you stand on flat ground. You could use a panoramic lens or stitch together many smaller photos to make one continuous image.
But how do you do the same when you're standing on a sphere and your "mountains" are space, extending out in every direction including back through the Earth below your feet?
Once you have this map, the shape and dimensions of which are incomprehensible to me, how can you compress it down to a 2D image on a computer screen?
How can we designate any part of it as the "northern" or "southern hemisphere?" What is(are) the reference point(s)?
Universes, man.[/QUOTE]
Why 2d? Maps of earth are 2d for ease, everything is on a single plain for simplicity.
3d maps of the universe already exist anyway, if you want to picture it, get [url]http://en.spaceengine.org/[/url]
[QUOTE=cyanidem;40753575]Why 2d? Maps of earth are 2d for ease, everything is on a single plain for simplicity.
3d maps of the universe already exist anyway, if you want to picture it, get [url]http://en.spaceengine.org/[/url][/QUOTE]
Space engine relies on procedural generation with unique nodes of areas in our universe (such as our solar system) and therefore assumes an infinitely expanding open system (likely the Milne model), while 3d maps assume otherwise that the map is of a closed system and therefore has boundaries.
It also depends on what you are referring to when you say "3d maps". Scientists have mainly been working with local geometry of the universe, such as the curvature of it (spherical, flat, hyperbolic, etc). The observable universe is what is measured through local geometry, and can be measured from Earth (through approximation or not). The unobservable universe, global geometry, measures the entire topographical map of the universe which we have been unable to map because no theories have been proven to work.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40753035]"Proved the existence of dark matter"
We haven't done that yet. It's the most common theory explaining the effects we see, but it hasn't been proven. (and will likely remain proven until we detect some)[/QUOTE]
Well we have no fucking clue what dark matter is, but we know its there.
[QUOTE=JohnnyMo1;40736569] the gravitational force propagates at the speed of light.[/QUOTE]
I never considered that before. Does that mean if the sun suddenly disappeared out of existence, we'd continue to orbit for ~8 mins?
[QUOTE=chaz13;40754548]I never considered that before. Does that mean if the sun suddenly disappeared out of existence, we'd continue to orbit for ~8 mins?[/QUOTE]
Yep. We wouldn't have any way of knowing it had disappeared for 8 minutes.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;40754373]Well we have no fucking clue what dark matter is, but we know its there.[/QUOTE]
Dark matter is just a term coined to refer to the giant chunk of mass missing from the total mass of the universe. We do know what it is, if it hypothetically exists (invisible matter which compensates the discrepancy of the extra gravitation pull which doesn't calculate correctly when the planet's total mass is taken into account).
As a result we have no idea what dark matter is, and in all possibilities, it could be that multiple universes are causing these pulls instead of dark matter. Like Mo said it's only a common theory.
[QUOTE=Sprockethead;40754373]Well we have no fucking clue what dark matter is, but we know its there.[/QUOTE]
Not really. There are competing theories explaining what it explains. It just so happens that dark matter is the most widely believed one (and the most likely). It's not a good idea to declare something as fact before you have enough information. Look at the luminiferous aether. Widely believed, but when we actually tried to detect it it turned out to be complete bullshit.
[QUOTE=chaz13;40754548]I never considered that before. Does that mean if the sun suddenly disappeared out of existence, we'd continue to orbit for ~8 mins?[/QUOTE]
Which is why when you look deep enough into space, every star you see out there has actually gone supernovae and/or died out.
[QUOTE=WitheredGryphon;40754626]Which is why when you look deep enough into space, every star you see out there has actually gone supernovae and/or died out.[/QUOTE]
Yeah I'm aware light travels at the speed of light. I'd just never really thought about the force due to gravity as something that's not instantaneous.
if multiverses exist and there are indeed infinite universes where different laws of physics might apply, couldn't that mean that every single piece of human fiction might have actually become reality in some odd corner of the world?
[QUOTE=i_speel_good;40756662]if multiverses exist and there are indeed infinite universes where different laws of physics might apply, couldn't that mean that every single piece of human fiction might have actually become reality in some odd corner of the world?[/QUOTE]
Excepting that (if i don't have this right correct me) the theory of infinite shakespearen monkeys relies on the laws that govern our (±uni)verse, as it's the only thing we can even somewhat study. other (±uni)verses don't necessarily have to adhere to the principles of ours.
[QUOTE=i_speel_good;40756662]if multiverses exist and there are indeed infinite universes where different laws of physics might apply, couldn't that mean that every single piece of human fiction might have actually become reality in some odd corner of the world?[/QUOTE]
No. As long as gravity remains a force, and entities are comprised of mass, then our verse's laws of physics would apply to all other verses. After all, the only reason we picked up a trace of a potential multiverse is because of gravity.
Assuming that gravity applies to the multiverses, and therefore outside our own verse, we can assume that other verses will, if not ruled by the same laws of physics, will at least be affected by them in some way.
I've always wondered, why does the universe loop? Isn't it bent? But that would imply there is an outside
[QUOTE=Psychokitten;40725587]Somewhere out there, there's a universe were everyone is Bill Murray.[/QUOTE]
Since we're talking about an infinite number of universes, wouldn't that imply the possibility of multiple universes where everyone is Bill Murray? Maybe even.. an infinite number of Bill Murray universes?
[QUOTE=Map in a box;40761735]I've always wondered, why does the universe loop? Isn't it bent? But that would imply there is an outside[/QUOTE]
Loop as in destroy itself and recreate itself? Or loop as in like a sphere or hoop?
If it's the first you mean, nobody is sure but it's just a natural process assuming some theories such as the Big Rip I believe it is.
If you mean the second, we don't know if there is an outside which is the whole point of this article. Personally, I believe it is infinitely flat but warps according to general relativity as seen here:
[t]http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/d/d1/GPB_circling_earth.jpg/800px-GPB_circling_earth.jpg[/t]
This would imply some second set of larger dimensions wherein our current verse we lie (x, y, z) and where our verse lies in the multiverse (X, Y, Z, t) where 't' is the point in time the verse is located. It's weird because spacetime relies on the theory general relativity of our own verse which could also imply there is some form of spacetime manipulating the multiverse if it's in fact manipulating verses at the same time.
Another odd thing to point out is if another verse undergoes an event like a Big Bang, are these events only constrained to that specific verse's frame because that verse doesn't reside within our own timeframe? It's weird man.
[QUOTE=ief014;40761767]Since we're talking about an infinite number of universes, wouldn't that imply the possibility of multiple universes where everyone is Bill Murray? Maybe even.. an infinite number of Bill Murray universes?[/QUOTE]
No. There's nothing compelling a universe to be where everyone is Bill Murray regardless if it is Probability 1. Is there a possibility? Yes. Is it guaranteed? No.
[QUOTE=Map in a box;40761735]I've always wondered, why does the universe loop? Isn't it bent? But that would imply there is an outside[/QUOTE]
No. The mathematical structures we use to describe spacetime can be curved without needing any reference to an "outside" that they are embedded in. We can look out their curvature without needing a higher dimension to work with.
Sorry, you need to Log In to post a reply to this thread.