U.S. CitiesCity-Data Forum Index
Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
 [Register]
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
View detailed profile (Advanced) or search
site with Google Custom Search

Search Forums  (Advanced)
Reply Start New Thread
 
Old 10-09-2017, 05:26 PM
 
4,886 posts, read 7,597,495 times
Reputation: 2763

Advertisements

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
This paper Pre-BigBang Cosmology? written by Amir Hajian describes the procedure used by Penrose and Gurzadyan to find the concentric circles in the CMB map which were independently confirmed by other researchers who did not agree with the conclusion of Penrose that they were evidence of pre-big bang black hole encounters. The circles, while there, are not said to be anomalous by the independent studies in contrast with Penrose's claim that they are anomalous.
''The above authors used data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) to look for concentric low variance circles in the CMB sky. They examined 10885 choices of center in the CMB sky after masking the galactic plane from the maps. For each choice of center, they computed the variance of the temperature fluctuations in successively larger concentric rings of 0.5 degree, at increasing radii. They found three groups of rings of low variance at various radii. They claim that the low variance circles they find are statistically very significant (6 sigma detections).''

Pre-BigBang Cosmology?
Actually, this is the first that I've heard of this and of Penrose's conformal cyclic cosmology model. I'll have to listen to some of his lectures on YouTube to better understand his views.

One of the articles you posted, I can't find now in which one it was, led me to this article in physicsworld in which Tom Shanks at Durham University in the UK states that a bump between our Universe and another Universe would produce an identifiable polarization signal in the cold spot which would make a collision with another Universe the most plausible explanation for the cold spot. But the data from Planck hasn't yet been completely analysed. So I'm curious as to how that will turn out.
''Among them is the idea that the cold spot is where our universe is bumping into another universe created by eternal inflation. This would produce an identifiable polarization signal in the cold spot. Data from the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft that might prove or disprove this have yet to be fully analysed. If the polarization signal is there, however, then a collision with another universe would "become the most plausible explanation, believe it or not”, according to Shanks.''

Competing claims over cause of cosmic cold spot - physicsworld.com
Yeah, I like the way Matt O'Dowd makes things understandable as well. Simpler is better.
Hi Mike and thanks for the links. I've looked at similar articles as well. As yet, I failed to see the concentric rings displayed in the CMB like a cosmic bull's eye. The rings is such images are added in to highlight the feature. With or without the feature, it just isn't clear. Apparently, the reason its unseen in the CMB maps is because it deals with radiation differences in the CMB, rather than visual structures in the CMB. The problem is that a lot of reports fail to clearly explain what these illustrated circles represent.
"Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have clearly identified concentric circles within the data – regions in the microwave sky in which the range of the radiation's temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere."

Moss, Scott and Zibin seem to disagree and feel there is no evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky and that the evidence claimed fails to be extraordinary.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305

I've also seen ideas (shown with side-view graph-type illustrations) that suggest Penrose's cyclic model of the universe expanding and contracting in endless cycles with each cycle starting with a new Big Bang, basically akin to the Big Bounce It's claimed that the Penrose concentric circles represent a view of stages before the Big Bang.
Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-scient...verse-big.html

The thing is that there just doesn't appear to be any compelling evidence, one way or another, to support colliding universes or of multiple Big Bangs. We still have no idea about the underlying nature of the universe or the origin of it. The Big Bang theory only goes back so far, but nothing with regard to any pre-Big Bang conditions. There are some interesting ideas, but none are conclusive. There is the something out of nothing idea, which is often misunderstood, but it does make the ideas of bubble universes out of quantum foam and string theory look more attractive. There are so many different ideas that it makes a person's head spin. I don't think the Cold Spot is necessarily a Super Void. But I'd lean toward thinking it may be an anomaly in the CMB, which shouldn't be overly unexpected. There's still a lot of mysteries about the universe yet to explore.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 10-10-2017, 06:46 AM
 
1,820 posts, read 580,287 times
Reputation: 1063
Quote:
Originally Posted by NightBazaar View Post
Hi Mike and thanks for the links. I've looked at similar articles as well. As yet, I failed to see the concentric rings displayed in the CMB like a cosmic bull's eye. The rings is such images are added in to highlight the feature. With or without the feature, it just isn't clear. Apparently, the reason its unseen in the CMB maps is because it deals with radiation differences in the CMB, rather than visual structures in the CMB. The problem is that a lot of reports fail to clearly explain what these illustrated circles represent.
"Penrose and Gurzadyan say they have clearly identified concentric circles within the data – regions in the microwave sky in which the range of the radiation's temperature is markedly smaller than elsewhere."

Moss, Scott and Zibin seem to disagree and feel there is no evidence for anomalously low variance circles on the sky and that the evidence claimed fails to be extraordinary.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1305

I've also seen ideas (shown with side-view graph-type illustrations) that suggest Penrose's cyclic model of the universe expanding and contracting in endless cycles with each cycle starting with a new Big Bang, basically akin to the Big Bounce It's claimed that the Penrose concentric circles represent a view of stages before the Big Bang.
Penrose claims to have glimpsed universe before Big Bang - physicsworld.com
https://phys.org/news/2010-11-scient...verse-big.html

The thing is that there just doesn't appear to be any compelling evidence, one way or another, to support colliding universes or of multiple Big Bangs. We still have no idea about the underlying nature of the universe or the origin of it. The Big Bang theory only goes back so far, but nothing with regard to any pre-Big Bang conditions. There are some interesting ideas, but none are conclusive. There is the something out of nothing idea, which is often misunderstood, but it does make the ideas of bubble universes out of quantum foam and string theory look more attractive. There are so many different ideas that it makes a person's head spin. I don't think the Cold Spot is necessarily a Super Void. But I'd lean toward thinking it may be an anomaly in the CMB, which shouldn't be overly unexpected. There's still a lot of mysteries about the universe yet to explore.
Is it possible that the Multiverse theory is entirely non falsifiable? How do we prove the existence of another universe if it exists beyond the boundaries of our own space-time?
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-11-2017, 04:10 PM
 
4,886 posts, read 7,597,495 times
Reputation: 2763
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post
Is it possible that the Multiverse theory is entirely non falsifiable? How do we prove the existence of another universe if it exists beyond the boundaries of our own space-time?
Good questions to wonder about. The Multiverse is a pretty fascinating idea. Here are a few links to take into consideration that might help answer those questions. Keeping in mind that we don't know all there is to know about the Universe, much less a Multiverse.

https://www.space.com/32452-can-scie...ultiverse.html

Is the multiverse physics, philosophy, or something else entirely? | Astronomy.com

https://www.smithsonianmag.com/scien...eal-180958813/

https://www.forbes.com/sites/startsw.../#32700e2f16f1
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2017, 03:48 PM
 
5,485 posts, read 4,276,181 times
Reputation: 1774
The operative word here for this thread is 'Misconceptions.'


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=k06VoxcP0i8

Last edited by Shiloh1; 10-17-2017 at 04:11 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-17-2017, 04:18 PM
 
5,485 posts, read 4,276,181 times
Reputation: 1774

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj6tUW-zNQg&t=493s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-20-2017, 08:13 AM
 
1,134 posts, read 1,710,216 times
Reputation: 1364
Could anyone please confirm if my understanding of this theory is correct? My take on this is as follows:

A. A singular universe in which the laws of physics, etc. apply relatively equally across the board. The chances of our world and life forms coming into existence in this model are so small (one in several multiplications of trillion) that it would be totally improbable for it to have happened by chance. This all but proves we are a product of intelligent design by some entity or intelligence unknown to us.

B. A Multiverse in which an infinite combination of varying conditions involving physics, dimension, space-time continuum/compression, etc. exist. This gives a higher percentage that our world, life forms and conditions are a random assembly formed by chance with no intelligent designer behind them.

Do I have this correct...

Or am I confused...
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-23-2017, 09:35 PM
 
4,886 posts, read 7,597,495 times
Reputation: 2763
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...? View Post
Could anyone please confirm if my understanding of this theory is correct? My take on this is as follows:

A. A singular universe in which the laws of physics, etc. apply relatively equally across the board. The chances of our world and life forms coming into existence in this model are so small (one in several multiplications of trillion) that it would be totally improbable for it to have happened by chance. This all but proves we are a product of intelligent design by some entity or intelligence unknown to us.

B. A Multiverse in which an infinite combination of varying conditions involving physics, dimension, space-time continuum/compression, etc. exist. This gives a higher percentage that our world, life forms and conditions are a random assembly formed by chance with no intelligent designer behind them.

Do I have this correct...

Or am I confused...
A. We can't really say whether or not intelligent design by an unknown entity or intelligence was responsible for the emergence of the Universe, the world, and life. We can't even be certain that the Universe is singular, that it to say there are no other universes. It's possible the Universe is all there is. But it's equally possible (even likely), that there's a lot more out there than we're aware of. Space is geometrically flat in all directions. That suggests that the Universe could be infinite in size. I have to admit that I'm inclined to think that the Universe isn't necessarily infinite in size or time. It's possible the Universe is so huge beyond our view that space only looks flat to us. We don't have instruments powerful enough to detect any curvature of space.
"The Real Universe" --'Is 250 Times Bigger than the Visible Hubble Volume' (Today's Most Popular) - The Daily Galaxy --Great Discoveries Channel

Here on Earth, we can look out at the horizon, and it appears generally flat to us. But we're only seeing a small portion of the Earth. But a view from the ISS shows a lot more of the planet than we can see from the ground as it circles the planet. It's rather spherical in shape. The astronauts who stood on the Moon were awed by the view of the Earth, the place called home.

As for life forms, the only model we have at the present time is that of the Earth. But that doesn't mean there is no life, including intelligent life elsewhere. Our galaxy contains somewhere between 100-400 billion stars. The number of galaxies in the Observable Universe have been thought to be 200-400 billion. But more recent estimates think the figure is closer to 2 trillion galaxies.

Let's say there are 100-400 billion stars in the galaxy. It's estimated out of all those stars there are about 40-80 billion stars like our Sun. Out of that number, perhaps 8.8 to 17.6 billion (about 22%) could have Earth-sized planets in the habitable zone of their solar systems. 100 million may have a planet that supports life that can emerge and evolve into intelligent life. That's just in our galaxy. On the one hand, that's still a staggering number from our perspective. On the other hand, relative to the size of the entire galaxy and the number of all stars it contains, it's a fairly small number. Does that mean life in the galaxy is pretty rare? Maybe, but it all depends on how you look at it.
https://www.universetoday.com/106121...abitable-zone/

The first radio transmissions from Earth were about 1900-1901. Those radio waves, traveling at the speed of light, would reach out about 117 light years from Earth. If we draw a circle with the Earth at the center, that circle would be almost an invisible speck in comparison to the size of the galaxy. Compare that to the entire Universe. We may be pretty insignificant in relation to the Universe, but we're here and we do exist. That said, it's pretty hard to imagine at vast scales that Earth is the only planet in the Universe with life. We can't say for sure there is in fact life elsewhere, but the odds are pretty good taking into account the scale of the galaxy and the entire Universe. It could be that life might far from our solar system, or might be on the other side of the galaxy, but I'd be inclined to think there's life out there somewhere. Life might not be all that uncommon, although intelligent life is probably less common than microbes. But just the distances between stars alone make it hard for us to determine at the present time. One thing we can understand is that we exist. It means that the conditions of the Universe were just right for life to emerge. And since we're here, there's a good chance there are others around as well. How many? That's unknown. Perhaps we're among some the first life forms to emerge that's able to contemplate it's own existence.

Exactly why the Big Bang banged, and why physics and fundamental forces are as they are, are not completely known to us, although there are some hypotheses and theories about it. There are lots of questions about the nature of the Universe. Why is the Universe expanding. Why is the expansion of space accelerating instead of slowing down? If the Universe is the product of an unknown entity or intelligence, why is the Universe full of so many dangers? It could be it exists by chance, but it could also be for other reasons that don't necessarily require it to be an artificial construct. If it was purely by chance, we can consider ourselves fortunate enough to be in the winning combination that makes life possible.


B. Regarding the Multiverse, why would a Multiverse necessarily have greater odds of randomness for worlds like ours, life forms, conditions, etc? There could be odds that infinite conditions could be for and against at the same time. Sounds counterintuitive, but then who's to say a multiverse is anything that would conform to our understanding? Some speculate there could be Big Bangs happening all the time. Some might form and infinite number of exact copies if universes like ours, as well as an infinite number of universes that are empty except for space, and an infinite number of Big Bangs that fizzle out as soon as they began. In such a weird configuration, where anything and everything can emerge in infinite numbers, some universes might contain Mickey Mouse figurines instead of stars. That may sound pretty off-the-wall, and it is. But at the same time, if you think about it, everything in the Universe has the same origins. In effect, the same stuff that makes us who we are, also makes Mickey Mouse figurines what they are.

How would any of that be possible? It all depends on the nature of a Multiverse. If there is a Multiverse populated with an infinite number of universes, some thought suggest that they'd be separated by an extra spatial dimension, referred to as Hyperspace or The Bulk. Exactly what Hyperspace would be like is anyone's guess. Quantum foam? An infinite number of strings vibrating at an infinite variety of frequencies? Would a Multiverse be part of an even larger Multiverse? Is it all fractal? Is it everything with all things possible and impossible at the same time?

Given enough time, after our Universe ceases to exist in any meaningful way and everything drops to zero points, maybe a few photons and neutrons zipping away, so far apart that only rarely over a googleplex period of time a few might cross paths. Quantum fluctuations in the energy of a vacuum state could cause entire worlds and universes to spring into existence for moments or longer periods of time, or stars with faces that talk to each other. A Multiverse could be infinite with anything and everything and nothing at the same time.

Could a Multiverse be composed of 2-dimensional branes that ripple in Hyperspace and high points of the ripples come into contact with an adjoining brane, the collision of which would have enough energy to cause a Big Bang sufficient to form an entire universe? Some think it's quite possible.
https://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0103239

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brane_cosmology

Before the Big Bang | DiscoverMagazine.com

So while our Universe might be the product of a random nature in a Multiverse, it's also possible that it might be a lot more common than imagined, especially if you take infinities into account. Perhaps the answer to such big questions can be determined at the opposite end of the spectrum as well, in the very, very small and very weird. We're made up of energetic particles. Weird! Although space seems empty, it's filled with particles, virtual particles and fields. In exploring the realm of the tiny, could that be the origin of the Universe? Or are the a product of the Universe? Could it point to a Multiverse? I don't know, but exploring the realms of the vastly large and vastly small will certainly add to our knowledge and help to better understand how things work.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X5rAGfjPSWE


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kRWZ5hpSbew


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=crQvu4NygAc


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uabNtlLfYyU
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 10-24-2017, 06:39 PM
 
1,134 posts, read 1,710,216 times
Reputation: 1364
Nightbazaar, thank you for this excellent and detailed explanation, I am going to take my time going through it to come to the best understanding of all the elements involved.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 06:11 PM
 
13 posts, read 4,833 times
Reputation: 32
I am not so sure I believe in multiverses But i do believe in non-detectable universes embedded inside larger ones, embedded inside larger ones, and so on...with no or barely any interactions between them except for light/electromagnetic waves.

There can be pocket universes which exist below the Planck level. Their entire universal existences would not only be too small for us to register the lengths of in all 3 dimensions, but also we cannot register any start and end time that these universes exist in since we would see essentially 0 time unfold for the entire age of these universes from their big bangs to the ends of themselves (even if we could see below Planck length somehow). Moreover, that could also include us being below the Planck level of an even larger universal construct relative to our observable universe. So we can have universes wrapped inside universes that are not interactive in all 4 observable dimensions, both exponentially larger and exponentially smaller than us.


My understanding is the Planck length is itself correlated to one’s resting mass. We humans have a mass many power of tens too high to belong to the universes of existence below what we call Planck length. Those potential universes below the Planck length can also not explore OUR field of view without obtaining mass in the form of high acceleration to speeds very close to c (on their inertial Frames) such that they see length contraction to match closer to our resting perceived distance measurements, but even so that contraction would only apply one-dimensionally in the direction of motion. I think for all masses and all sizes, light travels at an apparent detected speed of exactly the same apparent distance over time. It’s the only true uniform constant there is for exact measurements of objects varying in mass and velocity and changes in velocity.

So basically there can be pocket universes that register billions of years in what we see as .00000000000000000000000000001 seconds to us

And likewise, a quark subatomic particle beyond our observable universe length we can’t see either as there is space between all matter too large nor in our lifetime does that matter experience any passage of time.

So my personal theory is One could hypothetically see below the Planck level by having a much smaller mass and being much tinier.

A hypothetically super tiny sub-Planck length being would register lengths and times in units below which our mass allows us to explore into no matter how perfect a microscope we ever invent because we do not register time intervals below the Planck length. But if we were of a smaller mass, our Planck length would be smaller, and we would be able to then belong to a world of relatively expanded lengths and compression of time, with a new distance and time scale by which light would STILL appear to travel at c velocity, and in this we would belong to a universe with a lower Planck length below the one we are assigned to because of the hurdle of our resting mass being too high
in this life of ours.

My theory is also that if I’m littler than you are say I am skinnier and shorter, i actually can potentially see a fraction below your Planck length by an amount so insignificant it’s not possible to make anything of it. And you are traveling into the future at an extreme negligible fraction more than I would be. Like 75 years to me being 74.99999999999999... years to your clock, while yet my perception of Planck distance and yours would be such that we both agree exactly on apparent time light takes to travel a certain number of apparent Planck lengths. We both would extremely negligably disagree on distance and time, but agree 100% on c.

Last edited by EricS575; 11-18-2017 at 07:12 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 11-18-2017, 07:39 PM
 
13 posts, read 4,833 times
Reputation: 32
Quote:
Originally Posted by ShouldIMoveOrStayPut...? View Post
Could anyone please confirm if my understanding of this theory is correct? My take on this is as follows:

A. A singular universe in which the laws of physics, etc. apply relatively equally across the board. The chances of our world and life forms coming into existence in this model are so small (one in several multiplications of trillion) that it would be totally improbable for it to have happened by chance. This all but proves we are a product of intelligent design by some entity or intelligence unknown to us.

B. A Multiverse in which an infinite combination of varying conditions involving physics, dimension, space-time continuum/compression, etc. exist. This gives a higher percentage that our world, life forms and conditions are a random assembly formed by chance with no intelligent designer behind them.

Do I have this correct...

Or am I confused...
I think we are a product of intelligent design but that design is a highly highly highly complex system, containing the numerous ingredients for successes and failures and a finitely large if not infinite number of opportunities for success, and conscious triggers occurring only in those occurrences where successes did prevail, and given we only record those events with successes else we don’t come into conscious existence, to us the apparent probabilities of perfect outcomes are always going to be seemingly high.

Think of it like this. The probability that some type of 1 in 270 million odds potential jackpot occurrence will unfold the next powerball drawing, is 100%!

The odds of it being YOUR jackpot though is 1 in 270 million. But the odds that ANY 1 in 270 million chance scenario will unfold has to be 100% since one among the 270 million potential drawings WILL guaranteed be selected a winner as soon as the random drawing occurs.

Now let’s just say you will ONLY ever be made conscious in events where you won and you are made to have amnesia all the other 269,999,999, now all of the sudden Your odds are 100% your conscious experience coincides with winning the jackpot with 100% probability. That slice of the pie being the only time you register to exist in your observable universe, the slice of the pie you experience all lies 100% in the win column.

Like the lotto example, we have i think a designer of a system that is not flawless but brilliant and it enables for probabilities of successes to be distinguished and we only exist in the ones that enabled us to exist and we don’t register time when we don’t exist. This is true of both universe and multiverse. This filtering out what we see and don’t see forces a perfection by Murphy’s law.

Last edited by EricS575; 11-18-2017 at 08:14 PM..
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.

Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.


Reply
Please update this thread with any new information or opinions. This open thread is still read by thousands of people, so we encourage all additional points of view.

Quick Reply
Message:

Over $104,000 in prizes was already given out to active posters on our forum and additional giveaways are planned!

Go Back   City-Data Forum > General Forums > Science and Technology > Space
Similar Threads
Follow City-Data.com founder on our Forum or

All times are GMT -6.

© 2005-2017, Advameg, Inc.

City-Data.com - Archive 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 31, 32 - Top