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 06-15-2017, 01:30 PM
 
4,981 posts, read 7,758,835 times
Reputation: 2859

Advertisements

Could our Universe be part of a Multiverse of perhaps an infinite number of other universes? The discovery of a cold spot, much colder than expected of voids, is thought might be like a "bruise" leftover from a collision by another universe close to ours that was beginning to form and bumped into our own universe leaving an "imprint" in the CMB. As near as I can tell, such an event would have occurred billions of years ago, at the time before stars and galaxies formed and the CMB was present. The implication suggests that there may be a multiverse of bubble universes. To be fair, apart from the cold spot, there is no evidence that it is a collision "bruise" from another universe bumping into ours.

It is also possible that the cold spot is just a statistical fluke in the fluctuation of the CMB. Generally speaking, the spread of warm and cold spots in the CMB throughout the Universe should be pretty much evenly spread in all directions. The new cold spot seems to be raising some new questions. New studies are being done that may solve the question - is our Universe one island bubble of a potential infinite number of other island bubble universes? Part of the thinking is that since there are other solar systems in our universe, and other galaxies, and other clusters and super clusters of galaxies, it might be possible that there could possibly be other larger-scaled "island" structures the size of our universe as well. Other universes may be popping into existence by Big Bangs all the time.

This isn't the first time such exotic proposals have been made, nor is the cold spot a new discovery. Although there is no firm conclusion as yet, a lot more research has yet to be done. Could this cold spot possibly represent a bruising from a collision long ago by a nearby bubble universe? Or is it just a data artifact, or some of the numerous other possible explanations? What do you think?

https://www.nbcnews.com/mach/science...ses-ncna771076

This cosmic Cold Spot challenges our current cosmological model | Astronomy.com

Competing claims over cause of cosmic cold spot - physicsworld.com

Debate on Universe
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message

 
Old 06-20-2017, 03:25 AM
 
Location: Boston
3,712 posts, read 1,258,358 times
Reputation: 5732
Multiverse isn't real science, it was cobbled up as a response to the implications inherent in the cosmological constants and the evidence it gives for design.

The real science is uncomfortable for some, they would prefer to practice violation of Occhams razor than follow the science.
The multiverse is nothing more than a massive attempt to whitewash away the facts that we already have with wild and unprovable postulation. The more you learn about this, the more ridiculous it is.
It would require a number of dimensions that defy good sense, on the order of 10>60+ , or nearly the number of atoms in our universe. Most physicists don't accept that, its too much of a stretch.

I prefer to stick with the established facts and follow the science, its a lot more interesting.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk&t=288s
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 06-30-2017, 02:54 PM
 
Location: Houston, Texas
1,164 posts, read 1,276,707 times
Reputation: 387
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg View Post
Multiverse isn't real science, it was cobbled up as a response to the implications inherent in the cosmological constants and the evidence it gives for design.

The real science is uncomfortable for some, they would prefer to practice violation of Occhams razor than follow the science.
The multiverse is nothing more than a massive attempt to whitewash away the facts that we already have with wild and unprovable postulation. The more you learn about this, the more ridiculous it is.
It would require a number of dimensions that defy good sense, on the order of 10>60+ , or nearly the number of atoms in our universe. Most physicists don't accept that, its too much of a stretch.

I prefer to stick with the established facts and follow the science, its a lot more interesting.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk&t=288s
Interesting video though the constant that's supported by mathematics as discussed in the video doesn't necessarily prove a God since what they discuss there can also be used to explain the theory that we live in a highly advanced AI simulation too.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-07-2017, 11:27 PM
 
1,986 posts, read 713,191 times
Reputation: 1238
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg View Post
Multiverse isn't real science, it was cobbled up as a response to the implications inherent in the cosmological constants and the evidence it gives for design.

The real science is uncomfortable for some, they would prefer to practice violation of Occhams razor than follow the science.
The multiverse is nothing more than a massive attempt to whitewash away the facts that we already have with wild and unprovable postulation. The more you learn about this, the more ridiculous it is.
It would require a number of dimensions that defy good sense, on the order of 10>60+ , or nearly the number of atoms in our universe. Most physicists don't accept that, its too much of a stretch.


I prefer to stick with the established facts and follow the science, its a lot more interesting.



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z4E_bT4ecgk&t=288s
I don't agree with your premise. While the existence of a multiverse is highly debated there are a large number of backers within the scientific community.

How do you know how many dimensions are reasonable? We humans understand 4 at the moment (3 spatial ones and time) but what makes you say more are not possible?

It's a bit like when some people view pictures of nebulae and when you tell them that it is not what you would perceive with the naked eye they label them as fake. Well no, they are in "false colour" which is different from fake (as in not real and of a malicious nature to mislead).
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2017, 07:19 PM
 
Location: Boston
3,712 posts, read 1,258,358 times
Reputation: 5732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Canaan-84 View Post
Interesting video though the constant that's supported by mathematics as discussed in the video doesn't necessarily prove a God since what they discuss there can also be used to explain the theory that we live in a highly advanced AI simulation too.
Its not meant to prove the unproveable and the simulation theory isn't a theory, its speculation, an idea.
Neither does the simulation idea exclude the existence of God, He might be the one running it.
There is much theological talk of that going back long before we were born. 3K yrs +

Simulation has long been a consideration, Einstein said reality is a persistent illusion.
But illusion points back to a creator.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2017, 07:24 PM
 
Location: Boston
3,712 posts, read 1,258,358 times
Reputation: 5732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Milky Way Resident View Post

I don't agree with your premise. While the existence of a multiverse is highly debated there are a large number of backers within the scientific community.

How do you know how many dimensions are reasonable? We humans understand 4 at the moment (3 spatial ones and time) but what makes you say more are not possible?

It's a bit like when some people view pictures of nebulae and when you tell them that it is not what you would perceive with the naked eye they label them as fake. Well no, they are in "false colour" which is different from fake (as in not real and of a malicious nature to mislead).
I'm told science deals with what is, science fiction is the other stuff.
When scientists start cooking the books, its not science.
Imagining extra dimensions, just to make the math work, thats not science.
It works the other way around.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2017, 09:00 PM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg View Post
I'm told science deals with what is, science fiction is the other stuff.
When scientists start cooking the books, its not science.
Imagining extra dimensions, just to make the math work, thats not science.
It works the other way around.
Theoretical physicists don't cook the books or imagine extra dimensions just to make the math work. The math only works if there are extra dimensions, which physicists don't know if there are or not because if they do exist they are tiny curled up dimensions which exist at scales below the Planck length and therefore too small for us to be able to observe with current technology. Theoretical physicists don't yet know if string theory is correct, but the theory does as Brian Greene put it, ''resolve the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics'' which otherwise are mutually incompatible.

Theoretical physicists who work on string theory have worked hard for many decades to determine if it's valid. Scientific breakthroughs sometimes take decades to achieve and pursuing string theory is a logical result of seeking a unified theory of everything.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-14-2017, 09:21 PM
 
3,740 posts, read 7,206,602 times
Reputation: 4798
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Theoretical physicists don't cook the books or imagine extra dimensions just to make the math work. The math only works if there are extra dimensions, which physicists don't know if there are or not because if they do exist they are tiny curled up dimensions which exist at scales below the Planck length and therefore too small for us to be able to observe with current technology. Theoretical physicists don't yet know if string theory is correct, but the theory does as Brian Greene put it, ''resolve the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics'' which otherwise are mutually incompatible.

Theoretical physicists who work on string theory have worked hard for many decades to determine if it's valid. Scientific breakthroughs sometimes take decades to achieve and pursuing string theory is a logical result of seeking a unified theory of everything.
You are wasting your time and energy. I have learned that the best way to deal some posters is the ignore option.
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 09:52 AM
 
Location: Boston
3,712 posts, read 1,258,358 times
Reputation: 5732
Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike555 View Post
Theoretical physicists don't cook the books or imagine extra dimensions just to make the math work. The math only works if there are extra dimensions, which physicists don't know if there are or not because if they do exist they are tiny curled up dimensions which exist at scales below the Planck length and therefore too small for us to be able to observe with current technology. Theoretical physicists don't yet know if string theory is correct, but the theory does as Brian Greene put it, ''resolve the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics'' which otherwise are mutually incompatible.

Theoretical physicists who work on string theory have worked hard for many decades to determine if it's valid. Scientific breakthroughs sometimes take decades to achieve and pursuing string theory is a logical result of seeking a unified theory of everything.
You do realize they've been at this for yrs and got nothing from it. neither is it falsifiable.
I don't call that science. Neither did Richard Feinman.

Listen to the words of Weinstein, he speaks of the internal consistency of quantum physics and relativity but they don't describe the world we observe. And thus the fix we're in.
I'm fairly sure who he means when he says "we".
Reply With Quote Quick reply to this message
 
Old 07-21-2017, 11:40 AM
 
20,292 posts, read 15,633,754 times
Reputation: 7403
Quote:
Originally Posted by jonesg View Post
You do realize they've been at this for yrs and got nothing from it. neither is it falsifiable.
I don't call that science. Neither did Richard Feinman.

Listen to the words of Weinstein, he speaks of the internal consistency of quantum physics and relativity but they don't describe the world we observe. And thus the fix we're in.
I'm fairly sure who he means when he says "we".
Feinman who died in 1988 was a skeptic of string theory. So were many other physicists. On the other hand, string theory has gained respect among many physicists both experimental and theoretical.

Quoting physicist Brian Greene regarding the search for a unified theory of everything, ''a sizable part of the physics and mathematic community is becoming increasingly convinced that string theory may provide the answer.'' [Greene, 'The Elegant Universe,' p. 15]

Physicists sometimes have to work for decades before their work bears fruit. It is inaccurate to say that nothing has come from string theory. String theory, as Green puts it, ''resolves the tension between general relativity and quantum mechanics'' which otherwise are mutually incompatible. It unifies the laws of the large and the small.

It's true that at present our technology doesn't allow us to see anything at scales below the planck length and therefore we can't verify by observation the existence of the six, or according to physicist Ed Witten possibly seven tiny curled up special dimensions which string theory requires, but the math indicates their existence. And it's true that the mathematics of string theory are so complex that physicists still haven't resolved them and can only approximate some of the equations. But time and continued effort will tell if the work of string theorists bears fruit.

In spite of your opinion, many top physicists are hard at work attempting to discover whether string theory is correct. Without the willingness to stretch the boundaries of current knowledge, science would never advance.
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.

© 2005-2018, 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, 33, 34, 35 - Top