Is our universe only a small part of a larger whole?

[lamb.charlie]

On the subject of the big bang.

 

The theory is that all matter, including space/time was contained in this singular grain. I call it a grain because it was essentially the seed of our universe.

 

It was thought at one time that the universe consisted of the Earth, orbited by the sun, moon, and stars. Then we discovered that the earth is actually only one of many planets orbiting our star the sun. Eventually we have found that our solar system is a tiny spec in the milky way galaxy, and that there are actually many galaxies other than our own.

The first question that I would like to bring up follows this same thread [moved from "The origin of the Universe"] of discovery.

Could what we know as "the" universe only be part of a larger system?

Could there not have been more than one of these "grains" that spawned our universe? Have they exploded into their own universe?

 

Out of all the electromagnetic spectrum, we can only observe light with the naked eye. What if Space/Time is only a sliver in a larger scale?

 

These questions blow my mind, and each could almost be a thread by itself.

[Jay-qu]

I think they blow a lot of peoples mind mate, because I dont see how we could answer such a question of 'what is beyond the universe' in our lifetime!

 

So enter speculation..

 

1. Thats it, it stops, not just nothingness but really nothing..

 

2. Our universe is contained 'inside' a higher dimensional 'bubble' floating through hyperspace, there could be another universe of these bubble universes - but then the question becomes "what is beyond that?"

 

3. Its the Relm of the/a god, heaven and hell - had to make room for religion to have its chance

 

and one of my personal favorites:

4. The universe is riding on the back of a turtle (a cousin of our more familiar one here at hypo :rant: )

 

None-the-less its fun to think about.

[InfiniteNow]

I think we run into trouble trying to visualize mentally something on the scope of the universe. All we have to work with is our perceptual mechanisms and cognitive process that have evolved to watch out for patterns here on Earth, ways to find food and water, and ways to increase our opportunity to reproduce. When we try to use these same systems to think about the scale of the universe, we run into some trouble.

 

The analogy of trying to play an MP3 on a hollow stick used as a flute comes to mind. You can try as hard as you want to hear the MP3 through the flute, but your description/understanding is going to have it's limitations.

 

My basic point is that we struggle because we want to fit the universe into a nice little mental box, yet "the universe" comprises absolutely everything at every time. The universe IS the "box."

 

That, and right now... :rant:

 

 

and one of my personal favorites:

4. The universe is riding on the back of a turtle (a cousin of our more familiar one here at hypo ;) )

No wonder he gets so many blisters on his feet! :)

 

 

Cheers.

[Jay-qu]

That is true, one needs to come up with an adequate definition of 'what is the universe' when talking about such matters.

 

I think of the universe as all we know and can reach (or have reached) travelling in our 3 dimensions plus time. Because that is all there is to us and like you said, the scope beyond what we have capabilities of comprehending is out of reach - so I think our universe stops there.

[lamb.charlie]

Although I understand there are concepts that the human mind simply cannot grasp, my brain will not shut up. So here is another concept to throw in...

 

If it is possible for multiple bang created universes to exist, could another come into being in our lifetime, and if so would we be wiped clean from existance, or would the new universe intergrate into ours, adding dimentions that were not there before? Or has this already happened?

[Turtle]

On the subject of the big bang.

 

The theory is that all matter, including space/time was contained in this singular grain. I call it a grain because it was essentially the seed of our universe.

...Could what we know as "the" universe only be part of a larger system?

Could there not have been more than one of these "grains" that spawned our universe? Have they exploded into their own universe?

 

 

there is no need to change the name 'singularity' to 'grain'; moreover, it is misleading & mistaken to do so. by definition the 'singularity' is...well, singular. either there is a singularity to start, or there is not. more than one 'something' to start and it's not a 'singularity'.

 

same with 'universe'. prefix -uni indicates 1. more than one verse than there is no 'universe' unless it contains all 'verses'.

 

seems clear enough the farther & closer we observe, the more complexity unfolds. we've plenty enough to discover without fouling the works by changing terms midstream. imho

[lamb.charlie]

there is no need to change the name 'singularity' to 'grain'; moreover, it is misleading & mistaken to do so. by definition the 'singularity' is...well, singular. either there is a singularity to start, or there is not. more than one 'something' to start and it's not a 'singularity'.

 

same with 'universe'. prefix -uni indicates 1. more than one verse than there is no 'universe' unless it contains all 'verses'.

 

seems clear enough the farther & closer we observe, the more complexity unfolds. we've plenty enough to discover without fouling the works by changing terms midstream. imho

 

But that is the whole point! Centuries ago "Universe" to scientists meant a much smaller space than is known today. Therefore referring to those scientist's "universe" as only a contained part of the total universe would not be incorrect.

 

So when I spoke of other "universes", I simply meant other sections of space similar to what we know of today.

 

Also, if what we call "The singularity" was in fact only a piece of the greater design, the name put on it by former generations would not make sense would it? As we make new discoveries, names and ideas change to fit new theories.

 

So no, I was not incorrect in saying what I did.

[Turtle]

But that is the whole point! Centuries ago "Universe" to scientists meant a much smaller space than is known today. Therefore referring to those scientist's "universe" as only a contained part of the total universe would not be incorrect.

 

So when I spoke of other "universes", I simply meant other sections of space similar to what we know of today.

 

Also, if what we call "The singularity" was in fact only a piece of the greater design, the name put on it by former generations would not make sense would it? As we make new discoveries, names and ideas change to fit new theories.

 

So no, I was not incorrect in saying what I did.

 

 

you haven't strengthened your case one bit for me. either something is singular, or it is not. either the universe started from a singularity, or it did not. it's one-for-one; period. if something else, like multi-verses is the rule, than you don't change the old term, you make a new one; 'multi'verse'.

 

either you understand the logic here, or you don't.

[Qfwfq]

Ooops, we seem to have run into semantic issues here.

 

Singularity is a term with many meanings, including that of extraordinary or unusual, and in this sense calculus uses it to indicate things such as the function [math]\norm\frac{1}{x}[/math] at x = 0 where it has infinite limit. In this sense there can be as many singularities as you like. How about:

 

[math]\frac{1}{\sin x}[/math]

 

Universe comes from the Latin unus and versus and means something like "one (single) whole" and came to be used by astronomers to indicate the entire cosmos. The versus is the past pasticiple of vertere which basically means to turn but has such a wealth of acceptions and derived meanings that, in the case of universe, it is meant as wrap, so versus means wrapped.

 

The fact that the one single whole began as a singularity is just a linguistic accident.

 

:shrug:

[sanctus]

It is an assumption (commonly made) that the non-observable (ie. beyond the hubble-horizon) universe is of the same nature as the observable part, but there are some theories which change this assumption giving something you might have been looking for. The one I like most (and actually the only one which comes to my mind now ) is Linde theory on causally separated regions of the universe undergoing different "inflations". I didn't find anymore the link where it was well described but on Linde's homepage there is a short paragraph on it Stanford University -- Dept. of Physics -- Andrei Linde

[Tormod]

If it is possible for multiple bang created universes to exist, could another come into being in our lifetime, and if so would we be wiped clean from existance, or would the new universe intergrate into ours, adding dimentions that were not there before? Or has this already happened?

 

It's fair to say "We don't know" when it comes to speculations like this.

 

There is definitely the possibility that "big bangs" happen all the time. IIRC, Fred Adams postulates in his book, The Five Ages of the Universe, that the universe could (theoreticall, of course) procreate through black holes, so that each black hole is a new universe. Mindboggling idea, and completely impossible to prove.

[lamb.charlie]

We could argue definations of words for several more pages I'm sure. If it means so much to you, we can call it whatever you feel is appropriate.

 

The fact of the matter is that whatever it ends up being labled I enjoy the concepts and new ideas. I am a college student majoring in communications who has barely passed a science course since grade school. I love the big picture science concepts and their effects, and I love to make new discoveries that boggle the human mind. Our labels dont really matter next to the awsome processes they describe.

 

Sorry if my ignorance offended anyone. I'm here to learn and discover, but I dont have years of knowlege to contribute.

[InfiniteNow]

It's the contribution that's important. No worries, Chuck. Keep communicating. You may be corrected or asked for clarification once or twice, but that's just how it works. :doh:

 

 

[Tormod]

The fact of the matter is that whatever it ends up being labled I enjoy the concepts and new ideas.

 

We all do mate! You're mistaking enthusiasm for criticism!

[Turtle]

Ooops, we seem to have run into semantic issues here.

 

Singularity is a term with many meanings, including that of extraordinary or unusual, and in this sense calculus uses it to indicate things such as the function [math]\norm\frac{1}{x}[/math] at x = 0 where it has infinite limit. ...The fact that the one single whole began as a singularity is just a linguistic accident.

 

:shrug:

 

really? while i won't contest your alternate definition of 'singularity', you conveniently left out the most important 'one'. :shrug:

 

We could argue definations of words for several more pages I'm sure. If it means so much to you, we can call it whatever you feel is appropriate.

 

pray tell how is any discussion expected to advance without an agreement of terms? why not call it snot? why not change the term every time? a communication major you say? labels/words don't matter you say? :doh:

 

the things we don't know don't require another universe. if what we think is the limit is actually part of something bigger, than the bigger thing is the universe. the 'one' that wraps.

 

PS chalk me up for contributing enthusiastic constructive criticism.;)

[Moontanman]

On the subject of the big bang.

 

The theory is that all matter, including space/time was contained in this singular grain. I call it a grain because it was essentially the seed of our universe.

 

It was thought at one time that the universe consisted of the Earth, orbited by the sun, moon, and stars. Then we discovered that the earth is actually only one of many planets orbiting our star the sun. Eventually we have found that our solar system is a tiny spec in the milky way galaxy, and that there are actually many galaxies other than our own.

The first question that I would like to bring up follows this same thread [moved from "The origin of the Universe"] of discovery.

Could what we know as "the" universe only be part of a larger system?

Could there not have been more than one of these "grains" that spawned our universe? Have they exploded into their own universe?

 

Out of all the electromagnetic spectrum, we can only observe light with the naked eye. What if Space/Time is only a sliver in a larger scale?

 

These questions blow my mind, and each could almost be a thread by itself.

 

I think it's wonderful to have asked your question in this day and time because it can actually be answered at least in some part. When I was young it was considered nonsensical to even ask if there was anything other than or outside of our universe.

If you think of the real universe as consisting of a multidimensional space time, I like the idea of 10 to 11 or so dimensions, then what we see as space time becomes so small that an infinite number of our universes could exist in a tiny spot of eleven dimensional space time. Also it is now ok to talk about what happened before the beginning and what will happen after the end. personally I think that time is an illusion but I've discussed this to the point of no one else being interested in another thread so I won't go into it here.

 

But the concept of there not being a point like big bang has gained at least some respect and the idea that the eleven dimensional space time is full of other "universes" some having the same some having different conditions than ours all due to the arrangement of natural laws in those spaces.

 

If you can imagine it think of the eleven dimensional space time as containing our universe which exists as a four dimensional plane or sheet drifting through the eleven dimensional space time. Other universes run through this space time as well with different natural laws like sheets of electromagnetic energy or even space times similar to our own. What we see as a big bang might have been our space time plane merging with another space time plane like two bed sheets hanging side by side on a clothes line. From a distance they seem to be perfectly flat but as you get closer they are wrinkled and since they are more or less parallel to each other gravity which is the only force we know of that extends outside our universe attracts the other space time sheet. as they get closer together instead of touching everywhere at once the wrinkles touch each other first. as they touch everything in each universe turns into a flash of gamma rays which instantly start to condense into various particles. From a four d space time point of view it looks like a big bang but in reality it is taking place across an infinite four d space time that is plane when viewed in eleven d as the two 4d space times pass through each other they turn to energy and instantly start to recondense into matter particles which then condense into matter as we know it. the energy of the contact propels the 4d planes apart but eventually gravity will pull them back together and start the process all over again. so what we see as a big bang actually occurs over an infinite 4d space time plane imbedded in an eleven dimensional space.

 

My apologies for any of the many theories I have mis quoted or stomped all over with this but it's an accurate as I can be representation of what I think to be the best and the latest theory of what "IS" Of course much of this is not exactly mainstream thinking yet but at least we can think in these terms now.

 

Michael

[Qfwfq]

...you conveniently left out the most important 'one'. :)

It wasn't left out, you just didn't see it! :lol: