Universe as a big star

[Tormod]

Well just as we did not recognize until recently that we are in one galaxy out of billions , we are probably in one Universe out of billions as well.

It only stands to reason when you use the examples all around us.

 

The multiverse theory is not new, so it's not as if it hasn't been discussed here before. There are lots of books on cosmology and multiverse theories. Some theorists claim, for example, that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that every time a quantum state is resolved, the universe splits into two - one for each possible state.

 

The problem with theories like these is that we have no way to test for it - yet.

 

The anthropic cosmological principle is also a kind of multiverse theory. It claims that out of all possible universes, we find ourselves in the one that is most likely for us to exist in due to the guiding parameters (ie the laws of nature).

 

For a very interesting read on this, I recommend "Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees.

 

Amazon.com: Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe (9780465036738): Martin Rees: Books http://www.amazon.com/Just-Six-Numbers-Forces-Universe/dp/0465036732/

[Atlas shrugged]

the prefix uni- denotes 1 (one). either you want to refer to a "oneness" of "everything" or you do not. if so, then it's a uni-verse; if not, then you must call them something else. it is really that simple. :confused: :D (turtle shrugs) uni- - definition of uni- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

 

I am not in charge of naming conventions , and so just as world used to mean everything to us.

Universe will have to be reworked or accepted as a misnomer if there are other universes aside from ours.

As usual though we think we are the center of all and name things as such.

[Atlas shrugged]

The multiverse theory is not new, so it's not as if it hasn't been discussed here before. There are lots of books on cosmology and multiverse theories. Some theorists claim, for example, that Heisenberg's uncertainty principle dictates that every time a quantum state is resolved, the universe splits into two - one for each possible state.

 

The problem with theories like these is that we have no way to test for it - yet.

 

The anthropic cosmological principle is also a kind of multiverse theory. It claims that out of all possible universes, we find ourselves in the one that is most likely for us to exist in due to the guiding parameters (ie the laws of nature).

 

For a very interesting read on this, I recommend "Just Six Numbers" by Martin Rees.

 

Amazon.com: Just Six Numbers: The Deep Forces That Shape The Universe (9780465036738): Martin Rees: Books

 

Thank you for the book recommendation.

I have read many other books and more recent articles on the different theories. I Know we may never be able to prove theories like these.

This is something that goes with what I tell people as far as the need to humble ourselves occasionally.

The anthropic cosmological principle is also sort of like the "I think,Therefore I am.".

 

I liked your Carl Sagan quote and am going to use it myself if I may.

[HydrogenBond]

Observations have shown that the universe has superstructure. This means the expansion of space-time was not uniform. How can space-time expand more in some places and less in others to create the superstructure. Cause and effect makes more sense if space-time is an effect and not the cause.

 

Space-time is considered a reference variable and not things that are tangible. One can not save time in a bottle, so you can build up some potential to move the universe. How do you get a mental abstract, that is not tangible, to move things that are tangible? The other way implies something tangible is altering our mental abstract.

 

In other posts, I have tried to make space-time more tangible so we could at least have a tangible thing moving tangible matter. At least if time is a potential, we have a tangible thing moving a tangible thing such as the universe. But the consensus wants this to remain intangible so we can move the tangible universe.

 

It almost appears like the approach is like playing god, where the human mind creates an idea to move the universe, while then insisting what we are using to move to the universe has no real substance but is a reference variable.

 

Using relative reference, we can either say the plane flies from Boston to LA or we move the earth from Boston to LA with the plane staying still. The first uses only real things doing the motion, while the second uses a blend of real things and a position abstraction. Then we will say we didn't really move the earth, it was only a reference abstraction since time and space are just concepts, but we can use them to move the earth if we want. I used to have a girlfriend who could spin my head with such illogic. Once I learned how she did it, I would use it to spin her head. This was good practice to help me understand the magic of lady physics.

Edited August 12, 2010 by HydrogenBond

[Eclogite]

the prefix uni- denotes 1 (one). either you want to refer to a "oneness" of "everything" or you do not. if so, then it's a uni-verse; if not, then you must call them something else. it is really that simple. :) :) (turtle shrugs) uni- - definition of uni- by the Free Online Dictionary, Thesaurus and Encyclopedia.

Except that the meaning of words change. I strongly suspect this will happen to universe if we discover there are more universes such as ours. If you live in a town (rather than a city) will you allow me to inist you live in a garden behind a hedge?:)

[clapstyx]

The anthropic cosmological principle is also a kind of multiverse theory. It claims that out of all possible universes, we find ourselves in the one that is most likely for us to exist in due to the guiding parameters (ie the laws of nature).

 

Interesting idea. My only present issue with that one is that it would suggest that there is an evaluation of potentiality done somehow in order to place people into the the universe that they have the greatest chance of being successful in. So what happens if you get hit on the head this changes the scope of what you are capable of..do you get put into another universe. Or do you say well being hit on the head by a golf ball that left Tiger Wood's 3 iron then struck a camera tower and bounced off a rock and then struck you on the head was something that was always destined to be before one was plonked into the particular universe that televised the PGA ? I guess we will never actually know unless someone stays conscious while zipping from one universe to the other and then shows someone else how to do it all while filming it for the discovery channel.

 

Wheres marty mcfly

[Tormod]

IOr do you say well being hit on the head by a golf ball that left Tiger Wood's 3 iron then struck a camera tower and bounced off a rock and then struck you on the head was something that was always destined to be before one was plonked into the particular universe that televised the PGA ?

 

I don't know about that - but predestination or free will is not related to the anthropic principle. It's a different discussion.

 

I guess we will never actually know unless someone stays conscious while zipping from one universe to the other and then shows someone else how to do it all while filming it for the discovery channel.

 

But how would you know that you actually went to another universe, and how would you know that you came back to the one you left (and not a very similar copy)? :thumbs_up

 

Wheres marty mcfly

 

He's not that far away, he'll be back on October 21, 2015.

[Qfwfq]

Except that the meaning of words change. I strongly suspect this will happen to universe if we discover there are more universes such as ours.

Once upon a time, some dude discovered that some of those "cloudy objects" are "universes just like ours" and so folks started calling them "island universes". :thumbs_up But then someone pointed out the absurdity of the term and folks thought of the Greek word γαλαξίας given that these things are similar to the Milky Way. So now we all call them galaxies and it's a word every layman has heard of.

[clapstyx]

But how would you know that you actually went to another universe, and how would you know that you came back to the one you left (and not a very similar copy)? :)

 

Ahh yes well see that would have to be something to have a resolve on as in maintaining consciousness. Same goes with immortality I suppose..can you leave enough behind to tune your thinking into again when you get back. I personally go for raising harmony with nature so that when I get back and realise the desire to tune into it it reestablishes full consciousness in the pursuit. Problem is that if someone screws up harmony within nature while I'm gone I come back more stupider. he says toungue in cheek

Edited August 20, 2010 by Qfwfq
fixed quote closing tag