Another Universe?

[Dinesh_college]

We know there are many solar systems like ours.

 

Like that is another Universe?

 

Are they also orbitting a mass center?

 

What is the origin of the force which makes them to rotate the mass center?

[nkt]

It's not another universe. It's probably not even another galaxy, due to the distances involved.

 

Other solar systems use the same rules as ours, and gravity holds them together in the same way. They all orbit the local star (or stars).

 

As for where gravity comes from... No-one knows.

[UncleAl]

We know there are many solar systems like ours.

Like that is another Universe?

 

"Az di bobe vot gehat beytsim volt zi geven mayn zeyde."

Like that is three grandfathers?

 

If Helen Keller falls in the forest, does she make a sound?

[Qfwfq]

Never mind Uncle Al's brilliant replies Dinesh.

 

It's a matter of terminology. Originally the word universe means like "everything that exists" but we can never be sure there isn't something else. In fact it is now quite certain that we couldn't observe all that exists so we often talk about the observable universe, which is full of clusters of galaxies, each of these has many stars which may have planets.

 

Another solar system isn't really like "another universe".

[ryan2006]

In 2003 I copyrighted my idea that the Universe rotates around a larger energy source which I called a "sunburst" and I also said that it fits into a larger scale such as a galaxy filled with universes. Defining a universe is like defining a micro part or cell to a larger cell into a much larger cell. After I had copyrighted the idea I learned from a pysicist at Luther College in Decorah Iowa that a team of people had tried to discern whether or not the universe had an axis because if the universe is circular and bounded the pyhsics of outside our universe would be different and perhaps have different laws or the space between the energy source that it rotates around. So I was surprised to find out that someone actually thought along the lines that I had. And I have no information that would demonstrate today without a reasonable doubt that the universe does rotate around a larger energy source or a "sunburst" but what I did make an arguement for was that our bodies are made up of stardust and because we have memory the stardust must also contain memory and therefore could we imagine that because we have memory of the universe would we have memory or be connected to a larger cell so that we could make a statement based on imagination alone of course not we need facts and this is only one.

 

 

Ryan J. Henningsgaard

[Jay-qu]

never be surprised that people have had the same ideas as yourself! it is a very rare thing to have a truely original thought! but keep trying, you never know one day it may happen, the problem is you will never know if you where the original thinker :shrug:

[Qfwfq]

Come to think of it, way, way back when galaxies were discovered, one of the ways they were called at first was "island universes". Of course, the wiser folk pointed out that it was an oxymoron, considering the meaning of the word 'universe' and the term didn't last.

[Tormod]

In 2003 I copyrighted my idea

 

Say again?

 

Man, you can't run around copyrighting ideas. That's not how science works. You can claim priority but not copyright.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Some people just want to know that they said it first.

 

Thats history for you.

[ryan2006]

Is that to say you can not patent ideas either? Human civilization is not going to last as long as the eternal so it is not mine anyways it is that who either created it or that always exsisted no matter how we look at it we do not really own the universe or whatever we simply get a loan from God to look at it for awile. An Harry I guess I thought I had something original otherwise I wouldn't have copyrighted it. Tormod you are in control of your life.

[Nootropic]

Let me send a helping of Stephen Hawking, seeing as how his ideas and words are vastly more knowledgeable than my own feeble attempts at describing this lovely place.

 

Although I'm not particularly well-versed in his works, I know enough to shed a hint of light. Hawking's argument for multiple universes lies in the argument of wave functions. What comes to mind are electrons, as they have a wave-particle duality, but can be described by a wave function (yay for Schrodinger). This gives an approximation (Lest we forget Heisenberg) of where the object is in the universe. However, the wave function spreads out over the entire universe, so the chances of me being at my computer are relatively high, while me being oh Planet Glowrixy are extremely low low (a lovely vacation spot, I must say). What Hawking proposes is that if the wave function of (the probability of our universe being the "right" universe) our universe is high near our universe, and infiniestimally low near the others. According to the laws of quantum mechanics, the universe could take some random and crazily insane "quantum leap" and end up in some other universe, but the chances of that are extremely low, and what they are trying to prove is that our universe is unique and stable, and the other universes just plain suck (ie. cannot support life, not compatible with the laws of physics, etc.). Apparently they say this changes the statement from "all that exists" to "all that can exist."

 

While actually thinking about this while writing (amazing, I know; I'm a talented multitasker), I remembered that Hawking begins with the "set of infinite parallel universes" or "all possible universes", something akin to those words. Which got me thinking? Well...ISTTHERE ANY DAMN PROOF THEY EXIST IN THE FIRST PLACE!?!??!!!?!?!?!?!??!?! So while I totally just gave an explanation of something that's not even proven? Hm...how revolutionary. So in short, I suppose if multiple universes exist, at least we can be almost sure ours is the correct, while not neccesarily ONLY, functioning universe.

 

But returning to my neurotic realization, other universes...oh, hm...Correct me if I'm wrong, but this might have to do with all possible quantum states, as in an experiment, like Schrodinger's Cat? Is the cat dead or alive? So at least I satisfied part of my tired being, but I'll let you folks do the rest.

[Racoon]

Would another existing Universe be parallel?

Like looking into a mirror?

 

Or how could there be another universe if space goes on forever in all directions?

 

What if Black Holes were like the thorax of an Hourglass?

pulling in matter, then pushing it out into an alternate Universe? :evil:

 

Imagination.

[hallenrm]

I am prompted to use the word Maya to be synonymous to the word universe. What if your universe and my universe is different from one another all the time. There can be any number of Universes without our ever being able to prove so!!!!:) :star: :phones:

[Boerseun]

Is that to say you can not patent ideas either?

You can patent novel applications of technology, as well as new technology. You cannot, however, patent scientific principles. The patent lawyer who told you that probably did it in order to make a quick buck off you.

Lawyers...:star:

[Nootropic]

I am prompted to use the word Maya to be synonymous to the word universe. What if your universe and my universe is different from one another all the time. There can be any number of Universes without our ever being able to prove so!!!!:hihi: :) :hihi:

 

 

Alas, the proof lies in a very famous feline: Schrodinger's Cat. I somewhat mentioned it above, but it was one o'clock in the morning, and my mind operates better on numerous of hours of sleep. I had to refresh my memory, but the experiment involves placing a cat in a box with a bit of radioactive substance whose half life has a 50-50 chance of decaying in one hour and when it decays, it will trigger a mechanism that will utterly annhilate the poor unsuspecting feline (Boondock Saints?). However, according to Heisenberg's principle, the state the cat is in (for an hour) is a mixed state of dead or alive, since the box is not opened and since the states of atoms require an observer to see what state they are in, until an observer opens the box (which would determine the cat's fate) the state the cat in is not known. So my own intperpretation says that they are an infinite possible states that can exist but it requires observation. So there are an infinite number of universes but our observation is required?

 

And as for this patent-dealy-thingy, I find it ridiculous that someone would patent an idea. It's almost like saying, "HEY YOU DON'T THINK LIKE THIS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!" Somewhat, but not quite. Imagine the trouble had Einstein patented General Realtivity...having to get permission everytime you want to publish something involving it? Granted his relatives would be swimming in royalties; but the world of science is a vast one, and saying this idea is yours and only yours is a rather selfish idea.

 

And as for Mr. Racoon, I will attempt to answer his questions with my limited plethora of knowledge on these topics.

 

A universe would seemingly have to be parallel and it would be on the very edges of illogical for it to be "within" this universe (excluding any "portal" which isn't really "the other universe", but just to it) because it would not be "another universe", but part of our own. How exactly these universes are organized is not known, whether they are lined up parallel, edge to edge, or connected like some kind of bubbles, as Stephen Hawking suggests.

 

Your concept of a black hole is somewhat skewed. Objects that go into a black hole are assumed to be crushed down to a singularity (a "single point", whatever that may be, possible something around a planck length) and are usually not spat out. However, I recently read that Hawking (he's becoming quite the regular in my posts) has postulated that black holes may exhibit holography, in which they can store information on a surface and they play back a holographic image. I haven't yet go to examining how this mechanism works. But what you're thinking of sounds like a combination of an Einstein-Rossen Bridge and a white hole (Alien transport to another universe?): An open wormhole that is spewing matter into another. What I can say is that white holes have never been discovered and are merely theoretical, while the possibility of an Einstein-Rossen Bridge requires advanced technology (far, far...well, not if we utilize the casimir effect on a large scale...but that requires us GETTING to a black hole) so exactly what this object would be, I am mostly speechless.

[C1ay]

Is that to say you can not patent ideas either?

 

According to 35 USC, Patents, Chapter 10, Patentability we have:

 

When used in this title unless the context otherwise indicates—

(a) The term “invention” means invention or discovery.

(:) The term “process” means process, art or method, and includes a new use of a known process, machine, manufacture, composition of matter, or material.

© The terms “United States” and “this country” mean the United States of America, its territories and possessions.

(d) The word “patentee” includes not only the patentee to whom the patent was issued but also the successors in title to the patentee.

(e) The term “third-party requester” means a person requesting ex parte reexamination under section 302 or inter partes reexamination under section 311 who is not the patent owner.

 

Whoever invents or discovers any new and useful process, machine, manufacture, or composition of matter, or any new and useful improvement thereof, may obtain a patent therefor, subject to the conditions and requirements of this title.

 

Please explain how you think an idea would actually qualify as an invention.

[Nootropic]

Um...so I believe the we have gone off-roading on this topic just bit...