Another Universe?

[Harry Costas]

Hello All.

 

News flash. Sydney Morning Herald.

quote:

------------------------------------------------------------------------

"London: The universe we live in may not be the only one but just the latest in a line of repeating big bangs stretching back through time, according to the latest theory from cosmologists.

Instead of being formed from a single big bang about 14 billion years ago destined to expand and eventually peter out to the cold, dead remains of stars, the universe may be an endless loop of explosions and contractions stretching forever.

The latest theory has been postulated to account for what Einstein described as his biggest Blunder"", the cosmological constant, a number linking energy and space, which he proposed to account for the galaxies being driven apart."

Physcists have since than measured the number as too small.

The constant is a mathematical representaion of the nergy of empty space, known as dark energy, which exerts a kind of anti-gravity, pushing galaxies apart at an accelerating rate. It hapens to be a googol(1 followed by 100 zeros) times smaller than would be expected if the universe was created in a single big bang.

According to the new theory, published yesterday in the journal Science, the discrepancy can be explained if the universe itself is billions of years older and fashioned from cyclical big bangs.

people have infered that time began then, but there really wasn't a reason for that infrernce, said Neil Turok, a theoretical physcist at Cambridge University in Britain. " what we are proposing is very radical. Its saying there was time before the Big Bang".

There doesn't have to be a beginning of time, Professor Turok said. According to our theory, the universe may be infinitely old and infinetly large".

If this theory is right, how long have we got until the next big bang?

Professor Turok said " We can't predict when it will happen with any precision- all we can say is it won't be within the next 10 billion years".

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

I just read it and thought to post it.

[hallenrm]

I was reading about quasars yesterday, they are said to be several thousand light years away from us. The proof of their existence is far beyond our present technological capabilities. We believe in them, because we believe in Hubble's constant; another theory without proof. In fact cosmology is nothing but thoughts of physicists.

 

So where do we stand?

 

Let me throw another thought for the consideration of my friends.:(

 

The universe is essentially a perception of human beings about the objects they can perceive. There are other animals too around us. Does their perceptions coincide with our perceptions? How would it be, if we could, tomorrow, understand the perceptions of another animal, say a dog, and discover newer ways of looking at things?:)

[ronthepon]

Yes I agree to this entirely. The universe is the physical (and mental?) world which we percieve and another universe will be something, by definition, which we cannot percieve. (Proof: if we could percieve 'another universe' we would name it as a part of 'our' universe) Is it not absolutely critical to absolutely define the meaning of our universe?

[Nootropic]

Yes I agree to this entirely. The universe is the physical (and mental?) world which we percieve and another universe will be something, by definition, which we cannot percieve. (Proof: if we could percieve 'another universe' we would name it as a part of 'our' universe) Is it not absolutely critical to absolutely define the meaning of our universe?

 

Let us not stray too far from the scientific definitions of another universe. In a sense, “another universe” would be something physically different from what our universe is composed (ie. Gravity works backwards, certain subatomic particles do not exist, etc). However, it then enters our mental reality, essentially making us aware of its existence, but not apart of our actual universe, in which we are contained. There may be wormholes or some method of getting there, but it would not be, physically, apart of our own universe. It would be something that has yet to be defined, but something that is should logically be seen as physically different than our own universe.

 

I was reading about quasars yesterday, they are said to be several thousand light years away from us. The proof of their existence is far beyond our present technological capabilities. We believe in them, because we believe in Hubble's constant; another theory without proof. In fact cosmology is nothing but thoughts of physicists.

hyper:

 

Well, then if we only believe in them because the Hubble sees them and that is our "proof", that means we do not believe in the atom, electrons, stars, and even the building blocks of life, cells. All that is not visible to the human is therefore not real. A rather juvenile assumption. We have proof because these things have effects on us: Atoms compose our cells that govern our bodies, likewise stars, as the sun, give us heat and enable life. Though the effects of quasars on us are probably on the infinestimal level, they nonethless are apart of this universe and have, even if it is small, an effect on what the universe is.

[Racoon]

I also Back-Up HallenRM ;)

 

while all this is great for sci-fi novels and stuff...

What do we really know to be true??

 

We can't even get to Mars yet.

 

Hubble has been great.

Black Holes? yes they are there and we can "theorize" about them,

But we don't really fricking know. :doh: ;) :shrug:

 

Good posts by everyone.

Another Universe is "possible" because we still don't really know Jack!

[Nootropic]

We also don't know the exact structure of an [animal] cell membrane, yet we have to have some kind of theory as to how it works. We don't know for sure if what we have theorized are as black holes really are black, but there has to be some immense, utterly enormous force in the center of our galaxy. Yes, we really DON'T know if it's a black hole, but we can say, with some accuracy, that it is. Likewise, they may not exist exactly as we say they do, but there has to be some explanation to a random sucking of matter; that is why they are THEORETICAL, and haven't been proven. So I find it safe to say that in one form or another, black holes exist, and that our theories provide an accurate view of what they may or may not be like.

 

And as for another universe, I find it not exactly an inevitability, but a definite possibility that cannot be ruled out. After all, we aren't even a Type I civilization and have yet to run into a Malthusian Catastrophe.

 

Oh, yes, Hallenrm said that cosmology consists of only the thoughts of physicists...which isn't entirely true. That would make it a pseudoscience. Likewise, I could go on ranting about my thoughts and call it Olkdfadfhfyology, which wouldn't make it valid. There is underlying mathematics in cosmology, particularly quantum cosmology, as I somewhat mentioned above in which Hawking applies the laws of wave functions to macroscopic objects, like our universe (which is very macroscopic...). However, the problem with this is that in order to prove our universe is incorrect, the mathematics are extremely complex, and even Hawking's own brilliance fails to solve them.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

In my opinion.

 

The Universe is one, its all there is, its infinte and ageless.

 

The parts that are within the universe can be defined into units such as

Solar system

Part of the Milky Way

part of a local Cluster of Galaxies

which is part of a larger cluster

which is part of a big-larger cluster

which is part of a super cluster

which is part of a cluster of super clusters

and it goes on.

Size does not matter.

The funny thing is unity is the main theme

 

Some parts are moving away from each other other parts are moving towards each other and other parts are colliding.

Matter is tranfered to energy and energy to matter in the never ending recycle process.

[hallenrm]

Oh, yes, Hallenrm said that cosmology consists of only the thoughts of physicists...which isn't entirely true. That would make it a pseudoscience. Likewise, I could go on ranting about my thoughts and call it Olkdfadfhfyology, which wouldn't make it valid. There is underlying mathematics in cosmology, particularly quantum cosmology, as I somewhat mentioned above in which Hawking applies the laws of wave functions to macroscopic objects, like our universe (which is very macroscopic...). However, the problem with this is that in order to prove our universe is incorrect, the mathematics are extremely complex, and even Hawking's own brilliance fails to solve them.

 

Well, what then is cosmology. How many cosmologists are there in the entire world?

 

Who decides that a cosmological theory is good or bad? Isn't it the same set of people?

 

Applying the laws of wave functions to any kind of objects does not neccesarily mean that the theory is the ultimate truth.

 

Truth evolves with time!!!;)

[ronthepon]

Just had a thought on this topic:

 

Suppose that a 3D modeller (Like me, for instance) built a little big model and filled it with spheres and shapes etc.

 

Then a programmer put a few functions into the model like: when spheres come at a distance of 2 units, they are deflected. When cubes are at a distance of above 15 units from each other, they are deflected to some extent... etc

 

Then these two guys put spheres and cubes and cylinders and god knows what else at random locations in their 3D environment.

 

Then they wait and watch.

 

The objects interact among each other and may form certain patterns! Its something like our own universe!

 

You got another universe!!!

 

If anybody feels that this is utter nonsense, do explain why.

[Tormod]

Well, what then is cosmology. How many cosmologists are there in the entire world?

 

There are more cosmologers than there are people who study cosmology, just like there are more astronomers than there are people who study astronomy.

 

Cosmology is the study of our universe, it's form and shape, it's evolution, past, and possible future.

 

Cosmology doesn't really involve "outside" universes, because a fundamental problem in cosmology is the size of the data set: we only know of one universe. But from this universe we can infer a lot of rules for what makes a universe tick, and we can make assumptions about what would make a universe not tick.

 

Who decides that a cosmological theory is good or bad? Isn't it the same set of people?

 

Just like in all other sciences, a good cosmological theory is one that explains what we observe the best. Cosmologists will differ in opinion, just like all other scientists. There is mainstream theory and there is dissenting theory - for example, the big bang theory is accepted by just about all cosmologists, but it is challenged by a few. That does not mean that the challengers are crackpots - but it means that the big bang theory is believed to be better documented and better fit the data that we have. For all we know, we may have gotten absolutely nothing right.

 

Truth evolves with time!!!:)

 

There is only Truth in religion, in science there is only assumptions and theories.

[Nootropic]

Well, from what I've been attempting to say (due to my lack thereof in knowledge on cosmology) is that from this wave function, it can be inferred that our universe is the correct one, which coincides wtih Tormod's correct definition of cosmology.

 

 

Applying the laws of wave functions to any kind of objects does not neccesarily mean that the theory is the ultimate truth.

 

 

I really don't think I'v ever said anything is the "ultimate", and I would seriously doubt Stephen Hawking has proclaimed himself Supreme Ruler of all theoretical physics and announced his work to be an absolute truth. Like all theoretical things, it is an attempt to explain the currently unobservable. The "ultimate truth" is something completely different, but of course I'm speaking in a philosophical sense.

[InfiniteNow]

I really don't think I'v ever said anything is the "ultimate", and I would seriously doubt Stephen Hawking has proclaimed himself Supreme Ruler of all theoretical physics and announced his work to be an absolute truth.

An interesting point with which science and many other branches of life often struggle. It's not so often the author or speaker who is mistaken, but the perceiver's interpretation of them.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

I take my hut off for Tormods comments, heads up.

[hallenrm]

There is only Truth in religion, in science there is only assumptions and theories.

 

There, Tormod, I am in total agreement with you!

 

But, by the way, I wonder, why is cosmology treated differently than the ESP. All the theories and measurements made by cosmologists are beyond the reach of any commoner, like me. I would believe in these theories because the authority, their proponent enjoy. That is, I would go with the crowd.

 

So if someone says that s/he can experience, say telepathy, why is a proof necessary. I think cosmological observations stand on the same footing as the telepathic communication.

 

Not everybody, can detect quasars, but we believe in quasars, because people who talk about them are high priests of science. We do not believe in ESP because the same high priests tell us that the experiments to prove them are unsuccessful.:lol:

[IDMclean]

I have this book, it's from national geographics it has the most striking thing in it. it starts out with a look at the Universe and it shows the edge and all that, billions and billions and trillions of light years out. Or something like that.

 

Anyway so past the edge of the universe it says: "outside the universe, nothing exists."

 

I find this striking because it validates a null quality as a quantity... does that make sense? It says literally that NOTHING exists... makes my head feel funny thinking about that.

 

 

Anyway, My brother says that the thing that the galaxies rotate about is the common center of gravity. That is to say that galaxies rotate about each other. so even if the universe is infinite, with quantum theory the universe already knows it's "center", due to the fact that all paths are travelled. It's the beauty of that whole Superposition thingy.

[Nootropic]

 

Not everybody, can detect quasars, but we believe in quasars, because people who talk about them are high priests of science. We do not believe in ESP because the same high priests tell us that the experiments to prove them are unsuccessful.:hihi:

 

We cannot say we are "observing" quasars; what we are observing is a phenomena extremely far away that appears different from all other explained phenomena so far, and our reason for explaining them quasars is our own THEORETICAL explanation. No one offers definite, hard proof that objects such as black holes and quasars exist, but we have evidence that correlates very well with the predictions. The reason they are accepted to be real is that this correlation is most likely, although there is a small chance some major predictions could be wrong, it is seen as being right as a whole. It is not a question that these objects we call "quasars" exist, it is whether our predictions, based on observations about them are right. What we do know exists are very luminous objects that are great distances from us. Whether or not they are similiar to what we have modeled is the question.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Hello Nootropic

 

First thing first

Quarsar is a star like object. Years gone by they thought quarsar were found deep in space.

 

But! now we see them close by. Large and small

 

 

I hope the following images gives you some idea of what a quasar is.

images of quasars

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap961125.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951022.html

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap951023.html

 

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap031128.html

 

 

quote

"The nearest quasars are now known to be supermassive black holes in the centers of galaxies"

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap030520.html

 

this is interesting

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap010905.html

 

 

Frequently Asked Questions About

Quasars

http://www.phys.vt.edu/~jhs/faq/quasars.html

quote:

 

"It is thought the infall of matter into the supermassive black hole can result in very hot regions where huge energies are released, powering the quasar (i.e., producing the emitted light, etc.)."

 

 

one more

http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap971202.html

quote

On the far side of our Galaxy, gas clouds explode away from a small black hole. This might seem peculiar, as black holes are supposed to attract matter. But material falling toward a black hole collides and heats up, creating an environment similar to a quasar that is far from stable