multiple universes?

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
1

this idea annoys me. the only time i ever hear why science says there exists such a thing is when it talks about the unpredictable random behavior of quantum particles and the effects of going back in time and changing things.

basically, when a fundamental particle is faced with one of many options, a universe is created, or already exists, where each option is utilized. and when you go back in time and kill hitler, you either create a new universe, or your time machine actually took you out of the our universe and put you into another one where hitler was killed by some time traveler, and if you kill your grandfather, youll be killing some guy in some other universe, who happened to have a grandson who looks like you, but its not actually your grandfather.

basically, multiple universes are just an empty deus ex machina. is that right? what other ideas have led people to say that there is more than one universe?

the one cool thing that i dont think ive actually heard, but i thought up on my own is a flimsy extension of string theory. when a black hole is created, all that stuff seems like it has to go somewhere. and for some crazy math reason, when a string is ridiculously small, it can have the same exact properties as one that is much bigger. and ST relies on the fact that there are another 6 or 7 dimensions curled up that all the strings are constantly moving around in. so when a black hole collapses, it shoots out a ton of matter into that other dimension, creating a big bang. that seems plausible, assuming the craziness of string theory is true. but i dont think anybody ever said it, because its probably wrong.

what is a convincing reason to believe that another universe exists

2

[contented edited by ILP]

3

Just some thoughts…

…I think the term universe when it comes to think kind of thing… If there were multiple *verses would they not still be part of one large all encompasing “Universe”.

…

… i think that an odd scenario. Beacause would we not eventually end up with empty *verses? Each *verse would eventually inject all of its material into child *verses created… and thoes in turn would feed more *verses until theres nothing left in everything.

…I dont really know what a convincing reason to believe in other *verses are… Determanism seems to leave no reason for their to be one.

4

yes, the conservation of matter would suggest that. abgrund, what does the existing theory say about that?

i would say that all of the “particles” that we see are not actually billiard balls on a huge pool table, but they are actually disturbances in a fabric. when a black hole breaks all the rules and goes into the beyond, its actually popping out a bubble onto the other side of the fabric. then when a black hole is created in that new universe, it just bubbles back into our side.

that doesnt quite seem to solve the problem. maybe when the universes violently big bang, they could pop into another universe that has recently been born, since they are so hot and appropriately malleable. then when a universe is cool and separates into separate small galaxies like ours, new huge boiling masses of matter wont be able to splash in and become one with us, they will splatter onto the surface of the fishbowl, and slide away.

basically, when a black hole is created here, it will contain much less matter than is contained in our universe. and any black holes created in its new universe will be much smaller than it. but not if all black holes that happened within the past 2 billion yrs coalesce together on the other side of the fabric.

or maybe they all bunch up together, in a little bubble thats not quite on the other side of the fabric, but pushed to the edge on our side. the black holes are tucked in the corner, and all black holes will eventually come together with the rest of the matter at the end of the universe and puncture the fabric into the other side only when all of the weight is combined. and there will only be one universe in the multiverse at a time, with the same amount of matter at all times. unfalsifiable and therefore true.

abgrund, what does the current theory have to say about this problem?

5

[contented edited by ILP]

6

Being way less than a physicist, I look for the amount of confidence the backers of the various theorems exhibit. While there is much speculation about the possibilities of black hole ‘operation’, when a physicist says that they aren’t sure that our known laws of physics apply to the phenomenon, then it’s all up for grabs. We ‘know’ a little, but it appears that’s the extent of it. We know that we know a little - too little. Still, ain’t it fun? Just think. There might be a universe where they get it right…

JT

7

[contented edited by ILP]

8

Seems most actually believe that it will collapse into the big crunch, and hence the universe will start expanding again with the big bang. Our universe could be in an infinite loop, expanding and contracting.

As for the other possible theory’s of parallel universes, theres the theory that our reality is field like, so just simply form, and no content. It comes from the idea that there is no smallest particle. We thought the electron was the smallest, then we discovered the proton, which lead to the atom, quarks, darks, leptons… So a blade of grass could really contain, an infinite amount of universes. Not that I really believe such a theory, of parallel universes but it has been proposed. Parallel universes? hmm seems a stretch. As for the universe merly being form, that just may be the case.

The theory of hyperspherical space is what I am more inclined to believe. That is a closed, and unbounded universe. There are theory’s that support alternate, or parallel universes in hyperspherical space.

Rudy Rucker "infinity and the mind(2005 edition) pg 21-22
[i]
What if one chooses to believe that the four-dimensional space in which our universe curves is real? We might imagine a higher 4-d (four dimensional) world called, a duoverse. The duoverse would be 4-D space in which a number of hyperspheres were floating. The hypersurface of the hyperspheres would be finite, un-bounded 3-D universe.

Thus, a duoverse would contain a number of 3D universes, but no inhabitant of any one of these universes could reach any of the others, unless he could somehow travel through 4-D space.

Following the Hermetic principle, “As above so below”, one is tempted to believe the duoverse we are in is actually a finite and unbounded 4-d space( the 4-d surface of a 5-d sphere in 5-d space), and that there are a number of such douverses drifting about in a 5-D triverse. This could be continued indefinitely. One is reminded of those Eastern descriptions of the world as a disk resting on the backs of elephants, who stands upon a turtle, who stands upon a turtle, who stands upon a turtle etc.

[/i]

9

Just to add/claify

To create gravity, energy is required. This si the reason that the mass of a black hole is continuous deteriorating, and being reduced, evaporating per se.
That is where the energy of the black hole is expended.

10

Future Man, the Matrix Theory (not talking about Keanu Reeves), says that there are infinite universes. I’m not 100% convinced that the technology combined from physics and computing can be so god-like powerful, but the word infinity alone makes me shiver - INFINITY is truth; RELATIVITY is truth and MUTUALITY is truth.

11

from what ive heard, nobody knows anything about gravity except me. its a magical thing that exerts a force using “massless” particles.

the reasan why steven hawking said that black hole emit energy is because the zero point field is constantly ‘creating’ particle-anti-particle pairs that explode into existence for one split second and then immediately combine back together. and if they explode right on the event horizon, and one anti-particle of the pair falls into the event horizon, the other one will have nowhere to go except outward.

and since we FOLLOW ALL LAWS WITH ABSOLUTE CONCRETE CERTAINTY AND NO DOUBT, the conservation of energy clearly states that the mass must have come out of the black hole, regardless of what makes sense. i think hes full of shit, and was really desperate for ideas. dead serious.

who said gravity requires energy?

absolutely. if you live in a two dimensional universe, all you see is a line, and objects in the distance are smaller than they would appear if they were closer. you wrap that two dimensional universe around the surface of a sphere and go in one direction for a few million years, you wind up right where you started and your mind is blown. its simple, really. imagine that the hubble space images further away than some distance, like 10 billion light years, are nothing but repeats, and the universe isnt a sphere but some kind of uneven shape. wed never know, and wed always think the universe is much older. unfalsifiable and therefore true.

i think rudy just said what i said with a bunch of pomp and unnecesary references to unprovable separate universes.

what i want to know is why anybody ever thought that another universe will help explain phenomena that we actually observe.

because if the theory doesnt actually describe observed phenomena… i have a theory that says my poop is actually diamonds that partially exist in the 69th dimension and only the most educated of emperors can see my new diamonds.

uniqor: what? write more, ilp bandwidth is free for us!

12

Wish I could man… But my Theorema Grandiose will take my whole life, my son’s life and my grandson’s life to just draw up a proper frame - if we are lucky that is.