|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly
Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,689
Loc: On the Border
|
Re: Big Bang [Re: Ravus]
#3478624 - 12/10/04 08:11 PM (19 years, 3 months ago) |
|
|
"There is much much more than the universe"
As far as we know there is not. There is no scientific proof or indication that anything else exists.
-------------------- "A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda
|
lilbil
republican hippy(only one)
Registered: 10/09/04
Posts: 114
Loc: Montana, usa
Last seen: 19 years, 3 months
|
|
im pretty sure when u figure out that u become god or ur head explodes ethier one......lol....
-------------------- ---------------------------------------------- if ignorance is bliss, then sadly my mom and dad are very happy......
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
"There is much much more than the universe"
Well, not really. The word 'universe' means the whole thing. Uni-verse is a verse about one, a word used to refer to the totality of reality.
Some one said the universe cannot be infinite. It seems every time we build a bigger telescope we see further out, no one can see the edge, so I don't think we can know for sure that the universe is finite.
Also it seems possible that there could be lots of big bangs happening alongside each other in space. The one which we call THE big bang could merely be the origin of the part of the universe we are capable of observing. It might be a hell of a lot bigger than this big bang, it may even be infinite.
|
Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
|
Well, there really are only two theories, that there is only this universe, or that there are many. I argue for many universes, and the theory does support much evidence in the quantum mechanics field
Quote:
On the other hand, if one took a many-worlds version of this quantum cosmology theory, one would have to weight the ?worlds? (classical universes) by something like the number of observers within them. One would expect this number to be proportional to the volume of space at the time and other conditions when observers can exist (other factors being equal) [10]. Therefore, in the many-worlds version one would multiply the quantum measure given above for the ?worlds? (the ?bare? probability distribution for universe configurations [11]) by something like V to get the measure for observations (the ?observational? probability distribution [11]). The result, V exp [(4.5/m2)/(lnm3V +1.5 ln lnm3V )], is then suciently rapidly rising with large m3V that the part with large m3V , even if cut o at m3V of order exp (4.5/m2), dominates over the exponentially large peak near the minimum value of m3V . There is thus enough space for the no-boundary proposal to be 6 consistent with our observations of a large and expanding universe [11], but this argument implicitly assumed a many-worlds version of the no-boundary proposal. A similar assumption had been made earlier in the broader context of eternal stochastic inflation [10]. In a single-history version, it seems plausible that the Hartle-Hawking ?no-boundary? quantum state may collapse with nearly unit probability to a classical universe configuration that only lasts of the order of the Compton wavelength of the inflaton scalar field, presumably far too short to be consistent with our observations. This suggestive evidence against a single-history quantum cosmology theory is of course not yet conclusive, since we do not yet know what the quantum state of the universe is. Indeed, the ?tunneling? wavefunction proposals of Vilenkin, Linde, and others [12] predict that the ?bare? quantum measure for small universes is exponentially suppressed, rather than enhanced as discussed above for the Hartle- Hawking ?no-boundary? proposal. The ?tunneling? proposals would thus apparently be consistent with our observations whether one used a many-worlds version or a single-history version. But the possibility is open that increased theoretical understanding of quantum cosmology may lead us to favor a quantum theory, such as the ?no-boundary? one may turn out to be when it is better understood, that is consistent with our observations only in its many-worlds version rather than in its single-history version. Another tentative piece of observational evidence in favor of many-worlds quantum theory is a comparison with the calculation [13] of likely values of the cosmological constant. If the assumptions of that paper are correct, and if the ?subuniverses? used there are the ?worlds? used here (?terms in the state vector? [13]) rather than different spacetime regions within one ?world? (?local bangs? [13]), then our observational evidence of the cosmological constant is consistent with many-worlds quantum theory but not with single-history quantum theory. However, we need a better understanding of physics to know whether the assumptions are correct (such as the assumption that ?the cosmological constant takes a variety of values in different ?subuniverses? ? [13]). Therefore, it may turn out, when we better understand fundamental physics and quantum cosmology, that the observational evidence of the expansion of the universe and of the cosmological constant may lead us to favor many-world quantum theories over single-history quantum theories.
http://xxx.lanl.gov/PS_cache/quant-ph/pdf/9904/9904004.pdf
If you are curious, I suggest you read the whole article, it's quite interesting and a good explanation of single world vs. many world theories
There is more evidence, but that enough is just simple indication for the "Many-Worlds" theory. The theory also explains why a photon can be in two places at once in the experiment where you shoot a single photon particle through two slits at the same time, why particles in the quantum world disappear and appear seemingly out of thin air, and so on. While we do not have solid proof of it yet, as it still is only in its theory form, there are indications of its truthfulness, and I believe one day it will be as commonly accepted that there are many universes as it is today that there are many galaxies
-------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|
Huehuecoyotl
Fading Slowly
Registered: 06/13/04
Posts: 10,689
Loc: On the Border
|
|
The universe is curved. That means if you start out in any direction you will come back to the starting point. It is very much like being on the inside surface of a basketball. Is there anything outside this construction? It would not be relevant since anything "outside" (if possible) of our universe is irrelevant to the functioning of the universe. It is possible that beyond our "universe that there is nothing, not vacuum...but nonexistance. What is "possible" is irrelevant as it is unknowable. Speculating what might be outside of the universe is pointless because it is fruitless guesswork. I would like to se trendal's view on this subject since he seems knowledgeable about physics.
-------------------- "A warrior is a hunter. He calculates everything. That's control. Once his calculations are over, he acts. He lets go. That's abandon. A warrior is not a leaf at the mercy of the wind. No one can push him; no one can make him do things against himself or against his better judgment. A warrior is tuned to survive, and he survives in the best of all possible fashions." ― Carlos Castaneda
|
Ravus
Not an EggshellWalker
Registered: 07/18/03
Posts: 7,991
Loc: Cave of the Patriarchs
|
|
Actually, on a microscopic level, it's possible that it is more complex than that. Obviously if other universes had no bearing on us, they would just be in the realm of philosophy and be completely unprovable, and science would probably care less about whether they exist or not except as novelty fact. However, in the microscopic level, some theories rely on not only parallel universes, but that they kind of "overlap", not in a traditional sense, but in a sense that miniscule particles, like photons, that are governed by the laws of quantum physics, can flit between universes. This also may be the reason gravity is so weak compared to electromagnetism, the strong force and the weak force- some speculate gravitrons, being a bit like free floating particles, have a much higher rate of crossing into other universes than the particles of electromagnetism. This all goes back to the beginning of the thread- the Big Bang may have been a "particle" similar to this, of course much more unimaginably denser and heavier, that could have came from the laws of quantum physics' theories. It's possible the Big Bang came from a parallel universe
That'd be rather humorous if there was an advanced species in a parallel universe who learned how to use quantum physics for scientific purposes, and so sent an extremely dense particle to a blank universe (create a new universe the moment it landed in it) and that exploded instantly, creating the Big Bang and then the universe we know it today. The "Alien Experiment Theory" of Quantum Physics.
-------------------- So long as you are praised think only that you are not yet on your own path but on that of another.
|
shroomydan
exshroomerite
Registered: 07/04/04
Posts: 4,126
Loc: In the woods
|
|
If the basketball model is correct, then who's to say that there might not be more than one basketball separated from one another by a void. I suppose you could then say that there would be more than one universe, however when I say 'universe' I am referring to the some total of creation. The Uni-Verse refers to all actual worlds, even those existing in "parallel universes."
Why am I quibbling over the meaning of a word? Because the plural form of universe is an oxymoron. The word means, looking to the one. All the actual worlds considered together fall under the concept represented by the word "universe". It is impossible to pluralize the word while still retaining its meaning. ...........
Secondly no one has ever observed of the edge of our little Basketball of space time. Until someone finds the edge, or sees all the way around the sphere of space/time, then the possibility remains that this particular space time bubble in which we live may be infinite.
|
|