Multiple universes

[elfstone]

Thank you onisyphon for the information I found it fascinating. The second link was exeptionally informative. The first although containing less information was also very interesting. I love science so any information that you give me about stuff like that is appreciated.

 

[ProdigiousLucidOsprey]

Originally posted by elfstone
A paralell dimension would be another dimension. The very word paralell refers two two or more objects. Two or more objects would not be singular but plural. Plural is another way of saying multiple. So you saying that it is not true because there is another word for it is just stupid. That is like telling someone that saying big is wrong because huge works too.

actually there is a difference between multiple universes and parallel universes. thats why he pointed that out. in the theory of multiple universes, one of the two variables, time or space, is not the same throughout. therefore they are not the same thing, but they can be. parallel universes aren't multiple universes, but a multiple universe can be parallel.

 

[WilliamDell]

I hope I'm not going off topic too much by saying this, but on TechTV, I once watched this interview with a physicist, and he was describing a break through in quantum computers. In his description of quantum computers he described on how particles in atoms occupy multiple universes at the same time and have been around since the beginning of time (I think it was something like that). Also he said that since those things were true, it meant that by making a computer based on the atomic and subatomic levels, the computer would be able to do computations thousands of times faster than a normal processor of today and this was mainly because it would have access to the knowledge and power of the other dimensions as well.

 

[elfstone]

I recognize the difference between paralell universes and multiple universes. But my point being that I was using a broader term. A more limited term does not replace the broader term. I suppose I should have been a little more specific. So here goes.

Paralell universes are in definition multiple universes. Multiple universes are not in definition paralell universes, but they can be. Therefore the term multiple universe can be used to define paralell universes, but paralell universes can not always be used to define multiple universes.

Put more simply Multiple=more general, paralell=more restricted.

Paralell implies multiple. Multiple does not imply paralell.

 

[Kamikaze]

elfstone, how can you have a theory about overlapping universes and have nothing to say about neutrinos?

 

[Maverick]

The universe is endless. We cannot see it's edge so I think it's unlikely that there would be two because the universe does not end. I think it is still expanding.

 

[TrongaMonga]

the universe is not endless if it is expanding

 

[Maverick]

How can you be so sure it's expanding?

 

[TrongaMonga]

u just said it... the last sentence "I think it is still expanding."

 

[OniSyphon]

The universe is expanding according to the theory of the big bang and there is evidence of this...sigh I'll look it up if you don't believe me...anyhow it is suppose to one day...we'll be dead like 9 trillion times over...it will start receding again until a new big bang happens...its a cycle...according to science

 

[TrongaMonga]

there are evidences of it, they mesure the speed of the galaxies relativly with Earth, and they saw that they are getting away from us... so, the universe is expanding

And I also believe it is a cycle, when the big bang repeats, time starts from the beginning

 

[Maverick]

I said I think but not sure if it really is. So if there are evidence then its true and if that's the case it will make the parallel universe less accurate.

 

[elfstone]

The evidence of an expanding universe I think was referred to as the red shift, but I may be mixing up terms. As far the red shift making paralell universe theories less acurate, it would not if other paralell universes acted similarrly.

 

[Amantis]

There has been a theory that the parallel universe can be explored by going through the black hole, but of course, it's not proven yet since the gravity there is so great that even light can't escape from it.

As to the expanding universe, it can either be limited or unlimited depending on the way you put the theories into perspective.

 

[Maverick]

I'm still skeptical on multiple universes. I mean how could that be? What's the point of having a two amantis's or a two mavericks?

 

[OniSyphon]

Originally posted by Maverick
I'm still skeptical on multiple universes. I mean how could that be? What's the point of having a two amantis's or a two mavericks?

If there are parallel universes they would be unlimted because there are that many possibilities so it would be a little more than two and I'm sure if you met yourself you both couldn't occupy the same place and time leading to a paradox in which the universe implodes...or some such fate

 

[TrongaMonga]

U are only here because of a great amount of luck.

usually, what happens, happens by luck, or the lack of it. I mean, at a sub atomic level, the atoms and electrons are in pure chaos, only lukc can tell what they will do. And they're behave can change the universe

 

[elfstone]

Actually they are not in complete chaos. There are rules for most of the subatomic particles that we know of. As isolated particles there are some very definite properties of these particles. The attraction between protons and electrons, and the repulsion of like charges(excluding neutral of course). Although every few years we find out that what we thought we knew was not true. Like for instance shrodinger's equation changed the way we think about the electron, or at least where it is located in the atom.

There is still in my opinion a fair amount of chaos in the universe though. Although it can be argued that chaos is simply phenomena caused by variables that are not understood.

And if we were able to understand completely the properties of every subatomic particle, and how it reacts with all the others in addition to finding the quantity of all types of matter, then maybe we would be able to prove that chaos is a psuedo force, and that there is a reason for everything in the universe.

Unfortunately it seems that we do not sufficiently understand matter, and energy, and with current measuring methods it seems that even if the universe is finite we will never be able to measure all mass and energy.

So for now the term chaos still holds relevance. Luck as well is a force that is and will continue to be relevant. So for now I do actually partially agree with you.

 

[ProdigiousLucidOsprey]

Actually the correct term is Entropy, and as you get farther into the subatomic particles they become more and more chaotic. Also Amantic, you say there is a theory about traveling to another universe through a black whole, first you need to prove that they even exist, the black whole that is. (as well as parallel universes)

 

[OniSyphon]

Originally posted by adidassoccer
Actually the correct term is Entropy, and as you get farther into the subatomic particles they become more and more chaotic. Also Amantic, you say there is a theory about traveling to another universe through a black whole, first you need to prove that they even exist, the black whole that is. (as well as parallel universes)

Actually it has been probing that black holes exist to the point that they now can say that there is a black hole in the center of every galaxy as well as the probability that at the center of the universe there exist a black hole. Black hole's have specific traits that cannot be mimiced by any other body in space so proving there existence and locations are relatively easy.