5 ms·

I have a tiny theory but since I'm not anywhere near this domain it could just look dumb. It implies the existence of a multiverse system, billions of universes

I have a tiny theory but since I'm not anywhere near this domain it could just look dumb. It implies the existence of a multiverse system, billions of universes like ours, like soap bubbles, all floating around each other. Well, if the gravity (and other forces, matter, energy, etc) works as intended then "objects/forces" closer to the universe edge gets pulled away by "objects/forces" from the other universe.

me_me_mu_mu 5y ago
Same I feel like that is the only way. I can’t wrap my head around the concept of infinity. There has to be a beginning and end. What the heck caused the Big Bang? Why?
- NoMAD76 5y ago
  There are things (trivial or not) that we can't know or explain with our limited knowledge. But reality is always beyond our wildest dreams.
- gpderetta 5y ago
  You think that there has to be a beginning, yet are looking for something that has caused the big bang. Isn't that inconsistent? Why cant the Big bang be the beginning? Otherwise you might next be looking for what caused whatever caused the big bang
  - ErikVandeWater 5y ago
    The God's Daddy effect: Keep asking for progressively deeper causes until you find one you like.
    - podgaj 5y ago
      And this is why I feel science is a religion, both ask questions which can never be finally resolved by humanity's finite brains.
      - pixl97 5y ago
        Why does that make science a religion? Part of science is defining what is definable and what is not.
- bencollier49 5y ago
  Well we can use this to execute a reductio ad absurdam on scientific materialism. Let us assume that the logic of cause and effect is all there is to the universe. Then the big bang must have had a cause, and that cause a cause in turn, and so on. That's obviously absurd, even if we point at time beginning with the big bang. Within any human reasoning, things do not appear ex nihilo. The alternative is that the thing on which our universe depends (being careful not to say 'caused' here) is beyond our ideas of cause and effect, and certainly passes human understanding.
  - goldenkey 5y ago
    What's far more reasonable is that the universe is a loop. The big bang is simply equivalent to the death of the universe: see conformal cyclic cosmology. Cause and effect cease to have priority over eachother. We are equally coupled to both faces of the boundary, the past and the future, which are actually two sides to the same coin, our origin and our destination.
    - bencollier49 5y ago
      Is it? That's still wedded to cause and effect, it just moves the frame of reference outside the looped universe to ask what sustains it or why it exists.
      - goldenkey 5y ago
        It is no longer unidirectional wedding, it's bidirectional as QM would predict, which is commonly known as coupling. Once a circle is drawn, the starting point is no longer visible. All you have is the symmetries of the circle itself :-)
- podgaj 5y ago
  >There has to be a beginning and end. Ha! No, there does not. Humans use create a hallucinated duality as a means of navigating a non-dual reality. Let me ask you; How long was the time before you were alive, and how long will the time be after you are dead? As Julian Barbour puts it: "We see from this that time has no role to play as an independent element of reality." http://www.platonia.com/nature_of_time_essay.pdf http://www.platonia.com/nature_of_time_essay.pdf You should read his whole book, it's time to wake up!
  - lloeki 5y ago
    (caveat: IANA astrophysicist/cosmologist/whatever, I just like to wrap my head around things with some bits of logic) > Let me ask you; How long was the time before you were alive, and how long will the time be after you are dead? This is misleading as it posits that since there's a "before you" and an "after you", "you" are standing within some time continuum. > There has to be a beginning and end. Wrap your head around this: if there is a "beginning" and an "end" to our universe, both would define discrete stop points, thus there would be some way to say "before" or "after" these discrete points, and thus the universe sits inside something that has time. But then either this something of a container either has infinite time (which goes back to square one of things not having beginning and end) or has a beginning and end itself. But again, if this container has a discrete beginning and end then you can apply the same logic that you applied to our universe in the first place. So there's another container of the container, to which you can recursively apply the same logic (assuming logic itself somehow applies to this container). So if you want all these container things to have beginnings and ends, it implies there's an infinite set of nested containers. The alternative is that time exists within our universe, but our universe doesn't sit within time. Thus "beginning" and "end" are not discrete points but concepts that only exist as limits (in the mathematical sense of "limit"): by travelling the arrow of time forward or backward you can only move closer and closer to either but never actually reach these because these points don't actually exist. Such a universe could be freestanding (as in: it's all there is), or it could have a container of sorts, and maybe even neighbour universes. But since time only exists within our universe, there could very well be no concept of time in the container (or other universes), or similar concepts but behaving entirely differently. In any case these (the container, the other universes) would be unbelievably incomprehensible to us. These concepts of unreachable zero, unreachable infinite, or unreachable value do exist in other areas: absolute zero is basically unreachable, reaching c velocity requires infinite energy†... † which creates other interesting conundrums such as a pair of photons travel at the same delta speed whether they go away or towards each other, or there's no "velocity = 0" either, or tachyonic vs baryonic realms.
- mensetmanusman 5y ago
  Maybe it’s not possible since our minds exist in space-time. Before the big bang space-time didn’t exist, so it’s not sure what that means…
Twisol 5y ago
Not an uncommon lay theory, actually. Unfortunately, I recall reading somewhere [0] that, experimentally, the effects of gravity are consistent with it propagating in only three spatial dimensions. If it could leak out of (or into) "our" universe along an auxiliary dimension, gravity's effects would be weaker than we observe. Not to say it couldn't work some other way -- I'm not a physicist either! But (as these things always seem to end up) it would have to be a little more complicated. (Part of the "rolled-up dimensions" side of string theory is that the extra dimensions can't meaningfully attenuate the effects of gravity.) [0] I don't think this is the one I read, but it rings the right bells: https://www.sciencealert.com/gravitational-waves-have-ruled-out-an-interdimensional-gravity-leak https://www.sciencealert.com/gravitational-waves-have-ruled-...
- ALittleLight 5y ago
  If our gravity is restricted to three dimensions does that imply anything about gravity in other universes?
  - Twisol 5y ago
    By the nature of the question, no.
- NoMAD76 5y ago
  I'm not thinking of other dimensions, a multiverse could be something like our body with millions and millions of cells that are interacting. Somehow I just cannot stand with this "universe is infinite" when for sure it has a border but we will never be able to go past that border to know what's beyond.
  - Twisol 5y ago
    Sorry, when I say "dimension" I mean another continuous spatial direction that you could move along, not the "another place" understanding of the word. Flatland [0] is a classic for trying to get in the right headspace. [0] http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ Also, not having a border is not the same as being infinite. Zogg from Betelgeuse started a great series on the topic [1], but disappeared after two episodes. I highly recommend it! But, long story short, it's entirely possible to have a finite universe that, nonetheless, has no edge. Go far enough in one direction and you might end up back where you started. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM Assuming there's a physical edge to our universe, there's still the problem of the "observable universe" -- there's a lot more of the universe that we will simply never be able to see or reach, because it's moving away from us too quickly. That defines another kind of edge, one that's much "closer". Entities beyond our observable universe can't affect us gravitationally; it takes time for the effects of gravity to propagate from one point to another, as "gravitational waves", and the universe is inflating too quickly for those to reach us. You might say that things further away from us, but within the observable universe, might be affected by things beyond, because they're "closer" to it than we are. I think that's correct, but by the same token, I think the information about those effects would never reach us in finite time. That's why I was thinking in terms of extra spatial dimensions. You might have a bunch of matter "nearby" but totally inaccessible to you, because we're incapable of moving along the extra axis. But that gets back to the research I linked.
siddboots 5y ago
While we are airing our pet dumb theories, is there any way that a universe with a cyclic geometry, like the geometry of a sphere, could explain the accelerating universe with just gravitation? Could the attraction of the matter in our universe from “the other side of the world” be made to explain the observed acceleration?
xwolfi 5y ago
Waho impressive. This theory you invented sounds so much like all the popsci articles you see in ads like "Scientists dont want you to know it, but this guy think we live in a multiverse" kind of things. Are you the one who started this whole movement ? Or in fact you just rehash the same bullcrap ? Closer to the universe edge he says, not defining the universe or an edge...
- IAmGraydon 5y ago
  And you’ve acted like a petulant child while adding nothing. Well done. This is not the place to air your emotional shortcomings.
tempodox 5y ago
> It implies the existence of a multiverse system entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity.
marcyb5st 5y ago
Possible, but we would to be more or less in the center of the host universe since we see the same expansion rate in every direction. Statistically, that is unlikely. Also, we see far away clusters or galaxies receding faster than light away from us. This is impossible in a non expanding universe since faster than light travel _through_ spacetime is impossible but spacetime between two objects expanding faster than light is.

me_me_mu_mu 5y ago

Same I feel like that is the only way. I can’t wrap my head around the concept of infinity. There has to be a beginning and end. What the heck caused the Big Bang? Why?

NoMAD76 5y ago
There are things (trivial or not) that we can't know or explain with our limited knowledge. But reality is always beyond our wildest dreams.
gpderetta 5y ago
You think that there has to be a beginning, yet are looking for something that has caused the big bang. Isn't that inconsistent? Why cant the Big bang be the beginning? Otherwise you might next be looking for what caused whatever caused the big bang
- ErikVandeWater 5y ago
  The God's Daddy effect: Keep asking for progressively deeper causes until you find one you like.
  - podgaj 5y ago
    And this is why I feel science is a religion, both ask questions which can never be finally resolved by humanity's finite brains.
    - pixl97 5y ago
      Why does that make science a religion? Part of science is defining what is definable and what is not.
bencollier49 5y ago
Well we can use this to execute a reductio ad absurdam on scientific materialism. Let us assume that the logic of cause and effect is all there is to the universe. Then the big bang must have had a cause, and that cause a cause in turn, and so on. That's obviously absurd, even if we point at time beginning with the big bang. Within any human reasoning, things do not appear ex nihilo. The alternative is that the thing on which our universe depends (being careful not to say 'caused' here) is beyond our ideas of cause and effect, and certainly passes human understanding.
- goldenkey 5y ago
  What's far more reasonable is that the universe is a loop. The big bang is simply equivalent to the death of the universe: see conformal cyclic cosmology. Cause and effect cease to have priority over eachother. We are equally coupled to both faces of the boundary, the past and the future, which are actually two sides to the same coin, our origin and our destination.
  - bencollier49 5y ago
    Is it? That's still wedded to cause and effect, it just moves the frame of reference outside the looped universe to ask what sustains it or why it exists.
    - goldenkey 5y ago
      It is no longer unidirectional wedding, it's bidirectional as QM would predict, which is commonly known as coupling. Once a circle is drawn, the starting point is no longer visible. All you have is the symmetries of the circle itself :-)
podgaj 5y ago
>There has to be a beginning and end. Ha! No, there does not. Humans use create a hallucinated duality as a means of navigating a non-dual reality. Let me ask you; How long was the time before you were alive, and how long will the time be after you are dead? As Julian Barbour puts it: "We see from this that time has no role to play as an independent element of reality." http://www.platonia.com/nature_of_time_essay.pdf http://www.platonia.com/nature_of_time_essay.pdf You should read his whole book, it's time to wake up!
- lloeki 5y ago
  (caveat: IANA astrophysicist/cosmologist/whatever, I just like to wrap my head around things with some bits of logic) > Let me ask you; How long was the time before you were alive, and how long will the time be after you are dead? This is misleading as it posits that since there's a "before you" and an "after you", "you" are standing within some time continuum. > There has to be a beginning and end. Wrap your head around this: if there is a "beginning" and an "end" to our universe, both would define discrete stop points, thus there would be some way to say "before" or "after" these discrete points, and thus the universe sits inside something that has time. But then either this something of a container either has infinite time (which goes back to square one of things not having beginning and end) or has a beginning and end itself. But again, if this container has a discrete beginning and end then you can apply the same logic that you applied to our universe in the first place. So there's another container of the container, to which you can recursively apply the same logic (assuming logic itself somehow applies to this container). So if you want all these container things to have beginnings and ends, it implies there's an infinite set of nested containers. The alternative is that time exists within our universe, but our universe doesn't sit within time. Thus "beginning" and "end" are not discrete points but concepts that only exist as limits (in the mathematical sense of "limit"): by travelling the arrow of time forward or backward you can only move closer and closer to either but never actually reach these because these points don't actually exist. Such a universe could be freestanding (as in: it's all there is), or it could have a container of sorts, and maybe even neighbour universes. But since time only exists within our universe, there could very well be no concept of time in the container (or other universes), or similar concepts but behaving entirely differently. In any case these (the container, the other universes) would be unbelievably incomprehensible to us. These concepts of unreachable zero, unreachable infinite, or unreachable value do exist in other areas: absolute zero is basically unreachable, reaching c velocity requires infinite energy†... † which creates other interesting conundrums such as a pair of photons travel at the same delta speed whether they go away or towards each other, or there's no "velocity = 0" either, or tachyonic vs baryonic realms.
mensetmanusman 5y ago
Maybe it’s not possible since our minds exist in space-time. Before the big bang space-time didn’t exist, so it’s not sure what that means…

Twisol 5y ago

Not an uncommon lay theory, actually. Unfortunately, I recall reading somewhere [0] that, experimentally, the effects of gravity are consistent with it propagating in only three spatial dimensions. If it could leak out of (or into) "our" universe along an auxiliary dimension, gravity's effects would be weaker than we observe. Not to say it couldn't work some other way -- I'm not a physicist either! But (as these things always seem to end up) it would have to be a little more complicated. (Part of the "rolled-up dimensions" side of string theory is that the extra dimensions can't meaningfully attenuate the effects of gravity.) [0] I don't think this is the one I read, but it rings the right bells: https://www.sciencealert.com/gravitational-waves-have-ruled-out-an-interdimensional-gravity-leak https://www.sciencealert.com/gravitational-waves-have-ruled-...

ALittleLight 5y ago
If our gravity is restricted to three dimensions does that imply anything about gravity in other universes?
- Twisol 5y ago
  By the nature of the question, no.
NoMAD76 5y ago
I'm not thinking of other dimensions, a multiverse could be something like our body with millions and millions of cells that are interacting. Somehow I just cannot stand with this "universe is infinite" when for sure it has a border but we will never be able to go past that border to know what's beyond.
- Twisol 5y ago
  Sorry, when I say "dimension" I mean another continuous spatial direction that you could move along, not the "another place" understanding of the word. Flatland [0] is a classic for trying to get in the right headspace. [0] http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ http://www.geom.uiuc.edu/~banchoff/Flatland/ Also, not having a border is not the same as being infinite. Zogg from Betelgeuse started a great series on the topic [1], but disappeared after two episodes. I highly recommend it! But, long story short, it's entirely possible to have a finite universe that, nonetheless, has no edge. Go far enough in one direction and you might end up back where you started. [1] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_k3_B9Eq7eM Assuming there's a physical edge to our universe, there's still the problem of the "observable universe" -- there's a lot more of the universe that we will simply never be able to see or reach, because it's moving away from us too quickly. That defines another kind of edge, one that's much "closer". Entities beyond our observable universe can't affect us gravitationally; it takes time for the effects of gravity to propagate from one point to another, as "gravitational waves", and the universe is inflating too quickly for those to reach us. You might say that things further away from us, but within the observable universe, might be affected by things beyond, because they're "closer" to it than we are. I think that's correct, but by the same token, I think the information about those effects would never reach us in finite time. That's why I was thinking in terms of extra spatial dimensions. You might have a bunch of matter "nearby" but totally inaccessible to you, because we're incapable of moving along the extra axis. But that gets back to the research I linked.

siddboots 5y ago

While we are airing our pet dumb theories, is there any way that a universe with a cyclic geometry, like the geometry of a sphere, could explain the accelerating universe with just gravitation? Could the attraction of the matter in our universe from “the other side of the world” be made to explain the observed acceleration?

xwolfi 5y ago

Waho impressive. This theory you invented sounds so much like all the popsci articles you see in ads like "Scientists dont want you to know it, but this guy think we live in a multiverse" kind of things. Are you the one who started this whole movement ? Or in fact you just rehash the same bullcrap ? Closer to the universe edge he says, not defining the universe or an edge...

IAmGraydon 5y ago
And you’ve acted like a petulant child while adding nothing. Well done. This is not the place to air your emotional shortcomings.

tempodox 5y ago

> It implies the existence of a multiverse system entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem. Thou shalt not multiply entities beyond necessity.

marcyb5st 5y ago

Possible, but we would to be more or less in the center of the host universe since we see the same expansion rate in every direction. Statistically, that is unlikely. Also, we see far away clusters or galaxies receding faster than light away from us. This is impossible in a non expanding universe since faster than light travel _through_ spacetime is impossible but spacetime between two objects expanding faster than light is.