Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist

Dec 17, 2010 by Lisa Zyga weblog
The signatures of a bubble collision: A collision (top left) induces a temperature modulation in the CMB temperature map (top right). The “blob” associated with the collision is identified by a large needlet response (bottom left), and the presence of an edge is determined by a large response from the edge detection algorithm (bottom right). Image credit: Feeney, et al.

(PhysOrg.com) -- By looking far out into space and observing what’s going on there, scientists have been led to theorize that it all started with a Big Bang, immediately followed by a brief period of super-accelerated expansion called inflation. Perhaps this was the beginning of everything, but lately a few scientists have been wondering if something could have come before that, setting up the initial conditions for the birth of our universe.

In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.

Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB. The researchers emphasize that more work is needed to confirm this claim, which could come in short time from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution three times better than that of WMAP (where the current data comes from), as well as an order of magnitude greater sensitivity. Nevertheless, they hope that the search for bubble collisions could provide some insight into the history of our universe, whether or not the collisions turn out to be real.

“The conclusive non-detection of a bubble collision can be used to place stringent limits on theories giving rise to eternal inflation; however, if a bubble collision is verified by future data, then we will gain an insight not only into our own but a multiverse beyond,” the researchers write in their study.

This is the second study in the past month that has used CMB data to search for what could have occurred before the Big Bang. In the first study, Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan found concentric circles with lower-than-average temperature variation in the CMB, which could be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over.

Explore further: How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

More information: Stephen M. Feeney, Matthew C. Johnson, Daniel J. Mortlock, and Hiranya V. Peiris. "First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation." arXiv:1012.1995v1 [astro-ph.CO]
via: The Physics arXiv Blog

Related Stories

Scientists glimpse universe before the Big Bang

Nov 23, 2010

(PhysOrg.com) -- In general, asking what happened before the Big Bang is not really considered a science question. According to Big Bang theory, time did not even exist before this point roughly 13.7 billion ...

Physicists Calculate Number of Parallel Universes

Oct 16, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- Over the past few decades, the idea that our universe could be one of many alternate universes within a giant multiverse has grown from a sci-fi fantasy into a legitimate theoretical possibility. ...

Cosmologists aim to observe first moments of universe

Feb 16, 2009

During the next decade, a delicate measurement of primordial light could reveal convincing evidence for the popular cosmic inflation theory, which proposes that a random, microscopic density fluctuation in ...

Planck Satellite ready to measure the Big Bang

May 11, 2009

(PhysOrg.com) -- The last tests of the Ariane 5 rocket system have been finished and ESA's Planck satellite is sitting ready for launch at the Guiana Space Centre in Kourou. Together with ESA's space telescope ...

Recommended for you

How did evolution optimize circadian clocks?

Sep 12, 2014

(Phys.org) —From cyanobacteria to humans, many terrestrial species have acquired circadian rhythms that adapt to sunlight in order to increase survival rates. Studies have shown that the circadian clocks ...

High Flux Isotope Reactor named Nuclear Historic Landmark

Sep 12, 2014

The High Flux Isotope Reactor, or HFIR, now in its 48th year of providing neutrons for research and isotope production at the Department of Energy's Oak Ridge National Laboratory, has been designated a Nuclear ...

Extension of standard model by knot algebra

Sep 12, 2014

This paper makes a connection between the quantum group SLq(2), which described knots, and the elementary particles of the standard model. The elements of the fundamental (j = 1/2) representation of SLq(2) ...

User comments : 139

Adjust slider to filter visible comments by rank

Display comments: newest first

SteveL
3.3 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2010
Wouldn't this simply mean that our definition of of "Universe" needs to reconsidered? If the universe is supposed to be all encompasing of all matter and energy everywhere, wouldn't this just mean that "all" is bigger than we've been able to detect so far?

Also, if our detectible universe is expanding at an ever increasing rate, would that mean that these proposed other universes, that ours bumpped into, are now contracting to allow room for ours to expand, or even more interesting - pulling our universe apart?
Noumenon
3.2 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2010
This multiverse stuff doesn't seem like it could ever in principal advance beyond speculation and into the realm of proper science. If I'm not mistaken Penrose doesn't like the idea,.. and his analysis seems more rational (news article posted at physicsworld).
Noumenon
2.5 / 5 (13) Dec 17, 2010
...Wouldn't this simply mean that our definition of of "Universe" needs to reconsidered? If the universe is supposed to be all encompasing of all matter and energy everywhere?...
The key phrase is 'detectable'. In order to be scientific about it, It must be detectable, observable, in of itself (the other universe),.. one cannot invent a straw universe to account for observations in this universe,... by definition that is metaphysics.

Now if the scientific community would agree that quantum weirdness is a rediscovery of Kant's transcendental deduction wrt epistemology and noumenal reality, then I don't have a problem with multiverse speculations.
Codeofuniverse
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
''Universe " is unique,whatever scientist are oberserving are the parts of same Universe..
CHollman82
3.3 / 5 (15) Dec 17, 2010
''Universe " is unique,whatever scientist are oberserving are the parts of same Universe..


"Universe" is just a made up word representing a human concept. It can mean anything we want, but it has traditionally meant an all-encompassing description of everything in existence.
MrPressure
Dec 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
SincerelyTwo
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2010
CHollman82,

No, that's not quite right. The term universe was made to describe the totality of everything, to encompass all of existence. The problem isn't the concept, the problem is what we know. The word is fine, it doesn't need to be touched, it will always mean to imply everything. However, what does change is what we know to be 'everything.'

The change which has to occur is in our minds, that the idea of 'everything' is more than we thought. The idea of a 'multi-verse' is absurd, because by definition universe IS everything. So universe by definition should include all multi-verses.

That contradiction implies the need to rename the thing we called 'universe' as some kind of larger expanding ball of mass and energy; a bubble. Then universe can go on to correctly describe everything that exists, including all bubbles which exist.

Hence forth we live inside of a bubble, and that bubble is inside of the universe.
SincerelyTwo
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Oh, and I was wondering... do you guys think we can expect to find a similar structure on the opposite side of our bubble? :)

I wonder if some other bubble bumped in to our bubble, or if something pierced our bubble. Maybe bubbles exploding has something to do with extreme vacuum fluctuations, or some similar concept.

My mind is exploding, this is cool stuff.
Phideaux
4.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
"The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes."
What do they move around in, space? And what is the universe expanding into?
alq131
4 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
if we are indeed inside a bubble and can detect some of these collisions, is there enough information present to determine
1) when the collision happened in relation to the evolution of our bubble?
2)how big the other bubbles are?
3)how "hard" they hit our bubble?
to lead us to some understanding of the media that these bubbles are in?

My question would be, are we essentially in a "solid" that can exist with "space" in between other bubbles or are we in a foam where its more like soap suds intersecting in lines...maybe I answered my own question, if the interaction is circular, wouldn't that mean discrete and separate "solid" "spheres" rather than a foam??
solar2030
2 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
i think some bubbles are expanding like our Universe, and then dissapear, some are shrinking thanks to gravity, and then explode like supernova, but with the Big Bang power, maybe our Universe was created in this way in the Multiverse ? :)
TopherTO
2.6 / 5 (9) Dec 17, 2010
This not so original idea will certianly be shot down...

But I think the universe is part of unfathomably larger entity, whereby we are 'cells' unable to see beyond out celluar walls. Other universes may simply be other cells. A single cell within our own bodies would view the staggering number of cells/organisms within us yet outside itself as similarly incomprehensible.

Star bith and destruction, circular structures created by gravity, electromagnetics, are seen on smaller scales within us, no? Cells live and die, are altered, consumed, split. Sounds familar.

Not a scientist and don't pretend to be. Just random, not so original, and rather incoherent thought I pondered while reading this. I picture the idea of relative size and scales...from quantum/sub atomic to galaxies to the universe. Maybe the next big picture includes multiverses, then after that?
Mira_Musiclab
3.6 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
@Topher,

Right there with you. I've always toyed with the thought that it's fractal-like, and exponential. Whatever 'limits' the universe has, it's very exciting to see when we come to threshholds like this, and see that things can be more vast than we previously imagined.

Wow, I feel very small today.. ;)
FrankHerbert
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
This not so original idea will certianly be shot down...


But here's my not so original idea that will certainly be shot down ellipsis
FunkyDude
3 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
maybe they need another word to encompass one set of galaxies.. subverse?
pinic84
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
I'm no genius but the word infinite is plastered all over this article. if there is infinite room for our universe, and infinite others, then there will always be infinite room.

i wonder, if there are circular patterns in the CMB, could they possibly have been caused by imperfections at the very beginning?

being in our bubble, it's not like we can ever know what's out there, because it isn't in our universe, and therefore doesn't really exist. Unprovable science at it's best, never anything more than a theory.
googleplex
3.3 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
One way to visualize it is to imagine that our universe is 2D (plane). The contents of our universe (energy density) changes with time.
Now imagine a parallel universe as a second 2D plane. It has its own contects of energy that fluctuates over time.
Now imagine the planes flexing or warping. They can touch each other and bump giving rise to perturbations in the energy density of each Universe.

beelize54
Dec 17, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Scientifica
2.5 / 5 (11) Dec 17, 2010
So does that mean there are alternate Uranuses out there?
beelize54
1.3 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2010
I don't know, how "eternal inflation" allows "existence of many universes". If Big Bang occurred once, as this hypothesis assumes, where/when the other Universes should be formed?
gwrede
2.3 / 5 (6) Dec 17, 2010
Perhaps this was the beginning of everything, but lately a few scientists have been wondering if something could have come before that, setting up the initial conditions for the birth of our universe.
Sigh. What happened to the guys who said that nothing, not even time itself existed before the big bang?

It's always been the hobby of man to conjure up the most amazing explanations for whatever is beyond current grasp. In the old days you could hear that the earth is a shield, carried around by 3 elephants (or whatever). And people would debate it profoundly, and the next generation "knew" that the earth was floating in gravy.

Well, today there are alternate universes that bump into eachother while expanding preposterously. Our grandchildren will weep when they read about this.
gwrede
2 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
So does that mean there are alternate Uranuses out there?
Alternate Uranus, my foot!
panorama
4.5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
Our grandchildren will weep when they read about this.

Or they'll just laugh...like we do now about Celestial Spheres.
pauljpease
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
Wouldn't this simply mean that our definition of of "Universe" needs to reconsidered?


@ SteveL,

Really? You think a discovery like this is just semantics? You don't think there is a REAL difference between living in a single, isolated Universe or a multiverse? All we need to do is change the meaning of a word and everything is just as it was? It doesn't matter what you call it. Go ahead and redefine "universe" if you want. It still matters that things aren't what we thought they were...
Code_Warrior
1.5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
One way to visualize it is to imagine that our universe is 2D (plane). The contents of our universe (energy density) changes with time.
Now imagine a parallel universe as a second 2D plane. It has its own contects of energy that fluctuates over time.
Now imagine the planes flexing or warping. They can touch each other and bump giving rise to perturbations in the energy density of each Universe.


Yes, M-Theory is very intriguing.
Husky
4 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
circular patterns, or spherical 3d patterns, are they slices or globular structures, do they move in a certain direction and at what speed? are they exact circular or are they warped across the hundreds of lightyears worth of radius, due to the expansion of our universe, if the strucures expand, could we measure the speed and rewind/backtrack the tape to get the lower boundery of their age?
Topdoginuk
2.7 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
It surprises me that people didn't know this years ago. I have mentioned time and again that our Universe is as a result of a pull rather than an expansion from the 'Big Bang'.
Bubble-Verse is the new in word from now on. It will be proved correct I guarantee 'ya.
Where once people believed the Earth was flat and carried by Elephants etc, today and tomorrow will see evidence that the Bubble-Verse is much more than scientists know today. It's part of a 'living' entity of which there is no explanation, as yet.
Bobathon
5 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2010
Surely the only reasonable response to this is to give these guys a chance to make some definite predictions for when Planck starts giving us data in a couple of years before jumping to conclusions? Then let's see if it holds up.

Of course we could just choose to stick with excitably adding to the internet's overflowing stash of random opinionated nonsense... :-)
plastikman
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
Between the Great Attractor and now bruises I'm convinced there's more of em out there. If the Milky Way is the name of our galaxy what shall we call our universe?
phyz
2 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Detectable? The problem isn't that the multiverse evidence is hidden, it's that we don't understand how to see it. To an advanced mutiverse inhabitant, this evidence is everywhere they look. We are just a pair of ragged claws.
beelize54
1 / 5 (3) Dec 17, 2010
it's that we don't understand how to see it

I can understand it - the question is, if someone is interested about it.
beelize54
2.4 / 5 (7) Dec 17, 2010
Six different theories from leading cosmologists on "What Happened Before the Big Bang". BBC Horizon. Nov, 2010.

http://www.bbc.co...b00vdkmj
http://www.youtub...37BE94CA
komone
3.5 / 5 (4) Dec 17, 2010
FWIW My understanding of the term multiverse is not "multiple bubbles" or "multiple universes" but rather as an explanation of quantum uncertainty stated as taking the schrodinger equation rather more seriously.
Viracocha
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
I think it's important not to confuse language and science (or perhaps better yet, not to confuse the science of linguistics with the science of cosmology). We all know and don't need repeated reminders that there is something semantically illogical and imprecise about speaking of "our" universe and speculating that it may be one of many universes that populate a multiverse. Words are tools, and sometimes they are crude and blunt tools. Does the fact that Europe is not, geologically speaking, a continent stop people from speaking of it as such? It's convenient, yet it has no bearing on the science of geology. So who cares what we call it? What I want to know is where and when did it all start; where and when does it all end. Can anyone answer that?
beelize54
1.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
..but rather as an explanation of quantum uncertainty stated...
Every pair of mutually inconsistent views can serve as an example of multiverses, after then (relativity and quantum mechanics, for example). String theorists are saying, such multiverses are representing low dimensional slices of hyperdimensional universe and these theories are really behaving so - so they fulfill definition of multiverses perfectly.
Raveon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
The word already exists. It's multiverse not multiverses. The universe is our universe and encompasses everything in it. Before Hubble it used to mean our galaxy because we thought that was all there is. Since the other bubbles lie outside our universe they aren't in our universe. If there is more than just ours the definition doesn't change. Multiverse means encompassing EVERYTHING including our universe and I'm pretty sure it's been in science fiction for a long time, it's in Wikipedia and it isn't plural, there is only one multiverse.
Raveon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 17, 2010
This wouldn't be surprising if it's true but we may never be able to prove it one way or another. Even so the word multiverse is correct because it includes the spiritual planes too if they exist and ANYTHING else outside our universe.

Why should there be only one of anything? You can only name 2 things that there are one of and you can't prove one of them exists and the other may not be the only one, they are god and the universe. It makes no sense that there is one of anything which is why god is unlikely too, if not for many other reasons.
Raveon
3.4 / 5 (5) Dec 17, 2010
Defintion of multiverse from Wikipedia:
"The multiverse (or meta-universe, metaverse) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including the historical universe we consistently experience) that together comprise everything that exists: the entirety of space, time, matter, and energy as well as the physical laws and constants that describe them. The term was coined in 1895 by the American philosopher and psychologist William James."
moebiex
2 / 5 (2) Dec 17, 2010
Every one of our minds is unique - at least in the sense that we have each developed through a unique set of circumstance and eventuality. Conceding this, as an extreme speculation one might imagine how each one of our conscious minds is the expression of a single Universe and that these multiples are striving for a unity using biology as a aggregated forum through which to interact. Sorry- that is at best philosophy but what the hey- we obvioulsy need some new boundaries to our conceptions to match our increasingly powerful perception.
Len44
1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2010
@Viracocha
The creator of the universe answers some of your question in the first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The following verses give some details. As to 'when' I rely on those that have studied recorded history including the Bible and put the beginning at 4004 BC or somewhere near there. The Bible has much to say on the end. Check out 2 Peter 3:10-13.
hard2grep
1.5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
I wonder then if you could get enough universes to create a super star or universal black hole. the possibilities are infinitely mind-boggling.
finnerty
2.3 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
"...let me take you down,'cause I'm going to
Strawberry Fields...
nothing is real..."
-- The Beatles

works for me...
Raveon
3.5 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2010
Who is the freaking moron that continually rates posts that quote facts a one? You should have your profile deleted for having an IQ that isn't much higher. You are obviously too stupid to have a good job or education, troll elsehwere.

Why did you rate a quote from Wikipedia a 1 for the definition of a term that has been widely used for over a hundred years? Were you born without a brain?
beelize54
2.1 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2010
Who is the freaking moron that continually rates posts that quote facts a one?
You can get its nick by clicking on the activity tab, for example in my case it's frajo, barakn, DamienS, yyz, Skeptic_Heretic and other well known downvoting trolls here. Their meaning of their life is to sit here and to downvote others on personal basis.

http://www.physor...activity
thingumbobesquire
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
This clinches it for me. The universe has boobs...these "scientists" have provided the proof!
Doug_Huffman
1.3 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
To be scientific an hypothesis must be falsifiable. A hypothetical universe may be predicated on natural.
DamienS
4.4 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2010
Who is the freaking moron that continually rates posts that quote facts a one?

I'm the moron, though not for the reason you state. This whole thread was pretty much derailed by the opening post that nitpicked the semantics of the word universe. You then proceeded to post three consecutive posts picking over the same carcass, which is tantamount to spamming.

The subject of the article is far more intriguing than your tortured quibbling about definitions. That is why I gave you a 1 on your third such post.
DamienS
4.4 / 5 (13) Dec 18, 2010
beelize54: You can get its nick by clicking on the activity tab, for example in my case it's frajo, barakn, DamienS, yyz, Skeptic_Heretic and other well known downvoting trolls here.

We only down vote cretinous sock-puppets.
FrankHerbert
3 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
Who is the freaking moron that continually rates posts that quote facts a one?

I'm the moron, though not for the reason you state. This whole thread was pretty much derailed by the opening post that nitpicked the semantics of the word universe. You then proceeded to post three consecutive posts picking over the same carcass, which is tantamount to spamming.

The subject of the article is far more intriguing than your tortured quibbling about definitions. That is why I gave you a 1 on your third such post.

beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2010
We only down vote cretinous sock-puppets.

I discussed these models here well before you ever started to visit PhysOrg. Whereas you're just wasting place on this server. You're not able predict anything, explain anything, etc..

http://www.physfo...ry189687
Skeptic_Heretic
4.7 / 5 (12) Dec 18, 2010
I discussed these models here well before you ever started to visit PhysOrg.
No, you discussed dense aether nonsense.
Whereas you're just wasting place on this server.
No, he has one screen name, not a couple dozen like you do.
You're not able predict anything, explain anything, etc..
Whereas you have been able to postdict everything by creating a nonsensical philosophical framework that can explain everything, except itself.
BloodSpill
4 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
I wonder what this theory and the holographic universe theory together would look like as a computer generated model animation.
beelize54
1 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2010
I wonder what this theory and the holographic universe theory together would look like as a computer generated model animation.

Physics is not IT stuff - forget the holographic projectors and computer screens models, developed with freaky nerds. It's simply water surface with many intersecting ripples..

http://www.istock...ples.jpg
solar2030
Dec 18, 2010
This comment has been removed by a moderator.
Pkunk_
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
Before Hubble it used to mean our galaxy because we thought that was all there is. Since the other bubbles lie outside our universe they aren't in our universe.


I'm quite sure that at least a century before hubble astronomers had understood the concept of galaxies and the fact that the universe has if not thousands , at least hundreds of them.
And decades before Hubble the concept that the universe has infinite galaxies was thought up.
Shootist
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
Between the Great Attractor and now bruises I'm convinced there's more of em out there. If the Milky Way is the name of our galaxy what shall we call our universe?


I vote for Earth Prime.
Pkunk_
2 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
"The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes."
What do they move around in, space? And what is the universe expanding into?


I think they are talking about brane's .. Where in a single plane multiple big bangs have produced multiple universes and they are spaced out away from each other and occasionally "touch" each other.

The more traditional concept of multiverse is one where all universes occupy the same area of space but are either "out of phase" (dark matter?) or in a parallel time so they cannot interact with each other directly. This is the multiverse concept behind TV shows such as Sliders , etc.
geniusW
5 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
Interesting article. However, I propose that science stop using words like "multiverse" or "universes", much like we redefined the word "planet". Universe by definition means one, it is totality, if not then its not the universe. What we "think" of as the universe, should be called the sub-universe, as a subtotal is an entity of a total. Therefore, we can say the big-bang created the sub-universe that we reside in. I realize this would create problems as much of the literature still says "universe", but that didn't stop people from redefining the word "planet". Billion and Trillion mean different things in UK and US...
Lets fix this issue instead of letting it slide...
geniusW
5 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
Regarding my last post...what happens if there are multiple multiverses? Then what the heck will we call totality? Instead of "promotion", we should accurately use "demotion", sub, sub-sub prefixes on the word "universe".
Raveon
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010

DamienS: I'm the moron, though not for the reason you state. This whole thread was pretty much derailed by the opening post that nitpicked the semantics of the word universe. You then proceeded to post three consecutive posts picking over the same carcass, which is tantamount to spamming.

The subject of the article is far more intriguing than your tortured quibbling about definitions. That is why I gave you a 1 on your third such post.


Thanks for proving my point that it is the reason I state. A word was looked for to describe these findings and the previous posts didn't know what it was and suggested new ones when one exists. My first posts were from my knowledge and then I looked it up and quoted Wikipedia. There is nothing wrong with correcting semantics, at least not for smart people.
Blakut
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 18, 2010
So nobody seems to discuss the fact that the circular patterns could be random? The statistical significance, if you look at it, is not so great.
Aristoteles
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
Kwasnicz, Kwasnicz ! are you there ? Buble, buble
blackberry, are they there ?
Aristoteles
1 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
Andrei and his Renata are Happy ?
beelize54
1.6 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
In some theories the interior of Universe is formed with dense clusters of black holes, which appears like blackberry. The galaxies are ordered around lines and nodes of resulting foam. Such interior can be formed with collapse of previous generation of Universe into form dense collapsar, because energy spreads more slowly through it, it appears like expansion of space-time from our perspective.

http://news.softp...er-2.jpg
beelize54
1.1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
..you discussed dense aether nonsense...
But why it's nonsense? Penrose and many others are saying, we are sitting inside of black hole - what else the vacuum is, after then, then just the dense particle matter? The foamy or bubble model of Universe apparently considers, the space-time around us is not empty, but filled with dense matter with inertial properties. The collision of bubbles is followed with heating and condensation of this matter into galaxies at the places, where these bubbles collide like shock waves in elastic environment. In addition, astronomers are observing slow coherent flow of this "matter", which is known like the dark flow. I looks like convective cells at the surface of some giant star, being observed from inside.
beelize54
1.1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
A cosmological model in which the Big Bang arises from a localized explosion occurring inside the black hole of an asymptotically flat Schwarzschild spacetime.

http://www.pnas.o...full.pdf

The only problem is, the dense matter model of vacuum has not been considered from any other perspective, then just cosmological one. It could explain a much more things, then just some bubbles in cosmic radiation.
Telekinetic
1.6 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
Here's another possibility: Universes not only bump into one another like bumper cars, but overlap and occupy the same space, only at varying frequencies, where they are invisible to the occupants of a single universe, limited by their senses. It's not a new theory, but it's sophomoric to think we must occupy space like Suburban Spread.

beelize54
2.1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
Why not. Actually I don't believe in multiverse, but in single Universe too - what we are saying are just mutually intersecting bubbles of foam in nested dodecahedron geometry, like the density fluctuations of very dense gas. The unique interpretation of Universe at its largest/smallest scales is difficult, because we can assign it to virtually unlimited number of models, each of which would have some relevance from particular perspective. The understanding of how these models can be connected mutually is more important here, then the rigid belief in some particular model. So we should always propose some testable predictions of particular model, or this model is not of practical significance.
Viracocha
5 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
Thanks for ther advice, Len44, but have stumbled onto the wrong web site? This one is about science. Maybe you were looking for a web site about myths and fairy tales.

@Viracocha
The creator of the universe answers some of your question in the first verse of the Bible. Genesis 1:1 "In the beginning God created the heaven and the earth." The following verses give some details. As to 'when' I rely on those that have studied recorded history including the Bible and put the beginning at 4004 BC or somewhere near there. The Bible has much to say on the end. Check out 2 Peter 3:10-13.

Telekinetic
2 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2010
I agree with you, Beelize, but present instruments
are woefully inadequate to prove or disprove any of these new theories. A new crop of detection devices is what's needed, I unfortunately don't have any.
Len44
1 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
@Viracocha "What I want to know is where and when did it all start; where and when does it all end. Can anyone answer that? " These questions are beyond science. Even if 50 million scientists have called the Bible myth or fairy tails doesn't mean they are right.
beelize54
1 / 5 (3) Dec 18, 2010
..but present instruments are woefully inadequate to prove or disprove any of these new theories..
Nevertheless we can get quite adequate emergent picture of Universe with comparison of common signs of many (I mean hundreds) of existing theories. Copernican principle is teaching us, Universe wouldn't differ very much from observable Universe at global scale, because it's appearance is defined with us, human observers ("Simmillia simmilibus observentur"). If it would differ significantly, we couldn't observe it anyway.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (7) Dec 18, 2010
Hence forth we live inside of a bubble, and that bubble is inside of the universe.


I remember hearing somewhere that technically the term "Galaxy" was originally synonymous with "universe" and so the usage had to be changed to reflect observations.

Also, this particular interpretation of "universes" does not even reflect the higher dimensional "parallel universe" concept.

This type of multi-verse is simply parts of the universe, as you say "bubbles," which have expanded so far apart as to be outside one another's light-sphere.

So "Universe" should continue to mean "everything, every time, every where, every dimension," just as "Cosmos" has always referred to "everything". The "Universe" should be defined to be that which contains all vector spaces and everything they contain.

So the terminology needs to be refined to at least be internally consistent, and I think pick a term other than bubble that is more precise and descriptive, such as "Continuum".
Quantum_Conundrum
1.6 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
By definition, there should be one universe.

This universe contains and/or is composed of all things.

Real things and concepts such as dimensions, continuums, vector spaces, mass, energy, etc, should always be considered to be "theory" and even if they are "law" and "real" then they are still less than the "universe".
beelize54
1 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
I remember hearing somewhere that technically the term "Galaxy" was originally synonymous with "universe" and so the usage had to be changed to reflect observations.
Actually yes, the galaxies can serve as a local universes and it was generally believed so, until Hubble distinguished stars in another galaxies and realized, they're too distant for to be considered as a part of Milky Way. We are living at the fuzzy surface of black hole, which is formed with our galaxy and it extends into cosmic space with its gravitational field and dark matter. It means, the definition of parallel Universe may be pretty arbitrary. Before some time I proposed the boundary of local Universe as a scope of the largest/smallest regular structure in it.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
I agree with you, Beelize,
Because the two of you are the same person.
beelize54
1.7 / 5 (14) Dec 18, 2010
Because the two of you are the same person.
You're wrong as usually, because you can never understand things correctly. The Universe is your least problem. After all, you're just developing the pretense to censor my posts here by all means possible. Your voting abuse has no other motivation, then just silence the people with unconformable ideas - after all, as usually in human history.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.3 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2010
You're wrong as usually, because you can never understand things correctly. The Universe is your least problem. After all, you're just developing the pretense to censor my posts here by all means possible. Your voting abuse has no other motivation, then just silence the people with unconformable ideas - after all, as usually in human history.
Why don't you use one of your other 400 accounts to strike up a conversation with yourself.

We've even caught you doing it. TDK/Zephir/Alizee/Slotin/belize/whatever the hell else you call yourself.

You're so delusional as to invent names, occupations and back stories for some of them. It's rather sick.
MorituriMax
2.3 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
For some reason, everytime I see "arXiv.org" I keep thinking EmperorXenu.com.

Very interesting article.
MorituriMax
3.2 / 5 (5) Dec 18, 2010
gwrede,
Sigh. What happened to the guys who said that nothing, not even time itself existed before the big bang?


Sigh, why is it so hard to grasp that "the guys" meant OUR universe, you know, the one that has all the stars in it that we see out to the limit of observable space.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
Sigh, why is it so hard to grasp that "the guys" meant OUR universe, you know, the one that has all the stars in it that we see out to the limit of observable space.


I'm not aware of any "limits" having been observed. Every time anyone makes a bigger, better telescope, or a new telescope in a spectra that hasn't been done before, they see farther and farther.

There are theoretical limits to the observable universe within the framework of the crackpot(say mainstream/standard theory) big bang theory and other similar theories, such as the "Light horizon" which should theoretically exist around 15 billion lightyears distant based on some interpretations Relativity in conjuction with Hubble Constant. However, that would be about 10% farther than anything anyone has ever made is capable of looking.

Moreover, due to the way Relativity and the Hubble Constant predict space-time would be warped at this distance, things might not be so straight forward.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
It might not even be possible to actually "see" the boundary, because relativity in conjunction with hubble constant predicts that the red shift from objects arbitrarily close to the boundary should be so great that the wave length would grow exponentally. This would eventually make the light have such a long wavelength as to be absolutely invisible to any mode of detection, since it would be red shifted too heavily to interact with quantum matter in our local portion of space. This wouldn't actually be the "light horizon" because the light still reaches us, it just doesn't interact because the wavelength is too long.

therefore, the theory of a light horizon probably isn't even falsifiable, because even the light that DOES reach us from this region of space would be "invisible," Therefore you can neither see the boundary nor the lack of a boundary, nor could you observe it's effects or lack of effects on the surrounding space-time.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.2 / 5 (9) Dec 18, 2010
If the theory is wrong, but only appears to be right by coincidence, you might never be able to know any difference anyway.

If the theory is somewhat right, but mostly wrong, you won't be able to observe anything even remotely close to the horizon to be sure to what degree the theory is correct. In fact, you probably wouldn't even be able to distinguish this scenario from the scenario in paragraph 1.
4570
2 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
@len44 - no mentally healthy person wants your psycho harrassment. Be gone.
4570
4 / 5 (1) Dec 18, 2010
Steve Hawking also suggested "imaginary time" prior to the big bang to avoid the singularity, and the difficulty with the physics the sigularity requires
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (6) Dec 18, 2010
Steve Hawking also suggested "imaginary time" prior to the big bang to avoid the singularity, and the difficulty with the physics the sigularity requires


He got that idea from Roger Penrose who used "Imaginary" or "complex" dimensions, including "complex time" in some versions Twistor Theory.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.4 / 5 (10) Dec 18, 2010
Let me put this another way, since people gave me a 1 star rating.

If "X" is the distance a hypothetical light source, and the theoretical light horizon is at 15 billion light years. Then as X approaches 15 billion, because space-time is expanding nearly at the speed of light there is a vertical assymptote at 15 billion as to the amount of time it actually takes a photon to reach US moving through space-time as space-time moves away at nearly the speed of light.

The time it actually takes the photon to reach us is NOT 15 billion ly, but rather equal to the length of the curve, but the curve has a vertical assymptote, making it have "arbitrarily close to infinite" length.

You can actually graph tis on a graphics calculator, if you don't believe me. If you took calculus 2, you will also know that what I say is correct.
DamienS
3.8 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
The time it actually takes the photon to reach us is NOT 15 billion ly

You really should learn the difference between time and distance, ie, years vs lightyears.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (11) Dec 18, 2010
We've even caught you doing it. TDK/Zephir/Alizee/Slotin/belize/whatever the hell else you call yourself. You're so delusional as to invent names, occupations and back stories for some of them. It's rather sick.
The sick one is you Skeptic Heretic, a sniveling worm exiled to a basement bedroom in your parent's house so as not to remind them too often of the money they've wasted on you. You're a poseur with your little gang of circle wankers.
Code_Warrior
1.8 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
post 1 of 2:
From the paper:
The outputs from both the edge detection and Bayesian analysis steps of the pipeline can be used to determine if a particular feature can be claimed as a detected bubble collision. A clear peak in the CHT score would indicate the presence of a circular temperature discontinuity in the CMB. This is a smoking gun signature of bubble collisions, and would be nearly conclusive evidence for the eternal inflation scenario.
The authors test this against selected simulated bubble collisions and were able to conclusively detect them with great reliability. When applied the the WMAP data:
The CHT scores do not have a clear peak at any angular scale or location for any of the detected features...We therefore find no evidence for circular temperature discontinuities in the WMAP 7-year data, and can rule out bubble collisions in the CHT exclusion region defined by simulated collisions shown in Fig. 18.


More >
MorituriMax
4.1 / 5 (8) Dec 18, 2010
Quantum conundrum opined,
Let me put this another way, since people gave me a 1 star rating.


I apologize, it wouldn't let me give you 0 stars.
Code_Warrior
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
Post 2 of 2:
Regarding the 4 features the authors state:
While we have made no definitive detections, our analysis pipeline has identified four features in the WMAP 7-year data that are consistent with the type of temperature modulation predicted by a bubble collision. All have Bayesian evidence ratios that are larger than expected for false detections from an end-to-end simulation of the WMAP experiment. However, without the smoking gun signal of a causal edge, we cannot claim a conclusive detection.
The authors define a conclusive detection requirement for Bayesian Evidence ratio as ln(rho) >> 2.6. Features 2, 3, 7, and 10 have Bayesian Evidence ratios of 4.8, 5.1, 4.0 and 7.0 respectively. While these values are higher than expected, the Bayesian Evidence Ratios of the simulation bubbles had values between 70 and 150.

If the Bayesian Evidence Ratios were in the 20 to 30 range you could make the claim, but the cited low values seem less than convincing.
Code_Warrior
2 / 5 (4) Dec 18, 2010
One last thing, Physorg took some liberties with photoshop. The graphic at the start of the article does not appear anywhere within the paper. It is a composition of features selected by the reporter to add impact, but are not related to each other in any way within the context of the paper.
Telekinetic
1.4 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
The image of which you speak is credited to "Feeney et al.", the authors of the paper.
Code_Warrior
2 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
Oops, got one part wrong, the conclusive simulated bubbles had ratios of 129.7, 148.6, 36.4. There were two lower ones of about 5.1 and 3.0 that were related to collisions with small amplitudes and medium to small edges. The authors are using those smaller values to make the claim of consistency with bubble collisions, whereas the value of 2.6 was the largest obtained from the end to end simulation. From the author's definition, they are able to make the claim, however, it still seems like a much stronger definition would have been more appropriate.
Code_Warrior
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
The image of which you speak is credited to "Feeney et al.", the authors of the paper.


Oops, My bad.
stealthc
2.1 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2010
Twice in one month, a story about other universes based on pure speculation. Let's see some proof. Those bruises could have come from other things which we know nothing about, so I am not convinced in the least.
beelize54
1.3 / 5 (7) Dec 19, 2010
Big Bang acoustic - before some time these ripples were attributed to sound waves formed during Big Bang - without some "many universes" blurbs.

http://www.astro....it5.html
Skeptic_Heretic
4.5 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2010
The sick one is you Skeptic Heretic, a sniveling worm exiled to a basement bedroom in your parent's house so as not to remind them too often of the money they've wasted on you. You're a poseur with your little gang of circle wankers.
You always get so angry when you've been caught red handed.
Quantum_Conundrum
1.3 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
The time it actually takes the photon to reach us is NOT 15 billion ly

You really should learn the difference between time and distance, ie, years vs lightyears.


That was an accident, which is pretty obvious.

A lightyear is the distance light travels in one year.

A year is 365 days, unless it's a leap year.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.4 / 5 (8) Dec 19, 2010
Quantum conundrum opined,
I apologize, it wouldn't let me give you 0 stars.


Well, have you ever bothered to actually check any of these theories yourself, or model these situations on a computer or graphic calculator?

Guess what? I have, and the results I gave are correct, at least as far as the consequences of the mainstream theories is concerned.

If you find something wrong with that, then it shows that either you don't understand the theory at all, or else you certainly haven't ever tried to plug in real values and test them.

If you have a light source just inside the theoretical light horizon, the light will BARELY make any progress whatsoever in moving towards us, because space-time itself is moving away almost as fast as the speed of light. hubble constant 72km/s/megaparsec.

If you had a point light source just inside the light horizon, it would take billions of years for photon to move even one light year closer to earth.
Skeptic_Heretic
3.8 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
If you find something wrong with that, then it shows that either you don't understand the theory at all, or else you certainly haven't ever tried to plug in real values and test them.

If you have a light source just inside the theoretical light horizon, the light will BARELY make any progress whatsoever in moving towards us, because space-time itself is moving away almost as fast as the speed of light. hubble constant 72km/s/megaparsec.

If you had a point light source just inside the light horizon, it would take billions of years for photon to move even one light year closer to earth.
Someone forgot about special relativity.
beelize54
1 / 5 (9) Dec 19, 2010
If you had a point light source just inside the light horizon, it would take billions of years for photon to move even one light year closer to earth.
That's correct. After all, this is why the light is lensed intensively near black hole and the event horizon appears black. You can ignore S_H troll safely.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (6) Dec 19, 2010
That's correct. After all, this is why the light is lensed intensively near black hole and the event horizon appears black. You can ignore S_H troll safely.
Special relativity would account for anything within the observational boundary. You're missing the entire concept of an event horizon and haven't calculated using the formulae from special relativity to determine the wavelength modification involved.

Secondly, the "light" emitted near an event horizon is stretched to radio, not to "black" showing an even greater lack of knowledge between you two cranks.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.1 / 5 (10) Dec 19, 2010
Actually, in and of itself, special relativity does not account for everything, that's why the other stuff has been invented in the first place.

The red shift caused by special relativity is a local motion within space-time.

The red shift I'm talking about theoretically happens because space-time itself theoretically stretches the wavelengths as it expands over absurdly long distances and time.

The hubble constant was invented to try to explain the galactic red shifts because of the fact that motion alone could not explain them.

the farthest objects known are allegedly 13.7 billion ly distant and moving away at 91% of c.

However, if a milky way sized galaxy was actually moving through space at that speed, according to special relativity, it would have a mass 246% greater, which would then cause a total catastrophic gravitational collapse under it's own mass.

Yet we can "see" galaxy sized objects that far away moving that fast which are not black holes...
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (4) Dec 19, 2010
The red shift caused by special relativity is a local motion within space-time.
No, relative to spacetime, which is why you're wrong.
The red shift I'm talking about theoretically happens because space-time itself theoretically stretches the wavelengths as it expands over absurdly long distances and time.
Which would be why special relativity applies. You're not understanding the basics here.
The hubble constant was invented to try to explain the galactic red shifts because of the fact that motion alone could not explain them.
The primer here is unnecessary.
the farthest objects known are allegedly 13.7 billion ly distant and moving away at 91% of c.
And the light leaving these objects moves at a constant speed through the medium regardless of motion of other objects. To address this logical difficulty we have Special Relativity that explains why this light still reaches us at a constant speed. That is the Doppler effect. 91% of C is not C.
Skeptic_Heretic
4.8 / 5 (5) Dec 19, 2010
When an object reaches the event horizon of expansion it is now moving away from us at or above C and at that time they will never be visible to us. As spacetime streches neither object is actually moving at above C, but simply the rate of spacial strech is preventing their light from reaching us by expanding at a rate faster than C thus making special relativity inert. You're not there yet.
Quantum_Conundrum
2.2 / 5 (11) Dec 19, 2010
When an object reaches the event horizon of expansion it is now moving away from us at or above C and at that time they will never be visible to us.


That's pretty obvious. that's what the theory says.

You're not getting it yet, so whatever.

If you look up the definition of "Red shift" you will even find that the specific case we are discussing is NOT covered by special relativity, and must be covered under GENERAL RELATIVITY, because special relativity DOES NOT DIRECTLY APPLY TO COSMIC EXPANSION OR COSMIC RED SHIFT.

If you read the encyclopedia, or your damn text book, you'll find I obviously understand your "mainstream" scientific theory signficantly better that you do, you jackass.

Try Wikipedia "Red Shift" for starters.

When you realize how stupid you look now, come back.

so just to be clear.

You do not even understand your own beliefs.

you certainly do not undrestand my beliefs.

you certainly do not understand physics or philosophy.
gwrede
1.3 / 5 (3) Dec 19, 2010
gwrede,
Sigh. What happened to the guys who said that nothing, not even time itself existed before the big bang?
Sigh, why is it so hard to grasp that "the guys" meant OUR universe, you know, the one that has all the stars in it that we see out to the limit of observable space.
Because nobody says not even time existed before Elton John was born. I mean, of course OUR time "didn't exist" before the big bang, like Elton's didn't till he got born. So, them emphasizing it sounds like they mean "the outside time".
braindead
4 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2010
"The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes."

Can someone explain to me what bubble universes are moving around in and when they are moving around in it? Do they have a velocity? To have an ability to collide, do universes have to be inside of time/space with dimensions of some kind? Does having dimensions constitute the definition of a being a universe? In which case "bubble universes" are just part of a larger universe.
Thex1138
3 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2010
Humans have discovered the multi-verse... Eyebrows raise on Arcturus!...
savroD
2 / 5 (1) Dec 19, 2010
They are finally seeing movement in the fourth dimension!
AtomThick
1 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2010
They should wait for the final episode of Stargate Universe, Destiny's mission is exactly about the existing patterns in the CMB ;)
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (8) Dec 20, 2010
that's what the theory says.
That isn't what you're saying.
You're not getting it yet, so whatever.
No, I don't understand nonsense.
If you look up the definition of "Red shift" you will even find that the specific case we are discussing is NOT covered by special relativity,
Special relativity incorporates the principle that the speed of light is the same for all inertial observers regardless of the state of motion of the source.
and must be covered under GENERAL RELATIVITY,
No, under GR space time is not invariant. If you wanted to talk about the gravitational effect upon the propagation of light you'd be correct, but we're talking inertial reference frames against invariant spacetime.
because special relativity DOES NOT DIRECTLY APPLY TO COSMIC EXPANSION OR COSMIC RED SHIFT.
Completely wrong.
you'll find I obviously understand your "mainstream" scientific theory signficantly better that you do, you jackass.
Quite the opposite.
dachi
4.5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
It's quite wonderful to be able to know the existence of other universes.I want to know the result from the Plank.
Objectivist
4.7 / 5 (3) Dec 20, 2010
This multiverse stuff doesn't seem like it could ever in principal advance beyond speculation and into the realm of proper science. If I'm not mistaken Penrose doesn't like the idea,.. and his analysis seems more rational (news article posted at physicsworld).
According to M-theory the graviton can escape our universe and enter other universes (branes). Potentially the graviton could be used to communicate with other universes.
If there is a multiverse there is some sort of relation between our universe and the others, that is for certain. This relation is enough to bring our universes together in one way or another. It's this relation that isn't understood yet, and it's this relation that you've spent 5 minutes imagining before you've given up.
yyz
5 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
"Can someone explain to me what bubble universes are moving around in and when they are moving around in it? Do they have a velocity? To have an ability to collide, do universes have to be inside of time/space with dimensions of some kind? Does having dimensions constitute the definition of a being a universe?"

Some illumination on these matters can be found in a 2003 Scientific American article on parallel universes by Max Tegmark (with some helpful illustrations, btw): http://space.mit....ciam.pdf

Max also has a site with links to many popular-level articles & published works on multiverse theories (quite fascinating IMHO): http://space.mit....azy.html
SteveL
5 / 5 (1) Dec 20, 2010
Wouldn't this simply mean that our definition of of "Universe" needs to reconsidered?


@ SteveL,

Really? You think a discovery like this is just semantics? You don't think there is a REAL difference between living in a single, isolated Universe or a multiverse? All we need to do is change the meaning of a word and everything is just as it was? It doesn't matter what you call it. Go ahead and redefine "universe" if you want. It still matters that things aren't what we thought they were...


No, I was thinking more in line with what FunkyDude posted: "maybe they need another word to encompass one set of galaxies.. subverse?"

He did a better job of describing the issue. I'm not a fan of the multiverse concept, but we do need a clear way to describe subsets of the universe. The definition of universe needs to explain, and should be taught that it includes all such subsets.
Skeptic_Heretic
5 / 5 (2) Dec 20, 2010
Max also has a site with links to many popular-level articles & published works on multiverse theories (quite fascinating IMHO): http://space.mit....azy.html
very well done site if I do say so myself. Been in my favorites for a long time now.
baudrunner
1 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
An imaginary scenario based on a false premise (ie. big bang in existing space). Astro physicists are generally in agreement that space is as much a creation as are time and matter, therefore the idea of universes bumping into other universes is an untenable one, since there is nothing for a universe to float around in for it to do that.

I think that those researchers are simply too overwhelmed by immensity to have the facility to grasp the whole picture. In fact, different parts of the one Universe possess different characteristics. I think that is where the confusion begins.

There is nothing actually "out there", beyond the periphery of the Universe, and nothing is not exactly something you can move around in, or wave your hand through, or poke with a stick. Nothing is nothing. Creation happens there, at the ever expanding creation front.

They'll come to their senses some day.
Gawad
4.2 / 5 (5) Dec 20, 2010
Twice in one month, a story about other universes based on pure speculation. Let's see some proof. Those bruises could have come from other things which we know nothing about, so I am not convinced in the least.
Chuck Norris?
StandingBear
1 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2010
There is room for God in our multiverse. He is probably one of them for all we know. And may have many children in many places. This should not be used to foreclose good scientific inquiry. The truth is the truth, and I for one have faith that no scientific inquiry will damage God, only find new ways to him..... we need to do research. And Herr Einstein is not the end all of physics.
tyrannogenius
1.3 / 5 (7) Dec 20, 2010
Maybe a "bruise" caused by another "uni"verse hitting our "uni"verse. Wow. This is the coolest thing I ever saw. Really. If so .. we can't call this "the universe" anymore. It's a bubbleverse.

Type "tyrannogenius" into Google and visit my blog about physics, thanks.
Raveon
2 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
Can someone explain to me what bubble universes are moving around in and when they are moving around in it? Do they have a velocity?


They would be moving around in either space or nothing (nothing being defined as something less than space, not even any aether if there were such a thing).

Do they have velocity? If our universe were the only universe our velocity would be irrelevant because there is nothing to measure velocity in or against. If there are more than one than they might have a relative velocity. If space was completely empty except for one photon and a disembodied observer, how fast is it going?

As far as other causes for this go, these structures are so big there can't be too many possibilities. It seems unlikely to me that they were small scale effects near the time of the BB that retained their structure after the universe expanded. I think the most likely explanation is that they will turn out to not exist.
Raveon
3 / 5 (1) Dec 21, 2010
Wouldn't this simply mean that our definition of of "Universe" needs to reconsidered?


@ SteveL,

Really? You think a discovery like this is just semantics? You don't think there is a REAL difference between living in a single, isolated Universe or a multiverse? All we need to do is change the meaning of a word and everything is just as it was? It doesn't matter what you call it. Go ahead and redefine "universe" if you want. It still matters that things aren't what we thought they were...


No, I was thinking more in line with what FunkyDude posted: "maybe they need another word to encompass one set of galaxies.. subverse?"

He did a better job of describing the issue. I'm not a fan of the multiverse concept, but we do need a clear way to describe subsets of the universe. The definition of universe needs to explain, and should be taught that it includes all such subsets.

Raveon
2.6 / 5 (5) Dec 21, 2010
(See post above)
To all the illiterates here, words already exist for all this stuff. Try reading some time. Science fiction if nothing else.

(I hate the character limit, brevity is also the soul of witlessness and what is the point of the 3 minute posting time limit?)
Gawad
5 / 5 (4) Dec 21, 2010
(See post above)

(I hate the character limit, brevity is also the soul of witlessness and what is the point of the 3 minute posting time limit?)
This board was (and still is to some extent) being flooded by pages and pages of posts from one particular crank with the handles jigga/zephyr/alizee/etc./etc. He was essentially making the board unusable so the admins instituted the character and time limits as "firebreaks".
Javinator
5 / 5 (2) Dec 21, 2010
(I hate the character limit, brevity is also the soul of witlessness and what is the point of the 3 minute posting time limit?)


No character limit with no time limit would leave the message boards open to spamming. It's the internet. People will just be dicks for no reason. this helps to make it more frustrating for people like that who usually move on to easier prey.
Definitude03
2.5 / 5 (2) Dec 23, 2010
I see CMB as a threshold of EM disturbance. Simply put, as we attempt to see beyond this distance our sight is distorted at any frequency. Also, it is likely all phenomena are dependent on greater and greater scaled phenomena. This means we have Quasar systems slightly smaller then the known Universe. Ultimately there are many of these systems that naturally extend beyond the CMB. There are not multiple CMB boundaries (Universes) that neighbor us if our visualization of CMB limit is based on our perspective.
no1nose
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
If there are an infinite number of universes then there is at least one that is completely filled with life. A universe where every seed grows to be a living thing. A universe where all life is symbiotic . And if there is one like this in an infinite number then there are an infinite number where life filled the space there is.
Ethelred
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
A universe where every seed grows to be a living thing. A universe where all life is symbiotic
Infinite number of POSSIBLE Universes. If life evolves to the point of intelligence, and I mean any level including insect,than it will almost certainly evolve ways to cheat. Which means steal from and eat each other.

A purely symbiotic Universe with sentient life is something I suspect is impossible thus there will no such places no matter how many universes there are.

Such a Universe would be a sign of a beneficent, loving creator. Which is one more reason I am sure our universe does not have that sort of creator if it has any creator at all.

Ethelred
no1nose
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
"Such a Universe would be a sign of a beneficent, loving creator. Which is one more reason I am sure our universe does not have that sort of creator if it has any creator at all."

Why do you say impossible? Perhaps a very small chance but not impossible. A small chance plus and infinite number and bingo ya got one! You are letting your prejudges rule over what is rational and logical. Bad boy!
Ethelred
5 / 5 (1) Dec 23, 2010
I didn't quite get it right the first time. Intelligence isn't needed. Bacteria eat each other. Viruses kill bacteria. Purely chemical reactions there. To not have life do those things would would mean there is no competition between life forms.

I can't see that happening without unlimited resources. Such a Universe would have to be infinite with no borders of any kind at all to stop life from getting at all the resources of that infinite Universe.

Which means no planets. No suns. No oceans with land or no land with oceans. Resources free for the taking with no limits, of space or time.

Ethelred
no1nose
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
None of this is impossible in the infinite universe model. You are simply choosing to limit your thinking to get the results you want. Bad boy again!
mdmagnotti
not rated yet Dec 23, 2010
I would say about the whole "everything is a fractal" is that, yes, it probably is, and that isn't really so cool as how each part of the fractal actually works. Also, the way we organize ideas tends to lump things together. We recognize patterns that aren't usually so simple as we express them (e.g. atoms are not clouds or balls, they are atoms, and that can't be summed up in a shape).

Also, maybe this has something to do with the presence of matter rather than anti-matter? if there were multiple bangs or bumps, then, based on their position, wouldn't that possibly help explain how matter came about? Sort of like those flash games like BoomShine where you set of an explosion and try to take down everything else on the map where the location of the explosion triggers the appropriate chain reaction. Or maybe I'm just making this into a cloud...
Donutz
not rated yet Dec 24, 2010

Hence forth we live inside of a bubble, and that bubble is inside of the universe.


Unless we decide to accept the definition of 'universe' to be that which we've always been able to observe, the part that obeys the same physical laws as locally, and coin a term like 'multiverse' to refer to the multidimensional bigger thing. As other posters have said, a word is just a word, and means what everyone agrees that it means. We could call it a gleethorp, and agree that it is contained within the multigleethorp. Don't get hung up on the idea that 'universe' has to mean *everything*.
Donutz
not rated yet Dec 24, 2010

Why do you say impossible? Perhaps a very small chance but not impossible. A small chance plus and infinite number and bingo ya got one! You are letting your prejudges rule over what is rational and logical. Bad boy!


I think Ethered is right. Predation exists because it is more efficient to eat the plant-eater than it is to eat the plant. In a universe without predators, predators would evolve unless it was less efficient to eat the plant-eaters. I suppose you could come up with a scenario where that's the case, but my coffee-starved brain can't manage it right now.
bebarrett
not rated yet Dec 24, 2010
If you include the Holographic Universe theory where the information of the universe exists in 2-dimensions on the event horizon of a black hole, and imagine a larger universe outside of ours where this black hole exists, couldn't these rings be where our very very young universe was "bruised" by quickly expanding around the protons that collided to make the big bang? ...just wondering.
A_Paradox
not rated yet Dec 25, 2010
StevL,
your:
No, I was thinking more in line with what FunkyDude posted: "maybe they need another word to encompass one set of galaxies.. subverse?"

He did a better job of describing the issue. I'm not a fan of the multiverse concept, but we do need a clear way to describe subsets of the universe. The definition of universe needs to explain, and should be taught that it includes all such subsets.


I think you are right that the semantics/definitions of this subject need to be standardised. I think that, until fairly recently, the word universe [since late C16 according to dictionary.com] has meant everything that we think we can know about >> because it is made of stuff that exhibits the same 'lawful' attributes as the stuff we are made of. In other words, where I use the word physical to mean "can be measured", stuff/people/space-time of 'another universe' would not follow the same laws.
A_Paradox
not rated yet Dec 25, 2010
... cont

The way I now think of our universe [space-time and all that it encompasses] is that space time is actually a boundary between two, or more, existences [Yin, Yang, Yonni, and maybe others]. I think it conceivable that not all such existences have boundaries with each other. This could be represented with a Venn diagram where Yin, Yang, and Yonni are three overlapping circles. If our space-time is the intersection of Yin and Yang, but Yonni only has a boundary with Yin, then the Venn diagrammed intersection of Yin & Yonni [including some Yin-Yang] may be what manifests as electomagnetism, whereas the lesser [Venn] intersection of Yin-Yonni but not Yang, might encompass the strong nuclear forces.

Of course the names used for these existences don't matter. What counts is that there are boundaries or not. The speed of light, for example, is a property of the Yin-Yang boundary, which is not static but always manifests as waveforms.
Objectivist
not rated yet Dec 25, 2010
@A Paradox
That's a lot of philosophical bullshit pulled out of your ass at once. How about you cut down the imagination and ramp up the calculation until both methods of investigation are in a healthy balance?
Also brackets don't substitute parentheses.
sometimes_there
1 / 5 (1) Dec 28, 2010
It means that it's time for astronomers to seriously start to study some real physics instead of trying to come out with idea as this one. It's not that a idea is better if it's the most weird. Please astronomers stop doing science based on Start Trek, try physics istead (General relativity would be a good start) if it's not too difficoult for you. Otherwise soon from the CMB astronomers will start to pull out evidences of the existance of the klingons.