Do you believe in Multiverse theory?

Post Reply New Topic

Maybe you would give the mathematics and physics behind your very Euclidean hypotheses? Or can you give references to such?

Until then, I'll stick with the well supported theories that give very good predictions of measured physics.

The fact that those theories happen not to be understood by many people is irrelevant.

(Which reminds me... I must have another go at reading "The Road to Reality" by Roger Penrose. I found his notation somewhat of a pain to grasp, and gave up on the book too early on.)

a photon in motion in the vacuum does not lose energy until it collides with something.

That is why we can see light that has been travelling through space for nearly 14 billion year.

ruveyn

14 billion year old light is the range of our current scopes,

According to the big bang, it would all be coming from one place.

Our scopes have the same range in any direction.

There is no center, site or region of the bang, there is no edge with void beyond.

It all looks about the same, everywhere.

As for Space, the final ballon, The Physics Bubble, is it only occupied space that expands, or is the void beyond also expanding?

The part we can see is not void, gas clouds, dust, nebula, and close at hand some big rocks, which had to come from another star. It may be a near vacuum, but a dirty one.

Then there is the Dark Matter needed to support expanding, needed to support red shift.

The first view was big bang slows, then gravity brings it to a stop, puts it in reverse, leading to the Big Crunch. The rest supports expanding everlasting, with red shifts and dark matter for all.

That comes from The Big Bang being the center of gravity. The single creation does not hold up. Our scopes see in all directions, it all looks the same.

The sun orbits the Milky Way every 250 million years, which 15 billion is 60 times around. It seems to have been in this stable orbit a lot longer.

Gravity bends light, acts as a drag, so slowing light over long time and distance is to be expected.

When the energy needed to push the mass of the universe apart is considered, that is dropped for the void enlarging. Being nothing, it can do anything, to make single point creation work. The Dark Matter invented, and never found, pushes the mass to expand forever, and the slowing of light is taken as proof.

Accept that light slows, and red shift is not much, then there is no need for Dark Matter, or the Big Bang, which was proposed as a sarcastic joke.

The whole idea that something huge came from nothing, recently, is Creationism. It is a direct attack on the Laws of Physics, calling for Supernatural happenings of a recent date.

Computers and GPS work just fine within physics, and more could happen if we would drop these hunts for The God Particle, and just get on with what we have, like the Chinese are doing. This is where we live now, what works here is our future.

All Pure Science with no application should be dropped, and the money spent on education. Some does not mater, Big Bang, Multiverse, will not make this a better place. Others like Fusion, are fifty years in the future, and always will be. A manned space program was an expense, without return.

We need an educated population that knows what works here and now. If all the money wasted chasing wild geese over the last hundred years was spent in the classrooms, middle school and up, we would have progressed much farther.

What we have is people fighting for control, funds, while it is well known and proven that the best ideas come from the next generation.

There is no right and wrong, many things disproven later worked, Science is not the One True Religion, it is a collection of tales from the past, and there is lots of room for different versions, views, of the meaning of data.

The Universe is not out of ideas, new minds come with new eyes, thoughts, and they need the basics, to build the next world. That which does not affect earth, will not be developed for a hundred years or more, if ever, just gets in the way of what can work.

Space flight does not inspire the young, it disapoints them, after they are misdirected down a trail that leads nowhere. Might as well teach them to fly by flapping their arms, at least they would get something out of it.

We cannot use a Multiverse, a Big Bang, Dark Matter, nor are we going to make a small star, fly to another star, or prove how anything started. We do know the sun is going to blowup, the clock is running, we are short on food, water, air, we have here and now problems to deal with.

When a sphere inflates what point on the surface of the sphere does all that extra area come from? That is an ill posed question for there is no center to the surface. Like wise the cosmos is the "surface" of a higher dimensional manifold. So the big bang does not point to a single place in a pre-existing space. The THING of ORIGIN IS SPACE and TIME. The Cosmos is not expanding IN space. The Cosmos is (in part) space and time itself. Space is expanding.

ruveyn

The Big Bang is not an explosion in a conventional sense, neither is the universe expanding in a spherical zone around a central point. The reason why the balloon analogy is a good one is because we are comparing the 3 dimensional space in which we live to the 2 dimensional surface of the balloon. We cannot consider any point on the surface of the balloon to be the centre around which it expands because it is the surface of a 3 dimensional object that's increasing in size. For the same reason, the is no central point in the universe around which it expands because it is actually more like the "surface" of a 4 dimensional manifold that is increasing in size.

Oh and to answer your question, space does not need a physical background to expand in.

No you are just inventing excuses for a faulty theory that is not possible to prove or disprove. Every time people start fiddling with extra dimensions, I know they are into religion and not science. In order to qualify as a scientific theory, there is a need to provide ways to prove / disprove it. Extra dimensions are utterly unprovable, and if the Big Bang depend on extra dimensions in order to work, it is not even a scientific theory, but merely religion.

That is pure speculation and religion, and it is 100% unprovable.



I don't believe in a origin of time and space, especially not when it is created in a human mind to prove a creation by a human-like God.

Can you prove that?



Yes, but we cannot see light that has travelled for 50 billion years, simply because its "red shift" would make it invisible.

In fact, the proposition that light slows down in space is a real scientific theory that can potentially be proved or disproved. Extra dimensions and a "Big Bang" is not.

Waving your hands in the air and saying that you do not like modern physics is not "proof" that it is wrong.

Theories that have testable predictions, which have been tested, and have been found to be reasonably flawlessly accurate, are not "proved". They are just science in action. There is no need to "believe" in the theories.

Fine. You can believe what you like. I don't believe in anything. I do find theories that match physical measurements very useful. If those theories imply that our perception of space and time is rather at odds with reality, then reality wins. It is unproductive to religiously hang onto belief in simplistic Euclidean geometries when they fail hopelessly to predict anything beyond very local, slow experimental results.

Predictings results used the be called The Scientific Method. It worked.

The Expanding Universe has many problems, the first would be a decline in the ratio of Mass. Gravitation would fall apart as the distance between things increased.

Another would be Atoms, do they expand also? Their mass and energy seems fixed, Some are unstable, has the decay rate speeded up?

An expanding universe would have a decrease of energy. Same energy, much larger space, would lead to more than red shift.

Space/Time, Nothing and wait long enough, cannot exist if Time/Gravity are non moving fields of domain, that weaken with distance from Mass.

Matter drives the Universe we can see, It alone produces the Gravity that feeds stars and produces more Energy and Transforms Matter.

If everything was expanding, the orbit of stars like our own would be moving away from the Galatic Center. There is no evidence the Milky Way is getting larger. Nor that Gravity is weakening, and bits at the edge being flung into space.

The background radiation that could not exist without creation, is not changing, but being energy, it should be in decline, in an expanding universe. It seems to exist in a steady state in a equally constant universe.

Just waving your hands in the air and saying what everyone thinks is wrong because some guy wrote a book, is not dealing with the facts that prove religious speculations have no place in Science.

An expanding universe would have less Mass per area, declining Gravity, fading Energy levels, and Atomic Structure would come apart. None of this has been observed.

What works to sell books to the faithful, does not work on anything within our range of perception.

What we can percieve and measure, that others can also, and get the same results, is called Science.

I am not inventing anything. That is just what the Big Bang theory describes, look it up yourself if you don't believe me.

Firstly, I did not say anything about extra dimensions. We think about space-time as being imbedded in a higher-dimensional space, such as the universe being the surface of a 4 dimensional manifold, just because that's a way to picture the warping of space-time. It does not mean that the "extra dimensions" are real.

Secondly, I have a degree in physics, what do you have?

No one said anything about God.

Once one have abondonded the creationist Big Bang, it is not to hard to put one and one together. We have red shifts caused by photons travelling long distances in space, and we have the background radiation. You don't need a degree in physics to realize that the loss of energy of photons is the observable background radiation. It is so simple.

IMO, it is better to use the energy-conservation principle whenever possible. If far-away photons have lower energy, this energy must have been lost somewhere, and in a non-expanding universe, the best candidate is background radiation. The sum of the energy of background radiation and the loss of energy of photons traveling in space is equal. That is a scientific hyopthesis that can be checked with the scientific method.

Last edited by rdos on 26 Nov 2011, 3:47 am, edited 1 time in total.

That would be the same thing as looking up what Jesus said about the creation of the universe in the Bible. I don't believe in fairy-tails.



I don't believe in anything that requires extra dimensions to understand / explain. That per definition makes it religion instead of science, as it is impossible to prove with the scientific method.



Not in physics specifically, but I have read the required material at the MSc level (with a focus on electronics).

There are no predictions being proved by multiverse theories, Big Bang or multidimensional theories. What additional data is used to is simply to tweak numerous parameters in the models. It is a lot like autism-research, where data-mining is used to create new causes. When "science" is driven by data-mining alone, or data-mining and theories that are unprovable, it is no longer science.



There is no need to leave-by observable phenomena in favor of extra dimensions and fairy-tails. Einstein didn't mean that observable things should be abondonded in favor of speculative stuff. In fact, it was very clear that the theory of relativity was just a minor modifcation of Newtons mechanics at high speeds. It didn't suggest that extra dimensions should be involved. In fact, it says nothing about extra dimensions. He regarded time as kind of interleaved with space (at speeds close to speed of light), not an independent dimension.

That gives me flashbacks of the first sea farers being afraid of falling off the edge as they reached the end of the earth. The scientific method finally proved that the earth was not flat, and moved around the sun. But people didn't accept this until generations later, because they believed in the creationist fairy tails (from the Bible in this case, but the Big Bang is no better than a fairy tail).

Here is a reality-check for people that still believe in a human-like God that created the universe, or theories that imply such a thing:

1. Our solar system is one of billions in the Milky way
2. The Milky way is one of millions or billions of galaxies in the observable universe
3. Homo have existed 2 million years on earth, and life has existed over one billion years on earth
4. Modern humans have existed 150,000 years on earth.

So, how likely is it that earth is the centre of the universe and that a human-like God created the universe? It was not an impossible hypothesis when earth was regarded as flat, and the sun and moon was believed to move around us, but with increasing data it has become totally impossible and obsolete.

Let's just ignore the need our brains have for an origin and sudden creation, and leave this out of theories in physics. Just let psychiatry study our inborn needs instead. Then we might see more advance in physics.