The multiverse is real....

NiftyNiblick said:
I don't like mangling words.

"Universe" means everything, so it can't be a subset of multiverse.

It's not science. It's vocabulary.
Click to expand...

NiftyNiblick said:
It does not mean that, true, and thus cannot be valid as "universe" is already defined in the language to include everything everywhere always.

If it did mean that, then it might be worth considering.
Click to expand...

NiftyNiblick said:
Yes.
If the meaning of something is "everything everywhere always," it has no replacement as a concept.
That's what "universe" was intended to mean.
Click to expand...

So a new term was coined to describe a concept that didn't exist back when the old term was coined.

The word "multiverse" is just a more convenient way to express the idea of multiple realms of reality which coexist but cannot be observed by the beings residing in each.

It's just a shorthand term.

Nothing to get hung up on.
 
unfortunately the universe which wanted to split off when a choice is made, instantly dies off with the 6B people who would have lived if only you hadn't decided to skip breakfast this morning.......MURDERER!......
 
Cypress said:
I agree it's a semantics problem.
I think the way the word universe was typically concieved it referred to everything created after the big bang.

The inflationary hypotheses suggests that there could be individual island universes which spawned off the inflationary field, each with their own big bangs.
Click to expand...
where does all the matter come from if each new universe that bubbles off contains as much of it as ours does?.....
 
PostmodernProphet said:
where does all the matter come from if each new universe that bubbles off contains as much of it as ours does?.....
Click to expand...

Energy and matter are interchangeable.

The hypothesis stipulates that inflation is driven by some (as yet unknown) scalar energy field, which decays into elementary particles like electrons, neutrinos, and quarks as temperature cools and density decreases.
 
Cypress said:
Energy and matter are interchangeable.
Click to expand...
okay.....what changes in our universe to become the matter in this bubble universe?.....do we lose a few nebula over on the other side of the Milky Way and they get fewer almonds in their Almond Joy?......shucks, do they even get Halloween?......

I'm just sayin'.....hypothetically, the people who believe this shit are fucking idiots......if our universe has spawned a million bubble universes we have to be one/millionth the size we used to be or those are some really tiny universes.......
 
Last edited:
PostmodernProphet said:
okay.....what changes in our universe to become the matter in this bubble universe?.....do we lose a few nebula over on the other side of the Milky Way and they get fewer almonds in their Almond Joy?......shucks, do they even get Halloween?......

I'm just sayin'.....hypothetically, the people who believe this shit are fucking idiots......
Click to expand...

Inflation stopped in our universe, which causes elementary particles to freeze out of the scalar field.


But quantum fluctuations, the Heisenberg uncertainty principle, probably means that inflation didn't stop everywhere, all at once, all at exactly
the same time. While our bubble universe froze out of the scalar field within our local conditions, the scalar field kept inflating elsewhere and spawning other big bangs and island universes.
 
NiftyNiblick said:
It does not mean that, true, and thus cannot be valid as "universe" is already defined in the language to include everything everywhere always.

If it did mean that, then it might be worth considering.
Click to expand...

That is why I almost always use the expression, "...what we humans call the universe" in my posts. That is all we have to go on...what we humans call the universe.

There MAY BE a hell of a lot more to existence than what we humans call "the universe."
 
I'm just sayin'.....hypothetically, the people who believe this shit are fucking idiots......if our universe has spawned a million bubble universes we have to be one/millionth the size we used to be or those are some really tiny universes.......
Click to expand...
Holy Rollers and Militant Atheists always tend to get upset at the suggestion of anything that might challenge their rock solid beliefs.


No, eternal inflation does not mean our observable universe had to shrink.

Yes, it is only a hypothesis. But it is an idea that explains many observations like the geometric flatness of the universe, the fact that we observe the universe to be seemingly perfectly tuned to a critical density of 1.0000..., and it explains why we don't observe magnetic monopoles.
 
Cypress said:
Technically, we don't know that for a fact.

The Big Bang is often misinterpreted as the beginning.

The big bang technically just refers to a point in time when the universe existed at Planck density (10[SUP]90[/SUP] grams per cm[SUP]3[/SUP]) and began to expand.

We don't understand physics at Planck density, so we can't say if the universe existed for an infinitely long period at Planck density, or whether the universe at Planck density was created just a picosecond before inflation.
.
Click to expand...

Believing in the existence of God makes more sense than believing in multiverse.

We never will understand the physics because the mind that created it is not understandable with our severely limited human brains.
 
Yakuda said:
Believing in the existence of God makes more sense than believing in multiverse.

We never will understand the physics because the mind that created it is not understandable with our severely limited human brains.
Click to expand...

I have several dozen posts on this board stating that there is probably knowledge beyond physics, knowledge that our souped up chimpanzee brains cannot access, and wouldn't even understand if someone told us the answer.

That said, I don't think the Big Bang can be massaged and molded into proof of divine creation, anymore than the militant atheist can claim it is a fact we are just meat robots and the only reality out there is quarks and electrons.
 
Cypress said:
I have several dozen posts on this board stating that there is probably knowledge beyond physics, knowledge that our souped up chimpanzee brains cannot access, and wouldn't even understand if someone told us the answer.

That said, I don't think the Big Bang can be massaged and molded into proof of divine creation, anymore than the militant atheist can claim it is a fact we are just meat robots and the only reality out there is quarks and electrons.
Click to expand...

We can point to the big bang we can't point to multiverses. The concept of multiverses was concocted to discount a creator. It was a way to explain why a creator isn't necessary but it has no basis in reality.
 
Yakuda said:
We can point to the big bang we can't point to multiverses. The concept of multiverses was concocted to discount a creator. It was a way to explain why a creator isn't necessary but it has no basis in reality.
Click to expand...

It's fine if you want to point to the Big Bang as a moment of creation. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. It's just not a fact, because technically the Big Bang theory doesn't prove an origin. It only proves that the universe was once at Planck density before it inflated. We don't know how long it was at Planck density, because unknown physics are involved at those temperatures and densities.


I sometimes feel like inflation and the multiverse were convenient ways to sweep the facts of a finely tuned universe under the rug. But I don't think physicists invented inflation and the multiverse on a whim. They were almost dragged kicking and screaming into seeing it as a plausible hypothesis, because it really does explain certain observations about an expanding universe.
 
Cypress said:
It's fine if you want to point to the Big Bang as a moment of creation. There's nothing wrong with that opinion. It's just not a fact, because technically the Big Bang theory doesn't prove an origin. It only proves that the universe was once at Planck density before it inflated.


I sometimes feel like inflation and the multiverse were convenient ways to sweep the facts of a finely tuned universe under the rug. But I don't think physicists invented inflation and the multiverse on I whim. They were almost dragged kicking and screaming into seeing it as a plausible hypothesis, because it really does explain certain observations about an expanding universe.
Click to expand...

I merely indicated that the big bang was an actual thing while multiverse are not. I didn't metion anything about creation. The fact is the big bang happened and it can be shown. Multiverses are not and cannot be shown.
 
Yakuda said:
I merely indicated that the big bang was an actual thing while multiverse are not. I didn't metion anything about creation. The fact is the big bang happened and it can be shown. Multiverses are not and cannot be shown.
Click to expand...
You're right, the multiverse is speculative.

But the standard Big Bang model has some serious problems that require explanation.

If you just ignored those problems, the theory would be incomplete. Inflation and the multiverse are ideas to explain those problems.
 
Frank Apisa said:
That is why I almost always use the expression, "...what we humans call the universe" in my posts. That is all we have to go on...what we humans call the universe.

There MAY BE a hell of a lot more to existence than what we humans call "the universe."
Click to expand...

I don't think, Frank, that we humans all use the word "universe" in the same way.

To me, it means everything that exists whether we know about,

or have even thought about it,

or not.

Linguistically, then, if we choose to be harshly literal,
there can't be anything else except for the one, all-encompassing universe.

Semantics obviously are apparently much less important to others
than they are to me.

That's just a personal trait that I've always had, for better or worse.

If "universe" doesn't mean absolutely everything, which word more precisely describes that concept?

I'm personally good with "universe."

I'm content to leave the theoretical with theorists
and remain a literalist [obviously not in the biblical sense] myself.
 
Cypress said:
You're right, the multiverse is speculative.

But the standard Big Bang model has some serious problems that require explanation.

If you just ignored those problems, the theory would be incomplete. Inflation and the multiverse are ideas to explain those problems.
Click to expand...

My only point was the big bang happened but multiverses are nothing more than a hypothesis
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top