Our universe may show bruises from smacking four other universes | DVICE - Universe shows bruising from smacking up agansint other universes.
Printable View
Our universe may show bruises from smacking four other universes | DVICE - Universe shows bruising from smacking up agansint other universes.
So what do we call all the space outside our universe?
This comment made more sense to me than the article.Quote:
One might opine that it is this exchange of energies between continua, or dimensions if you prefer, that forms the forces that create and maintain all quantum artifacts within any continuum. These 'bruises' may be current artifacts of interaction and not vestigial remnants. I would suspect there are at least four more such indications of interaction of a lesser nature. In Brane theory, universes, dimensions or continua would be separated by natural boundaries. Ours seems to be limited by a specific ratio of time to space in the transfer of radiant energy in quantum form. This is light speed. Each continua should have its own light speed. No energy not conforming to that ratio would be visible, but would interact as dark energy. The bruises then are not where other universes came in contact, but where the natural properties of resonance of energetic forces creates low nodes much like the dark bands in any interference pattern.
Also, moved.
Thanks! I didn't know where I would put it, so I just put it in the lounge. Thanks again!Quote:
Originally Posted by nina
Fascinating idea. So I guess the idea is that another universe shortly overlaps with our universe, creating a concentration of background radiation. I suppose that would look like a convex disk.
Uhm, that article is on SyFy. Anyways, the talk about other universes outside of space bumping into each other makes no sense, because the universe is space. There is no space outside of space. derp?
The article most likely misinterpreted the research that it's reporting on, but what you're saying we don't really know anything about. Could be that there is space outside of space.Quote:
Originally Posted by Forsaken
I assume you mean that the comment made no sense yes?Quote:
Originally Posted by nina
Coz if you somehow understood that.... Well, I dunno lol
Anyway.... I'm personally waiting for this. ASKAP Home
The Australian SKA (Square Kilometre Array) Pathfinder.
Apparently it is going to gather more information in 6 minutes than all of the world's
telescopes have in 60 years.
I could be wrong but this is probably a brane world type of idea. So our 'universe' would be a 3-brane in a higher dimensional space. Another universe would be another 3-brane, also in the higher dimensional space. So they could 'bump' into each other. That's how you have 'space outside of space'. Just more space. The collisions would affect the distribution of matter leading to large 'bald patches' in our 3-brane where there was very little matter and hence things like stars and stuff. Apparently, one was successfuly predicted and later observed a few years ago.
Sorta defeats the purpose of the word 'universe'.
To be clear, this is distinct from the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. Two different uses of the word 'multiverse'.
This is super-confusing, I was told the universe is a self-contained space, which could even be infinite, and questions of expansion 'into' something are meaningless.
That's the standard view of spacetime that comes from GR. This is string theory stuff if I'm not mistaken. Still haven't arsed myself to read the article.Quote:
Originally Posted by Xei
hmmmm.... the article is shit btw. Don't bother arsing yourself.
I still think it's weird to say space outside of space. Space is nothing, therefore past it can only be more nothing, or something, to interrupt the space.
Empty space still requires space-time/dimensions.
All space within our universe has stuff in it. There isn't actually any 'empty' space within our own universe, so when we say there is nothing outside our universe, that nothing is a lot different than the seemingly nothing we have within it. And when we say there is nothing outside our universe, that isn't including the theories of other universes that might be outside our own.
How is there not empty space in our universe? Everywhere there is not stars, there is space. Tonnes of it. 99% of "solid" objects is also space.
Most of that empty space is full of particles.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
I would argue that everything is mostly empty space. Including the stars and planets and people. People especially.
Space is not nothing by any means. For a start is has structure: it can be curved. Secondly, it ain't empty: space is continually frothing with quantum fluctuations. The 'Nothing' part of the 'Everything and Nothing' BBC series covers this if you're interested.
I'll check it out.
Most articles by reporters are shit ... As an aside it strikes me as weird that many people who have no problem rejecting mainstream reporting as incompetent suddenly are willing to judge the credibility, humility, and motives of scientists based on an even lower standard of journalism.Quote:
Originally Posted by tommo
But "space outside of space" isn't really that confusing if you don't use that phrase. Think about a 3-space. Like the standard euclidean model of what we live in with three directions, x, y, z. Now take the plane with z = 0. So that's all points (x, y, 0) with x and y assuming any value. Then for something living on the plane can only move in two directions, x and y. z is always zero.
But there's still a space outside that, namely every point where z isn't zero. So we could take our plane and bend it. Say by mapping the point (x, y, 0) to (x, y, x*cos y). Now something living on the plane wouln't be able to tell that we had just turned a flat plane into a wavy surface but something from the outside would. That's distinct from the sort of bending in GR in which we can tell the difference even though we're inside it.
I understand the mathematics behind this, but I fail to see how to prove those bruises can be from other universes. There is so much of that level of physics that is yet to be understood, they could very easily be bruises cause by other things, such as concentrations of negative energy. Negative energy is something still poorly understood.
You.... understand the mathematics?
Either you're talking about the very basic gist mathematics or you're insane.
This is the guy who thinks that Mercury pulls on the Sun harder than Jupiter because 'Mercury is much closer and gravity decreases exponentially with distance', and doesn't know what an integral is. So I'm sceptical.
I understand the mathematical concept, I've never look at the math for this article. If the universe is truly just a set of vibrations in much larger branes, I certainly understand how two universes even coming close to each other can create bruises. The mathematics of vibrations interrupting other vibrations is elementary, in M-Theory, you would just have to expand that into 11 dimensions, a tedious task, but possible for someone with the time.
I calculated out the Mercury / Jupiter thing and I was wrong, but where did I say I didn't know what an integral is? That's like first year calculus, which type of integral did you think I don't understand? Definite integrals or antiderivatives? Or were you not referring to me?
And just because I was wrong about the Mercury/Jupiter thing doesn't mean the concept was wrong, the pull of gravity is an inverse square relationship with distance, I just underestimated just how big Jupiter was.
Ehh I just distinctly remember in chat when you said you never understood what Riemann sums were and I thought 'lolwat'. Not trying to be rude, I just find it unlikely that you couldn't get that but knew the mathematics of M-theory... all you're really giving now is a dubious heuristic, that's not the same thing as understanding the mathematics.