Science
Related: About this forumWhich universe are we in?
On Science Channel 9 pm EST and 12 am 11/12
New (2014) show about multiverse.
shenmue
(38,506 posts)I skared.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)One of the Hell Worlds,
PADemD
(4,482 posts)Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)How small does the "lesser" part of the lesser of two evils have to get before we really have to find a different way?
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)Response to PADemD (Original post)
Warren DeMontague This message was self-deleted by its author.
LuvNewcastle
(16,844 posts)only be in this one for a relatively short time.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)Fortinbras Armstrong
(4,473 posts)No, not that one, the one next to it.
Thor_MN
(11,843 posts)bvf
(6,604 posts)I don't have that channel on cable but I'll definitely try to seek it out on-line.
A book on the multiverse I recommend is "The Fabric of Reality" by David Deutsch (1997). Hope he gets some mention in this.
Thanks again for the heads-up!
Silent3
(15,210 posts)The word "universe" has, of course, become somewhat diluted in common usage, taken to mean "known universe" or other multiple realms that may be like or unlike the known universe in varying degrees.
By strict usage of the word "universe", however, any individual realm in a plural set of realms can only be a subset of a greater universe, the true universe being the sum of all extant realms.
So which universe are we in? The one and only, by definition singular universe.
Warpy
(111,255 posts)However, having a Big Bang bump into other things as it expanded would explain a lot.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)...so long as such "bumping" has observable, measurable consequences.
I still think I know what you mean, that you're talking about the part of the universe that we more directly experience all of the time. It's a shame there isn't a good word for "large subpart of the universe" which would leave "universe" free to always be singular and all-encompassing, getting rid of the need for terms like "multiverse" which implicitly accept the watered-down sense of "universe".
One could, of course, imagine multiple "universes" which have never and can't ever interact in any way -- no "bumping", no connections or mutual detection ever possible at all, but that's an idea that, while you can play with it in your imagination, is actually meaningless. There can be no meaningful sense of the word "exist" when it refers to an "existence" which is, by definition, utterly and completely detached and inconsequential to our own existence.
John1956PA
(2,654 posts)In support of the analogy, I would mention that there is a "Dark Internet" which ordinary World Wide Web surfers (like most of us) can not access.
defacto7
(13,485 posts)It is unfortunate that language seems undermined by fast and sloppy usage and the Internet is no help in that regard... "meme" for instance or the ellipsis for that matter. In this case we have to our rescue "multiverse" or meta-universe. At least someone is trying to advance language in a functional way.
I'm not trying to sound linguistically adept, I just think language is fun.
bvf
(6,604 posts)words evolve, and like you I can appreciate them more if there's a truly functional reason behind those evolutions.
"Universe" is so ingrained in at least English-speaking cultures to mean "everything in existence" that new ways of looking at things (as demanded by, say, quantum computing) demand new vocabulary.
Nice to meet a fellow word nerd.
muriel_volestrangler
(101,311 posts)Other galaxies were called, at first, 'island universes'.
...
In the 10th century, the Persian astronomer Al-Sufi made the earliest recorded observation of the Andromeda Galaxy, describing it as a "small cloud".[37] Al-Sufi, who published his findings in his Book of Fixed Stars in 964, also identified the Large Magellanic Cloud, which is visible from Yemen, though not from Isfahan; it was not seen by Europeans until Magellan's voyage in the 16th century.[38][39] The Andromeda Galaxy was independently rediscovered by Simon Marius in 1612.[37] These are the only galaxies outside the Milky Way that are easily visible to the unaided eye, so they were the first galaxies to be observed from Earth. In 1750 Thomas Wright, in his An original theory or new hypothesis of the Universe, speculated (correctly) that the Milky Way was a flattened disk of stars, and that some of the nebulae visible in the night sky might be separate Milky Ways.[32][40] In 1755, Immanuel Kant used the term "island Universe" to describe these distant nebulae.
...
In 1917, Heber Curtis had observed a nova S Andromedae within the "Great Andromeda Nebula" (as the Andromeda Galaxy, Messier object M31, was known). Searching the photographic record, he found 11 more novae. Curtis noticed that these novae were, on average, 10 magnitudes fainter than those that occurred within our galaxy. As a result he was able to come up with a distance estimate of 150,000 parsecs. He became a proponent of the so-called "island universes" hypothesis, which holds that spiral nebulae are actually independent galaxies.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Galaxy
The one and only.
Jackpine Radical
(45,274 posts)He made the slight mistake of applying an a priori definition to answer an a posteriori question.
Silent3
(15,210 posts)I'm just taking the opportunity to remind people to not forget the all-encompassing sense of the word "universe", something I think is often lost when the now more common watered-down sense of the word is used.
My response does not purport to be a direct answer to the intended question.
Javaman
(62,521 posts)qazplm
(3,626 posts)where I learn today that I got promoted to lieutenant colonel? I'm like Schrodinger's Major over here!
qazplm
(3,626 posts)gotta love bad news.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)We're in the most statistically likely universe where observation is possible.
Of course, since you're dealing with mathematics that transcends time, statements about causal relationships are treacherous.
bvf
(6,604 posts)At least one theory of the multiverse holds that anything not disallowed by the laws of physics actually happens in some universe(s). Observation doesn't play into it from what I understand, but that's a point worth mulling over.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)And what research has found is that the most statistically likely universe where observation is allowed is relatively close to the constants we measure.
bvf
(6,604 posts)and what it means to say that a universe "allows" it.
The multiverse concept intrigues me--I'd be interested in knowing what source(s) support your premise.
True Blue Door
(2,969 posts)but this recent article was really great:
http://www.wired.com/2014/11/check-universe-exist/
bvf
(6,604 posts)just now, but bookmarked it.
Looks like a good read--thanks!
Kalidurga
(14,177 posts)I don't even know how many there are. But, I doubt we are in the first one.