Infinite Universes

  • Thread starter Thread starter utunumsint
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
U

utunumsint

Guest
Is there any evidence at all that support the theory of infinite universes?

Thanks,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Is there any evidence at all that support the theory of infinite universes?

Thanks,
Ut
Click to expand...
Question to clarify:
Are you talking about many world theory, or are you talking about the idea that there are other unique universes outside of our own?
 
Absolutely none - there is no way to detect them.

Implications - there would be universes with a God and fake universes too.

This is the atheist out to escape fine tuning and is fantasy.
 
utunumsint said:
Is there any evidence at all that support the theory of infinite universes?

Thanks,
Ut
Click to expand...
There is the theory that before the Big Bang there was a Universe that collapsed and ended in the Big Bang which exploded into our Universe.
 
promethius said:
Question to clarify:
Are you talking about many world theory, or are you talking about the idea that there are other unique universes outside of our own?
Click to expand...
Not sure. Can you clarify what you mean by these theories? How they are different? e

I’ve had the impression from the media, that there was supporting evidence for such theories.

Thanks,
Ut
 
buffalo said:
Absolutely none - there is no way to detect them.

Implications - there would be universes with a God and fake universes too.

This is the atheist out to escape fine tuning and is fantasy.
Click to expand...
What about mathematical evidence from physics?

Peace,
Ut
 
Yes there are indeed theories about infinite universes. See here youtube.com/watch?v=39qmbl7mpJQ

Is there multi - universes? No one can say for sure. If there is a multiverse in actuality -does it’s existence negate God? No. Why would it? If God can create one universe - who are we to limit him? 🤷
 
There is the Red Shift theory which argues the universe is constantly expanding, but we can’t really say for certain whether it is “infinite”. I’m supposing it is in some way or form though, until we’re sure it has apparently stopped growing.
 
utunumsint said:
Not sure. Can you clarify what you mean by these theories? How they are different? e

I’ve had the impression from the media, that there was supporting evidence for such theories.
Click to expand...
Okay, science lesson!
  1. Many worlds theory:
This is based on the fact that before you measure the position of a photon or an electron, it appears that they don’t actually exist in one place or another, but rather that they exist in ALL places they can possibly exist… they exist as a wave rather than as a physical particle at that point. And measuring causes this wave to collapse down into a single point. The question came up, then, of “how does the electron know when it is being watched?” Aka… how does measuring cause the electron to show up as a point mass rather than a wave.

The answer to that which is currently projected is the many-world theory. That is to say that THIS universe is built like a tree… and as we start at the roots and travel upwards, all the branches represent all the possible unmeasured choices of the universe… so there is a branch of the universe where the electron exists in point A, a branch where it exists in point B, a branch where it exists in point C… etc. It is the act of MEASURING which forces me (and the universe) to traverse down one of these specific branches to determine where the electron is. Before we traverse a branch, the electron partially exists in all of them at the same time.

At any rate, there is some validity to this claim, in that it can be used to formulate observable scientific laws and make predictions. It may not be reality, but there is at least some support for the idea that this universe has multiple versions.
  1. Infinite universes.
This is the idea that there are either millions (or infinite) universes that are NOT this universe… or that before this universe there was another one whose destruction led to the big bang, and another before that one, and before that… etc, etc.

Unfortunately, the big bang marks the beginning of the universe AND ALL OF ITS LAWS. There are physical boundaries to the universe as well… hence we know that this universe is finite (not infinite, as most scientists believed until the last century). This creates what I call an incongruity of physical law. Because the physical law breaks down at the beginning of our universe, and at it’s edges, we can make absolutely not scientific determination about anything outside that area (time). Our very ability to observe is predicated on the fact that we are within a system of laws.

There is not and never can be any scientific evidence whatsoever for what exists outside of or before our universe.
 
Uhhh… Actually the link I posted above would disagree with your last stated conclusion methinks. At least ‘LISA’ will shed some light on all this perhaps.
 
Nimzovik said:
Uhhh… Actually the link I posted above would disagree with your last stated conclusion methinks. At least ‘LISA’ will shed some light on all this perhaps.
Click to expand...
Are you addressing this to me or to someone else?
 
Nimzovik said:
Quite correct. I am addressing you.
Click to expand...
Fair enough:

First, I cannot see youtube, but I don’t need to in order to stand by my assertion.

Like I said, there are many THEORIES regarding infinite universes. However, unless there has been a nobel prize handed out in secret for the person who discovered emperical proof since I got my degree in physics, then no empirical evidence exists to support any of these theories, and even the scientists who postulate any of the versions of multiverse theory will admit that by nature their theories are unfalsifiable because they are unobservable.

If there is somehow evidence that other universes CAN be observed, please point me to the nobel prize which corresponds with such an alarming discovery!

And youtube is not a source for anything.
 
promethius said:
Okay, science lesson!
  1. Many worlds theory:
This is based on the fact that before you measure the position of a photon or an electron, it appears that they don’t actually exist in one place or another, but rather that they exist in ALL places they can possibly exist… they exist as a wave rather than as a physical particle at that point. And measuring causes this wave to collapse down into a single point. The question came up, then, of “how does the electron know when it is being watched?” Aka… how does measuring cause the electron to show up as a point mass rather than a wave.

The answer to that which is currently projected is the many-world theory. That is to say that THIS universe is built like a tree… and as we start at the roots and travel upwards, all the branches represent all the possible unmeasured choices of the universe… so there is a branch of the universe where the electron exists in point A, a branch where it exists in point B, a branch where it exists in point C… etc. It is the act of MEASURING which forces me (and the universe) to traverse down one of these specific branches to determine where the electron is. Before we traverse a branch, the electron partially exists in all of them at the same time.

At any rate, there is some validity to this claim, in that it can be used to formulate observable scientific laws and make predictions. It may not be reality, but there is at least some support for the idea that this universe has multiple versions.
Click to expand...
Interesting. So the evidence for this theory is it’s abilityu to formulate laws and make predictions.
  1. Infinite universes.
This is the idea that there are either millions (or infinite) universes that are NOT this universe… or that before this universe there was another one whose destruction led to the big bang, and another before that one, and before that… etc, etc.

Unfortunately, the big bang marks the beginning of the universe AND ALL OF ITS LAWS. There are physical boundaries to the universe as well… hence we know that this universe is finite (not infinite, as most scientists believed until the last century). This creates what I call an incongruity of physical law. Because the physical law breaks down at the beginning of our universe, and at it’s edges, we can make absolutely not scientific determination about anything outside that area (time). Our very ability to observe is predicated on the fact that we are within a system of laws.

There is not and never can be any scientific evidence whatsoever for what exists outside of or before our universe.
Click to expand...
Very interesting. The first theory posits multiple world coming into existence at every nano-second. Presumably they would also have the same laws of physics as our own. (Correct?) The other theory posits many unknowable universes, and one in particular that created our own, and was the cause of the big bang.

So here is the followup question: some people would claim that these theories are religious in nature, because they are unprovable.

I have a couple of issues with this statement, because it make presuppositions about what we mean by religion, and what constitutes a proff.

Thanks,
Ut
 
utunumsint said:
Is there any evidence at all that support the theory of infinite universes?

Thanks,
Ut
Click to expand...
It is my understanding that the support is theoretical in nature. I take the position that I don’t know, and it is possible mankind will never know.
 
Ok. Perhaps all quite correct in regard to the Multiverse concept -it is indeed all ‘Theoretical.’

It must be noted, however that, perhaps, the evidence for, and extrapolation from said evidence for -God- is ‘theoretical’ as well -for the Atheist at least. There is NO Nobel Prize awarded for the proof of God either.

So. Just how far do we rely on this word- Theoretical?
 
Nimzovik said:
Ok. Perhaps all quite correct in regard to the Multiverse concept -it is indeed all ‘Theoretical.’

It must be noted, however that, perhaps, the evidence for, and extrapolation from said evidence for -God- is ‘theoretical’ as well -for the Atheist at least. There is NO Nobel Prize awarded for the proof of God either.

So. Just how far do we rely on this word- Theoretical?
Click to expand...
One place to look is the Universal Probability Bound.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top