Evidence of other universes!

[Underseer]

http://www.technologyreview.com/view/421999/astronomers-find-first-evidence-of-other-universes/
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/sciencet...ence-multiverse-revealed-time-cosmic-map.html

OK, OK, I know that this info is three years old, but this forum is bare and needs a discussion of some sort. The implication is that spacetime expansion from other big bang events have collided with our universe and that the cosmic background microwave radiation contains evidence of these collisions as per analysis of data from the Planck and WMAP spacecrafts. I understand that this is probably weak evidence and not yet a consensus opinion, but how exciting if this is true!

If this is true, doesn't this imply that some form of spacetime existed before our own big bang event? I mean, those other universes could not have affected our cosmic background radiation unless some kind of spacetime exists between those universes and our universe, right? I think this has implications for arguments about the origin of the universe.

Hawking and others argue that our universe began with an actual singularity and that spacetime as we know it came into existence with our universe. If this is true, then our universe has to be uncaused. I mean, if time did not exist before our universe, then the law of cause and effect cannot possibly have influenced the formation of our universe, right? If there was no "before" before our universe, then there can't be a cause. However, I think this discovery about other universes calls those assumptions into question. I mean, if spacetime from other big bang events reached our universe, then one could certainly argue that time (in whatever form) did in fact exist before our universe: there must have been a "before" our universe. Thus it is entirely possible that the big bang event was caused by something.

Of course, theists are going to jump on this and do the teleological thing ("Ah ha! I don't understand how this came to be, therefore I know that god did it!"), which of course completely ignores the long and growing list of hypotheses that offer perfectly natural explanations for the big bang (the collapse of a previous universe, the singularity that caused our universe is at the center of a black hole in another universe, the big bang was caused by two branes crashing into each other, etc.), but none of that will matter to theists. You know how that goes. It doesn't matter if other people have plausible explanations, if they don't understand the other explanations, then no other explanation exists, therefore goddidit. Sigh.

 

[dockeen]

My weird WAG is that the BB represents some form of phase change - it need not be a "beginning" at all.

Of course, the closest I ever got to cosmology was some work I did supporting some astronomers in the department many years ago.

 

[Underseer]

There's a growing list of hypotheses that attempt to explain where the big bang came from, including one that involves a periodic scale change.

I'm going to go out on a limb and guess that those other hypotheses involve more math than yours.

 

[George S]

My weird WAG is that the BB represents some form of phase change - it need not be a "beginning" at all.

If there ever was the state of no time passing that state is no longer. There came to be frequency. (In a frequency-less universe nothing cycles, nothing repeats, pure chaos reigns, no moment is distinguishable from another.) And as you know E=hf. Energy is frequency (f) multiplied by a constant (h). That constant, Planck's constant, converts frequency units into energy units. It could be set to 1 to accept nature's units, not ours. We can set c, the speed of light to 1 as well and get E=m=f. Energy = mass = frequency.

If there never was a state of no time passing there are two choices. For the longest time nothing was happening and then there came to be energy. Of the smallest possible size so it was hot and dense.

Or.

Time may be symmetric.

What we see is the content of our past light-cone. It is a 3 dimensional cone. When a familiar cone is balanced on its end and sliced horizontally the result is a circle. A similar slice through a 3 dimensional cone yields a spherical surface.

Take two cones balanced at their tips and perfectly symmetrically aligned. Let us go down just one more dimension and consider the 1-d cone. It is a line with a space for a zero in the middle, but it is missing. (It represents the numbers that may be used as divisors. It is a singularity in allowed divisors.)

Now we eliminate the zero from consideration in the 2-d case and the two cones are balanced on the same kind of absence. In the 3-d case we find them balanced on a 3-d version, a missing point in space. In both cones entropy increases as away from the singularity.

The 10-d case gets too complicated to visualize. Rob Bryanton on YouTube (http://youtu.be/gg85IH3vghA) takes a good shot though.

 

[steve_bnk]

For us to detect 'another universe' there has to be causal links that we can detect and observe.

As such there can only be one knowable universe. How you compartmentalize metaphysically that universe is arbitrary. On Earth we categorize by land mass... continents and islands. It is till one Earth.

 

[Underseer]

For us to detect 'another universe' there has to be causal links that we can detect and observe.

As such there can only be one knowable universe. How you compartmentalize metaphysically that universe is arbitrary. On Earth we categorize by land mass... continents and islands. It is till one Earth.

If you are refuting the study linked in the original post, then explain why the study is wrong. Simply declaring that what was published in the study is impossible does not really help whatever case you are trying to make.

 

[GenesisNemesis]

How many "bruises" were found? What are the alternative hypotheses?

 

[steve_bnk]

'....Hawking and others argue that our universe began with an actual singularity and that spacetime as we know it came into existence with our universe. If this is true, then our universe has to be uncaused. ..'

Speculation and philosophy, not a testable hypothesis and nit refutable. Logical proofs of a caused or uncaused universe are of the same order as proofs of god. Logically consistent but and both based on assumptions. The fact that some of it is wrapped in scientific theory does not necessarily make it science as opposed to philosophy.

We can only know that which is causally related.

Asking whether time existed in the early universe is like asking if meters or pounds existed as well. Time objectively is ticks on a clock, the SI second.

Time is a human quantitative measurement of change. Asking whether time existed in the early universe is really asking if there was always change.

The BB theory does not address time zero or what wound everything up to being with.

A cosmology of ultimate origins and religion end up at the same place.

I believe an uncaused infinite universe as the most plausible because I categorically reject something from nothing. And that is a philosophical statement not subject to proof.

'...Cosmologists studying a map of theuniverse from data gathered by the Planck spacecraft have concludedthat it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by thegravitational pull of other universes...'


As I said, if here are causal links thetag of another universe is arbitrary. I do not see where the 'canonly' conclusion is justified.

 

[Perspicuo]

Agreed. Godsdidit.

 

[Underseer]

'....Hawking and others argue that our universe began with an actual singularity and that spacetime as we know it came into existence with our universe. If this is true, then our universe has to be uncaused. ..'

Speculation and philosophy, not a testable hypothesis and nit refutable. Logical proofs of a caused or uncaused universe are of the same order as proofs of god. Logically consistent but and both based on assumptions. The fact that some of it is wrapped in scientific theory does not necessarily make it science as opposed to philosophy.

We can only know that which is causally related.

Asking whether time existed in the early universe is like asking if meters or pounds existed as well. Time objectively is ticks on a clock, the SI second.

Time is a human quantitative measurement of change. Asking whether time existed in the early universe is really asking if there was always change.

The BB theory does not address time zero or what wound everything up to being with.

A cosmology of ultimate origins and religion end up at the same place.

I believe an uncaused infinite universe as the most plausible because I categorically reject something from nothing. And that is a philosophical statement not subject to proof.

'...Cosmologists studying a map of theuniverse from data gathered by the Planck spacecraft have concludedthat it shows anomalies that can only have been caused by thegravitational pull of other universes...'


As I said, if here are causal links thetag of another universe is arbitrary. I do not see where the 'canonly' conclusion is justified.

Of all the pre-Big Bang hypotheses, Hawking's is the only one with any evidence, and that is very weak and circumstantial evidence.

And no, saying that time came into existence is not like saying meters came into existence. It's like saying length came into existence with the universe, and if Hawking is right then space did come into existence with time and with the universe. You seem to be arguing that time had to exist before the universe, and that is simply not a given, although the evidence for other big bang events does suggest (to me at least) that time probably did exist in some form before the universe did.

 

[4321lynx]

steve_bnk said

I believe an uncaused infinite universe as the most plausible because I categorically reject something from nothing. And that is a philosophical statement not subject to proof.

Agree.

May I add I feel I am here in a new universe, what with all those long-familiar names figuring as New Member or Junior Member. What caused this Big Bang?

 

[Underseer]

steve_bnk said



Agree.

May I add I feel I am here in a new universe, what with all those long-familiar names figuring as New Member or Junior Member. What caused this Big Bang?

He can reject something from nothing on philosophical grounds all he wants, but virtual particles pop in and out of existence all the time. Heck, you can even measure the pressure created by all the virtual particles popping in and out of existence (in a manner of speaking).

Further, by "uncaused infinite universe," isn't Steve arguing for a static universe? Am I misunderstanding you, Steve?

 

[Juma]

About "law of cause and effect": that is actually two laws: 1) every effect has a cause. 2) the cause precedes the effect.
2) requires time and 1) is a macroscopic "law" only. Thus neither of these has any bearing,

 

[Underseer]

About "law of cause and effect": that is actually two laws: 1) every effect has a cause. 2) the cause precedes the effect.
2) requires time and 1) is a macroscopic "law" only. Thus neither of these has any bearing,

It isn't really a law, of course, but if time came into existence with the universe, then cause and effect are impossible because there was no "before."

However, if the research linked in the original post turns out to be true, doesn't that mean that time of one form or another existed before the universe even if our universe started with a singularity as Hawking and Krauss suggest?