Is there any reason to suppose there is only one universe?

[Pyrrho]

If the Big Bang generated spacetime and the physical universe, is it not possible that multiple such events have occurred at loci beyond the boundaries of this universe?

[Tom-Palven]

Sounds reasonable to me.

[Phlegmak]

If the Big Bang generated spacetime and the physical universe, is it not possible that multiple such events have occurred at loci beyond the boundaries of this universe?

Yep, it's possible.

[Martin Brock]

If the Big Bang generated spacetime and the physical universe, is it not possible that multiple such events have occurred at loci beyond the boundaries of this universe?

There is only one universe. That's why it's the uni-verse. Physics has nothing to do with it. If something exists "beyond our space-time", this something else is also part of the universe, because it exists. If "universe" doesn't describe everything everywhere always, then we need another word for everything everywhere always.

I suppose the answer to your essential question might be "yes", but that's a separate issue.

[HghrSymmetry]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniverse

[Martin Brock]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Omniverse

What about other omniverses? What shall we call all omniverses? The Hyperverse? What about all hyperverses?

[HghrSymmetry]

...the term "universe" is meant to refer to the entirety of one reality. Omni- is a prefix meaning "all", making the omniverse encompass all possible universes, unlike the multiverse that can encompass any two or more universes with the same set of laws and constants.

[Martin Brock]

...the term "universe" is meant to refer to the entirety of one reality. Omni- is a prefix meaning "all", making the omniverse encompass all possible universes, unlike the multiverse that can encompass any two or more universes with the same set of laws and constants.

http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=universe

1589, "the whole world, cosmos," from O.Fr. univers (12c.), from L. universum "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. universus "all together," lit. "turned into one," from unus "one" (see one) + versus, pp. of vertere "to turn" (see versus). Properly a loan-translation of Gk. to holon "the universe," noun use of neut. of adj. holos "whole" (see safe (adj.)).

"One reality" is already redundant. If you want one "omniverse", you'll eventually find someone who wants multiple omniverses.

[Pyrrho]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_theory.html

The Big Bang Model is a broadly accepted theory for the origin and evolution of our universe. It postulates that 12 to 14 billion years ago, the portion of the universe we can see today was only a few millimeters across. It has since expanded from this hot dense state into the vast and much cooler cosmos we currently inhabit. We can see remnants of this hot dense matter as the now very cold cosmic microwave background radiation which still pervades the universe and is visible to microwave detectors as a uniform glow across the entire sky.

I'm merely wondering if this could have happened at multiple loci. I'm guessing it could have happened at possibly an infinite number of loci. It's an idle question that came to mind, that's all.

If we accept the premise that the proto-universe was a few millimeters across, that leaves a lot of "nothing" that is not the proto-universe. Could the unknown mechanism that caused the proto-universe to exist in the first place have generated other such "few millimeters across" proto-universes?

[Martin Brock]

If we accept the premise that the proto-universe was a few millimeters across, that leaves a lot of "nothing" that is not the proto-universe. Could the unknown mechanism that caused the proto-universe to exist in the first place have generated other such "few millimeters across" proto-universes?

I'm not sure that a proto-universe a "few millimeters" across leaves a lot of "nothing". I'm not a cosmologist or an expert on General Relativity, but as I understand the theory, the "few millimeters"  was the entire universe, all of space-time. Matter didn't expand from a tiny seed into a vast empty space over time. Space-time itself expanded.

Still, the theory might permit two expansions into two disconnected regions of space-time. No geodesic joins a point in one region with a point in the other. There is no path through space-time from one region into the other. Neither light nor information can reach one from the other. Knowing anything about the one is impossible from the other, so it seems a purely academic question. If such a region did exist, it couldn't possibly have any effect on ours.

But if such a region (or many of them) did exist, I would still call all of these regions the Universe.

We're engaged here in the Scientistian version of counting angels on the point of pin. Pass the joint.

[Pyrrho]

Relax, will ya? It's just idle speculation. Likening it to religious BS and smoking dope is just stupid.

Sorry I opened the topic at all.

[Martin Brock]

It is like religious BS in the sense that regardless of the conclusions one reaches from whatever assumptions one makes, there are no measurable consequences. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with idle speculation. I'm not the one who thinks that religious BS is so awful. Don't think smoking dope is so awful either.

[ruben lopez]

I've always wondered how big the nothing is that the universe fills as it expands. Must be huge. Or is the nothing being filled in as we go the fourth dimension, time? god, I loves me the wacky weedus

[brauneyz]

Relax, will ya? It's just idle speculation. Likening it to religious BS and smoking dope is just stupid.

Sorry I opened the topic at all.

Py Guy, I have no idea what you guys are talking about, as I learned all my physics from Star Trek, the original cheesy one.  But I am so happy that someone else is fighting here for a change.  

Carry on, boys, and bring your own, or not!    

[Pyrrho]

What fighting? We're passing a joint and Martin bogarted the damn thing.

[JO 753]

Herz wut I figured out on my own.

Frum outside the universe, the universe duznt exist.

Since the universe iz space & time, outside uv it there iz nun. So, if you found a way to go outside, lets say by exceeding the speed uv lite, you woudnt be able to see the universe anymore since there woudnt be any dimensionz where you were. No width, hite, depth or duration.

This meanz that the 'few millimeterz across' statement iz incorrect bekuz there iz no 'across' outside the universe.

This also meanz that there coud be an infinite number uv universez outside uv ourz and they can never expand so much that they bump into each other.

If the proto universe wuz a measurable little hot egg before the big bang, it woud hav to exist in an empty zone that obviously already had the 4 dimensionz.

[Gord]

Relax, will ya? It's just idle speculation. Likening it to religious BS and smoking dope is just stupid.

Sorry I opened the topic at all.

Py Guy, I have no idea what you guys are talking about, as I learned all my physics from Star Trek, the original cheesy one....

I learned all of mine from newspapers.  From reading the weekend comics today, I discovered that time is an illusion, and that's why the bear ate the rabbit.

[rrichar911]

If the Big Bang generated spacetime and the physical universe, is it not possible that multiple such events have occurred at loci beyond the boundaries of this universe?

It is not an accepted scientific method to propose theory that there is no evidence for, and can not be proven wrong.  

General Relativity specifically the Schwartzchild solution to the general field equations, does not rule out that the other side of a black hole is a white hole.  A white hole would do the reverse of a black hole and spew out matter but the other side would not be in our universe.  

Any other universe into which a white hole spewed, would necessarily have to use the same physics that predicted the white hole.   Thus they would contain black holes, which then would spew out matter into our universe, by symmetry.  

However if white holes exist, they would be easy to find, and we can't find any.  

Thus the only known possible evidence for other universes, comes up with nothing.

Not everything that one can model mathematically has a counter part in physical reality.   We can also model a one dimensional universe or one with 10 dimensions or one with infinite dimensions or anything in between.  Thus it is said that the universe is a sub set of mathematics.  

The only evidence we have is for the universe we are in.

[Martin Brock]

It is not an accepted scientific method to propose theory that there is no evidence for, and can not be proven wrong.

Theoreticians speculate this way all the time. Their speculations are not properly "science", in my way of thinking, until they hit upon a falsifiable hypothesis, but science is not possible without the speculation.

Not everything that one can model mathematically has a counter part in physical reality.

You make a stronger point. Not everything we can model within the Standard Model has a counterpart in physical reality. Upon learning standard scientific theory in school, we often imagine that we know "how the world is", but of course, we don't know how the world is. We know one story that seems truer than others, so far.

Thus it is said that the universe is a sub set of mathematics.

Mathematics is a language for expressing propositions. True propositions are a subset of all propositions, a tiny subset.

[Blacksamwell]

If the Big Bang generated spacetime and the physical universe, is it not possible that multiple such events have occurred at loci beyond the boundaries of this universe?

There is only one universe. That's why it's the uni-verse. Physics has nothing to do with it. If something exists "beyond our space-time", this something else is also part of the universe, because it exists. If "universe" doesn't describe everything everywhere always, then we need another word for everything everywhere always.[...]

I nominate the word "God".

It seems somewhat flexible in application already.  Don't see any reason you couldn't just stretch it a bit further.

[jannette]

Does the universe evolve?

[Martin Brock]

I nominate the word "God".

It seems somewhat flexible in application already.  Don't see any reason you couldn't just stretch it a bit further.

I second the nomination. I don't think it needs much stretching to fit the purpose.

[rrichar911]

Does the universe evolve?

It gets bigger, and in the past formed particles which then became things that we know and love.  Well some of them we may hate as well.

[rrichar911]

Martin Brock

rrichar911 wrote:
It is not an accepted scientific method to propose theory that there is no evidence for, and can not be proven wrong.

Theoreticians speculate this way all the time. Their speculations are not properly "science", in my way of thinking, until they hit upon a falsifiable hypothesis, but science is not possible without the speculation.

Science is not possible with out evidence. If the speculation is about theory, it really serves no purpose although it is emotionally satisfying.

Example: If we did not think of Einstein's gravity in terms of space-time curvature, the math would still give us the same answers.

[Martin Brock]

Science is not possible with out evidence. If the speculation is about theory, it really serves no purpose although it is emotionally satisfying.

Example: If we did not think of Einstein's gravity in terms of space-time curvature, the math would still give us the same answers.

But we wouldn't have the mathematics, as a description of gravity, if Einstein hadn't thought of gravity in terms of space-time curvature.

I understand your point. Gravity is not curved space-time as much as "curved space-time" happens to describe a human experience well enough for the moment, but human beings do arrive at these theories speculatively, for the emotional satisfaction or whatever.

[rrichar911]

Science is not possible with out evidence. If the speculation is about theory, it really serves no purpose although it is emotionally satisfying.

Example: If we did not think of Einstein's gravity in terms of space-time curvature, the math would still give us the same answers.

But we wouldn't have the mathematics, as a description of gravity, if Einstein hadn't thought of gravity in terms of space-time curvature.

I understand your point. Gravity is not curved space-time as much as "curved space-time" happens to describe a human experience well enough for the moment, but human beings do arrive at these theories speculatively, for the emotional satisfaction or whatever.

Yes, but can you envision what curved space-time looks like?  It is not curved space, it is curved space-time.  No one has ever seen such a thing, but we have seen curved objects, thus we pull up a mental image of curved space which is completely wrong and then tell our selves , ah, I understand.  

However, you have a point, that our concept contributes to the ability to convince ourselves that our mental image has something to do with reality thus contributing to the desire to forge ahead.

[Martin Brock]

Yes, but can you envision what curved space-time looks like?  It is not curved space, it is curved space-time.  No one has ever seen such a thing, but we have seen curved objects, thus we pull up a mental image of curved space which is completely wrong and then tell our selves , ah, I understand.

I suppose space-time doesn't meaningfully "look like" anything, unless it looks like the yardsticks and clocks that Einstein imagined. I can't very well envision curved space either. The last thing I tell myself about General Relativity is "ah, I understand".

However, you have a point, that our concept contributes to the ability to convince ourselves that our mental image has something to do with reality thus contributing to the desire to forge ahead.

Our mental image has something to do with reality insofar as we imagine theoretically what we experience empirically. That's why Einstein reformulated physics with everything described relative to an observer.

[Blacksamwell]

I nominate the word "God".

It seems somewhat flexible in application already.  Don't see any reason you couldn't just stretch it a bit further.

I second the nomination. I don't think it needs much stretching to fit the purpose.

Agreed.

Only the term "smurf" comes even close to matching its flexibility.

[Pyrrho]

Please stop stretching the universe. It's getting thin in spots.

[Gord]

Please stop stretching the universe. It's getting thin in spots.

As an atheist, am I even allowed to believe in the universe anymore?

[ruben lopez]

Just don't be too certain of anything and you'll get along fine.

[Gord]

Just don't be too certain of anything and you'll get along fine.

Ah, that remind me of the True Canadian's way of making everything better. (Except it would be "bothered by" rather than "too certain of.")  (Also:  Eat oatmeal, but put maple sugar on it.)

[izittrue]

Martin bogarts?

[Blacksamwell]

I nominate the word "God".

It seems somewhat flexible in application already.  Don't see any reason you couldn't just stretch it a bit further.

I second the nomination. I don't think it needs much stretching to fit the purpose.

So then you agree that it isn't yet a perfect fit and would require some adjustment to work in that roll?

[Matthew Ellard]

Martin bogarts?

I haven't got a clue what "bogarts" means either.  

[vanderpoel]

Martin bogarts?

I haven't got a clue what "bogarts" means either.  

That's OK Matthew, just say no.





Holding on to a lit joint instead of passing it.

[brauneyz]

Martin bogarts?

I haven't got a clue what "bogarts" means either.  

Click  ...though I don't know if Py meant usage one or two.  

[Matthew Ellard]

Martin bogarts?

I haven't got a clue what "bogarts" means either.  

Click  ...though I don't know if Py meant usage one or two.  

I assume he means no#2.  It still doesn't explain the origin of the expression.  Did Humphrey Bogart lie to anyone in any of his movies?  Is this the origin of the expression?  

[JO 753]

I believe it wuz popularized by Cheech & Chong in a movie or a song. However http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogart duznt mention it.

I never saw any uv their moviez or lissind to their songz. The 1st time I herd it wuz in 1979 frum a coworker who sang a little ditty "Dont bogart that joint, my frend, pass it on to meeee".  Herd it that same way several timez over the yearz. (not that I ever bogarted anything, man! and I never smoked a puff uv anything!)

[Matthew Ellard]

I believe it wuz popularized by Cheech & Chong in a movie or a song. However http://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/bogart duznt mention it.

I never saw any uv their moviez or lissind to their songz. The 1st time I herd it wuz in 1979 frum a coworker who sang a little ditty "Dont bogart that joint, my frend, pass it on to meeee".  Herd it that same way several timez over the yearz. (not that I ever bogarted anything, man! and I never smoked a puff uv anything!)

OK...the first quote suggests bogart means "hang on to".   That makes sense as Humphrey Bogart has to tell the girl to "Go" in Casablanca.    However I just found a website that suggests that because Humphrey Bogart ALWAYS had a cigarette in his mouth that he was hogging the cigarette ( or joint) and this is how "Bogart" evolved to mean "stealing" or "hogging".    

This is interesting stuff.  I never heard the expression before.  It didn't make it to Australia.  We use most english and american expressions but some slip through.