Destruction of our universe through collision with parallel

AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the potential destruction of our universe through collisions with parallel universes. One viewpoint suggests that such collisions could lead to significant repercussions, including massive explosions, while another argues that universes, like cells, do not merge or destroy each other upon contact. Michio Kaku's theory is referenced, indicating that collisions may push universes apart rather than cause destruction. Skepticism is expressed regarding the existence of parallel universes and the feasibility of proving their existence. Ultimately, the conversation highlights a blend of theoretical speculation and skepticism about the implications of multiverse interactions.
gmoney
Messages
3
Reaction score
0
I was just thinking if big bangs in other universes are created by collision of other universes and merging then splitting apart, I was thinking, could be possible that our universe could just suddenly be destroyed by our universe colliding with a one of our parallel universe in a sea of other bubbles. So at anytime our existence could just be voided as another big bang is created from the merger of our universe with another. Just a thought, would like clearing up.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
hmm

I do not believe they can destroy each other by bumping and such. Think of each one as a different cell in your body expanding, bumping, createing new ones. They are very similar. Just as once cell doesn't combine with another when they bump, there isn't any threat of this. Each cell contains it's whole part, and that part isn't affected by such common daily activities.
 
On page 223 of Parallel Worlds, Michio Kaku gives some insight into this part of the theory:
The force of the collision pushes the two universes apart. As these two membranes separate from each other, they cool rapidly, giving us the universe we see today... But gravity continues to attract the two membranes, until, trillions of years later, they collide once again, and the cycle repeats all over again.
(This also means that there are possibly other membranes floating out there in hyperspace that may collide with ours in the future, creating another big splat. Given the fact that our universe is accelerating, another collision may in fact be likely. Steinhardt adds, "Maybe the acceleration of the expansion of the universe is a precursor of such a collision. It is not a pleasant thought.")
I think that it would be reasonable to conclude from this picture that if membranes collided with each other, the repercussions would be felt all throughout the universe in a generally unwelcome manner. Although bubbles don't merge with each other, perhaps bubble membranes of this magnitude do create negative effects (i.e., massive heat explosion from the collision) within themselves. Cells are certainly not the same as bubble universes.
 
I don't even believe in parallel universes. How can it be proven? Can we get there? Is it tangible?(you know what I mean. Can we get there and live in it?) Until we can prove that there are parallel universes, I would stop worrying about us all dying in the blink of an eye. That's not how this is going to throw down.
 
Some people believe in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics because they have convinced themselves that it is the only rational way to deal with the problems of "the collapse of the wave function" aka the projection postulate. Whether many-worlds approach is a rational response is something reasonable people can differ on.

As for any other multiverse idea, including infinitely many inequivalent string theory vacua, there isn't even that much reason to believe it.
 
The parallel universe theory is the only thing that can explain why our part of the universe is so finely tuned as to allow intelligent life to exist even though there is no direct evidence. According to recent speculation gravity can be felt between membranes and therefore large masses from adjacent membranes could have unpleasant results.
 
The rope is tied into the person (the load of 200 pounds) and the rope goes up from the person to a fixed pulley and back down to his hands. He hauls the rope to suspend himself in the air. What is the mechanical advantage of the system? The person will indeed only have to lift half of his body weight (roughly 100 pounds) because he now lessened the load by that same amount. This APPEARS to be a 2:1 because he can hold himself with half the force, but my question is: is that mechanical...
Some physics textbook writer told me that Newton's first law applies only on bodies that feel no interactions at all. He said that if a body is on rest or moves in constant velocity, there is no external force acting on it. But I have heard another form of the law that says the net force acting on a body must be zero. This means there is interactions involved after all. So which one is correct?
Thread 'Beam on an inclined plane'
Hello! I have a question regarding a beam on an inclined plane. I was considering a beam resting on two supports attached to an inclined plane. I was almost sure that the lower support must be more loaded. My imagination about this problem is shown in the picture below. Here is how I wrote the condition of equilibrium forces: $$ \begin{cases} F_{g\parallel}=F_{t1}+F_{t2}, \\ F_{g\perp}=F_{r1}+F_{r2} \end{cases}. $$ On the other hand...
Back
Top