Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

One Universe

  1. Nov 30, 2005 #1
    What we know about cosmology precludes any Multiverse. We know that the universe had a beginning as a singularity and is now expanding at an accelerating rate. This means its future is infinite. And if there is no future collapse then there can be no prior collapse and thus no previous universe.

    As far as the multiverse is concerned it doesn't exist in the same dimensions as this universe. In other words the universe is potentially infinite in size by its infinite future. So where is it going to fit in a multiverse of our 3 dimensions?

    No. The universe has no spatial outside and therefore is not in something bigger. Religious people have no problem with this; with creation out of nothing; but without God the atheists have to put the universe into something bigger.
    Last edited: Nov 30, 2005
  2. jcsd
  3. Nov 30, 2005 #2
    Doesn't General Relativity specifically discuss intrinsic geometry and therefore contains no reference to anything external or outside the universe?
  4. Dec 2, 2005 #3
    Atheist don't have to do anything. They don't even need to exist to be without a belief in 'God'. This is how all people are born and when we die we will all be atheists again, if we were ever anything else. Some religionist seem to have to put words in other peoples mouths in attempts to justify their own beliefs.
  5. Dec 8, 2005 #4
    To my understanding (and someone please correct me if I'm mistaken) there are actually 11 dimensions within the universe that makes up and defines our reality of the universe that we think that we exist within.

    Also to my understanding the energy that makes up all matter and all things within the universe('s) exist via vibrations of the space time fabric itself, according to the strings M-theory.

    The concept of multiverses is just multiple universes existing at the same time in a parallel universe fashion, all using the same dimensions (just variations of).

    To try and explain it, it is sort of like having multiple television shows being broadcasted at the same time over one cable, using the same energy for all channels within the cable, just the energy is being vibrated differently at different frequencies on each channel within the one cable which causes only that channel being viewed to be seen. Although I can think of several other ways to describe it, I'm not sure of any 'simpler' way to describe the multiverse concept.

    Hope this helps. :surprised
  6. Dec 8, 2005 #5


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Please explain the logic here. Why does no future collapse mean there was no previous collapse?
  7. Dec 8, 2005 #6
    11 dimensions and parallel universes ? My God :devil: You perhaps forgot to tell that your M-theory does not exist and that it is merely the wet dream of every desperate string theorist who realizes that supersymmetry isn't of our world either. The only universe I know is the one I live in, this one has four observable dimensions and I do not see any universes ``branching off´´, neither do I see any need for more (unobservable) dimensions :rofl:.
  8. Dec 10, 2005 #7


    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Do you see the need for a nickel-iron core at the centre of the Earth? Apparently if you can't see it, it doesn't exist.
  9. Dec 10, 2005 #8
    Well, basically i do see a need for that. Such as? Well, have you ever seen the movei "The Core"? It is absolutely unscientific, but it does give you a good hint of the things that would happen when our dearly beloved ball of nickle-iron would suddenly vanish out of the time-space continuum with the sound of 100,000 people saying "whop".

    Indeed, I love the hitchhiker's guide to the galaxy, but I hate the movie.
  10. Dec 10, 2005 #9
    'Knowledge' which can not be reduced through a process of reason, and thereby related, to perceptual data are simply floating abstractions. Such un-based 'knowledge' is not only useless due to a lack of understanding but attempts to employ it can be dangerous in its consequences. Proof regarding the existence or properties of something must be derived from or at least undergo the process of reduction to knowledge grounded in previously understood perceptually based observations.
    Last edited: Dec 10, 2005
  11. Dec 11, 2005 #10
    Exactly ! :smile:
    DaveC426913 seems to have forgotten that.
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?