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

Our universe should be called multiverse and not universe!

  1. Mar 30, 2006 #1
    Actually our universe should be called multiverse and not universe!

    multi = many
    uni = one

    If the multiverse theory is correct, we would be one universe in about
    10^500 other universe. This figure is vastly greater than the total amount of atoms in our universe!!! So if it's really correct, the significance of our universe would just be as much as the significance of an atom in our universe!!!!!!:surprised
  2. jcsd
  3. Mar 30, 2006 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Show me one of these other universes.

  4. Mar 30, 2006 #3


    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    Not necessary, Garth.

    Whitehole, by saying "our universe" repeatedly even after saying we shouldn't use the term, you clearly understand that "our universe" would still be unique in the multiverse.
  5. Mar 31, 2006 #4
    what do you mean?
  6. Mar 31, 2006 #5
    'Our universe' is the universe important to us. Going by the various subtley different versions of the multiverse idea I've heard, it would still mean that our universe is unique and pretty damn significant to us, given we reside here!

    While in the grandscheme of things, one universe in 10^500 isn't important, sometimes you have to add a bit of perspective from your own point of view.
  7. Apr 3, 2006 #6
    nope!! I totally disagree. By saying that only our universe is imporatant, its like saying humans are only those that reside on earth! Arnold said "it would be arrogant to say that there are only humans in the universe!" Anyway by studying other universe, we can possibly predict the future of our universe. I ask you, how long can earth stay in a suitable condition for us to live in. We have to find other places to live in. By studying other universe, it can also show wheather our laws of physics here are the same in all universes. The speed of light is NOT the same in all universes.!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  8. Apr 3, 2006 #7
    That's not what I said. I said our universe is important to us. I'm in no doubt that there are billions of Earth like planets in just this universe, that doesn't remove the fact that I live on this planet and hence it's of major importance to me.
    Space travel is most likely a hell of a lot easier than inter-universe travel (providing such a thing even exists).
    Considering the multiverse theory is based on practically no evidence at all (it's all conjecture) it's a pretty bold statement of you to say that the speed of light varies in different universes.
  9. Apr 3, 2006 #8
    ok great...so that means other universes are of equal significance to you. right?

    space travel to the nearest star would take 4 earth years but due to time dilation, it would seem like just a few months. Also wormholes would ppossibly provide shortcuts in space travels. (i think blackholes also would!)

    yes, but let me ask you...do you believe is it possible that our universe is only the one that exist? Is there only one big bang? Actually gravity might actually allow us to have a peek at other universe. And yes, i'm bold. If you only follow what other scientists say and agree with them, would there be any improvement? You have to think differently and later think of reasonable arguments which i am still thinking about.
  10. Apr 3, 2006 #9
    The laws of physics are not the same in everywhere. Stand on a blackhole or stand on a whitehole(if it exist) and you would be amazed that the laws of physics there would be totally different from what on earth!
  11. Apr 3, 2006 #10
    Are you speaking a different language?

    What do you mean 'stand on a blackhole'? Is there some sort of symbolism there?

    What is your concept of a blackhole and a whitehole? If the laws of physics exist in a different state in other 'universes' which are part of the 'multiverse' as you are eluding to, then can you be sure blackholes would exist?
  12. Apr 4, 2006 #11
    As ComplexPhilosophy points out, if the laws of physics were utterly different for a black hole, you could not use our laws of physics to predict such things existance.

    If you were hovering just above the event horizon of a black hole things would be different from standing on the surface of Earth but the laws of physics would be the same, it's just they cause more obvious things to happen near a black hole than on Earth.
  13. Apr 4, 2006 #12


    User Avatar

    You can throw speed of light, black holes, white holes and even space travel into a possible future but wormholes? It's starting to sound like Startrek.
  14. Apr 5, 2006 #13
    well we are argueing about something that we can niether prove nor neglect. saying that laws of physics willl be altered is something which we cannot agree on but it is also true that such things as white holes and worm holes will totally revolutionise the human thought process. it is also important that we allow new ideas to come up and in doing so allow the older ideas to be crushed
  15. Apr 5, 2006 #14
    Wow, they can barely aproximate the number of atoms in our universe - we don't know how big it is, but try to aproximate the number of universes in 'multiverse'

    We aren't able to fully study even our solar system, and yet we want to study other universes.

    You read "Parallel Worlds" didn't you? Earth, as I think and predict will stay in good condition long enough. You have a lot of world out here, be the first one to move, if condition are already getting quite bad for you. How do you know the spped of light isn't the same in all universes? How do you know the speed of light is even the same in every place of our universe? This quite reminds me of middle ages. Where people from the day of birth were focusing on heaven and thinking whether they're going or not.

    Be the first one to go. Just remember to send me a post-card :biggrin:
  16. Apr 7, 2006 #15
    i will but that card might take 4 years to reach you at the speed of light and i will be younger than you after that high speed journey!
  17. Apr 11, 2006 #16


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I agree with Garth, show me observational evidence of any other universe. The unobserved is a possibility, the unobservable is philosophy.
  18. Apr 11, 2006 #17
    Can anyone solve the problems we have when we say there is just one universe?
    In that case this universe must be infinite without a beginning and without an end. It must be macroscopically homogenous and isotropic towards infinity. However, if we extrapolate the situation we find in our observable universe, then it seems almost unbelievable that our observable universe does not belong to a very large (our) universe that really is a black-hole. Such a very large black-hole, with a corresponding low average density, will have an event horizon separating us from a space which must contain something (or even is something where, (in autonomous reality), nothing can not exist). It is not so bad a suggestion, I think, to name that environment a multi-verse in which ours is only one part.
    So the question can be, what is more acceptable, is it the described universe I started with, or will it be part of something like an, indeed not observed and not known, multi-verse. I see heroic attempts to introduce super-symmetry, (even in a complex mathematical setting) in order to bring vacuum energy to zero, but that does not help to make me believe that reality can be made out of nothing. To my feeling a multi-verse gives a better view and a better lead to our developing hypotheses and theories than restricting ourselves to a framework we will never really understand. I have much sympathy for physicists like Martin Rees, Gabriele Veneziano, or Paul Steinhardt who are (dare) indeed trying to go in such a direction. It is to my opinion contra productive to ask, “show just one other universe”. Maybe detection of gravitational waves from our cosmic background can be of some help in proceeding. Anyway, reasonable hypotheses and theories on one hand, observations and experiments on the other always have led to better models of our reality, which can only be a tiny part of an autonomous reality we will never completely understand. Maybe there even is a limit to experiments we will be able to set up. In that case, maybe, we can only proceed a bit further by going on with coherent and intuitive thinking and putting our thoughts together? In mathematics, however of great help, one can suggest everything, but that is not physics!
  19. Apr 12, 2006 #18
    Hi everybdoy: I think in this thread so far nobody has talked about the question that why we need the multiverse ?

    Answer is to solve the fine tunning problem i.e., why the values of physical constants are what they are. Multiverse theory says that there are universes of all possible values of physical conditions, space time dimensions, initial conditions.

    Here I would like to suggest four articles on the theory of multiverse:

    1. Max Tegmark: hep-th/0409072
    2. G.F.R. Ellis et al (2004): MNRAS 347, 921 (i am sorry find yourself astro-ph version)
    3. David Deutsch (2001): The structire of Multiverse
    (avalibale on net)
    4.Aguirre A, hep-th/0409072

    Apart from there are many other articles also. I think one should visits Tegmark's page for detail.
  20. Apr 12, 2006 #19


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    I'm still stuck on the observational evidence part. If the theory has no observational consequences in our universe, I find it . . . uninteresting and irrelevant. Speculation is fun, even credentialed scientists indulge in it every now and then.
  21. Apr 12, 2006 #20
    To put it this way (i haven't read all other posts though):

    I can't give a damn about people on other planets, or even in other universes. I'm here, and I have no way (currently) to interact with those "others".
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook