The infinite universe, and the endless number of parallel universes

yfm

Oct 2, 2020
1
0
10
Hello,
I'm not a scientist, but I wondered if there are any theories about the universe expanding to the point that all comes together, again, at the "equilibrium" point. And, then, a new big bang, and a new set of laws emerge making it an infinite cycle: each time, a different experience.

My second question is about time. I wondered if there are any theories about time being not existent. What if the past, present, and future are all happening at once. And there are endless parallel static universes that we keep jumping millions of times per second, and give us the impression of experiencing time, but it's just an illusion.
 
Last edited:

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
There are no parallel universes in the way that is typically imagined. Every universe is uniquely constrained by relative finite observation of infinity, and contextualized by choice. Time is real, and in fundamental spacetime time and space are both infinite, contextualizing each other through perfect symmetry. In order to have a finite observation of an infinite reality, limitations are required, hence the cosmic speed limit. But theorists have erred in assuming branching realities based on choice; realities diverge based on precise rules of observation that act as a constraint on our observation of infinity. Otherwise finite existence would not be possible.
 

Finch

BANNED
Nov 22, 2020
59
0
105
Hello,
I'm not a scientist, but I wondered if there are any theories about the universe expanding to the point that all comes together, again, at the "equilibrium" point. And, then, a new big bang, and a new set of laws emerge making it an infinite cycle: each time, a different experience.

My second question is about time. I wondered if there are any theories about time being not existent. What if the past, present, and future are all happening at once. And there are endless parallel static universes that we keep jumping millions of times per second, and give us the impression of experiencing time, but it's just an illusion.
There is no evidence that the universe is expanding, what we see expanding is the mass located in the universe. Questions about the universe are excellent, however the people that may claim to have the answers are unbalanced because no one knows what the universe is. Some are saying that it is not even real but simulated
 
Jan 27, 2020
140
56
680
There is no evidence that the universe is expanding, what we see expanding is the mass located in the universe. Questions about the universe are excellent, however the people that may claim to have the answers are unbalanced because no one knows what the universe is. Some are saying that it is not even real but simulated
Mass is not expanding in the universe, space is expanding between the galaxies. Look out at almost any galaxy in the Universe, and you'll find it's moving away from us. The farther away it is, the faster it appears to recede. As light travels through the Universe, it gets shifted to longer and redder wavelengths, because the fabric of space itself is being stretched. At the longest distances, galaxies are being pushed away so rapidly by this expansion that no signals we can send will ever reach them, even at the speed of light.
But even though the fabric of space is expanding throughout the Universe — everywhere and in all directions — we aren't. Our atoms remain the same size. So do the planets, moons, and stars, as well as the distances separating them. Even the galaxies in our Local Group aren't expanding away from one another; they're gravitating towards one another instead. Someday we'll, the Milky Way Galaxy, collide with the Andromeda Galaxy (M-31, NGC-224).
The Milky Way and all the local group galaxies will stay bound together, eventually merging together under their own gravity. Earth will revolve around the Sun at the same orbital distance, Earth itself will remain the same size, and the atoms making up everything on it will not expand. Because the expansion of the Universe only has any effect where another force — whether gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear — hasn't yet overcome it. If some force can successfully hold an object together, even the expanding Universe won't affect a change.
The fabric of space itself is getting stretched over time, and all the objects within that space are being dragged apart from one another. The farther away an object is from another, the more "stretching" occurs, and so the faster they appear to recede from each other. If all you had was a Universe filled uniformly and evenly with matter, that matter would simply get less dense and would see everything expand away from everything else as time went on.
The superclusters of the Universe — these long, filamentary structures populated with galaxies and stretching for over a billion light years — are being stretched and pulled apart by the Universe's expansion. In the relatively short term, over the next few billion years, they will cease to exist. Even the Milky Way's nearest large galaxy grouping, the Virgo cluster, at just 50 million light years away, will never pull us into it. Despite a gravitational pull that's more than a thousand times as powerful as our own, the expansion of the Universe will drive all of this apart.
With an expanding Universe, we can then understand why distant galaxies recede from us as they do.

startswithabang-files-cosmic.jpg
C. FAUCHER-GIGUÈRE, A. LIDZ, AND L. HERNQUIST, SCIENCE 319, 5859 (47)

cosmic_epochs..jpg
On the largest scales, the Universe expands and galaxies recede from each other. But on smaller scales, gravitation overcomes the expansion, leading to the formation of stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
NASA, ESA, AND A. FEILD (STSCI)

Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform (Update)
by European Space Agency

Astronomers have assumed for decades that the Universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. A new study based on data from ESA's XMM-Newton, NASA's Chandra and the German-led ROSAT X-ray observatories suggests this key premise of cosmology might be wrong.

Konstantinos Migkas, a Ph.D. researcher in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Bonn, Germany, and his supervisor Thomas Reiprich originally set out to verify a new method that would enable astronomers to test the so-called isotropy hypothesis. According to this assumption, the Universe has, despite some local differences, the same properties in each direction on the large, or, macro scale.

Widely accepted as a consequence of well-established fundamental physics, the hypothesis has been supported by observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). A direct remnant of the Big Bang, the CMB reflects the state of the Universe as it was in its infancy, at only 380 000 years of age. The CMB's uniform distribution in the sky suggests that in those early days the Universe must have been expanding rapidly and at the same rate in all directions. In today's Universe, however, this may no longer be true.

"Together with colleagues from the University of Bonn and Harvard University, we looked at the behaviour of over 800 galaxy clusters in the present Universe," says Konstantinos. "If the isotropy hypothesis was correct, the properties of the clusters would be uniform across the sky. But we actually saw significant differences."

The astronomers used X-ray temperature measurements of the extremely hot gas that pervades the clusters and compared the data with how bright the clusters appear in the sky. Clusters of the same temperature and located at a similar distance should appear similarly bright. But that is not what the astronomers observed.

"We saw that clusters with the same properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction," says Thomas. "The difference was quite significant, around 30 percent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky."

Before challenging the widely accepted cosmology model, which provides the basis for estimating the cluster distances, Konstantinos and colleagues first looked at other possible explanations. Perhaps, there could be undetected gas or dust clouds obscuring the view and making clusters in a certain area appear dimmer. The data, however, do not support this scenario.

isotropic_K. Migkas et al. 2020.jpg

K. Migkas et al. 2020; Milky Way map: ESA/Gaia/DPAC – CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO

In some regions of space the distribution of clusters could be affected by bulk flows, large-scale motions of matter caused by the gravitational pull of extremely massive structures such as large cluster groups. This hypothesis, however, also seems unlikely. Konstantinos adds that the findings took the team by surprise.

"If the Universe is truly anisotropic, even if only in the past few billion years, that would mean a huge paradigm shift because the direction of every object would have to be taken into account when we analyse their properties," he says. "For example, today, we estimate the distance of very distant objects in the Universe by applying a set of cosmological parameters and equations. We believe that these parameters are the same everywhere. But if our conclusions are right than that would not be the case and we would have to revisit all our previous conclusions."

"This is a hugely fascinating result," comments Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton project scientist at ESA. "Previous studies have suggested that the present Universe might not be expanding evenly in all directions, but this result—the first time such a test has been performed with galaxy clusters in X-rays—has a much greater significance, and also reveals a great potential for future investigations."

The scientists speculate this possibly uneven effect on cosmic expansion might be caused by dark energy, the mysterious component of the cosmos which accounts for the majority—around 69% – of its overall energy. Very little is known about dark energy today, except that it appears to have been accelerating the expansion of the Universe in the past few billion years.

See: https://phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.html

To gain a better understanding of the early history of the study of the expansion of the universe, see:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: efarina96

Finch

BANNED
Nov 22, 2020
59
0
105
Mass is not expanding in the universe, space is expanding between the galaxies. Look out at almost any galaxy in the Universe, and you'll find it's moving away from us. The farther away it is, the faster it appears to recede. As light travels through the Universe, it gets shifted to longer and redder wavelengths, because the fabric of space itself is being stretched. At the longest distances, galaxies are being pushed away so rapidly by this expansion that no signals we can send will ever reach them, even at the speed of light.
But even though the fabric of space is expanding throughout the Universe — everywhere and in all directions — we aren't. Our atoms remain the same size. So do the planets, moons, and stars, as well as the distances separating them. Even the galaxies in our Local Group aren't expanding away from one another; they're gravitating towards one another instead. Someday we'll, the Milky Way Galaxy, collide with the Andromeda Galaxy (M-31, NGC-224).
The Milky Way and all the local group galaxies will stay bound together, eventually merging together under their own gravity. Earth will revolve around the Sun at the same orbital distance, Earth itself will remain the same size, and the atoms making up everything on it will not expand. Because the expansion of the Universe only has any effect where another force — whether gravitational, electromagnetic or nuclear — hasn't yet overcome it. If some force can successfully hold an object together, even the expanding Universe won't affect a change.
The fabric of space itself is getting stretched over time, and all the objects within that space are being dragged apart from one another. The farther away an object is from another, the more "stretching" occurs, and so the faster they appear to recede from each other. If all you had was a Universe filled uniformly and evenly with matter, that matter would simply get less dense and would see everything expand away from everything else as time went on.
The superclusters of the Universe — these long, filamentary structures populated with galaxies and stretching for over a billion light years — are being stretched and pulled apart by the Universe's expansion. In the relatively short term, over the next few billion years, they will cease to exist. Even the Milky Way's nearest large galaxy grouping, the Virgo cluster, at just 50 million light years away, will never pull us into it. Despite a gravitational pull that's more than a thousand times as powerful as our own, the expansion of the Universe will drive all of this apart.
With an expanding Universe, we can then understand why distant galaxies recede from us as they do.

View attachment 699
C. FAUCHER-GIGUÈRE, A. LIDZ, AND L. HERNQUIST, SCIENCE 319, 5859 (47)

View attachment 698
On the largest scales, the Universe expands and galaxies recede from each other. But on smaller scales, gravitation overcomes the expansion, leading to the formation of stars, galaxies and clusters of galaxies.
NASA, ESA, AND A. FEILD (STSCI)

Rethinking cosmology: Universe expansion may not be uniform (Update)
by European Space Agency

Astronomers have assumed for decades that the Universe is expanding at the same rate in all directions. A new study based on data from ESA's XMM-Newton, NASA's Chandra and the German-led ROSAT X-ray observatories suggests this key premise of cosmology might be wrong.

Konstantinos Migkas, a Ph.D. researcher in astronomy and astrophysics at the University of Bonn, Germany, and his supervisor Thomas Reiprich originally set out to verify a new method that would enable astronomers to test the so-called isotropy hypothesis. According to this assumption, the Universe has, despite some local differences, the same properties in each direction on the large, or, macro scale.

Widely accepted as a consequence of well-established fundamental physics, the hypothesis has been supported by observations of the cosmic microwave background (CMB). A direct remnant of the Big Bang, the CMB reflects the state of the Universe as it was in its infancy, at only 380 000 years of age. The CMB's uniform distribution in the sky suggests that in those early days the Universe must have been expanding rapidly and at the same rate in all directions. In today's Universe, however, this may no longer be true.

"Together with colleagues from the University of Bonn and Harvard University, we looked at the behaviour of over 800 galaxy clusters in the present Universe," says Konstantinos. "If the isotropy hypothesis was correct, the properties of the clusters would be uniform across the sky. But we actually saw significant differences."

The astronomers used X-ray temperature measurements of the extremely hot gas that pervades the clusters and compared the data with how bright the clusters appear in the sky. Clusters of the same temperature and located at a similar distance should appear similarly bright. But that is not what the astronomers observed.

"We saw that clusters with the same properties, with similar temperatures, appeared to be less bright than what we would expect in one direction of the sky, and brighter than expected in another direction," says Thomas. "The difference was quite significant, around 30 percent. These differences are not random but have a clear pattern depending on the direction in which we observed in the sky."

Before challenging the widely accepted cosmology model, which provides the basis for estimating the cluster distances, Konstantinos and colleagues first looked at other possible explanations. Perhaps, there could be undetected gas or dust clouds obscuring the view and making clusters in a certain area appear dimmer. The data, however, do not support this scenario.

K. Migkas et al. 2020; Milky Way map: ESA/Gaia/DPAC – CC BY-SA 3.0 IGO

In some regions of space the distribution of clusters could be affected by bulk flows, large-scale motions of matter caused by the gravitational pull of extremely massive structures such as large cluster groups. This hypothesis, however, also seems unlikely. Konstantinos adds that the findings took the team by surprise.

"If the Universe is truly anisotropic, even if only in the past few billion years, that would mean a huge paradigm shift because the direction of every object would have to be taken into account when we analyse their properties," he says. "For example, today, we estimate the distance of very distant objects in the Universe by applying a set of cosmological parameters and equations. We believe that these parameters are the same everywhere. But if our conclusions are right than that would not be the case and we would have to revisit all our previous conclusions."

"This is a hugely fascinating result," comments Norbert Schartel, XMM-Newton project scientist at ESA. "Previous studies have suggested that the present Universe might not be expanding evenly in all directions, but this result—the first time such a test has been performed with galaxy clusters in X-rays—has a much greater significance, and also reveals a great potential for future investigations."

The scientists speculate this possibly uneven effect on cosmic expansion might be caused by dark energy, the mysterious component of the cosmos which accounts for the majority—around 69% – of its overall energy. Very little is known about dark energy today, except that it appears to have been accelerating the expansion of the Universe in the past few billion years.

See: https://phys.org/news/2020-04-basic-assumption-universe.html

To gain a better understanding of the early history of the study of the expansion of the universe, see:
Space is not expanding, distances in space are expanding between galaxies because they are moving apart. Unless you define distance as space
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Space is not expanding, distances in space are expanding between galaxies because they are moving apart. Unless you define distance as space
My understanding is that space is essentially distance relative to time, which is an understanding of motion relative to observation that gives our experience context. The fact that we perceive a limitation of space (i.e. we perceive the CMB as a barrier to further observation of space) is directly reflective of the limitations on our observation imposed by the finite speed of light. Although the speed of light is finite relative to our observation, and our observation is finite relative to the speed of light, neither our observations of reality or the speed of light itself can ever be measured with absolute precision because each is a manifestation of relative infinity
 

Finch

BANNED
Nov 22, 2020
59
0
105
My understanding is that space is essentially distance relative to time, which is an understanding of motion relative to observation that gives our experience context. The fact that we perceive a limitation of space (i.e. we perceive the CMB as a barrier to further observation of space) is directly reflective of the limitations on our observation imposed by the finite speed of light. Although the speed of light is finite relative to our observation, and our observation is finite relative to the speed of light, neither our observations of reality or the speed of light itself can ever be measured with absolute precision because each is a manifestation of relative infinity
How does the CMB hinder observation of space?
The speed of light has also been measured precisely and it is not a fixed speed either as air, or water effect it's speed.
Space also has several definitions to cosmology, none of which are verified, same for time. Put another way, the modern human race has no more definitive answers as did the first Neandertal. Asking if there are parallel universes is a rather odd question when the universe that we know of defies definition.

Then there is NASA observing galaxies moving 5 times light speed which if true means the Neandertal may have actually known more because he did not confuse himself with half truths

Is The Speed of Light Constant? (desy.de)
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
How does the CMB hinder observation of space?
The speed of light has also been measured precisely and it is not a fixed speed either as air, or water effect it's speed.
Space also has several definitions to cosmology, none of which are verified, same for time. Put another way, the modern human race has no more definitive answers as did the first Neandertal. Asking if there are parallel universes is a rather odd question when the universe that we know of defies definition.

Then there is NASA observing galaxies moving 5 times light speed which if true means the Neandertal may have actually known more because he did not confuse himself with half truths

Is The Speed of Light Constant? (desy.de)
Can you see beyond the CMB? Nope. Hence it is a barrier to observation of space. The speed of light in a vacuum is a constant, and the relative age of the Universe (13.8 billion years) combined with the expanding affect of space = 46 billion lightyear radius to our relative sphere of observation of spacetime.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
How does the CMB hinder observation of space?
The speed of light has also been measured precisely and it is not a fixed speed either as air, or water effect it's speed.
Space also has several definitions to cosmology, none of which are verified, same for time. Put another way, the modern human race has no more definitive answers as did the first Neandertal. Asking if there are parallel universes is a rather odd question when the universe that we know of defies definition.

Then there is NASA observing galaxies moving 5 times light speed which if true means the Neandertal may have actually known more because he did not confuse himself with half truths

Is The Speed of Light Constant? (desy.de)
Imagine a being capable of making calculations in base billion mathematics. Having evolved a capacity for intelligence in which they can memorize a billion unique symbols which they are capable of using to make calculations increasing by a factor of 1 billion for every decimal point, they would be forced to laugh out loud at what you would call a "precise" measurement of the speed of light. Although our level of precision is suitable for our purposes, a higher intelligence would find our calculations to be quite useless. Now with regards to your point about galaxies moving faster than the speed of light, here is a simple thought experiment to demonstrate the true meaning underlying your point: take two beams of light and send them in opposite directions. Measure their speed relative to each other. Although the distance between them is increasing at a rate far greater than the speed of light, neither beam is actually moving faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
 

Finch

BANNED
Nov 22, 2020
59
0
105
Imagine a being capable of making calculations in base billion mathematics. Having evolved a capacity for intelligence in which they can memorize a billion unique symbols which they are capable of using to make calculations increasing by a factor of 1 billion for every decimal point, they would be forced to laugh out loud at what you would call a "precise" measurement of the speed of light. Although our level of precision is suitable for our purposes, a higher intelligence would find our calculations to be quite useless. Now with regards to your point about galaxies moving faster than the speed of light, here is a simple thought experiment to demonstrate the true meaning underlying your point: take two beams of light and send them in opposite directions. Measure their speed relative to each other. Although the distance between them is increasing at a rate far greater than the speed of light, neither beam is actually moving faster than the speed of light in a vacuum.
So you can not give any reason why CMB radiation hinders observation of the universe.

Do you even know what CMB stands for, because if you did you would know that it is not visible

You might have to imagine doing that, but let me tell you, being able to do that just makes life more difficult, not easier
 
Last edited:

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
So you can not give any reason why CMB radiation hinders observation of the universe.

Do you even know what CMB stands for, because if you did you would know that it is not visible

You might have to imagine doing that, but let me tell you, being able to do that just makes life more difficult, not easier
Finch, I never claimed you can see the CMB with your eyes, I said we can't see past it. Do not mischaracterize my words. If you traveled 46 billion lightyears from Earth, would you reach the CMB? No, to reach the CMB would require a journey backwards in time. If you transported instantly 46 billion lightyears away right now to a star on the edge of the observable universe, you would still see a universe governed by General Relativity with a 46 billion light-year radius, and *if you had the proper tools* you would still see the CMB at its edge. But the CMB is not really still there, it is 13.8 billion lightyears in the past, and the only reason it can be observed is becausr light moves at a finite speed of approximately 300,000 KM/second. You should consider learning a dialectic approach to conversation if you actually want to probe for a deeper mutual understanding. You are exemplifying the senseless and aimlessly combative approach to conversation so many in our society are obviously struggling with. When I engage with people on YouTube I am told "what do you expect it's YouTube." But here we are in a scientific forum, and it is apparent that the forum is not the issue, people are.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
LOL the CMB is radiation supposedly leftover from the big bang. If you got to the edge of the universe one could theoretically get past the CMB. I bet you watched Tyson in Cosmos glued to your seat while I laughed
Finch light travels at a finite speed. It is well established that the light we are seeing from the stars in the night sky was emitted from said stars in the past. The CMB is also a relic of the past, observable because radiation from the early universe has travelled to us across time. Quit while you are behind or get wise
 
Mar 4, 2020
274
37
730
There is another possibility if one looks at the overall picture. It's possible the the CMB is currently being generated. It might be the "sound" of gravity decaying.

The decay of gravity fits many observations. Instead of a big bang, it might have been a fast release. Due to decay. Once a decay starts, it can not be stopped.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Light speed is effected by air and water, why do you argue, just google it.

Is The Speed of Light Everywhere the Same? (ucr.edu)

Does the speed of light change in air or water?
Yes. Light is slowed down in transparent media such as air, water and glass. The ratio by which it is slowed is called the refractive index of the medium and is usually greater than one.* This was discovered by Jean Foucault in 1850.

When people talk about "the speed of light" in a general context, they usually mean the speed of light in a vacuum. They also usually mean the speed as measured in an inertial frame. This vacuum-inertial speed is denoted c.




Seriously are you trying to be wrong about everything?

Is that your job?

Carry on Son.
You are arguing with yourself at this point. Please if you are unbanned at any point find and quote the excerpt from my post where i say what you claim I am saying. It doesn't exist. I struggle with conversation sometimes as do we all, whether it is a failure to communicate with perfect precision or clarity or a failure to ask the right clarifying questions so that we can come to a meaningful consensus about the core concepts at play, but clearly you are unwilling or unable to engage in conversation in good faith. I am still open to conversation if you are willing to try being civilized.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
Have to agree there because basically anything is possible because nothing is really known for sure.
the only thing we can know for sure is that infinity is truly endless and infinity is the only perfect understanding of reality. It is an understanding we can never attain because none of us is God, and while objectively it may seem that any understanding relative to infinite understanding is pointless, this is not the case. Philosophy is the foundation of science, but you cannot fly to the moon with a bible any more than you can build a community with equations. Each in its own way is an attempt to grow closer to God's infinite understanding. Though all fall short of the glory of God, if we choose to follow our belief in God to higher and higher purpose we will all have a place in God's infinite glory. We cannot become infinite, but we can pursue God forever if only we can survive together.
 

efarina96

BANNED
Oct 17, 2020
211
15
105
WE do not know that the universe is endless. A new theory claims that the speeding acceleration is caused by a force from outside the universe

New Evidence that Mysterious Dark Force From Outside Tugs at Our Universe | Popular Science (popsci.com)
In order for our finite perception to have a beginning, there must be a perpetual eternal existence from which all things arise. Except "arise" is not even the right word because it implies an ultimate beginning. 0ur language falls short in dealing with such concepts, which is why it is so difficult for us to wrap our brains around. You cannot have a beginning from nothing. We are all part of an eternal causal chain in which all things are linked and all existence is endless, here meaning beyond beginnings and ends, not beginning and proceeding without end. Infinity is perpetual. No beginnings, no ends. Only our finite observation has beginning, and evem that exists only relative to infinity.
"Now, NASA scientists believe they have confirmed a new player, dubbed "dark flow," that is dragging hundreds of galaxies along the same path. Even stranger, the researchers believe that dark flow is actually the gravitational pull from matter beyond the edge of the known universe." Remember before when I said, if you could instantly transport 46 billion lightyears away you would not reach the cmb because the cmb is in the past, and you told me I was wrong? This is exactly what i was talking about. There is space beyond our perceptual horizon that we cannot see because our reality is defined by observations dependant on light at the observed speed limit
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY