where is the truth in this wonderful theory of multiple universes?

If is true that the bb theory had a deeper meaning, so rather is excluded the existence of the center of the universe. Only the lack of a centre for the reality in which we exist is absolutely unacceptable to the human mind. But despite this (categorically) stating that the centre isn’t a real point (absolute truth if bb theory is true) that was in the original space that already existed before arise our Universe (and that could be a hypothetical starting place of our real universe). However, no one wants to capture the sense that the centre may be the result of processes identified as the expansion. and need not be absolutely contrary to that we can say that every point of the universe can be described as centre.
All this somehow escapes the minds fascinated by the mathematical universe. So for these great minds that have already proved indisputably that inflation occurred, the expansion of the universe accelerates and that they actually are absolutely sure the universe is part of the Multiverse!
………..
so a small, a little timid question. If this is true, so may quite accidentally, was proved that there is a real centre of the universe? If our universe is part (became part) of something bigger that you can no longer play the fool and say that it was not the original space. that is, so we have a specific place where could start existence our universe.
i’m wrong? And if not, why the followers theory of many universes do not devote their seriousness to defend real, hard centre of the Universe. our Universe! but just do not end up on statements that first was created our universe, and then emerged from our universe the other universes… so we have multiverse! because it very much would ridicule still funny evidence for Multiverse existing.

Advertisements

5 thoughts on “where is the truth in this wonderful theory of multiple universes?

    • I think, language is not a good tool to understand this. No matter what we say about “creation” is nonsense. It is true that without matter spacetime has no meaning. But we cannot say that “it was created” because it implies a creator. We cannot say “spacetime appeared” because appearance and disappearance are events, and events happen in spacetime. We cannot speak of events without spacetime. That includes such events as creation and big bang.

      Language is about meaning. Talking about something that has no meaning (like spacetime “before” big bang) is meaningless itself. It’s best to avoid these discussions for our own sanity.

      • You are right that language is not a good tool to understand physics. The physical world appears to follow mathematical equations, and trying to describe these in words is like trying to write your thoughts about a painting. It often leads to misunderstandings.

        When I wrote that “spacetime was created” I did not imply a Creator. Physical processes don’t require an overseer to make them happen. If the Earth is attracted to the Sun by gravity, there isn’t an “Attractor” whose job is to make that happen. It happens because of a physical process described by Einstein’s General Theory of Relativity. The same process can lead to the creation of spacetime, without there being a “Creator” at work micro-managing the job.

        Historically people used to think that God made everything happen, like the Sun rise in the morning, and rainbows appear in the sky. We now know that natural physical processes make these events occur.

        You can ask why the universe is governed by these laws like Relativity, and the answer is that we don’t yet know, but we have learned a huge amount in just a few hundred years, and are learning more all the time.

  1. Thanks for liking my blog and the articles But Is It Science and Did Hubble discover the Big Bang? I’m just building the site, so keep watching for more gems like these. Truth is the goal and actual facts are the tools. Remember, science is the pursuit of truth about the predictable, repeatable and measurable aspects of the universe with which we can or could conceivably interact. Everything else is philosophy or religion, based on belief and assumptions, including multiverses. No, great minds have not proven they exist. The origin of this theory is that cosmologists are uncomfortable with a universe that appears to be specifically designed to produce beings like us who can ask questions. (the Anthropic Principle) They would rather believe that we just happen by luck to exist in the one universe among many with all the right physical constants that bring forth life. Rather than admit that there are some things they don’t understand, they would rather believe in multiple universes that we could never detect, much less interact with. Keep asking questions. You’re on the right track.
    “Mathematicians deal with possible worlds, with an infinite number of logically consistent systems. Observers explore the one particular world we inhabit. Between the two stands the theorist. He studies possible worlds but only those which are compatible with the information furnished by the observers. In other words, theory attempts to segregate the minimum number of possible worlds which must include the actual world we inhabit. Then the observer, with new factual information, attempts to reduce the list still further. And so it goes, observation and theory advancing together toward a common goal of science, knowledge of the structure and behavior of the physical universe.”
    —Edwin Hubble, “The Problem of the Expanding Universe,” 1942

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s