Observation suggests multiple Big Bangs and multiverse

[scourge]

General constant parallelism in the cosmic order:

In 2008 scientists reported the discovery of hundreds of galaxy clusters streaming in the same direction at more than 2.2 million miles (3.6 million kilometers) an hour.

This mysterious motion can't be explained by current models for distribution of mass in the universe. So the researchers made the controversial suggestion that the clusters are being tugged on by the gravity of matter outside the known universe.

Now the same team has found that the dark flow extends even deeper into the universe than previously reported: out to at least 2.5 billion light-years from Earth.

After using two additional years' worth of data and tracking twice the number of galaxy clusters, "we clearly see the flow, we clearly see it pointing in the same direction," said study leader Alexander Kashlinsky, an astrophysicist at NASA's Goddard Space Flight Center in Maryland.

"It looks like a very coherent flow."

The find adds to the case that chunks of matter got pushed outside the known universe shortly after the big bang—which in turn hints that our universe is part of something larger: a multiverse.

http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2010/03/100322-dark-flow-matter-outside-universe-multiverse/

[druidakoda]

Oh the depths!

I wonder, is it pulling away from us or are we pulling away from it? Maybe this is obvious to them, but they do say it spans through the entire visible universe.

The idea that we reside in the only (big bang created) universe in existence is on a par with the idea that we live on the only planet that supports life.

[Cargést]

I believe that it could be reasoned that everything imaginable exists, thus it's rather shortsighted to assume that ours is the only physical reality, and almost as shortsighted to assume that other physical realities don't extend into our own in some way.

[Chains]

I wonder, is it pulling away from us or are we pulling away from it? Maybe this is obvious to them, but they do say it spans through the entire visible universe.

It's the exact same thing, since there is no absolute reference frame.

There's something rather screwy with our notion of gravity and expansion in general, considering we had to invent dark matter to get general relativity to work out and  posit the existence of dark energy to get the expansion rate to match nicely, so I'd be interested in knowing why they feel this points to lots of matter in the one specific direction where these clusters are headed, or why that would point to multiple big bangs.  

Interesting stuff, anyway.

[Antihuman]

I always thought the "Big Bang" thing was more or less analogous to "Let there be light!", in that it still defines a specific origin point for everything in our universe.  It's good to see the theory falling apart.

[druidakoda]

I wonder, is it pulling away from us or are we pulling away from it? Maybe this is obvious to them, but they do say it spans through the entire visible universe.

It's the exact same thing, since there is no absolute reference frame.

There's something rather screwy with our notion of gravity and expansion in general, considering we had to invent dark matter to get general relativity to work out and  posit the existence of dark energy to get the expansion rate to match nicely, so I'd be interested in knowing why they feel this points to lots of matter in the one specific direction where these clusters are headed, or why that would point to multiple big bangs. 

Interesting stuff, anyway.

Yes, but I was meaning "what is being attracted to where?"

Not that I know exactly what's going on in the physics of it, but I remember seeing the graph that explained why dark matter had to exist and to me it just seemed like a blatant error. The graph levels off in a strange way that makes me think that the equations are wrong for some necessarily unknown reason; what I like to call dark facts.

[JewishPhysics]

I always thought the "Big Bang" thing was more or less analogous to "Let there be light!", in that it still defines a specific origin point for everything in our universe.  It's good to see the theory falling apart.

What's with the Big Bang hating?  It's not falling apart, though.  The article suggest multiple big bangs.  The theory is simply being expanded upon.

[scourge]

A recent PBS documentary had astronomers reintroducing cosmic strings with the Level 2 multiverse to solve a problem with an inexplicable excess of dark energy.

But there’s a hitch. When the astronomers deduced how much dark energy would have to permeate every nook and cranny of space to account for the observed cosmic speedup, they found a number that no one has been able to explain. Not even close. Expressed in the relevant units, the dark-energy density is extraordinarily small:

.0000000000000000000000000000000000
 00000000000000000000000000000000000
 00000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000138.

At the same time, attempts by researchers to calculate the amount of dark energy from the laws of physics have yielded results that are typically a hundred orders of magnitude larger, perhaps the greatest mismatch between observation and theory in the history of science.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html

Pioneers of the subject anticipated that string theory’s rigid mathematical architecture would soon yield a single set of definitive, testable predictions. But as the years passed, detailed analysis of the theory’s equations revealed numerous solutions, each representing a different possible universe. And numerous means numerous. Today, the tally of possible universes stands at the almost incomprehensible 10500, a number so large it defies analogy.

For some string-theory advocates, this stupendous failure to yield a unique universe—ours—was a devastating blow. But to those advancing the multiverse, string theory’s enormous diversity of possible universes has proven vital.

http://www.thedailybeast.com/newsweek/2012/05/20/brian-greene-welcome-to-the-multiverse.html

A chief proponent of this “level 2” multiverse is Alexander Vilenkin, who paints a dramatic picture of an infinite set of universes with an infinite number of galaxies, an infinite number of planets and an infinite number of people with your name who are reading this article.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=does-the-multiverse-really-exist

[crow]

The universe doesn't operate under human laws.
It is permanent. No beginning - no end.
Humans, wrapped up in the temporal, simply can't cope with that. It makes no sense.
The universe doesn't make sense.
It Is.

[BillHopkins]

The universe doesn't operate under human laws.
It is permanent. No beginning - no end.
Humans, wrapped up in the temporal, simply can't cope with that. It makes no sense.
The universe doesn't make sense.
It Is.

Tell that to our 'metaphysicians' around here

[Cargést]

This is what we "metaphysicians" are saying.  BH, if you think we're somehow trying to disprove modern science using ancient wisdom, you still have an incorrect notion of what Tradition is; what we're trying to do, at the very least, is to bring modern science "back into the fold", as it were: to reveal to the physicalists that reality is, in fact, far larger than just this physical universe.  Accepting that there are multiple (actually infinite) other universes (like or unlike this one) is a good step on the way.  Even so, this falls strictly under the doctrine espoused by us "metaphysicians": that everything is One, and that there is contained within that One all things, all potentials, all possibilities.

[BillHopkins]

This is what we "metaphysicians" are saying.  BH, if you think we're somehow trying to disprove modern science using ancient wisdom, you still have an incorrect notion of what Tradition is; what we're trying to do, at the very least, is to bring modern science "back into the fold", as it were: to reveal to the physicalists that reality is, in fact, far larger than just this physical universe.  Accepting that there are multiple (actually infinite) other universes (like or unlike this one) is a good step on the way.  Even so, this falls strictly under the doctrine espoused by us "metaphysicians": that everything is One, and that there is contained within that One all things, all potentials, all possibilities.

Fair enough. I find it patronising that you think you 'know' things they don't. You hold poetic sentiments, perhaps (don't take this the wrong way), but I strongly feel it's not knowledge: i.e. justified true belief.

I.e. you have no way of knowing (unless there are whole new and hippy epistemic channels you have acess too that I don't, perhaps your LSD is very powerful) that there ARE multiple universes. It's a hypothesis at present. Thus it's not a justified belief.

There is a difference between holding a belief because it does 'such and such' theoretical work (gets you to a desired conclusion), and holding a belief because it is justified by the evidence/reasons!

Also, it's as though 'modern science' is a set of conclusion and not a methodology, which is something I don't think you appreciate? (We can agree with each other, you know. This has been reflected in your posts, after all). There are a range of views about whether, in addition to the 'physical', numbers exist, multiple universes exist, consciousness as non-physical exists. If any of these do exist, it doesn't mean the methodology of science is funked up.

[Cargést]

My beliefs are justified by logic and experience, just like yours : )

Perhaps you should look into the "intellect", and realise that it encompasses more than just rationality.  The irrational aspect of human experience has been overlooked since the Enlightenment, to disastrous effect.  We have more tools at our disposal than you may like to believe, at the moment, but they're there whether we use them or not.

The methodology of science is great, as I think I've said before.  Establishing the mechanics of the universe is a noble pursuit.  However, reducing the cosmic machine to its smallest moving parts and claiming those to be the be all and end all of existence is foolishness.  It's like denying the information on the screen because, in reality, a computer is nothing more than a load of transistors blinking on and off (with some peripherals if you're lucky!).

[crow]

Science attempts to observe what is, theorize what makes it what it is, then makes an attempt to prove its theories, through duplication.
Observation only delivers results relative to its ability to observe.
Theories play no part in what is.
If a duplication works, even a thousand times, it may well not work the next time.
Thus, science, at best, is an I think business.
It can never duplicate a universe.
Or conclusively prove its workings.

Spiritual adepts, on the other hand, do not merely observe.
They train themselves to perceive.
They do not concern themselves with how it works.
They respond with delighted awe at the realization that it does.

[scourge]

Another physicist offers a hybrid explanation, weak on the theology side. He says our near perfect alignment of conditions allowing for intelligent life could in our cosmological epoch have been deliberate. But, instead of an act of Creation, he says it was perhaps an act of creation.

Somewhere along the chain of Big Pulses, creatures managed to hang around long enough and learn enough to cause a new stable universe, and this type allows for the possiblity of advanced intelligence to exist, to spawn from the prior after its Big Crunch event. Think of how microbes reproduce by splitting and the stable conditions themselves as the traits passed along to the new form.

So in essence we have natural selection having taken place all along at its most immense scale.

How the first universe(s) got started would be a separate consideration from how ours got started. Similarly, why we are homo sapiens is a different question than how life first began.