FAQ
It is currently Tue Sep 26, 2017 5:37 am


Author Message
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:08 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
Hello folks. I have a question about the use of the word 'universe'. It seems to me that this word is being used incorrectly. Does not the word mean 'everything'? Everything there is? If so, how can you have more than ONE everything? How can there be OTHER universes?

If we have something we do not understand as yet and it appears to be on another plane or a different dimension then that is fair enough, I can understand that, but we cannot extrapolate that something could perhaps be in another universe. ANOTHER universe? Another everything? What does that mean?

You can have your own little part of the universe and refer to it as your universe, or the universe of a certain subject, like the universe of art. That is a part of the universe that is separated from the rest and it therefore has to have a name associated with it, but when you refer to THE universe there can only be one, and anything you find that you do not understand cannot be explained as being in ANOTHER universe, it has to be explained as being part of THE universe.

By stating that a certain part of the universe you do not understand belongs in another universe by definition you are stating that THIS universe then does not include everything.

Rick


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 9:35 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Technically the "universe" is everything but it is sometimes used as shorthand for "the observable universe", other "universes" are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe.

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
g o r t
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:20 am

Joined: Sat Sep 24, 2016 7:16 am
Posts: 18

Offline
Ostensably, because we no not react in any way with them. they are separate universes.


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 11:43 am
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Nature does not change itself to fit man-made definitions.

So, it's not a big deal, we would just need to preface our everyday use of the word 'universe' with an explanation of the limitations of that terminology.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Wed Jan 04, 2017 5:15 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
Technically the "universe" is everything but it is sometimes used as shorthand for "the observable universe", other "universes" are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe.

This, to me, gets to the heart of the issue. It depends on who is using the term and in what context.

In most instances, universe is being conflated with observable universe. They're not necessarily the same.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:51 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
…. other "universes" are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe.

Would it not make more sense to say "other parts of the universe are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe"?
g o r t wrote:
Ostensably, because we no not react in any way with them. they are separate universes.

A separate part of the universe.
Rory wrote:
Nature does not change itself to fit man-made definitions.

Uh?
Rory wrote:
So, it's not a big deal, we would just need to preface our everyday use of the word 'universe' with an explanation of the limitations of that terminology.

Well, it seems to me that accurate use of the language is crucial if we are to make progress in understand the universe. Accuracy of language is like accuracy of maths. It is the basic tool we use to understand things. Missunderstandings are bound to hold up progress, and let's face it, this subject is confusing enough as it is.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 10:25 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
RickArcher wrote:
PhDemon wrote:
…. other "universes" are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe.

Would it not make more sense to say "other parts of the universe are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe"?


Possibly, but it is normally taken as read that this is what is meant. When you are writing for non-specialists you tend not to dwell on the nuances and just try to get across the main idea, the idea of other "universes" is to most non-specialists an easy way of grasping the issue without opening the can of worms as to why there are parts of the universe that we can't observe. Also it possibly adds to the "wow" factor and sells more books, other universes sound way more impressive than talking about bits we can't see! [/cynic mode]

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
geordief
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 1:04 pm

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:45 pm
Posts: 270

Offline
"Unobservable" can just be because the universe is expanding too fast for light to reach us.

If those objects began their life along with what we do observe from the Big Bang ,then that is one class of "unobservable"

But there could be other objects that did not have their origin in the Big Bang and ,if they were discovered would represent another type of unobserved object (or parts/offshoots of unobserved universes perhaps)


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 4:57 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
RickArcher wrote:
Well, it seems to me that accurate use of the language is crucial if we are to make progress in understand the universe. Accuracy of language is like accuracy of maths. It is the basic tool we use to understand things. Missunderstandings are bound to hold up progress, and let's face it, this subject is confusing enough as it is.

I think most here would tend to agree. Perhaps, however, you're extrapolating a few specific examples of "poor form" or "bad communication" mistakenly to the broader science community?

The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence. 8-)

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 5:31 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
You're my sun, my moon, my guiding star
My kind of wonderful, that's what you are
I know, there's only, only one like you
There's no way they could have made two
You're all I'm living for, your love I'll keep forevermore
First, you're the last, my everything

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
Zinjanthropos
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 6:30 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:49 am
Posts: 379

Offline
Thanks to Hubble, NASA's revised estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is 2 trillion. Let's say we keep Hubble's camera focused on the same patch of night sky for 10 years. Would the light from another galaxy as yet unseen suddenly become visible or if the universe is expanding at faster than c as some suggest then would the number of visible galaxies decrease as they disappear one by one from sight?

_________________
"Science is much better than religion because our faith is shakeable. There can be something I believe with all my heart to be absolutely true, and the minute there's evidence that it isn't true, I throw it out like yesterday's garbage"-Krauss


Top
geordief
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 7:24 pm

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:45 pm
Posts: 270

Offline
Zinjanthropos wrote:
Thanks to Hubble, NASA's revised estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is 2 trillion. Let's say we keep Hubble's camera focused on the same patch of night sky for 10 years. Would the light from another galaxy as yet unseen suddenly become visible or if the universe is expanding at faster than c as some suggest then would the number of visible galaxies decrease as they disappear one by one from sight?

It is one forecast I have heard that eventually the night sky will become devoid of stars because of this ongoing expansion-even that we are lucky to exist at this point of time when so many are observable.


Top
Zinjanthropos
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 9:44 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:49 am
Posts: 379

Offline
geordief wrote:
Zinjanthropos wrote:
Thanks to Hubble, NASA's revised estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is 2 trillion. Let's say we keep Hubble's camera focused on the same patch of night sky for 10 years. Would the light from another galaxy as yet unseen suddenly become visible or if the universe is expanding at faster than c as some suggest then would the number of visible galaxies decrease as they disappear one by one from sight?


It is one forecast I have heard that eventually the night sky will become devoid of stars because of this ongoing expansion-even that we are lucky to exist at this point of time when so many are observable.


Yes, I believe that's current thinking and it's why I'm wondering if Hubble could be used to detect if a galaxy disappears from its view. I know our time is brief when compared to the universe's age but is there an off chance that Hubble might notice that one of the light sources in its field of view has gone?

_________________
"Science is much better than religion because our faith is shakeable. There can be something I believe with all my heart to be absolutely true, and the minute there's evidence that it isn't true, I throw it out like yesterday's garbage"-Krauss


Top
geordief
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Thu Jan 05, 2017 11:26 pm

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:45 pm
Posts: 270

Offline
Zinjanthropos wrote:
geordief wrote:
Zinjanthropos wrote:
Thanks to Hubble, NASA's revised estimate of galaxies in the observable universe is 2 trillion. Let's say we keep Hubble's camera focused on the same patch of night sky for 10 years. Would the light from another galaxy as yet unseen suddenly become visible or if the universe is expanding at faster than c as some suggest then would the number of visible galaxies decrease as they disappear one by one from sight?


It is one forecast I have heard that eventually the night sky will become devoid of stars because of this ongoing expansion-even that we are lucky to exist at this point of time when so many are observable.


Yes, I believe that's current thinking and it's why I'm wondering if Hubble could be used to detect if a galaxy disappears from its view. I know our time is brief when compared to the universe's age but is there an off chance that Hubble might notice that one of the light sources in its field of view has gone?

You mean notice that it has "gone over the edge"? Can the Hubble or the James Webb James Webb see as far as that "horizon"?

I don't know that , but if it could I suppose it would be able to notice "the Vanishing".

I mean ,perhaps it is able to measure the speed of recession and so ,if it is close to c it can keep an eye on it.

Would be funny if they spotted one coming in the "other way".


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:17 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
….. the idea of other "universes" is to most non-specialists an easy way of grasping the issue without opening the can of worms as to why there are parts of the universe that we can't observe.

I wouldn't of thought that could be called a can of worms. A non-specialist would have no problem with the idea that we cannot observe all parts of the universe, after all, we cannot 'yet' observe every part of our own planet.
PhDemon wrote:
Also it possibly adds to the "wow" factor and sells more books, other universes sound way more impressive than talking about bits we can't see! [/cynic mode]

I think you've hit the nail on the head there. That I believe is also the reason for the change in the meaning of the word 'billion'. They are all factors that slow down our understanding.
iNow wrote:
I think most here would tend to agree. Perhaps, however, you're extrapolating a few specific examples of "poor form" or "bad communication" mistakenly to the broader science community?

Well, I hope it is 'mistakenly', but I have noticed that there is a big tendency within the whole of society to follow like sheep without regard to whether something is actually sensible or not.
iNow wrote:
The plural of anecdote is anecdotes, not evidence. 8-)

Crumbs ….. I think I'll stick to Eistein's Theory of Relativity, easier to understand :)
Zinjanthropos wrote:
….. or if the universe is expanding at faster than c as some suggest then would the number of visible galaxies decrease as they disappear one by one from sight?

If the observable universe is already expanding faster than c then would not the other galaxies already be invisible? They could only start disappearing if they were increasing in speed, and what would make them accelerate?


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 10:41 am

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Quote:
I wouldn't of thought that could be called a can of worms. A non-specialist would have no problem with the idea that we cannot observe all parts of the universe, after all, we cannot 'yet' observe every part of our own planet


The can of worms opens when a non-specialist asks why we can't observe all parts of the universe, some of the reasons (although not all) are quite complicated...

Quote:
That I believe is also the reason for the change in the meaning of the word 'billion'. They are all factors that slow down our understanding.


This is incorrect, a billion was originally 1million x 1 million or 10^12 at some point (the 17th century IIRC) the way of writing long numbers changed, previously they were grouped in groups of 6 digits, i.e. 1,000000,000000 to try and make it clearer people started grouping them in threes e.g. 1,000,000,000,000. This led to some scientists (mainly in Europe) calling 1,000,000,000 a billion (one more group than a million) rather than 1,000000,000000 (which was the previous one group more than a million). The US adopted the French version and as obviously conformity is required for unambiguous communication, and the US being a major player at the time a decision was made the later version was almost universally adopted. It was not designed to "slow down our understanding" it's just an evolution of terminology - words and meanings are not static, just as species are not...

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:36 pm

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
This led to some scientists (mainly in Europe) calling 1,000,000,000 a billion (one more group than a million) rather than 1,000000,000000 (which was the previous one group more than a million).

But that still does not make sense. Where does the prefix 'bi' come into it, and 'tri' in a trillion? Adding one more group to a million makes three groups (1,000,000,000). The attitude that it does not matter if it makes sense makes me feel insecure.

1,000,000,000 was originally a milliard. At least that word had the 'milli' part in it. I suppose to be more correct it should be a millimillion.
PhDemon wrote:
- words and meanings are not static, just as species are not...

Oh I've heard that one before, the living breathing language argument, but sometimes you can just go too far, too much living and breathing can make you knackered and light headed, and species at least change for the better. I would love to know the percentage of people in the UK who still think a billion is a million million. Most people I ask still think it is, simply because it makes sense. The present change in the meaning is not like, for example, the change in the meaning of the word 'gay', a change that has some kind of sense behind it, it is more like calling a four legged animal a biped.

Why Europe adopted it's present meaning is beyond my understanding as explained above, and why the US compounded it further is an even greater puzzle. I hope that mind set is not prevalent. It is an accumulation of small problems or inaccuracies that can create big problems. Sometimes a small problem can cause a big problem all on its little owny pony - the butterfly effect.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 12:55 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Quote:
RickArcher wrote:
PhDemon wrote:
This led to some scientists (mainly in Europe) calling 1,000,000,000 a billion (one more group than a million) rather than 1,000000,000000 (which was the previous one group more than a million).

But that still does not make sense. Where does the prefix 'bi' come into it, and 'tri' in a trillion? Adding one more group to a million makes three groups (1,000,000,000). The attitude that it does not matter if it makes sense makes me feel insecure.


I'm not sure where the prefixes bi- and tri come from in those words, find an etymological dictionary and look it up. It is not so much an attitude of it does not matter if it makes sense, it is just the fact that most people agree on what to call the number. That's how languages work, people agree that a particular word means a particular thing.

Quote:
PhDemon wrote:
- words and meanings are not static, just as species are not...

Oh I've heard that one before, the living breathing language argument, but sometimes you can just go too far, too much living and breathing can make you knackered and light headed, and species at least change for the better. I would love to know the percentage of people in the UK who still think a billion is a million million. Most people I ask still think it is, simply because it makes sense. The present change in the meaning is not like, for example, the change in the meaning of the word 'gay', a change that has some kind of sense behind it, it is more like calling a four legged animal a biped.


Again, it doesn't matter whether you like it or not. If the majority agree that's what they are going to call it, it enters the language meaning that thing. That's how languages work.

Quote:
Why Europe adopted it's present meaning is beyond my understanding as explained above, and why the US compounded it further is an even greater puzzle. I hope that mind set is not prevalent. It is an accumulation of small problems or inaccuracies that can create big problems. Sometimes a small problem can cause a big problem all on its little owny pony - the butterfly effect.


Again, it doesn't matter if you understand it or like it. The majority decided that's what the word would mean and so that's what it means. It is not a problem and does not lead to inaccuracies if everyone agrees on what words mean...
There are certain phrases and usages that I don't like but if everyone else uses them I have to accept that. Inventing your own meanings for words or using previous meanings that have fallen out of usage because you don't like it doesn't lead to effective communication...

Language is not a chaotic system so the butterfly effect analogy doesn't work ;)

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Northerner
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:40 pm

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:50 am
Posts: 31

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
Technically the "universe" is everything but it is sometimes used as shorthand for "the observable universe", other "universes" are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe.
I do I I do believe the term "Universe" should apply to "everything" that exists, but this is simply my opinion.
I certainly do not understand why the term should sometimes be used to describe only the observable Universe.


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 1:42 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
Northerner wrote:
PhDemon wrote:
Technically the "universe" is everything but it is sometimes used as shorthand for "the observable universe", other "universes" are then things that for whatever reason we can't observe.
I do I I do believe the term "Universe" should apply to "everything" that exists, but this is simply my opinion.
I certainly do not understand why the term should sometimes be used to describe only the observable Universe.


It is used in that way quite often, whether you understand it or not ;)

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Northerner
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:32 pm

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:50 am
Posts: 31

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
It is used in that way quite often, whether you understand it or not.

I'm sure it is!
I find it difficult to accept the implied assertion it is somehow "wrong" to make a comment about whether one believes it is correct to limit the Universe to what is observable.
The fact is "it is used in that way quite often". So what!


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 5:35 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
I didn't say it was wrong to make such a comment, I just said your understanding (or lack of it) as to why it is used that way doesn't matter. ;)

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
Zinjanthropos
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 06, 2017 6:49 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:49 am
Posts: 379

Offline
RickArcher wrote:
Zinjanthropos wrote:
….. or if the universe is expanding at faster than c as some suggest then would the number of visible galaxies decrease as they disappear one by one from sight?

If the observable universe is already expanding faster than c then would not the other galaxies already be invisible? They could only start disappearing if they were increasing in speed, and what would make them accelerate?


Krauss is a pretty smart dude:
Quote:
“In 5 billion years, the expansion of the universe will have progressed to the point where all other galaxies will have receded beyond detection. Indeed, they will be receding faster than the speed of light, so detection will be impossible. Future civilizations will discover science and all its laws, and never know about other galaxies or the cosmic background radiation. They will inevitably come to the wrong conclusion about the universe......We live in a special time, the only time, where we can observationally verify that we live in a special time.”
― Lawrence M. Krauss


I'm not going to challenge him. However I would think that at some point, if the universe expands faster than c, that there would be a moment when the last photon that can be detected by our sensors actually leaves the receding galaxy. After that it will come up short as long as expansion rate is maintained.

Not sure if it's the same but if was to throw a ball towards you as fast as I could and in mid flight the distance between us suddenly expanded at the same or greater speed than the ball is moving and kept expanding then I doubt very much if it's going to get to you, ever.

_________________
"Science is much better than religion because our faith is shakeable. There can be something I believe with all my heart to be absolutely true, and the minute there's evidence that it isn't true, I throw it out like yesterday's garbage"-Krauss


Top
Northerner
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:37 pm

Joined: Fri Sep 02, 2011 7:50 am
Posts: 31

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
I didn't say it was wrong to make such a comment, I just said your understanding (or lack of it) as to why it is used that way doesn't matter. ;)

Clearly I'm missing something here!
If, for example, I claim I don't understand why the event we call the BB is very often referred to as an explosion I am simply arguing I do not believe this view to be correct.
Are you then saying because the term explosion "is used in that way quite often" the fact I state I do not understand why "doesn't matter".


Top
PhDemon
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 12:39 pm

Joined: Wed Jun 26, 2013 10:44 am
Posts: 500
Location: Newcastle-upon-Tyne

Offline
It could be I'm missing something too... Anyway it's a pointless argument so let's draw a line under it before we derail the thread...

_________________
"The big trouble with dumb bastards is that they are too dumb to believe there is such a thing as being smart"

- Kurt Vonnegut, The Sirens of Titan


Top
M_Gabriela
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 1:09 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 2:25 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Bs As, Argentina

Offline
What did I miss here? Are you saying (all of you) that "other universes" mean the parts of the universe we are not able to measure?????????' no actual parallel universes? Is that correct?

I mean it must be very difficult to prove the existence of other universes if they too appeared after a "big bang" event. It sounds silly now but I thought that physicists were studying the possibility of that happening.

...


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:00 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Uni as a prefix means one. Colloquially it includes everything that could possibly be. The problem here is with language, not physics or astronomy or even science. The confusion is also a bit of a historical artifact.

In the past, universe just meant the earth. Then, some better optics came around and we realized there was more out there and we "finally" recognized that universe obviously meant the whole solar system. After all, that was all there was. Big star we call the sun, planets and moons that orbit it. Gosh, how silly we were to miss it!

But then, oops... we found we were part of a massive galaxy full of solar systems... and then later realized we were in just one among countless other galaxies! Holy moly... the "universe" was WAY bigger than we thought, but then... oops again! Less than a hundred years ago we discovered there are superclusters of galaxies and local groups of superclusters....eureka!

Then, our understanding of "universe" got even bigger when quantum physics came around and we found new possibilities like many worlds and multi verses and strings and maybe there are other dimensions and ad infinitum...

The problem here is that the term "universe" has evolved, but the way common folks use it hasn't always kept up with latest paper or newest idea. Most commonly, outside of academia and expert conferences, when laypeople say "universe" they mean "observable universe," but experts realize we still don't have the full picture and the "universe" likely includes much more than we even realize... much more than just what's observable.

At the core, though, this is a problem with words having multiple meanings and each of us individually interpreting our own meaning upon hearing them. It is not IMO a problem with physics or astronomy or even science as domains of research.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
geordief
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:13 pm

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:45 pm
Posts: 270

Offline
iNow wrote:
Uni as a prefix means one. Colloquially it includes everything that could possibly be. The problem here is with language, not physics or astronomy or even science. The confusion is also a bit of a historical artifact.

In the past, universe just meant the earth. Then, some better optics came around and we realized there was more out there and we "finally" recognized that universe obviously meant the whole solar system. After all, that was all there was. Big star we call the sun, planets and moons that orbit it. Gosh, how silly we were to miss it!

But then, oops... we found we were part of a massive galaxy full of solar systems... and then later realized we were in just one among countless other galaxies! Holy moly... the "universe" was WAY bigger than we thought, but then... oops again! Less than a hundred years ago we discovered there are superclusters of galaxies and local groups of superclusters....eureka!

Then, our understanding of "universe" got even bigger when quantum physics came around and we found new possibilities like many worlds and multi verses and strings and maybe there are other dimensions and ad infinitum...

The problem here is that the term "universe" has evolved, but the way common folks use it hasn't always kept up with latest paper or newest idea. Most commonly, outside of academia and expert conferences, when laypeople say "universe" they mean "observable universe," but experts realize we still don't have the full picture and the "universe" likely includes much more than we even realize... much more than just what's observable.

At the core, though, this is a problem with words having multiple meanings and each of us individually interpreting our own meaning upon hearing them. It is not IMO a problem with physics or astronomy or even science as domains of research.

This must keep God very busy. Does he know how much is out there and if it is all in the right place? :? I hope he is keeping notes.


Top
M_Gabriela
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 2:20 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 2:25 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Bs As, Argentina

Offline
Ok I thought that when scientists studied the possibility of other universes they meant if it was possible other big bangs had occurred...
I'm completely ignorant so I won't go on.. I've just read something about the LHC and it definitely goes beyond my understandings...hahaha.
bye!


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:18 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Again... depends on context. Maybe to scientists there are other "universes" out there and maybe there were other big bangs, but ask a linguist and they'll surely tell you that's silly because the term "universe" must by definition encompass all there is.

Along similar lines, think of the term "home." Do we mean a house or apartment? Do we mean where our parents live? Does in mean our village or city or state or country? Does it mean where we feel safe or where we sleep?

All of these things can be described using the term "home" in much the same way that galaxies and superclusters and multiverses and extra dimensions can all be described using the term "universe."

I like to circumvent this issue by instead saying cosmos.

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
M_Gabriela
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 5:33 pm
User avatar

Joined: Tue May 03, 2016 2:25 pm
Posts: 217
Location: Bs As, Argentina

Offline
I was talking in a scientific context of course.
I am surprised the shift this discussion has taken. I thought it would be about proving that there may be in fact other universes or planes or dimensions.


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 6:19 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
This overview isn't too technical but covers the main points: http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-n ... 180958813/

And another useful, though briefer, overview: http://www.space.com/32728-parallel-universes.html

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Zinjanthropos
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 07, 2017 7:03 pm
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Mon Aug 15, 2011 2:49 am
Posts: 379

Offline
Is the ToE in danger of never happening should multiple universes be thought to exist? As far as I know you can only theorize about such things if you happen to exist in one of them.

_________________
"Science is much better than religion because our faith is shakeable. There can be something I believe with all my heart to be absolutely true, and the minute there's evidence that it isn't true, I throw it out like yesterday's garbage"-Krauss


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 8:24 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
PhDemon wrote:
The can of worms opens when a non-specialist asks why we can't observe all parts of the universe, some of the reasons (although not all) are quite complicated...

Oh I think the non-specialst would understand that it would be non understandable :!:

For instance, I am a non-specialist, I can understand that there could be certain parts of the universe (dark matter?) that we cannot see and the reasons why we cannot see them I would not understand, that's fair enough, I mean after all, this is the cosmos we are taking about, not my fridge, but when you start referring to those parts as in another universe then I get even more confused.
PhDemon wrote:
I'm not sure where the prefixes bi- and tri come from in those words, find an etymological dictionary and look it up.

Ha ha …. now if they could explain that one they'd deserve the Nobel Prize.

Etymology Dictionary - Billion
"1680s, from French billion (originally byllion in Chuquet's unpublished "Le Triparty en la Science des Nombres," 1484; copied by De la Roche, 1520); see bi- "two" + million. ………… British usage is truer to the etymology, but U.S. sense is said to be increasingly common there in technical writing."
PhDemon wrote:
It is not so much an attitude of it does not matter if it makes sense, it is just the fact that most people agree on what to call the number. That's how languages work, people agree that a particular word means a particular thing.

Of course, but the fact remains that it still does not make sense and it does its little bit to make life more confusing rather than less.
PhDemon wrote:
Language is not a chaotic system so the butterfly effect analogy doesn't work ;)

Well, I think whether one is chaotic or not is irrelevant. Everything still has an affect on something else whether it is chaotic or planned, and let's face it … when you get down to the nitty gritty, chaotic only means that we cannot see the outcome. Can we see the outcome of making a language more confusing than less? If that's the only inconsistency then that's fine, but is it?


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:38 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
M_Gabriela wrote:
What did I miss here? Are you saying (all of you) that "other universes" mean the parts of the universe we are not able to measure?????????' no actual parallel universes? Is that correct?

I mean it must be very difficult to prove the existence of other universes if they too appeared after a "big bang" event. It sounds silly now but I thought that physicists were studying the possibility of that happening.

Well, I am saying that there can be no such thing as other universes, multi verses, or parallel universes because you cannot have more than one everything. Other dimensions, other planes yes, but not other universes.

I think one of the problems is that we do not have a word for the product of the Big Bang.

We live on the Earth which is a planet
The Earth is in a solar system (we have not named our solar system)
Our solar system is in a galaxy (we have named that the Milk Way)
Our galaxy resides in ……? (Name required)

I think there are other categories, such as local system or something, can't remember those, but the point is there is no name for the whole of the Big Bang system. We are calling it the Universe, but we don't really know that do we? There are thoughts that there may be other Big Bang systems outside ours, or Big Shrink systems. Others say there is no outside …. ??? I am saying we cannot call it the Universe because it seems that we do not know that. Don't think it can be called the Big Bang system because other similar systems may be shrinking. I reckon it needs a name for the system, followed by a statement of its condition i.e. expanding, shrinking.

Our universal address at the moment is:-
Earth
Solar System (name needed)
Milky Way
????????

Actually, changed my mind, it could perhaps be Big Bang System (expanding).


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 11:35 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
As soon as you have more than one universe by definition each universe cannot contain everything.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 6:30 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
aren't we discussing semantics here - granted that the word universe means that it contains everything there is, but once it became apparent what we call the universe was possibly not the only of its kind, should we have relinquished the term ? logic says we should, but human habit isn't that much driven by logic and consistency

likewise for the word "atom" which means uncuttable or indivisible - should we have changed the name once it became apparent that the atom is not the elementary particle we once thought it was ? linguistics often has reasons of persistence that have nothing to do with the actual item it attempts to describe

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 7:57 pm

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
marnixR wrote:
aren't we discussing semantics here - granted that the word universe means that it contains everything there is, but once it became apparent what we call the universe was possibly not the only of its kind ……

If it is "not the only of its kind" then does it not mean that the universe is bigger than we thought?


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 9:06 pm
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
RickArcher wrote:
marnixR wrote:
aren't we discussing semantics here - granted that the word universe means that it contains everything there is, but once it became apparent what we call the universe was possibly not the only of its kind ……

If it is "not the only of its kind" then does it not mean that the universe is bigger than we thought?


you could say that if there was something like a universe of universes, then it will be bigger than each individual universe it contains

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:09 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Yes, it is entirely semantics.

A rose with any other name would smell as sweet.

Rick, what do you want to get out of this thread?

We all basically agree with you that the term "universe" may evoke misconceptions.

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sun Jan 08, 2017 10:43 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
Your example of the word "atom" is a good one

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 9:10 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
marnixR wrote:
you could say that if there was something like a universe of universes, then it will be bigger than each individual universe it contains

A universe that contains universes … cripes! I quote from iNow above:-
iNow wrote:
In the past, universe just meant the earth. Then, some better optics came around and we realized there was more out there and we "finally" recognized that universe obviously meant the whole solar system. After all, that was all there was. Big star we call the sun, planets and moons that orbit it. Gosh, how silly we were to miss it!

As I suggest in my post above, if what we are at present referring to as the universe is not actually the universe then we cannot keep calling it the universe, or even A universe, we need a name for it. I have suggested Big Bang System (expanding). How about someone else suggesting a name?
Rory wrote:
Yes, it is entirely semantics.

A rose with any other name would smell as sweet.

Rick, what do you want to get out of this thread?

We all basically agree with you that the term "universe" may evoke misconceptions.

But why does it need to? The word means 'everything there is', what is there to misconcept? :) Like with the word 'billion' I am trying to point out that we are making things more complicated than they actually are. I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any confusion with the word, it only has one meaning, but folks seem to be trying to make it have more than one. Would it not be better if we are all singing from the same hymn sheet?

I quote from that genius:-
RickArcher wrote:
Well, it seems to me that accurate use of the language is crucial if we are to make progress in understand the universe. Accuracy of language is like accuracy of maths. It is the basic tool we use to understand things.

Superb chap, what an intellegent fellow :)

iNow wrote:
Your example of the word "atom" is a good one

Yes I agree, a good example for some changes in the meanings of words, but not relevant in this case. As far as I know we have made no discoveries that make it necessary to change the meaning of the word universe.


Top
marnixR
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 10:07 am
User avatar

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 8:35 pm
Posts: 4851
Location: Cardiff, Wales

Offline
not sure if I would equate language with maths - sloppy maths gives you the wrong answer, whereas sloppy language still has the potential to work after a fashion

_________________
"Reality is that which, when you stop believing in it, doesn't go away." (Philip K. Dick)
"Someone is WRONG on the internet" (xkcd)


Top
geordief
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 11:14 am

Joined: Wed Oct 01, 2014 10:45 pm
Posts: 270

Offline
marnixR wrote:
not sure if I would equate language with maths - sloppy maths gives you the wrong answer, whereas sloppy language still has the potential to work after a fashion


Not if you are too literalist. Over reliance on language can be a false friend. (I am agreeing with Marnix)

On the plus side language is a zillion times more flexible and fun than maths....


Top
iNow
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 4:23 pm
User avatar
Original Member
Original Member

Joined: Thu Aug 04, 2011 11:40 pm
Posts: 5700
Location: Iowa

Offline
RickArcher wrote:
How about someone else suggesting a name?

What's wrong with multiverse?

RickArcher wrote:
I see no reason whatsoever why there should be any confusion with the word, it only has one meaning, but folks seem to be trying to make it have more than one. Would it not be better if we are all singing from the same hymn sheet?

Since many people already do this, the gap appears to be with the audience, not the author.

http://www.space.com/31465-is-our-unive ... verse.html
Quote:
If we define "universe" as "all there is" or "all that exists," then obviously, by definition, there can be only one universe.

But if we define "universe" as "all we can ever see" (no matter how large our telescopes) or "space-time regions that expand together," then many universes may indeed exist. There is nothing in science more awesome, more majestic. To discern the nature of ultimate reality, one must begin with the challenge of multiple universes.

So what is a "multiverse"?

As physicist and Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg told me on "Closer to Truth" (the source of all following interviews), "The word 'universe,' I suppose, should properly mean the whole thing — everything. But when we think of 'universe,' we sometimes use the word to mean just our Big Bang, the things we can see out to almost 14 billion light-years in all directions. And in this manner, it's reasonable to question: Is our universe unique? Are there multiple Big Bangs? Could there be multiple Big Bangs in different senses?" [What Triggered the Big Bang? It's Complicated (Op-Ed )]

"We started calling it a 'multiverse,'" meaning the entire ensemble of innumerable regions of disconnected space-time, said Andrei Linde, the Russian-American physicist now at Stanford. He developed the theory of "eternal chaotic inflation," which generates ever-increasing numbers of universes without end. Scientists created the neologism "multiverse," Linde continued, "because we found that what we had called 'the universe' can be divided into extremely large regions, which may have different laws of physics. And one part may be suitable for life, and other parts unsuitable."

Linde portrays "universes" as painted balloons or bubbles on canvas, "squeezing off" from one another via eternal chaotic inflation. Each of his bubbles is a separate universe, each with different laws of physics. The whole collection of universes, the multiverse, is incomprehensibly vast — and growing ever more so.

Is such a multiverse merely speculation? Certainly it is not as widely accepted by scientists as quantum physics or the Standard Model of particle physics. But it is motivated by real science, and it does follow from the equations of cosmology that optimally explain the origin and structure of our universe. In fact, in some of Linde's mathematical models, cosmic inflation must be expanding eternally and chaotically.

As noted above, we're still also studying this and consensus has not yet formed, so why the rush to change our language before our understanding and conjectures are confirmed?

_________________
iNow

"[Time] is one of those concepts that is profoundly resistant to a simple definition." ~C. Sagan


Top
Rory
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Mon Jan 09, 2017 5:49 pm
User avatar

Joined: Wed May 07, 2014 6:02 am
Posts: 1921

Offline
Yes, it would be great if all 7 billion humans used the term "universe" correctly.

What I don't understand is, why you are raising this here, or what you hope to achieve.

By analogy, I wish global poverty were eradicated, but I am not planning on starting a thread in which my central argument is "poverty is bad". I doubt that that would help starving children.

What I am asking is, what are you going to do about it?

_________________
If you are doomed to be boring - make it short. Andre Geim


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Tue Jan 10, 2017 8:43 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
marnixR wrote:
not sure if I would equate language with maths - sloppy maths gives you the wrong answer, whereas sloppy language still has the potential to work after a fashion

Well, I am only equating them in that they are both the tools we use to understand the world. Without language how could we do it? Without maths how could we do it? Sloppy language may still have the potential to work, but if it is not sloppy, would it not work better?
iNow wrote:
Quote from Kuhn "But if we define "universe" as "all we can ever see" (no matter how large our telescopes) or "space-time regions that expand together," then many universes may indeed exist.

But why would you define it that way? I cannot see the advantage. You'll then have to invent another word to mean 'all that exists'. It's adding complication when there is no need. We didn't do that when we realised the Earth was not the universe.
Rory wrote:
Yes, it would be great if all 7 billion humans used the term "universe" correctly.

What I don't understand is, why you are raising this here, or what you hope to achieve.

By analogy, I wish global poverty were eradicated, but I am not planning on starting a thread in which my central argument is "poverty is bad". I doubt that that would help starving children.

What I am asking is, what are you going to do about it?

Whoooah! Steady on old chap! This is a discussion forum remember.


Top
Dywyddyr
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Fri Jan 13, 2017 5:40 pm
User avatar

Joined: Sat Sep 26, 2015 1:53 pm
Posts: 96

Offline
RickArcher wrote:
when you get down to the nitty gritty, chaotic only means that we cannot see the outcome.

No.


Top
RickArcher
Post  Post subject: Re: More than One Everything  |  Posted: Sat Jan 14, 2017 7:49 am

Joined: Tue Jan 03, 2017 1:18 pm
Posts: 20

Offline
Dywyddyr wrote:
RickArcher wrote:
when you get down to the nitty gritty, chaotic only means that we cannot see the outcome.

No.

Oh


Top
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Print view

Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
Jump to:   
cron

Delete all board cookies | The team | All times are UTC


This free forum is proudly hosted by ProphpBB | phpBB software | Report Abuse | Privacy