| | | |
Multiverse — Intro
Notes & YouTube Videos | | |
|
Tagline: Is our 'universe', after all, one of many? by Paul Quek, from Singapore BBA (Hons), MAppSci (CompSci) [Bachelor of Business Administration, Honours]
[Master of Applied Science, Computing Science] Check this out: Cool Software! (New window opens)
| Incept Date: | | 27 January 2009 | | Rev'd Date: | | 20 July 2009 |
 Latest Updates!
(New window opens) | |
| |  Notes on Browsers
(New window opens) | | | |  Announcement! - Roswell Rock
(New window opens) | | |
Check our Mysteries Blog to see the latest webpages and
'web articles' that have been UPDATED!
(Click on the Mysteries Blog button on the left NAVBAR.)
 "Bubble universes", every disk is a bubble universe (Universe 1 to Universe 6
are different bubbles, they have physical constants that are different from our
universe), our universe is just one of the bubbles. &mdash Wikipedia |
|
"This new concept [of the multiverse] is, potentially, as drastic an
enlargement of our cosmic perspective as the shift from pre-Copernican ideas to
the realization that the Earth is orbiting a typical star on the edge of the
Milky Way." — Sir Martin Rees, 1998, current Astronomer Royal
of Britain
1.0 PrologThis web article examines the topic of the Multiverse, which has become a respectable topic and has moved out of science fiction
into serious science, at least for some forward-thinking, 21st-Century
cosmologists and physicists ... This is only an Intro piece ... hence the title of this web article is 'Multiverse — Intro'.
From YouTube
"From Universe to Multiverse. Are You Ready- (Dr. Michio Kaku)"
Uploaded to YouTube by "sergejsh" on August 09, 2008
Info/Description: 2005. Michio Kaku speaks about multiverse and parallel universes.
Tags: multiverse universe michio kaku religion god theology |
2.0 Notes
2.1 From Wikipedia, the free encyclopediaThe following (adapted) notes came from the Wikipedia web site — which is my favorite encyclopedia because it's
free, user-editable, updated (very, very quickly! Amazing!), and very, very
informative (I am 'dropping' the use of ALL the other paid encyclopedias to
'last place'; Wikipedia takes 'first place', it's a winner!) ... Multiverse The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple possible universes (including our
universe) that together comprise all of reality. The different universes within the multiverse are sometimes called parallel universes. [...] Multiverses have been hypothesized in cosmology, physics, astronomy,
philosophy, transpersonal psychology and fiction, particularly in science
fiction and fantasy. The specific term "multiverse" was coined in 1895 by psychologist William James. ... parallel universes are also called "alternative universes", "quantum universes", "interpenetrating dimensions", "parallel worlds", "alternate realities", "alternative timelines",
etc. [...] —
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse
2.2 From newscientist.comThe following (adapted) text came from the newscientist.com site ... How to map the multiverse One of the first to argue for a multiverse was Russian physicist Andrei Linde, now at Stanford University in California. In the 1980s, Linde extended and
improved upon an idea called inflation, which suggests that the universe underwent a period of exponential expansion
in the first fractions of a second after the big bang. Inflation successfully
explains why the universe looks pretty much the same in all directions, and why
space-time is "flat", despite [Albert] Einstein showing that it can just as easily be curved. Linde realised that inflation could be ongoing or "eternal", in the sense that
once space-time starts inflating, it can stop in some parts (such as ours) yet
take off with renewed vigour elsewhere. This process continues ad infinitum,
giving rise to a patchwork of regions of space, each with different properties.
When and how inflation ceases in a particular patch dictates the exact nature
and types of fundamental particles there and the laws of physics that govern
their behaviour. Over time, eternal inflation gives rise to just about every
possible type of universe predicted by string theory. Our universe, argues Linde, is a part of this multiverse. It wasn't until 1998, however, that the multiverse gained any traction, when
astronomers studying distant supernovae announced that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. They put this down to the vacuum of space having a small energy density, which exerts a repulsive force to counteract gravity as the universe ages. This became known as dark energy, or the cosmological constant [the latter term originally from Einstein]. Its discovery was a huge blow. Up till then, physicists had hoped that some ultimate theory [a so-called theory of everything] would deduce the values of fundamental constants of nature from first
principles, including the cosmological constant, and explain why the laws of
physics are as they are, just right for the formation of stars and galaxies
and possibly the emergence of life. This seems not to be the case. Nothing in
string theory, or indeed any other theory in physics, can predict the observed
value of the cosmological constant. However, if our universe is part of a multiverse then we can ascribe the value of the cosmological constant to an accident. The
same goes for other aspects of our universe, such as the mass of the electron.
The idea is simply that each universe's laws of physics and fundamental
constants are randomly determined, and we just happen to live in one where
these are suited for life. "If not for the multiverse, you would have these
unsolved problems at every corner," says Linde. The other compelling argument for a multiverse comes from string theory. This maintains that all fundamental particles of
matter and forces of nature arise from the vibration of tiny strings in 10 dimensions. For us not to notice the extra six dimensions of space, they must be curled
up, or compacted, so small as to be undetectable. For decades, mathematicians
toiled over what different forms this compaction could take, and they found
myriad ways of scrunching up space-time — a staggering 10500 or more. Each form gives rise to a different vacuum of space-time, and hence a different
universe - with its own vacuum energy, fundamental particles and laws of
physics. The hope, nurtured by [Brian] Greene [of The Elegant Universe fame] and others, was that there was some kind of uniqueness principle that
would pick out the particular form of space-time that produces our universe. That hope has since receded dramatically. In 2004, Michael Douglas of the State University of New York in Stony Brook, and Leonard Susskind of Stanford University surveyed the developments in string theory to date and
concluded
that all these theoretical varieties of space-time should be taken seriously as
physical realities - that is, they point to a multiverse. Susskind coined the term "the landscape of string theory" to describe the
10500 or more different universes. Nothing in string theory suggests that any one of
these universes is preferred over others. Rather, it appears all are equally
likely. Together, dark energy and string theory are making physicists see the multiverse anew. "Just about everybody is convinced that the idea of uniqueness has gone
down the drain," says Susskind. So what are we to do? Throw up our hands and
admit that we will never be able to explain why our universe is the way it is? — How to map the multiverse
New Scientist
www.newscientist.com/article/mg20227061.200-how-to-map-the-multiverse.html
2.3 From astronomy.pomona.eduThe following (adapted) notes came from the astronomy.pomona.edu site ... Multiverse Theory There are stars with enough mass to collapse on themselves, forming ... black
holes. ... within these black holes here is a point called "singularity" at
which all physical laws [as we know them] may cease to exist [or operate]. ...
the curvature of space-time becomes infinitely large, and modern science can no
longer predict what will happen. Einstein's theory of relativity cannot determine what effect singularity will have on an object .... ... It
has been theorized that beyond singularity exist tunnels — shortcuts
— to other ends of the universe. These "wormholes" could be a solution to interstellar travel, which currently is limited by
relativity. However, many complications surround this possible theory. Most
notable is the fact that the gravitational force of a black hole would crush
any possible interstellar spacecraft .... While this theory about singularity
is questionable at best and will probably be left to science fiction, there is
another theory about the center of a black hole that has been gaining more
acceptance from respected physicists and astronomers, and describes a whole new
view about our known universe [i.e., the Multiverse theory] . At the point of singularity it is agreed that it is impossible to predict
physical behavior. This could mean that beyond this point of singularity there
may be an entirely new set of physical laws. It is quite possible that after
singularity, there may be an absence of such basic forces as gravity,
electromagnetism, and the strong and weak nuclear forces. If this were to
happen, or if just one of these forces did not exist or was changed, then
technically it would not be a part of this universe. Our universe is defined
as the observable (if not explainable) aspects of the cosmos that involve the
galaxies, stars, planets, and life that we know. Should a basic component of
our physical laws be changed, none of what we know would exist. According to Before the Beginning, by Sir Martin Rees, "If nuclear forces were slightly weaker, no chemical elements other than
hydrogen would be stable and there would be no nuclear energy to power stars.
But, if the nuclear forces were slightly stronger than they actually are
relative to electric forces, two protons could stick together so readily that
ordinary hydrogen would not exist, and stars would evolve quite differently." — Rees, Martin. Before the Beginning. Reading, MA: Helix Books, 1997 This demonstrates the small chance that it took for things to actually turn
out like they did, and implies that it may be difficult for things to ever
duplicate themselves should this idea of a "Multiverse" be more than just a theory. The Multiverse theory for the universe has been a recently accepted theory that describes the
continuous formation of universes through the collapse of giant stars and the
formation of black holes. With each of these black holes there is a new point
of singularity and a new possible universe. As Rees describes it, "Our universe may be just one element - one atom, as it were — in an
infinite ensemble: a cosmic archipelago. Each universe starts with its own big
bang, acquires a distinctive imprint (and its individual physical laws) as it
cools, and traces out its own cosmic cycle. The big bang that triggered our
entire universe is, in this grander perspective, an infinitesimal part of an
elaborate structure that extends far beyond the range of any telescopes." — Rees, Martin. Before the Beginning. Reading, MA: Helix Books, 1997 This puts our place in the Multiverse into a small spectrum. While the size of the earth in relation to the sun is
minuscule, the size of the sun, the solar system, the galaxy, and even the
universe, could pale in comparison to this proposed Multiverse. It would be a shift in thinking that may help explain our big bang theory
and possibly give light to the idea of parallel universes. While the idea of a parallel universe may sound farfetched, a recent book from an Oxford physicist named David Deutsch entitled, "The Fabric of Reality: The Science of Parallel Universes - And Its Implications" describes the possibilities of tapping in on parallel universes. He proposes
that through a parallel universe one computer would be able to find an identical counterpart computer from the
other universe, and collaborate with it to increase knowledge of the other
universe. This involves the collaboration of many theories that have yet to
have much proof. However, it is another arm
of the Multiverse theory that has become more accepted in recent years that could possibly yield
positive benefits for society. The Multiverse theory itself, regardless of parallel universes, has many implications. Most notable is the unique, complex process from
which our own universe was born, and how easily it could have been different.
It may imply that, out of the possibly thousands, millions, or billions of
universes, ours was special enough to develop life, which, in itself is
special. Maybe life in another universe has a different meaning, but we know
that our universe, at the very least is special in that it houses our kind of
life. If just one physical law were slightly different, then there would be
nobody to appreciate the beauty that we can see on an everyday basis. This
brings up one ultimate question. If every universe began from another
universe, where did it all begin? Recent physicists imply that there is no
room for a creator under the current model of thinking. However, with such a
complex system of laws, principles, and forces that allowed life to exist, one
must give to the possibility of a creator behind it all.
2.4 From creation.comThe following (adapted) notes — against the idea of a multiverse — came from a creationist-type website called "creation.com"
...
Multiverse theory — unknown science or illogical raison d'être? New Scientist columnist falls on her own sword by Gary Bates New Scientist magazine is generally regarded by the secular community as one of the
top-ranked science magazines in the world. However, a published opinion by a
regular columnist demonstrated how "unscientific" and anti-God some of their
articles have become — something we have documented before (Refutation of New Scientist’s Evolution: 24 myths and misconceptions — creation.com/article/6198). Amanda Gefter wrote an article discussing multiverse theory, or the idea that our universe may be only one of many that currently exist.
Such speculations attempt to explain away the appearance of design in the
universe, because of, as we shall see, the spiritual implications. In an
article called What's God got to do with it she wrote: "WHAT would you rather believe in, God or the multiverse? It sounds like an instance of cosmic apples and oranges, but increasingly we
are being told it's a choice we must make. Take the dialogue earlier this year
between Richard Dawkins and physicist Steven Weinberg in Austin, Texas. Discussing the fact that the universe appears fine-tuned for
our existence, Weinberg told Dawkins: 'If you discovered a really impressive
fine-tuning ... I think you'd really be left with only two explanations: a
benevolent designer or a multiverse.'" (Emphasis in original). —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. Although she may not have realized her opening faux pas right off the bat,
Gefter inadvertently states that it is a choice of belief systems. But in the
very next sentence she belies the former by writing: "Weinberg went on to clarify that invoking a benevolent designer does not count
as a genuine explanation, but I was intrigued by his either/or scenario. Is
that really our only choice? Supernatural creator or parallel worlds?" —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008.
Ignoring the evidence Why doesn’t it count as a genuine explanation? If the Ockham's Razor [Entities [of explanation] should not be multiplied beyond necessity. Put a little more plainly this maxim says that with any problem: "All things being equal, the simplest solution tends to be the best one."] principle is followed, then the most straightforward explanation would be that
there had to be a designer. Weinberg rightly noted that if one was to see a
finely-tuned universe then it would imply design, but then effectively ruled
out that designer. God is excluded from the question on philosophical grounds.
Why philosophical grounds? Well, the universe does look as if it is designed [creation.com/images/pdfs/tj/j16_2/j16_2_95-104.pdf] and very finely-tuned for life [creation.com/the-universe-is-finely-tuned-for-life], so if it's not God then what's left? Quoting an article in Discover magazine, Gefter wrote: "'Short of invoking a benevolent creator, many physicists see only one possible
explanation,' writes journalist Tim Folger. 'Our universe may be but one of
perhaps infinitely many universes in an inconceivably vast multiverse.' Folger quotes cosmologist Bernard Carr: 'If you don’t want God, you'd better
have a multiverse.'" —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. Of course it's nothing new to realize that people don’t want there to be a God
to be accountable to. Both creation and evolution are belief systems about past
events, and "evidence" or facts are generally interpreted within the framework
of that belief system. So if the evidence for multiverse theory could be interpreted with the framework for cosmic evolution I could then
understand where they are coming from. Gefter attempts to roll out the
ammunition for multiverse theory but it’s really no evidence at all: "There are plenty of reasons to take the multiverse seriously. Three key theories — quantum mechanics, cosmic inflation and string theory — all converge on the idea." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008.
Resorting to unsubstantiated theories to support unsubstantiated theories! These three key theories are just thrown into the mix as if they are
substantiated science fact, but they are not. Multiverse is a completely hypothetical construct, but what makes Gefter's explanations
even worse is that she attempts to use even more speculation in an attempt to
shore up the former. - Firstly, quantum mechanics (A new age of quantum madness — creation.com/a-new-age-of-quantum-madness) deals mainly with the nature and behaviour of subatomic particles. Quantum
mechanics is fine in itself (see, for example, Creation and Quantum Mechanics, by Donald B. DeYoung, Ph.D. —
www.icr.org/index.php?module=articles&action=view&ID=434), but she is talking about a highly dubious understanding of it, called the "many worlds" interpretation. Quantum theory predicts certain probabilities of various events happening,
e.g. the decay of a radioactive atom. But the many worlds view asserts that there are parallel universes, one for each possibility.
The multi-universe idea is a subset of this idea. But it goes further. Let's explain how it
works. If there were lots of other universes, with the laws of physics a little
bit different in each one, then it would become probable that at least one
would happen to have the properties required for intelligent observers to
exist. If it didn't, you and I would not be here to ask the question of "Why
does our universe look special?", in the first place (as the anthropic principle indicates — creation.com/article/3842/). This is really a non-answer — imagine someone taking a lethal dose of
poison, surviving, and then being asked, "how did you survive?" It would be
crass to answer, "If I didn't, I wouldn't be here talking to you." It is a nonsensical attempt to explain away design, because even if there were
other universes, the laws of physics that dictate our own mean that it would be
impossible for us to detect them anyway. This is science fiction! - Second[ly], why cosmic inflation is used to support the multiverse notion is not understood by the writer of this article (me). Inflation is yet
another hypothesis to rescue a hypothesis — the big bang. The big bang hypothesis results in a number of problems, one of which is the
uniformity of temperature to within 1 part in 100,000. According to big bang
time scales, there has not been even a tenth of the amount of time necessary
for heat to have travelled from the hot parts to the cold parts to equalize the
temperature. This is a light-travel problem suffered by big-bangers, called the horizon problem [creation.com/light-travel-time-a-problem-for-the-big-bang]. The inflation theory is a mathematical model to try to explain this. See the
discussion in How can distant starlight reach us in just 6,000 years? [creation.com/article/6265]
- Thirdly, string theory [creation.com/is-string-the-next-big-thing], or the theory that the universe might exist in multiple branes [creation.com/is-string-the-next-big-thing] or dimensions, is presently completely unobservable and untestable. However,
its advocates would also claim that it is not falsifiable, and therefore, it
might be correct. To use this argument is completely circular in its reasoning
and short on substance. Once again, it borders on the realm of science fiction.
String theory is nothing more than elegant philosophical mathematics [creation.com/string-theory-lsquophilosophyrsquo-challenged] attempting, once again, to solve some of the observation evidence that is not
consistent with a big bang model.
The circular arguments continue After using unscientific ideas to support an unscientific multiverse idea, Gefter then said: "But the reason physicists talk about the multiverse as an alternative to God is because it helps explain why the universe is so
bio-friendly. From the strength of gravity to the mass of a proton, it's as if
the universe were designed just for us. If, however, there are an infinite
number of universes — with physical constants that vary from one to the
next — our cosy neighbourhood isn't only possible, it's inevitable." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. This statement borders on the bizarre! Surely it is logical to deduce that the
reason the universe is so "bio-friendly" is that it was made to be that way (Isaiah 45:18) [For thus says the LORD, who created the heavens (he is God!),
who formed the earth and made it (he established it; he did not create it
empty, he formed it to be inhabited!): "I am the LORD, and there is no other
...." (English Standard Version / ESV)]. There cannot be a stronger argument for design from experimental science [creation.com/its-not-science], i.e. evidence that is observable, repeatable and testable. However, note how
she resorts to unknowns to claim a certainty ("If ... there are an infinite number of universes" ..., it's "inevitable") (emphasis mine). She then had the temerity to say that: "... if this theory doesn't pan out our only other option is a supernatural one
... to abandon science itself." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. This she then described as an "unfounded leap of logic". How is invoking a
designer to account for design features illogical? Actually, it is her
statement in this regard that is illogical. This is indescribable
elephant-hurling in the extreme, particularly as she went on to say that
creationists are mistaken in their claim that mulitverse theory was invented to serve as science's get-out-of-God-free card. Well, given her
best efforts to provide evidence for a multiverse theory she is playing that card very well without any help from creationists. Gefter
is invoking pure philosophy in an attempt to derail the very logical arguments
that creationists have been using. She fails to satisfactorily answer them,
because she merely appeals to unsubstantiated and speculative theories. Her
motivation to avoid a Creator at all costs is revealed later in the article
when she quotes renowned evolutionary cosmologist Michio Kaku: "To make matters worse, physicists are also dragging morality into the picture.
In a recent show about the multiverse that aired on the History Channel, physicist Michio Kaku asked: 'Why should I obey the law knowing that in some
universe if I commit a crime I'm going to get away with it?' The ID [intelligent design — creation.com/cmis-views-on-the-intelligent-design-movement] community has already tried to draw lines from Darwin to the Holocaust [creation.com/article/1892] in their attempt to paint rational people as Satan's minions. Are physicists
really suggesting that the multiverse gives us licence to commit evil? It's an absurd notion, which moral
philosophers have already killed off in other guises." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. Note how Gefter chides him for pointing out something that Bible-believers (and
Kaku) have long pointed out. Her appeal to unspecified "moral philosphers" did
not point out how this logical deduction has been answered. No one from this
camp has ever suggested that rational people are Satan's minions (Hitler maybe,
but that's just a nice bit of hyperbole she threw in for dramatic effect), and
we have never claimed that non-believers or evolutionists cannot be moral. What
we have consistently pointed out is that they have no logical basis for being
moral (see for example Bomb-building vs. the biblical foundation — creation.com/article/2207). Indeed, how can she even define what "evil" is unless there is a law giver;
an ultimate authority who defines what is wrong and right? With the moral
goalposts being shifted so rapidly today one man's "evil" can quickly become
another's "If it feels good, do it!" This is what Michio Kaku was logically
deducing out, but in her eagerness to build straw man arguments and discredit
those who advocate design, she missed it. Gefter goes on to say: "Pitting the multiverse against religion presents a false dichotomy. Science never boils down to a
choice between two alternative explanations. It is always plausible that both
are wrong and a third or fourth or fifth will turn out to be correct." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. This is true to some extent. One can never know everything there is to know
because tomorrow we might discover or learn something that we didn’t know
today. But here she is once again playing her own aptly named
“get-out-of-God-free card”. When trying to make sense of one’s world, one can
only reliably use what we understand and know to be true. Gefter irrationally
resorts to unknowns (what we cannot observe and test) to explain what we can
observe and test. She then hurls some more elephants by resorting to yet
another “unknown, untestable piece of philosophy. "What might a third option look like here? Physicist John Wheeler once offered a suggestion: maybe we should approach cosmic fine-tuning not as
a problem but as a clue. Perhaps it is evidence that we somehow endow the
universe with certain features by the mere act of observation. It's an idea
that Stephen Hawking has been thinking about, too. Hawking advocates what he calls top-down cosmology, in which observers are creating the universe and its entire history right
now. If we in some sense create the universe, it is not surprising that the
universe is well suited to us." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008. (Once again refer to A new age of quantum madness — creation.com/a-new-age-of-quantum-madness — for an answer to
Hawking's theory.) Hopefully, by now you can see that Gefter and her colleagues have really
resorted to religious ideas, which is ironic because the whole point of her
article was to somehow state that resorting to a Creator God who made the
universe is unscientific and religious. Her final effort sounded more like a
New Age idea, which is wholly religious. And lastly, Gefter says: "That’s speculative, but at least it’s science." —
Amanda Gefter
Why it's not as simple as God vs the multiverse
New Scientist, 6 December 2008.
3.0 YouTube Videos
3.1 Video ClipsThe popular video hosting site, YouTube, carries several videos about the 'Multiverse' ...
Multiverse — Intro  Javascript must be enabled!
Required at least Flash 8 ... | PAUSE RESUMETo play video, click on title in menu below. |
Tags: multiverse universe michio kaku religion god theology
multiverse universe cosmos
multiverse alex vilenkin physics god
universe multiverse cosmos 4d dimension hubble deep field rooster
theycallmerooster
michio kaku physics impossible time travel parallel universes reality
mojo the circuit science
3.2 Video SummariesHere are the YouTube video summaries:
Title: From Universe to Multiverse. Are You Ready? (Dr. Michio Kaku) From: sergejsh Added: August 09, 2008 Info-Description: 2005. Michio Kaku speaks about multiverse and parallel universes.
Title: Michio Kaku: Time Travel, Parallel Universes, and Reality
From: TheCircuitMojoHD
Added: May 25, 2008
Info-Description: Fascinating interview with Michio Kaku.
Speaking about his new book "Physics of the Impossible," Dr.
Kaku explains with how Physics one day may allow us to go back in time.
Humorous, enlightening, and thought provoking.
Amazing.
Title: Alien Intelligence,Multiverse Theory ,Micho Kaku
From: 2008albert
Added: August 04, 2008
Info-Description: The multiverse (or meta-universe) is the hypothetical set of multiple
possible universes (including our universe) that together comprise all of
reality. The different universes within the multiverse are sometimes called
parallel universes. The structure of the multiverse, the nature of each
universe within it and the relationship between the various constituent
universes, depend on the specific multiverse hypothesis considered. Bubble theory posits an infinite number of open multiverses, each with
different physical constants. (The set of bubble universes is thus a Level II
multiverse.) The formation of our universe from a "bubble" of a multiverse was proposed by
Andre Linde. This Bubble universe theory fits well with the widely accepted
theory of cosmic inflation. The bubble universe concept involves creation of
universes from the quantum foam of a "parent universe." On very small scales,
the foam is frothing due to energy fluctuations. These fluctuations may create
tiny bubbles and wormholes. If the energy fluctuation is not very large, a tiny
bubble universe may form, experience some expansion like an inflating balloon,
and then contract and disappear from existence. However, if the energy
fluctuation is greater than a particular critical value, a tiny bubble universe
forms from the parent universe, experiences long-term expansion, and allows
matter and large-scale galactic structures to form.
Title: Theories of Everything - The Multiverse)
From: dhtow01
Added: August 23, 2007
Info-Description: An exploration of the multiverse of which our Universe may be only one
small fragment
Title: Seeing The Multiverse
From: theycallmerooster
Added: August 29, 2007
Info-Description: A painting of what I think it would be like to be able to see the
universe outside our universe (the multiverse)
At the bottom is a human in our cosmos and the top is same image in a 4th
dimensional perspective, so the Multiverse comes into view and as a consequence
all angles of the human figure are visible and our view of him is skewed.
At the end is a picture taken by the Hubble telescope. It shows just how common
galaxies like our own really are. Each containing billions of stars, suns, and
planets.
Try not to feel too important, people. ;)
Also since so many people are asking
the music is by my friend
You can find his musicspace page at
www.myspace.com/assistband
Title: Alex Vilenkin interview about the Multiverse part 1/3 to part 3/3
From: adorianvlad
Added: March 26, 2008
Info-Description: interview about the Multiverse
4.0 EpilogThis web article comprises some preliminary and introductory notes and YouTube
video clips, on the Multiverse of "bubble universes" (and related stuff) ... Stay tuned to this website ... Cheers!
Webmeister
Woodlands, Singapore| Incept Date: | | 27 January 2009 | | Rev'd Date: | | 20 July 2009 |
 |  |  |  | This website is predicated on the basis of the following categorization of the
Sciences ... Four Categories of Science By Stanton T. Friedman (Former Nuclear Physicist)Some people have insisted that if I can't provide a piece of a [flying] saucer
or an alien body, there is nothing to support my claims. I was quite surprised
during my last visit with Carl Sagan in December 1992, when he claimed that the
essence of the scientific method was reproducibility. In actuality, as I wrote
Sagan later on, there are at least four different kinds of science: - [Category-1 Science] Yes, there is a lot of excellent science done by people who set up
an experiment in which they can control all the variables and equipment. They
make measurements and then publish their results, after peer review, and
describe their equipment, instruments, and activity in detail so that others
can duplicate the work and, presumably, come to the same conclusions. Such
science can be very satisfying, and certainly can contribute to the advancement
of knowledge. However, it is not the only kind of science.
- [Category-2 Science] A second kind of science involves situations in which one cannot
control all the variables, but can predict some. For example, I cannot prove
that on occasion the moon comes directly between the sun and the Earth and
casts a shadow of darkness on the Earth, because I cannot control the positions
of the Earth, moon, or sun. What can be done is predicting the times when such
eclipses will happen and being ready to make observations when they occur.
Hopefully the weather where I have my instruments will allow me to make lots of
measurements.
- [Category-3 Science] A third kind of science involves events that can neither be
predicted nor controlled, but one can be ready to make measurements if
something does happen. For example, an array of seismographs can be established
to allow measurements to be made at several locations in the event of an
earthquake. When I was at the University of Chicago, a block of nuclear
emulsion was attached to a large balloon that would be released when a
radiation detector indicated that a solar storm had occurred (something we
could neither produce nor predict). Somebody would rush to Stagg Field and
release the balloon. When the balloon was
retrieved, the emulsion would be carefully examined to measure the number,
direction, velocity, and mass characteristics of particles unleashed by the sun.
- [Category-4 Science] Finally, there is a fourth kind of science, still using the rules
to attack difficult problems. These are the events that involve intelligence,
such as airplane crashes, murders, rapes, and automobile accidents. We do not
know when or where they will occur, but we do know they will. In a typical year
more than 40,000 Americans will be killed in automobile accidents. We don't
know where or when, so rarely are TV cameras whirling when these events take
place. But we can, after the fact, collect and evaluate evidence. We can
determine if the driver had high levels of alcohol in his or her blood, whether
the brakes failed, whether the visibility was poor, where a skid started, and
so on. Observations of strange phenomena in the sky come under this last
category.
In all the category-4 events, we must obtain as much testimony from witnesses
as possible. Some testimony is worth more than other testimony, perhaps because
of the duration of observation, the nearness of the witnesses to the event, the
specialized training of the observer, the availability of corroborative
evidence such as videos and still photos, or the consistency of evidence when
there is testimony from more than one witness. Our entire legal system is based
on testimony — rarely is there conclusive proof such as DNA
matching. Judges and juries must decide, with appropriate cross-examination,
who is telling the truth. In some states, testimony from one witness can lead
to the death penalty
for the accused. We should take note of the fact that even instrument data is dependent on
testimony from the observer of the instruments, and on appropriate calibration
and validation under standardized circumstances. Also, our courts place limits
on requirements for testimony, such as that against one spouse by the other.
Furthermore, there are rules about hearsay testimony, and rules regarding legal
evidence are complex and detailed. When it comes to flying saucers, we must remember that the reason most
sightings can be determined to be relatively conventional phenomena, often seen
under unusual circumstances, is that most people are relatively good observers.
The problem comes with the interpretation of what was observed. People watching
the sky late at night may get excited about a very bright light that moved very
slowly. Checking on the position of the planets at that time may reveal that
that light was Venus, because we have good information as to the angle of
observation, the direction of the light from the observer, the relatively slow
rate of motion, the location of Venus at that time, and so on. On three
occasions, when living in Southern California, I was called by people who
described an unusual object moving rapidly. I tried to make sure that I
analyzed their observations, such as, what time was it? In what direction were
you looking? In what direction did it seem to be moving? Was there any sound?
What was its apparent size, say, as compared to the moon (just covered by an
aspirin held at arm's length)? Two of the people wanted to tell me that the object was just over the next
hill. I stressed that this was an interpretation, because even huge objects far
away can seem to be small objects nearby. In all three cases, I felt that what
was being described sounded similar to a rocket launched down the California
Coast when the sun had gone down, but while the object was high enough to still
be in sunlight. I had seen such a spectacular case once myself. I checked, in
all three cases, with Vandenberg Air Force Base, which launches many rockets
down the U.S. West Coast. Indeed, there had been a launch at the right time in
each case. One case was especially intriguing, because several witnesses were
looking out across the ocean from a beach area and described the thing they saw
as similar to a string of popcorn. It turned out to be the launch of a special
weather satellite with extra solid boosters being dropped off multiple times. The people were good observers. To say the least, it would be irrational to say
that people are good observers when their input allows us to identify the
object being observed, and yet poor observers if we can't identify the UFO as
something conventional. — Stanton T. Friedman (Nuclear Physicist)
Flying Saucers and Science
Subtitle — A Scientist Investigates the Mysteries of UFOs: Interstellar Travel, Crashes,
and Government Cover-Ups
(Chapter 1 - "The Case for the ET Origin of Flying Saucers")
(Franklin Lakes, NJ: New Page Books, 2008)   |  |  |  |  |
| | | | Nine Points to Note - Recently, we added a simple blog so that you would be apprised of the latest
changes to the Mysteries of the World Website. To get the updates automatically, CLICK HERE to subscribe to our RSS (you will get a new window or 'tab'). Thanks and cheers!
Warning to the unthinking (and to the control freaks and power junkies) ... You probably won't like the following 'thinking' observation ... But it's
an important part of any exploration, investigation, study, etc. of the Mysteries of the World ... SEVEN DOORS TO SEVEN ROOMS OF THOUGHT- Accept the statement of Eminent Authority without basis, without question.
- Disagree with the statement without basis, out of general contrariness.
- Perhaps the statement is true, but what if it isn't? How then to account for
the phenomenon?
- How much of the statement rationalizes to suit man's purpose that he and his
shall be ascendant at the centre of things?
- What if the minor should become major, the recessive dominant, the obscure
prevalent?
- What if the statement were reversible, that which is considered effect is
really cause?
- What if the natural law perceived in one field also operates unperceived in all
other phases of science? What if there be only one natural law manifesting
itself, as yet, to us in many facets because we cannot apperceive the whole, of
which we have gained only the most elementary glimpses, with which we can cope
only at the crudest level?
And are those still other doors, yet undefined, on down the corridor? |
- Please do not assume or conclude that, just because I present many views (in
the form of textual notes, pictures/stills, and audio and video
clips) — as well as many advertisements, some by me and some
automatically by Google Adsense and Amazon — on this website,
it does not
mean that I am in agreement with or that I believe in the views and/or ads
offered-proferred ... That would be displaying such a parochial and provincial
attitude, towards this website and towards me as well!
As an ex-military officer, I assure you that I am in the habit of reading,
viewing and digesting lots of stuff that I don't necessarily believe in ... We
call all the stuff we read, view and digest, 'military intelligence' ... The
same applies with 'business intelligence' in the business world, of course. Our aim, as usual, is to find out what others (including our friends, enemies,
competitors, suppliers, strategic partners, business partners, etc.) believe
in. In order to do that effectively, we have to 'get out of the way', so to
speak — we have to remove our humongous
ego! — else we will never ever really have gotten started in
our journey of exploration and discovery of the Mysteries of the World. Furthermore, similarly and additionally, as a "Charismatic Christian", there
are lots of stuff presented in this website that I do not believe in ... which
had even led some to label me as "Fundamentalist"! ... Whatever! Matthew 7 1Judge not, that ye be not judged.2For with what judgment ye judge, ye shall be judged: and with what measure ye
mete, it shall be measured to you again. 3And why beholdest thou the mote that is in thy brother's eye, but considerest
not the beam that is in thine own eye? 4Or how wilt thou say to thy brother, Let me pull out the mote out of thine eye;
and, behold, a beam is in thine own eye? 5Thou hypocrite, first cast out the beam out of thine own eye; and then shalt
thou see clearly to cast out the mote out of thy brother's eye. — Jesus the Christ
(Yahoshua ha Mashiach;
Yeshua/Yesua; Ieosus; Joshua),
"Sermon on the Mount"
If you want to hear the NIV — specifically, from The Visual Bible: Matthew (1993) — please click the audio player below:
In short, in this website, I present many things that, I am hopeful, would be
of interest to a student, explorer and investigator of the Mysteries of the World ... but this doesn't mean that I believe in any of the stuff presented. ... Got it? ... Right! - Here is a purpose that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with ...
[Mysteries, Monsters, Mutants, Myths, Miracles & Much More ...]Our purpose ... is to describe the rich variety of anomalous, unexplained,
sometimes totally bizarre phenomena that people have experienced in all times
and places and that are still occurring today. ... the nature of the world and
of our existence are quite different from that which we were taught at school.
The reality is far more interesting, humorous and expansive than any religious
or rational, scientific world-view can possibly accommodate. It is not our intention here to dispute anyone's beliefs or
theories — but we should like to point out their limitations.
There are things that happen in this world - and have occurred throughout the
whole of human experience - for which there has never been a lasting
explanation. Explanations are temporary products, coming and going in response
to fashions. Meanwhile, the happenings they are supposed to explain carry on as
mysteriously as ever. — John Michell and Bob Rickard
The Rough Guide to Unexplained Phenomena (Rough Guide Reference)
(New York, NY: Rough Guides Ltd, 2007) - Here is a sentiment that I am wholeheartedly in agreement with ...
As I sit down to redo this book for an American audience, what rises before me
is last night's dream: I'm in a broad and beautiful land among many trees. It's
night. I look up at a huge old tree that's dark against the starry sky in its
detail of twig and branch. There is room enough here for all of us, I realize,
here in this big, intricately textured park. But I see that some want to cut
down the trees and level it out, so huge throngs of people can gather to gaze
up at the sun's glare. I watch dark twigs fingering the remote, untouchable
stars. A voice speaks: "Don't turn this into a Copernican Garden." Waking up, I remember that I went to sleep wondering how to put this book
together. And I take "Copernican Garden" to mean a parking lot vista where
masses gather to honor the bright sun of traditional science with its old rules
as the center of the universe. So I will not cut down the trees and level this book out. It is between you and
me [or you and I], a conversation as we stroll along in a moonlit fractal
garden past webby connections of thought that merge to patterned insight. Here
hidden delights nestle in scaling patterns of self-similar but never quite
repeating beauty. Here the tree of life hold stars in its branches. No matter
how huge, this garden stays human-sized because we have a place in it, you and
I. No need to cut down the connective forest and level things out for that
bright Sol [sun] of left-brain logic whose daytime dazzle — so
close and glaring — can blind us to the myriad constellations
beyond. [...] — Katya Walter, Tao of Chaos
Sub-title: Merging East and West
(1994, 1996) - Here is an observation (adapted) made in the Acknowledgement page of a book ...
It takes many minds to produce a book [including an e-book, of course].
Although most authors [especially of non-fiction books and articles] would
prefer not to admit this fact, fundamentally they are merely 'synthesisers' of
accumulated knowledge. The process of synthesising may unveil a new reality map, or paradigm, which,
in due course, will be used by future pioneers to unveil further paradigms. This principle was summed up by Sir Isaac Newton when he remarked: "If I have
seen further, it is by standing on the shoulders of giants". [...] — Christian von Nidda, Our Secret Planet
(2005) - Here is an observation about UFO-Aliens cover-up or conspiracy that may be of
general interest, although some readers would not agree with the observation
(e.g., they may say that some whistleblowers, such as Bob Lazar on the
Roswell-type flying saucers in secret Area-51 labs, have already come forward)
...
If any long-term coherent cover up of UFO information does exist, however, then
it must operate at all levels of government and the media. It must encompass
all the relevant written materials, from the briefest handwritten note in
government files to entries in squadron log books to letters in the personal
papers of members of the Establishment. Hundreds of politicians, service
personnel, police officers, clerks and officials, over half a century, would be
required to excise any reference to the reality of UFOs from official documents
and the media. The number of people who would have taken part in this cover up
would be vast, yet not one person has broken ranks to 'blow the whistle' on the
greatest story ever told. Meantime, millions of dollars are being spent every
day on space probes and radio telescopes that are searching for evidence of
alien life. Would there be any reason for a conspiracy of silence if that
evidence already existed? — Dr David Clarke and Andy Roberts, Out of the Shadows
(2002) - Even though I am a "Charismatic Christian", the views presented herewith, in
this Mysteries of the World Website, will NOT be colored by this fact of being a Charismatic Christian. Rather, where and
when I find it necessary (and usually, I would NOT find it necessary, since I find it tiresome to repeat myself, again and again
and again ..., ad infinitum ..., but if I should find it necessary to repeat myself), I will then state
what my Charismatic Christian beliefs lead me to believe
in — even though I am aware that my own Charismatic Christian
beliefs may or may not be the same as, or in accord with, those beliefs of
others who also may want to regard themselves as Charismatic Christians
(nb/note well: there appears to be so many varieties of Charismatic Christian
beliefs, including from those who are simultaneously of the
traditional-historical denominations — such as the Roman
Catholics, with their purgatories, mortal and venial sins, and their Mother
this and Mother that. Shudder! Shudder! Shudder!).
Thus, for example, I do not necessarily "believe" in "ghosts", even as I (will
later) examine the entire gamut of so-called "paranormal events or phenomena",
especially of those with a psychic bent (truly, these are bent!, as in
less-than-straight, aka "crooked", thinking variety). Many so-called "ghosts"
are probably some form of "fallen angels" or "demons" of the Biblical kind,
masquerading as either gods, demons, spirits, ghosts, or even "angels of light"
(when they are obviously "fallen" and are "angels of darkness", or "sons of
darkness" as used in one of the Dead Sea Scrolls, i.e. The War of the Sons of Light Against the Sons of Darkness). Anyway, the author of 1 John, gave us a simple test against any "spirit" to see
whether that spirit is of light (God; Christ/Son of God; Holy Spirit of
God/Comforter/Advocate/Paraclete/The One; Jehovah/Yahveh/Yahweh/God the Father)
or of darkness (Satan, Lucifer, the Devil; the Anti-Christ; the False Prophet;
the Beast): 2This is how you can recognize the Spirit of God: Every spirit that acknowledges
that Jesus Christ has come in the flesh is from God, 3but every spirit that does not acknowledge Jesus is not from God. This is the
spirit of the antichrist, which you have heard is coming and even now is
already in the world. — First Epistle of John
(1 John 4:2-3; New
International Version/NIV)
(Note: many Catholics like NIV
and dislike KJV! Tough!) Whatever the case may be about "ghosts" and other "apparitions", in this
website, I have stated that we will be truth-based and science-based. Despite
this, definitely, I will not be ashamed of being a Charismatic Christian or of
God's Word:If anyone is ashamed of me and my words, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him
when he comes in his glory and in the glory of the Father and of the holy
angels. (Spoken by Jesus and recorded in Luke 9:26; NIV)If anyone is ashamed of me and my words in this adulterous and sinful
generation, the Son of Man will be ashamed of him when he comes in his Father's
glory with the holy angels. (Spoken by Jesus and recorded in Mark 8:38; NIV) I am not ashamed of the gospel, because it is the power of God for the
salvation of everyone who believes: first for the Jew, then for the Gentile. (Apostle Paul, in his Epistle to the Romans; Romans 1:16; NIV)
| | | | |
Check our Mysteries Blog to see the latest changes to our webpages and 'web articles' (click on the Mysteries Blog button on the LEFT NavBar)
As stated in our Mysteries Blog, the ' Mysteries of the World' Website does NOT aim to sensationalize any particular 'Mystery', although we
will examine and explore all possible viewpoints pertaining to each
'Mystery' — including the fringe AND the mainstream. We will, of course, come to a conclusion ( eventually!) about each 'Mystery' ... even if that conclusion may eventually turn out to
be 'as yet unresolved' or 'unexplained to our satisfaction'.
|
Go to TOP of this page ['Multiverse — Intro' - Tier 3] Return back ['Articles' - Tier 2] Return to Homepage ['Mysteries of the World' - Tier 1]
| |
or 
) ...
