‘Multiverse’ Theory Suggested By Microwave Background

Bubbles_3D“It would be a pretty amazing thing to show that we have actually made physical contact in another universe. It’s a long shot, but it would by very profound for physics” (Prof. Efstathiou). Via BBC:

The idea that other universes – as well as our own – lie within “bubbles” of space and time has received a boost.

Studies of the low-temperature glow left from the Big Bang suggest that several of these “bubble universes” may have left marks on our own.

This “multiverse” idea is popular in modern physics, but experimental tests have been hard to come by.

The preliminary work, to be published in Physical Review D, will be firmed up using data from the Planck telescope.

For now, the team has worked with seven years’ worth of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe, which measures in minute detail the cosmic microwave background (CMB) – the faint glow left from our Universe’s formation.

[Continues at BBC News]

, , , , , , ,

  • Nirvanasteve

    So does this mean that Michael Moorcock will get a huge royalty check if the term ‘Multiverse’ comes in vogue? I sure hope so. I’ve been waiting for ages for that stupid Elric movie.

  • Nirvanasteve

    So does this mean that Michael Moorcock will get a huge royalty check if the term ‘Multiverse’ comes in vogue? I sure hope so. I’ve been waiting for ages for that stupid Elric movie.

  • Nirvanasteve

    So does this mean that Michael Moorcock will get a huge royalty check if the term ‘Multiverse’ comes in vogue? I sure hope so. I’ve been waiting for ages for that stupid Elric movie.

  • Anonymous

    I don’t understand most of what I read about Physics, but its interesting.

  • Redacted

    I don’t understand most of what I read about Physics, but its interesting.

  • Bob

    I’m more inclined to believe in a holographic universe.  If, as in a hologram, all of the information of the whole is contained in the part then if you created a holographic universe with all of the information contained in this universe you would in essence be creating not 1 new universe but countless universes.  If this possibility has any plausibility then I would offer that this is a holographic rendering of someone elses universe.  However, I would argue that we could be living in a holographic representation of our own universe someone in the future has created.

  • Bob

    I’m more inclined to believe in a holographic universe.  If, as in a hologram, all of the information of the whole is contained in the part then if you created a holographic universe with all of the information contained in this universe you would in essence be creating not 1 new universe but countless universes.  If this possibility has any plausibility then I would offer that this is a holographic rendering of someone elses universe.  However, I would argue that we could be living in a holographic representation of our own universe someone in the future has created.

  • Bob

    I should have been more clear.  A holographic universe gives rise to the multi-verse due to the nature of a hologram.  Therefore, by believing in a holographic universe I also believe in a multi-verse.

  • Bob

    I should have been more clear.  A holographic universe gives rise to the multi-verse due to the nature of a hologram.  Therefore, by believing in a holographic universe I also believe in a multi-verse.

  • Curtis7676

    If you read the article, it says the Planck telescope data cannot be publicly discussed until Jan 2013.  It is clear to me that main stream cosmologists are a little math church of their own…Propping up more bizarre and esoteric physics that only a select few can negotiate when they get to squint through the telescope.  These guys are as bad as any elitist banking or govt hack.  Plasma Cosmology…its scalable and observable. Simple and elegant.

  • Curtis7676

    If you read the article, it says the Planck telescope data cannot be publicly discussed until Jan 2013.  It is clear to me that main stream cosmologists are a little math church of their own…Propping up more bizarre and esoteric physics that only a select few can negotiate when they get to squint through the telescope.  These guys are as bad as any elitist banking or govt hack.  Plasma Cosmology…its scalable and observable. Simple and elegant.

  • DeepCough

    Yog Sothoth is the key……..

  • DeepCough

    Yog Sothoth is the key……..

  • Hadrian999

    i need to go re read “Planetary”

  • Hadrian999

    i need to go re read “Planetary”

  • FunToThinkAbout

    It’s a fun theory, but seems unlikely at this point…

    http://news.discovery.com/space/we-might-not-live-in-a-hologram-after-all-110701.html

  • http://www.yourpredator.com Hunter Coch

    So we might have Sliders before we have Star Trek? 

  • http://www.yourpredator.com Hunter Coch

    So we might have Sliders before we have Star Trek? 

  • Udaybhanu Chitrakar

    If total energy of the universe is zero, as claimed by some scientists, then based on this data it can be shown that multiverse theory is probably not true. This is because total energy being zero, its equivalent mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space for some reason or other cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. If our universe is the sole universe, and if there is nothing outside it, no space, no time and no matter, then in that case it will not occupy any space, because there will be no space for it to occupy. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
    Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.However, if total energy of the universe cannot be taken to be zero, then the conclusion drawn here will not stand. In that case multiverse theory may be true, but we cannot say whether it will be necessarily true. 
     

  • Udaybhanu Chitrakar

    If total energy of the universe is zero, as claimed by some scientists, then based on this data it can be shown that multiverse theory is probably not true. This is because total energy being zero, its equivalent mass will also be zero due to mass-energy equivalence. Scientists have shown that anything having mass will always occupy some space. So anything that fails to occupy any space for some reason or other cannot have any mass. Our universe perhaps fails to occupy any space, and that is why its mass is zero. If our universe is the sole universe, and if there is nothing outside it, no space, no time and no matter, then in that case it will not occupy any space, because there will be no space for it to occupy. But if multiverse theory is true, then our universe will definitely occupy some space within the multiverse, and thus in that case its mass cannot be zero. But as this mass is zero, therefore multiverse theory cannot be true.
    Here it may be argued that radiation occupies space but its mass is zero. So here is an example that something occupying space can still be without mass. So our universe can also be without mass even if it occupies some space within the multiverse. In reply we will say that the example cited here is a bad example, because our universe is not any kind of radiation. So if it is without mass, then that can only be due to its not occupying any space, and not due to its being some sort of radiation.However, if total energy of the universe cannot be taken to be zero, then the conclusion drawn here will not stand. In that case multiverse theory may be true, but we cannot say whether it will be necessarily true. 
     

21