Possible Evidence of Parallel Universe

[cdowis]

An astrophysicist says he may have found evidence of alternate or parallel universes by looking back in time to just after the Big Bang more than 13 billion years ago.

While mapping the so-called "cosmic microwave background," which is the light left over from the early universe, scientist Ranga-Ram Chary found what he called a mysterious glow, the International Business Timesreported.

Chary, a researcher at the European Space Agency's Planck Space Telescope data center at CalTech, said the glow could be due to matter from a neighboring universe "leaking" into ours, according to New Scientist magazine.

"Our universe may simply be a region within an eternally inflating super-region," scientist Chary wrote in a recent study in the Astrophysical Journal.

"Many other regions beyond our observable universe would exist with each such region governed by a different set of physical parameters than the ones we have measured for our universe," Chary wrote in the study.

While the findings sound promising and have already gained the attention of other astronomers, as Russia Today (RT) reported, it could be quite complicated to verify, since the Planck telescope provides limited data for further study.

http://www.usatoday.com/story/tech/sciencefair/2015/11/03/alternate-universes-discovered/75102502/

[NeedleinA]

This is where my brain starts to get fried trying to think of all the possibilities. Years ago, I shared with my Seminary students a newspaper clipping about sextillion (plus) stars via a telescope or such. Besides the class laughing at the number "sex"tillion, they started to appreciate the book of Abraham a little bit more. 

[clwnuke]

I think it will be sufficiently mind-enhancing to one day understand how a photon experiences no time. Humanity has a very hard "time" with that concept.

Edited November 4, 2015 by clwnuke

[Guest]

Parallel universe?  <Yaawwwn>  Been there.  Done that.   .

 

Oh, look.  Egg rolls.

[cdowis]

This multiverse model answers the objection that the universe is finite -- that it had a finite history.

[Guest]

cdowis,

 

I'm not sure why that is important. And I'm not trying to insult you.  I was partly facetious in my last post.  But only partly.

 

I was referring to the fact that we've had episodes of people discovering something that could be another universe, yet it turned out to be something much more mundane.

 

From the IBT article:

 

However, not everyone is convinced. Theoretical astrophysicist David Spergel, from Princeton University, says he thinks it is worth looking into explanations that do not involve other universes. "The dust properties are more complicated than we have been assuming, and I think that this is a more plausible explanation."

 

When they investigate and eventually have a high margin of certainty, then I'll perk my ears.

Edited November 4, 2015 by Guest

[Anddenex]

Multiple parallel universes -- man made theories which are cool, not true, but provide outstanding TV episodes (i.e Sliders, Justice League, The Flash, etc...) to watch and see man's creativity.

 

Irony -- physicists who claim there is no God due to a lack of evidence, but put forth theories (which have absolutely no evidence) as potential facts.  

[cdowis]

cdowis,

 

I'm not sure why that is important. And I'm not trying to insult you.  I was partly facetious in my last post.  But only partly.

 

I was referring to the fact that we've had episodes of people discovering something that could be another universe, yet it turned out to be something much more mundane.

 

 

Let me ask you something.  How are YOU able to reconcile the Big Bang with LDS theology that the universe is eternal, as well as the creation process?

 

Anyway, I don't get offended, except for those who make the mistake of considering my brilliant insights as being "shallow" -- just tell me that you think I am wrong.  

 

I remember once when I thought that I was indeed wrong about something.  But I later found out that I was actually correct.  

 

So my "wrongness" was rather short lived.  I try to make sure that doesn't happen again.

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

I'll say from the get-go that science (especially speculative science) is neither my interest nor my strength. Keeping that in mind, please be kind to me.  :)

 

Are you talking about parallel universes, as in, there are other me's out there, living lives that may or may not approximate the one I'm living here? I don't see how that meshes with what we know of our eternal nature. 

[cdowis]

No, that is an "alternative universe".  Same universe, mirror images but some differences depending on the roll of the dice.

 

The parallel universe is.... well, think of it as the apartment building down the street from us.  In this case, we are only aware of our own building.  We are familiar with our building, there is no exits from the building or windows.  So, as far as we can tell, it's the only one around.  We are unaware of "the street", so to speak, so we have no way of knowing about the other buildings.

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[Guest]

I remember once when I thought that I was indeed wrong about something.  But I later found out that I was actually correct.  

 

So my "wrongness" was rather short lived.  I try to make sure that doesn't happen again.

 

Imagine that.

 

Anyway, I don't get offended, except for those who make the mistake of considering my brilliant insights as being "shallow" -- just tell me that you think I am wrong.  

 

Well, of course they're brilliant. :)

 

Let me ask you something.  How are YOU able to reconcile the Big Bang with LDS theology that the universe is eternal, as well as the creation process?

 

I don't see anything that needs reconciling.  Where do you see a conflict?

[Traveler]

Part of the problem with news articles is that seldom do reporters have the expertise to rationally summarize basic notions being put forth by scientific theories exploring beyond the limits of what little we do understand.  In essence we are yet to have much of a definition of what we think we are calling our current universe.  We have tried ether (also spelled aether) but think we have dis-proven that notion only to realize that "empty" space time does not seem possible in our universe.  Actually the aether theory was never disproved - only proven to not be necessary in explaining the propagation of light through "empty space" that in essence really is not empty. 

 

We have yet to get our brains around dark matter and dark energy.  From a religious stand point there is nothing to account for dark matter or dark energy unless we begin to consider spirit stuff - but few in the religious community are prepared to account for much being discovered scientifically or accept the possibility that advances in science as a means of better understanding spiritual revelation.   This despite the fact that ancient prophesy attest to a time of "restoration" of knowledge prior to the second advent of the Messiah. 

 

It is profoundly interesting to me that as we view religious history in hindsight the one thing we begin to realize is that as major milestones of religious prophesy were being fulfilled that even the spiritually knowledgeable were somewhat awestruck and presently surprised by what G-d himself calls a "marvelous work and and wonder".

[Blackmarch]

it's theoretical - speculative because we can't definitively prove or disprove it... but occasionally there things that seem to suggest it.

I recall one light experiment that was pretty exciting at least at the time... probably mostly because michael crichton used it to support his premise for his novel "timeline"

[cdowis]

 

I don't see anything that needs reconciling.  Where do you see a conflict?

 

Look,don't even bother to try. 

 

Anyway, so you have no problem with a universe that is only 14 billion years old.  I have a hard time reconciling that with the concept that it is eternal.  In your view, did the Big Bang also create our spirit beings and the eternal Plan of Salvation?

 

This was all based on a throw of the dice?

 Hawking asks Dawkins a question about the creation of the universe and the development of life.  Listen carefully to the discussion.  https://youtu.be/CMJFfaKZXRs?t=30s

 

Basically they both admit that there are only two possibilities -- a divine Creator, or........

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[Blackmarch]

Look,don't even bother to try. 

 

Anyway, so you have no problem with a universe that is only 14 billion years old.  I have a hard time reconciling that with the concept that it is eternal.  In your view, did the Big Bang also create our spirit beings and the eternal Plan of Salvation.

 

This was all based on a throw of the dice?

 Hawking asks Dawkins a question about the creation of the universe and the development of life.  Listen carefully to the question, and then to his answer (after all the sparkles and explosion).  https://youtu.be/CMJFfaKZXRs?t=30s

 

Basically they both admit that there are only two possibilities -- a divine Creator, or........

eternal to me says Gods life rather than forever (altho forever tends to get included with it).

[Guest]

I'll give a more complete response to the question of the creation of the universe vis-a-vis the LDS view of the eternal nature of all things.

 

THE BIG BANG

The original big bang theory said that there was nothing, then "something" exploded out of "nothing". 

Later this was modified (in deference to the first law of thermodynamics) that all matter was a condensed into a singularity.  Then the bang happened. The universe (including the singularity) always existed.  It has only been 14 billion years since the bang.

 

Now, I'm hearing from sources that the singularity model is not holding up to scrutiny due to limitations on singularities.  Not that it matters.

 

LDS UNDERSTANDING OF CREATION

All existence is eternal.  Only the form or condition may change.  We existed as eternal intelligences.  Our Heavenly Father then organized our spirits to house our intelligences.  He organized the world and physical bodies to then house our spirits.  Nothing that has been created has never existed.  The materials were always existent.  But God organized these materials into another form.

 

ORGANIZED

Joseph Smith had a bit of a treatise on the first verse of Genesis as he read it in Hebrew.  The pertinent part was his observations on the word "created".

 

The Hebrew word is "baraou/barot" or similar transliteration.  It is translated as "create".  However, Hebrew scholars point out that this word is only used with God.  It is the essential ex-nihilo creation that many espouse.  But only God can create out of nothing.

 

Smith then goes on to describe that the word is supposed to be "organized".  However, there was no Hebrew word to mean "organize".  Today's word for organize is of more recent origin.  Through revelation Joseph knew that "the inspired man who wrote it" would intended to mean organize just as a sculptor "creates" a sculpture.

 

MODERN PHYSICS

Albert Einstien comes around and proves that matter and energy are interchangeable.  This finding is the basis of nuclear energy and nuclear weapons. 

 

Today we can put enough energy into an empty vacuum such that electrons and positrons start shooting out of "nothing".  The process is called "electron synthesis".  Note the "synthesis" is another word for creation, and this process is essentially creating out of nothing (no matter).  Add to that the principle of physics that says matter is simply a more organized form of energy.  Thus ex-nihilo creation IS organizing matter from energy.

 

MY THEORIES

I don't believe that all of existence boils down to just two things: matter and energy.  No, I believe there is much more.  There is intelligence, spirit, faith, time, space, and much more that we cannot possibly fathom in our lifetimes.  All of these things are what I believe to be actual substances of the universe which have always existed but can be formed, organized, and changed.

 

I believe we don't know everything about the big bang.  And I believe we don't know everything about how the Lord created the universe.  But based on my analysis of the above, if ex-nihilo creation can actually intersect with the LDS view that all things were eternal, then no one can be sure that these world views (big bang, LDS creation) cannot intersect.

 

And again, I am not saying there are no parallel universes.  I just didn't see what that really says about any LDS doctrine.  My point was, until we can get something more certain on the subject, I'm not going to get excited about it.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Guest

[cdowis]

eternal to me says Gods life rather than forever (altho forever tends to get included with it).

 

Are you going to answer my first question?

Edited November 5, 2015 by cdowis

[Traveler]

...

 

THE BIG BANG

The original big bang theory said that there was nothing, then "something" exploded out of "nothing". 

Later this was modified (in deference to the first law of thermodynamics) that all matter was a condensed into a singularity.  Then the bang happened. The universe (including the singularity) always existed.  It has only been 14 billion years since the bang.

.....

 

Not exactly the original Big Bang theory assumed that prior to the Big Bang there was a "singularity".  Also a Black Hole is considered the same singularity.  The theory of worm holes is dependent on the possibility that singularities are connected.  It was later that the Big Bang theory was modified to an 11 dimensional collapse through a singularity.

 

Thousands of years ago - who ever wrote the Book of Enoch stated that matter (which is eternal) is purified and made new in stars.  A very interesting idea from a religious standpoint.

[Guest]

Not exactly the original Big Bang theory assumed that prior to the Big Bang there was a "singularity". 

 

Well, may have a better handle on that.  But what I was actually taught in school during my formative years was that it came from nothing.  But that may just have been my teachers.  I always thought of them as quite knowledgeable.  And my school district was top notch.

 

It wasn't until college that I heard the singularity version.

Edited November 5, 2015 by Guest

[Guest]

Here's another theory.

 

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2015/02/-the-big-bang-was-a-mirage-from-a-collapsing-higher-dimensional-star.html

[jerome1232]

@cdowis, The universe began expanding from a singularity is, in my opinion, a more accurate way to describe the Big Bang rather than saying the universe began then. I also don't see any conflict with eternity and the Big Bang.

[Blackmarch]

Are you going to answer my first question?

ok

either there was existence in some form or another before the big bang (when which seems more plausible as time goes on), or there was not.

if there was, then the forever concept is not in conflict.

if there wasn't then perhaps what God means by eternal life, and what Joe Schmoe mean by eternal life might not be the exact same thing.