National Geographic News
An illustration of multiple universes.

This illustration depicts a main membrane out of which individual universes arise; they then expand in size through time.

ART BY MOONRUNNER DESIGN

Dan Vergano

National Geographic

Published March 18, 2014

Bored with your old dimensions—up and down, right and left, and back and forth? So tiresome. Take heart, folks. The latest news from Big Bang cosmologists offers us some relief from our humdrum four-dimensional universe.

Gravitational waves rippling through the aftermath of the cosmic fireball, physicists suggest, point to us inhabiting a multiverse, a universe filled with many universes. (See: "Big Bang's 'Smoking Gun' Confirms Early Universe's Exponential Growth.")

That's because those gravitational wave results point to a particularly prolific and potent kind of "inflation" of the early universe, an exponential expansion of the dimensions of space to many times the size of our own cosmos in the first fraction of a second of the Big Bang, some 13.82 billion years ago.

"In most models, if you have inflation, then you have a multiverse," said Stanford physicist Andrei Linde. Linde, one of cosmological inflation's inventors, spoke on Monday at the Harvard-Smithsonian Center for Astrophysics event where the BICEP2 astrophysics team unveiled the gravitational wave results.

Essentially, in the models favored by the BICEP2 team's observations, the process that inflates a universe looks just too potent to happen only once; rather, once a Big Bang starts, the process would happen repeatedly and in multiple ways. (Learn more about how universes form in "Cosmic Dawn" on the National Geographic website.)

"A multiverse offers one good possible explanation for a lot of the unique observations we have made about our universe," says MIT physicist Alan Guth, who first wrote about inflation theory in 1980. "Life being here, for example."

Lunchtime

The Big Bang and inflation make the universe look like the ultimate free lunch, Guth has suggested, where we have received something for nothing.

But Linde takes this even further, suggesting the universe is a smorgasbord stuffed with every possible free lunch imaginable.

That means every kind of cosmos is out there in the aftermath of the Big Bang, from our familiar universe chock full of stars and planets to extravaganzas that encompass many more dimensions, but are devoid of such mundane things as atoms or photons of light.

In this multiverse spawned by "chaotic" inflation, the Big Bang is just a starting point, giving rise to multiple universes (including ours) separated by unimaginable gulfs of distance. How far does the multiverse stretch? Perhaps to infinity, suggests MIT physicist Max Tegmark, writing for Scientific American.

That means that spread across space at distances far larger than the roughly 92 billion light-year width of the universe that we can observe, other universes reside, some with many more dimensions and different physical properties and trajectories. (While the light from the most distant stuff we can see started out around 14 billion light-years away, the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, stretching the boundaries of the observable universe since then.)

Comic Mismatches

"I'm a fan of the multiverse, but I wouldn't claim it is true," says Guth. Nevertheless, he adds, a multiverse explains a lot of things that now confuse cosmologists about our universe.

For example, there is the 1998 discovery that galaxies in our universe seem to be spreading apart at an accelerating rate, when their mutual gravitational attraction should be slowing them down. This discovery, which garnered the 2011 Nobel Prize in physics, is generally thought to imply the existence of a "dark energy" that counteracts gravity on cosmic scales. Its nature is a profound mystery. About the only thing we understand about dark energy, physicists such as Michael Turner of the University of Chicago have long said, is its name.

"There is a tremendous mismatch between what we calculate [dark energy] ought to be and what we observe," Guth says. According to quantum theory, subatomic particles are constantly popping into existence and vanishing again in the vacuum of space, which should endow it with energy—but that vacuum energy, according to theoretical calculations, would be 120 orders of magnitude (a 1 followed by 120 zeroes) too large to explain the galaxy observations. The discrepancy has been a great source of embarrassment to physicists.

A multiverse could wipe the cosmic egg off their faces. On the bell curve of all possible universes spawned by inflation, our universe might just happen to be one of the few universes in which the dark energy is relatively lame. In others, the antigravity force might conform to physicists' expectations and be strong enough to rip all matter apart.

A multiverse might also explain away another embarrassment: the number of dimensions predicted by modern "superstring" theory. String theory describes subatomic particles as being composed of tiny strings of energy, but it requires there to be 11 dimensions instead of the four we actually observe. Maybe it's just describing all possible universes instead of our own. (It suggests there could be a staggeringly large number of possibilities—a 1 with 500 zeroes after it.)

Join the "multiverse club," Linde wrote in a March 9 review of inflationary cosmology, and what looks like a series of mathematical embarrassments disappears in a cloud of explanation. In a multiverse, there can be more things dreamt of in physicists' philosophy than happen to be found in our sad little heaven and earth.

Life, the Universe, and Everything

The multiverse may even help explain one of the more vexing paradoxes about our world, sometimes called the "anthropic" principle: the fact that we are here to observe it.

To cosmologists, our universe looks disturbingly fine-tuned for life. Without its Goldilocks-perfect alignment of the physical constants—everything from the strength of the force attaching electrons to atoms to the relative weakness of gravity—planets and suns, biochemistry, and life itself would be impossible. Atoms wouldn't stick together in a universe with more than four dimensions, Guth notes.

If ours was the only cosmos spawned by a Big Bang, these life-friendly properties would seem impossibly unlikely. But in a multiverse containing zillions of universes, a small number of life-friendly ones would arise by chance—and we could just happen to reside in one of them.

"Life may have formed in the small number of vacua where it was possible, in a multiverse," says Guth. "That's why we are seeing what we are seeing. Not because we are special, but because we can."

Learn more about the birth of our universe in our April issue.

Follow Dan Vergano on Twitter.

231 comments
Sharfuddeen S
Sharfuddeen S

What is God? what is is god. hence, No Entity But God. all has emerged from what has been existed in the original form which is the state of existence of the Entity before the creation of the visible universe. it is beyond the logic to say that manifestation of the visible Universe is from NOTHING. it is not "nothing" but it was a state of being motionless of the GOD or ENTITY. however, it is difficult to find an appropriate word in English or in any other languages to say that all are from Nothingness. there is no nothingness but the state of "stillness/motionless". 


God has always been existed but was not known until it (he) intended to be in the state of manifestation of (his) own by being (creating) the visible universe and anything beyond the human comprehension. beginning without a beginning and ending without en ending. 

Sharfuddeen S
Sharfuddeen S

What is God? what is is god. hence, No Entity But God. all has emerged from what has been existed in the original form which is the state of existence of the Entity before the creation of the visible universe. it is beyond the logic to say that manifestation of the visible Universe is from NOTHING. it is not "nothing" but it was a state of being motionless of the GOD or ENTITY. however, it is difficult to find an appropriate word in English or in any other languages to say that all are from Nothingness. there is no nothingness but the state of "stillness/motionless". 


God has always been existed but was not known until it (he) has started manifestation of (his) own by being (creating) the visible universe and anything beyond the human comprehension. beginning without a beginning and ending without en ending. 

DrAyman Ismail
DrAyman Ismail

From where Multiverse came and how they were created and the space around was close or open to infinite?!  then this space was flat or n dimensions I think there is many questions need answer to proof your assumption.


True is heaven,planets, earth and stars (our local universe) came from nothing.

It was only water at the beginning


Madison Skriver
Madison Skriver

The mystery is beautiful - The journey towards an answer is enlightening in itself.

Steve Williams
Steve Williams

That's the way I have had this in my head for many years now - visualization fits - very nicely done.

Jimmy Dean
Jimmy Dean

Once the scientists find the god damm particle they will create another big bang and  it will spawn another universe within the Multiverse. Mother natures way of cleaning up bad planets who pollute universe with space garbage.  Just my theory. ha ha 

Sandra Campbell
Sandra Campbell

If you get a chance, see the new movie "Particle Fever" about finding the Higgs Boson Particle.  It is fun and interesting for us Nerds.

Bryan Campbell.

Sandra Campbell
Sandra Campbell

@Lee Taylor

I took a logic course at college and logic told me that God didn't exist.  Then God told me that logic didn't exist, it was just something he invented to amuse us.  I'm not serious with that, but it is fun to speculate.  Let's imagine that God has a physical body and the part we see in our 3-4 dimensional world view we call "The Universe".  If we believe that, then our God is too small.  He would have to more than that.  In the Christian bible John 1 starts"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word (Christ) was with God, and the Word was God. 2 He was in the beginning with God. 3 All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being 4 in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. 5 The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness (dark matter?) did not overcome it."  NRSV, (parentheses mine.) John was not an astrophysicist, but his confusing choice of words is interesting.

I assume the "beginning" must be pre-big bang.  Language and logic fail when we try to describe the beginning of the universe.  I mean, where did it come from, what caused to to come into being?  Oops, that's not the beginning, because the beginning would have to be before the beginning of the universe, and so forth and so on.  

Just saying....  Bryan Campbell

aj johnson
aj johnson

Wow to think that there is, at this exact second in time in some incredibly distant muliverse perhaps other intelligent life reading this exact same discovery and thinking; "Wow to think that there is, at this exact second in time in some incredibly distant multiverse perhaps other intelligent life reading this exact same discovery". Woah... Dejavu? Or maybe in an infinite multiverse all that happened before is happining again only trillions of years later and when we have dejavu its just because we already did this and in 500 trillion years from now it will begin again and we will be here thinking about this Perhaps?... NAH!

Evelyn Rysdyk
Evelyn Rysdyk

Shamans have always described our Cosmos as having multiple realities or dimensions!

Jay Dillon
Jay Dillon

"Universe" means "one from many." "Multiverse" means "many from many." If a "multiverse" is a term designed to mean that the entirety of everything is made of many smaller "entireties," well, we already have that word, and it is Universe.


Lee Taylor
Lee Taylor

At age six our rural Catholic priest came to the school and taught us that God created the earth in six days. I didn't buy it. Logic told me that was impossible.


Years later cosmologists taught us that the universe was created in The Big Bang, that it came from nothing. I didn't buy it. Logic told me that one cannot get something from nothing. I am not trained in this subject, but I can think. I have always known that there is an infinity out there, that there has never been a time when there was nothing.

Kirsten Richards
Kirsten Richards

Quantum Physics can explain.  The "Big Bang" is actually a "Big Vibration" of Energy and Matter together creating Multiverses and within them in some instances "LIFE".  I watched a video of paint on a speaker that was done by the SloMo Guys...this image is very similar to that!  When the music was introduced it set all into motion in much the same way.  You cannot see or touch or smell music but it was there and it cause all of this stuff to happen on the speaker...so why not on a grander scale?  Come on folks its time to realize that TIME does not exist as we know it and that there are many layers to the puzzle of LIFE and we are INFINITE.  Quantum Physics is actually the truest explaination we have so far.  And this image proves it!

M. Omerbashich
M. Omerbashich

This would disprove Big Bang as originally designed by a Catholic priest, and downgrade it to a bang.  It's an independent verification of the first Multiverse proof given in "Hyperresonance Unifying Theory and the resulting Law":

http://hal.archives-ouvertes.fr/hal-00808674

http://lanl.arxiv.org/abs/physics/0608026


More in: "As Big Bang gets downgraded to a bang, the first scientific proof of the Multiverse claimed":

http://www.mynewsdesk.com/ba/pressreleases/as-big-bang-gets-downgraded-to-a-bang-the-first-scientific-proof-of-the-multiverse-claimed-975493

Ronald Allan
Ronald Allan

Well The sun Rises and The Sun Sets also theres seems to be hundreds of stars out there too.

Mark Cahill
Mark Cahill

The multi universe seems hypothetical and i read this artical looking for evidence, science requires proof 

all multi universe talks seem to revolve around talk ans speculation

the 1967 experiment was was great - but read it slowly from the start - where is the evidence? where is an experiment to prove it?

Fred Herrmann
Fred Herrmann

"That means that spread across space at distances far larger than the roughly 92 billion light-year width of the universe that we can observe, other universes reside, some with many more dimensions and different physical properties and trajectories. (While the light from the most distant stuff we can see started out around 14 billion light-years away,"


Am I the only one who sees a contradiction in the above statement?


"92 billion light-year width of the universe that we can observe"  


vs


"While the light from the most distant stuff we can see started out around 14 billion light-years away,"


14 billion does NOT equal 92 billion.


If I'm missing something please let me know..


Thanks,


Fred

Георги Кънев
Георги Кънев

Nice and comprehensive review, about the features of light in the medium and with medium, which means that there exist mass (atoms, molecules, crystal structures), which it isn’t so about the hypothetical big band physically impossible to exist energy – “purely energy” without any mass?! Then from what is contains this purely energy, or simple it isn’t possible to exist – that is about Higgs scalar field. Obviously the observation of sky far infra red radiation (incorrectly called here as a relict radiation) and its eventually polarization in fact has some mass carrier which is actually heat conductor. What is the nature of this matter and why we don’t see it? Because this is the so called dark matter which is contains from proto particles. According to USM www.kanevuniverse.com if we sing in the space of this proto particle and become part of it then we can see very many stars similar to ours in our space, this stars are from subspace where the atoms (nuclei and nuclear particles) of our space are the galaxies in the subspace. Proto particle is many times lighter than the proton and slightly less lightly than the electron and many times heavier than the neutrino and this particle in fact was born on the center of our galaxy (which is in force about any galaxy) and gives the beginning of the these three stable particles, which it isn’t form of fantasy, but physically proven fact, see Q&A USM www.kanevuniverse.com By the way on the part III is given the essence of the electromagnetic waves and you can convince yourselves that such electromagnetic process can’t travel in empty or absolute space (which it isn’t vacuum because in the vacuum exist definite above proto particles which are galaxies from the subspace). By the essence of the field creation (see USM) follows that such absolute space cannot exist. So this is another proof that the so called Higgs scalar field cannot exist and one of the very convincingly reason (only one from large number!) that such event like big bang never happen! But let return towards the proto particles and try to estimate the sub temperature (similar to the same measurement in our space) of the surface where this radiation is produces by the sub stars there. We take the coefficient of thickening of the micro cosmos observed from our position – “solid body” of our space (see USM) which is folds. So multiplied this coefficient by the temperature of this far infra red radiation (relict) which is several degree (K) we obtain that the surface temperature of sub stars are around 20000 to 50000 degree (K) which is nice result about similar young star in our space, but not trillions degree (big bang supposition!) which can’t exist because we can’t measure this temperature not because it is almost infinite, but because there we haven’t mass and therefore accelerations and forces and measurement of such phenomenon is impossible, which means that it isn’t exist! G.Kanev

Георги Кънев
Георги Кънев

What naivety! The observation of so called “relict radiation” shows some polarization spots of the received far infrared light (several degree K) and some researches instantly decided that this is result of quickly expansion of the big bang energy which unknown how instantly creates mass (electrons) and polarizing the space around this mass resulting as a gravitational waves!?

The changes in a particular type of polarization, indicated here, are theorized to be caused by gravitational waves. These waves are signals of an extremely rapid inflation of the universe in its first moments.” First of all let prove whether this radiation (relict) indeed is echo of such not proven as existing phenomenon called big bang…we cannot! This article is nothing more than effort to revive the so called “standard model” which is of course incorrect. First of all polarization of the space exists only in strong interaction cases (see part III USM www.kanevuniverse.com ), which it isn’t the case of the beginning of our space formation in the center of our galaxy (see Q&A on the same site). Second: there are suggested the electrons which don’t exist in the beginning, because there are only proto particles which are a lot lighter than the electron and the very first orbital system forming by these two proto particles in fact are in weak interaction each other and polarization of the space there is impossible. Third: There somehow is forgets that in the hypothetical “big bang” supposition, in the beginning there exist only energy of “explosion” , but not any masses, which is physically impossible event of course. But in this article absent explanation how this “energy” without mass carrier passes into the mass of electron! But let back to the radiation itself. So how this article would explain and gives us acceptable calculation about the temperature in the spot called big bang and how this temperature cooled to several degree (K) and what is the mechanism of spreading of this “relict radiation” without mass carrier from the big bang (which is purely energy), to the whole distance 14 billion light years? They wouldn’t! Observed polarization of received here infrared radiation can to explain by variously ways…one of them is that this radiation make polarization spots because passes through polarizing matter during its moving to us…..another is interference between the infrared waves depending by their intensity…and many more!? So what proved observed polarization spots? Nothing!

Георги Кънев
Георги Кънев

To understand what is the time nature we have to pass several steps. First……Inflation theory it isn’t actual, because of the inertial character of the field (any field, see USM www.kanevuniverse.com ), which means that there expand our position on the galaxy, namely our Sun position, which was born on the center-area in our galaxy (at which radius you can see in USM) and after that this radius expanded until we reach to the periphery of our galaxy, where the Sun will die. Because of the inertial character of the field each new mass by which the light ray come will include this mass in dynamically interaction with our mass, which shows like dispersing of the masses. Because the including masses increases continuously this expansion will accelerate, exactly as we observe in reality. So there is no dark energy, but about the dark mass, you can see in USM, it exist but not in the nowadays imagination. So there is not big bang, it’s never happen in nowadays imagination. There is beginning but it is in any galaxy including ours……more in USM!

About the relic radiation measurement….That measurement is correct and very useful, but not like a proving ground of the big bang, because such event never happen….why?Well, You can convince yourself if you are willing to read carefully: USM www.kanevuniverse.comThere You can see that to explain the unity of the fields: gravitation, electrostatic and nuclear, You need to accept the endless number of spaces, tree of them is our space, subspace and over space…. What are these spaces You can see on the shown site. The examined radiation, according to USM is radiation of the subspace where is situated the so call dark matter, which is obviously not so dark. This radiation indeed is around 13 billion years old, because this is the age of the Sun, which was born on the center of our galaxy and shifting towards the periphery of the galaxy, after around 13 bln years the Sum will die. So the temperature of this dark matter in the center of our galaxy is so huge that after that amount of years the temperature decreases into several degree ( K). Because the Sun was born from this very young matter (what exactly is this matter You can see on the site shown above), shifting towards the periphery of the galaxy, there gradually is forms the basic particles from the so call proto particle, namely: proton, electron and neutrino and they gradually become heavier and the neutrino becomes lighter, the micro cosmos is thickening and macro cosmos is expand. That is why we observe from our point of view (periphery of our galaxy) the examined radiation as like only several degree (K), but if we sink into the subspace and become part from it, then this temperature will be commensurable with the temperature of the known stars in our galaxy. The different temperature places of this relic radiation, has nothing to do with discussed hypothetical big bang. Moreover in present imagination of big bang we cannot explain how this radiation exist without any mass carrier, but only like post factor of some hypothetical event – called big bang . And many more……

Salah S
Salah S

This is another support to the Big Bang theory .. this fact actually was mentioned 14 centuries ago :-

God says in Quran:

"  Do not these unbelievers see that the heavens and the earth were an integrated mass, then We split them and made every living thing from water? Will they not believe even then?" Al anbia- chapter 17 verse 30

Znik Scarce
Znik Scarce

if, e.g., the bb theory excludes the concept of the original space, that is something that existed before the birth of our universe. so that our universe did not appear in the existing space, only in itself is a space. All this refers to the center, the most natural and obvious component of our mind; entirely shaped by this Universe; that is, everything has a center. And now it turns out that if bb theory were true, there is no possibility that there was such a concept as the center of the universe. So can anyone explain to fool Pole, how it all relates to the theory that just begins to dominate in the Universe. Multiverse: here our universe isn't something spontaneous that is the beginning of everything: space, time... Here is just a tiny part of this reality, which was already a concrete space, particular stage of the theater of history on which our universe began its existence. So if this theory is true it must also be true... there is the center of our universe. So why proponents of this theory (MV) don't defend with all its scientific seriousness claim that there is a hard centre of our universe. And if not defend it so because its not possible for the theory of BB was a major part of the theory of MV. And if not defend it so because its not possible for the bb theory was a part of the theory of MV. on the other hand, if the bb theory roughly is confirmed by "hard" evidence so that may exclude the MV theory can be true? s7hummel


Fouad Tomb
Fouad Tomb

@Sopon Charaswat  , anybody can explain to me how we calculate the age of universe according to time spent by earth around the sun?

Gora Gorovich
Gora Gorovich

@Sandra Campbell >"logic told me that God didn't exist"

Well, the notion of "existence" is getting quite flexed once we take multiverse seriously.  As well as proving anything about God effectively dislodges God down to some natural phenomena what is apparently is not the subject for any religion.


Michael Marsnik
Michael Marsnik

@Sandra Campbell  Physicists have trouble with infinity. Whenever their calculations yield infinite answers they assume something is wrong. It is a concept we humans can't really get a grip on. Who's to say it isn't possible, though? There is no way to prove that something has always been and always will be. There is also no way to disprove it. What I'm driving at is the question of the beginning. Maybe there never was one?

Jeff Schultz
Jeff Schultz

@aj johnson  If I were God, trying to become omniscient, I might run every possible scenario I could, using systems that allow for maximum data collection (knowledge) and understanding (intelligence)...using intelligent beings (conscious observers of the universe) that are probably a branch of me...I would isolate them, as is done with evolution, for maximum data collection due to fresh ideas and experiences...and then collaborate this information...all of this could probably be done in the blink of an eye, but to the observers, it would be much longer...but the observers are me, just isolated from me to form new experiences, to enjoy said experiences and to grow through suffering...it sounds cynical to some and beautiful to others...if life is but a blink of an eye, considering infinity...the experiences and the growth might far outweigh the suffering. I might also be dependent on these events, for without them, I might not exist.

M. Omerbashich
M. Omerbashich

@Jay Dillon Then there's even Hyperverse, but ask Michio Kaku what that is  :)

Bruce Nappi
Bruce Nappi

@Jay Dillon  Jay emphasizes an important point for the media, and for science as well: if we need a new word for something, it’s important to spend the time and make an “informed” selection. The use of terms like “color” and “charm” for sub-atomic particle properties has caused grief from day one. Calling the Higgs a “God Particle”, even as a joke, has created huge misunderstandings in society. Another huge blunder was the naming of Freud’s 3 brains: Id, Ego, and SUPER-Ego. The modifier “super” sounds so benign. But it had a hidden implication: that the “Superego” came AFTER the Ego and controls it. Since later discoveries didn’t confirm that, Freud was sidelined. Rethinking Freud’s ideas putting the SuperEgo before the Ego open a totally new picture. ( See http://A3society.org/BrainTheory ).

As for the “multiverse” problem, let’s DROP that term. It’s misleading. As cosmology expanded, we needed the terms: solar system and galaxy. Let’s just coin a new term for the collection of galaxies and matter that result from a “big bang” event. I suggest that someone who can communicate with Steven Hawkings, ask him to do it, in honor of his interest in black holes and contribution to the field. Another possibility would be the Dali Lama.

Alexandre Nadeau Fitzback
Alexandre Nadeau Fitzback

@Lee Taylor The big bang theory does not state the universe came from nothing, it says we do not know if it came from something or not. It claims we do not know its origin, just how it behaved, starting from a fraction of a second after its debut.

Ron Williamson
Ron Williamson

You are perfectly right about one thing "their has never been a (time) when their was nothing". When their was nothing time did not exist. Infact "time" didn't really exist until we created time. Time is just a measurement for us to grasp a point of reference, to relate it to another.

Sandra Campbell
Sandra Campbell

@Lee Taylor  

I took a logic course at college and logic told me that God didn't exist.  Then God told me that logic didn't exist, it was just something he invented to amuse us.  I'm not serious with that, but it is fun to speculate.  Let's imagine that God has a physical body and the part we see in our 3-4 dimensional world view we call "The Universe".  If we believe that, then our God is too small.  He would have to more than that.  In the Christian bible John 1 starts"1 In the beginning was the Word, and the Word (Christ) was with God, and the Word was God. He was in the beginning with God. All things came into being through him, and without him not one thing came into being. What has come into being in him was life, and the life was the light of all people. The light shines in the darkness, and the darkness (dark matter?) did not overcome it."  NRSV, (parentheses mine.) John was not an astrophysicist, but his confusing choice of words interesting.

I assume the "beginning" must be pre-big bang.  Language and logic fail when we try to describe the beginning of the universe.  I mean, where did it come from, what caused to to come into being?  Oops, that's not the beginning, because the beginning would have to be before the beginning of the universe, and so forth and so on.  

Just saying....

Bruce Nappi
Bruce Nappi

@Lee Taylor  You are wise to be skeptical. The current state of understanding the “birth” of the visible cosmos is still just beginning. I’m writing a paper on a theory that doesn’t require the “get something from nothing” approach. You can see a simplified version at http://A3society.org/LatticeTheory . While the theory needs a lot of detail development, it does open some “rational” doors to the exploration.

Ron Williamson
Ron Williamson

TIME DOES EXIST! To say time doesn't exist, is to say every other unit of measurement doesn't exist!

David Reich
David Reich

We are "infinite"?  Oh, on what basis?  Where did the matter and energy come from?  Tell me what hard evidence you have for anything but the universe we inhabit?

Aaron Woods
Aaron Woods

@Fred Herrmann  From our relative position in the universe, the big bang is 14 billion LY away but from edge to edge the universe is 92 billion LY across.

Chris Heinmiller
Chris Heinmiller

@Георги КъневYou may wish to go back and and reconsider what "mass" is at a fundamental level.  In other words, not from a Newtonian perspective and more from the view of Modern Physics [post-Einstein]. One approach would be to explore the quantum mechanic equations that describe mass (umm..."momentum").  Or Einstein's famous equation rearranged  >>>  m = E / c2 .  Seems to be that mass is "confined" energy.  So, if you have something that is instantaneous [where light (c) approaches infinity] like a Big Bang, no mass exists until the expansion is slowed. In other words, "pure energy".

Also, I am not sure what your point is: in reference to the red-shift of black body radiation, or the subatomic particles, substars.....EM waves.  huh?

Personally, I think we are still in the infantile stages with science and knowing our true origin.  If there really is a multiverse, then what is the container that holds the collection of them?  What decides the scientific laws within this particular universe?  And if a chicken lays an egg, from what source did this universe get created?

Charles Vekert
Charles Vekert

@Patrick Ethen @Cesar Baldizon Paguaga  Mystics all over the world have experienced, or thought they experienced, that truth. As Meister Eckhart said: "The eye with which I see God is the same eye with which God sees me."

There is no proof since another's experience cannot be shared, although it can be discussed and explained to some degree if not perfectly.  Not everything is susceptible to scientific proof.


In the final analysis the whole thing remains an unsolvable mystery.

Jack Wingard
Jack Wingard

@Michael Marsnik @Sandra Campbell  

whether they have a problem with it or not, what's the alternative? There has to be an infinity, it's just that our minds have a hard time comprehending it. Not just an infinity of space, but of scale, time and everything else. In infinity everything is possible,  because there are infinite possibilities.

M. Omerbashich
M. Omerbashich

Time doesn't exist -- it has no absolute definition. Besides, it can be measured in relative terms only, meaning we can measure its passage but not time itself. Therefore, that which can't be observed in absolute terms doesn't exist.

Share

Feed the World

See blogs, stories, photos, and news »

Latest From Nat Geo

See more photos »