The universe, Never ending, never starting

[dude2k5]

The universe

Black holes create a hole into the outsides of the universe, where there is either unlimited, or limited energy. Once it goes into it, it turns into dark energy. After turning it into dark energy, it goes into the universe by a worm hole. Worm holes then would release dark energy into space. It is impossible to go into a worm hole, it can only throw energy out, while black holes can only throw energy in. While this happens, the universe never ends, only gets bigger, because black holes can only take in so much before collapsing. Worm holes can come anytime for a certain amount of time. At that time a certain amount of dark energy could be expelled. Basically recycling the universe. But black holes can only do so much, so after a point it stops. At that point the universe collects more than it expels, thus making it grow. This would mean that the universe would never grow. If energy were limited, then it would stop the universe from growing any bigger, and then stop there, never getting bigger or smaller since it is recycled. So after the energy from outside is gone if limited, then the universe would expand or collapse to a certain size, depending on the black holes and worm holes that are out in the universe. From dark energy, it would later be converted to something in the universe, such as Molecular cloud which creates sun, which makes elements, which then dies later creating a black hole and the whole process starts over.

Instead of energy could the universe be multiple instead? Creating more and more universe in ours, but not in matter, something we cannot see. Such as, if we went back in time to do the same thing we did before, it would be different. The choices could be unlimited, never ending due to multiple universes in our universe, maybe a multiverse

[Blob]

Hum,
this is something you cooked up yourself?

[dude2k5]

lmao yea, sounds kinda dumb, but i tried lol

[Blob]

Hum,
It sounds like it does not fit in with observations, therefore it needs to be reworked.

[ToSeek]

Moved from "Astronomy" to "Against the Mainstream." If you're going to propose an idea of your own, this is where to do it unless it's from a peer-reviewed paper.

[dude2k5]

o my bad, thx

[MythozDog]

How does it fit in with this newest theory?

New universes will be born from ours
08 February 2007
David Shiga

http://space.newscientist.com/articl...from-ours.html

[jamini]

Hi dude2k5 - Your concept is very similar to the one I presented in my first post. I quickly realized there is not nearly enough data available to support it but I'm hoping the new LCH at CERN will produce more particles - such as gravitons, to give me more to work with.

Did you start with a Kaluza–Klein five-dimensional manifold P? Also, were you able to reconcile the relatively minute force of gravity without the use of additional compactified dimensions?

[Kwalish Kid]

Hum,
this is something you cooked up yourself?

Bwahahahah!

[danscope]

The universe

Black holes create a hole into the outsides of the universe, where there is either unlimited, or limited energy. Once it goes into it, it turns into dark energy. After turning it into dark energy, it goes into the universe by a worm hole. Worm holes then would release dark energy into space. It is impossible to go into a worm hole, it can only throw energy out, while black holes can only throw energy in. While this happens, the universe never ends, only gets bigger, because black holes can only take in so much before collapsing. Worm holes can come anytime for a certain amount of time. At that time a certain amount of dark energy could be expelled. Basically recycling the universe. But black holes can only do so much, so after a point it stops. At that point the universe collects more than it expels, thus making it grow. This would mean that the universe would never grow. If energy were limited, then it would stop the universe from growing any bigger, and then stop there, never getting bigger or smaller since it is recycled. So after the energy from outside is gone if limited, then the universe would expand or collapse to a certain size, depending on the black holes and worm holes that are out in the universe. From dark energy, it would later be converted to something in the universe, such as Molecular cloud which creates sun, which makes elements, which then dies later creating a black hole and the whole process starts over.

Instead of energy could the universe be multiple instead? Creating more and more universe in ours, but not in matter, something we cannot see. Such as, if we went back in time to do the same thing we did before, it would be different. The choices could be unlimited, never ending due to multiple universes in our universe, maybe a multiverse

Hi, It may be beyond our immediate ability to see, but certainly within our ability to conceive. I say.....How many 'big bangs' ? Perhaps a few good sized bangs.
Best regards, Dan

[jamini]

Hi, It may be beyond our immediate ability to see, but certainly within our ability to conceive. I say.....How many 'big bangs' ? Perhaps a few good sized bangs. Best regards, Dan

Employing the anthropic principle, it's exceedingly unlikely that a single bang would just happen to produce the exact laws of physics that are necessary to govern a universe such as ours. It seems far more likely to me that there are a near infinite number of bangs, ours being one of few that contain the properties requisite to sustain life as we know it. Unless, of course you want to accept some blind belief in creation.

[Kwalish Kid]

Employing the anthropic principle, it's exceedingly unlikely that a single bang would just happen to produce the exact laws of physics that are necessary to govern a universe such as ours. It seems far more likely to me that there are a near infinite number of bangs, ours being one of few that contain the properties requisite to sustain life as we know it. Unless, of course you want to accept some blind belief in creation.

That's a fascinating idea. How do you generate a probability space for universes?

[jamini]

Kwalish - I was kind of hoping no one would ask me to do that.

I'm sure that people far more qualified than I have already put some figures together but I can at least give you an idea of how I would approach it.

There are at least 20-some parameters that have to be almost exactly as they are in order for our universe to function as it does to enable stars to burn, explode, emit heavy particles and coalesce into suns and planets that can achieve and maintain orbits and sustain life as we know it.

Starting with the initial velocity of the bang itself, it had to be precise to somewhere around 10x55th (10 to the fifty fifth - I can’t type exponents here) or else it would have resulted in either a big ‘dud’ or a ‘super’ bang, neither of which would have been capable of producing a life producing/sustaining universe. So we could start with:

P = B10x55th

Where P = Probability and B = Bang.

OK, 1 more:

Let’s add the relative magnitude of the gravity force and the electromagnetic force. The electromagnetic force is 10x38th times stronger than the gravity force. Gravity attracts protons together in stars causing them to fuse together with a concurrent release of energy. The electromagnetic force causes them to repel. Because gravity is so weak, stars burn very slow, allowing them to produce energy over very long periods of time. If this ratio of strengths had been 10x32nd instead of 10x38th stars would be a billion times less massive and would burn a million times faster.

So now we have:

P = B10x55th*Ge10x38th

Where Ge = the relationship between gravity and electromagnetic forces.

If we kept going and included all the other 20-something+ parameters (particle mass/energy, fine structure constants, etc.) well, I’m sure you can see where this is going. The curve is going to be so high for creating a universe such as ours in a single bang it’s been compared to tearing all the pages out of “War and Peace”, tossing them up in the air and having them land in their exact order; another analogy I like is dropping all the pieces of a 747 aircraft from space and having them land and assemble themselves in perfect working order. In other words, the odds are high – very, very high.

Since I do not subscribe to any beliefs that require blind faith in creation, I can only explain this with an assumption that there must be a near infinite number of bangs occurring at near spontaneous intervals for a near infinite period of time in some form or another in order for a universe such as ours to occur at least once in a while.

[iM2L844]

I can only explain this with an assumption that there must be...

And how ,exactly, is this different than blind faith? You'ld do better to start thinking in terms of guage theories.The multiverse or The oscillating universe theories have no viable, corroborating, observable scientific data or supporting evidence of any kind. Anyway the number of parameters is more like 300+. Yet, here we are

[jamini]

And how ,exactly, is this different than blind faith? You'ld do better to start thinking in terms of guage theories.The multiverse or The oscillating universe theories have no viable, corroborating, observable scientific data or supporting evidence of any kind. Anyway the number of parameters is more like 300+. Yet, here we are

I agree my assumption is not much better than blind faith but at least it’s potentially solvable, at least mathematically. As I stated earlier, the new LHC at CERN may be able to detect heavier particles such as gravitons and then observe them to escape into what can only be modeled as a higher dimension. I discern between something that can be expressed mathematically with its predictions potentially verifiable or falsifiable, vs. ghosts and goblins. As it stands now, I guess it’s fair to assume that all extra dimensional theories are heretofore falsified owing to lack of having yet observed any of the heavier particles they predict. That might change.

There are about 24 primary parameters that I am aware of; if you took all the sub sets of those parameters – such as all the fine structure constants, the numbers would of course be much higher. Would you care to itemize all 300 parameters?

[Kwalish Kid]

If we kept going and included all the other 20-something+ parameters (particle mass/energy, fine structure constants, etc.) well, I’m sure you can see where this is going. The curve is going to be so high for creating a universe such as ours in a single bang it’s been compared to tearing all the pages out of “War and Peace”, tossing them up in the air and having them land in their exact order; another analogy I like is dropping all the pieces of a 747 aircraft from space and having them land and assemble themselves in perfect working order. In other words, the odds are high – very, very high.

That's a fine anaogy. Yet how do you justify that analogy as opposed to one like this:
a) Throwing up War and Peace cut in half (from back to front) and having the top half land on top of the bottom half.
b) Providing all the pieces of a Boeing 747 to a team of engineers and a construction crew with blueprints and getting a 747 after a reasonable amount of time.

[satori]

jamini,
originaly i hated the idea, that there should be "worlds", "universes", "dimensions" , "heavens" or "spheares".....what ever...,that should be totaly unobservable, "unconected" to us and yet should bee seen as equaly "real". This is against all the principles of good comon sense, the occam razor, the "positivistic approach" to science,....
BUT i too, find the well known riddle concerning the fundamental constants so striking, that I personaly am convinced that there must be other universes "out there". See my quote from another thread below.

This "augmentation principal" was ever again correct :
Earth had to be very old to allow for evolution.
Evolution had to produce kazillions of species to create us.
We have this special moon, this right distance from sun, this right distance from the galactic center, this right isotopic mix of elements on earth, the right this, the right that... and so we naturally can see all those billions of billions of stars, all of which surely must have been in this probabilistic game to come up with this special place here and may be some other privilidged planets in this infinite oblivion of space...
So we are allready acustomed to this mind boggeling multitude, and the next step to a multiverse looks quite natural.

It is certainly a good and necessary thing to tinker with what good and tested theories we have and come up with this and that model. It keeps one busy and one's mind sharp.....But it won't carry us to the great final truth!
The Universe must Certainly be much bigger than that what we see. The GUT breaking works Dynamicaly. Our(!) fundamental constants have been found Dynamicaly.
To think our (visible) universe closed would imply some sort of ID !
Even standart BB implies inflation. The well known conondrum regarding the finetuning of the fundamental constants (finetuned "to get us") hints strongly to the existence of "other worlds". How to "get" those I do not know. There is that notion of a "chaotic inflation" ( going on and on ...), brought by Andrei Linde. I think I would like it. And also the much maligned anthropic principle!

(sadly nobody responded to this in the other thread and so I transported it here. I find this thing overly interresting and would like to have a few comments...)

[iM2L844]

heavier particles such as gravitons

Gravitons are thought to be massless.

then observe them to escape into what can only be modeled as a higher dimension.

As it stands now, I guess it’s fair to assume that all extra dimensional theories are heretofore falsified owing to lack of having yet observed any of the heavier particles they predict.

Sarcasm noted, however, I just find it odd and ironic that you are so open to the idea other dimensions. Aren't you afraid they might contain something that conflicts with your faith in blind chance. If not, why not.

Would you care to itemize all 300 parameters?

Not really. Sounds like too much work. Give me your 24 and I'll give you another 24. I don't want to repeat things you're already familiar with.

[jamini]

That's a fine analogy. Yet how do you justify that analogy as opposed to one like this:
a) Throwing up War and Peace cut in half (from back to front) and having the top half land on top of the bottom half.
b) Providing all the pieces of a Boeing 747 to a team of engineers and a construction crew with blueprints and getting a 747 after a reasonable amount of time.

Kwalish:

I’m not sure I completely understand your questions but I’ll try to respond.

a. Wouldn’t this be the equivalent of 2 pages instead of ~1,500? If that’s the case, I’d say that 2 pages are not nearly enough to analogize all 24 exponential parameters of our universe.

b. Don’t the team of engineers and construction crew imply an assembler (creator?), which would of course affect the outcome, both of the analogy and of the origin of our universe? Failing models and evidence, I am more inclined to adopt a concept that relies on chance and probability, rather than any manner of designed creation.

If you toss a coin and it comes up heads, was that result the outcome of chance or the product of design?

[jamini]

jamini,
originaly i hated the idea, that there should be "worlds", "universes", "dimensions" , "heavens" or "spheares".....what ever...,that should be totaly unobservable, "unconected" to us and yet should bee seen as equaly "real". This is against all the principles of good comon sense, the occam razor, the "positivistic approach" to science,....
BUT i too, find the well known riddle concerning the fundamental constants so striking, that I personaly am convinced that there must be other universes "out there". See my quote from another thread below.

Satori – I confess, I barely read the first post in this topic; I just looked at the diagram provided and it vaguely resembled a visual interpretation of my own pet theory, with black holes acting as conduits of mass/energy to different parts of our universe or perhaps other separate universes. So this is certainly not a theory that I am able to defend, which is the reason why I abandoned my own topic; there is just not enough evidence available yet for anyone to do so. Ed Whitten can’t even come close to proving M-Theory until more data becomes available, yet the math is extremely elegant and makes remarkable predictions, some particles of which may soon be observed.

This "augmentation principal" was ever again correct :
Earth had to be very old to allow for evolution. Evolution had to produce kazillions of species to create us. We have this special moon, this right distance from sun, this right distance from the galactic center, this right isotopic mix of elements on earth, the right this, the right that... and so we naturally can see all those billions of billions of stars, all of which surely must have been in this probabilistic game to come up with this special place here and may be some other privilidged planets in this infinite oblivion of space.. So we are allready acustomed to this mind boggeling multitude, and the next step to a multiverse looks quite natural.

And there’s also our meteor shield, Jupiter and many other factors; yes, I completely agree. Our own celestial and biological evolutions are so highly improbable that it’s not a great leap in logic to assume the same scenario on a universal level.

It is certainly a good and necessary thing to tinker with what good and tested theories we have and come up with this and that model. It keeps one busy and one's mind sharp.....But it won't carry us to the great final truth! The Universe must Certainly be much bigger than that what we see. The GUT breaking works Dynamicaly. Our(!) fundamental constants have been found Dynamicaly. To think our (visible) universe closed would imply some sort of ID ! Even standart BB implies inflation. The well known conondrum regarding the finetuning of the fundamental constants (finetuned "to get us") hints strongly to the existence of "other worlds". How to "get" those I do not know. There is that notion of a "chaotic inflation" ( going on and on ...), brought by Andrei Linde. I think I would like it. And also the much maligned anthropic principle!

I think there are a lot of interpretations of the various – weak, strong, et. al. versions of the anthropic principles. Personally, I use it in context similar to Leonard Susskind when he describes the anthropic landscape of the universe or multiverse. In other words, that there are a large – extremely large, number of other universes or perhaps other areas in our own universe that are inhospitable to life as we know it; that our observable universe is either a minute pocket within a vastly larger universe (as iM2L844 suggests with gauge theories); or that our universe resides in or evolved from a vast caldron of some form of universe-producing energy.

(sadly nobody responded to this in the other thread and so I transported it here. I find this thing overly interresting and would like to have a few comments...)

I find it all hugely interesting on many levels, not the least of which is the whole utter improbability of it all. When all math’s fail at the point of origin; when our two basic laws of physics – quantum and classical, are diametrically opposed to one another; when we consider the infancy of our evolution relative to the age and complexity of the universe; when all things considered, we admittedly have little understanding of how, what, when or where our universe originated, I do believe that is it time to acknowledge our shortcomings and open our minds to new concepts. However, absent of working models and verifiable evidence, anything in the mean time is philosophical in nature and perhaps beyond the scope and intention of this forum.

[Kwalish Kid]

Kwalish:

I’m not sure I completely understand your questions but I’ll try to respond.

a. Wouldn’t this be the equivalent of 2 pages instead of ~1,500? If that’s the case, I’d say that 2 pages are not nearly enough to analogize all 24 exponential parameters of our universe.

They are the parameters of our theory, but that needn't indicate that they were free to take on any value in their range. It could be that their freedom lies in a range very close to their actual value.

b. Don’t the team of engineers and construction crew imply an assembler (creator?), which would of course affect the outcome, both of the analogy and of the origin of our universe? Failing models and evidence, I am more inclined to adopt a concept that relies on chance and probability, rather than any manner of designed creation.

That's not what I meant. I meant that there might perhaps be only one possible set of initial conditions and only one set of natural laws, rather than a population of each.

I'm not sure how you come up with a) a measure of probability space and b) how this measure is not arbitrary.

[jamini]

Gravitons are thought to be massless.

Sarcasm noted, however, I just find it odd and ironic that you are so open to the idea other dimensions. Aren't you afraid they might contain something that conflicts with your faith in blind chance. If not, why not.

Not really. Sounds like too much work. Give me your 24 and I'll give you another 24. I don't want to repeat things you're already familiar with.

M2L844 – Yes, gravitons are thought to be massless. I Phrased that sentence incorrectly.

No sarcasm intended; absent of workable models and observational data a theory remains just that, theoretical. What is the irony in entertaining the possibility of additional dimensions as a physical space that may contain ours and other universes? For the same reason I don’t believe that Earth is at the center of the universe, I think it’s a little arrogant to assume that our universe is in some way special by some extremely fortuitous single bang that just happened to contain all the precise properties that we require in order to exist. I am only accepting a “blind faith in chance” because the alternatives are even more ludicrous. And no, I do not fear that the possible discoveries of any new dimensions may conflict with whatever label you want to attach to my consideration of the possibility that there may be substantially more to our universe than we can possibly realize given our current relatively primordial stage of evolution; I would welcome them as advancements of science.

I will gladly stipulate that there could be at least 300 parameters if we used all the sub sets, derivatives and relationships of the properties of our universe that are requisite to generating and sustaining life as we know it. 24 were more than adequate to prove my point and I don’t feel like looking them all up either; I don’t think anyone would argue that there are at least 24 primary parameters. I’m not dismissing any gauge theories either so I really don’t think we are in disagreement on anything fundamental.

[jamini]

They are the parameters of our theory, but that needn't indicate that they were free to take on any value in their range. It could be that their freedom lies in a range very close to their actual value.

Okay, now I see where you’re going with this. I would be willing to concede that each of the parameters do not have unlimited freedom if you would be willing to concede the extreme remoteness of at least 24 very specific properties crucial to our existence, just happening to fall exactly where they did, based on only a single bang. Humor me for a minute - Say each parameter only had 10 variations of freedom (and I think any physicists would agree that is well beyond conservative), that would still be 240,000,000,000 to 1 odds of a single bang creating our universe as we know it. That’s really high odds Kwalish!

That's not what I meant. I meant that there might perhaps be only one possible set of initial conditions and only one set of natural laws, rather than a population of each.

I apologize for the misunderstanding, as I mentioned I did not completely understand your questions and how you wanted me to reply. I hope my reply above addresses this to your satisfaction. I am trying to analyze this with you and not take opposing sides. I’ve already seen examples of your excellent logic arguments and I regret I would not be a worthy opponent for you in that role.

I'm not sure how you come up with a) a measure of probability space and b) how this measure is not arbitrary.

It is somewhat arbitrary, I agree. No one knows exactly how many levels of freedom each of the parameters may have. I was more trying to demonstrate how I would go about generating a probability space than actually creating any kind of accurate model; that would require someone with a great deal more knowledge and math skills than I have at my disposal.

Are you suggesting there was just a single bang or implying that we really shouldn’t be talking about this on a science forum because it’s more philosophical in nature. If it’s a case of the latter, I tend to agree with you.

[iM2L844]

I am only accepting a “blind faith in chance” because the alternatives are even more ludicrous.

Would you please describe those ludicrous alternatives? Or, are we getting too far off topic?

The following is from a paper by:

L. Dyson: Department of Physics,Stanford University and Center for Theoretical Physics, Department of Physics, M.I.T.
M. Kleban: Department of Physics, Stanford University
L. Susskind: Department of Physics, Stanford University

"We are forced to conclude that in a recurrent world like de Sitter space our universe would be extraordinarily unlikely.
What then are the alternatives? We may reject the interpretation of de Sitter space based on complementarity. For example, an evolution of the causal patch based on standard Hamiltonian quantum mechanics may be wrong. What would replace it is a complete mystery.
Another possibility is an unknown agent intervened, and for reasons
of its owns...[started] the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation."

These highly credentialed people are not trying to be ludicrous or funny or cute. Is this the kind of ludicrous alternative you are talking about?
You can study the entire scientific PDF paper here:

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/hep-th/pdf/0208/0208013.pdf

[jamini]

iM2L844 - I am very familiar with Leonard Susskind's work and in the context of that paper I believe he/they were indeed being "cute" in suggesting that short of "an unknown agent intervened, and for reasons of its owns...[started] the universe in the state of low entropy characterizing inflation" the requisite initial state of exceedingly low entropy is extremely unlikely. In other words, short of an act of god, how can this be explained?

As demonstrated by the following quote from the same paper:

Let us consider the entropy in observable matter in today’s universe. It is of order 10¹⁰⁰.
This means that the number of microstates that are macroscopically indistinguishable from our world is exp (10¹⁰⁰). But only exp (10¹⁰) of these states could have evolved from the low entropy initial state characterizing the usual inflationary starting point. The overwhelming majority of states which would have evolved into a world very similar to ours did not start in the usual low entropy ensemble.

Leonard Susskind goes into this in much further detail in his book: “The Cosmic Landscape”, which I think you would enjoy if you haven’t already read it. I am not in any way disagreeing with gauge theories, much less Mr. Suskind’s ideas. Whether there are pocket universes over one giant cosmic landscape or extra-dimensional universes within a meta-verse are questions that exceed our current technology. Perhaps it will eventually be found that we are looking at the same concept in several different ways.

The “ludicrous alternatives” I was referring to involve concepts with no theoretical or mathematical value or even potential, such as religion. Again, I really don’t think we are in major disagreement over anything fundamental. Although, I’m not sure you’ve made your own position abundantly clear.

[Kwalish Kid]

Are you suggesting there was just a single bang or implying that we really shouldn’t be talking about this on a science forum because it’s more philosophical in nature. If it’s a case of the latter, I tend to agree with you.

More the latter. But I also think it's bad philosophy.

[jamini]

Kwalish – I am only asking you this because I place a high value on your acute logic and ideas:

How to you reconcile the exceedingly unlikely occurrence of a single bang producing all the precise properties that we require to exist?

[bigsplit]

I would lke to suggest that a single bang causing us to exist is as possible as any other alternative. The single bang resulted in a hyperplurality of cosmological conditions scattered throughout the Universe. Within some areas of this universal system, life, planets, galaxies and such are not possible. In some areas there is the possibility of life carrying conditions where suns, planets, water availability are such that produces life. So when you use a term like "a single bang" this limits the vast complexity of enviornments that exist throughout our Universe you are omiting an empircally varifiable fact. This does not mean other bangs are not possible, but it certainly denies the necessity of multiple bangs until solid empirical evidence is presented to assume a single bang cosmology is invalid.

Let's further explore the "bang" we have and see what the evidence concludes, otherwise we are reading tea leaves and not using the scientific method. Although, I have problems with some theories of bang origin and the geometry and dynamics of the universe, I see no need for a multiverse system or bang/crunch cycle. I need more than the statement, a single bang is not enough to account for our conditions.

[jamini]

I would lke to suggest that a single bang causing us to exist is as possible as any other alternative. The single bang resulted in a hyperplurality of cosmological conditions scattered throughout the Universe. Within some areas of this universal system, life, planets, galaxies and such are not possible. In some areas there is the possibility of life carrying conditions where suns, planets, water availability are such that produces life. So when you use a term like "a single bang" this limits the vast complexity of enviornments that exist throughout our Universe you are omiting an empircally varifiable fact. This does not mean other bangs are not possible, but it certainly denies the necessity of multiple bangs until solid empirical evidence is presented to assume a single bang cosmology is invalid.

This is similar to Leonard Suskind’s Cosmic Landscape and I like it, at least in principal. It doesn’t make any attempts at unification or explain the relatively weak force of gravity without the other dimensions but it does dilute the perplexity of a single bang. It also staggers the imagination to conceive of a universe so immense that everything we observe is but a miniscule, infinitesimal pocket of the entire universe, whatever that may be. I often find myself asking: “why the huge overkill?” But I digress, that leads me to concepts like holograms, wormholes and illusions that are even more incredulous.

Let's further explore the "bang" we have and see what the evidence concludes, otherwise we are reading tea leaves and not using the scientific method. Although, I have problems with some theories of bang origin and the geometry and dynamics of the universe, I see no need for a multiverse system or bang/crunch cycle. I need more than the statement, a single bang is not enough to account for our conditions.

While I submit that either theory suffers from your “tea leaves” syndrome given our prevailing technology, I do agree that at least in accordance with Occam's Razor, a 3D+t universe is of course the least complicated and hence more likely.

That was a very well thought out and enlightening post bigsplit, thank you.

[EvilEye]

Here's something to chew on.

The Universe exists from you OUT. You, yourself are the beginning.

Only YOU can experience the the universe in your world.

Noone.. not even Einstein, or Michio Kaku can experience your universe.

How you can know that it exists is that some people agree with you.

You watch a movie, and it makes you laugh, and at the same time, many other people are laughing, but not all of them. Now you know that what you saw was not completely agreeable, but fairly congruent.

You know that when you want to touch your nose, your finger knows the nose without asking for directions. More congruence.

But noone else can touch your nose without experiencing YOU.

There is no before and after YOU.

Does spinnach taste good or bad? That is up to YOU.

Is the Universe an infinate space of blackness with stuff in it? That is up to you, because it ends when you end.

You can teach me that wht you see as red is red, and I will forever call it red, but if you could see through my own eyes, you might say, "Shucks! That looks green!"

This is why I said in another thread that reality (and the universe included) is what we create as we wander through it.

Nothing is real. It is all senses. And some people are better at sensing things than others.

We really do live in the Matrix.

I can tell you what life should be from my perspective, and you might just believe me, but in reality, I cannot live your life. And I can't experience your universe.

Last call.... Noone can see the same rainbow.