The Universal Scale

[ShachonianX]

Here is a little scale I came up with. It is the scale from universe to beyond.

Universe: Infinite collection of matter in a multiverse.

Multiverse: Infinite collection of universes within an omniverse.

Omniverse: Infinite collection of multiverses within a atellaverse.

Stellaverse: Infinite collection of omniverses within a extraverse.

Extraverse: Infinite collection of stellaverses within a........

You get the picture. What do you think of this scale? Would you ever use it or not?

[Kerbface]

Eh, they're all basically the same size.

[Holo]

Nope, each is infinitely larger than the previous.

[Hyomoto]

No, I would never use this.

Kerbface is correct, these are all the same size. What you've done is: a = 1; b = a, c = b, d = c; etc...

[Holo]

More like a=∞, b=∞a, and so on.

[EatThePath]

Only really useful if each layer is in some way finite. Infinity isn't a number, at least not a traditional one. If you've got an infinite collection of infinite collections, you've still got an infinite collection. Everything that you could find in the second layer, you could also find in the first, because they both by definition have everything.

[WestAir]

How do you define "within"? Matter certainly can't occupy the same point in spacetime as other matter. An infinite amount of matter means no end, literally. That there would be no edge to the universe. The universe in KSP for instance is a flat and infinite universe - you can run your game forever with any velocity and never reach the "end". Is the KSP universe within a multiverse? No, because something that's infinite in size can't be within something else.

That said, a multiverse could just exist. Taking KSP for instance - kerbals would be surprised to realize that there are thousands of other "copies" of KSP out there with equally infinite size. (Your HardDrive, my Harddrive). They'd also be surprised to learn that they are within a sort of "soup" of data that holds a bunch of extremely different and equally infinite universes. (If you have SpaceEngine or Orbiter on your Harddrive, for instance). The KSP.exe universe isn't "within" any of those - the others just exist separately. Would that make the sum total of the data on your HDD a multiverse? Then what about the sum total of the virtual universes in the internet all together?

[EatThePath]

How do you define "within"? Matter certainly can't occupy the same point in spacetime as other matter. An infinite amount of matter means no end, literally. That there would be no edge to the universe. The universe in KSP for instance is a flat and infinite universe - you can run your game forever with any velocity and never reach the "end". Is the KSP universe within a multiverse? No, because something that's infinite in size can't be within something else.

In that sense it easily can be within something else. The KSP universe is finite simply because there are limitations to how coordinates are stored, but even if we ignore that it is still a finite collection of data. No matter how far you travel in the three dimensions available, you will never find more planets. It contains a finite amount of mass/data. You could have alternate KSP universe 'next to' each other along another dimension and it would be very meaningful.

The wording in the original post is "infinite collection of matter". Unless something is varying with each layer such as universal constants or some other meaningful aspect of physics, stacking infinite collections of matter/information next to each other doesn't have any useful meaning or implication, except maybe that as your technology learns ways to tap each one your access to energy/mass increases at ever more frightening rates.

[Holo]

Only really useful if each layer is in some way finite. Infinity isn't a number, at least not a traditional one. If you've got an infinite collection of infinite collections, you've still got an infinite collection. Everything that you could find in the second layer, you could also find in the first, because they both by definition have everything.

Assume two sets;

One of all natural numbers

One of all integers

The second is within the first, however the second one does by no means contain every number despite being infinite. The first contains an infinite number of infinite sets, as it contains integers+0.0[n]1, integers+0.0[n]2, and so on.

The second is infinite, but the first is even more infinite.

Edited May 20, 2013 by Holo

[EatThePath]

I'll... concede the point. I still feel that 'more infinite' is an incorrect and problematic way of thinking about it, but I'm not enough of a mathemagician to be more precision than that.

I stand by my core point, though, which is that without more information about the variation allowed at each level it is largely pointless to have more levels.

[bigyihsuan]

Assume two sets;

One of all natural numbers

One of all integers

The second is within the first, however the second one does by no means contain every number despite being infinite. The first contains an infinite number of infinite sets, as it contains integers+0.0[n]1, integers+0.0[n]2, and so on.

The second is infinite, but the first is even more infinite.

But infinity is the same value. Infinity A cannot be larger than Infinity B.

[Hyomoto]

I like word problems so perhaps viewing it like this:

I have a jar (galaxy) of water (solar systems) made of molecules (stars/planets). I then fill jars with all the remaining water and place them in another box (universe). I then theorize there must be other jars like this one, prove it true, collect them together and place them in storage unit, (multiverse). Now you've theorized that this has happened countless times as well, and these storage units could then be placed in a warehouse, and those warehouses in a city, and those cities in a country, and those countries in a continent, those continents on a world, those worlds in a solar system, those solar systems in a galaxy, those galaxies in a universe, those universes in a multiverse, those multiverses in a ERROR ERROR ERROR

Anything beyond multiverse is somehow beyond pointlessly unfathomable (some of this is too) and intensely irrelevant. We barely have a grasp on our own existence within a single solar system and you would like to decide whether or not a numbering system that may be used for a hypothetical quantity of another hypothetical quantity would be useful, and if we'd use it? The answer is no, we would not use it, it's a completely useless thought exercise. Take that brain power and apply it to something that will lead us to it being useful.

[NASAFanboy]

I believe the Universe will keep expanding, and eventually break into "Bubble" Universes, and each bubble will do the same thing.etc.

[Xander3838]

Who said the universe had infinite matter in it? And we don't even know if there are other universes, we've just got theories.

[Nuke]

its bigger on the inside.

[comicbstudeo]

Infinity A cannot be larger than Infinity B.

it can. there are more infinite numbers between 1 and 2 then the infinite amount of integers minutephysics has a good video about this on youtube

[CleverClothe]

I have a jar (galaxy) of water (solar systems) made of molecules (stars/planets). I then fill jars with all the remaining water and place them in another box (universe).

Your box is finite in size, and thus not the Universe.

[Inspector Gadget]

In the 16th century the world image didn't go further then our solar system. We didn't have technology or comprehension to see any further then the border of our solar system. Everything beyond was was just theories where most where wrong. When telescopes got better we realised it's bigger then we imagined and we found out there were more stars were actually suns like ours. We found out they were further and further away and we found more of them and more about them as technology got better. Soon we reached the end of the galaxy and soon discovered there were more galaxies and we learned more about them. Now our border is our super cluster. Anything beyond that we can't see and is just pure theory.

All I'm saying is that we don't have to go as far out as to multiverses as we're still learning about our own univers. That would be kinda like a 16th century man imagining what a super cluster looked like. Totally beyond his comprehension because of the scale and physical differences. He would have no reason to go this far out exactly like you. Multiverses are our theoretical border. Anything beyond we can't describe in any way before we understand our univers completely.

[ShachonianX]

In the 16th century the world image didn't go further then our solar system. We didn't have technology or comprehension to see any further then the border of our solar system. Everything beyond was was just theories where most where wrong. When telescopes got better we realised it's bigger then we imagined and we found out there were more stars were actually suns like ours. We found out they were further and further away and we found more of them and more about them as technology got better. Soon we reached the end of the galaxy and soon discovered there were more galaxies and we learned more about them. Now our border is our super cluster. Anything beyond that we can't see and is just pure theory.

All I'm saying is that we don't have to go as far out as to multiverses as we're still learning about our own univers. That would be kinda like a 16th century man imagining what a super cluster looked like. Totally beyond his comprehension because of the scale and physical differences. He would have no reason to go this far out exactly like you. Multiverses are our theoretical border. Anything beyond we can't describe in any way before we understand our univers completely.

Does anyone notice that this is a [sci Fi Theory]?

[Aladran]

Do we have any clues of any other universe?

Because how I understand it, even if we find some parallel dimension, they would just be inside the same Universe but with some different point of references.

[ShachonianX]

Do we have any clues of any other universe?

Because how I understand it, even if we find some parallel dimension, they would just be inside the same Universe but with some different point of references.

Dimensions are similar to other universes, but reside in a universe. Other universes wouldn't be considered dimensions.

[xclusiv8]

But infinity is the same value. Infinity A cannot be larger than Infinity B.

No its not and yes it can. One infinity can be larger than another infinity. Here is something to help you grasp it.

http://gizmodo.com/5910014/how-one-infinity-can-be-bigger-than-another

Its really unnatural for us humans to grasp these kind of concepts.

[ShachonianX]

Here is the reason I made this. We know that things just keep getting bigger and bigger, and that multiple universes is somewhat possible. So what would be the space between the many universes? What would it be called? Also, everything gets infinitely smaller and infinitely bigger, even if we can't see it with the naked eye, telescope, or anything else.

[Hyomoto]

Your box is finite in size, and thus not the Universe.

You are a dork, the box is a hypothetical container like the term, 'multiverse'. It is a pointer, an indicative space. Not a physical box. I take it you are not familiar with analogies? I am willing to accept my description has flaws, but you have not pointed out one that matters in any measurable form. (See what I did there? That one is a pun)

Here is the reason I made this. We know that things just keep getting bigger and bigger, and that multiple universes is somewhat possible. So what would be the space between the many universes? What would it be called? Also, everything gets infinitely smaller and infinitely bigger, even if we can't see it with the naked eye, telescope, or anything else.

Perhaps, but I personally think the thought exercise is flawed. We know our existence is part of a one that transcends our limited comprehension because, at this time, it is unobservable. Therefore, I think a more productive thought, perhaps, is to imagine what could make it observable. Science is in measured doses. We did not search for the atom first. We could decide on a hypothetical measurement system. However, what reliable information do we have that indicates we would ever need it? Perhaps once we understand the quantity, those measurements are irrelevant. I do not think it purposeful to query a list of hypothetical quantities with no present use. Take a black body for instance. That is a hypothetical quantityâ€â€but it's used in order to find measurable ones. I just don't think your list does that.

Edited May 21, 2013 by Hyomoto
To respond to ShachonianX