Monday, September 26, 2022
Contact    |    RSS icon Twitter icon Facebook icon  
You are viewing: Home > News > Extraterrestrial > News story
Welcome Guest ( Login or Register )  
Extraterrestrial

Seeking extraterrestrial life in the multiverse

By T.K. Randall
January 19, 2010 · Comment icon 10 comments



Image Credit: NASA/ESA/ESO
While most scientists focus their efforts on finding signs of life in our own universe some are starting to set their sights elsewhere.
The majority will agree that our own universe could be home to more than just life on Earth but what about other universes ? Scientists have long speculated on the possibility of a multiverse - a universe of universes that have each formed from the same primordial materials as our own and that could each be home to their own forms of life.
Other intelligent and technologically capable alien civilizations may exist in our Universe, but the problems with finding and communicating with them is that they are simply too far away for any meaningful two-way conversations. But what about the prospect of finding if life exists in other universes outside of our own?


Source: Universe Today | Comments (10)


Recent comments on this story
Comment icon #1 Posted by Sanderz 13 years ago
Sorry, but I find that a little... unnecessary. Chances are, at least if you believe in the work of Michio Kaku, that we can't even go to other universes. And in that case, we don't even need to know whetheror not there is life out there. Nah, they should focus on life in our universe. THEN, they can try searching beyond that
Comment icon #2 Posted by Raina 13 years ago
I always thought the word universe covered everything. I mean all of space is called the universe and it's made up of galaxies, upon galaxies, which in turn are each made up of many planetary systems. That is a very pretty artists rendering of the multiverse though. Kinda makes me think we are like microsopic organisms in this HUGE lifeform and one of these days they are going to take an antibiotic and wipe us all out, lol.
Comment icon #3 Posted by sepulchrave 13 years ago
Interesting work, thanks for the link. I was never a big fan of the `Anthropic Principle'. It seems tantamount to explaining some strange experimental result by saying `it happened, so it must have been possible for that to happen': obvious, but not an explanation.
Comment icon #4 Posted by Father Of Evolution 13 years ago
We haven't even found all the species in this planet yet.. We gotta focus on ours first then to our solar system then our galaxy Then we search for other galaxies.. :gun:
Comment icon #5 Posted by Emma_Acid 13 years ago
Interesting work, thanks for the link. I was never a big fan of the `Anthropic Principle'. It seems tantamount to explaining some strange experimental result by saying `it happened, so it must have been possible for that to happen': obvious, but not an explanation. The problem being, it is a valid argument. Were one of Rees's "6 Numbers" not the number we see it to be, we wouldn't be here to observe it. A lot of people don't like it because it doesn't explain anything - that doesn't mean that logically it isn't correct.
Comment icon #6 Posted by sepulchrave 13 years ago
The problem being, it is a valid argument. Were one of Rees's "6 Numbers" not the number we see it to be, we wouldn't be here to observe it. Sure, it's an argument, but not an explanation (as you pointed out). Further, while I agree that if one of Rees's ``6 Numbers'' were altered we wouldn't be here to observe it. That doesn't mean that there would be no sentient observers.
Comment icon #7 Posted by Resonance 13 years ago
Sure, it's an argument, but not an explanation (as you pointed out). Further, while I agree that if one of Rees's ``6 Numbers'' were altered we wouldn't be here to observe it. That doesn't mean that there would be no sentient observers. Yes, I would have to agree with you saying that if somebody gave a more strict definition of 'sentience', then you may have an invalid argument. Either way, Emma said it the best, it's still an argument. Sorry, don't really have any input other than that.
Comment icon #8 Posted by sepulchrave 13 years ago
Whoops, it looks like I didn't define what I meant by `sentience'. Here goes: Sentience == Self Aware
Comment icon #9 Posted by :PsYKoTiC:BeHAvIoR: 13 years ago
Since the 'multiverse' theory is just that, a theory, why waste funding and searching for life in an area where it hasn't been proven fact? If they want to throw money away, why not ship it to Haiti. They seem to need it the most at the moment. Geez.
Comment icon #10 Posted by Timothy Kulig 11 years ago
I think the multiverse is not "different worlds", but frames in time. I think dark matter is created by "actual" matter, and replaces it in this universe, and is recreated, and moved to it's new position in the next universe, where time continues. Think of it as frames on a strip of movie film. Each frame being a different Universe. It is how you are able to move. I think, in that context, you will never be able to travel in time, because the previous frame (universes). no longer contains "real" matter, just dark matter. I do think, it could be viewed.


Please Login or Register to post a comment.


Our new book is out now!

The Unexplained Mysteries
Book of Weird News

 AVAILABLE NOW 

Take a walk on the weird side with this compilation of some of the weirdest stories ever to grace the pages of a newspaper.

Click here to learn more

We need your help!

Support us on Patreon

 BONUS CONTENT 

For less than the cost of a cup of coffee, you can gain access to a wide range of exclusive perks including our popular 'Lost Ghost Stories' series.

Click here to learn more

 Total Posts: 7,332,691    Topics: 301,752    Members: 198,353

 Not a member yet ? Click here to join - registration is free and only takes a moment!
Recent news and articles