Is there any space other than our space?

Question

can anyone answers me if there is any other space is prevailing in my space?
its true that for any particle there is an anti-particle?pls explain to me.

Answer 1

Boy, r u in the twilight zone!

Answer 2

Yes - you are in the Twilight Zone, but you are probably correct.

You've really asked two questions.

There is a current theory called the "Multiverse" coined by the Astronomer Royal, Martin Rees, where there are an infinite number of parallel universes to our own all existing in slightly different dimensions. A BBC Horizon science programme was broadcast about this, and I attach a link to the transcript (see link 1). So, yes, there very likely is more space other than our own space.

The second part of your question is that, in our own space (universe) it is highly likely that there is an anti-particle for every particle. The anti-particle to an electron, for instance, is a positron and these are in everyday use for things like PETscans. (See my link 2 to CERN for more on anti-matter)

Answer 3

The multiverse theory has spawned another - that our universe is a simulation.

If you've ever thought life was actually a dream, take comfort. Some pretty distinguished scientists may agree with you. Philosophers have long questioned whether there is in fact a real world out there, or whether "reality" is just a figment of our imagination.

Then along came the quantum physicists, who unveiled an Alice-in-Wonderland realm of atomic uncertainty, where particles can be waves and solid objects dissolve away into ghostly patterns of quantum energy.

Now cosmologists have got in on the act, suggesting that what we perceive as the universe might in fact be nothing more than a gigantic simulation.

The story behind this bizarre suggestion began with a vexatious question: why is the universe so bio-friendly? Cosmologists have long been perplexed by the fact that the laws of nature seem to be cunningly concocted to enable life to emerge. Take the element carbon, the vital stuff that is the basis of all life. It wasn't made in the big bang that gave birth to the universe. Instead, carbon has been cooked in the innards of giant stars, which then exploded and spewed soot around the universe.

The process that generates carbon is a delicate nuclear reaction. It turns out that the whole chain of events is a damned close run thing, to paraphrase Lord Wellington. If the force that holds atomic nuclei together were just a tiny bit stronger or a tiny bit weaker, the reaction wouldn't work properly and life may never have happened.

The late British astronomer Fred Hoyle was so struck by the coincidence that the nuclear force possessed just the right strength to make beings like Fred Hoyle, he proclaimed the universe to be "a put-up job". Since this sounds a bit too much like divine providence, cosmologists have been scrambling to find a scientific answer to the conundrum of cosmic bio-friendliness.

The one they have come up with is multiple universes, or "the multiverse". This theory says that what we have been calling "the universe" is nothing of the sort. Rather, it is an infinitesimal fragment of a much grander and more elaborate system in which our cosmic region, vast though it is, represents but a single bubble of space amid a countless number of other bubbles, or pocket universes.

Things get interesting when the multiverse theory is combined with ideas from sub-atomic particle physics. Evidence is mounting that what physicists took to be God-given unshakeable laws may be more like local by-laws, valid in our particular cosmic patch, but different in other pocket universes. Travel a trillion light years beyond the Andromeda galaxy, and you might find yourself in a universe where gravity is a bit stronger or electrons a bit heavier.

The vast majority of these other universes will not have the necessary fine-tuned coincidences needed for life to emerge; they are sterile and so go unseen. Only in Goldilocks universes like ours where things have fallen out just right, purely by accident, will sentient beings arise to be amazed at how ingeniously bio-friendly their universe is.

It's a pretty neat idea, and very popular with scientists. But it carries a bizarre implication. Because the total number of pocket universes is unlimited, there are bound to be at least some that are not only inhabited, but populated by advanced civilisations - technological communities with enough computer power to create artificial consciousness. Indeed, some computer scientists think our technology may be on the verge of achieving thinking machines.

It is but a small step from creating artificial minds in a machine, to simulating entire virtual worlds for the simulated beings to inhabit. This scenario has become familiar since it was popularised in The Matrix movies.

Now some scientists are suggesting it should be taken seriously. "We may be a simulation ... creations of some supreme, or super-being," muses Britain's astronomer royal, Sir Martin Rees, a staunch advocate of the multiverse theory. He wonders whether the entire physical universe might be an exercise in virtual reality, so that "we're in the matrix rather than the physics itself".

Is there any justification for believing this wacky idea? You bet, says Nick Bostrom, a philosopher at Oxford University, who even has a website devoted to the topic ( http://www.simulation-argument.com). "Because their computers are so powerful, they could run a great many simulations," he writes in The Philosophical Quarterly.

So if there exist civilisations with cosmic simulating ability, then the fake universes they create would rapidly proliferate to outnumber the real ones. After all, virtual reality is a lot cheaper than the real thing. So by simple statistics, a random observer like you or me is most probably a simulated being in a fake world. And viewed from inside the matrix, we could never tell the difference.

Or could we? John Barrow, a colleague of Martin Rees at Cambridge University, wonders whether the simulators would go to the trouble and expense of making the virtual reality foolproof. Perhaps if we look closely enough we might catch the scenery wobbling.

He even suggests that a glitch in our simulated cosmic history may have already been discovered, by John Webb at the University of NSW. Webb has analysed the light from distant quasars, and found that something funny happened about 6 billion years ago - a minute shift in the speed of light. Could this be the simulators taking their eye off the ball?

I have to confess to being partly responsible for this mischief. Last year I wrote an item for The New York Times, saying that once the multiverse genie was let out of the bottle, Matrix-like scenarios inexorably follow. My conclusion was that perhaps we should retain a healthy scepticism for the multiverse concept until this was sorted out. But far from being a dampener on the theory, it only served to boost enthusiasm for it.

Where will it all end? Badly, perhaps. Now the simulators know we are on to them, and the game is up, they may lose interest and decide to hit the delete button. For your own sake, don't believe a word that I have written.

Answer 4

Our space is part of the universe and what is beyond that we don't know.

For some of the elementary particles, anti-particles have been found. Like positron for electron, anti-proton for proton etc.,

Answer 5

Space is where millions of universes are prevailing.

There's nothing called another space.

and yes. Every particle has got an anti particle.

For further details, contact me at my mail.
lill tough to explain here.

Answer 6

Anti de Sitter space
In mathematics and physics, n-dimensional anti de Sitter space, denoted AdSn, is the Lorentzian analog of n-dimensional hyperbolic space. It is a maximally symmetric, Lorentzian manifold with constant negative curvature.
In the language of general relativity, anti de Sitter space is a maximally symmetric, vacuum solution of Einstein's field equation with a negative cosmological constant Λ.
Anti de Sitter space is the negative curvature analogue of De Sitter space, which is named for Willem de Sitter. It is used in the AdS/CFT correspondence.
where α is some non-zero constant with dimensions of length. The metric on anti de Sitter space is the metric induced from the ambient metric. One can check that the induced metric is nondegenerate and has Lorentzian signature.
Anti de Sitter space can also defined as the quotient O(2,n−1)/O(1,n−1) of two indefinite orthogonal groups, which shows that it is a non-Riemannian symmetric space.
n-Dimensional anti de Sitter space has O(n−1, 2) as its isometry group. It is not simply-connected; it is homeomorphic to the product S1×Rn−1, so its fundamental group is the integers, and it has a contractible universal cover. Anti de Sitter spacetime has closed time-like loops, though its universal cover does not. Some authors use Anti de Sitter space to refer to the ……. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anti_de_Sitter_space
1. SPACE-TALK - anti-energy?
Message board for astronomy, space and related topics. ... the energy it would be consisting of anti-mater and the mass of energy would ...
www.space-talk.com/ForumE/showthread.php3?threadid=813
Why has space activity been viewed as somehow separate from these fundamental human concerns? Because from its inception and continuing today, space has been defined as unique, foreboding, difficult, and far away. Space is often seen as lifeless technologies and expensive programs, to which most people cannot relate. It’s time for this to stop. Space must be placed in a new living, human context so those who are neutral or anti-space will find their own personal reasons to care about and feel connected with space, as we do.
1. http://www.thespacereview.com/article/223/1anti-Space.com - News
XOOPS is a dynamic Object Oriented based open source portal script written in PHP. ... Main Menu. Home News Submit News Archive. Powered by XOOPS 2.0 © 2001-2003 ...
www.anti-space.com
The hollowness of the cosmic bubbles is the result of antimatter's self-repulsion:-
The antimatter -- at least as much in mass as the bubble-shaped matter (structure composed of a multitude of galaxies) surrounding it -- is not visible evidently because instead of being gravitationally self-attractive, it is anti-gravitationally self-repulsive (cannot aggregate to form stars, nor dense dust-clouds). This would imply that the virtual anti-gravitons, when colliding with antimatter, interact with the positive inertial mass of the antimatter [instead of with the negative gravitational mass of that antimatter], resulting in that, [like matter] it also they it push it away [instead of pulling it].
http://www.00.gs/antispace.htm

Answer 7

Visit and search : http://www.wikipedia.org

Answer 8

thats still unknown

Answer 9

theres myspace...