Reply With Quote
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Another reason why human-centric, "Christian"-centric, earth-centric creationist universe is so damn silly.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/science-environment-14372387
For those not familiar with the theory, it holds that any given universe has a unique radiation signature. Our universe as well as others, likely popped into existence as a result of chaotic conditions in free space. As they were being created, they many have bumped into one another leaving a "bruise" of sorts. We look for disc-shaped signatures (imaging the contact plane of two beach balls which temporarily deform when hitting ech other). Thus far, 4 unique signatures have been identified through computer algorithms.The idea that other universes - as well as our own - lie within "bubbles" of space and time has received a boost.
Studies of the low-temperature glow left from the Big Bang suggest that several of these "bubble universes" may have left marks on our own.
This "multiverse" idea is popular in modern physics, but experimental tests have been hard to come by.
The preliminary work, to be published in Physical Review D, will be firmed up using data from the Planck telescope.
My snyopsis based on:
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/n...nce-microwave/
"There are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio,
Than are dreamt of in your philosophy."
Another reason why human-centric, "Christian"-centric, earth-centric creationist universe is so damn silly.
Wow - this is freaking cool.
Bumped for BB's viewing pleasure .
Thanks for the link. It's not so much the idea of a multiverse that I take issue with: it's Brian Green's assertion on last week's Nova that infinitely-many parallel universes created from the same initial conditions necessitates repe ion of some. I'll have to pick up a copy of The Elegant Universe and see if he fleshes the idea out better, because as he presented it on the show it sounds like either a misunderstanding about infinities or that he left out some important ideas about spacetime being some kind of finite grid; e.g., when you do a measurement, it has to land on the grid and there is no concept of spacetime between points.
I'm sure alternate universe me is a badass.
Way cool. I missed this the first time around. Thanks!
Edit: Interesting article. Finding a way to "test" other multiverses would be a pretty staggering development if it held up.
Last edited by LnGrrrR; 12-01-2011 at 01:24 PM.
If physical laws were bounded to or constrained to each universe, perhaps. ie: Is the system of infinite universes one, or many separate and distinct systems. I don't personally see it either, at least from the standpoint of "same initial conditions". See my example below.
General Warning, getting a bit technical here:
One could argue that a analogous paradox exists in characterizing the "escape velocity" of an object with respect to a black hole. It's an a priori "two body" question no? Unfortunately, the only solutions which exist for Einsteins field equations are for single bodies. This is implicit since Einstein set the energy momentum tensor to zero in order to arrive at his solution. Removal of that tensor removes all conditions for a gravitational field which must exist for the second object.... an object which we must have for any discussion of an escape velocity. In English, this means that any discussion of a black hole assumes that it is the only object in that spacetime construct (one-body).
So too, must Greene be careful when he invokes the "initial condition" argument. He argues that new universes "pop" into existence, implying a two-body (at one point it was just two bodies, now supposedly infinitely many.......) argument. Which field equations gave rise to that hypothesis then? Certainly not any we currently have. At this point, I could invoke my supposition from before that each universe "carries" it's own set of physical laws, which then leads down the same winding staircase.....
Indeed we see "bruising" at the far reaches of spacetime. That however is predicated on the notion that x-ray signatures are different for each "multiverse" en y. This qualifies as a demonstrable physical difference between each. If "identical" universes bump into each other, what then? To me, identification of an "identical" universe would be tricky if not impossible with our current level of technology.
So two things I'm skeptical about: 1) How was Greene's hypothesis born? and 2) Supposing that Greene is correct, what physical evidence would present itself as conclusively demonstrating the existence of an "identical" universe.
Chicken and egg is probably the simplest way of think about it. That of course leaves many of the finer details on the shelf, and they can quickly become a necessary part of any conversation of this nature.
Ya, it's been a while since I've put my nose in it. The finer points I've forgotten. There are certainly more morsels in there than the show had.
I also see your argument about infinites. We know that to question whether something has boundaries is necessarily separate from the "Is it infinite" dilemma. Keep in mind also, that space and matter aren't causally linked. That's an important consideration in multiverse construction.
Dammit BB, now I want to pick it up again. Thanks for nothing.
The ?
I thought Dan's existence was proof enough of alternate universes.
Ag, that's the problem I have with the infiniverse theory as well. It's nigh untestable, and more based on philosophy than science.
If anything, the story seemingly implied other possible universes, but not an infinite amount.
The whole "what's beyond the boundaries of space" question is 5% scientific, and 95% philosophical, in my eyes.
Aliens come from our universe 101.
Yeah. I believe the "infinite" universe tail is born more of Greene's imagination than established theory. When suppositions cross over into the "untestable" waters, we begin to lose the "scent" so to speak.
That there might be "some" number of other universes out there is a distinct possibility, one corroborated by direct observation.
Its testable. Thats why they are looking for those radiation signatures. its cir stantial and not conclusive by itself but its still experimentally possible.
The problem with Green's supersymmetry is that the symmetry is based around the absolute nature is the speed of light independent of motion. Recent events in central Europe have called all of that into question. It doesn't necessarliy have the neat constant axis going from e to muon to tau like they thought.
Testable in the sense of a discrete number of other universes. Not testable in the sense that there are infinite other universes based off whether certain quanta decide to spin left or right.
You know, I'm starting to agree with those who says the odds of us all being in a simulation are near 100%... I just think whoever made the simulation figured we'd all kill ourselves off before we dug into the details, so he just fudged the really huge and the really small stuff.
Haha, so is the book bathtub reading or table of integrals at your side reading?Dammit BB, now I want to pick it up again. Thanks for nothing.
Haha, so is the book bathtub reading or table of integrals at your side reading?
I'll probably pick it up after I'm done fidgeting with the quantum computing book I have (no thanks to LnG for that gem).
The Grand Marnier might work well for physicists; beer is indispensable for quality programming tbh.
I'll probably pick it up after I'm done fidgeting with the quantum computing book I have (no thanks to LnG for that gem).
Are you saying we found Heaven, , Purgatory, and something else?
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
