1. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13417
    04 Aug '11 19:16
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm

    I don't have any questions so just feel free to comment if any of you are inclined to do so.
  2. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    04 Aug '11 19:44
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm

    I don't have any questions so just feel free to comment if any of you are inclined to do so.
    Utter crap.
  3. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13417
    05 Aug '11 02:25
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Utter crap.
    As if you would know. There is no way to disprove it.

    Did it make you feel superior to call it crap or did it just intimidate you too much?
  4. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    05 Aug '11 04:09
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm

    I don't have any questions so just feel free to comment if any of you are inclined to do so.
    I've discussed the multiverse concept extensively in the Spirituality form. I believe it is entirely plausible, and it has come up now and then in the mathematical models of theoretical physicists trying to explain certain curious aspects of quantum mechanics, among other things.

    In fact, I think the idea that our universe is the only universe is the notion that is absurd. It's like the old idea that our galaxy was the only galaxy (disproven almost a century ago), or the idea that our solar system was the only solar system (disproven a couple decades ago).
  5. Standard memberSoothfast
    0,1,1,2,3,5,8,13,21,
    Planet Rain
    Joined
    04 Mar '04
    Moves
    2441
    05 Aug '11 04:10
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Utter crap.
    A curious attitude. Mighty curious.
  6. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13417
    05 Aug '11 04:42
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    I've discussed the multiverse concept extensively in the Spirituality form. I believe it is entirely plausible, and it has come up now and then in the mathematical models of theoretical physicists trying to explain certain curious aspects of quantum mechanics, among other things.

    In fact, I think the idea that our universe is the only uni ...[text shortened]... or the idea that our solar system was the only solar system (disproven a couple decades ago).
    I agree.
    I think that without multiverses it would be hard to say that the laws of physics could be so workable in our universe by random chance. I can argue that life started by chance, but the convenient laws of physics as they are with only one universe? I don't think I could do that without doubting myself in a serious way.
    If I had to accept there was only one universe I would have to accept the creationist view as a real possibility. I don't see any way around it.
  7. Joined
    05 Feb '11
    Moves
    2158
    05 Aug '11 08:11
    Anyone see the movie "The One" starring Jet Lee?

    It is about Multiple universes and multiples of us and travel through the multiple universes and of course Kung fu.
  8. Standard memberPalynka
    Upward Spiral
    Halfway
    Joined
    02 Aug '04
    Moves
    8702
    05 Aug '11 10:122 edits
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    In fact, I think the idea that our universe is the only universe is the notion that is absurd. It's like the old idea that our galaxy was the only galaxy (disproven almost a century ago), or the idea that our solar system was the only solar system (disproven a couple decades ago).
    But that seems weird to me. What do people mean by universe and multiverse?

    Isn't the universe what contains everything that exists...by definition? If other things exists, why are they in other universes and not part of a universe that is a bit different than what we thought (say, higher dimensional)? Maybe this is just semantics, but it all boils down to the first question above.

    Better yet, how do physicists define the universe and multiverse?
  9. Standard memberadam warlock
    Baby Gauss
    Ceres
    Joined
    14 Oct '06
    Moves
    18375
    05 Aug '11 10:39
    Originally posted by Soothfast
    A curious attitude. Mighty curious.
    Let me break it down:

    1 - The article cited is utter crap with a bunch of baloney on it. The first baloney is "is, for the first time, being tested by physicists.". No it isn't and it certainly won't be tested any time in the future. The said methodology, better what I can gather is the methodology, certainly isn't convincing on so many levels. But the basic thing is that we don't know almost nothing about the Universe on its first instants and any simulation that simulates the Universe from its start has to be looked with very suspicious eyes. Since I haven't read the actual article though I can't be much 'profound' on my critique of this point.

    2 - The whole notion of the multiverse and how it came to be doesn't really appeal to me. You made a somewhat good argument for the advent of this concept but still I won't bite. The concept of multiverse spawns directly from string theory and in this last year or so the amount of hype that is coming from guys Susskind and co really is unbearable. Take this for instance: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796
  10. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13417
    05 Aug '11 13:45
    Originally posted by adam warlock
    Let me break it down:

    1 - The article cited is utter crap with a bunch of baloney on it. The first baloney is "is, for the first time, being tested by physicists.". No it isn't and it certainly won't be tested any time in the future. The said methodology, better what I can gather is the methodology, certainly isn't convincing on so many levels. But t ...[text shortened]... and co really is unbearable. Take this for instance: http://arxiv.org/abs/1105.3796
    Here is where I agree with you. There is a lot of speculation all over the place with these guys. These guys have a theory that multiverses are within a bubble. There is no reason that multiverses can't be individual in each bubble with lots of bubbles. How can we tell? We can't. At this point proving or disproving it is impossible and for all we know it may stay that way.

    So why do they have a theory that multiverses are in a bubble or something along that way of thinking? My guess is to support the many worlds theory made known by Hugh Everett III to explain the uncertainty in QM. Other physicists have struggled to explain the uncertainty principle in vain and that has resulted in a second look at Hugh Everett's theory with the seriousness that was lacking after he proposed it early on. PBS's Nova even examined Hugh Everett and his theory giving him some degree of credibility that he was denied for so long.

    http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/manyworlds/

    There was no mention of string theory in the article that I noticed, but like ST it may be doomed to be an untestable theory for some time if not forever. Whether or not this theory was devised by string theorists is not important since the multiverse theories are not dependent on ST. Many proponents of ST do entertain the existence of multiple dimensions and that may be why they take this sort of thing more serious than others, if there is truth to your claim that mutiverse theory is spawned directly from string theory.
    From my perspective, it is silly to suggest that the laws of physics are the same everywhere unless you believe in creationism by an omnipotent being such as god, or unless our single universe has been expanding and collapsing millions of times until the laws of physics turned out like they are now in this workable and convenient way. That too is possible, but even the big bang is just a theory. That too can be denied if you don't want to bite, but there seems to be evidence that the universe is expanding which gives some credibility to the big bang theory.

    Since the expanding of the universe seems to be accelerating, a big collapse is questionable and only makes the multiverse theory more appealing. Then again, maybe only a portion of the universe is expanding. We could find that out some day. That is the thing about theories. Nobody has to accept them if they don't want to. All great theories start out with speculation and skepticism. That is the nature of physics.
  11. Joined
    18 Jan '07
    Moves
    6857
    06 Aug '11 18:01
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm

    I don't have any questions so just feel free to comment if any of you are inclined to do so.
    Interesting, but (as far as I can tell) highly speculative, as yet. That picture certainly is far too clear to be convincing. After all, if we bubble-bounced once, providing such a beautiful circle, why didn't we do so several times? And if we did, where are the other circles?

    Richard
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    52619
    06 Aug '11 18:40
    Originally posted by Shallow Blue
    Interesting, but (as far as I can tell) highly speculative, as yet. That picture certainly is far too clear to be convincing. After all, if we bubble-bounced once, providing such a beautiful circle, why didn't we do so several times? And if we did, where are the other circles?

    Richard
    They haven't found any circles yet, the study has just started. Lets find the first one before we ask those kind of questions. It's speculation on top of speculation at this point.
  13. Standard memberDasa
    Dasa
    Account suspended
    Joined
    20 May '10
    Moves
    8042
    09 Aug '11 16:21
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2011/08/110803102844.htm

    I don't have any questions so just feel free to comment if any of you are inclined to do so.
    For eternity the Vedas which are the authority on everything have been describing the creation of universes and much more in much detail...................science has some catching up to do.

    Here is just a tiny piece of that information.

    Below Patala is the Garbha ocean (Garbhodaka) filling half of the
    universe on which Garbhodakasayi Vishnu lies on Ananta Shesha and from His navel grows a lotus. In the stem of this lotus are situated all the planetary systems (SB 3.28.25, etc.).


    Outside this universe Maha-Vishnu is lying on the Causal Ocean and while He is exhaling, millions of universes are coming as bubbles from His body and they are developing again. And when He is inhaling, millions of universes are going within Him. Thus these material universes are being created and again annihilated.

    "The Maha-Vishnu, into whom all the innumerable universes enter and from whom they come forth again simply by His breathing process, is a plenary expansion of Krishna. Therefore I worship Govinda, Krishna, the cause of all causes." (Brahma-samhita 5.48)
  14. Joined
    07 Dec '05
    Moves
    13417
    09 Aug '11 21:46
    Originally posted by Dasa
    For eternity the Vedas which are the authority on everything have been describing the creation of universes and much more in much detail...................science has some catching up to do.

    Here is just a tiny piece of that information.

    Below Patala is the Garbha ocean (Garbhodaka) filling half of the
    universe on which Garbhodakasayi Vishnu lies on Ana ...[text shortened]... Krishna. Therefore I worship Govinda, Krishna, the cause of all causes." (Brahma-samhita 5.48)
    What are the Vedas?
  15. Germany
    Joined
    27 Oct '08
    Moves
    3081
    09 Aug '11 22:02
    Originally posted by Metal Brain
    What are the Vedas?
    Don't Vedas the troll...
Back to Top