Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Science Forum

Science Forum

  1. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    17 Dec '10 18:20 / 1 edit
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

    Look at the images of the data, it's getting more serious now about the possibility we live in a multiverse.
  2. 17 Dec '10 22:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

    Look at the images of the data, it's getting more serious now about the possibility we live in a multiverse.
    This is quite mind-boggling!
    However, I am a bit skeptic.
  3. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    19 Dec '10 10:07
    Originally posted by FabianFnas
    This is quite mind-boggling!
    However, I am a bit skeptic.
    As you and everyone else should be, since it is based on statistic surfing. Till the newer probes are launched and as it says, three times more resolution, it will remain just that, evidence and fairly weak at that.
  4. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    20 Dec '10 05:25
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    http://www.physorg.com/news/2010-12-scientists-evidence-universes.html

    Look at the images of the data, it's getting more serious now about the possibility we live in a multiverse.
    It was grasped before



    http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/61/68
  5. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    20 Dec '10 15:28
    Originally posted by black beetle
    It was grasped before



    http://www.scigod.com/index.php/sgj/article/viewFile/61/68
    Pretty clear these dudes just want to destroy anything that does not include a god to make a universe. Not very subtle either.
  6. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    20 Dec '10 16:36
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Pretty clear these dudes just want to destroy anything that does not include a god to make a universe. Not very subtle either.
    A creator god is not needed for the universe can do its thing on its own, as it is clear to a subtle observer. I like Smetham
  7. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    21 Dec '10 19:21
    Originally posted by black beetle
    A creator god is not needed for the universe can do its thing on its own, as it is clear to a subtle observer. I like Smetham
    My own theory is our universe was created in a cosmic version of a high school physics lab, they were able to set up the laws that would lead to life and they can watch various bits of it, not too close though, the observation method would destroy the subject, like a biological cell put directly into an electron microscope. So we are left alone to evolve as we will.
  8. 21 Dec '10 23:00
    Personally, I would be utmost surprised if the universe in which we live, evolved from the big bang that we "know", would be the only one. First we thought the earth was flat and other continents besides europe, asia, and africa did not exist. Then we thought the earth on which we lived was the center of the world. Then we thought that our solar system was the center of the universe. Now, the theory is popular that the big bang from which our universe was created is the beginning of time and space. The centralistic philosophy of humans is unbreakable despite proving to be wrong each time. I find it much more likely that the big bang is just a like bubble in a boiling "soup" that exploded. But the soup is much bigger and probably contains much bubbles.
  9. Standard member black beetle
    Black Beastie
    22 Dec '10 05:50
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    My own theory is our universe was created in a cosmic version of a high school physics lab, they were able to set up the laws that would lead to life and they can watch various bits of it, not too close though, the observation method would destroy the subject, like a biological cell put directly into an electron microscope. So we are left alone to evolve as we will.
    My own theory is that we have merely theories regarding this matter
  10. Standard member Palynka
    Upward Spiral
    22 Dec '10 12:49
    Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB.

    Still interesting, I guess. Could these be something beyond statistical anomaly but NOT clashes with other "bubble universes"?
  11. Standard member sonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    22 Dec '10 13:51
    Originally posted by Palynka
    Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB.

    Still interesting, I guess. Could these be something beyond statistical anomaly but NOT clashes with other "bubble universes"?
    Wouldn't it be interesting if the circles sussed out with the statistical analysis actually was a cosmic sized peace symbol?
  12. 23 Dec '10 19:08 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by TitusvE
    Personally, I would be utmost surprised if the universe in which we live, evolved from the big bang that we "know", would be the only one. First we thought the earth was flat and other continents besides europe, asia, and africa did not exist. Then we thought the earth on which we lived was the center of the world. Then we thought that our solar system was t ...[text shortened]... oiling "soup" that exploded. But the soup is much bigger and probably contains much bubbles.
    “....Now, the theory is popular that the big bang from which our universe was created is the beginning of time and space. The centralistic philosophy of humans is unbreakable despite proving to be wrong each time. ...”

    I think you misunderstand; the reason why, rightly or wrongly, many scientists think that the beginning of our universe was the beginning of time and space has nothing to do with “The centralistic philosophy of humans” but, rather, is because the equations of physics we currently have mathematically imply this and so, unlike with the past belief that the Earth is the centre of the solar system etc, there is actually a pretty good albeit not a necessarily correct/flawless premise for such a belief.
    Whether the assumption that what our current equations imply about this is actually correct is a completely different matter for we have yet to unify all the laws of physics and we still don't have a complete theory of everything.
  13. 23 Dec '10 19:51
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “....Now, the theory is popular that the big bang from which our universe was created is the beginning of time and space. The centralistic philosophy of humans is unbreakable despite proving to be wrong each time. ...”

    I think you misunderstand; the reason why, rightly or wrongly, many scientists think that the beginning of our universe was the be ...[text shortened]... e yet to unify all the laws of physics and we still don't have a complete theory of everything.
    I don't agree. Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. Starting from a certain starting condition, our physics laws aim to predict how it is evolving. The big bang theory evolves from observations of the motion of the planets and stars around us as far as we can see. Backpropagating the equations of motion seem to suggest that maybe all these objects came originally from a single point. That might well be true but does not say anything about matter that is millions times further away than we can observe. Maybe there is matter that arised from a different big bang, but it is so far away that is doesn't interfere with our big-bang-universe.
  14. 23 Dec '10 21:30
    Originally posted by TitusvE
    I don't agree. Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. Starting from a certain starting condition, our physics laws aim to predict how it is evolving. The big bang theory evolves from observations of the motion of the planets and stars around us as far as we can see. Backpropagating the equations of motion seem t ...[text shortened]... fferent big bang, but it is so far away that is doesn't interfere with our big-bang-universe.
    “....Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. ...”

    But they can and do! Obviously we can use the equations to predict conditions further and further back in time until we see what those equations predict was the initial conduction. Whether that prediction is actually correct is a different matter but, the fact remains, the equations can make a bad/good prediction of such a thing.

    “...Starting from a certain starting condition, our physics laws aim to predict how it is evolving. ...”

    They can do. But how would you think that scientists, correctly or incorrectly, predict that “ certain starting condition”? The answer is using the equations and running an abstract simulation backwards from the universe we know today.

    “...the big bang theory evolves from observations of the motion of the planets and stars around us as far as we can see. Backpropagating the equations of motion seem to suggest that maybe all these objects came originally from a single point. That might well be true ...”

    …..and probably is true judging from Occam's razor ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor )

    “...That might well be true but does not say anything about matter that is millions times further away than we can observe. ...”

    I am not an expert on this but I presume that the equations imply that, from the known current rate of expansion and the amount of calculated 4D curvature of space over the greatest observable distances, the universe is unbounded (in 3D; so therefore it cannot accommodate an infinite amount of space in 3D for lots of universes ) but finite in size and with a calculateable size that is no where near great enough to accommodate “ matter that is millions times further away than we can observe”.
  15. 24 Dec '10 00:12
    Originally posted by Andrew Hamilton
    “....Our laws of physics don't say anything about the initial conditions of the universe. ...”

    But they can and do! Obviously we can use the equations to predict conditions further and further back in time until we see what those equations predict was the initial conduction. Whether that prediction is actually correct is a different matter but, t ...[text shortened]... great enough to accommodate “ matter that is millions times further away than we can observe”.
    Sorry. Your reply in confusing as you interrupt my quote several times while giving a reply which is exactly the same as the continuation of my story. In the end I could not tell whether you agree or disagree with me.