20 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOnly the evilutionists are interested in it, because their evilution theory is breaking down and they need some more delusional propaganda to prop it up.
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-rethinking-universe-groundbreaking-theory-multiverse.html#ajTabs
The Instructor
20 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseThe problem with this is that they are using the anthropic principle to justify their theory, that the universe has many regions with different values for the Higgs mass. The problem they are trying to resolve is that the Higgs has to have an unnaturally small mass to get the observed particle spectra and if it's much out then things like star formation can't happen. A theory that requires fine tuning of its parameters to get something that even approximates to what we observe is regarded as problematic for a theory.
http://phys.org/news/2013-06-rethinking-universe-groundbreaking-theory-multiverse.html#ajTabs
So they are proposing a universe with lot's of different regions with different Higgs masses as a "get out of jail free card". Their justification for this is the absence of any other good explanation of the low Higgs mass. So they are using an unnatural value to justify our patch of the universe being regarded as special, which to my mind doesn't really get out of the problem. Since there's also no especially good explanation, that I know of, as to why the weak force only couples to the left handed chiral component of the fermion fields I think that there's enough left out of the theory that that kind of explanation isn't good enough. All the low Higgs mass points to is that the Standard Model isn't complete.
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI think I'll believe the physcists/scientists over you and RJ Mind(less).
The problem with this is that they are using the anthropic principle to justify their theory, that the universe has many regions with different values for the Higgs mass. The problem they are trying to resolve is that the Higgs has to have an unnaturally small mass to get the observed particle spectra and if it's much out then things like star formation ...[text shortened]... d enough. All the low Higgs mass points to is that the Standard Model isn't complete.
If you do happen to prove them wrong, I'll be the first one to congratulate you on your Nobel Prizes 😉
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by DeepThoughtI'm wondering if there is a connection between the multidimension idea of gravity being 'shared' among dimensions explaining why it is so weak compared to electroweak forces. Could it be the Higgs is also shared between dimensions? It could be another 'coupler' between dimensions.
The problem with this is that they are using the anthropic principle to justify their theory, that the universe has many regions with different values for the Higgs mass. The problem they are trying to resolve is that the Higgs has to have an unnaturally small mass to get the observed particle spectra and if it's much out then things like star formation ...[text shortened]... d enough. All the low Higgs mass points to is that the Standard Model isn't complete.
22 Jun 13
1 edit
Originally posted by sonhouseIt could be gravity is weak compared to other forces if it's not a force in the same way other forces are defined. If gravity is linked to time then it may not be something that travels in a wave or travels at all, but could be something having an instantaneous effect. We all know what gravity does, but does anyone have a clear idea of what gravity actually is? This has been bugging me since I was teenager. I have an idea of what it might be, but that's all I have.
I'm wondering if there is a connection between the multidimension idea of gravity being 'shared' among dimensions explaining why it is so weak compared to electroweak forces. Could it be the Higgs is also shared between dimensions? It could be another 'coupler' between dimensions.
By the way, showing how multiverses could exist would put a new twist on the eternal static universe vs a universe having a starting point debate. There was a lot of debate about that back when the big bang was a new theory. It would also solve the problem of how to get something from nothing... by showing there never was nothing. I'm not saying I believe in the existence of multiverses or hoping it's true, I'm just saying I can see how it could be used to solve (or patch over) some existing problems.
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThe only thing that does with the some thing from nothing is push it out a
It could be gravity is weak compared to other forces if it's not a force in the same way other forces are defined. If gravity is linked to time then it may not be something that travels in a wave or travels at all, but could be something having an instantaneous effect. We all know what gravity does, but does anyone have a clear idea of what gravity ...[text shortened]... just saying I can see how it could be used to solve (or patch over) some existing problems.
little more.
Kelly
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by KellyJayIt took me a moment to understand what you meant, but I think you are talking about first cause?
The only thing that does with the some thing from nothing is push it out a
little more.
Kelly
Eliminating first cause is not as easy as it seems, because doing so means you need to deal with infinity. And trying to factor in infinity is about as easy as trying to divide zero by zero. For example, if Johnny has an infinite number of apples in his pocket, and Suzie has half as many apples as Johnny, how many apples does Susie have? The math doesn't quite work, or if it does it's extremely limited.
Eternally regenerating multiverses doesn't resolve the problem of first cause, it just pushes it away.
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by lemon limeThere is some visual evidence in the MBR patterns seeming to show what they call the "axis of evil" which may be a sign the whole universe was whacked pretty hard by another universe. That seems to be the only thing that explains it. Google it, should be something there about it.
It could be gravity is weak compared to other forces if it's not a force in the same way other forces are defined. If gravity is linked to time then it may not be something that travels in a wave or travels at all, but could be something having an instantaneous effect. We all know what gravity does, but does anyone have a clear idea of what gravity ...[text shortened]... just saying I can see how it could be used to solve (or patch over) some existing problems.
22 Jun 13
4 edits
Originally posted by lemon limehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Laura_Mersini-Houghton
Were you drunk when you read it?
(this doesn't mention "axis of evil" but her work is very closely related)
http://english.pravda.ru/science/mysteries/13-07-2011/118468-universe_axis-0/
(this does say "axis of evil" )
Are you drunk now?
22 Jun 13
Originally posted by sonhouseOops, I thought you were asking if I was drunk. LOL
There is some visual evidence in the MBR patterns seeming to show what they call the "axis of evil" which may be a sign the whole universe was whacked pretty hard by another universe. That seems to be the only thing that explains it. Google it, should be something there about it.
If our universe could be whacked by another universe, doesn't that mean it exists alongside of our universe, instead of being a universe in a different dimension?