Time before the Big Bang?: evidence.

Originally posted by @deepthought
It's a problem for supersymmetric theories of quantum gravity (SUGRA) as they don't work properly in low numbers of dimensions. Since M theory involves a collection of dualities between the various superstring theories and SUGRA. If SUGRA's broken then they are too. So I think that "only four dimensions" is a problem for these theories.

There is s ...[text shortened]... ass energy is returned to this universe in the end. So it basically hasn't gone into a new one.

It sounds like a game changer if they show white holes to be true. The stuff inside the WH would be going SOMEWHERE and that somewhere isn't in OUR universe so that alone would require the reality of at least one extra dimension. This must be giving the string dudes headaches😉

Originally posted by @sonhouse
It sounds like a game changer if they show white holes to be true. The stuff inside the WH would be going SOMEWHERE and that somewhere isn't in OUR universe so that alone would require the reality of at least one extra dimension. This must be giving the string dudes headaches😉

The extra dimensions the string dudes invented, they are small, subatomically small. You know this, don't you?
Don't use them as a proof about other universes. Because if you try to do, then you end up in pure speculations by false premises of religious proportions.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
The extra dimensions the string dudes invented, they are small, subatomically small. You know this, don't you?
Don't use them as a proof about other universes. Because if you try to do, then you end up in pure speculations by false premises of religious proportions.

For now the extra dimensions are just speculation. Same with other universes.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
For now the extra dimensions are just speculation. Same with other universes.

Alright then. The String dudes may be wrong. The other universes may be wrong. The apocalypse people from the Spiritual Forum may be wrong. What about the simulation of the universe, can they be wrong (if you took the right pill)? 😉

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Alright then. The String dudes may be wrong. The other universes may be wrong. The apocalypse people from the Spiritual Forum may be wrong. What about the simulation of the universe, can they be wrong (if you took the right pill)? 😉

It obviously takes a lot more evidence than the circular patterns shown in the cosmic microwave background to say for sure there are other universes but it is a door ever so slightly cracked open in that direction. It would seem to me if that proves true with other corroborating evidence it would be like two bubbles banging together in a swimming pool where the water would represent another dimension allowing both universes to exist side by side, either that or there is a space outside OUR space, which I guess would amount to the same thing. Of course, news at 11.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
It obviously takes a lot more evidence than the circular patterns shown in the cosmic microwave background to say for sure there are other universes but it is a door ever so slightly cracked open in that direction. It would seem to me if that proves true with other corroborating evidence it would be like two bubbles banging together in a swimming pool wher ...[text shortened]... a space outside OUR space, which I guess would amount to the same thing. Of course, news at 11.

The circles is just a statistical effect, an effect of flawed numerical methods. Nothing more.
I'm sure you can produce squared pattern to, if you're not cautious.

You think there are other universes in some direction other than our normal three dimensions. Just point at the four-dimensional direction and show me. Or else think again.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
The circles is just a statistical effect, an effect of flawed numerical methods. Nothing more.
I'm sure you can produce squared pattern to, if you're not cautious.

You think there are other universes in some direction other than our normal three dimensions. Just point at the four-dimensional direction and show me. Or else think again.

What about "membrane" theory?

Originally posted by @wolfe63
What about "membrane" theory?

You mean, according to the string theory, there are 11 dimensions?
Well, only 4 of them is big enough to be seen or measured.
The other are subatomic, closed, and has never been observed.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
The circles is just a statistical effect, an effect of flawed numerical methods. Nothing more.
I'm sure you can produce squared pattern to, if you're not cautious.

You think there are other universes in some direction other than our normal three dimensions. Just point at the four-dimensional direction and show me. Or else think again.

Of course it is a fairly weak statistical feature which is why I said further evidence is needed to show validity of that evidence. So far that is the only evidence, so time will tell and as the best computers get even stronger, newer analysis can refute or kill that evidence so I am sure scientists are pursuing that method also. Computers are getting up to Exaflop levels, not there yet but that is the future of the best on the planet.

Originally posted by @wolfe63
What about "membrane" theory?

Membrane theory is string theory taken to the next level. Still requiring 10 or 11 dimensions.
Curled up so you can't see them mostly ever. It is going to take science a LOT more advanced to take advantage of them assuming they are real.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Of course it is a fairly weak statistical feature which is why I said further evidence is needed to show validity of that evidence. So far that is the only evidence, so time will tell and as the best computers get even stronger, newer analysis can refute or kill that evidence so I am sure scientists are pursuing that method also. Computers are getting up to Exaflop levels, not there yet but that is the future of the best on the planet.

Do you remember when they found out that neutrinos were faster than light? Not by much, but a little? Turned out that the experimental methods were flawed.

I think we must be much more cautious when we find 'evidence' of parallel Universes, and such extraordinary results. That's my penny worth.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Do you remember when they found out that neutrinos were faster than light? Not by much, but a little? Turned out that the experimental methods were flawed.

I think we must be much more cautious when we find 'evidence' of parallel Universes, and such extraordinary results. That's my penny worth.

Worth a lot more than a penny my friend. That's why I mentioned the supercomputers which could add credence or kill the evidence, if it is just a statistical anomaly. But I hope not. I hope there is something more than this universe.

Originally posted by @sonhouse
Worth a lot more than a penny my friend. That's why I mentioned the supercomputers which could add credence or kill the evidence, if it is just a statistical anomaly. But I hope not. I hope there is something more than this universe.

Some hope for the return of Messiah. Some hope for a new Universe. Samo, samo.

Originally posted by @fabianfnas
Some hope for the return of Messiah. Some hope for a new Universe. Samo, samo.

See? Nothing religious about it, just crackpot pseudo-science.

Originally posted by @shallow-blue
See? Nothing religious about it, just crackpot pseudo-science.

Funny how a couple hundred years ago it was crackpot theory that man could fly, couldn't take the tremendous wind that would be generated, blown apart in mid air.

Or sending men to the moon, frigging crackpots.