14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNope, you are wrong on this one my friend. Whilst Black holes are directly unobservable, the (Hawking) radiation they emit is not. Multiverses are entirely theoretical, wishful thinking I rather believe.
Like I said, you're doing EXACTLY what the fundies do. Changing the definitions of words (since you're trying to talk like a scientist, you have to use the term like scientists use it), ridiculing scientific theories (a black hole is unobserveable too) and in general holding your breath till you turn blue. Sloppy thinking on your part.
Trying to talk like a scientist? I am a scientist!
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzI suggest you study Inflation Theory as it relates to the Big Bang. It is an attempt to explain aspects of the universe that are not adequately covered in present theory. It is directly related to multiverses.
Nope, you are wrong on this one my friend. Whilst Black holes are directly unobservable, the (Hawking) radiation they emit is not. Multiverses are entirely theoretical, wishful thinking I rather believe.
Trying to talk like a scientist? I am a scientist!
You might also want to check the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics.
You are using scientific terms incorrectly to insist that there is nothing that can possibly exist outside of the universe. Maybe you're a botanist or something.
14 Apr 06
1 edit
Here's an excerpt from an article by Prof. Andrei Linde of Stanford:
One of the most important recent steps in the development of the multiverse theory was a discovery of the KKLT mechanism of moduli stabilization in string theory, which allows to explain accelerated expansion of the universe and inflation in the context of string theory. The KKLT mechanism can lead to an incredibly large number of different vacua, perhaps 10100 or even 101000, corresponding to different local minima of energy in a vast string theory landscape. This means that our multiverse may consist of exponentially many exponentially large domains (universes), each of which may live in accordance to one of the exponentially large variety of laws of the low-energy physics.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/
I'm not even sure what most of that means but it hardly sounds like some "wishful thinking" with no scientific basis at all.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderThis is indeed speculation!
You might also want to check the Many Worlds Interpretation of Quantum Physics.
And anyway the Many Word Interpretation doesn't mean there is more then one universe. There is a superposition of all worlds- which is the universe... or so the theory goes.
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KNo, it isn't. It is one of two most favored competing theories to explain certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics. And you are simply wrong:
This is indeed speculation!
And anyway the Many Word Interpretation doesn't mean there is more then one universe. There is a superposition of all worlds- which is the universe... or so the theory goes.
An interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by the American physicist Hugh Everett III in 1957, according to which, whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, one world for each different possibility (in this context, the term "worlds" refers to what most people call "universes"). The phrase "many worlds" was first used by Bryce DeWitt, who wrote more on the topic following Everett. In each of these worlds, everything starts out identical, except for the one initial difference; but from this point on, they develop independently. No communication is possible between the separate universe,
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/manyworlds.html
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderYes, they've done such a good job of experimentally showing those other 10 dimensions haven't they?!!!
No, it isn't. It is one of two most favored competing theories to explain certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics. And you are simply wrong:
An interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by the American physicist Hugh Everett III in 1957, according to which, whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, ...[text shortened]... separate [b]universe,
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/manyworlds.html[/b]
Marauder, I normally agree with you on most things but the concept of multiverses is merely that, a concept. It's completely untestable, and cannot be measured in any way whatsoever, so cannot even make it as far as being a hypothesis.
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by scottishinnzYou're sounding like a ridiculous fundamentalist. Try actually reading some of the material; it's a hypothesis to explain characteristics of the universe that don't work under standard Big Bang models. People are getting prizes in Physics for it, for Christ's sake. You sound like a yahoo; next tell me how string theory is speculation. Pretty soon, you're sitting on dj2becker's and KellyJay's side.
Yes, they've done such a good job of experimentally showing those other 10 dimensions haven't they?!!!
Marauder, I normally agree with you on most things but the concept of multiverses is merely that, a concept. It's completely untestable, and cannot be measured in any way whatsoever, so cannot even make it as far as being a hypothesis.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo, it isn't. It is one of two most favored competing theories to explain certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics.
No, it isn't. It is one of two most favored competing theories to explain certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics. And you are simply wrong:
An interpretation of quantum mechanics, first proposed by the American physicist Hugh Everett III in 1957, according to which, whenever numerous viable possibilities exist, the world splits into many worlds, ...[text shortened]... separate [b]universe,
http://www.daviddarling.info/encyclopedia/M/manyworlds.html[/b]
It most certaintly is not! The copenhagen interpretation is more favoured; the other-world theory is something scientists (and science fiction writers) sometimes toy with.
Also, in this current discourse it doesn't really matter how we define the universe. I think its best to accept the universe as all the oberved phenomena- obscure theoretical speculation aside.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI dont know if Scotty is right or you are- but as far as I can see, it is more meaningful to take Scotty's outlook. Its not that time only exists within this universe but that time can only really be understood in this universe. The rest is just wishful thinking.
You're sounding like a ridiculous fundamentalist. Try actually reading some of the material; it's a hypothesis to explain characteristics of the universe that don't work under standard Big Bang models. People are getting prizes in Physics for it, for Christ's sake. You sound like a yahoo; next tell me how string theory is speculation. Pretty soon, you're sitting on dj2becker's and KellyJay's side.
The multiverse thoery and other world theory doesn't not help- in any way- a discussion on "the beginning of the universe"
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KWhat part of "one of the two most favored competing theories" is particulary hard to understand???????? Some informal polls put the number of physicists who believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation as a majority. At any event, it is THE major competing theory to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
[b]No, it isn't. It is one of two most favored competing theories to explain certain aspects of Quantum Mechanics.
It most certaintly is not! The copenhagen interpretation is more favoured; the other-world theory is something scientists (and science fiction writers) sometimes toy with.
Also, in this current discourse it doesn't really matter how ...[text shortened]... st to accept the universe as all the oberved phenomena- obscure theoretical speculation aside.[/b]
I agree with you that it's just fine to define the "universe" as all observed phenomena. That does not mean that the rules in this universe always hold or that things (like "time"😉 only exist in this universe. The most we can say is that AT THIS POINT we don't know of any other universes or any other physical laws.
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderNo1marauder is the Al Gore of Time For Chess. God bless the also-rans.
What part of "one of the two most favored competing theories" is particulary hard to understand???????? Some informal polls put the number of physicists who believe in the Many Worlds Interpretation as a majority. At any event, it is THE major competing theory to the Copenhagen Interpretation.
I agree with you that it's just fine to define the " ...[text shortened]... y is that AT THIS POINT we don't know of any other universes or any other physical laws.
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by Conrau KActually the discussion was about "eternity" (read thread title). Still if one is going to use certain terms they should try to use them correctly. And one shouldn't claim that well-respected scientific theories regarding difficult unexplained aspects of well-known phenomena are "mere speculation".
I dont know if Scotty is right or you are- but as far as I can see, it is more meaningful to take Scotty's outlook. Its not that time only exists within this universe but that time can only really be understood in this universe. The rest is just wishful thinking.
The multiverse thoery and other world theory doesn't not help- in any way- a discussion on "the beginning of the universe"
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderCertainly it's a well explored concept, and it may explain some things about the universe that current big bang models don't, but that's why you create a model - to solve a problem. It's little surprise then that it solves the problems it was created to solve. In the absence of being testable however, it remains speculative, rather than being anything more solid than that. An example of a similar situation was Lamarkism. Lamark believed that characteristics acquired by a parent during it's lifetime could be passed onto the children. In terms of why giraffes have long necks this is a reasonable, although wrong, explanation, since the parents have to stretch for leaves, thus lengthening their necks. What it doesn't explain though is why 3 legged giraffes have 4 legged offspring!
Actually the discussion was about "eternity" (read thread title). Still if one is going to use certain terms they should try to use them correctly. And one shouldn't claim that well-respected scientific theories regarding difficult unexplained aspects of well-known phenomena are "mere speculation".
Now, I'm not saying that the multiverse concept is out and out wrong, I'm just saying it is speculative and untestable.
- Joined
- 15 Sep 04
- Moves
- 7051
14 Apr 06
Originally posted by no1marauderI disagree. Knightmeister was arguing that eternity implied that God does not need a beginning whereas atheists do require a beginning in their understanding of the univervse. It thus becomes a discussion on the "beginning of the universe" and whehter such a concept is feasible.
Actually the discussion was about "eternity" (read thread title). Still if one is going to use certain terms they should try to use them correctly. And one shouldn't claim that well-respected scientific theories regarding difficult unexplained aspects of well-known phenomena are "mere speculation".
And one shouldn't claim that well-respected scientific theories regarding difficult unexplained aspects of well-known phenomena are "mere speculation".
Well thats where we disagree, a) it not germane to this thread and b) the "respectedness" is disputable.