Jump to content

Multiverse theory

frankm134

By frankm134
in Science & Spaceflight

 Share

Recommended Posts

frankm134

frankm134

Posted
Posted

ok multiverse theory time

personally I disagree with this theory but I am going to talk about it anyway(also string theory supports this.)

basic description: there's more than one universe which is a bad use of the term because, uni- means 1

and another universe is created with every decision

better description:more than 1 universe. universes can split apart or merge together. imagine an infinite amount of bubbles and one of those bubbles is ours. around us we see bubbles splitting apart and merging together and more being produced. ok back to reality by reading this thread you created another universe and you reading this far made a whole other universe.

of course this is assuming the multiverse theory is correct

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Designer225

Designer225

Posted
Posted

Well, we don't know. Besides if multiverse do exist, then finding a universe like ours would be finding a needle in a haystack (hey, finding an Earth-like planet in a galaxy is already finding a needle in a haystack).

OOC: I did the same thread about this and actually set up a vote, but it went into the April 2013 trash compactor (for those of you in the forum long enough to remember, that was the April 2013 Forum Server Failure Disaster).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted (edited)
Not a theory, because theories require evidence. Multiverse is a hypothesis. Plausible, although a weak one.

Ayup. Not to be confused with Many Worlds, however, which is an interpretation of a theory. And that's a much stronger statement.

personally I disagree with this theory

And you are an authority on the subject because?

Frankly, in this case it doesn't matter, because as lajoswinkler explained, this is not a theory, but generally, when people say, "I disagree with a theory," it translates to, "I don't understand the theory." Unless you are someone doing research in the area, and you have scientific reasons for disagreement, you shouldn't be saying stuff like that.

Edited by K^2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
jwenting

jwenting

Posted
Posted

It's as plausible as the alternative... We just don't know, and most likely can't ever know, because if there were multiple universes most likely each would be isolated from the others, impossible to reach or communicate with (and thus impossible to detect).

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
Not a theory, because theories require evidence. Multiverse is a hypothesis. Plausible, although a weak one.

Higgs is too lite. LHC failed to find heavier particles add up to smoking gun evidence.

Multiverse to totally freaking confirmed. The only questions are why kind, and how many. Anyone who says otherwise is an anti-science denier.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
Higgs is too lite. LHC failed to find heavier particles add up to smoking gun evidence.

Multiverse to totally freaking confirmed. The only questions are why kind, and how many. Anyone who says otherwise is an anti-science denier.

You are talking total nonsense. I'm telling that to you as a particle physicist.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
You are talking total nonsense. I'm telling that to you as a particle physicist.

Ahhh yes, then you know that LHC is a failure by its own definition. Before launch they defined failure as "failing to find particles heavier than Higgs" which is exactly what happened.

Now go back and read the Higgs announce again. Look at what gauge theory said the weight of Higgs would be, now look at what QM said Higgs would weigh.

Notice that? Look Im sorry you backed the wrong horse, but multiverse is totally freaking confirmed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted

Do you actually understand what "gauge theory" means? How about the assumptions that went into predictions of the Higgs boson mass? How about why that prediction exists in the first place? Do you know why Higgs mechanism is important?

Not to mention that your argument is, "The numbers that scientists predicted don't match the ones they got. Therefore, this totally unrelated idea I have is right."

How about you start by defining your multiverse? Tell me the degrees of freedom, relevant fields, and Lagrangian of the theory. Anything? No? I honestly didn't think so.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
Do you actually understand what "gauge theory" means? How about the assumptions that went into predictions of the Higgs boson mass? How about why that prediction exists in the first place? Do you know why Higgs mechanism is important?

Not to mention that your argument is, "The numbers that scientists predicted don't match the ones they got. Therefore, this totally unrelated idea I have is right."

How about you start by defining your multiverse? Tell me the degrees of freedom, relevant fields, and Lagrangian of the theory. Anything? No? I honestly didn't think so.

Hey kids, this is what the old timey physicists who believe in superstitious ideas like "Supersymetry" looks like.

Also, I don't spend large amount of time studying sciences that that have no basis what so ever for describing 96% of the quasi-observable matter in the cosmos, theoretical or otherwise. (because all the candidates have been eliminated by a Higgs that weighs too little, and a total failure to find heavier particles)

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted (edited)

Ok, lets look at it from a different perspective. Can you make any of your own predictions? Could you compute for me a mass of the heaviest neutron star? How about neutron cross-section of a nucleus? Because these are practical things that my "old timey" physics lets me compute.

What can you do? What is your contribution to our technological advancement? Working a register at McDonalds does not count.

because all the candidates have been eliminated by a Higgs that weighs too little

Said a person who doesn't know what a Higgs boson is. And nobody cared.

Edited by K^2
Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
Ok, lets look at it from a different perspective. Can you make any of your own predictions? Could you compute for me a mass of the heaviest neutron star? How about neutron cross-section of a nucleus? Because these are practical things that my "old timey" physics lets me compute.

What can you do? What is your contribution to our technological advancement? Working a register at McDonalds does not count.

,

I know with absolute certainty that you and I are equal peers in all matters of obtaining, handling and machining neutronium. That both you and I have had exactly the same impact in the technology of dealing with this exotic substance.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
DerpenWolf

DerpenWolf

Posted
Posted
Higgs is too lite. LHC failed to find heavier particles add up to smoking gun evidence.

Multiverse to totally freaking confirmed. The only questions are why kind, and how many. Anyone who says otherwise is an anti-science denier.

You ever consider that our understanding of particle physics isn't perfect and that we still have a lot left to learn? Sure the multiverse is a possibility but just because we don't understand something yet doesn't mean that it is tho only possible solution.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
I know with absolute certainty that you and I are equal peers in all matters of obtaining, handling and machining neutronium. That both you and I have had exactly the same impact in the technology of dealing with this exotic substance.

Also in tending to unicorns, yes. And I suspect, you are much better than I in flipping burgers.

On the other hand, I do have a publication in cellular biology, and publication on structure of mesons is in the pipeline. And I have physics-based code running in several games out there. Because that's how real science works. It has applications.

So on one hand, we have Quantum Field Theory, which predicts that Higgs Boson exists. And it does. We found it. More general field theory also predicted neutron stars and black holes long before they were discovered. And discovered they were. As for more practical applications of modern field theory, we have MRI (superconductivity is branch of Condensed Matter, which is applied QFT) and GPS satellites (which rely on General Relativity, which is another Gauge Theory.) The most recent advances in semiconductor technologies also rely on QFT.

On the other hand, we have multiverse hypothesis, which gave us a lot of science fiction (some of which is admittedly good), and crackpots like you. The technological applications are exactly null.

So again, give me any reason, theoretical or practical, why your point of view should be considered with any less contempt than a fart. I believe, I've been pretty open-minded about it so far. I'm looking for any benefit of this, however indirect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
GregA

GregA

Posted
Posted
Also in tending to unicorns, yes. And I suspect, you are much better than I in flipping burgers.

On the other hand, I do have a publication in cellular biology, and publication on structure of mesons is in the pipeline. And I have physics-based code running in several games out there. Because that's how real science works. It has applications.

So on one hand, we have Quantum Field Theory, which predicts that Higgs Boson exists. And it does. We found it. More general field theory also predicted neutron stars and black holes long before they were discovered. And discovered they were. As for more practical applications of modern field theory, we have MRI (superconductivity is branch of Condensed Matter, which is applied QFT) and GPS satellites (which rely on General Relativity, which is another Gauge Theory.) The most recent advances in semiconductor technologies also rely on QFT.

On the other hand, we have multiverse hypothesis, which gave us a lot of science fiction (some of which is admittedly good), and crackpots like you. The technological applications are exactly null.

So again, give me any reason, theoretical or practical, why your point of view should be considered with any less contempt than a fart. I believe, I've been pretty open-minded about it so far. I'm looking for any benefit of this, however indirect.

No you did not find the Higgs Boson. To find the Higgs Boson you needed to find heavier particles as well(for supersymetry). The results of LHC are only consistent with Higgs if you engage in histrionics. The only reason I concede the signal that was found at LHC is the Higgs that that correctly or incorrectly, everyone is calling it Higgs. Never mind that all the qualifications for it to be Higgs were all failed. It is too light, there were no heavier particles found. Period. Full stop. That is not science, that is politics.

Also, lol, you don't know how GPS works. Hint, it is popular mythology that relativity has ~anything~ to do with it. That you do not know this makes me seriously doubt your claimed credentialing. LOL. The airforce calibrates the clocks and locations manually on all the satellites every day. Simple trigonometry is all the math that your little GPS device does. Things like Humidity have a far larger effect on drift than Relativity. LOL.

Also, MRI is the result of a THEORY FAILURE. MRI was discovered on accident. LOL.

Also, the entire history of IC's has been about refinements of photography, and has nothing to with with quantum mechanics other than a post hoc description of how semiconductors works.

You repeatedly fail, yet you want us to believe that you are a PHd. Im sorry, but you are not nearly as smart as you think you are...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
K^2

K^2

Posted
Posted
No you did not find the Higgs Boson. To find the Higgs Boson you needed to find heavier particles as well(for supersymetry). The results of LHC are only consistent with Higgs if you engage in histrionics. The only reason I concede the signal that was found at LHC is the Higgs that that correctly or incorrectly, everyone is calling it Higgs. Never mind that all the qualifications for it to be Higgs were all failed. It is too light, there were no heavier particles found. Period. Full stop. That is not science, that is politics.

It has correct quantum numbers and couples to W and Z bosons as expected. That makes it a Higgs boson. Again, you simply have no clue what a Higgs boson is, why it needs to exist, or what would have been ramifications of not finding it. So you say stupid stuff like "mass is wrong, so it isn't Higgs."

Also, lol, you don't know how GPS works. Hint, it is popular mythology that relativity has ~anything~ to do with it. That you do not know this makes me seriously doubt your claimed credentialing. LOL. The airforce calibrates the clocks and locations manually on all the satellites every day. Simple trigonometry is all the math that your little GPS device does. Things like Humidity have a far larger effect on drift than Relativity. LOL.

The clock rates on satellites are adjusted for time dilation due to both gravity and relative velocity. It's calibrated regularly to maintain precision, but without on-the-fly corrections, precision of GPS would be ~1km instead of the few meters that it is. Another case of you not knowing as much as you think you do. But hey, feel free to do the math. If you can.

Also, MRI is the result of a THEORY FAILURE. MRI was discovered on accident. LOL.

Superconductivity was. The high field superconducting magnets actually used in MRI are result of theoretical and experimental work. What's that, 3-0 now?

Also, the entire history of IC's has been about refinements of photography, and has nothing to with with quantum mechanics other than a post hoc description of how semiconductors works.

Except, at 22nm quantum effects on junctions are already significant and taken into account in simulations.

But keep going. This is entertaining.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
WestAir

WestAir

Posted
Posted

Going to take a moment to say that K^2 has afforded a lot more citations for his claims than the opposition. From a neutral perspective, I'm not sure why he's even bothering to continue arguing with someone who is obviously incorrect.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
This thread is quite old. Please consider starting a new thread rather than reviving this one.

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
 Share
Go to topic listing
×
×
  • Create New...