Huge Black Holes on Collision Course

[KimB]

No, the multiverse idea predicts nothing. It merely an interpretation of the behavior of quantum mechanics, not a true theory that could ever be tested.

 

[nutball]

I state that potential possibilities actually exist as such, and can actually be seen in our world, as that which is possible becomes manifest.

Seen where? Where is the evidence?

To deny the multiverse you have to deny that it can exist even abstractly/conceptually.

It's not a question of denying it's existence, it's just that it's not necessary to invoke such things in order to come up with a plausible explanation of the way things are.

You seem to be arguing that anything which man can imagine must exist simply by virtue of the fact that it can be imagined.

 

[zidane1strife]

Seen where? Where is the evidence?

Time, the illusion of the present, of the passage of time, of the supposedly inexistent potential possibilities/futures coming into existence. The present is not special, no state is, well it may be in the sense that it embodies this particular state in the sequence... and from our point of view that is considered special by us.

If we take the axiom, that no, a future state cannot be created from nothing, it logically follows as a potential outcome, and has always existed as a logical possibility to this particular logical state in an abstract sense, we don't need to really abstract anything from nothing. Existence is simply seperate from nonexistence/nothing, it simply is(note: that does not mean structures within existence might not appear to have a beginning and end from a relative perspective, say from that of those embedded in any particular simulation.).

It's not a question of denying it's existence, it's just that it's not necessary to invoke such things in order to come up with a plausible explanation of the way things are.

You seem to be arguing that anything which man can imagine must exist simply by virtue of the fact that it can be imagined.

Oh so you can see an example of how it actually can be seen in our world

 

[London Geezer]

You seem to be arguing that anything which man can imagine must exist simply by virtue of the fact that it can be imagined.

Yes that's the same feeling i got from his posts, and from other people's so-called "theories".

A Multiverse is cool and all, but it is also absolutely impossible for us to prove, so even if it did exist, what's the point of thinking about it? It doesn't affect us because in a potential Multiverse, we only exist in the Universe we're in now.

 

[zidane1strife]

Yes that's the same feeling i got from his posts, and from other people's so-called "theories".

A Multiverse is cool and all, but it is also absolutely impossible for us to prove, so even if it did exist, what's the point of thinking about it? It doesn't affect us because in a potential Multiverse, we only exist in the Universe we're in now.

It actually affects us in the long term, if we continue to progress. The fundamental idea is that this universe is but an abstract large assembly of information in a particular configuration and with certain states, associations, and rules. As information it can be massively manipulated, and if enough resources and expertise is acquired one can traverse the infinite abstract information landscape.

 

[Blazkowicz]

my view is that our universe appears precisely tuned for life to happen, fundamental constants and the law of physics are such that atoms could form, then stars which generate light and all the heavy elements that make planets, etc.
And I think that it is one of billions, trillions universes, most being sterile, possibly without atoms and biprotons instead, or not enough/too much energy, different physics etc.
Ours being the good one (tm), just like we are on the good planet in the good solar system; everything seems made for us to live, but we can only exist in life-friendly conditions to begin with.


sure, nutball, I get your point as the matter being religious because it's out of reach of our perception. but at least we can make educated speculation, trying to make up a scientific explanation rather than a magical one.
Until we get a proven, reliable unification theory (I don't know if it's actually possible? . would suck), do we know if we'll be unable to know about how could be the metaverse (if such thing exists).

I tend to think that universes are kind of "bubbles" in the metaverse, virtual particles created from quantum vacuum, but at that point yes it becomes to look like religion. like, was God created by a higher god, or is the metaverse an universe in another metaverse?
Or, if schrödinger's cat is dead in our universe, does the universe where it lives exist for real or not.
Sounds like something we may never know, afterall.

Still, I think there are multiple universes, following the reasoning of my first paragraph.

 

[London Geezer]

my view is that our universe appears precisely tuned for life to happen, fundamental constants and the law of physics are such that atoms could form, then stars which generate light and all the heavy elements that make planets, etc.
And I think that it is one of billions, trillions universes, most being sterile, possibly without atoms and biprotons instead, or not enough/too much energy, different physics etc.
Ours being the good one (tm), just like we are on the good planet in the good solar system; everything seems made for us to live, but we can only exist in life-friendly conditions to begin with.

I'm no scientist, but i've always looked at that very common idea and thought that we think that because we are the ones observing and making the theories we have. It's like a natural bias to our laws of physics. It's undeniable that some theories are simply our interpretation of what happens out there, and as such, then i think that very "special case" is understandable and due to our own lack of knowledge, not because "we're in the good one out of an infinite bunch".
Not sure that was very clear...

 

[zidane1strife]

my view is that our universe appears precisely tuned for life to happen, fundamental constants and the law of physics are such that atoms could form, then stars which generate light and all the heavy elements that make planets, etc.
And I think that it is one of billions, trillions universes, most being sterile, possibly without atoms and biprotons instead, or not enough/too much energy, different physics etc.
Ours being the good one (tm), just like we are on the good planet in the good solar system; everything seems made for us to live, but we can only exist in life-friendly conditions to begin with.


sure, nutball, I get your point as the matter being religious because it's out of reach of our perception. but at least we can make educated speculation, trying to make up a scientific explanation rather than a magical one.
Until we get a proven, reliable unification theory (I don't know if it's actually possible? . would suck), do we know if we'll be unable to know about how could be the metaverse (if such thing exists).

I tend to think that universes are kind of "bubbles" in the metaverse, virtual particles created from quantum vacuum, but at that point yes it becomes to look like religion. like, was God created by a higher god, or is the metaverse an universe in another metaverse?
Or, if schrödinger's cat is dead in our universe, does the universe where it lives exist for real or not.
Sounds like something we may never know, afterall.

Still, I think there are multiple universes, following the reasoning of my first paragraph.

I think it can be understood, mathematics and logic show us the way and the nature of the beast.

Recently I heard the Schrödinger equation and the basic quantum laws and even uncertainty can be derived from certain statistic equations dealing with small samples of large populations and the mathematics of the uncertainties caused by such small samples. That is these equations don't have to be taken at face value as being there just because, they can be logically deduced from underlying mathematical principles. Though again that'll have to wait till it's verified.

 

[Blazkowicz]

Predicted neutron mass ten years prior to it being found(according to the wiki), suggestive evidence for the existence gravitophotons has recently been seen.

Seems like it got some things right... Though it is true, that you actually need far far less dimensions to convey the essence of the true final theory

I remember reading the slashdot story about the article where scientist made their disk spin. I and some other people thought of Heim theory and hyperspace propulsion as well but apparently it was unrelated. what would have been observed is the equivalent of what's a magnetic field to an electron, but for a graviton (hope my wording is not that bad).

I don't think Heim theory should be characterized as "not the best," but rather I'm fairly sure it's completely and utterly wrong.

how can you be so sure, it looks like the kind of thing you have to dedicate 25 years of your life for before you start to understand 10% of it
from the human readable things I read about it, it sounded like a very interesting theory to me. but off course I only heard of it with that hyperspace travel article, and I want to believe . .

 

[Pausanias]

I may be going off topic here, but what is Dark energy? Is it the Byproduct of a Blackhole, light goes in, get's absorbed and releashs Dark Energy? Is it the opposite of Light, or just a force like gravity?

 

[London Geezer]

I may be going off topic here, but what is Dark energy? Is it the Byproduct of a Blackhole, light goes in, get's absorbed and releashs Dark Energy? Is it the opposite of Light, or just a force like gravity?

Dark Energy is something (or rather, nothing) that was invented by scientists to make some formulas work.

But then again, i'm a cynical bitch.

 

[zidane1strife]

I remember reading the slashdot story about the article where scientist made their disk spin. I and some other people thought of Heim theory and hyperspace propulsion as well but apparently it was unrelated. what would have been observed is the equivalent of what's a magnetic field to an electron, but for a graviton (hope my wording is not that bad).

The researchers involved claimed they achieved a gravitomagnetic field with a spinning superconductor, that caused accel in deviation from general relativity, which predicted it'd be negligible. Electromagnetic phenomena is supposedly mediated by photons, no? Gravity is hypothetically mediated by gravitons, no? Heim theory shows it may be possible a spinning superconductor would generate a gravitomagnetic effect, no? Seems related to me.

 

[KimB]

my view is that our universe appears precisely tuned for life to happen,

Well, there are two possible explainations for this:
1. We don't yet understand the underlying physics well enough, or
2. There are/have been many universes, and we are only observing one, or part of one, of the type that is amenable to life.

I personally don't like the second much (the anthropic principle), as it's basically equivalent to throwing up your hands and deciding that your work is done. I'd rather push the first as far as possible.

 

[KimB]

It actually affects us in the long term, if we continue to progress. The fundamental idea is that this universe is but an abstract large assembly of information in a particular configuration and with certain states, associations, and rules. As information it can be massively manipulated, and if enough resources and expertise is acquired one can traverse the infinite abstract information landscape.

No. The multiverse idea is the exact opposite of that. It states that all possibilities occur, and we inhabit one of the many infinitely-diverging possibilities. Since all of these infinitely-diverging possiblities that come from our current one are always inhabited by matter that came from us, we cannot possibly have any control over which one "we" end up in.

 

[Frank]

Why is our universe so perfectly suited to support our kind of life? That would be like a pudding wondering why it fits it bowl so perfectly.

- Douglas Adams (loosely)

 

[KimB]

how can you be so sure, it looks like the kind of thing you have to dedicate 25 years of your life for before you start to understand 10% of it
from the human readable things I read about it, it sounded like a very interesting theory to me. but off course I only heard of it with that hyperspace travel article, and I want to believe . .

From what I've been reading, it's just chock full of absolutely ridiculous mistakes. Here's somebody that goes into some detail about some of it:
http://www.mathematik.tu-darmstadt.de/~bruhn/IGW.html

 

[KimB]

Dark Energy is something (or rather, nothing) that was invented by scientists to make some formulas work.

But then again, i'm a cynical bitch.

Well, that's basically correct. To date, people have been attempting a number of different methods to explain the possible causes for the acceleration of the universe, and they seem to be falling out one by one. Dark energy is the only one that seems to consistently remain, and we've got a number of current and future experiments dedicating to learning more about it.

 

[Fred]

Dark energy is precisely that, its an invention used to balance an equation.

Its sorta like.. Well we know we have a full glass of some sort of liquid (say 100ml) ipso facto. We know our universe is comprimised of chocolate and water b/c well thats what we see. So we ask our experiment friends to go out and measure how much of our universe is comprimised of those ingredients (they go out and 'weigh' things), and they come back and say 20 ml of water, and 10 ml of chocolate to within 1% experimental uncertainty and thats it.

Hence the problem, whats the remaining 70ml? Whatever *it* is, will be called by definition dark energy.

Thats all it is really. Now you can get into technical details on precisely what form the 'dark energy' must take, and that gets into conjecture, but denying dark energy exists will conflict with our experimental friends b/c alas they weren't able to get chocolate + water = 100ml.

 

[KimB]

Well, we do know a little more than just that. For example, if we believe the evidence that it is indeed not a modification to GR (which seems to be mounting), then we can describe dark energy as some sort of diffuse energy density that is nearly constant over all of space, and doesn't change quickly with time. We're currently attempting to nail down just how constant it is over space and time.

 

[Fred]

Yea, of course there are additional constraints (possibly not suitable for a layman). For instance its very hard to have it timevarying and have a consistent singularity free cosmological model.

The biggest mystery with the CC (imo) in terms of classical GR is the coincidence problem. Namely why is it roughly of the same order of magnitude (today) as say omega baryon.

If you look at a diagram of possible histories, this is a vanishingly small section of phase space to inhabit and its quite unstable.

So even if we miraculously figure out the naturalness problem, we still have to deal with that.

It really is the biggest unsolved problem in all of science, in fact such a monumental issue its really hard to appreciate on all levels.