| This forum is used with the NationStates web-game designed and run by Max Barry. While not officially affiliated, this serves as the regional forum for the regions: Middle East, African Continent, American Continent, Asian Continent, and European Continent. You're currently viewing our forum as a guest. This means you are limited to certain areas of the board and can "read only". In order to get the most out of these forums, please become a member and read this guide - http://z3.invisionfree.com/nationstates/index.php?showtopic=3060 If you're already a member please log in to your account to access all of our features: |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2
| The Multiverse? | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Sep 26 2013, 01:51 AM (667 Views) | |
| Aelius | Sep 26 2013, 01:51 AM Post #1 |
|
Norman Warlord
|
I got bored and decided to make a blog post. A big part of it focused on whether or not I've made the best possible decisions in my life, but I think that serves as a good jumping off point for an intellectual discussion about the merits of the multiverse theory. An excerpt from what I rambled out on my keyboard:What do you guys think? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Sep 26 2013, 11:35 AM Post #2 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I have always found predestination ludicrous for no particular reason. I just don't buy it. I also don't buy the infinite multiverse idea - since string theory predicts something like 13 dimensions (might be 10, I forget) which are, in supposition, composed of different universes I can't possibly wrap my brain around infinity (I really doubt anyone can). Also, since our universe has only been in existence for 13 billion years (again, I think) and, therefore, time has only been in existence the same 13 billion years, and in that time our galaxy has not even made one complete revolution, well, we just really haven't had enough time to have multi-universes. My thoughts only. Now, if you believe in a big, bearded daddy in the sky controlling things, then my thoughts above are meaningless. If you believe, as I do, in something totally unexplainable, totally unknown and totally uninvolved in our meaningless lives with the exception of possibly giving the spark of intelligence and free will to us, well, then my ramblings make perfect sense. Also, since the phenomena of time, space, multiple dimensions, the universe, the galaxy, etc. are observable (or deducible) to our feeble minds, then it is our obligation to investigate them no matter how uncomfortable the truth may make us feel. So, free will? Yes. Multiverse? No. For now. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Sep 26 2013, 12:51 PM Post #3 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
I'm curious as to why you think we haven't "had time" to have a multiverse when we don't even understand time itself completely. And also considering that as far as I understand MWI (Many-Worlds Interpretation) of Quantum Mechanics, there's nothing there that seems to be dependent on time or the revolution of the galaxy. You seem to be adding this criteria arbitrarily through your own dissatisfaction with the theory when it appears nowhere in the scientific material that I can find. Considering that allegedly every possible outcome creates a sort of splitting of reality forming new reality where each possibility occurs, according to MWI, this is happening as we speak where each action you take is creating another universe at that very moment. So with the 13.8 billion years that our universe is estimated to exist (I personally feel that's an underestimate and I'll get to that later), it seems we've had more than enough time to accumulate a nearly infinite number of alternate realities. And that doesn't even get into the brain-baker that's String/M Theory. Also, are you aware that the "ghosts" of previous universes have possibly been discovered, bringing the concept of "Big Crunches" back into the mix? http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/2010/nov/19/penrose-claims-to-have-glimpsed-universe-before-big-bang Also, concerning the age of the universe, we've been discovering some rather odd things in the early universe. Apparently we have old, geriatric galaxies hanging with young baby galaxies and complex galaxy cluster formations that should have taken hundreds of billions of years to form, not the mere 13.8 billion that's been estimated, and galaxies moving in the "wrong" direction. http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2011/06/the-early-universe-puzzle-why-do-galaxies-in-the-early-universe-appear-old-a-galaxy-classic.html http://rense.com/general53/bbng.htm But how do some scientists explain these contradictions in the universe's age? "Dark energy." Yes, when something doesn't mesh with the standard Big Bang model, rather than going back and revising the theory or tossing it out and coming up with a new one like good scientists should, they do the opposite and force everything to fit the 13.8 billion year time limit—as if it were etched in stone somewhere—and claim "dark energy" solves everything when we don't even know what "dark energy" is let alone know if it even actually exists (I think not, personally). It seems to be some scientists' replacement for God the way it seems to get thrown around despite being purely hypothetical and untested. I would point out that the Big Bang was first proposed by a Catholic priest: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Georges_Lema%C3%AEtre Which ultimately calls into question for me if he was trying to sneak the bearded invisible man into Astrophysics. My postulation after putting all of this together? The universe is far more ancient than we comprehend and that rather than one big Big Bang creating the universe, we actually have a bunch of smaller Big Bangs spread throughout the universe, constantly populating the void. This could actually be the purpose of gravitational anomalies such as the Great Attractor; they might be the singularities required for Big Bangs. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Sep 27 2013, 12:34 PM Post #4 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I have no problem with "ghost universes". This kinda makes sense, because eventually, according to some theories sans dark matter, the universe will collapse on itself into another singularity and do this shit all over again! Other singularities forming during that collapse? Why not! We got one gobbling up our galaxy as we sit here a good distance from it. As to "dark matter"? Yeah, I smell a rat. I never really liked that theory - too convenient. Kinda like those equations that only work when you assume the mass of the universe = zero. Why do I say we cannot have an infinite number of universes? Because if we could calculate every decision ever chosen by anything anywhere over the last 13.8 billion years that number would be finite. Really big, but finite. Also, you cannot "approach" infinity. I also am aware of the really old galaxies - I mean really, really old galaxies. I don't think we can possibly know a anything about them because they are just so damn far away anything could be happening. Maybe they have been ejected from our universe (I think we are no longer expanding at the speed of light, so it is possible) and are actually in the void where there is no time. My brain is now starting to hurt. Also, it is likely our universe is kinda splotchy - think here, thin there, big holes like Swiss cheese in it - so when we try to look at other parts, far away parts, who knows what we are really detecting. You do, however, make some excellent points. More research please, and some physical evidence would really help. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Sep 27 2013, 02:51 PM Post #5 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Oh, I see what you mean, just a differing definition on the word "infinite." From what I understand about infinity in mathematics (and I could be completely wrong here), is that it refers to "numbers too big to count to." This has to do with black holes being classified in Astrophysics as singularities, because how could a black hole be truly "infinite?" Because the numbers are so high, they might as well be. We also have to remember that each one of those alternate realities are also supposed to be branching, ramping up their number even further. Oh, and I didn't say "dark matter" (not that that doesn't have problems too); I mentioned its evil(er) brother, "dark energy" which I consider to be just complete number-fudging bullshit. Edited by Comrade Queen, Sep 27 2013, 02:51 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Sep 28 2013, 09:13 AM Post #6 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Yes. You made the decisions you made. Those decisions are made, they cannot be changed. Because they cannot be changed, they cannot be made worse. Because they cannot be changed, they cannot be made better. Therefore you made the best possible decision. The question you should be asking is will I make the best possible decisions going forward in my life? As to the idea of MWT, it is largely irrelevant. If there exists a version of me that is more successful than I am, then that person is not me. I am the sum of my experiences, someone with my DNA but with different experiences is no more "me" than an identical twin would be "me", it's a distinct and different person. There are millions of people who are not me who are more successful than me in this dimension, their existence (generally speaking) does not diminish my own, so why should I care about their success? Caring about the possible success of a being that might not exist seems even more absurd. That said, I don't object to the idea of some giant unseeable, unknowable construct like MWT existing. Much like God or the Invisible Flying Spaghetti Monster, I have no proof that MWT does not exist and if people want to believe in MWT then that in no way diminishes myself. I like the conceit of MWT for storytelling (I love Sliders and the Marvel Universe). But I see no more reason to believe in MWT than I see reason to believe in God: it's a nice story, and it might even be true, but how is it in any way relevant to me? Much like how the universe is considered finite and unbound, I believe the MWI relies on the number of different worlds to be (from the perspective of linear time) unbound rather than infinite (and infinite if viewed from outside of time). But it's been a while since I read up on the subject, so don't go holding me to that (just post a source if I'm wrong). |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Sep 28 2013, 11:36 AM Post #7 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Nag's unconcern aside (welcome back, Nag!), I thought you said dark matter. Dark energy is way worse!! It is sooooo silly to even think about it. The so called "standard" model proclaims: "According to the Planck mission team, and based on the standard model of cosmology, the total mass–energy of the universe contains 4.9% ordinary matter, 26.8% dark matter and 68.3% dark energy." You would think something making up 68.3% of the universe would be noticeable! Also, the conclusion that gravity has no effect on this dark energy is too convenient. Also, to conclude that it exerts "negative pressure" on the universe forcing it to expand faster now than in the beginning is the height of absurdity! Fudge factor. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Oct 16 2013, 04:12 PM Post #8 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
Nope.
Yup. That is literally what Dark Energy/Matter is. It's a fudge factor. Dark Energy is, in all meaningful ways*, the same as Dark Matter because matter is simply a form of energy. The idea that all this "dark" stuff exists (and what proportion is solid stuff and what proportion is not solid stuff) is pure fudge factor. It's science saying "everything we know about the universe says that the universe should work like this but instead it works like that. So either everything we know about the universe is wrong, or there's something massive in the universe that we don't know about. Because we don't know about it, we'll call it 'dark' and we'll use it as a fudge factor in all our equations." Would it be nice to know the real answer instead of fudging everything? Sure. Maybe some day we'll find this mysterious dark energy. Or maybe we'll find the angels who are pushing the planets apart. Or maybe we'll discover that everything we "know" about the universe is wrong. That's kinda the point of science. I understand that you don't like dark energy as a theory, but neither do the people who use said theory. I even understand that you'd rather we just throw our hands up and admit "we don't really know." So I'll do that: we don't really know. We're using "dark energy" because it's the best idea we have (so far), and using it is the only way we have of getting new data. [Edit] *I'm aware we're referring to different models here. In all cases the "dark" refers to "unseen" and it's used as a fudge to explain what otherwise doesn't make sense. In essence "in all meaningful ways" means "for the purposes of the argument made in this post". See also my references to "solid" meaning "matter" and not, in fact, "solid". It's for convenience, not accuracy. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Oct 16 2013, 04:16 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| the Wallace Islands | Oct 16 2013, 09:32 PM Post #9 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I feel the need to come to defense of the absurd scientists for inventing "dark matter". :D I think people are looking at this the wrong way. You get the idea for dark matter when for instance you study a galaxy and determine that (according to Einstein's equations) to be behaving the way it is, it should have a lot more mass than we can actually observe. There are two possibilities: Einstein's equations are wrong or need to be modified in some way, or there actually is more mass that we can't see. Einstein's equations are extremely well tested and fundamental to our understanding of modern cosmology. So it's actually MORE CONSERVATIVE scientifically to hypothesize that there may be a new kind of particle that interacts weakly. We've discovered a whole zoo of particles in the last couple decades. Sure we may need a new theory, but it would need to be an improvement and make new predictions and still agree with all of the data we already have. Paradigm shifts happen, but nobody's got anything really persuasive so far. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Oct 16 2013, 10:52 PM Post #10 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
That's dark matter, Wallace. There's actually a little bit of evidence that implies dark matter's existence, i.e. gravitational lensing. However, the argument here is actually about dark energy, which from what I've read about, is essentially a hypothetical (meaning, untested and purely speculative—a step below actual theory*) magic fairy dust that is magically pushing things apart because certain areas of the universe look older and more complex than they should for their alleged age and scientists are baffled and flummoxed on why this is. So which seems more likely to you, that our standard model of calculations of the universe's age are wrong, or that magic fairy dust is pushing stuff apart? Remember the principle of Occam's Razor, now. Dark energy is pure fudging, lazy bullshit invented to avoid having to go back to the drawing board like good scientists should and come up with a new theory that better matches our observations of the universe. *There are three levels of scientific development, hypothesis, theory, and law: http://chemistry.about.com/od/chemistry101/a/lawtheory.htm |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Oct 17 2013, 10:45 AM Post #11 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I believe there are four levels to scientific development: Observation, hypothesis, theory, and law. All of the final three steps must conform to what is observed - they can't be fudged to force them to conform. |
![]() |
|
| the Wallace Islands | Oct 17 2013, 12:53 PM Post #12 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
I don't think anyone would claim we have a theory of dark energy. We don't really have any idea what dark energy is. Scientists have a few guesses. My point was that scientists aren't being lazy or making shit up when they talk about dark matter or dark energy. I actually share your suspicion that we may need a really new revolutionary theory because we have a few discrepancies with our current understanding. The problem is, the theories we do have are very well tested, so if you want to go back to the drawing board, whatever you come up with has to be new AND agree with everything we've measured so far. "Hey, maybe everything we know is wrong!!!" is not a fruitful approach. You actually have to have to quantify that and have a real idea that makes predictions. If a scientist came up with a new revolutionary idea that worked and made predictions, it would take time for everyone to come around, but he/she would inevitably become famous and renowned. Again, speculating that there may be a new particle is more conservative than just throwing out everything we know.
Several people were lumping together and saying that for the purposes of this thread, they're the same basic thing. So I was just responding to that. :)
I may be misunderstanding what you're claiming, but theories don't reach some tipping point where they become a law. It's not like somebody's idea goes through all four stages. Theories and laws are two different categories. A law is an observed regularity that's never been contradicted. A theory is a framework which brings together lots of data and observations to explain why they occur. Einstein's Theory of relativity is very well established, but it will never become the "Law of Relativity." |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Oct 17 2013, 03:14 PM Post #13 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Scientists don't know what dark energy is because it doesn't exist. It's numerical fudging to force a square peg into a round hole. I absolutely disagree that coming up with dark energy is "more conservative" because if that starts showing the flaws that I expect it inevitably will show, scientists will come up with "super-duper extra-dark energy" to fill in the extra moth-eaten holes in an already unraveling cosmology filled with advanced galaxy clusters, geriatric galaxies hanging with baby galaxies, and objects moving in the wrong direction that all shouldn't be there. Then it'll break down to "God is pushing the universe apart." Hell, that's what dark energy already essentially is. It is laziness, pure and simple. They'd rather posit about fairy dust than actually attempt real work. |
![]() |
|
| the Wallace Islands | Oct 17 2013, 03:42 PM Post #14 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Well. Out of curiosity, what is your theory to account for the acceleration of the expansion rate, since you've worked it out correctly and they're all wrong. :D |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Oct 17 2013, 10:24 PM Post #15 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
I explained my ideas in detail above. The "acceleration of expansion" theory only works if you continue going by the arbitrary 13.8 billion year age limit on the universe. Considering the old galaxies in the young universe and advanced galaxy clusters that should have taken longer to form contradict that and I don't believe in fairy dust or God, I feel that the universe's age has been greatly underestimated. |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Oct 18 2013, 09:39 AM Post #16 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
Our initial Big Bang (if you still want to consider that) expanded everything faster than the speed of light for the first million years or so. Any evidence of that expansion is long, long gone. Now, being of limited, earthbound intelligence, why must we assume "our" Big Bang happened in a void? Could it have not happened in a somewhat voided area of another previous Bang? That would have fed lots of additional matter and energy into our universe and it could explain why we have galaxy oldies still hanging around. To MY limited intelligence, this might just explain everything we are observing. Plus, we have no idea whatsoever lies beyond our local cluster of the universe, just hints and whispers. |
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Oct 18 2013, 03:38 PM Post #17 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
That's my thoughts precisely, NH. Rather than one, single, grand Big Bang, it's been a bunch of smaller Big Bangs stretching back to... well... who knows when, each one populating the "void" with more stuff. The so-called "ghost" Big Bangs I mentioned earlier could be the supporting evidence for this. |
![]() |
|
| meh | Oct 18 2013, 04:13 PM Post #18 |
![]()
1st Lieutenant
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Boo, science. I prefer simple explanations, like magic. How does this toaster work? Magic. How is my car still running? Magic. Why does jello solidify? Magic. Why don't I have a girlfriend? Magic. In the eyes of the poor layman, magic is a suitable replacement for science. |
![]() |
|
| the Wallace Islands | Oct 18 2013, 04:15 PM Post #19 |
|
Corporal
![]() ![]() ![]()
|
F***ing magnets, how do they work? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Oct 19 2013, 10:43 AM Post #20 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
I gave up to "magic" with my first microwave! |
![]() |
|
| Margrave | Oct 19 2013, 11:10 AM Post #21 |
|
Is very much a holla-back girl.
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]()
|
Magic is blasphemous, I prefer the "Because God made it that way." line of thinking. |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Oct 24 2013, 10:32 AM Post #22 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
So you're proposing a scientific model that states the following: 1. We have established, testable scientific laws that demonstrate how the universe work. 2. These laws fall down when we look at the universe as a whole. 3a. If I add in "ghost big bangs", with no evidence of these ghost big bangs, then our testable scientific laws accurately explain the universe. 3b. If I add in "Dark Energy", with no evidence of this dark energy, then our testable scientific laws accurately explain the universe. 4. Because we have no evidence for Dark Energy, that's obviously incorrect. 5. Ergo, "ghost big bangs" must have happened. How is your "ghost bang" theory any less of a "fudge factor" than "dark energy"? And how does it hold up against Occam's Razor? 1. There was a vast concentration of energy that created our universe, we haven't accounted for all this energy yet. 2. There was a vast concentration of energy that created our universe. And before that there was another vast concentration of energy that created a different universe that still partially exists, but there's no evidence of this older universe ever existing. I'm not saying you're wrong, and I'm sure not saying that dark energy is right. I believe we should keep an open mind towards all options. I just don't think your option is more likely. And that "modification" is called "a fudge factor". I realise that my post started a little flippantly, but the part that you cut out did say this: "So either everything we know about the universe is wrong, or there's something massive in the universe that we don't know about." Which is pretty much exactly what you said dude. I feel we're on the same side of this argument. :P That said, despite NH's misgivings, "fudge factor" is not a dirty word. Without approximations and estimates our entire civilisation would fall apart and no scientific or cultural advancement would ever be made. Of course it's better to have facts than theory, but you don't get facts without theory. Holding onto a fudge factor is only stupid once you have evidence to the contrary. Without such evidence, using a fudge factor makes perfect logical sense. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Oct 24 2013, 10:46 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Comrade Queen | Oct 24 2013, 12:51 PM Post #23 |
|
Comrade Bitchqueen
|
Because the rings that Penrose discovered actually are there: http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2011/05/no-cmb-circles/ Of course that article has the standard "I built my career on such and such inflationary model of the universe" skeptics who have all of that to lose trying to argue that it's not evidence of anything (without any evidence for their contrary opinion, mind you—"feature of the standard model?" Prove it!) but even they see the rings there. Dark energy? Can you share with me where anyone has actually seen dark energy? |
![]() |
|
| New Harumf | Oct 25 2013, 10:42 AM Post #24 |
![]()
Bloodthirsty Unicorn
|
The problem, of course, is we are looking in our universe, and cannot look outside of it. This will ALWAYS be a problem. The fact that we are seeing "evidence" of things older than our universe requires us to consider what happened "outside" our universe, or "before" our universe (which is really the same thing). Penrose made a pretty good guess - being of limited intelligence, I prefer his guess over other guesses. Oh, and Nag, YOU are a fudge factor! :lol: |
![]() |
|
| Nag Ehgoeg | Oct 31 2013, 01:02 PM Post #25 |
|
The Devil's Advocate
![]()
|
There's one rock in my back garden. Not "rocks". Not "a few rocks". One rock. No other rocks like it. No other rocks near it. It was pushed there. By dark energy. **** Again, I'm not saying you're wrong. In fact, while I realise it's not exactly the same, I really like the idea of "big bang-big crunch". It has the right kind of "wheel of time" resonance. But the deal with evidence is that it has to... well... be evidence. You can't point to nonsense and say it proves something that it doesn't. That's just... nuts. Which is not to say that we should discount Penrose Circles as thoroughly as the idiots in main-stream astronomy have. I fully agree that sceptics who have built their careers on a foundation of sand unfairly dismiss evidence that contradicts their narrow world view. And I'll go further and say that this is the worst and most destructive kind of ignorance. But the second most destructive is where you grasp at handfuls of sand to build your foundations. I really want to stress here, I don't think you're wrong. It's right to hold out for proof and to ask questions. It's right to build your view of the world on the best evidence available to you rather than the most convenient theory. But, and maybe it's just because tone isn't conveyed very well in text over the internet, you sound kinda fanatical: desperate to grasp at anything that confirms your world view while stead-fastedly ignoring everything else. Which wouldn't be so bad if you weren't committed to attacking people making the same argument in reverse. **** Oh and NH, I'm the fudge factor. I agree that we are limited and that our understanding is limited. I don't accept that as an excuse to cling to lies and half truths. I think it's amazing that whenever someone sets out to prove something, they inevitably find evidence that supports the opinion they'd already decided on. I prefer my science to be unbiased by prior assumption and to test what is actually there rather than to find evidence for something I already believe. Edited by Nag Ehgoeg, Oct 31 2013, 01:12 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Go to Next Page | |
| « Previous Topic · Off-Topic · Next Topic » |
- Pages:
- 1
- 2










11:32 AM Jul 13