I am also talking about bubble nucleation, fecund universes theory (or cosmological natural selection theory), ultimate ensemble theories, modal realism etc.
A nice breath of fresh air in our midst. We certainly needed it!
May I suggest once again that you take a look at string theory and what it has to say about the multiverse. It's a natural progression to the multiverse (brane theory) that precipitates out of string theory.
Unfortunately for them, that's not how science is done. No one ever said discovering the truth was easy, but it sure beats skipping around certain of aspects of the truth that you don't like and then rationalizing why skipping was better anyway.
please, anyone who actually backs multiverse theory feel free to explain it to me.
It seems to me that if there were a multiverse and the other universes were "up" or "down" in another dimension from us, that they are either reasonably sparse/far apart or we would see intersections in gravity wells, or just out in spheres in space for no apparent reason where a gravity well from a universe "above" us (away from the direction that all gravity wells go) intersects us.
Ok; so if you don't mind me asking, how exactly would dark galaxies become BCD'S, LSB's, HSB's etc. What chemical/physical processes would take place?
If the multiverse theory entails that everything in this universe (including ourselves) also exists in other universe's (and I don't know for sure if it does), then I've gotta say "bunk". I'm only aware of the one me. Even if the other me's are only aware of themselves as well, that makes us each unique and kind of blows the theory.
If it's more like similar systems to ours that exist outside the known universe, and we're all part of a much larger system or systems, I'd say that's plausible, even likely. It just seems intuitive. It's also par for the course for humans to assume that whatever our scope of perception, the neighborhood we're aware of must be the one and only and the first. I think history has shown that default position to be a pretty bad bet.
Will the real universe please stand up?
Note that you are quoting RussT, but the statements you quote were made by me, not him, as he was quoting me in the statements you quoted.
Originally Posted by Tensor
Observations are consistent with only one, so adopted theories should agree with the observation of only one.Adopted theories should be consistent with the fact that we observe only one universe.
Originally Posted by Tensor
Why would you assume an infinite number of universes, if there is only observational evidence for one. You might as well postulate an infinite number of elves holding this universe up. An infinite number of universes (or even one other one) is not consistent with current observations.
Here I disagree. Any number of universes, including an infinite number, is consistent with current observations, so long as the universes postulated or assumed, remain beyond our observational abilities. The fact that we observe one universe does not constrain us to demand of our theories that they include only one universe, but rather that they include only one observable universe.
Originally Posted by Tensor
It's much easier for me, based on current observations, to understand only one universe, not many. Or are you projecting your ability to understand on everyone?
Personally, I find multiple universes far easier to understand, and I see that as the direction in which cosmology seems to be inexorably moving. The point is that any theory which includes one and only one universe, has still to explain how & why this universe comes to be in its "fine tuned" state, which allows for us to exist & see it. We are delicate creatures, and it's easy to imagine some small variation on the constants of nature, such that there would be no chance of us, or anything like us, ever existing. It's the old anthropic principle problem.
But, suppose (just suppose) that there is a population of universes, each of which has its own set of fundamental constants, like unto ours. You can create a probability distribution for each of the fundamental constants, based on the frequency of occurance of each value of that constant, in the population of universes. Of course, we can't do that observationally, because we can't see any of the universes. But if we had a theory that explains how universes "bang" into existence, we could use that theory to produce the desired probability distribution. That will in turn explain why our universe is the way it is, without invoking any sense of 'fine tuning', because our universe simply becomes one of the elements in the probability distribution. All you need is a theory which does not make our universe improbable. String theory, for instance, seems to work quite well along those lines.
Originally Posted by Tensor
How is it consistent with observation, if the other universes are not observable? If they are not observable, why not just conclude they aren't there in the first place? And, if they are not observable, how can there be support for assuming the story is true?
Well, theories are never true, they are only consistent. Consistency only means that the theory should not predict that we will see something, that in fact we do not see. A theory which "predicts" a zillion unobservable universes is certainly not inconsistent with the fact that we observe only one universe, because that's all we are supposed to observe, in the theory, anyway. Such a theory is consistent with observation.
Tim said
Remember my quote from Hawking:
The part about "predictions in agreement with observation" is the simple statement of consistency. You are assuming that the fact of only one observable universe, means that there cannot be any other universe(s), but I consider that an unwarranted assumption. It certainly does not preclude the existence of an infinite number of unobservable universes. Consistency is maintained, theory & observation agree.
But there is one more point. It is not true that there is no evidence for multiple universes. Dark matter & dark energy are not observed, but are rather assumed to exist, as a consequence of observation. But how do we know that dark matter & dark energy are the most suitable interpretations? What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter" is really gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours?
I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.
I'm not here to make a case one way or the other, but I am here to make the case that observation should constrain theories, but not imaginations. And one should not be overly impressed by the concept of "truth", or even of "reality", as it applies to a scientific theory. The one and only constraint that should apply to science at all levels is consistency. Nothing else matters.
If it's more like similar systems to ours that exist outside the known universe, and we're all part of a much larger system or systems, I'd say that's plausible, even likely. It just seems intuitive.
"The universe is not a fractal," Hogg insists, "and if it were a fractal it would create many more problems that we currently have." A universe patterned by fractals would throw all of cosmology out the window. Einstein's cosmic equations would be tossed first, with the big bang and the expansion of the universe following closely behind.
Hogg's team feel that until there's a theory to explain why the galaxy clustering is fractal, there's no point in taking it seriously. "My view is that there's no reason to even contemplate a fractal structure for the universe until there is a physical fractal model," says Hogg. "Until there's an inhomogeneous fractal model to test, it's like tilting at windmills."
Pietronero is equally insistent. "This is fact," he says. "It's not a theory." He says he is interested only in what he sees in the data and argues that the galaxies are fractal regardless of whether someone can explain why.
Certain multiverse theories don't have a chance for observation; they have no free parameters by definition. Depending on how exactly you define scientific theories and their models, you could argue that a large portion of multiverse cosmology is more philosophical than scientific in nature.
The important questions are (1) whether there is a chance for scientific observation and (2) if meaningful predictions can be made based on those observations.
a note on the Thompson quotes; While he's technically correct that a theory involving other universes that cannot be observed is consistent with observation so long as we never observe another one (since the theory says they're unobservable),
What if the other universes are not so "unobservable" after all? What if we have misinterpreted the observations, and the force we interpret as "dark matter"/Dark Energy is really gravity leaking out of the other universes, and into ours?
I can readily imagine a multi-universe theory, which includes such an effect, and therefore is not simply "consistent" with observation, but actually predicts the observed effects we call dark matter & dark energy, as consequences of the communication of information between universes.
I think rather than a multiverse view, mine would more accurately be labeled a biggerverse view. I don't believe in "empty space".
I'll just refer to our universe as an "environment". Stuff from outside our environment encounters our environment, and due to the nature of each, the stuff encounters resistance as it attempts to pass through.
This facilitates the formation of electrons, protons, and all the stuff we see in our environment.
Stuff created in this manner eventually encounters another black hole, where it is reduced to lowest terms as it exits
I'm not trying to challenge your whole theory (I couldn't if I wanted to). You may indeed be "on the right track", but there are some areas that need work.
I like the flow through aspect, but you have a bit of magic going on too. I don't like magic. I'm not saying you should work it all out and come up with an indisputable theory of everything, but if there's a bit you haven't worked out, acknowledge it so others know what to work on.
I like the flow through aspect, but you have a bit of magic going on too.
If the GRB goes booooommmm, there has to be some reason for it.
electrons and protons forming as they cool.
...or is the gamma radiation coming through the "funnel" along with the neutrinos?
just for the record, the "magic" I was referring to is the gamma ray burst. If nothing is happening to the neutrinos and they're not interacting with anything, where are the gamma rays coming from? What, specifically is decaying at the event horizon? Maybe you left out a bit, but it seems as though the gamma radiation is just "popping into existence".
Powered by mwForum 2.15.0 © 1999-2008 Markus Wichitill
