E-mail updates
Follow on Twitter
Subscribe to RSS
A. Cross / J. Dunn / Edgeworx for NOVA
Columbia physicist Brian Greene inhabits a multiple-perspective landscape modeled after M.C. Escher's artwork in a scene from the NOVA series based on his 1999 best-seller, "The Elegant Universe." Greene says his latest book, "The Hidden Reality," ranges over an even broader cosmic canvas. Click on the image to watch the NOVA program.
Is it preposterous to consider the existence of parallel universes? Or is it preposterous not to? Physicist Brian Greene would tend toward the latter view.
The Columbia University theoretical physicist's latest book, "The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos," follows up on his two earlier books for popular audiences, "The Elegant Universe" and "The Fabric of the Cosmos."
Those works presented step-by-step guides to string theory and space-time, respectively, leavened with pop-culture references and analogies drawn from everyday life (that is, if your idea of "everyday life" involves watching ants crawl on a power line). "The Hidden Reality" follows a similar formula, using slices of bread, "South Park" and the Wizard of Oz to explain weird ideas such as brane theory, the inflaton field and the holographic universe.
Greene doesn't explain just one scenario in which unreachable universes co-exist alongside our own. He delves into nine possibilities, drawn from different corners of scientific speculation. Is that too much speculation? Some folks think so.
Scientific American's John Horgan wrote that he used to get fired up over the idea that our universe was just one of many making up a grander "multiverse." But not anymore:
"Now, multiverse theories strike me as not only unscientific but also immoral, for two basic reasons: First, at a time when we desperately need science to help us solve our problems, it's irresponsible for scientists as prominent as Greene to show such a blithe disregard for basic standards of evidence. Second, like religious visions of paradise, multiverses represent an escapist distraction from our world."
Over at the Not Even Wrong blog, a colleague of Greene's at Columbia, mathematician Peter Woit, has his own set of moral qualms:
"My own moral concerns about the multiverse have more to do with worry that pseudo-science is being heavily promoted to the public, leading to the danger that it will ultimately take over from science, first in the field of fundamental physics, then perhaps spreading to others."
Woit goes on to catalog all the books that have come out or are about to come out that make reference to the multiverse, including "From Eternity to Here," "In Search of the Multiverse," "The Grand Design" and "Visions of the Multiverse" just in the past year. Does the world really need another book on the subject?
As a string theorist, Greene is used to such criticism. Like parallel universes, the idea that matter's fundamental building blocks are tiny vibrating strings or multidimensional membranes has often been knocked as unprovable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable speculation. Lawrence Krauss, a theoretical physicist at Arizona State University, is fond of saying that string theory's vision of a "theory of everything" is actually a "theory of anything" that turns out being a "theory of nothing."
"That's provocative nonsense," Greene told me last week. Theorists are not just pulling this stuff out of thin air, he said. Rather, they're being led to seemingly wild conclusions while working within what he called "the tight straitjacket of mathematics."
Random House
"The Hidden Reality" is Columbia physicist Brian Greene's latest literary excursion to the frontiers of physics. Click on the image to read an excerpt.
In a telephone interview conducted during his book tour, Greene addressed the suggestion that multiverse theory was an empty exercise, and explained why scientists have to take parallel universes seriously. Take a look at this edited transcript of the Q&A, read an excerpt from the book, and then let me know what you think in the comment space below:
Cosmic Log: Some people have said, "Oh, no, not another book about the multiverse ... all these things we can't see, all these claims that we can't prove. Why do we need another book about this subject when there have been so many already? And isn't it all speculation anyway?"
Brian Greene: Well, when we are doing mathematical investigations in physics, we as theorists allow the math to take us where it will go. We have seen, time and again, that math is a very potent guide to revealing the true nature of reality. That's what the past couple of hundred years have established. So all we're doing is following the same kinds of procedures that we always have. And as we follow the procedures, as we push the mathematics forward, the math is clearly suggesting that there may be other universes out there.
That does not mean that there are. It does mean, however, that there's a compelling enough reason to take these ideas seriously, develop them further, and try to make contact with observation and experiment. I fully agree that none of these hypothetical ideas can be put within the canon of established physics until there is some kind of observational confirmation. But you can't get to that point unless you understand the theories extraordinarily well. And that's what a lot of cutting-edge physics is now doing.
Q: In your book you talk about several types of parallel universes. What do you mean by the term? Often people have the conception of traveling back in time, or living in a quantum world where you're having a drink at a bar and yet not having a drink. In the TV series "Fringe," there are parallel universes in conflict with each other. People have a lot of conceptions about what a parallel universe means, but what does it mean to a scientist?
A: We have for a long time had a conception of what a "universe" is. Look out at the cosmos, and it's the totality of the stars and the galaxies that are out there, everything that we in principle can see. But we have learned, through a variety of approaches in physics, that that notion of "everything" is possibly a small part of a far larger cosmos, a far grander reality.
I like to make this concrete with a simple example that I think helps ground the physics about this. We all know about the big bang, which is basically how our universe got started. The universe was very small in the distant past, it underwent a rapid expansion, and in the course of that expansion, the universe cooled down and allowed matter to coalesce into stars and galaxies.
Now, many people don't fully appreciate that this story of the big bang leaves out something very important: It leaves out the "bang." It leaves out the physical process that started the outward swelling of space in the first place. As we have developed mathematical tools to fill in that gap, to really understand what happened at the beginning, the math has indicated that the big bang may not have been a unique event. There may have been, and may continue to be, many big bangs — each of which gives rise to its own expanding universe, our universe being but one among many. In that sense, we are part of a multiverse.
Q: One of the more provocative ideas that you put forward in your book is the suggestion that there could be other versions of Brian Greene or Alan Boyle that are just slightly off, existing in some other quadrant of the multiverse. Have you gotten some raised eyebrows over that?
A: Well, it's a staggeringly strange idea, but again, we need to emphasize that it doesn't emerge from some scientist sitting in a dark room and letting his imagination run wild. This idea comes from the notion that the expanse of space goes on forever — that it's infinitely large. That's an idea that people have contemplated for a long time. In fact, I would say that the majority of physicists and astronomers, when they speak about space, they do envision it going on forever. Then it takes but a simple little mathematical exercise to establish that, in any finite region of space, matter can only arrange itself in finitely many configurations.
The analogy I like to use is a deck of cards. When you shuffle the deck, the cards come out in different orders, but there are only finitely many different orders of the cards. If you shuffle that deck infinitely many times, the orders necessarily will repeat. Similarly, in an infinite spatial universe, the arrangements of particles have to repeat, too. If they repeat, then indeed, things that we are familiar within the world around us — you, me, Earth, the sun, everything else — would repeat as well.
When one explains this idea to someone who hasn't heard it before, it is shocking at first — you're absolutely right. But when one takes in the mathematical argument and mulls it over, it becomes clear this is what would happen.
Q: That's just one of the nine options suggested for the existence of parallel universes. Do you have a favorite scenario?
A: It depends on how you measure the "favorites." The measure I'm most fond of is, "Which of these stands the greatest chance of receiving some experimental support in the not-too-distant future?" By that measure, I like to focus on the "brane multiverse" theory. That's this idea that string theory doesn't just contain strings. It also contains membranes — two-dimensional objects — and three-branes, which are three-dimensional objects, and so forth.
The brane multiverse imagines that all we have thought to be the universe actually takes place on one of these three-branes, with other three-branes potentially out there. The analogy I like to use is a loaf of bread, where our universe is one slice, but there are other slices out there populating this grander cosmos. And this idea of a brane multiverse can be tested at the Large Hadron Collider.
When you have powerful proton collisions, the math suggests that some of the debris from those collisions can be ejected off our brane, and we would notice that by virtue of having less energy after the collision than before — because the debris would take some of the energy away with it. People are looking for these kinds of missing-energy signatures. If the results prove positive — which, I absolutely need to underscore, I consider a long shot — then it would be evidence that we are living on one of these branes. If we are living on a brane, then there's really no reason to anticipate that our brane would be the only one. There would be other branes out there, other universes.
Q: What energy level would be required to see that sort of evidence?
A: It all depends on the size of the extra dimensions within which all these branes would be embedded. If the extra dimensions are very small, it takes increasingly large amounts of energy to get debris from the collisions to leave our brane and go into this tiny extradimensional space.
That's the unknown: If the dimensions are big enough, then the energies required would be within reach of the Large Hadron Collider. If the extra dimensions are small, then the Large Hadron Collider would not be able to cause this process to happen. So the best we can do is get some evidence that confirms the brane multiverse idea. It's pretty hard to get evidence that would flatly rule it out.
There's one point I want to get out about the book: It's not a "multiverse manifesto." It's not trying to say, "Look at this wonderful idea, and it's true." No. I'm saying, "Look at this curious idea that many leading scientists are thinking about" — including me, I do work on this stuff right now. Let's ask ourselves, "What's this all about? What's the mathematical motivation for thinking about it?" And I ask the question "Is this science?" How can we verify these ideas? What other insights do we need to acquire going forward, in order to make the multiverse idea something that fits squarely within confirmable or falsifiable science?
This idea is controversial for good reason. It is at the cutting edge — not only the cutting edge of science, but also the edge of the kinds of ideas that we want to embrace in science. That's what makes it exciting.
Q: You make the point that it's very difficult to have any sort of direct contact with other universes. The differences are just so great. The only way to conceptualize other universes, I suppose, is through mathematics and the bits of evidence that can be gleaned from particle collisions or the cosmic microwave background radiation. Is there any possible avenue to get substantive information about the bigger picture, or are we pretty much stuck in our own little corner of the multiverse?
A: I think we're certainly stuck physically. But I would not underestimate the power of mathematics to provide the kinds of insights you are referring to. We are definitely at a rudimentary state in our understanding of these multiverse proposals. But if we can refine that understanding, we could produce detailed "universe demographics." We could gain a very detailed understanding of the percentage of universes that would have this or that quality.
In fact, we might get lucky with a well-developed multiverse theory. We might find that universes differ in substantial ways, but we might also find that there are certain common features that all universes share — like a certain class of particle, for instance. Then, to adjudicate that multiverse proposal, all we would need to really do is look for those particles here in our universe. We're part of this multiverse, after all. If we fail to find those particles, we could rule out that proposed theory. It's falsifiable, even though we can't actually see the other universes. If we do find those particles, that would bolster our confidence that the theory is correct, as would be the case for other fields of experimental science.
My point is, I'm laying out the way in which various multiverse proposals could rise to the level of being testable, of being falsifiable. The mere fact that you can find ways to do that shows quite clearly that the subject can't simply be written off.
Q: You've had quite the range of experiences during your book tour — including an appearance on "The Colbert Report." [During his chat, Greene told host Stephen Colbert that he could be described as "a bag of particles governed by the laws of physics," leading Colbert to quip, "That is a great pickup line."] In a parallel universe, is there anything you'd want to change about the past few weeks?
A: Oh, goodness. ... If I could get a couple more hours of sleep in the day, that would be welcome. But that's about it.
... And that's about it from the interview as well. Read an excerpt from Chapter One of "The Hidden Reality" and let me know what you think.
More about the shape of the cosmos:
- Elegant physicist makes string theory sexy
- Interactive: Beyond the big bang
- Interactive: The symphony of everything
- Scientists say cosmos is mind-bogglingly big
- So what's the universe expanding into?
Join the Cosmic Log community by clicking the "like" button on our Facebook page or by following msnbc.com science editor Alan Boyle as b0yle on Twitter. To learn more about Alan Boyle's book on Pluto and the search for planets, check out the website for "The Case for Pluto."
Leave a Comment:
I think me and my friends stumbled upon this very theory back in '74 after smoking an entire dime bag.
Like, wow.
Best comment ever!
An "entire" dime bag? How much weed could you get for $10 bucks back then and how good was it?
;-P
Is it just me, or does Brian Greene look exactly like Adrien Brody?
Those dime bags and other druggie "goodies" are responsible for $40 billion US to the Mexican cartels that kill for fun and games. We could use that money for other endeavours and have responsible American citizens to boot if you'd all quit.
Or, we could legalize the market so people needed not kill each other for blackmarket profits?
How did that little thing called "prohibition" work out for us again?
Or you all could just quit and not worry about black market or legal dope.
Just like you and the other 350 million Americans that use legal drugs can quit that, and actually save lives? Maybe you dont realize what stupid rubbish comes from your lips. You base the American economy on a twisted notion garnered from a 1950s movie the government shoved down your throats to the point you believe it is true. 450,000 people a year die from cigs and booze, 4,000 from prescription drugs...in the USA ALONE, and you can count the number of deaths related to use of pot without a single finger...in the history of the entire world. The black market and cartels exist simply because it is illegal, and thus there are profits galore to be made. Legal and taxed, controlled like tobacco, the stigma that drives teens to try it in the beginning, the danger of doing something illegal and rebellious to societal acceptance would be gone. Yes of course some will still try it, just like they try booze, but the numbers will drop. The only reason it is illegal is because the government falsely believes they make more money fighting it than they would if they allowed it to be legal.
Lets not mention the thousands and thousands of you running around in a prescribed drug fog endangering the rest of us who just want to go home, take a couple tokes and relax...
There is actually ample proof that some groups, like the CIA, FBI, DEA and ATF are all involved in the drug trade in one way or the other, either facilitating it or taking payoffs to lok the other direction. Ths is how they actually finance some of their 'Black Ops'. that is one of the MAJOR reasons that it is not legal, they would lose a big source of black funding, to the tune of trillions of dollars...not the billions that they say is happening.
A lot of what science is advancing today is made into fact even though it will always be theory. That's because what the theory postulates can never be replicated. Kind of tough to make a big bang to prove it happened. The only evidence is circumstancial. But because big bang theory has been pounded down our throats people take it as fact. And if you disagree with popular theories you are excommunicated from the Church of Science.
I dont think the word theory means what you think it means. Theories change, history is proof of that, they will continue to change as knowedge is gained.
Inconceivable!
Don't you know to never go against a Sicilian when death is on the line?!
anybody want a peanut!
Stop rhyming!! XD
This is really quite entertaining, but I have a secret: I am not left handed!
Jack-2510943: The word "theory" does not mean what you think it means. "Theory" and "fact" are not mutually exclusive. When scientists use the word "theory" it doesn't mean that they are, necessarily, still sitting around wondering if it's true or not. Scientifically, a theory is a detailed set of statements about the natural world that is supported by a significant body of evidence. It is quite possible for something to be BOTH a theory AND a well established fact.
You are also very mistaken about the way scientists react to dissent. Dissent is, in fact, a crucial part of the scientific process. (If you don't believe me, walk into any scientific conference and listen to the arguments.) Here's the key, though: There is a world of difference between informed criticism and uninformed criticism. If you propose to debate string theory without ever having read a single peer-reviewed theoretical physics paper in your life, there is almost no chance that any criticism you have is going to be of value.
It is just you. There little resemblence to Adrian Brody.
The "big bang theory" is based on observed evidence, not experimental evidence. Come to think of it, a lot of science is based on observed evidence. Geology, for example, is based on observing the real world, not on creating a world in the lab.
Scientific theories are not "proven", they are tested, and if they pass the testing they are likely to be true. Theories based on observed evidence can be tested by additional observation, it is not necessary to recreate something in the lab to test it.
How about a quick synopsis on the observable big bang events.
Without the sine qua non of science, which is definitive predictions that are prior, feasible, quantitative, non-adjustable and unique to the theory being tested, one is lost in the cosmos without a reliable compass.
You get 10^500 "universes" with random parameters, ficticious "Boltzmann brains" [or possibly Boltzmann keesters?], unobservable particles, a string theory religion that has yet to offer a formal theory, a single definitive prediction or a single major discovery after 30 years of hype.
It is pseudo-science. It is extremely Platonic. It is probably extremely Ptolemaic.
But it gets people slots on the Colbert show, or interviews with Terry Gross on NPR, or write-ups in Nature, Science and pop media.
I wish science journalists would be a bit less sycophantic.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
I'd have to agree with you on the string theory comments. The fact that they are following the math as opposed to observations or simply the way the world works seems backwards. Einstein didnt start playing with mathematical formulas until they gave him something interesting, he thought about how light would look if you were travelling at the same speed. His theories stemmed from observations and thought experiments about the real world rather than random formulas combined for an esoteric explanation. I believe that we need to stop hypothesizing about theories we cannot test or that have no basis in reality, namely string theory and multiverses. I think that if theoretical physics were to take a small step backwards and really nail down a practical understanding of what we know as reality (the marriage of quantum mechanics and general relativity perhaps?) then the steps forward will be more accurate and more useful.
Shrodinger, I think that what you will find, once you "Nail down...quantum mechanics and relativity" is that multiple universes HAVE to happen as a natural part of what is Reality. If we were to stop trying to figure such things out we would be like the folks before Ben Franklin saying that electricity is something that can never be controlled, is dangerous and so we should just plain leave it alone...yet look how useful we find it today.
The plain fact is that our "Shadow Government, military and some corporations already KNOW the truth about multiple universes, and use it. They already have teleportation devices, ones that can transport one not only to another place, but to other times and other time lines as well. Look up The Pegasus Project. That along with Zero Point Energy and antigravitational devices for just a few of the items that we already HAVE that have been kept from the public as "Defense Department" and "National Security" reasons...aside from the fact that many of the big energy corporations would not be making anywhere Near the money that they do now selling heavily damaging and polluting fossil fuel energy and the like. This information is going to be made public within the next year so that all speculation and derision of such is going to end, in a definitive manner!
Laugh if you will, but you WILL see that I am right on this!
Nah....! Really? Can you post a link? Seriously.
A good place to start is: http://www.projectpegasus.net/
From there you can find other links. Andrew Basiago was involved in some of the experiments and has come out as a whistle blower with his story about such.
Project Pegasus? It is amazing how such an elaborate conspiracy theory can be constructed with such flimsy evidence. What they pass off as "evidence" is mostly wishful thinking, rumors, wild speculations, and tall tales, and the few sparse facts they muster can be better explained by conventional ordinary everyday explanations. The lack of evidence doesn't stop a conspiracy theorist, though, they claim the lack of evidence is "proof of a cover-up", so lack of evidence in their warped way of thinking becomes "Proof"!
Fact is, the "Government" couldn't cover up Watergate or nuclear weapons, they certainly couldn't cover up something as revolutionary and potentially profitable as "Teleportation" if it actually existed. Nor would they have any motive to do so.
The "Project Pegasus" website was good for a laugh, though
Behonest: I know, I've seen it on TV. It's out there in the mountains of wyoming. I can't wait to meet Tilk in person.
Ptolemaic, indeed. For the uninitiated, Mr. Oldershaw is referring to the prevailing scientific view of our Solar System from the time of Ptolemy in the 2nd Century AD, up until Copernicus debunked it - namely, that the earth is a the center of the Solar System, not the Sun. It was actually quite a good model for predicting the motions of the planets, but it had no basis in reality. Whenever the predictions of the Ptolemaic model disagreed with the observations, for example in the orbits of Venus and Mercury, the astronomers would just add more epicycles to this clockwork-like model to bring it back into line. The whole thing came crashing down when Copernicus proved by observation that all of the planets orbit around the Sun.
My fear is that all of these esoteric brane theories and multiverses, being purely math-derived, have no basis in reality either - at least so far. You cannot rely solely on mathematical models to define "things as they really are", else you risk going down the same rabbit-hole that Ptolemy did, if I can mix these metaphors.
Actually, the Ptolemaic system was more accurate in predicting the future location of objects in the sky than the Copernican model. Copernicus made one large mistake -- he assumed circular orbits. Many people disregarded his work when it was shown that it didn't accurately predict the movement of the planets.
It took Kepler to really kill Ptolemy. He had the mathematics background to really make sense of the decades of minute observations collected by Brahe. He determined that the planets moved in elliptical orbits with the sun at one focus of the ellipse, and that they moved at different speeds throughout their orbit.
Kepler's model was the first to be more accurate than Ptolemy's.
But even Kepler's model couldn't explain all of the observed motions of the planets. It very succesfully was used in finding Neptune based upon tiny observed perterbations in the orbit of Uranus. However, there are similar anomolies in the orbit of Mercury. Astronomers searched vainly for years, hoping to find tiny Vulcan, orbiting somewhere between Mercury and the sun. It wasn't there.
It took Einstein and his whacky Theory of Relativity which mathematically predicted the curvature of spacetime in the presence of large mass (or actually any mass for that matter!) to explain why mercury would move the way that it does. THAT'S the start of mathematical astrophysics, but it wasn't accepted until there was verifiable proof in the form of observations of star light during eclipses which precisely matched the prediction. Hypothesis confirmed. Over and over. Now known as a Theory.
So now we have a "String Theory" which hasn't provided any verifiable predictions, a "Brane Theory" which does nothing but make my brain hurt, and a "Dark Matter / Dark Energy" theory which are nothing but the equivalent of epicycles and equants invented to explain why galaxies seem to move in funny ways that we don't understand.
Greene continues:
So, at what point, (when, when, when?) do we apply this standard to the idea of "dark matter"? If we fail to find it, (and so far, we can't, that's why it's called "dark"), we should rule it out and look for other ways of explaining the CMB data and the spinning motion of far off galaxies.
Yeah I have to admit that String and Brane theory seem like the stuff of science fiction. Apparently the math works out, and it's possible for them to exist without violating anything that's actually observable. But what is the point of abstract hypotheses that, by their nature, cannot be tested? Might as well ask a Flatlander to find proof of the mysterious "3rd Dimension." They can't observe or perceive it, and it has no influence on their universe.
The question of "if something exists but is completely unobservable, does it really exist" is a philosophy question, not a science question, no matter how fascinating it is.
I heard one fellow suggesting that gravitation might exert its influence across spacial dimensions beyond the 3rd. That was his suggestion for the nature of "dark matter" -- it's not matter at all, but matter in other dimensions. We can only observe its gravity. Black holes would exist across all dimensions.
But again that's science fiction, unless we can actually find a gravity well with no matter to create it.
We don't even completely understand how gravity works in the normal universe. Our current best theory of gravity, Einstein's General Relativity, apparently predicts the existence of "gravity waves" but so far we haven't been able to detect any. Maybe our equipment isn't sensitive enough? There's the LISA project on deck:
http://lisa.nasa.gov/
but if that doesn't detect anything what do we do? Scrap General Relativity and start over? If we could come up with some way of explaining what we see without resorting to mystical hand waving about "dark" stuff that's present but undetectable, I for one would be a lot more satisified.
hehehehe... I like you MikeyMike :D
Right back atcha, Jer!
Aww, come on, we know how Gravity works..ya let go of something and it falls down, faster and faster, until it hits something, like yer foot or your head or some such...the ground if you are lucky.....so they made a "law" around it...hehehe, but you are right, they have NO idea how it really works or why, just a few various theories about it, but no definitive proofs as to HOW and WHY it works that way!
You guys talking about dark matter and unprovable things are indulging in mental masterbation.
My troubled Dance, Forevers Rose A look before we fall But like before I have awoke Enlightened by this Wall. Chances come a breathless fall My Fate it comes to call The morning light still beckons me to leave while I am tall A Fortunes race to leave behind a better passing trade Of much I still admire him crashing into my blade Accept the battles crutches of men that cant be saved Or steal the slashing fathom of all missing from their graves The torch that can not cause you, To wither from delight It was only with mistake we come to take this flight Breaking for a moments truce, To see the worth of blight Give before the balance slides and with it all our might For only does it cause us To shake a Perfect world And in this pointless calculation Of direction we've unfurled Staring in the reflection of souls still in regret A cause to wonder where I'm from and what I must become The touching breath I have come to know that fills my hearts desire Is lost inside and searching dreams to find where we have met And then I begin to mark my fall While the rest are still alseep A thought before that was so alone and breaching their tempers reach The hands I've come to welcome now before I would not seek And now I run to gather up their brilliant silent speech...
Is that an original composition? and What is the connection to the article being discussed?
It is like nails on a chalk board when I read this type of stuff.
What these geniuses call multiverses, dark matter, dark energy...why don't they just say GOD is in control? Not that I think this way, but they are essentially asking all to believe in something that not only may not be proven, but we should ignore the possibility of and the more likely probability that we have one infinite universe.
I'll bet they will never find the "equation" that tells how the universe exists. Why? Because how do you get something that is infinite to balance out in an equation. There is essentially no answer. But, if you come up with crap you can't explain or prove, but you can get it to balance out...BAMMMM...you got some new math that some ivy league elite can put their name on.
Crap like this is done in accounting and taxes already. Even your calculator is incapable of showing you the true result in some cases, so you get what fits in the screen.
Can you prove God exists?
That's not the point he was making Jamal-2179681. He was stating that with all of the scientific crap they try to prove coming at us every century, they never have a straight answer. There is no definitive answer to what "It" is, just a really good guess. So like God, you either believe or you don't.
The universe is not infinite, it is finite. It just seems infinite because our feeble brains cannnot contemplate the vast size of the universe.
The difference between science and religion is that science is based on observable facts, that are tested, this develops theories which are believed to be the "How things work", These theories will change, be altered or disregarded as our knowledge of things change.
Religion on the other hand is not based on provable facts (other then historical events that actually happened and to clarify I am referring to history not the magical tales) What ever religion it is cannot provide scientific proof of a God, on the same hand Science cannot disprove that God doesnt exist.
What people need to understand is science is not about religions beliefs it is about cold hard facts and knowledge. Believe what you want to but dont take what science says personal (as it relates to your religion)
Knowledge changes and it will continue to change, every things evolves as time goes on as will our intelligence and our knowledge of the universe we live in.
He did propose several methods for testing and predicting various multiverse hypotheses.
But until we get some test data, they will never become theories.
Actually, there is one God that proves who He is...and He is the God of Abraham, Moses, and Jacob, that is, Jesus Christ of Nazareth. How can I say that with such certainty. Well there is observable, verifiable, and first hand witness accounts that leads one to conclude, without a shadow of a doubt, that Jesus Christ of Nazareth is the God of the Old Testament. The argument is not to prove that God exists, the foundation of the argument lies on the notion that a god does exist, and that the Biblical God has the ability to show Himself throughout history, repeatedly.
Now, just like the big bang or whatever happens between these bang events if such a thing is to be, we cannot be witness to what is the eternal Godhead, the Father, the Son, and Holy Spirit. But what we can be "witness" to and verify is that one Jesus Christ of Nazareth was born, lived, died, and was resurrected from said "death." Jesus of Nazareth had to fulfill 100+ prophecies about his person. If every human being that ever lived is to be accounted for, according to our current understanding and knowledge, said population cannot be more than twice our current population, then the odds of Jesus being born at the exact time, place, hour, lineage, etc and being set-up, convicted falsely, dying by crucifixion, having not a bone broken in his body while on the cross (standard operating procedure for Romans), etc...would have to be more than the known particles in the current state of the universe.
Hence, the God of the known Universe, conspired to interject Himself and prove that He is the real deal. You can either believe it or not, it does not matter to Him, although He already has a plan for His greatest creation - the living, breathing, intelligent beings called Humans, when this universe is destroyed, as science already has shown, it will. To know that plan takes action, (1) realize that all you know ain't nothing but grasping of straws, no matter what acronym follows your birth name, (2) that you are infallible, and one screwed up human being, (3) Jesus died and resurrected that He might reconcile you back to God the Father because you are a screwball and can't grasp the magnitude of His eternal plan for you as an individual without some help from Him.
"Test me" says the Lord.
MX -- Do you always write in such white noise?
There is Only ONE God, He is the SUN God, Ra, Ra, Ra Ra Ra....!!
mx is crazy as a loon.
MX, not crazy but perhaps misguided. Try comprehending the Lords prayer as given by Jesus to his disciples.
Thy Kingdom come, Thy will be done on earth as it is in heaven or the Revelation of Gods Kingdom coming to reside with mankind and the end to sickness, mourning, and outcry, and even death will be no more.
These scriptures do not tend to make me believe that earth is a proving ground for angels or demons.
The earth will remain forever and be recreated and inhabited by mankind choosing to follow Gods will.
Meant for MX: Not a post for those who do not believe.
Math can lead to truly magnificent advances in knowledge, e.g., General Relativity.
Math can also, and extremely easily, lead to garbage ideas like Boltzmann brains being "inevitable", or infinite copies of something as complex and unique as a specific human being. [Have the Platonists never heard of Poincare and nonlinear dynamical systems science? Their mathematical arguments are hopelessly idealistic and thoroughly unnatural. The real world is fully causal and deterministic, only partially predictable, and irreversible in any exact and comprehensive analysis!]
Whether you get beautiful science or garbage pseudo-science depends on the concepts and paradigms you start with. GIGO, if you get my drift.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Can you explain the Self-Similar Cosmological Paradigm in a nutshell?
In a nutshell, the self-similar cosmological paradigm, aka Discrete Scale Relativity, says that nature has a previously ignored fundamental symmetry that can variously be described as discrete conformal invariance, discrete scale invariance, or discrete self-similarity. They are all intimately related.
It gives you a discrete fractal paradigm for nature. It is derived from direct study of the actual physical systems constituing nature, and it makes many definitive predictions, most notably its exact predictions about the nature of the galactic dark matter.
It shows the correct path to the unification of QM and GR and verifies Einstein's intuition that such a unification is mandatory for an adequate theoretical physics.
See www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw for details.
RLO
boltzmann brains...
...Is anyone really self-aware? There are very decent arguments for and against self awareness. I personally like the quote from "Joe vs. the Volcano". Meg Ryan says: "My father says that almost the whole world is asleep. Everybody you know. Everybody you see. Everybody you talk to. He says that only a few people are awake and they live in a state of constant total amazement."
Astrophysics and Cosmology is tough enough, at this juncture, let us not get into Consciousness and the Philosophy of Mind. There's got to be another thread for that.
Alright, I will drop the philosophic stuff, for now.. But when we speak of science we are speaking of "observable" facts and phenomena. This ties the scientist to the data he or she is collecting- observer and observation. what happens in the mind is important. I will leave it at that for now.
Have you ever had the occasion where you observe a phenomena that simply can not be explained? In a lifespan spanning 54 uneventful though fulfilling years I have had one (only one) experience that shook me to the core. It was observable by several parties, possessed what appeared to be instrumentality, levitated, moved through solid surfaces without resistance and left no evidence of its passing (we were indoors). We were sober, awake and until the very cusp of the event going about the minutia and all the mundane tasks that for the most part makes up one's life. In the words of the bard, "there are more things in heaven and earth, Horatio, then are dreamt of in your philosophy"! This is not the only world, dimension or reality!
Great post, science will never know it all and just because they get to one answer about something they tend to not believe anything they don't have an answer for but people have faith in. Knowing that there is so much in this reality and universe that we will never know or understand makes it such a beautiful existence. I wonder if most scientist realize they don't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground. Life is a sham so enjoy it while you can and worry about the rest later.
It was observable by several parties, possessed what appeared to be instrumentality, levitated, moved through solid surfaces without resistance and left no evidence of its passing
This sounds like Ball Lightning, which while rare, has been documented as going through solid objects. And since you didn't mention anything about physical mass that's what I'm guessing.
Some of these guys are too smart for their/our own good. I am amazed and appalled that ridiculous theories get such widespread publicity. If someone proposed a really reasonable theory about a multiverse, it would get tossed out by the peer review process, and we would never hear about it. Something is really wrong with "science" in this country.
Physicists know about two distinctly different kinds of phenomena: one is "local" and the other is "non-local". The local version is where cause-and-effect are linked in space, and is the one we are most familiar with. The non-local version is where cause-and-effect are linked somehow, but NOT in space.
Example: I get a doll and stick a pin in its head. The cause-and-effect here are things that are spatial. But suppose I take the doll to the neighborhood voodoo-dolls-are-us store and have the priest there correlate the doll with a criminal in Haiti. Then when I stick the pin in the doll's head, the guy in Haiti instantly gets a headache. There is a cause-and-effect, but it is not spatial. It is in time, and looks like "action at a distance".
The physics version of the latter is the EPR paradox and all the related experiments of different designs that testify that this effect is indeed factual (but not with dolls). So if you are looking for more universes, why not start with a factual hint like that one?
It may be that our Universe is composed of two subsets, one that is localized in coordinate space, and a statistically identical one that is localized in coordinate time. One is localized in a "where" type of reference system, and the other could only be seen in a "when" type of reference system. Atoms and photons in the latter would have purely random positional and directional components in a spatial reference system. They would be "homogeneous and isotropic" from our observational standpoint. Cosmic rays and the cosmic X-ray and microwave background radiation have these very properties. That is another strong hint!
But you'll never read about any physicist investigating this possibility. He would be ostracized by his peers if he did. And so we are stuck with 10^500 universes as the most reasonable alternative.
Now do you wonder why our kids aren't so interested in mainstream science anymore?
lol it's not the science it's the media picking up on the wiff of it and running with it like they know what they're talking about.....
for all us basketball nutts..... Charles Barkley enough said.
Science still goes through a rough process of checks by opposing theorist and the rest of the science community. No theory goes unchallenged. I believe that most theories that last more than a few years have at least have a leg to stand on. Most of science is theory. Very little of it is LAW. But if we dont come up with theories (no matter how far out we think they might be) and use the community to challenge them we will never advance in the field. Some theories come from debunking other theories.
Wasn't quantum mechanics summarily ridiculed by the community until sufficient evidence was gathered? Could this be a similar situation now as we await the opportunity to adequately test some rendition of the multiverse theory?
What's more immoral: funding the journey math leads us, probing the most fundamental notions of physics or funding the development of more effective killing machines and a paranoid military structure to use them?
Reap what you sow.
To say that we already understand particles and their interactions with others and we don't need to explore string theory is ludicrous. Exploration in all areas is key. We don't have a cure for cancer. Most of our planet is still undiscovered, and BTW we only recently defined WHAT a planet is. Yes, we must have a strict line between science theory and science fact. Observable/provable/repeatable facts are the foundation of science; while "because I said so" is the foundation of religion. But take "observable" and "provable" with a grain of salt. Subatomic particles and their behaviors are extraordinarily difficult to detect and measure. The math may be able to lead us where our technology cannot. As far as calling string theory a pseudo-science goes, electricity was mocked at one time, as well as powered flight and let's not forget black holes were a silly theory before they were proven to not only exist, but are plentiful, by indirect observation. I think that string theory has exciting potential. String theory, if correct, will yield equations which when applied, will either be proven to work or won't. I hope that the science community would be objective and not rush to grab the pitch forks, stones and torches… like some religious folks would.
Thirty years and nothing verifiable so far. How long do we wait before tossing this "string theory" crap into the scientific trash bin along with ptolemaic planetary mechanics and the flat earth?
Nice try guys. Thanks for playing. Do try again.
There is no such thing as 'fact' in science. There are two conditions: hypothesis and theory. Hypothesis proposes a possibility and theory is a possibility supported by [a lot] evidence. Science does not profess that other possibilities do not exist for every theory. The theories that rise to the top are the ones with the most scientific evidence to support it. You are confusing 'fact' with acceptance. And if you disagree with popular theories then at least have a good reason(s) besides 'that's just silly' or 'my holy book says it happened this way' (<-- talk about no evidence)
I have to disagree, there are facts in science, if you boil water you get oxygen and hydrogen when the water evaporates. There are millions of other scientific "facts" that are part of science as well as Theories.
Theories do have facts in them but the amt of facts depends on what the theories are. How can you say that theories dont have any facts, if anything they have to be based on a foundation of facts.
generally boiling water results in steam which is gaseous water (water vapor) the process of producing hydrogen and oxygen from water is more involved. your fact - in fact - is erroneous. electrolysis is one way of converting water to oxygen and hydrogen.
the "proof" to any theory , ARE the facts....
Actually Pirate, Json is pretty much correct. The closest thing science has to a 'fact' would be the fundamental laws that are used, simply because without those ideas, causation isn't guaranteed. However, for anything to be truly a 'fact', it has to be tested for all possible conditions which is impossible to do.
Mitchell
1+1=2, fact. the earth revolves around the sun. fact 1 cell /2 = 2 cells, fact.
being intentionally obtuse is my theory.
based on my findings... it is now fact.
We've defined 1+1 to equal 2, it's not a fact, huge difference, besides 1+1=10 :-)
Mitchell
Jeremiah and Mitch,
Hypothetically, we could define a "mathematical space" in which 1+1 does equal 10 and then see how that would mathematically affect other stuff. As I understand it, that's basically what these guys do, but on a WAY more complicated level. Even if the math works out, it doesn't make it true.
O wow. 1+1+1=11 woot!!! fact! (binary)
yes... it does in the event you didn't miss something. and if you did, you do the experiment again, and again and again until your satisfied with your findings. and then... the findings are your facts.
there's a diffrence between good science and theories that cannot be proven nor disproved.
I grow using 1 cup of water per day... my plant dies.
I grow using 1/2 cup of water per day my plant lives.
the observation and collection of this data is science, and yes it is fact. after the tests have transpired, ... or did we just imagine the dead plant?
It doesn't matter the Complex nature of the problem, Good Science will observe as much as they can and adjust but after the observation, what was observed no matter how it is translated into your thoughts, was FACT. as it transpired and can never be duplicated in the EXACT manner it was the first time. so the test is fact. it happened and those are your results.
We're arguing nothing that matters if only for the sake of being a smart !@#.
But science is the persuit of truth... and facts. opinions are flung from kingdom come ... and accepted today as Science. but whatever.
1+1=10 if 1=5, but then what is 5 equal to if not 1+1+1+1+1? 25?
I am a smart ass, I know nothing. I stand by what I've said.
LOL it'd look like this 1.2.3.4.10.11.12.13.14.20.21.22.23.24.30.
x+x= 10 x=5 x+x+x+x+x=25 where x =5
can't use the 1 in what your trying to do as it already has a value assigned to it.
But you already knew that :D
Offically it's called a topological space and yes topology plays a huge role in the mathematics they use in string theory.
1 is the loneliest number. but 2 can be as bad as 1.
I think all he's saying is that science does not purport to say that "absolutely, in no uncertain terms, will action A lead to result B, guaranteed for all eternity, in every frame of reference." Science says, "all known evidence, rigorously reviewed, supports this correlation in this frame of reference." "Fact" is still a subjective term, no matter how widely accepted the "fact" is. If that were not the case, the phrase "widely accepted fact" would not make sense.
So, scientists save time by choosing to accept certain theories as fact for the purpose of advancing other work, but it's more of an assumption of truth for practical purposes rather than a belief in anything being immutable, in my opinion.
What Makes 100%?
What does it mean to give MORE than 100%?
Ever wonder about those people who say they are giving more than 100%? We have all been to those meetings where someone wants you to give over 100%.
How about achieving 103%?
What makes up 100% in life?
Here's a little mathematical formula that might help you answer these questions:
If:
A B C D E F G H I J K L M N O P Q R S T U V W X Y Z
is represented as:
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26.
Then:
H-A-R-D-W-O-R-K
8+1+18+4+23+15+18+11 = 98%
and
K-N-O-W-L-E-D-G-E
11+14+15+23+12+5+4+7+5 = 96%
But ,
A-T-T-I-T-U-D-E
1+20+20+9+20+21+4+5 = 100%
And,
B-U-L-L-S-H-I-T
2+21+12+12+19+8+9+20 = 103%
AND, look how far ass kissing will take you.
A-S-S-K-I-S-S-I-N-G
1+19+19+11+9+19+19+9+14+7 = 118%
So, one can conclude with mathematical certainty, that While Hard work andKnowledge will get you close, andAttitude will get you there, its theBull@!$%# and Ass Kissing that will put you over the top.
Now I know why some people are where they are!
(I just got this in an email and thought it fit well with this conversation).
:D
fact!! lol
Excellent Mob! It's an oldie but a goody, and quite apropos.
I N T E L L I G E N C E
9+14+20+5+12+12+9+7+5+14+3+5 = 115%
YAYYY, addition is fun!!!!
a=6 b=12 c=18 d=24 e=30 f=36 g-42 h=48 i=54 j=60 k=66 l=72 m=78 n=84 o=90 p=96 q=102 r=108 s=114 t=120 u=126 v=132 w=138 x=144 y=150 z=156
C+O+M+P+U+T+E+R=
it's no fun if i give the answer :D
1+1=10 in Binary...lol and 1+1+1=11 in Binary as well, so it all is a matter of which mathematical space you 'Base' it on!
"...often been knocked as unprovable, unverifiable, unfalsifiable speculation."
Kind of like believing in a God.
Yep. Or the "luminiferous aether".
I'd change that last sentence to read, "That what makes it bunk."
I applaud Professor Greene for bringing cutting edge theoretical physics to the masses. I have not read the book yet, but I assume, as he did in this article, that Prof. Greene goes through great lengths to explain that he is not positing the existence of a multiverse, but rather laying out the possibilities, explaining how those were come up with, and talking about the various ways it might be observed, or the implications for math-only theories.
My issue with this article is the title. I couldn't wait to click on it when I saw the title "Hidden Universes Revealed" (although I knew it had to be inappropriately titled given that true evidence of hidden universes would be the lead story on any news website). Prof. Greene's efforts to explain that nothing is being revealed in his book other than various theories apparently fell on deaf ears, as the title of the article is a kick in Prof. Greene's gut, and inappropriately bolsters his critics' case that the popularization of theoretical physics is doing at least as much harm as good.
i read his other 2 books, and unlike many comments on here seemingly coming from physicists to physicists, he was able to "dumb it down" even to my level. i presume his new book is as good!
It seems like some of the scientific minds on here are forgetting a few key concepts:
1) Everything is POSSIBLE, but not everything is PROBABLE. Say I've been smacking my head against the wall for the last hour, and each time so far, my head has painfully bounced off. It is possible that the next time I hit my head against the wall, it could go clean through. But it's not PROBABLE.
2) The absence of evidence is NOT the evidence of absence, and it is impossible to prove a negative. This is just basic logic.
So to set aside these basic logical concepts when arguing that the idea of a multiverse is ludicrous comes across as stuffy, close-minded arrogance, as does finding fault with scientific theories or hypotheses based on MORAL grounds (while denotatively correct, the connotation carries a strong RELIGIOUS association, making "ethical" a less biased and less misleading word choice).
I am clearly not a scientist, but I do have a fairly strong grasp on logic, which is one of the foundations of the scientific method. To discard an idea, no matter how ludicrous it may seem, without due process is to turn the entire scientific method into a damp squib. Let the theorists pose their ideas, and let them try to prove those ideas. You never know what might shake loose.
I'm with you on "ethical" as a better word choice and seeking proof for proposed ideas. Who was it that said "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof"? Apparently it was Marcello Truzzi and later Carl Sagan picked it up.
For logical concepts, as well as theoretical physics, I'll stick with Occam's Razor or The Principle of Parsimony, i.e. the simplest explanation is usually the best.
Ah, but Mikey, the history of physics should tell you that Occam's Razor should only be left for shaving poodles.
Everything is based on 4 elements: Earth, wind, fire, and water. No, see, there's these tiny building blocks called atoms that make up everything. They're indivisible, solid, and bind with different atoms to form other stuff.
Actually no, they are not solid, infact they are mostly space and it turns out that there's this nucleus that's made of 2 smaller particles with a third particle that orbits the nucleus. That's all fine and dandy, but rather simplistic as those particles are actually made of a number of subatomic particles. The neat part about this level is that states aren't simply + or - or neutral, we now get to use matrices to describe them. That part actually hurt the head of quite a few physicists at the time.
Point being, the more we discover, the more we know it's not simple and that it's rather complex with the above being just one example.
Another example: earth-centric, Ptolemy, Copernicus, Kepler, Einstein. :-)
Mitchell
You could be interested in this then taken from the American Journal of Science and Arts.
Extensive quarrying was done near the city of Aix-en-Provence, France between 1786 and 1788......
In the quarry from which this limestone was taken, the rock strata was separated from each other by layers of sand and clay, and by the time the workmen has removed 11 layers of rock they found they had reached s depth of some 40 or 50 feet below the original ground level of the area.
Beneath the 11th layer of limestone they came to a bed of sand and began to remove it to get to the rock beneath. But in the sand they found the stumps of stone pillars and fragments of half-worked rock - the same stone and rock as they had themselves been excavating. They dug further and to their intense surprise found coins, the petrified wooden handles of hammers, and prices of other petrified wooden tools. Finally, they came to a large wooden board...... Like the wooden tools, it had also been petrified into a form of agate and had been broken into pieces. When the pieces were reassembled, the workmen saw before them a quarryman's board of exactly the kind they themselves used, worn is just the same way as their own boards were....
How a stonemason's yard...... had come to be buried 50 feet deep under layers of sand and limestone 300 million years old is a question even more vexing today than at the time of the original discovery. For we now know, thanks to advances in geological and anthropological dating, that such a think is absolutely and incontrovertibly impossible. And yet it does seem to have happened.
(1:145-46, 1820)
Make of it what you will.....!!
A multi verse connected is it still not one?
A total naval gazing waste of time.
By definition, universe is all that exists. There can be no other.
If the definition is to be limited so there is some weirdo dimensional inaccessible 'other', so what?
I guess no body invited you to the LHC, your missing out Mr Darwufche. So What? All this leads to something else sooner or later, just as the earth was flat once and we were the center at one time. All of this has an effect on the "so whats" of the world weather you believe or not. And if some wierdo dimensional inaccessible "other " is discovered, it would change everything.
Even Einstein spoke about "spooky science" - things that simply can't be explained scientifically, but nonetheless are observable. Attempting to develop a "theory of everything" was a tall order for Einstein, in fact it may simply be beyond the capabilities of us mortals.
I doubt that it is beyond our capabilities, and I'm fairly sure that when it is figured out, it will be so obvious and so elegant, when looked at from the right perspective, that we will collectively slap our foreheads and say, "Ah... I see! Why didn't we think of that before?"
Einstein was talking about quantum teleportation which has been proven in the labs and is at the basis for quantum computing. Einstein believed the God would have created an universe of order, not chaos, so he could never accept quantum theory even though his work lead to quantum theory. And BTW, quantum theory has been the most researched and proved theory in all science. What they have not been able prove a connection between quantum and relativistic theories, string theory or the more appropriate term is multiverse theory is the leading contender at this time. Multiverse theory came about because there were too many competing string theories, when they went to 11 dimensions, the competing theories then came together. Is it right? No one knows yet. The problem has always been that the math that was needed, had not been created yet. The one pushing the mathematical frontiers for string theory is Ed Whitten, possibly the smartest man alive today.
why wouldn't a multiverse exist? We are small minded to think that we are unique!
Since I believe in different planes of existiance, it is not hard for me to believe the multiverse idea. However, proving it is another matter. I can't prove I went to another plane, but believe me, I did and I will take it with me when I make that final journey from this plane.
Quite possibly our whole observable universe is but an infinitessimal part of an infinite Universe.
I like the idea that the observable universe is a tiny expanding and very dense bubble of plasma [galaxies as the particles] in a vast metagalactic object that "went supernova", in analogy to what stars do when they explode.
There could be an infinite number of these metagalaxies, and they in turn would be the building blocks of the next higher discrete Scale of a completely unbounded discrete fractal hierarchy.
The major difference between the discrete fractal paradigm and the multiverse paradigm is that in the DFP the laws of physics and the fundamental constants are the same throughout the Universe, whereas in the MP the laws and constants can vary in a random manner.
The DFP, aka Discrete Scale Relativity, is highly unifying [i.e., the same physics for the microcosm and the macrocosm]. One can test it in the observable universe via its predictions of discrete self-similarity manifested by atomic, stellar and galactic scale systems. The MP seems like untestable "anything goes" pseudo-science, and leads to very bizarre implications like an infinite number of Brian Greenes. From the point of view of healthy science, I think one is quite enough.
Speculation is fun stuff, but if you cannot test it via definitive predictions, then it does not qualify as science. Woit and Horgan are right on this issue: if you conflate science with pseudo-science, then science is in serious jeopardy.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Science is in jeopardy no matter what side of the fence your on. It will always contradict itself and we will never stop discovering. It amazes me to see the scientific community blackball people with hair brained ideas, if the math points to something unbelievable than so what, keep going until it's believable. It's sad when I see extremelyl smart people in the Sci community get excomunicated because of a brief mention of creationism in some of thier evidence. Everything is theory, just as evolution is theory, yet we teach it as fact. What a bunch of BS, open the flood gates and let the theroies fall where they may. Stop force feeding people what you believe to be the end al be all of the "Answer". Not one person on this planet knows the @$$ from a whole in the ground.
Mr. Oldershaw,
your ideas on the fractal similarity of atomic, stellar and galactic scale phenomena are fascinating. (See my comment 19.1 above).
I found your web page through a google search, but there's nothing in wikipedia about this. Have your predictions and observations been verified by others?
Well I predicted planets orbiting around pulsars, and they were subsequently found.
At the website there is a list of 39 successful retrodictions and predictions linked on the opening page.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw <-- That's the website
I, too, have noticed the similarities, on a fractal level, between the atomic, solar and galactic levels myself..even to the similarity between galactic clusters and atoms and molecules. Considering the number of galaxies that are colliding and joining it almost looks like we are in the middle of a star with fusion happening. Fractals are a fact, and we find them everywhere...imagine what kind of world you would find if you could see the scale of what we call galaxies and galactic clusters if they are really just atoms and molecules on a vastly different scale...have you noticed that many of the 'jets' coming from Super Massive Black Holes have a wave form from the way that the black holes spin and process?? It looks an awful lot like light waves if you were to just imagine a different scale in size and time....
Yes, I definitely have noticed this.
Twin "pencil-beam" jets tracing out wave-like radiation patterns are seen in quasars, radio galaxies, neutron stars, protostars, planetary nebulae, main sequence stars, black holes of various sizes, etc.
Note also the similarity between the twin Gamma-ray jets of short-hard Gamma-ray bursts and the twin Gamma-rays emitted in electron-positron annhilation. Coincidence? Not likely.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Very interesting post - By any chance do you know of any good books or authors which subscribe to Discrete Fractal Paradigm which an average person might be able to follow?
I am uneducated, but I am interested in these things. This sounds more plausible to me than the Multiverse Paradigm, and I would be interested to learn more.
Hi Josh,
The website www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw has the most accessible presentation of the Discrete Fractal Paradigm.
Several essays are all prose - no math. Some material is mostly pictures and graphics.
If you poke around a bit at this website, you should be able to find discussions at your comfort level.
That said, one must remember that a theory for how nature is organized into a discrete scale invariant fractal and how the different Scales interact is not going to be "back-of-the-cereal-box" stuff. It is going to take some real effort to understand nature. But if I started from square-one [minimal scientific training] and figured it out in 5 years of independent study, then you should have no insurmountable trouble getting up to speed with the website offering a lot of tutoring.
Thanks for your interest in fractal cosmology.
RLO
www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw
Another beautiful analogy would be the similarity in structure between a hurricane and a spiral galaxy.
? "entanglement" is possibly more prevalent than has been given credit. probably on a much larger scale, and even more to it than even einstein would have dreamed.
so if we can launch "debris" into another brane, if we had the required energy could we launch something larger? Say, some sort of probe or spacecraft?
70% of the country believes in an unprovable God and reads a historically undocumented book, written 2000 years ago by a bunch of old men, who were afraid of and kept women in their place, then picked the stories they liked the best a few hundred years later. But speculating about the unknown universe is immoral? Nobody knows...nobody! The Universe is dangerous, unforgiving and 99.999% lifeless and destructive. The planet earth is an oasis in space, a random variable, where everything eats everything else and a small percentage of the land is habitable. Mankind is afraid to accept Nihilism but scoffs at string theory and multiple dimensions. Absurd!
i like that one!!!
No whats absurd Jim is your guess at life in this universe, 99.999% huh?How the heck do you know. We haven't even begun to know what's out there and everybody who does think they know really doesn't know their @$$ from a hole in the ground. And undocumented, really? Then why the heck do we even have a bible if it's not a document of peoples experience and understanding, weather it's true or not. There is more than one book you can look at written back then that goes over the same occurrences. Do some home work
Actually if life only occured in .0001% of solar systems on our Galaxy , there would be a huge amount of life just in our own Galaxy.
The Universe goes on and on and is mostly empty space...an atom is mostly empty space...Mr. Pink's brain is mostly empty space but thicker than a brick! Thanks Cole, I just didn't think I needed to type in all the zero's to make my point?!
There is no documented, varifiable proof, that Jesus ever lived...no one ever saw him or talked to him. Decades later, a couple of people said they talked to some people, who saw him or heard him or spoke to him but it cannot be proven. There was a gospel thrown out at the council of Nicea, which said Jesus, had a favorite disciple, Mary, who he often kissed on the ??? Believe what you want...there are no men, who were ever born of a virgin, or rose to some place in the sky/heavens to return from the dead. If, I'm wrong...!? Satan strike me dead...
kinda like Genghis Khan, AlexanderIII of Macedon, Carolus Magnus, Moses, William Shakespeare....
I mean I've never seen any one of these guys's birth certificates so they must not ever have existed either right?
Reminds me of the movie The Mist. I think it's possible and I've read some of Stephen Hawking's work and some of Brian Greene's. I think its possible, but I don't see us being able to bridge the gap anywhere in our lifetime, if we do manage to do that somehow, I would be very cautious. I know it may seem silly to base it off a Stephen King book/movie, that's just what popped in my head reading about this.