Yet again:
Scientist: "We don't think X is likely."
Press: "Scientist proves X is possible!"
It's almost a cliche at this point.
No, Stephen Hawking's last paper didn't prove the existence of a multiverse
Sorry: Stephen Hawking's last paper doesn't favour the so-called “multiverse”, but there's some cool stuff in it if you ignore the headlines. The late professor Hawking and colleague Belgian theoretical physicist Thomas Hertog first published this paper at arXiv in July last year, and posted an updated version on 4 March, 10 …
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 09:22 GMT Voland's right hand
Re: Yet again:
It's almost a cliche at this point.
Not necessarily. It is true in 99.9% of the cases. This being one example.
There is a remaining 0.1% where these reverse because the scientist is looking for a green card or work visa and is waving around political conditions. It is the scientific version of the "mail order bride (*)". There is an example in the press every now and then - we cart them out when we need a "scientific backing" for our unsupported propaganda conjectures. This spiel also actively leverages the fact that we are accustomed to having reserved and grounded opinions from the remaining 99.9%.
Unfortunately, there is a the occasional bad apple in every avenue of life. Science is not by any means an exemption to it.
(*)I saw quite a few of those in the 90-es in the Eastern block. We still cart out some of these zombies when we need propaganda backing till this day.
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 13:20 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: Yet again:
Press: "Scientist proves X is possible!"
That's because (with some notable outliers), journalists are very rarely subject experts in the topics that they cover (for example: Rory Cellan-Jones. He knows less about IT than my wife does and she's a proud Luddite. Apparently, one doesn't have an IT-literate husband and have to do IT oneself. The words "dog" and "bark" were mentioned..)
Secondly, the news organisations exist to sell papers/pageviews and sensationalising stuff does that. And most people won't have the brains, persistence or time to actually read and digest the articale because there's
Oh look! Pictures of kittens! Cute!
..what was I saying? Oh never mind. Apparently, somewhere someone mildly famous for being famous is doing something slightly scandalous/tittillating/embarassing and I must watch it immediately because it totally will make me uncool if I don't mention it first at work..
Bah. A pox on it all[1]. I think I'm getting old.
[1] Apart from a carefully-curated list of news websites of course. Selected with no selection bias at all. After all, I have interests, you have biases and they are rigidly opposed to the Truth.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 17:33 GMT asdf
Re: Yet again:
>The paper looked at one of the enduring challenges Hawking created for himself – how to resolve the conflict between how Albert Einstein's models of the universe work (gravity, for example, at the very large scale), and how quantum mechanics works at the smallest scale.
Him and every other theoretical physicist for the last 70 years so yeah created for himself is a bit disingenuous here. Also like saying David Koresh created the challenge for himself to decipher the seven seals though Quantum Gravity is coming eventually.
-
Wednesday 21st March 2018 07:43 GMT werdsmith
Re: Yet again:
Him and every other theoretical physicist for the last 70 years so yeah created for himself is a bit disingenuous here.
It's just another way of saying that it is a challenge that Hawking took on. Though slightly badly worded it should be obvious it couldn't mean anything else.
-
-
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 13:22 GMT CrazyOldCatMan
Re: Multiverse Mania
several multiverses ceased to exist shouldn'tI have got stronger & faster like Jet Li
No - more like that famously 'only a single film in the series' film Highlander. Our universe got powerful by beheading all the other universes.
With an appropriate light-show of course.
-
-
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 09:59 GMT Danny 5
Awesome
I always had a major issue with the multi-verse theory. It always felt like the "infinite number of universes" was kinda misguided and filled with human interpretations of what "infinity" actually means.
I've never come to terms with the possibility that there may be a universe out there that's exactly the same as ours, but only my neighbor is missing (or something similarly ludicrous) and I'm glad to see this new theory seems to move away from that nonsense.
Having more than one universe however, makes perfect sense to me. We're always blabbing about how unfathomably huge our universe is, but huge is such a subjective word, as our universe is only big from our perspective. In the grand scheme of existence, our universe may in fact be very, very small and in that context it's no great leap to imagine that if one universe could spawn, why not more?
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 10:05 GMT AndyS
Re: Awesome
My problem with that (the concept of multiple universes), is an understanding of the word "universe."
Let's say there was another Big Bang. Wouldn't the products of both, by definition, be contained within the universe? We might need to come up with a new word, thought (star, galaxy, XXX, universe).
Of course, if both are expanding, then when the edges meet it could be fun. But there are already lots of high-energy, "fun" things happening in space.
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 18:22 GMT bombastic bob
Re: Awesome
Call it "n-space" instead of 'universe' perhaps?
and what separates the n-spaces... a dimension? So they're really (n-1)-spaces
And what if gravity (or mass) were a dimension, like time? Particles tend to play a "now you see them, now you don't" game, from what I understand, even appearing in more than one place within the same 'time' from what I've read [but that was YEARS ago, science may have explained that one away by now].
So if quantum events create new (if just theoretical) n-spaces, NOT having an atomic decay might have a different 'mass' dimension than 'that other universe' where the atomic decay took place.
so you're back to infinite 'n-spaces' again, even if things did not start out that way at 1.0E-33 seconds.
/me now does a shoutout for 'Noein'
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 11:35 GMT Dan 55
Re: Awesome
Having more than one universe however, makes perfect sense to me. We're always blabbing about how unfathomably huge our universe is, but huge is such a subjective word, as our universe is only big from our perspective. In the grand scheme of existence, our universe may in fact be very, very small and in that context it's no great leap to imagine that if one universe could spawn, why not more?
Men in Black already has the answer to that.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 11:39 GMT Allonymous Coward
Re: Awesome
We're always blabbing about how unfathomably huge our universe is, but huge is such a subjective word, as our universe is only big from our perspective.
Space is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mind-bogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space.
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 12:56 GMT Michael Habel
Re: Awesome
The amount of habitable Planets are also ~seeming~ infinite... If only cause there is in infinite amount of Space for them to appear in. However not all of these Worlds, are in fact habitated. Therefore the average population of the universe must be Zero. As anything divided by Zero is as next to nothing as makes no odds.
And, anyone you may meet is therefore a figment of a deranged imagination.
Also there are exactly 42 of these Multi-Universe thingies.... If anyone wanted to ask...
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 13:54 GMT Tom 38
Re: Awesome
However not all of these Worlds, are in fact habitated. Therefore the average population of the universe must be Zero. As anything divided by Zero is as next to nothing as makes no odds.
Interesting points:
* You think you don't exist?
* I assume you want the word "density" in there somewhere.
* Check what "Therefore" means.
* Check your maths on what happens when you divide by zero. It does not approach zero.
If we assume that you actually do exist, then the population of the universe is at least 1. And we know that 1 divided by any number >0 is also >0. So as long as you exist, and the universe is not negative sized, the average population of the universe is greater than zero.
-
Monday 9th September 2019 11:41 GMT Loatesy
Re: Awesome
If 'space', or 'the universe' is infinite, therefore the number of stars must be infinite, as must be the number of stars with planets, as must be the number of stars with planets and intelligent life.
Therefore there must be an infinite number of identical earths, as well as an infinite number of nearly identical earths, and an infinite number of earths where life is ruled by gas clouds who are the universes ultimate experts in Thinkology.
Infinity divided by any number is . . . infinity.
Infinity divided by infinity is also infinity.
Therefore I am typing this in an infinite number of universes.
Therefore as the number is infinite, I am typing this an all universes, and none of them. All at the same time. Further, the amount of time taken typing this is therefore both a zero point in space time, and every point in space time, in an infinite number of universes and in none of them.
. . . . (i need more coffee)
. . . . .(or is that less? I can never be too sure)
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 12:57 GMT littlesmith
Re: Awesome
The sun is already really big, from our point of view. But that doesn't stop other stars to be a 1000 times bigger. Also are the dimensions we use to measure the size of space part of this universe and they are only valid inside the universe. So outside of our space time words like "big", "small", "long", "short", "early" or "late" have no meaning. Space and time as we know it are the fabric of our universe. If there is an outside, there may be some other kinds of space and time, but nothing that can be compared or have any connection with space and time of the inside. From this point of view, our universe has no size at all, also no age.
But basically there is no outside for anyone being inside a universe. We have our own space-time which contains everything. If there are other space-times, there can't be a way to exchange matter or energy with it, because the matter and energy of our universe need the space and time of our universe to exist.
This also means there is no exchange of information, since information needs matter or energy. Therefore I think the borders of the universe are also the borders of what we can know.
-
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 13:07 GMT Michael Habel
Re: Awesome
No you first have to actually workout just how improbable the thing you want to happen, will actually happen. then feed that figure into your Bambleweeny 57 Sub-Meson Brain, and Atomic Vector Ploter, and have a fresh hot cup of something that is almost, but not quite entirely unlike Tea., at hand.
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 18:22 GMT Mark 85
Re: Awesome
In the grand scheme of existence, our universe may in fact be very, very small and in that context it's no great leap to imagine that if one universe could spawn, why not more?
The concept of "infinity" is a hard one for humans to grasp. In our minds, there has to be an "end" or a boundry because that is our environment on Earth. Our "universe" is basically what we can see or infer from our instruments. If the universe is infinite, the other "universes" maybe just be a continuation of our universe but farther away. Or not... if we ever find the wall and a sign "you are now at the end of the universe, go no farther" then we'll know.
-
This post has been deleted by its author
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 10:02 GMT Anonymous Coward
As far as I can tell, you can prove
that the number of configurations in a finite universe is always finite. Out universe is expanding towards infinity, but currently is finite in size.
As we observe a finite universe, this does suggest that a multiverse as such does not exist. A limiting factor on the size of the observable universe would also apply to such a theoretical multiverse.
A multiverse would have limits to it's size and expansion also. As far as we can currently observe, while the things such as quantum superposition have no known upper bounds on size, I would assume, like the visible universe they are also limited.
So I only expect that we will find possible different trajectories or energy states of a particle, not an entire "Evil Universe" Starship Enterprise. Now while such a claim is ludicrous, the concept of a full scale multiverse would suggest such things do exist... so rather problematic should someone observe that there is no limit, and all possible universes exist!
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 13:02 GMT littlesmith
Re: As far as I can tell, you can prove
It could also mean that it is not possible to destroy other universes. Even if there is an infinite number of constraints to universes, the number of universes can still be infinite. Which one is bigger: the set of natural numbers or the set of even numbers?
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 17:46 GMT intrigid
Re: As far as I can tell, you can prove
"My problem with the infinite number of universes theory has always been that somewhere out there, exists a universe where they destroyed our universe at suppertime last Tuesday. That we do in fact still exist disproves it."
Here is an example of why your argument is invalid:
"My problem with the infinite number of integers theory has always been that somewhere out there, exists an integer that destroyed all integers at suppertime last Tuesday. That we do in fact have integers disproves it."
An infinite number of things existing does not imply that everything exists.
-
-
Tuesday 20th March 2018 14:15 GMT Brewster's Angle Grinder
"A multiverse would have limits to it's size and expansion also."
Why? Even if this is the sole "universe", there are no limits to its expansion. It just ends up more and more empty. (The heat death of the universe.)
Think about the number line for positive integers: given
nyou can always findn+1.,n+nn*n,nn, etc... Numbers can grow without bound; likewise the universe. -
Tuesday 20th March 2018 18:25 GMT Not also known as SC
Re: As far as I can tell, you can prove
"Out universe is expanding towards infinity, but currently is finite in size."
There are two cosmological principals - that on a large enough scale the Universe is homogeneous (physically identical no matter where you are within the Universe) and isotropic (looks the same in all directions). If the Universe was finite it would be breaking the isotropic principal therefore the Universe was must be infinite.
"As we observe a finite universe, this does suggest that a multiverse as such does not exist. "
as our Universe is infinite the bigger objection towards multiverses is where would you put them? They would have to co-exist in the same place as our Universe but then Paulii's exclusion principal would start to apply - unless the miltiverses are what constitutes dark energy and they exist at different energy levels to our Universe?
-
Wednesday 21st March 2018 07:20 GMT SAdams
Re: As far as I can tell, you can prove
“as our Universe is infinite the bigger objection towards multiverses is where would you put them? ”
I don’t see this problem at all. Most multiverse theories see each universe existing in self contained branes. They speculate about phenomena we may see in this universe when these branes collide in some way thats clearly difficult to imagine without imagining a different type of spacetime like context outside of spacetime. This is of course the main problem with multiverse theories - no one has ever observed anything other than our single universe, or has any evidence for anything other than our single universe.
The multiverse is partly an attempt to explain the weirdness of quantum mechanics, but in cosmology its mainly a way of avoiding god. It allows you to push back the start of everything to a point where people don’t need to think about it, and it helps explain the high degree of tuning that seems to have occured at the start of the universe to make it possible for us to exist.
-
-
Biting the hand that feeds IT
