Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  1 2 3 Next »
From	Message
chrisforbes21 23-Nov-12, 14:17	the multi universe anyone got any thoughts on this So physics says it is probable but it leads to a whole bunch of questions here are a few I have thought of. 1. Is there a parallel world that history took a different route 2. On a much smaller scale is there a parallel person like me who made different decisions Its a big subject but it would be interesting to get the groups views given the subject matter there is lots of questions beyond these two so happy to listen to all ideas both questions and theories.
softaire 23-Nov-12, 20:36	Great Topic I contend that there are an infinity of universes ever creating out of "nothing" much like bubbles create out of boiling water. It seems to be an unending number of bubbles (universes), each one unique with its' own set of properties. They expand... and all at once burst and disappear. Because each is unique with its' own set of properties, it's unlikely that we have other selves that are similar to us and our lives. Each universe in the multi-verse has nothing in common with the others except their common origin from one medium and their path to another, just like the bubbles.
brigadecommander 24-Nov-12, 01:40	softaire That a 'very' enlightened way of looking at it!! Very close to my own. Only using different words. But basically the same. It all revolves around the concept of Infinity.Modern Cosmic Theory says the Universe was created about 14 billion years ago from nothing,or a theoretical 'singularity'. I don't buy this for a second. Infinity is just that.. 'Infinity'. The Universe extends outward in all directions with no boundaries. Even in the 'micro'. That allows for galaxies within drops of water!! Very strange i know, but infinity allows for it. And yes Chris your idea also is acceptable when dealing with Infinity. I have posted this video many times before but is very relevant here.Though the ending is somewhat ambiguous ;www.youtube.com
ianuk 24-Nov-12, 03:43	Just the one then....! I am by design a realistic person. I deal with tangible fact. Whilst theory is fine, thats all it is. An idea that someone has for things to be different. Besides, what's wrong with the way things are?. So, Multi or Singular? Well for me our particular universe seems to exist around the number "one". This "one" can easily be explained as a single particle or electron. A most basic form of matter which is either There (one) or not there (zero). Binary. I do also think that just because we don't understand something does not necessarily give it justification to exist beyond our comprehension. The things we see, more than likely just "are". So why cant we just have the "one" universe? And if your talking about "multi" then just how many in that multi? Whilst I appreciate that infinity is a justifiable mathematical term, I do feel that it is used too freely to justify a theory without any proof. Example: Lets assume that multi universes occur as time progresses forwards. At what point does each of these universes trigger? and at what frequency? Every second?, micro-second?, each revolution of the electron? and then why only each revolution? why not constantly and then how do you define the interval between each occurrence? It would seem that theories only serve to generate multiple issues along the way. Much simpler I think to expect nothing more than "one". Personally I have always liked the idea that the smallest of particles that cannot be further dissected do, in themselves, contain a complete sub universe. Likewise, if you were ever to find the edge of our universe you would also find yourself at the inside edge of the outer casing of a particle in another universe..... cool. So in conclusion, I am perfectly happy that we live in a single universe and that there is only one of me (thank goodness I hear my family cry!)
chrisforbes21 24-Nov-12, 05:13	Juxtaposition Ian just to mix this up a little I am going to go for infinity universes. I do believe in the concept of binary and 1 0 but I also believe it is not in the singular but endless. On a singular universe there can be no edge as if there is an edge there must be something on the other side of the edge. And also how does something come from nothing. Going philosophical and abstract my view on the universe is "nothing realised it was nothing and became something. As it was nothing it could also revert back to that state." But bubbles, snowflakes or raindrops is probably an easier analogy of my multi universe idea in terms each is different they become one state and end in another.
thumper 24-Nov-12, 19:22	11 dimensions? Seems like a lot of, "Imagine this (*) then therefore lets build on that to imagine this next thing, then based on that lets imagine this next thing." ... then repeat, ... then repeat, ... then repeat. Each time you 'imagine this', you get a bit farther from 'truth'. When you build a 7 deep 'imagine this' string, you're getting pretty far afield and well into fantasy land IMO. My imagination is as active as the next person's but I also recognize it for what it is. With that said, could you briefly explain the '11 dimensions'? Bullet form would be nice: * Height *Width *Depth *Time/duration * * * * * * * Thanks in advance...
brigadecommander 24-Nov-12, 20:05	Imagination. my thoughts here are based on the reality of 'rather primitive technology' the human race has today(2012). At one time the 'Observational ' calculus was that the earth was flat. This evolved to a sphere, then we thought the earth was the center of everything because it appeared 'observationally' that everything was revolving around us. Every generations builds better observational technology and advances Human Knowledge. This is a Mathematical curve. There is know telling what cosmic theory will be in say..200 years. My personal ideas are listed above. Imagination is another thing all together.Yet it was imagination and observation that got us to the present. My personal Observations using my Telescope are only what i can see 2-4 billion light years away. Having seen what's out there, that far away, my 'imagination and intuition tells me 'WOW' its infinite. But that's just my opinion.
riaannieman 25-Nov-12, 00:57	Books I can only refer you all to some of the greatest minds of our time. Michio Kaku, Paul Davies, Stephen Hawking, and others in that league. These people have incredible insight into the physics and mathematics of this topic, and they generally agree that it is possible, but there are also differences in their agreement. Michio Kaku, for example, tends towards string theory, and Stephen Hawking towards bubble theory. Paul Davies advocates the multiverse.... I must admit that a lot of their theories escape my comprehension. I just cannot understand what seems to be foregone fact to them. They have intellect far beyond my meager capabilities. What I do believe is that between the lot of them, there seems to be some truth about the multiverse-/string-/bubble -theories. With the limitless possibilities in the infinity that surrounds us, I think we are bound to detect this within the next 100 to 200 years. Our technology is just not advanced enough at the moment. The thing is, for the average person the words infinity and limitless are concepts that we don't really understand, although we intuitively know the definition of the words. There is a difference. I think that we will first need to investigate quantum theory to exhaustion before we will be able to prove multiverse-/string-/bubble- theory. Also we will need to know a lot more about chaos theory, because that probably has a bigger influence on the other theories than what we realize at the moment. There is also the possibility of the anti-verse(s): a universe (multiverse?) made out of anti-matter or dark matter, which apparently outweighs matter by more than double. Remember, the existence of anti-matter has just been proven today (compared to the age of the ?verse), and the investigation of it has barely begun. We are still trying to create it, and keep it stable in our ?verse, with the Large Hadron Colliders of CERN at Geneva and close to San Francisco. Seeing that dark matter outweighs matter by more than 2:1, maybe we must be referred to as living inside a ?verse of anti-matter...... Thumper, I think that even if we can list all the dimensions you want, bullet by bullet, it still just won't make sense for the average person. Those dimensions are mathematical equations that are far beyond the frame of reference of the man on the street. Maybe the average people should just accept the universe as we know it at the moment, as Ian says, and forget about the theories for now. After all, it has no real tangible impact on our lives at the moment, but it really is a very interesting and fascinating topic to learn about. Personally I read about it constantly.
ianuk 25-Nov-12, 03:01	And then........ I am a scientist, I am also a cynic, an optimist, an open minded investigator and a realist. In fact I am an All-Round fantastic person. (So my kids tell me {honest}). I do love the concept that there is more. The fascination of the unknown and the certainty of that which we already know. I love to dream and ponder on the almost unimaginable. On this line I have arranged an experiment to determine whether there is further existence after this current one. The conclusion of this will be either "life does go on" or "we still don't know". Here is the strategy. 1 - I have asked my mother to write down a short message or information that will mean something to me. 2 - It will be sealed in an envelope which I will hold. 3 - Some time after her death I will attend some form of spiritual meeting and see if she can communicate this to me through the medium. 4 - If this works then I will have proof of further life, if it doesn't work it will prove nothing either way. Another plan I have is on the 1st anniversary of her death we have arranged to meet by the "Charter Oak Tree" in our local park at noon where I shall take a photograph of the tree. It may be sensible to use both digital and celluloid cameras. I do like to plan ahead........
ianuk 25-Nov-12, 03:09	addendum The reason for my previous curiosity is that in the past I have had a reading done with tarot cards. Following that I figured that the clairvoyant is not reading the cards so much, more tapping telepathically into the mind of the person. In a same fashion I believe mediums do the this too. With a large audience there will always be a "connection" with someone telepathically. Therefore anything that is picked up will mean something to the person from whom the information was drawn. We all like to believe. especially when it may reconnect us to a lost relative. I just want to know a bit more and generate some proof for myself.
softaire 25-Nov-12, 06:50	Ian There are multiple dimensions and life does move onward, up through them... Jonathan Livingston Seagull tells us so. I believe it because I want to.
ianuk 25-Nov-12, 07:38	I wonder If life does have many levels of existence, are we able to remember any of them along the way? The obvious answer would seem to be 'yes', unless its 'no' and if we cannot take the memories of any life through to the next level then it follows that this life may not be the first level. I personally think Stanley Kubrik had a tremendous concept with 2001.
softaire 25-Nov-12, 09:42	Jonathan remembered his past life but there was so much to learn in the new life that there wasn't reason enough to return. But, he finally found a reason and returned as a teacher. Normally, however, we decide to live, learn and love the new life more than we have desire to return to a previous level.
riaannieman 25-Nov-12, 21:02	A great mind pondered this Stephen Hawking thinks it is rather more like a light switch, or even closer, a computer. Switch it off, and everything is off. Done and dusted, no more, finished. So does Richard Dawkins, another great mind of our time, but for other reasons. So do I.
itchynscratchy 26-Nov-12, 05:48	I'm going to attempt to craft a post on my phone, as I have an hour on a train this morning and I promised chris I would get involved in this conversation today, so apologies if it is badly worded or a bit directionless, I normally write and rewrite these types of posts several times before I'm happy with them but frankly I can't be bothered with that on a phone, it would take me all year. My second small disclaimer, I am by no means an expert in this field, my undergraduate degree was in theoretical physics but my postgraduate work has moved away from that considerably, mainly because I didn't understand it well enough, so although everything I mention is my own understanding to the best of my ability, it is mainly so out of a keen amateur interest only. Right well I suppose the most important question was asked by Ian: <<Besides, what's wrong with the way things are?.>> Quite. Why should we start invoking ideas that have no real evidence? Well it's for a very important reason, modern physics has to deal with a gigantic elephant in the room, and that is why the four fundamental forces are the strengths that they are, and why the constants associated with those forces are the values that they are. Why don't they change, could they be different? If these constants have no particular reason to take the values that they do, if it is a random chance what they are set to, and if there is only one universe that contains everything, then it is an incredible coincidence that it exists with just the right values to exist for this long without flying apart. The margin of error really is very small, if gravity is a tiny fraction stronger then the universe collapses on itself quickly, if a tiny bit weaker then it flys apart and galaxies never have a chance to form change the strong force slightly and stars do not ignite. If random chance set the constants, then we are really very lucky indeed. The multiverse is a convenient workaround, if we can have an infinite number of universes then every type of universe, no matter how improbable, would have to exist, and we would just happen to be in the one where the constant are suitable for life to form. String theory and it's extra curled up dimensions is also appealing partly for this reason, it could explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. Perhaps gravity acts over all the 11 dimensions of string theory rather than just the three we're used to, and maybe spreading it out over more dimensions makes it weaker. This is all just speculation if course but it's a neat solution to a difficult question. The other nice property of string theory is that it sets a minimum size where nothing else can be smaller, it becomes impossible to crush matter beyond a certain minimum size, and thus sidesteps the physicists nightmare that is the singularity. One further small point, if: <<there are an infinity of universes ever creating out of "nothing" much like bubbles create out of boiling water>> Then this: <<Because each is unique with its' own set of properties, it's unlikely that we have other selves that are similar to us and our lives. Each universe in the multi-verse has nothing in common with the others except their common origin from one medium and their path to another, just like the bubbles.>> Cannot be true. With infinite universes everything that is not impossible, no matter how improbable, not only can happen, but must happen. In that case there must be a universe exactly like ours except everyone in the world is wearing a bowler hat. Sounds stupid, but infinity is a big number! You don't even get around the problem with only one universe if it is infinite in size, in that case there will be another area of this universe where the is a planet exactly like ours but everyone is simultaneously riding pogo sticks. Infinity is a crazy concept.
softaire 26-Nov-12, 07:13	Itchy Good one. I don't mean to argue with knowledge that I can't compete with, for sure, so please don't take offense at this, but... You mention that because an infinity of universes is possible, then there surely would be many that are exactly the same as ours except for a small difference, like bowler hats. I say that while it is theoretically possible, it is absurd in the common sense way to think it would ever really happen that way. It's like saying that it is possible for all the air molecules in this room to randomly, at the same time, move to the upper left ceiling corner and I will asphyxiate for lack of oxygen. I think that for your argument to actually hold true (despite there being an infinity of chances) that it would first require all the universes to have the same constants. That actually is probably quite possible. After all, why should nature change something that works so well? But, my common sense tells me that there are enough variations on the many things that exist in a universe that there is no need to repeat things so closely that the only difference is one where my other self wears a bowler hat... even though you might have an infinity of chances at making that happen. That just does not make sense (to me). What's that "Razor Theorem"? All else being equal the best answer or explanation is the one that is the simplest (or most logical)... or something like that?
ianuk 26-Nov-12, 08:03	I heard it said... Someone, many years ago, posed a question. "Why is the universe the way it is?" The simple, but logical answer was, "Because if it were any other way we would not be here to see it." I liked that answer.
thumper 26-Nov-12, 09:56	If there is an infinity of universes, that would imply there are an infinity of universes exactly like this one, down to the smallest detail as well as an infinity of universes totally alien in every aspect and an infinity of each variation between the infinite extremes. IMO such an argument is the result of a failure to accurately 'back-engineer' or understand this universe. Usually when such a thing happens, one would check their basic premise; If these constants have no particular reason... If it is a random chance... If it is an incredible coincidence... If random chance set the constants... "The multiverse is a convenient workaround", is a very revealing statement based on the refusal to recheck the premise. "String theory and it's extra curled up dimensions is also appealing partly for this reason, it could explain why gravity is so weak compared to the other forces. Perhaps gravity acts over all the 11 dimensions of string theory rather than just the three we're used to, and maybe spreading it out over more dimensions makes it weaker." This also implies a delicate balance that if upset or changed would result in the destruction of all and leads back to; If these constants have no particular reason... If it is a random chance... If it is an incredible coincidence... If random chance set the constants... and that "The multiverse is a convenient workaround." It seems that the 'arguement' curles back on itself...
itchynscratchy 26-Nov-12, 10:45	<<Good one. I don't mean to argue with knowledge that I can't compete with, for sure, so please don't take offense at this, but...>> Don't be ridiculous softy! My disclaimer was meant to show that I am not an expert, I don't research in this field because quite honestly it is beyond me, I don't mean for anything I say to be beyond reproach. Anyone who takes offense at someone who disagrees lacks maturity and would not be a very good scientist. <<You mention that because an infinity of universes is possible, then there surely would be many that are exactly the same as ours except for a small difference, like bowler hats. I say that while it is theoretically possible, it is absurd in the common sense way to think it would ever really happen that way.>> Ah, not quite, I meant if you assume an infinity of universes is possible. It might not be, certainly no where else does infinity really exist in the real physical world (Though it's quite often used as an approximation for the very large in mathematical models). The example was meant to be ridiculous to show the absurdity of the infinite, but once you assume it can exist then you must assume that everything that can happen does happen. Indeed your example: <<It's like saying that it is possible for all the air molecules in this room to randomly, at the same time, move to the upper left ceiling corner and I will asphyxiate for lack of oxygen.>> Is absolutely allowable by the probabilistic laws of quantum mechanics. It's a chance so tiny that there's probably more chance of you winning the lottery every day for the rest of your life, but the important point is that it's not zero, and so given infinite time or an infinite number of situations it must happen (indeed, as thumper points out, it must happen an infinite number of times!). Strange things happen when you start assuming infinities, it's possibly a dangerous thing to do. However, if you say to yourself ''well not infinity then but some very large number'', where do you draw the line at how many universes there should be? And, more importantly, why? There is nothing that we know of that could put a constraint on it (yet).
itchynscratchy 26-Nov-12, 10:46	I'll reply to other objections when I get home, have to rush for a train now!
chrisforbes21 26-Nov-12, 11:38	different views The first time I came across parallel universe theories I discounted them as there was no evidence I was aware of. Having now come across through my own research and friends who study physics evidence that it is theoretically possible I'm not ruling it out. This discussion has certainly raised a number of interesting ideas and thoughts. Which is the main purpose. Ian raised an interesting thought about levels of existence, maybe levels of existence are a part of what might be multi-universe. Thumper mentions dimensions This is where things can start to get really complex particularly when you add time into the equation and a view that different universes exist in different times. I think its important to think about current science and what is pure sci-fi. Itchy makes a great point about probability. It seems highly improbable that even with our current understanding that a multi-universe exists. However our knowledge of science and astronomy is growing at such an amazing rate. Major breakthroughs were happening every 50 to 100 years a few centuries back and now we are discovering major breakthroughs every few years. The point is ideas that would have seemed sci-fi 50-100 years ago are now fact. Who knows what we will have discovered in 50 years from now. Going back in history its not as if some of these ideas are completely new, one only has to look at Buddhism to get some interesting views on a multi-universe. I am preprepared to accept there is more than one universe maybe ones that are linear to ours, if I added non linear ie universes existing in different times and dimensions I doubt I could or would want too contemplate them. Sometimes its hard enough understanding 4 dimensions never mind 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th, 9th and nth dimensions. Here is a decent video on the 6th dimension www.youtube.com
brigadecommander 26-Nov-12, 12:59	Darkest skys on the Planet. ; two years ago i was in Chile and spent a night at this Complex Observing.' ;www.eso.org. From my vantage point(in the field) i see 'Infinity' not 'finite'.
riaannieman 26-Nov-12, 22:59	Back to the books Itchy, Thumper, have a look at the book the Goldilocks Enigma by Paul Davies. He explains it quite well there. Another author with great insight on these topics is Michio Kaku, and he has several books about it. I must add that Paul Davies has written several books, and I plan to buy some more from his pen. I also read The eerie silence from Paul Davies; it was good as well. People like Davies and Kaku do their best to convey to us the knowledge and insight they have. I appreciate their efforts. Back to a statement I made in my first post: we don't fully understand infinity, just the definition of the word. Very few people understands such a profound concept. I think it is because we grow up within borders: the fence around the house, the county limit, edge of the district, the province, state, country, continent..... from childhood we are programmed to know limits, borders, the end of some place. Beyond is a new place, with another border. Even leaving the planet, we put limits and borders on everything: stratosphere, ionosphere, Kuyper belt, solar system... see where I'm going? It seems the average mind is softwired (at least) or hardwired (my opinion) to express everything within limits or borders. Once a mind grasps the true concept of infinity, speculation about possibilities will have meaning because the mind can then realistically realize that infinite possibilities does exist. It is difficult for me to imagine that there is no end to our universe, being observable or not, as the astrophysicists describe it. To me it seems logical that the universe has to have an edge, an end, a border, somewhere, even if that edge has not been observed yet. What is beyond that? It seems logical that the universe must end at some point, especially if the Big Bang theory is correct. I mean, the universe has been expanding for only 14 billion years; what was the size of the universe before the Big Bang, what is beyond the edge of the expanding matter (and anti-matter) at the edge? Nothing? Something? Another universe? If everything came from a singularity, what was the size of the universe before the singularity started the expansion or inflation? I mean, the singularity was just that: a singularity, very small. What surrounded it? Nothing? Something? These are the questions that make the topic so fascinating for me. I have read several books on the subject, and still it stays exciting and interesting.
ianuk 27-Nov-12, 00:17	Final thought (if there is one) This subject is certainly one I have pondered over many many times in my own head. Whether any of it is correct I shall likely never know. But the overall belief I have is that despite anything mankind thinks does or says, there is a truth, a fact, a situation that exists. Regardless of any argument or hypothesis, it is there to be found or not found. It will not change because we have a "new theory", it will continue as it always has, as it always will. It pays no mind to me as an individual, it just IS. But the whole concept of existence fascinates me intensely.
brigadecommander 27-Nov-12, 00:19	vested interests There is politics going on in the scientific establishment. Its been going on for a very long time. One only needs to study the 'pit down man' controversy or the 'Clovis' point embarrassment or even the dilemma of present day field scientists in regards to alternate cosmic theories. It is in the vested interest of University prof's and book authors, not allow for alternate theories. Same thing happened to Galileo and the church. It is human nature.To think it does not exist in the modern scientific community is naive!!!www.youtube.com. this is a long video.If you have an eager open mind you will love it. If you are a hard core establishment type person you will dismiss it out of hand. But either way in my mind 'big-bang' is a bunch of bunk!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!. The man in this video has done far more for Astronomy and cosmology then most of these desk bound ossified minds with intense vested interests. The finder charts and coordinates that i use to find very distant objects with great precision,were mapped and cataloged by Mr.Arp.
riaannieman 27-Nov-12, 00:45	I'm just curios Janet, what is your alternative to the Big Bang theory? Everything had to start somewhere, but I would like to know what you suggest.
brigadecommander 27-Nov-12, 01:08	why does everything have to start somewhere? What Human need does knowing this fact assuage? My Belief was noted in an above post. But i will say it again....''{ It all revolves around the concept of Infinity. Modern Cosmic Theory says the Universe was created about 14 billion years ago from nothing,or a theoretical 'singularity'. I don't buy this for a second. Infinity is just that.. 'Infinity'. The Universe extends outward in all directions with no boundaries. Even in the 'micro'. That allows for galaxies within drops of water!! Very strange i know, but infinity allows for it.''}. I am a Biology student not a physicist so i deal with the micro. I am an Astronomer buts its not my major area of study at the moment But besides that i am entitled to my belief system just like anyone else. The youtube video has physicist and scientists that i know talking about cosmic theory's.They can speak about it. The establishment will say they are wrong and stupid. And they can defund them and cut they're access to Telescope time,but in the end after much obstruction, the truth comes out. This happens when the data coming in from the field overwhelms the vested interests in the establishment. So it is up to the individual. I have time on my side. Very soon now(in the space of decades) the 2-legged stool of the 'big bang' theory will come crashing down,unable to support itself any longer with contrived 'singularities' and vested interests. That is the natural evolution of things..
itchynscratchy 27-Nov-12, 01:38	Thumper <<IMO such an argument is the result of a failure to accurately 'back-engineer' or understand this universe. Usually when such a thing happens, one would check their basic premise;>> Yeah, true. It's also possible that we are missing some more fundamental reason why the constants should be the way they are. I never said the multiverse was the only possibility, I was just trying to explain why it is considered a possibility in the first place. <<"The multiverse is a convenient workaround", is a very revealing statement based on the refusal to recheck the premise.>> I see i'll have to choose my words carefully. As above, it is not a refusal, we are merely considering multiple possibilities when we have no evidence for any of them, when we can check the premise I can assure you we most certainly will. << It seems that the 'arguement' curles back on itself...>> Yeah that's fair. The best you can say about both hypotheses is that they are internally consistant (I am loath to call them theories, since there is no evidence). They remain possibilities while they do not cause problems, but for now it's all speculation.
itchynscratchy 27-Nov-12, 01:50	Ian <<Someone, many years ago, posed a question. "Why is the universe the way it is?" The simple, but logical answer was, "Because if it were any other way we would not be here to see it." I liked that answer.>> Yes, that explains why we see it as it is, the problem is the next question though: "Could it have been any other way?" Perhaps there are many different kinds of universe that produce sentient life, and if so, why do we live in this one rather than one of the others? I think this is a deeper question, and one I live in hope of it being answered in my lifetime.
itchynscratchy 27-Nov-12, 01:55	Btw Janet and I have gone back and forth with our differing opinions on theoretical cosmology. For anyone that wants to read it there is a thread around here somewhere. I think it explains our positions well enough without going over old ground here.
Pages:  1 2 3 Next »

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.