|
|
| ||||||||||
| From | Message | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
|
 |
|||||||||
|
So, to the multiple choice question... a] Yes b] No c] Maybe d] All of the above ...the likely correct answer is d]? |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Has anyone considered ... 'If the multiverse theory is real, does that mean there exists a universe in which it isn't real? The question of course has a corollary; If 'yes', what if THIS universe is one in which the multiverse theory ISN'T true? If 'no', how come? Actually, I suspect the answer might be 'yes', provided we accept the concept of a 'null' universe - one in which nothing happens, nothing has ever happened, and nothing will ever happen. Although, perhaps if we accept the possibility that maybe there will come a moment in which something will happen, we might be looking at a 'pre- Big Bang' universe - the 'singularity' I keep hearing about. Nah... i'm just musing out loud, here. Still , it might be interesting to see how (or whether) people will respond. No: that won't do. The multiverse theory probably still applies (potentially) to a 'null universe'. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 15-May-20, 21:45 |
archduke |
|||||||||
|
If we replace the question... |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 15-May-20, 21:57 |
Time |
|||||||||
|
Time... |
|||||||||
|
The question. My supposition... Is both yes and no. Reason being the Block Universe theory along with the following supposition. If each black hole is a seed for a new universe that has a different (relative size and time scale) time and scale would be completely different. Thefore one meta Universe that is in a big bounce cycle of death and re-birth. Would give rise to the first ever set of black holes. Before this happened there wouldn't be a Multiverse. Afterwards there is a multiverse. Sort of like saying a woman isn't a mother until she becomes pregnant for the first time. Afterwards she is forever a mother. I feel so strongly that each black hole is it's own universe, and the gravity well leading to what we call a singularity is the umbilical cord. This means we really really don't understand anything |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Jul-20, 02:41 |
An honest answer! www.youtube.com |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 20-Jul-20, 08:07 |
en.wikipedia.org |
|||||||||
|
Multiverse? I think this is muddled thinking. If the 'Universe' is meant to be the bedrock reality of 'all there is' (which is what 'UNI verse' means etymologically), then there obviously CAN'T be a 'Multiverse'. Because... a) if these 'multiverses' interact in any way whatsoever, they are really separate parts of a more fundamental unity, or to put it another way, they are all part of the one larger 'Universe'. A bit like early 20th-century astronomy talking about other galaxies being 'island universes', but that was a turn of phrase rather than a scientifically accurate description. b) if these 'multiverses' DON'T interact in any way, then (within each individual universe) the others don't exist (unless you want to go Aristotelian and consider 'potentiality' as a form of 'existence'). To talk about something that 'exists', but not within the whole total of all interacting reality, is meaningless. Even notionally metaphysical religions have some form of interaction between 'God in Heaven' and the 'Creation'. And there can't be an 'outside' from which all these separate pages can be seen to be stacked like pages in a book, because that 'outside' point of view would itself be the bedrock universe and the pages only individual parts of that one larger reality. So a bit of critical thinking shows that the question is a category error, in which the concept of 'universe' is given two mutually conflicting meanings. However, a slightly different model of the 'Multiverse' is logically consistent. This is the one in which every quantum event leads to a bifurcation of events. In one 'universe' Schroedinger's cat is dead, in another it lives! But these are not two different 'universes'; they are two different forks in the history of the one universe. But take note; this would create an unimaginably huge number of universes, a new splitting for every possible combination of quantum events in the known universe since the Big Bang (which is a number with enough powers of ten to give you writer's cramp), and re-splitting that number of times exponentially, with a period of something in the order of Planck Time. ("Now, in which Universe did I leave my reading glasses?") Apart from which, a scientific theory that can't be tested is another name for 'speculation', and a 'discovery' that has no practical application is a waste of time. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 28-Jul-20, 00:07 |
That's also in my opinion the important take home lesson! |
|||||||||
|
Depends what you mean by “multiverse theory”. As far as I know the idea of the multiverse is a way of using an anthropic principle to explain the apparent fine tuning of various values that appear to be just right for us to exist. It does not suggest that the universe is completely unbounded, only that the magnitude of these values might be random between the bounds. So there is no suggestion I think that absolutely any conceivable universe is a possibility, only that infinitely many are possible by changing the constants. Think of it like picking a random number between 0 and 1, you have infinite choices but you still can’t pick 3. |
|||||||||
|
Itchy what are you responding to? The precise context escapes me. |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha! |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 28-Jul-20, 22:47 |
<zorroloco; 12-May-20, 08:07 > That's a really good one. Reminds me of the American politician arriving in Japan and asking his hosts about how often they have elections. The answer was "evely molning, evely molning"! |
|||||||||
|
Stal, <photons have no mass.> I'm not arguing against that. But I know that photons have momentum and velocity, and (according to Newton) momentum divided by velocity equals mass. Is this notional 'mass' equivalent to the energy being transported by the photon, and would it be more correct to say that the photon has no REST mass? I know it's a really stupid question that anyone should be able to answer, but it's one of several that must have been discussed while I was playing snooker instead of attending class. Answer this one and I'll come back with a few even stupider questions later. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 28-Jul-20, 23:12 |
Bob <www.quora.com; <I'll come back with a few even stupider questions later. > I am ready for those, but I am not at all sure I can answer them |
|||||||||
|
|
|||||||||
|
Stal Next stupid question, since you asked... I gather that the relativistic time dilation effect would make anything falling into the hole appear to slow down as it approaches, and eventually hover at the event horizon. If that is so, how can a black hole gain more mass, if nothing can fall through the horizon? Is it more a matter of the event horizon gradually expanding as more mass gathers at the boundary? This question becomes even more bizarre when the talk moves to black holes merging. |
|||||||||
|
True enough, but that’s only valid for (non-relativistic) particle with a non-zero rest mass. The momentum relates to the energy and can be calculated using the equation: E^2 = (pc)^2 + (mc^2)^2 Where E is the energy, p is the momentum, c is the speed of light and m is the rest mass. For a particle at rest with zero momentum that reduces to a familiar equation, for a particle with zero rest mass it reduces to E=pc. If you want momentum you can rearrange to p=E/c In words a photon’s momentum is its energy divided by its velocity. Since the energy is usually tiny and the velocity is huge the momentum of a single photon ends up being really tiny. That photons have momentum makes sense in light (ha!) of Compton scattering. Compton scattering is where a photon will transfer some of its energy to an electron and change its frequency as a result. The energy gained by the electron causes it to increase in velocity and therefore momentum. However momentum is a universally conserved quantity, if one thing gains momentum another thing must lose an equivalent amount. The gain in momentum of the electron must therefore have come from the photon and ipso facto it must have had some before the event to give. Apologies if that’s a long answer to a short question. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 29-Jul-20, 00:06 |
Bob. Does light have mass? I am sorry. Here's another one www.desy.de |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 04-Dec-20, 22:12 |
Recent post by Apatzer ---------------------- I have to agree with the Universe miracle. I'm glad that science is starting to lean away from "The laws of physics allow for a Universe to spring forth from absolutely nothing" I mean if there was absolutely nothing then how were there any laws at all? I've heard one astrophysicist say, the Universe is so finely tuned it is the equivalent of balancing a pencil on its point and having it stay that way for 13 billion years. And another saying it is like rolling 72 six sided dice a d getting all sixes on the first roll. It takes more faith to postulate that in a sea of universe's ours was the one who got it right, and all of that came from nothing. To me it is looking at a teenager and postulating he popped into existence without having to be born or have a mother at all ----------------------- |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 04-Dec-20, 22:31 |
Apatzer About the "probability" of getting the basic constants in physics exactly right. This is a much discussed issue. Perhaps we should think of it this way. In a Lotto game chances of getting all the numbers right is of the order of 10^-10. That is one hit in 10 BILLION (i.e. one hit in 10,000 million). Yet, one person usually gets it right every week. How should that person think of his case? Wasn't it impossible? Yet VERY possible, in fact 100%. <It takes more faith to postulate that in a sea of universe's ours was the one who got it right> Well, in those cases where they "didn't get it right" there is nobody wondering about it! <....and all of that came from nothing> The point is that there is no such thing as absolutely nothing! We can discuss this further if there is interest. Mathematically, -1 plus +1 equals nothing.......... |
|||||||||
|
Apatzer via Stal 22:12 Yes, I'm as critical of those who agree with me as those who disagree. Truth doesn't depend on what I would prefer. Apatzer's point is about how perfectly the universe must be balanced, or human life would not be possible. And that is precisely where the error is. It's addressed in a line of reasoning generally called 'The Anthropic Principle". Just think; if the universe wasn't so perfectly balanced, we wouldn't be here to notice that it isn't perfectly balanced. Every sort of universe that doesn't permit us to live wouldn't be available for us to examine. Therefore, it is logically possible for any number of different sorts of universe to exist, but we would only be able to access this one sort. That's not an argument for 'perfect balance', only a comment about the limits of our abilities. If there are other universes in which carbon-based life is impossible but silicon-based 'organic' molecules can form long chains, then those silicon-based lifeforms might be saying that THEIR universe is too 'perfectly balanced' to be an accident, so there must be a Creator somewhere with a special affinity for rocks. My position? I just don't know and I don't expect we will ever have the data to find out. But I wouldn't be surprised if there are millions of universes, all of them with a differently-balanced 'perfection', and God is the Creator of all of them. God seems to delight in an abundance of variety, so why limit Him to only one universe? But that's just pious speculation. |
|||||||||
|
stalhandske 05-Dec-20, 03:04 |
Bob But that's just pious speculation.> Well, none of us KNOWS, so there we are on the same line. There may be millions of universes, or then not? Generally, we follow Occam's razor in our postulates, and don't postulate more than is absolutely necessary. Why you need to invoke a God to create them is beyond my comprehension, but I guess you will have to if you are a Christian. |
|||||||||
|
Time Is Like The Other Three |
|||||||||
|
Not Just Christian I don't have any issue invoking God to explain something physics is unlikely to ever explain, provided we issue the caveat we don't yet know. I do not rule out the possibility science shows us how the universe came to be, OR proves the existence of God. Or disproves Her existence. |
|||||||||
| ||||||||||
