Announcement

Collapse

Natural Science 301 Guidelines

This is an open forum area for all members for discussions on all issues of science and origins. This area will and does get volatile at times, but we ask that it be kept to a dull roar, and moderators will intervene to keep the peace if necessary. This means obvious trolling and flaming that becomes a problem will be dealt with, and you might find yourself in the doghouse.

As usual, Tweb rules apply. If you haven't read them now would be a good time.

Forum Rules: Here
See more
See less

New info on the universe/multiverse - Tegmark

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Teallaura
    replied
    Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
    My alternates get all the luck.
    The one that's a slave in the universe where Rome never fell and is busily digging out copper with a bronze pick ax probably doesn't agree...

    Leave a comment:


  • Duragizer
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    If the many worlds interpretation is true, then you may be there watching your favorite movies in those other universes right now.
    My alternates get all the luck.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by JimL View Post
    Actually multi-verse or many worlds theory is science as interpreted by the shcrodinger equation. Of course there other interpretations of the schroedinger equation, the main one of which is the copenhagen interpretation which assumes wave funtion collapse, which assumes that all the probabilities reduce to just one upon observation. The majority of physicists, I think with good reason, have abandoned that idea, ie that we create the future by observing it. Neither of the two interpretations are non deterministic though, as there is nothing free willed about observation. What you observe you are determined to observe whether it is through wave function collapse a la the copenhagen interpretation or through the determined evolution of the schroedinger equation in the many worlds interpretation. Thats why the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really make sense unless we are to believe that the moon only exists because and if we look at it.
    I agree that the Copenhagen interpretation does not make sense. Various versions of the schroedinger equation are applied and useful in different models of the multiverse including both time dependent and time independent variations. The problems of the observer perspective within a time-space universe is not one where things exist dependent on the existence of the observer.

    One of the points of this thread is that many assume the models can conclusively answer certain questions such as; Our universe will ultimately experience a cold death, because the expansion of our universe is accelerating at an increasing rate. At present this is a maybe yes, maybe no.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-04-2014, 06:45 AM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by Duragizer View Post
    So, when is somebody going to invent interuniversal travel, anyway? I'm dying to visit some of the universes where my favourite TV shows/movie series never turned to crap.
    If the many worlds interpretation is true, then you may be there watching your favorite movies in those other universes right now.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied

    Leave a comment:


  • Duragizer
    replied
    So, when is somebody going to invent interuniversal travel, anyway? I'm dying to visit some of the universes where my favourite TV shows/movie series never turned to crap.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Confusingly, there are two different multiverses. One is in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this view, instead of a particle acting like a probability function, it deterministically takes each of its possible paths, but does so in different universes. So, over time, this builds into a multiverse of all possible outcomes of quantum activities. It's more philosophy than science, and mostly just a way to try to rescue some determinism.
    Actually multi-verse or many worlds theory is science as interpreted by the shcrodinger equation. Of course there other interpretations of the schroedinger equation, the main one of which is the copenhagen interpretation which assumes wave funtion collapse, which assumes that all the probabilities reduce to just one upon observation. The majority of physicists, I think with good reason, have abandoned that idea, ie that we create the future by observing it. Neither of the two interpretations are non deterministic though, as there is nothing free willed about observation. What you observe you are determined to observe whether it is through wave function collapse a la the copenhagen interpretation or through the determined evolution of the schroedinger equation in the many worlds interpretation. Thats why the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't really make sense unless we are to believe that the moon only exists because and if we look at it.
    Last edited by JimL; 05-03-2014, 05:37 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • JimL
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    There are likely more, and will be more . . .

    Actually models that consider our universe as coming out of the expansion in the multiverse do not consider it necessarily an expanding multiverse, and the different universes would not likely be within the same space time fabric. It is more likely that each universe has its own space time fabric beginning with a singularity.
    I find that difficult to believe shunya. If the pocket universes are not all within the same spacetime fabric as the Greater Cosmos then wouldn't that mean the the greater Cosmos itself is not infinite?

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Thanks, everyone!

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by shunyadragon View Post
    Actually models that consider our universe as coming out of the expansion in the multiverse do not consider it necessarily an expanding multiverse, and the different universes would not likely be within the same space time fabric. It is more likely that each universe has its own space time fabric beginning with a singularity.
    Precisely, they're two different conceptions of "multiverse".

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Paprika View Post
    Aren't there at least three types of multiverse? a) the many-worlds multiverse, b) one caused by great inflation since the Big Bang, producing regions of different universes within the same space-time fabric c) the one that our universe is part of but the other universes are not contained within the same space-time evolved from our Big Bang?

    As I understand it, c) used to be the traditional understanding and b) is a newer, different idea.
    There are likely more, and will be more . . .

    Actually models that consider our universe as coming out of the expansion in the multiverse do not consider it necessarily an expanding multiverse, and the different universes would not likely be within the same space time fabric. It is more likely that each universe has its own space time fabric beginning with a singularity.

    Leave a comment:


  • Paprika
    replied
    Originally posted by TheLurch View Post
    Confusingly, there are two different multiverses. One is in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this view, instead of a particle acting like a probability function, it deterministically takes each of its possible paths, but does so in different universes. So, over time, this builds into a multiverse of all possible outcomes of quantum activities. It's more philosophy than science, and mostly just a way to try to rescue some determinism.

    The other multiverse is what's being referenced here: a necessary outcome of inflation. Basically, inflation happens too fast for all of space-time to stop inflating - as a result, there are always corners of the Universe left inflating, even as ours slowed down. Eventually, somewhere outside our Universe, another patch of space-time will slow down and form its own universe. But again, inflation will be happening so fast that there still other areas that keep inflating. As a result, this goes on indefinitely, with new universes being spun off at a regular clip.

    The people who actually understand the physics tell me that this form of multiverse is a necessary outcome of inflation. And, since the evidence for inflation keeps piling up, it's looking more and more like we're just one universe of many.
    Aren't there at least three types of multiverse? a) the many-worlds multiverse, b) one caused by great inflation since the Big Bang, producing regions of different universes within the same space-time fabric c) the one that our universe is part of but the other universes are not contained within the same space-time evolved from our Big Bang?

    As I understand it, c) used to be the traditional understanding and b) is a newer, different idea.

    Leave a comment:


  • TheLurch
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Question: I've always seen the multiverse used to explain quantum - so the contention is that it occurs at the macro as well? I know sci fi portrays it that way.
    Confusingly, there are two different multiverses. One is in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics. In this view, instead of a particle acting like a probability function, it deterministically takes each of its possible paths, but does so in different universes. So, over time, this builds into a multiverse of all possible outcomes of quantum activities. It's more philosophy than science, and mostly just a way to try to rescue some determinism.

    The other multiverse is what's being referenced here: a necessary outcome of inflation. Basically, inflation happens too fast for all of space-time to stop inflating - as a result, there are always corners of the Universe left inflating, even as ours slowed down. Eventually, somewhere outside our Universe, another patch of space-time will slow down and form its own universe. But again, inflation will be happening so fast that there still other areas that keep inflating. As a result, this goes on indefinitely, with new universes being spun off at a regular clip.

    The people who actually understand the physics tell me that this form of multiverse is a necessary outcome of inflation. And, since the evidence for inflation keeps piling up, it's looking more and more like we're just one universe of many.

    Leave a comment:


  • shunyadragon
    replied
    Originally posted by Teallaura View Post
    Question: I've always seen the multiverse used to explain quantum - so the contention is that it occurs at the macro as well? I know sci fi portrays it that way.
    Actually the Quantum Mechanics is used to develop models of the Multiverse at the micro and macro level.
    Last edited by shunyadragon; 05-02-2014, 12:32 PM.

    Leave a comment:


  • Teallaura
    replied
    Question: I've always seen the multiverse used to explain quantum - so the contention is that it occurs at the macro as well? I know sci fi portrays it that way.

    Leave a comment:

Related Threads

Collapse

Topics Statistics Last Post
Started by shunyadragon, 05-16-2023, 08:20 PM
9 responses
38 views
0 likes
Last Post tabibito  
Started by shunyadragon, 05-09-2023, 11:57 AM
4 responses
40 views
0 likes
Last Post shunyadragon  
Started by rogue06, 05-05-2023, 11:40 AM
0 responses
18 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Started by Sparko, 05-04-2023, 09:33 AM
14 responses
58 views
0 likes
Last Post Sparko
by Sparko
 
Started by shunyadragon, 05-04-2023, 07:16 AM
1 response
16 views
0 likes
Last Post rogue06
by rogue06
 
Working...
X