Multiverse Theory

[JimAlmquist]

I'm really intrigued by the Multiverse theory. I would love to see Art have Brian Green on to discuss. I don't recall it being brought up by Dr. Kaku the night Art broke his extraterrestrial cherry...

[JohnDesjarlais1973]

What do you mean like one where world war two was lost or the civil war had a different outcome or is that a parallel universe theory?

[JimAlmquist]

What do you mean like one where world war two was lost or the civil war had a different outcome or is that a parallel universe theory?

The Multiverse is like a little of both you mention. There could be several versions of ourselves in multiple universes all having took a different path on the road of life. A world where we live under a Monarchy or are a third world nation. There are many great documentaries on YouTube about it.

[Agent : Orange]

Just to change things up a bit, he should try to get Max Tegmark on, who is a very interesting guy and has had less exposure than Greene but is a major contributor. Plus, I don't think he's made a radio appearance on Art's show or Coast to this point.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse

[SpaceRadomir]

I'm really intrigued by the Multiverse theory. I would love to see Art have Brian Green on to discuss. I don't recall it being brought up by Dr. Kaku the night Art broke his extraterrestrial cherry...

Better to have Dr. Kaku back than Brian. The guy swallows BS that free will is nothing but an illusion simply because there isn't a theory that defines a free will. Twat.

[onan]

Better to have Dr. Kaku back than Brian. The guy swallows BS that free will is nothing but an illusion simply because there isn't a theory that defines a free will. Twat.

You were programmed to type that.

[Jackstar]

Isn't it hard proven science that there are at least 9 other parallel universes right next us "here," and could be up to as many as an infinite number?

I am pretty good with a slide rule, but I really can't check the math on that one myself. What's the consensus here?

[Agent : Orange]

Isn't it hard proven science that there are at least 9 other parallel universes right next us "here," and could be up to as many as an infinite number?

I am pretty good with a slide rule, but I really can't check the math on that one myself. What's the consensus here?

Parallel universes are not at all accepted by the mainstream scientific community and live in the realm of speculation. There are ongoing discussions of the observable consequences of them though (for example http://www.space.com/10522-controversial-study-suggests-universe.html). But notice the first word in the title is "controversial".

Some particle physics theories like M and superstring theories posit additional dimensions beyond the four that describe our universe, but these are "compactified" so small we never notice them today. Both of these theories are very far from being accepted and there is no observational evidence to hold them up.

Where did you hear of the idea of 9 parallel universes?

[Jackstar]

Where did you hear of the idea of 9 parallel universes?

Dr. Kaku. Numerous occasions.

[Agent : Orange]

Dr. Kaku. Numerous occasions.

Then you're definitely referring to the additional dimensions string theory needs to work properly. That stuff is still far outside consensus and no observations support string theory. Yet. There's an announcement coming on Oct 30 about dark matter from the LUX detector in South Dakota that may have implications for it if a positive detection is announced, though.

[Jackstar]

No observations, certainly, but my understanding was that it had been proven mathematically, which of course, is rather different from Ghetto Proof.

Thank you for your summary, my understanding of the concept is as shallow as I stated above.

(those dudes over at the gas station on Earth Gamma don't know shit about it either)

[Agent : Orange]

No observations, certainly, but my understanding was that it had been proven mathematically, which of course, is rather different from Ghetto Proof.

That's not even clear yet. There are very VERY complicated maths involved and there's not even real consensus there. The problem is the theory can be "folded up" in higher dimensions to produce a universe like the one we can poke, prod and measure, and it's not clear how to do that. There are many (perhaps an infinite number) of ways to get back universes from the theory, so there's constantly stories coming out about solutions to the string equations that produce universes with certain properties that resemble our universe. But no one knows how to do it or if it can be done at all to give back a world like the one we know. And even then the observable predictions that would confirm that view may still be out of our reach. Very interesting and also very frustrating.

The proof is in the pudding. Even though it may be mathematically consistent the math may be applied incorrectly or the idea may be wrong and the real universe just isn't like any described by string theory. So you need a concrete observational line of inquiry and evidence if it's going to become accepted.

Thank you for your summary, my understanding of the concept is as shallow as I stated above.

(those dudes over at the gas station on Earth Gamma don't know shit about it either)

I love discussing stuff like that and I could keep on going all day.

What are the prices at the pump like on Earth:Gamma? Maybe I should be filling up there instead.

[SpaceRadomir]

You were programmed to type that.

*punches Onan*

Sorry! The universe made me do it!

[Wintermute]

I am always a little hesitant about radio show guys interviewing people like Greene and Kaku. Usually it is way above the interviewer's head and the show becomes a lot of nonsense.

But... I will say one thing. The "multiverse" idea is not a theory... it is a scientific question without a testable experiment. That in itself makes it about like saying "there is a god" or "there is a god of fire and a god of the ocean".

Now that doesn't mean physics isn't trying to find an answer or that they are wrong. It means that right now, the multiverse idea is nothing but an educated guess based on other untested ideas. That could change next week of course... who knows? It took 40yrs to prove the Higgs.

If I were to do a show on multiverse, that would be the bend I would take... that many, many "theories" in modern physics are right now un-testable thus are no better than a well educated guess. We simply do not know what we do not know. Thus it becomes either a math problem or a philosophy issue.

[Jackstar]

http://www.followfacts.com/other-universes-are-pulling-on-our-universe-new-planck-data-triggers-controversy-todays-most-popular/

Just saw this just now, I haven't read it yet. I am hoping that it doesn't say something like "parallel universes do not exist--at all--until science proves that they do," which would make me so sad, I'd have to burn all my notes (that don't exist)!

What are the prices at the pump like on Earth:Gamma? Maybe I should be filling up there instead.

Well... I'd tell you, but since I can't prove how to get there... also, they don't use corn to make ethanol there, so it wouldn't even work in your car!

[Agent : Orange]

But... I will say one thing. The "multiverse" idea is not a theory... it is a scientific question without a testable experiment. That in itself makes it about like saying "there is a god" or "there is a god of fire and a god of the ocean".

Now that doesn't mean physics isn't trying to find an answer or that they are wrong. It means that right now, the multiverse idea is nothing but an educated guess based on other untested ideas. That could change next week of course... who knows? It took 40yrs to prove the Higgs

This is not true. The multiverse comes up naturally as a consequence (not a postulate) of eternal inflation models that are built to explain the initial conditions and these models leave imprints on the cosmic microwave background, as well as gravitational wave signatures from the early universe. They make definite predictions that future missions will be able to test. There are many such examples of this but to pick one see this paper (http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.3473), or the work of Laura Mersini-Houghton. And surprisingly the new Planck results from the cosmic microwave background have people heading back to papers such as the one above since the multiverse may be a solution to some of the odd features that have been observed there (http://saoastronews.wordpress.com/2013/03/27/planck-results/). We had a whiff of these features in the WMAP data, but Planck's high precision observation really makes them stand out.

If I were to do a show on multiverse, that would be the bend I would take... that many, many "theories" in modern physics are right now un-testable thus are no better than a well educated guess. We simply do not know what we do not know. Thus it becomes either a math problem or a philosophy issue.

Physical theories that do not make predictions that are testable are unverifiable, and are not scientific questions. They are questions of faith.

String theory, which both Kaku and Greene have supported has been criticized for exactly that reason. But the theory actually does have some consequences for basic physics that can be tested, for example the Greisen-Zatsepin-Kuzmin limit that is the upper bound for cosmic ray energies (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greisen%E2%80%93Zatsepin%E2%80%93Kuzmin_limit). And string theories rely on supersymmetry, the first hints of which we might see next week Oct 30 if the LUX experiment has found a massive particle that makes up dark matter. 

[Agent : Orange]

Well... I'd tell you, but since I can't prove how to get there... also, they don't use corn to make ethanol there, so it wouldn't even work in your car!

Well let me siphon a few drops from your tank so I can test it. That would make some pretty strong evidence for Earth:gamma and would go a long way toward the proof we're after!

I'll consider any alternative that cuts costs at the pump, even including dimension-hopping

[Agent : Orange]

I am hoping that it doesn't say something like "parallel universes do not exist--at all--until science proves that they do," which would make me so sad, I'd have to burn all my notes (that don't exist)!

I haven't read it either, but it will say something like "parallel universes can't be proven to exist yet, so take all of this with a huge grain of salt". Exactly as it should. But To be honest I don't really see the problem in saying

something like "parallel universes do not exist--at all--until science proves that they do,"

since it is the answer to a scientific question you're after, you will need science to answer it. I guess there's a fine line between saying "do not exist" and "inconclusive" depending on what is being proposed. Certainly you want to put an idea like the multiverse on solid observational ground before you accept it for a solution to your questions though.

When statements like "Will I see my dead relatives again?" or "Is there a sympathetic force guiding my life?" are put out there I don't think anyone would be upset that the scientific method won't do us much good in investigating those questions. They are simply not scientific questions with no observable consequences. So believe what you will when it comes to stuff like that.

Edited so the questions in the last paragraph were actually questions. Derp.

[shell88]

Isn't it hard proven science that there are at least 9 other parallel universes right next us "here," and could be up to as many as an infinite number?

I am pretty good with a slide rule, but I really can't check the math on that one myself. What's the consensus here?

The mind is so vast as to be indescribable in words so I've been told. I've been too damn busy to take the time to see for "myself".

[Jackstar]

I'll consider any alternative that cuts costs at the pump, even including dimension-hopping

Great, because industrial hemp can be grown far more cheaply and efficiently than corn.

Writing your Congressman isn't as sexy as Sliding, but hey, you know, science

[SpaceRadomir]

Didn't Kaku or someone else said that large hadron collider might be able to prove existence of 11 dimension and the multiverse?

[Agent : Orange]

Didn't Kaku or someone else said that large hadron collider might be able to prove existence of 11 dimension and the multiverse?

Yes, but so far it hasn't given us any particles beyond the standard model. There may be evidence of the predictions of string theory when the machine starts taking data after it's upgrade in 2015.