Media Megaforum

Has The Universe gone crazy???
Lonnehart at 4:52PM, Nov. 19, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,573
joined: 3-16-2006
I was watching another episode of the documentary “The Universe” on The History Channel. I thought I was gonna watch something about planets and stars. But this show was about parallel universes! Isn't this kind of thing the stuff of science fiction???

*goes crazy and jumps into a blazar*
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
Mushroomcomix at 5:20PM, Nov. 19, 2008
(offline)
posts: 527
joined: 8-16-2008
The theory of parallel universes came long ago, when quantum mechanics came to be. Its a classic debate between theists and atheists. If the atheists can be so accepting that there are multiple universes out there then why can they not accept GOD and vice versa.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:08PM
ozoneocean at 7:57PM, Nov. 19, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
Mushroomcomix
If the atheists can be so accepting that there are multiple universes out there then why can they not accept GOD and vice versa.
Because that's an artificial dualistic contention: a “Theist” isn't a really thing, they're more a hypothetical “religious” person in opposition to a Atheist.

And the position of most atheists isn't a non-acceptance of the idea of a god per-se, rather they are (at the most juvenile level) opposed to the prevailing religious ideals of their particular community (for whatever reason), or (at a more advanced level), cognizant of the fact that the idea of “gods” is a human creation and see no reason to think of them as real- therefore the religions surrounding those gods are necessarily suspect. :)
—————————————————–

The notion of parallel universes is a step way beyond those ideas. Maybe gods could exist in them? Whatever. It's nothing to do with your religious people are OR your atheists, because they're both only concerned with this universe.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Ironscarfs Ghost at 2:46AM, Nov. 20, 2008
(offline)
posts: 577
joined: 9-12-2008
Ozoneocean
The notion of parallel universes is a step way beyond those idea
And as you imply, it is of course a “serious” scientific theory, not just the stuff of science fiction.
On the other hand, lets not undermine science fiction: “serious” science fiction has always sought to bring cold scientific theory to life and explore the possible outcomes of those theories.
This should be differentiated from science fantasy, which is more about squeezing
nubile young ladies into ill fitting costumes entirely unsuitable for space travel, than exploring the nature of the universe.
I know which I prefer!
Er……..boo!
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:03PM
Mushroomcomix at 5:33AM, Nov. 20, 2008
(offline)
posts: 527
joined: 8-16-2008
ozoneocean
Mushroomcomix
If the atheists can be so accepting that there are multiple universes out there then why can they not accept GOD and vice versa.
Because that's an artificial dualistic contention: a “Theist” isn't a really thing, they're more a hypothetical “religious” person in opposition to a Atheist.

And the position of most atheists isn't a non-acceptance of the idea of a god per-se, rather they are (at the most juvenile level) opposed to the prevailing religious ideals of their particular community (for whatever reason), or (at a more advanced level), cognizant of the fact that the idea of “gods” is a human creation and see no reason to think of them as real- therefore the religions surrounding those gods are necessarily suspect. :)
—————————————————–

The notion of parallel universes is a step way beyond those ideas. Maybe gods could exist in them? Whatever. It's nothing to do with your religious people are OR your atheists, because they're both only concerned with this universe.

I was not saying that the idea of parallel universes spawned because of religious and non religious debates, far from that. I was saying that quantum mechanics brought the idea of multiple universes to an acute possibility which also brought about the possibility of parallel universes.
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:08PM
Daiconv at 9:01AM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 133
joined: 2-7-2008
Well according to some random things I've read on the internet, time travel sends you into an alternate universe. Apparently, Dragonball Z had one of the most accurate depictions of time travel where making changes in the past doesn't effect your original timeline because you are in another timeline…er something like that.

Also there's this theory that if you could somehow survive the crushing gravity, being sent through a black hole either sends you to another universe/dimension or catapults you to the other end of the universe or something.
without buttcheecks, it's just a hole.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
Daiconv at 9:06AM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 133
joined: 2-7-2008
–and then there's this fucking thing that's probably going to destroy the universe. “Let's recreate the big bang!”, yeah brilliant fucking idea, didn't those scientists see what happend in The Mist!?
without buttcheecks, it's just a hole.
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
ozoneocean at 3:44PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
Mushroomcomix
I was not saying that the idea of parallel universes spawned because of religious and non religious debates, far from that.
I know. But the thing is that the possibility of them doesn't change the dynamics of the Atheist argument, or that of any religious person's. ;)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Lonnehart at 8:59PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,573
joined: 3-16-2006
Still… is it really possible to have a nearly exact copy of OUR universe to exist? It'd be interesting to see what our “mirror” universe counterparts would be like (and when I say “mirror”, I mean copies of ourselves that are the total opposite of us, y'know?)
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
ozoneocean at 10:05PM, Nov. 20, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
Think of the rare chance that produced life on this particular planet in this particular portion of space among all the other billions of planets and stars and galaxies… If there are other universes, the ones with Earths would be among an insignificant minority, the ones with life even fewer.
(not to say there isn't life elsewhere in this universe, But I'm just talking about Earth here.)


In a show like “sliders” they'd have been surfing around one an extremely narrow band of possibility. Thinner than a single molecule edged razor… Thinner than a quark edged razor lol!

 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
DAJB at 12:37AM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
I've seen a similar documentary on parallel universes and dimensions. Apparently some damn boffin types have “mathematically proven” that they exist and that there are exactly eleven of them.

Yeah, right. And, by amazing coincidence, that seems to be the exact same number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin!
last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
kingofsnake at 6:32AM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
DAJB
Yeah, right. And, by amazing coincidence, that seems to be the exact same number of angels that can dance on the head of a pin!

And people don't believe in intelligent design. :P

I like how someone theism vs athiesm got shoved in here. Is there no discussion of science where someone doesn't bring that up? Like it's totally impossible for religious people to be scientists.

The thing I don't get about parralell universes is where they even got the idea. Its like some scientists were like:

Scientist 1: “This quantum mechanics are wierd. Its like these particles are doing things that don't make any sense.”
Scientist 2: “Well maybe theres multiple universes. That would solve some of those problems.”
Scientist 1: “You're right! Lets make it a valid theory- wait where'd you even come up with that the top of your head?”
Scientist 2: “Noooo, no. I did it with, uh…. math?”
Scientist 1: “Really complicated math, that doesn't make sense to anyone without a PHD?”
Scientist 2: “The very same!”
Scientist 1: “We are SO going to get tenure.”

I like the idea of multiple universes, but its an untestable theory. So really it's no more valid than ID. That is to say, not valid at all.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
DAJB at 6:44AM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,462
joined: 2-23-2007
kingofsnake
The thing I don't get about parralell universes is where they even got the idea.
I believe it was first proposed by the renowned amateur physicist Mr Mxyzptlyk, although opinions differ. Some say that Mxyzptlyk was a fraud and “borrowed” all his ideas from Einstein's chief rival, Brainiac 5.

last edited on July 14, 2011 12:03PM
ozoneocean at 9:33AM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
kingofsnake
I like the idea of multiple universes, but its an untestable theory. So really it's no more valid than ID. That is to say, not valid at all.
It's quite a bit more valid than ID. It may even be provable.
The main problem is that apart from being a bona fide theory in Physics, many writers have used it as a plot device over the years. They haven't understood it and they've used it idiotically.

Try not to get convenient plot devices confused with physics guys ;)
ID is only convenient plot device.

————-
The thing is, you don't believe in the idea of multiple universes, you accept that it may be a possibility until proven incorrect or until the thery really does start to become unsound, because it's quite a good theory, unlike id which is not. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
kingofsnake at 9:53AM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
ozoneocean
The thing is, you don't believe in the idea of multiple universes, you accept that it may be a possibility until proven incorrect or until the thery really does start to become unsound, because it's quite a good theory, unlike id which is not. :)

The point is that it's untestable. They're both bad theories. There is a basis for both of them to exist. They answer questions raised by current testable scientific theories, without themselves being testable. You could make the same argument about ID that you do about MU. “You accept it as a possiblity until proven incorrect.” No, thats not science. It doesn't matter what the theory is, if you can not test it, it's just a “god gap” theory. It doesn't matter if god actually part of it. I could just as easily say that the inconsistancies in quantum mechanics are due to a connection to a divine architect existing outside our universe. It would be just as correct as MU. Its unsubstantiated, untestable, and not science. Its a fun theory, but until we can test it, its just conjecture, with no more geunine validity than any other bullshit someone thinks of.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
ozoneocean at 5:32PM, Nov. 21, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
kingofsnake
Its unsubstantiated, untestable, and not science. Its a fun theory, but until we can test it, its just conjecture, with no more geunine validity than any other bullshit someone thinks of.
Only if you come at it from the angle of fiction lol!
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
kingofsnake at 12:36PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
ozoneocean
Only if you come at it from the angle of fiction lol!

I didn't realize you were a quantum physicist. Please, explain how one can test multiple universe theory. Clearly you know way more about it than me.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
ozoneocean at 9:56PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
Oh, I didn't realise you were a quantum physicist either. Please explain to me why you know that the quantum physicists that do support this theory are completely off their trolleys. :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Lonnehart at 10:11PM, Nov. 22, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,573
joined: 3-16-2006
I'm no quantum um… uh…

*reboots his brain so it doesn't overheat from thinking too much*

ANYWAYS… It was just one of those Universe episodes that blew my mind. Maybe those Quantum scientists figured out that such universes could theoretically exist by doing the math? I mean… they found black holes that way, y'know.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
lothar at 6:09AM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
perhaps the MU folks and the ID folks are both correct , from a certain point of view .
to start to understand multiple dimensions , it helps to first imagine a 2 dimensional universe , a “flatland” if you will
take it away carl

so we being 3 dimensional beings are gods to the flatlanders , and our “gods” are possibly simple 4 dimensional beings . they have the power to skrew with our universe at will , and even maybe make universes as they please . so .. maybe “god” realy did create this universe and maybe he does have powers to grant us life , make us gods by bringing us to his dimension . but there are likely infinite other 3D universes in the 4 dimensional universe , just as there are infinite 2D universes in our 3D universe . so what's to prevent there from being billions of Other gods all running their own universes as they please ??
And if there are 11 dimensions , then there is prolly a 5th dimension above them and maybe they see one of those fifth dimensional beings as Their god !
it's turtles all the way down and elephants all the way up !
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
LIZARD_B1TE at 2:58PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 3,308
joined: 6-22-2006
Lonnehart
Still… is it really possible to have a nearly exact copy of OUR universe to exist? It'd be interesting to see what our “mirror” universe counterparts would be like (and when I say “mirror”, I mean copies of ourselves that are the total opposite of us, y'know?)


If they were total opposites of us, wouldn't they, um, not exist? Or at the very least be dead?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
kingofsnake at 7:08PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
ozoneocean
Oh, I didn't realise you were a quantum physicist either. Please explain to me why you know that the quantum physicists that do support this theory are completely off their trolleys. :)

I'm not saying they're off their trolleys, I'm saying that they have as much substantive scientific evidence that MU is a valid theory as “scientists” who believe in ID. ID is a possible explanation for inconsistencies and unanswered questions found in evolution. But it's not a scientifically valid one because it can't be tested. MU gets a lot of press because it's so out there and because it's theoretically possible. But theoretically possible doesn't mean its a valid theory. FSM is theoretically possible. I know that they can't test the validity of MU theory because I like to read science news, and if they had scientific trials that indicated MU likely to be correct, then I probably would've read about it, because in the realm of science news, that's kinda a big deal. MU theory is based on complicated math that suggests one of the possible explanations for unpredictable variations in particle movement is that they exist in multiple spaces at the same time, and since matter can't exist in two places at the same time in one dimension thanks to the laws of matter and energy conversion, they must exist in a parallel one. There's no way for them to test it; its just one of the possible explanations for why something happens that we can't yet explain. It's a guess. That's all.

I'm not totally talking out of my ass here.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
kingofsnake at 7:12PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
Lonnehart
Maybe those Quantum scientists figured out that such universes could theoretically exist by doing the math? I mean… they found black holes that way, y'know.

Did you know Einstein proved blackholes could exist by trying to prove they couldn't? I don't know, I just think that's a cool little piece of trivia.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
ozoneocean at 8:46PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
kingofsnake
MU theory is based on complicated math that suggests one of the possible explanations for unpredictable variations in particle movement is that they exist in multiple spaces at the same time, and since matter can't exist in two places at the same time in one dimension thanks to the laws of matter and energy conversion, they must exist in a parallel one. There's no way for them to test it; its just one of the possible explanations for why something happens that we can't yet explain. It's a guess. That's all.
I've read all that too, and a bit more ;)
There are some quite convincing cases for the theory and there have been a few methods proposed to test it. :)
Please don't bring up ID anymore… may as well use unicorns as an analogue. This problem reminds me more of the early days of aspects of Einstein's theories of relativity: with some aspects you had no way to test them at the time, there were ideas how how they could be tested, but we just didn't have the means.
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
Lonnehart at 9:16PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,573
joined: 3-16-2006
One of the things the episode showed was huge sheets of energy(?). Apparently like a set of drapes hung very closely together, except that any collision between them would create another universe. It was at this point where my head hurt so much while I was trying to comprehend it all.

And other theories they were talking about were an exact copy of OUR universe that exists so far away we can't comprehend it, the theory that our universe is a “bubble among bubbles”, or even more bizarre… other universes existing in the same space and time as our own, but in different dimensional planes. And while it's not mentioned, how about the idea that we're made up of universes ourselves, and at the same time we're microscopic components of a larger universe (I think this because of how an atom and possible quarks and other more minute particles seem to imitate our solar system, how galaxies rotate around each other ane such….

Oh, that's just ing great. Now I need an icepack… x_x
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
kingofsnake at 9:25PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
ozoneocean
There are some quite convincing cases for the theory and there have been a few methods proposed to test it. :)

and if you could explain one of these or tell me where I could find such an explanation I'd be a little more apt to recognize MU theory as being more valid than unicorns.
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM
ozoneocean at 10:17PM, Nov. 23, 2008
(online)
posts: 24,999
joined: 1-2-2004
kingofsnake
ozoneocean
There are some quite convincing cases for the theory and there have been a few methods proposed to test it. :)
and if you could explain one of these or tell me where I could find such an explanation I'd be a little more apt to recognize MU theory as being more valid than unicorns.
I'm sorry King, I've never made a habit of scrapbooking all the science articles I've read in case they'll be of further use in arguments in the future. And on principal I refuse to do extra research finding the info again for momentary net arguments.
-That might sound like a cop-out to you and so be it, it saves the sanity and preserves my good humour. :)

We can agree to disagree at his point or you could troll through the unreliable Wikipedia…
Some methods of possible experimental tests that I VAGUELY recall involved performing various complicated high energy tests, and then trying to work out where all the energy went. The theory being that some of it wouldn't be accounted for because it would bleed into that other “dimension”… I can't help you with more than that. Make wiki your friend if you want to. ^_^
kingofsnake
I'm saying that they have as much substantive scientific evidence that MU is a valid theory as “scientists” who believe in ID. ID is a possible explanation for inconsistencies and unanswered questions found in evolution
Oh, one thing that occurs to me is that “scientists” who profess an interest in Id are generally ostracised by the scientific community and often lose their jobs. Not so for physicists that talk about MU. ;)
kingofsnake
Did you know Einstein proved blackholes could exist by trying to prove they couldn't? I don't know, I just think that's a cool little piece of trivia.
Another thing that occurs to me is that something similar was proposed for aspects of MU.
Lonnehart
One of the things the episode showed was huge sheets of energy(?). Apparently like a set of drapes hung very closely together, except that any collision between them would create another universe. It was at this point where my head hurt so much while I was trying to comprehend it all.

And other theories they were talking about were an exact copy of OUR universe that exists so far away we can't comprehend it, the theory that our universe is a “bubble among bubbles”, or even more bizarre… other universes existing in the same space and time as our own, but in different dimensional planes. And while it's not mentioned, how about the idea that we're made up of universes ourselves, and at the same time we're microscopic components of a larger universe (I think this because of how an atom and possible quarks and other more minute particles seem to imitate our solar system, how galaxies rotate around each other ane such….

Oh, that's just ing great. Now I need an icepack… x_x
Indeed. It's fantastic to hear about that sort of thing :)
 
last edited on July 14, 2011 2:32PM
lothar at 5:55AM, Nov. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,299
joined: 1-3-2006
plastic sheet thing ? you're talking about the brane ? or the p-brane or whatever its called
if you think about it , isn't it more crazy if there is only this one 3 dimensional universe ?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:45PM
Lonnehart at 10:18PM, Nov. 24, 2008
(online)
posts: 2,573
joined: 3-16-2006
lothar
plastic sheet thing ? you're talking about the brane ? or the p-brane or whatever its called
if you think about it , isn't it more crazy if there is only this one 3 dimensional universe ?

What they were saying was that these “branes” exist outside our universe. Or something like that. Can anyone explain this thing because if I try to comprehend it on my own my brain may flatline… x_x
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:38PM
kingofsnake at 8:49AM, Nov. 25, 2008
(online)
posts: 1,374
joined: 9-27-2006
I guess it's easiest to imagine if we're talking about something really simple and then apply it to everthing. Like, lets say you have a photograph of a beetle. You would have some experience of the beetle. Its an image of the beetle frozen in time, you can come back and look at it again and again and repeat the experience as much as you like because time does not alter it. Right? Right.


Ok, now lets say that photograph was actually of the beetle's entire life from hatching to decomposition. It's more like a movie. You'd have a better experience of the beetle. You could still come back to it whenever you want, just like the photo.

Now imagine when you saw that movie the whole thing was instantly uploaded to your brain like when you learn to fly a helicopter in the matrix. You can experience a photo the moment you see it, but a movie you to spend time watching it for however long it is. But this movie, you can see the whole thing instantly, like its a photo. So now you have this movie of a beetle's life that you completly experience as soon as you see it, like a photo, and can keep coming back to it, because it doesn't dissapear the over time.

Now imagine its not a beetle. It's everything in our universe throughout time. If you were outside our universe, the whole thing would be there like a movie that you could experience in an instant.

So outside our universe would be a space, and in that space would be that photo of our universe, and photos of every other universe, just lying around.

Is that an ok analogy?
last edited on July 14, 2011 1:16PM

Forgot Password
©2011 WOWIO, Inc. All Rights Reserved