Prof Stephen Hawking's final research paper suggests that our Universe may be one of many similar to our own. The theory resolves a cosmic paradox of the late physicist's own making. It also points a way forward for astronomers to find evidence of the existence of parallel universes. The study was submitted to the Journal of High-Energy Physics 10 days before Prof Hawking died.
[...] A crisis arises because if there are infinite types of universes with infinite variations in their laws of physics then the theory cannot predict what kind of universe we should find ourselves in. Prof Hawking joined forces with Prof Thomas Hertog at KU Leuven in Belgium, who is funded by the European Research Council to try to resolve this paradox.
[...] Prof Hawking's final paper is the fruit of 20 years' work with Prof Hertog. It has solved the puzzle by drawing on new mathematical techniques developed to study another esoteric branch of physics called string theory. These techniques enable researchers to view physics theories in a different way. And the novel assessment of the Hartle-Hawking theory in the new paper has restored order to a hitherto chaotic multi-verse. The new Hawking-Hertog assessment indicates that there can only be universes that have the same laws of physics as our own.
That conjecture means that our Universe is typical and so observations we make from our viewpoint will be meaningful in developing our ideas of how other universes emerged. Mind-bending as these ideas are, they will be of real help to physicists as they develop a more complete theory of how the Universe came into being, according to Prof Hertog.
http://www.bbc.com/news/science-environment-43976977
Also covered by: LiveScience, BGR Media, CNN, Discover Magazine, and Space.Com.
(Score: 0, Disagree) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @12:02PM (4 children)
> The new Hawking-Hertog assessment indicates that there can only be universes that have the same laws of physics as our own
No, even if you proved it you would prove that universes with a different kind of laws would be inconceivable. But what that is not conceivable according to our logic systems and math may meta-exist anyway.
What scientists seem to forget: our logic system and math is shaped around THIS world, it is valid because it can be used to predict outcomes. Apply logic in a wish based universe, I dare you, I double dare you. "This drawer contained 1 white socks and 9 black socks, but I need a pair of white socks so the probability that the first two socks i pick are white is 1". OOOH But how can a sock become white? OOOH but how can E=mc^2? All names are inherently arbitrary, all laws are inherently arbitrary.
Personally I modeled some kind of multiverse myself, only to realize that it was a way for me to cope with the impossibility of conceiving lazy computation made outside time. Why computing the phase of a photon cannot take into account "future" events, since it is done outside time, since there is likely no "universe computer" to be found in the universe itself? Quite simple if you think about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:39PM
No actual scientist would forget this. Call them researchers if you want to be generous.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:51PM (1 child)
Anyone who's been married knows there are alternate logics.
(Score: 3, Funny) by bob_super on Thursday May 03 2018, @05:30PM
I am 100% sure that my wife can bend the laws of physics at will, under the simple condition that the result proves me wrong.
(Score: 2) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 03 2018, @11:32PM
The paper itself has a lot of simplifying assumptions, as is routine for papers trying to estimate what happened back then. This situation will continue until our mathematical capabilities are a lot better then they are now.
It is heady stuff. As for placing constraints on other universes, it clearly pertains only to universes arising from the same inflationary stage as ours.
As for universes conforming to other mathematices (what is the plural of mathematics, anyway), and other logics, we don't even know what it would mean for there to be universes that satisfy those.
(Score: 2, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:11PM
This Week’s (Stale) Hype [columbia.edu]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @07:08PM (1 child)
No more bullshit mass media crap every time Hawking spews some crazy-ass nonsense just because he's a pop-celebrity physicist
(Score: 2) by takyon on Thursday May 03 2018, @09:32PM
We'll just get an extra Nibiru story every month.
[SIG] 10/28/2017: Soylent Upgrade v14 [soylentnews.org]
(Score: 3, Interesting) by hendrikboom on Thursday May 03 2018, @11:37PM
I particularly enjoyed the line in the original paper describing the entire observable universe as being a small patch.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @02:20AM
Dr. Hawking brought attention to the sciences and that was great. However, IMO, he placed far too much faith in the current state of the Standard Model. And insisted on imposing what are likely emergent properties to the origins of the Universe