The existence of parallel universes may seem like something cooked up by science fiction writers, with little relevance to modern theoretical physics. But the idea that we live in a “multiverse” made up of an infinite number of parallel universes has long been considered a scientific possibility – although it is still a matter of vigorous debate among physicists. The race is now on to find a way to test the theory, including searching the sky for signs of collisions with other universes.It is important to keep in mind that the multiverse view is not actually a theory, it is rather a consequence of our current understanding of theoretical physics. This distinction is crucial. We have not waved our hands and said: “Let there be a multiverse”. Instead the idea that the universe is perhaps one of infinitely many is derived from current theories like quantum mechanics and string theory.The universes predicted by string theory and inflation live in the same physical space (unlike the many universes of quantum mechanics which live in a mathematical space), they can overlap or collide. Indeed, they inevitably must collide, leaving possible signatures in the cosmic sky which we can try to search for.Whether we will ever be able to prove their existence is hard to predict. But given the massive implications of such a finding it should definitely be worth the search.
The existence of parallel universes may seem like something cooked up by science fiction writers, with little relevance to modern theoretical physics. But the idea that we live in a “multiverse” made up of an infinite number of parallel universes has long been considered a scientific possibility – although it is still a matter of vigorous debate among physicists. The race is now on to find a way to test the theory, including searching the sky for signs of collisions with other universes.
It is important to keep in mind that the multiverse view is not actually a theory, it is rather a consequence of our current understanding of theoretical physics. This distinction is crucial. We have not waved our hands and said: “Let there be a multiverse”. Instead the idea that the universe is perhaps one of infinitely many is derived from current theories like quantum mechanics and string theory.
The universes predicted by string theory and inflation live in the same physical space (unlike the many universes of quantum mechanics which live in a mathematical space), they can overlap or collide. Indeed, they inevitably must collide, leaving possible signatures in the cosmic sky which we can try to search for.
Whether we will ever be able to prove their existence is hard to predict. But given the massive implications of such a finding it should definitely be worth the search.
I'm putting all you scientists on blast. We the millennials, bro.
This is the one messing with me...
Are you really so floored by the fact that people mentally rewrote some cursive script into a more common name that looks similar?
Is this the physics equivalent of multiculturalism being forced down our throats?I'll pass, thank you very much.
You don't like multiverse theory, so you are complaining about scientists trying to disprove it.
Is there a universe in which you aren't a retard?
What is this some sort of joke. Maths??
Mathematics is a mass noun, and therefore there is no need to pluralize either the full word or its abbreviation.
For example. The faculty are on strike. It is NOT the faculties are on strike. That meat looks like good steaks. NOT That meats look like good steaks. All of my luggage was damaged NOT All of my luggages was damaged.
"Maths" is the preferred abbreviation for mathematics in the UK.
Doesn't make it correct though.
English is their language.
They also add u's to words that don't need them. What do you think British people can't speak poor English?
What do you think British people can't speak poor English?
At least we know how to use punctuation.
But the American abbreviation is actually older then the British abbreviation. In fact how many other abbreviations can you name that remove the middle of the word and not the end of the word. I can't really think of any others.
Pantaloons -> PantsSpectacles -> Specs
I spent way too long trying to think of more.
It's the self-esteem movement in America. "I'm no good at math" sounds like the speaker is only bad at one thing.
BUT "I'm no good at maths" could be an admission of being bad at as many as 7 things.
um, are these the same droogies who insist on the phrase 'drink driving' ? ? ?oh, please tell me how *that* little idiocy 'makes sense'...(i won't wait for the sputtering and muttering...)
truth! netcraft conf-
oh fuck it. yes, its how the british talk. maths. deal with it.
(audibly its 'maffs' if you really want to sound british).
I often feel like the faculties of the majority of people online MUST surely be on strike. It's the most logical explanations.
What is this some sort of joke. Maths??
No joke at all. [oxforddictionaries.com]
So if it makes it into the dictionary then its all good?
Ok I suppose you will support the use of works like:http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/awesomesauce?t=1 [oxforddictionaries.com]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/bruh?t=1 [oxforddictionaries.com]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/butthurt?t=1 [oxforddictionaries.com]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/cakeage?t=1 [oxforddictionaries.com]http://www.oxforddictionaries.com/us/definition/english/bants [oxforddictionaries.com]
In all SN headlines correct?
No, it's the fact that it's been a part of UK English for over 100 years that makes it "all good". Either way, yes, the Oxford English Dictionary is one of the definitive dictionaries on the English language.
So all of those words posted are proper and correct words to use because they are in the dictionary correct? Wait till they start putting leet speak and txtin shorthand in the titles of articles.
Whats wrong with awesomesauce? I wonder if they have weaksauce too: yep
The English language changes all the time, and you sound butthurt, bruh.
You know whats funny though bruh, no one has actually confronted the point I made that Mathematics is a mass noun and needs no pluralization. Maybe if someone proved me wrong on the actual facts of the matter I wouldn't be so butthurt. (Ohh and no just because it is in a dictionary doesn't prove me wrong, after all there are lots of stupid nonsensical words in dictionaries. )
Mathematics already has an 's' on the end and I always assumed the term was short for "Fields of Mathematic[al] Study"
You can live in whatever delusional world you want but you'll find people ALL OVER the internet say "maths" - stack overflow seems to have more uses of the term with an s than without.
Americans are NOT the ones I'd ask for authority on any math-related subjects (although IMHO they earned the right to be masters of the English language).
Americans are NOT the ones I'd ask for authority on any math-related subjects
Then why are the math departments in the US filled with foreign students? Maths must be pretty bad where you come from.
Maybe if someone proved me wrong on the actual facts of the matter
Priove yourself right, first. Whether it's a mass noun or a bizarre pluralization is meaningless. It's called "maths" by a lot of the world. That's what it makes it a valid word.
after all there are lots of stupid nonsensical words in dictionaries
And you know what? They are all still valid words.
Yep. What's supposed to be so hard to understand about that?
So you've proven that the law of mediocrity crosses the bounds to other universes, have you?
If there are parallel me's out there somewhere, then maybe the other universes each have their own math as well. Hence, maths.
Much more Twilight Zone than those who put out the truth that "maths" is perfectly acceptable British English. :)
Mathematics is a mass noun
Citation needed. It's a noun, yes, but is it a mass one?
and therefore there is no need to pluralize either the full word or its abbreviation.
What do you mean, no need? It's not about need. It's about usage. "Maths" is how we abbreivate "mathematics" here, and it's no less wrong than the way you do it.
All of your examples fail simply because they don't use the word "mathematics."
Mathematics is a mass noun
Citation needed. It's a noun, yes, but is it a mass one?
Citation needed. It's a noun, yes, but is it a mass one?
Of course not! It's a massless pure field, some argue its the purest field at all [xkcd.com].
Granted, the maths field is hard (thus has structural resistance), may interact with the gravitational field (like in "he threw some heavy maths against the problem"), but I'm yet to hear "Darn.. in the last year I got a math-bely, about 10 kg of of it... must exercise more often".
Oh, because it's a theory and not a law. At least yet.
And theories don't come about because someone waves their hands and says, "Let there be...," either.
So, it is a nice reality distortion field that the summary has going for it and makes the article truly DR-worthy.
I do like these thought experiments, and if they can manage some real experiments that'd be pretty great. However, since we don't even understand gravity fully I think hopping to the multiverse is a bit of a stretch. Headline grabbing journalism courtesy of some over-excited scientists.
Whether we're in a multiverse or not, at least their research is pushing the bounds of human knowledge farther out.
I also love how he refers to it not just being a consequence of "maths" but a consequence of "theoretical physics" and then refers to string theory...
...which current almost exclusively resides in the realm of mathematics with little if any experimentation backing it up.
This is a complete load of hog wash. It reads as if it is a lame PR attempt to bolster bad press or something?!
Yeah, although he referenced quantum mechanics as well. The article is not a waste, just a layman's intro to the multiverse concept with the news that they may be able to experimentally test for it. At worst just driving web traffic, but it was well written.
Fuck the Journal of Quantum Physics, I get my quantum cosmology information from theconversation.com.
I do like these thought experiments, and if they can manage some real experiments that'd be pretty great.
Well, technically this universe is our only currently possible experiment. The tests are already being conducted. Some researchers have identified at least four possible footprints of collisions with another universe in our cosmic microwave background radiation, [quantamagazine.org] but will need correlation from even higher resolution data before the signal is strong enough to make an affirmative statement scientifically.
So, yes, it is pretty great that we're managing to perform some real experiments in this universe -- That is to say: We're lucky that entropy in this universe is low enough to allow for meaningful structures to last long enough for complex organisms to emerge and therefore for science itself to be possible -- of course, according to the Anthropic Principal, said observations are only made in universes where they're possible. The interesting thing to think about, IMO, is that this universe might NOT have been one conducive to our existence until after a universal collision occurred (apart from the one that may have ignited our big bang). Just look at inflationary period, then WHAM it slows down... If I were a sufficiently powerful overseer I might even try to configure matter at a grand scale in order to imprint the pattern of life upon my universe itself such that were it to collide with other universes, even after my universe's heat death, it would copy the equation of meaningful existence therein, or at least set up the proper initial conditions required, or at the very least add the proper amount of randomness to the otherwise uniform radiation such that complexity in the form of stars and galaxies could form. One experiment down, a possibly unbounded number to go...
It could be that there is too much chaos in the sky to detect past collisions, or hypothetical imprinted messages from other universes beyond. That would be disappointing, but that level of chaos may turns out to be the reason we're able to be thinking organisms instead of less complex crystals -- or at least why we exist at the scale we do (where the chaos to order ratios are just right for life). Life needs a certain amount of randomness in its structure, thus error tolerance/correction is key. By the grace of His noodly appendage in our holy scriptures is writ, RFC1122:1.2.2, "Be liberal in what you accept, and conservative in what you send".
Ramen, and may you go with Arxiv. [arxiv.org]
I think you missed your calling as a philosopher ;)
My point was that the hypothesis ventures too far past our current scientific knowledge. Astronomers may find proof of the multiverse only later to find out that our theory of gravity is incomplete, and the updated version explains the observations. It feels like trying to understand superconductivity before fully grasping basic electricity.
Since we're updating our theory of the atom http://phys.org/news/2015-08-theory-radiationless-revolution.html [phys.org] I think it is safe to say solving the grand mystery of the universe may be a tad ambitious (though don't let my hesitation stop anyone! :D ). Not trying to be a buzz-kill, trying to add a little grounding to the conversation.
Astronomers may find proof of the multiverse only later to find out that our theory of gravity is incomplete, and the updated version explains the observations.
On the other hand, if astronomers *aren't* searching for proof of the multiverse, they might not find the data which could lead to that updated theory of gravity.
This isn't a video game where you get the entire tech tree laid out before you and you just have to choose where to go. If we really knew with any certainty where the research was going to lead, we wouldn't need to research it! :)
It's important to remember that there are several quite distinct multiworld theories, and most of them are not affected one way or the other by the truth of the others. It sounds like the one they are talking about is m-brane theory, when they talk about looking for the evidence, but when describing the origin of the theory it sounds more like they are talking about the EGW multi-world theory. Those are completely distinct theories. Either could be true without affecting the truth of the other. Either could also be false without affecting the truth of the other. And those are only two out of several. (E.g., one of the theories involves the inflaction not having any theoretical grounds for stopping at any particular time, which implies that somewhere beyond our light cone there are indefinitely large numbers of universes just about like the one we live in. So many, in fact, that there are instances that are identical down to the smallest atomic position (which implies that the universe from within their light cone looks just like this one, and that they speak English, Russian, Turkish, etc.)
There MAY be some sound science behind this article, but you couldn't prove it from reading the summary.
So many, in fact, that there are instances that are identical down to the smallest atomic position (which implies that the universe from within their light cone looks just like this one, and that they speak English, Russian, Turkish, etc.)
What boggled my mind was that you can even calculate how far you'd have to travel to stand a particular chance of finding one. I think it was something like a radius of 1082 light years within which there's a high probability of there being another region of space identical to our observable universe.
Could be misremembering that number completely, though. And it probably goes up a lot if you have to start worrying about the laws of physics changing through space.
Well, if the laws of physics change through space then I don't think you will get identical sections. Not unless they change randomly or oscillate or some such. So that would be a different multiworld theory yet.
which implies that the universe from within their light cone looks just like this one, and that they speak English, Russian, Turkish, etc.
Or not... you'll never know until you hear them, but suddenly you won't understand then. Or maybe you'd understand them, but you may never hear them.
Alive or not, that cat be damn'd.
You're misunderstanding. *If* the "eternal inflation" model is correct, what it's saying is that the universe is so large that sections of it large enough to form a light cone must be identical. Identical, as in indistinguishable by any test, were it possible to make such tests. (There will, of course, also be extremely many more sections that are different.) And that's why it's called a multiworld theory. They exist in separated regions that originated with the same "big bang" that started off the part that we live in. The quantum indeterminacy multiworld (i.e. the Everett-Graham-Wheeler one) is the one that depends on the cat being dead or alive. And, neither of those is the m-brane multiworld theory which is what it sounds as if this is searching for evidence of.
And no, I didn't misunderstood.First, what you say implies that the many universes would have the same number of (multidimensional) states - (e.g. necessary the same number of particles/energy); which isn't necessary true - see the Hilbert's Grand Hotel [wikipedia.org]
Second: this is a pure academic exercise (and, for the moment, so is string theory); in practical sense, there's nothing to be gained if a second identical universe exists: if these universes are identical, any attempt to contact them would look like a monologue in the mirror. If the symmetry is broken and you'd actually have a dialogue with your counterpart, they will cease to be identical and they'll diverge exponentially (or faster) - therefore my play on the Schroedinger’s cat, the very act of the contact will kill the "identity cat"
Headline: "it is Science that can be Tested"
Below the headline: "The race is now on to find a way to test the theory"
Make up your mind - which is it? Is it testable or not?
Headline: "it is Science that can be Tested in principle"
Below the headline: "The race is now on to find a practical way to test the theory"
FTFYSome important qualifiers are missing.
The Many Worlds interpretation is a parallel universe "theory" that can not be tested. The other universes are not accessible and the universe that we do see can interpreted in ways that do not involve parallel universes.
A multiverse that is, in principle, distinguishable form a single universe is a big deal. However, you still need to devise an experiment within the limits of the technology and energies we have available. A theory that can be tested using galactic mass rotating cylinders that are light years long is still technically testable but that does mean we are going to get an answer soon.
We need a "+1 This" mod.
So they can test my new theory: https://soylentnews.org/comments.pl?sid=9269&cid=230427 [soylentnews.org]
Yeah, that's ascension: http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/AscendToAHigherPlaneOfExistence [tvtropes.org]
I have a wonderful haiku-styled proof for this theory, that this textarea is (unfortunately for you) not too small to contain.
Mosquito noises pierce the summer night, a Justin Bieber song comes up on the radio."Eureka!" I scream: it's empirically obvious that we live in the WRONG parallel universe.Therefore, the multiverse exists.
String Theory is not even a theory - theory is context of scientific theory, not some random "idea" that is called colloquially a theory on TV. For a theory to exist, it must give testable predictions.
Secondly, science ONLY has theories. When you hear something that is called "law", that just tends to be some empirically tested theories as a group.
So yes, multiverse is not a theory. It's just a thought experiment that is most likely wrong, like someone picking lotto jackpot numbers (yes, keep believing, you have a winner!). String Theory is also as much as theory as multiverse.