Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by LaminatorX on Thursday September 03 2015, @06:59PM   Printer-friendly
from the Two-Roads-Diverged-in-a-Yellow-Wood dept.

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.

http://theconversation.com/the-theory-of-parallel-universes-is-not-just-maths-it-is-science-that-can-be-tested-46497


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: -1, Offtopic) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:49PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @07:49PM (#231925)

    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.

    Starting Score:    0  points
    Moderation   -1  
       Offtopic=1, Troll=1, Interesting=1, Total=3
    Extra 'Offtopic' Modifier   0  

    Total Score:   -1  
  • (Score: 1) by furiousoyster on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:05PM

    by furiousoyster (594) on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:05PM (#231931)

    "Maths" is the preferred abbreviation for mathematics in the UK.

    • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:19PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:19PM (#231940)

      Doesn't make it correct though.

      • (Score: 2, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:23PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:23PM (#231943)

        English is their language.

        • (Score: -1, Troll) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:30PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:30PM (#231946)

          They also add u's to words that don't need them. What do you think British people can't speak poor English?

          • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday September 03 2015, @10:28PM

            by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday September 03 2015, @10:28PM (#232003) Homepage

            What do you think British people can't speak poor English?

            At least we know how to use punctuation.

            --
            systemd is Roko's Basilisk
        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:58PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:58PM (#231966)

          http://www.etymonline.com/index.php?term=math&allowed_in_frame=0 [etymonline.com]

          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.

          • (Score: 1) by Roger Murdock on Friday September 04 2015, @02:02AM

            by Roger Murdock (4897) on Friday September 04 2015, @02:02AM (#232085)

            Pantaloons -> Pants
            Spectacles -> Specs

            I spent way too long trying to think of more.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @09:17PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @09:17PM (#231974)

      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.

    • (Score: 2) by art guerrilla on Friday September 04 2015, @01:21AM

      by art guerrilla (3082) on Friday September 04 2015, @01:21AM (#232068)

      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...)

    • (Score: 2) by TheGratefulNet on Friday September 04 2015, @01:54AM

      by TheGratefulNet (659) on Friday September 04 2015, @01:54AM (#232079)

      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).

      --
      "It is now safe to switch off your computer."
  • (Score: 2) by dyingtolive on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:06PM

    by dyingtolive (952) on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:06PM (#231932)

    I often feel like the faculties of the majority of people online MUST surely be on strike. It's the most logical explanations.

    --
    Don't blame me, I voted for moose wang!
  • (Score: 3, Informative) by Lunix Nutcase on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:08PM

    by Lunix Nutcase (3913) on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:08PM (#231933)

    What is this some sort of joke. Maths??

    No joke at all. [oxforddictionaries.com]

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:27PM

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:27PM (#231944)

      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?

      • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:33PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:33PM (#231947)

        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.

        • (Score: -1, Redundant) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:47PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:47PM (#231959)

          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.

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:37PM

        by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:37PM (#231952)

        The English language changes all the time, and you sound butthurt, bruh.

        • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:51PM

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @08:51PM (#231964)

          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. )

          • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @09:02PM

            by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @09:02PM (#231969)

            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).

            • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @11:29PM

              by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @11:29PM (#232031)

              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.

              • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2015, @12:19AM

                by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 04 2015, @12:19AM (#232047) Journal
                Because the tuition fees are cheaper?
                --
                https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0
          • (Score: 3, Touché) by wonkey_monkey on Friday September 04 2015, @07:27AM

            by wonkey_monkey (279) on Friday September 04 2015, @07:27AM (#232160) Homepage

            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.

            --
            systemd is Roko's Basilisk
      • (Score: 3, Touché) by khallow on Thursday September 03 2015, @11:16PM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday September 03 2015, @11:16PM (#232026) Journal

        So if it makes it into the dictionary then its all good?

        Yep. What's supposed to be so hard to understand about that?

  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @10:08PM

    by Anonymous Coward on Thursday September 03 2015, @10:08PM (#231994)

    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. :)

  • (Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Thursday September 03 2015, @10:31PM

    by wonkey_monkey (279) on Thursday September 03 2015, @10:31PM (#232006) Homepage

    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."

    --
    systemd is Roko's Basilisk
    • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2015, @12:33AM

      by c0lo (156) Subscriber Badge on Friday September 04 2015, @12:33AM (#232054) Journal

      Mathematics is a mass noun

      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".

      --
      https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0