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This discussion has been archived.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: 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]

    Starting Score:    1  point
    Moderation   +1  
       Informative=1, Total=1
    Extra 'Informative' Modifier   0  
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   3  
  • (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?