Slash Boxes

SoylentNews is people

SoylentNews is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop. Only 17 submissions in the queue.
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.

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This discussion has been archived.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: 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
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 2) by c0lo on Friday September 04 2015, @12:33AM

    by c0lo (156) 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 [].
    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".