Revelation 4:11
Posted on 04/02/2006 7:46:13 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
That would be precisely one yottameter. I kid you not.
Yotta, yotta, yotta...
First of all, we don't know whether a parallel universe 'can never be reached' from ours. Second, if there are multiple universes, then they very well may interact in some way, and if they do, then the interactions would be predictable and describable, and in that event, they may be of use to us. In other words, if other universes are interacting with our own, then we cannot fully describe the physics of our own without accounting for said interactions.These issues might not be of any immediate practical consequence for thousands or even hundreds of thousands of years, but that's beside the point. We won't know until we know.
If the scientists do succeed in creating a universe in a laboratory, are they not doing what the God of this universe did in Genesis/the Big Bang? Are they then worthy of worship by any life forms that develop in the new universe?
Well, my personal answer would be: No, in that "the God of this universe" is indistinguishable from a phenomenon that doesn't exist, and phenomena that don't exist don't do anything at all, which means there's nothing to emulate.However, if for no scientific reason at all one assumes the existence of God, then the answer is a qualified yes. The scientists would be equivalent to deist concepts of God, and moreover, would be as worthy of worship by any consequent lifeforms as a deist God would be worthy of worship by us.
If things go poorly in such an experiment, could the new universe somehow consume or damage our own? Would Brahma suddenly become Shiva?
Not from what I've gathered. Or to be more precise, the physics as we currently understand them say that the answer is no. Any such universe would spin off on its own spacetime plane of existence. In any case, long before we get to the stage where we might be spinning off universes, if that's actually doable, we should have a Theory of Everything that makes clear what would happen.I have an article somewhere in my bookmarks that discusses this specific question. I'll see if I can track it down and post the link.
Well, the hypothetical Einstein-Rosen bridges are, to day, a speculative concept, but so far as the equations go then it could be either. In short, wormholes could connect either different parts of our own universe or connect our universe to a parallel universe. It hardly means that parallel universes do exist; it just means that parallel universes do not at all contradict General Relativity. Einstein recognized this.
Personally, I wouldn't want to be their God. I'd just patent them.
What I find interesting is that even though these scientists
only deal with the "physical" world some of thing think
that "we" are trapped in a 3 dimensional world and cannot
perceive the other dimension...
Now just who is the "we"? Is it a being that can be
"trapped" in the physical world?
By using the term, "we" I believe they are implicitly,
and quite unobviously (to themselves) believing in the
idea that the "we" is NOT part of nature, and is separate.
Therefore they are not completely controlled by the physical world,
and by their own beliefs, show that there has to be
a supernature, or an "other than nature" (i.e. physical world)
quality about what we call life.
Kaku is of the ME philosophy, the universe revolves around ME. Einstein popped that self centered bubble long ago : the universe doesn't give a fig wheather you exist or not. He and Rosen also came up with this seemingly paradoxical situation : you pick a card(face down)and place it on a Voyager space probe. 10 years later you sift thru the deck and find the 9 of diamonds(the curse of scotland)missing, instantly you KNOW the exact card that is beyond pluto's orbit. And yet, NOTHING can travel faster than c = 3 x 10^8 kps; how can this be? It's a paradox, yes? No, it's self centered, anthropomorphic stupidity. The choice or "message" was made/sent when you picked the card. Wheather you knew what the card was, or just guessed what it was, is mox nix. You see, these kaku-idiots/everett-con artists deliberately confuse probability with actuality. Variable quantum states are no more than the deck of cards in which you draw one at a time. These clowns are just a modern version of the flim-flam man...who have matriculated many a gullible fool... Also, can you demonstrate a time event that is NOT a kinetic energy event? $1000 cash award if you can.
Relevant excerpt:
It struck me that there was a hitch in this scheme. If you started off a Big Bang in a lab, wouldn't the baby universe you created expand into your own universe, killing people and crushing buildings and so forth? Linde assured me that there was no such danger. "The new universe would expand into itself," he said. "Its space would be so curved that it would look as tiny as an elementary particle. In fact, it might end up disappearing altogether from the world of its creator."But why bother making a universe if it's going to run away from you? Wouldn't you want to have some power over how your creation unfolded, some way of making sure the beings that evolved in it turned out well? Linde's picture was as unsatisfying as Voltaire's idea of a creator who established our universe but then took no further interest in it or its creatures.
That's the same Linde, BTW, that's discussed in the the article that opened the thread. And, if you want to see the answer about 'why bother' and whether you could influence the baby universe, check out the link!
apochriphal => apochryphal
Quite a few hands went up.
"How many don't?"
About the same number, many of which were raised before.
That proves it, I guess.
It isn't quite that simple. :P
"May I have 10,000 marbles please"
By using the term, "we" I believe they are implicitly, and quite unobviously (to themselves) believing in the idea that the "we" is NOT part of nature, and is separate.
My take is that when a physicist uses the word 'we', they're referring to humans as physical inhabitants of the physical cosmos.
I don't know one way or the other but even the bible and apochr[y]phal works suggest the existence of multiple dimensions and or multiple universes.
References?
What might it be next year?
I'm old enough to remember when the "steady state" universe was the Big Thing(tm).
I'm not impressed.
Seems to me that our astronomers and cosmologists are committing the logical fallacy of BEGGING THE QUESTION.
From whence did the FIRST universe come from? Hmm?
Let's discuss first causes. Unfortunately, none of us really can--other than the theologians--because the Uncaused First Cause is (quite properly and necessarily) outside the realm of science.
That means that, because we live in a created universe, the Creator cannot be discerned via scientific methods, because He's outside of the universe, and we cannot detect Him by the elements and means available to use inside the universe. Sucks.
Sauron
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.