Skip to comments.
Parallel Universes
Scientific American ^
| May 2003
| Max Tegmark
Posted on 06/25/2003 7:42:21 AM PDT by Junior
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-150 next last
To: Physicist
Thank you so much for the heads up! Max Tegmark's article is illuminating and verrrry timely!
Until now, all the attempts to explain the alternative multi-verse views, that I have read, have been shotgun at best. They never before gave the reader an opportunity to "get their arms around" the subject. I've excerpted the Tegmark article now and again and have repeatedly referred Lurkers to it in various discussions here.
Personally, as a Platonist I am in agreement with the Level IV in Tegmark’s article. His frog/bird metaphor is superb for visualizing extra-dimensionality. Strangely, that helps also in understanding Burt Ovrut’s ekpyrotic cosmology even though the dimensions hypothesized are essentially parallel.
To: CJ Wolf
that must mean that there are two hillaries too! AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHH! the horror!Yeh but the other hillary married Hugh Hefner, had LOTS of plastic surgery, and graces the cover of the 1969 Playboy magazine.
22
posted on
06/25/2003 8:09:47 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: CJ Wolf
that must mean that there are two hillaries too! AAAAAGGGGGGGGGGHHH! the horror! Well, that would certainly explain the repulsive force that's driving the universe apart.
23
posted on
06/25/2003 8:13:31 AM PDT
by
r9etb
To: Junior
The universes are only parallel to a Democrats standard of factuality.
They actually are just more or less, kinda, maybe, in the same general direction.
So9
To: js1138
You're probably right. I'm a writer by training, not a mathemetician.
25
posted on
06/25/2003 8:17:30 AM PDT
by
Junior
("Eat recycled food. It's good for the environment and okay for you...")
To: Junior
Tales From A Parallel Universe?
When do we leave!?
To: Just another Joe
Not sure I'd want to see that even with plastic surgery.
27
posted on
06/25/2003 8:24:41 AM PDT
by
Myrnick
("Hey, Lama! How about a little somethin' for the effort?")
To: Bloody Sam Roberts
Just think. There are universes in which Jane Fonda makes endless sequels to Barbarella.
28
posted on
06/25/2003 8:25:21 AM PDT
by
js1138
To: Myrnick
Not sure I'd want to see that even with plastic surgery.Hey, look what it did for Micheal Jackson. (quick duck and cover)
29
posted on
06/25/2003 8:26:38 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Just another Joe
Saddam had some of those. I don't imagine their fate was too pleasant even in all those other universes!
30
posted on
06/25/2003 8:31:28 AM PDT
by
Arkie2
(It's a literary fact that the number of words wriiten will grow exponentially to fill the space avai)
To: Arkie2
I don't imagine their fate was too pleasant even in all those other universes!Ah, but if my other was the Beloved Emperor of the Universe I wouldn't have to worry. I just make spot appearances where the actual can't get to.
And suck up all the benefits of course.
31
posted on
06/25/2003 8:34:29 AM PDT
by
Just another Joe
(FReeping can be addictive and helpful to your mental health)
To: Junior
Is there a copy of you reading this article? A person who is not you but who lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, fertile fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system with eight other planets? If there is, why is HE the one that sold all of his Internet stocks and used the proceeds to buy out-of-the-money QQQ puts in late March of 2000? Huh, why? And can he loan me some money?
To: Junior
Somewhere out there, Monica didn't dribble, and President Gore is still wondering what to do about all the AlQaida attacks on US soil..
33
posted on
06/25/2003 8:48:02 AM PDT
by
Paradox
To: js1138
I'd rather entertain myself with visions of a parallel universe in which Jane Fonda was shot for treason upon disembarking from her plane when she returned from Hanoi.
To: Junior
bump for later
To: Alamo-Girl
WHAT?????
36
posted on
06/25/2003 9:13:34 AM PDT
by
carenot
To: Junior
I am not really an expert on Cosmology, but I suspect that the author of this article isn't one either. Let me state a why I think this is bogus (and why Scientific American should know better):
Most mainstream Physicists believe in the Big Bang. The Big Bang theory stipulates that at the beginning the volume of the universe was zero. After that, it expanded (extremely rapidly) and continues to do so, such that the total volume of the universe grew and continues to grow at a high but finite rate. If you start with something finite (zero) and over a finite period of time add finite quantities to it, you end up with something finite. My Point? The universe is just big, not infinite. Something around 5*10^9 to 20*10^9 light years across. Big yes, but 10^10^28 light years? Give me a break!
I suppose poeple do enjoy reading an article like this, but I thought Scientific American tries to be scientific.
To: Junior
Maybe in the other universe I took the BLUE PILL!?!?
38
posted on
06/25/2003 9:19:55 AM PDT
by
The Duke
To: The Duke
Now that is funny! :)
39
posted on
06/25/2003 9:23:43 AM PDT
by
carenot
To: CJ Wolf
"that must mean that there are two hillaries too! Actually, many more that two, and at least one of those Hillary's is Republican.
How's THAT for scary?
40
posted on
06/25/2003 9:27:19 AM PDT
by
Lloyd227
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-20, 21-40, 41-60, 61-80 ... 141-150 next last
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.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson