Posted on 04/02/2006 7:46:13 PM PDT by snarks_when_bored
Then, if true, our universe consists of more than one inflationary bubble. Uni means one. Whatever exists is part of our universe.
The rest sounds like semantics, yes?
The truth is always simple, although unpalatable to many a flim-flam man... Can you demonstrate infinity? Typical example : slice up a watermelon into an infinite number of pieces by cutting off zero pieces...how much air do you want to wear out... until the world wears flat or hell glaciates? Can you think of any other examples? Thus n/0=n-0-0-...=n because division is repetitive subtraction and nx0=n+0=n because multiplication is repetitive addition in a magnitude sense(rotate the symbols 45 degrees : / to - and x to +). Agree or disagree?
But then Linde thought of another channel of communication between creator and creationÃÂÃÂÃÂÃÂthe only one possible, as far as he could tell. The creator, by manipulating the cosmic seed in the right way, has the power to ordain certain physical parameters of the universe he ushers into being. So says the theory. He can determine, for example, what the numerical ratio of the electron's mass to the proton's will be. Such ratios, called constants of nature, look like arbitrary numbers to us: There is no obvious reason they should take one value rather than another. (Why, for instance, is the strength of gravity in our universe determined by a number with the digits 6673?) But the creator, by fixing certain values for these dozens of constants, could write a subtle message into the very structure of the universe. And, as Linde hastened to point out, such a message would be legible only to physicists.All these ratios between the fundamental forces would either be uninteresting-looking on their own, or they'd look ironic in some way. If they look ironic to us, then we'd just take that as a cue that they must be causally related in some way to some more-fundamental force, instead of actually being "arbitrary".
But there's no reason why this fundamental relationship has to be a designed relationship. For example, if the relationship of force α to force β is π, what would that imply to us? That there's a Designer who is fascinated by the ratio of the circumference to the diameter? Or that the β force really does represent a circumference of something and the α really does represent that something's diameter? The fact that there's some ratio that happens to look interesting, by itself gives us NO clue.
And so the physicist will pursue the hypothesis that the interesting ratio is a clue to a shared (natural) causality, and the spiritualist will write a popular book claiming pursue the hypothesis that the interesting ratio is a clue to the Designer's psychology. <shrug>
Nope, I say that any Designer would have to understand the particular language that the inhabitants of His universe write, and imprint a message in that language. So I think that pretty much rules out our being able to detect such a God if He was a physicist-in-a-lab-type.
There is no obvious reason they should take one value rather than another. (Why, for instance, is the strength of gravity in our universe determined by a number with the digits 6673?)A. That's the physicist's PIN number for his debit card.
It's a grand vision. But is it true? We don't know yet, and maybe we'll never know. In physics, there are no guarantees of access to evidence.
Depends on what you mean by "physical contact." Some folks see quantum interference as an interaction between these different universes.
Also, about the branching. Another conceptualization of the multiverse, analogous to certain conceptions of spacetime, is a fully elaborated "static" multiverse. For any event that occurs in N universes and can have two outcomes with probabilities p and 1-p, pN of them have one outcome and (1-p)N have the other.
Don't like the analogy. Bubbles burst.
Yes, it is conceivably useful. For example, a theory built around this concept might make certain calculations easier or make certain outcomes easier to intuit.
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?
Have you read the book Cosm? I recommend it. It reflects badly on me I know, but the religious questions raised didn't occur to me until the kidnapping episode quite a ways into the book.
BTW, I'm certain you actually meant "thought by some to have done."
Depends on what you mean by "physical contact." Some folks see quantum interference as an interaction between these different universes.
I had in mind interactions via one or more of the four fundamentals, but, you're right, one mustn't forget about the quantum jitters.
Also, about the branching. Another conceptualization of the multiverse, analogous to certain conceptions of spacetime, is a fully elaborated "static" multiverse. For any event that occurs in N universes and can have two outcomes with probabilities p and 1-p, pN of them have one outcome and (1-p)N have the other.
The "it's in there!" view of reality.
Also, it seems to me that these scientists are begging no question, just pushing the frontiers of science thinking up crazy sounding stuff to see if it works.
I think a more interesting subject is the subject of seperate realities.
I wonder if the panel distinguishes the two?
Isn't infinite an abstract mathematical term? Is there anything in physics that is actually infinite? Other than theoretically. And by theoretically I mean such as mass at the speed of light - not existing in reality.
Infinite gives you sufficient "probability resources' to go anywhere you wish with any possible theoretic supposition.
But isn't this essentially a cosmic punt scientifically?
thanks very much for your reply...
Sounds like the name of a hamburger.
Yer wastin' yer time sweetie, he's as queer as a 3 dollar bill...
Mmmmm...Uhura! *slurp!*
If you saw MIB II ("MIIB") you might recall the storage locker scene in the airport (train, bus?) terminal.
apochriphal => apochryphal => apocryphal => http://www.m-w.com/dictionary/apocryphal
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.