Is it or is it not science?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
11-08-2012, 12:05 AM (This post was last modified: 11-08-2012 12:09 AM by Erxomai.)
Is it or is it not science?
From my very limited lay understanding, I don't believe that Multiverse theory as proposed by theoretical physicists involves infinite parallel universes caused by decisions we did or did not make. The real simple idea is this:

Black holes absorb intense amounts of energy. That energy has to go somewhere. On the "other end" of the black hole is possibly a big bang leading to a new universe, just as our universe was hypothetically started by a big bang from some other universe. While the number of black holes may be astronomical, so to speak, there is a finite number so there would also be a finite number of other universes. And some may be relatively microscopic and some may dwarf our own. Who knows?

Before you dismiss the theory completely, assuming you have the understanding that theoretical physicists have, remember that black holes used to only be hypothetical until technology caught up with the theory. It may not happen for thousands of years, but the possibility remains that someday black holes could be further measured to see what indeed is on the other end.

I find it comical that people would call the theory bullshit when as far as I know, no one here has enough of a physics background to do so.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Erxomai's post
11-08-2012, 12:36 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
The question was: Is it science?
The answer is, it's a step along the way. Science requires falsifiable hypotheses being proposed, and their respective predictions being tested. It requires that we are in a position to reject false ideas in favour of ideas that have good predictive power.

Any hypothesis that is not yet testable does not qualify as science in any complete sense. Any hypothesis that does nothing more than explain reality is no more than an interesting idea. It isn't the kind of science that we can say we know anything from.

What we have with multiverse theory is a set of mathematical models that seek to explain observed reality in novel ways. These explanations may or may not be able to produce testable predictions. When they do start to make testable predictions that differ from other more conventional explanations they will take the next step towards being science. When we are in a position to test these predictions and if they hold up - if they turn out to be true then only at that point can we talk in concrete terms about these explanations being "true" in a scientific sense.

Brainstorm -> Predict -> Test -> Discard bad models in favour of good models.
That's science.

Brainstorming and aligning brainstormed ideas to reality are part of the scientific process, but only part. These activities don't constitute the whole of the scientific method.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Hafnof's post
11-08-2012, 12:47 AM
Is it or is it not science?
Science is the pursuit of understanding. Scientists are seeking to understand what their observations of our universe are telling them. Ergo, science, my friends.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
11-08-2012, 12:53 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(10-08-2012 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But then again I'm still not convinced that the closer you get to the speed of light, time slows down.
Light is just photons, or light energy being transferred by photons.
Time is not related to light, the two are separate.
It doesn't matter how fast you travel time is a constant.

GPS satellites need to explicitly adjust for the dilation of time at speed and at the greater distance from the earth's gravity well than those of us on the surface enjoy. Time dilation effects are certain. We know they happen, and all observations to date are consistent with the predictions of relativity.

However, that might not be the right way to think of it. Some people prefer to describe this behaviour of time as follows: You have an object. At rest it occupies the three spacial dimensions as you would expect. However, when it moves its relative speed makes it effectively rotate into a fourth dimension from our perspective. Its length is shorter because some of that length has shifted into the fourth dimension. Likewise its time appears to dilate due to its changed orientation in those four dimensions.

Personally I don't have a clear mental model that I am confident aligns to the mathematics. Smarter people than I struggle with this. The way the mathematics works says that it is incorrect to try and apply euclidean geometry in a straightforward way to space and time.

As for photons - they have no mass, thus they travel at the maximum possible speed. That's the theory. Time is not related to light, but light travels at the maximum possible speed there is - so the speed of light is an accurate measure of what that maximum speed is. The properties of light don't cause an relativistic effects. Instead, relativistic effects determine that property of light - its speed. For photons no time passes between their being emitted and being absorbed, no matter how much distance they cover. To the rest of the universe this looks a lot like 3x10^8 m/s.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2012, 11:28 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(09-08-2012 08:03 PM)DreamWeaver Wrote:  Lately, physicists have been toying around with the concept of a multiverse, the idea that our universe is just one of many. The problem is, there's not really any way to test it...right now, that is. Our technology just isn't that advanced...yet. It might never be.

In your opinion, is this really science? Should the idea of a multiverse be pursued further or should it just be left as a nice thing to think about?

Until it can be measured, tested, and verified, it's a mathematical theory.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2012, 11:38 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(11-08-2012 11:28 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(09-08-2012 08:03 PM)DreamWeaver Wrote:  Lately, physicists have been toying around with the concept of a multiverse, the idea that our universe is just one of many. The problem is, there's not really any way to test it...right now, that is. Our technology just isn't that advanced...yet. It might never be.

In your opinion, is this really science? Should the idea of a multiverse be pursued further or should it just be left as a nice thing to think about?

Until it can be measured, tested, and verified, it's a mathematical theory.

Which is a branch of the sciences.

Edit: I could be reading too much into what Dream is asking, but I take it as...is this a legitimate scientific theory or is it just wacky sci-fi? The answer is, it's a much more legitimate theory than the question of UFO's visiting our planet.

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2012, 11:45 AM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(10-08-2012 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  You want a real mind fuck, look into quantum entanglement.

I'm aware of that... and yes, at our tech level, all we can do is shrug and say "magic". It will be explained one day. There's also the idea of computers using fuzzy logic... that one flips my ape-brain, too. I'm more than comfortable about multi-dimensions and parallel states of existence... because people who fill blackboards with confusing chalky formulae say so... but the parallel universe idea is too ridiculous to be anything other than a useful fantasy that can be employed in story-telling.

(10-08-2012 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  It doesn't matter how fast you travel time is a constant.

On that, you are very much wrong. It is a recognised fact that has to be taken into consideration at much slower speeds than that of light. There are every-day examples of this.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2012, 03:47 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(11-08-2012 11:38 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  
(11-08-2012 11:28 AM)fstratzero Wrote:  Until it can be measured, tested, and verified, it's a mathematical theory.

Which is a branch of the sciences.

Edit: I could be reading too much into what Dream is asking, but I take it as...is this a legitimate scientific theory or is it just wacky sci-fi? The answer is, it's a much more legitimate theory than the question of UFO's visiting our planet.

I agree, but until they are verified I'd take that theory is a possibility rather than a fact.

Member of the Cult of Reason

The atheist is a man who destroys the imaginary things which afflict the human race, and so leads men back to nature, to experience and to reason.
-Baron d'Holbach-
Bitcion:1DNeQMswMdvx4xLPP6qNE7RkeTwXGC7Bzp
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
11-08-2012, 04:18 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(11-08-2012 03:47 PM)fstratzero Wrote:  
(11-08-2012 11:38 AM)Erxomai Wrote:  Which is a branch of the sciences.

Edit: I could be reading too much into what Dream is asking, but I take it as...is this a legitimate scientific theory or is it just wacky sci-fi? The answer is, it's a much more legitimate theory than the question of UFO's visiting our planet.

I agree, but until they are verified I'd take that theory is a possibility rather than a fact.

Agreed...but doesn't that cover a lot of what we call Science? Particularly in the areas of astronomy and physics?

It was just a fucking apple man, we're sorry okay? Please stop the madness Laugh out load
~Izel
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Erxomai's post
11-08-2012, 05:52 PM
RE: Is it or is it not science?
(10-08-2012 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  But then again I'm still not convinced that the closer you get to the speed of light, time slows down.
Light is just photons, or light energy being transferred by photons.
Time is not related to light, the two are separate.
It doesn't matter how fast you travel time is a constant.
Another point here is that the time isn't changing, but the distance is actualy changing. That is space is expanding causing the acceleration.

No. Time is not constant. Only the speed of light is constant in a vaccum. The acceleration in this case, is the acceleration in our frame of reference. If we change the observed frame of reference, we would change the rate of acceleration that we observe. Time is more described as a location - it's dimensionally modeled.

(10-08-2012 11:48 PM)earmuffs Wrote:  I think there is a lot we don't know. This whole boson thing is amazing. I've been reading up on it a bit (because of this thread) and from what I gathered bosons are like.. 'vessels' in which energy is transferred. So like graviton is the boson for gravity (correct me if I'm wrong). The higgs as we know gives things their weight.
So I have a few ideas in mind, obviously absolutely nothing to back them up and going off little information. If particles, atoms, are effected by these higgs bosons then maybe particles sorta like emit gravitons. All particles. But it's weak, but it gets stronger the more particles you have together (more concentrated), thus why planets have massive gravitational strength and we have like none. But then like two magnets perhaps the higgs is attracted to the graviton or vise verser thus when we jump gravity pulls us back down.
I dunno, like I say I got nothing to back this up it just sounds sorta right. Much better then, "obviously there's infinite number of parallel universes" anyway.


I think this idea that these boson things are everywhere, sorta like a giant sea of them, may have merit too.
When helium 4 is at 2points above absolute zero it has zero viscosity. Viscosity is the measure of how easy things are to pass through. So like water will have a a viscosity of say 1 where as honey would have a viscosity of like 5 (not real numbers, just example). Helium 4 is considered a 'superfluid', meaning it has zero viscosity.
What makes this amazing is it passes over objects with no friction. In fact it will even pass through the pores in the jars its kept in. So what would normally hold the helium4 as soon as it becomes a superfluid it seeps through. This is because it's so cold it has zero movement, the particles don't bounce around.
This is what they think the higgs field could be like, we're in it but because it has zero viscosity so we don't feel it. Like a giant higgs boson ocean
It's interesting to read about. It's a field scientists are just starting to unravel the whole higgs boson, or boson in general thing. Could very well explain the fabric our universe and perhaps where it all came from.

Wow. That is a very good description - it's not complete, but it's quite good.

Yep, I was right...
Heart you are pretty dang cute. Wink

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: