35 replies to this topic

[Noggy]

bornagainathiest, on 07 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg
The prediction and the data agree.

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.
But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

Ummm...help me out here, please.

BAA.

Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse.

"THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE HUMANS, BUT THIS BOOK SAYS THAT GOD DID IT, ITS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST PERFECT ANSWER".

There are lots of theories out there that predicted lots of good things, and lots of bad things. Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation. Multiverse theory also predicts lots of things we cant see. And doesn't predict everything. There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true? You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence. And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena.

[Foxy Methoxy]

bornagainathiest, on 07 February 2012 - 02:28 PM, said:

Foxy Methoxy, on 06 February 2012 - 01:53 PM, said:

The level of theory regarding a multiverse is mindblowing. The universe itself is so enormous, it's hard to fathom, but a multiverse? That is quantum upon quantum. We can barely even consider ourselves specks in this whole thing.

Shock and awe seem to be appropriate here, Foxy.

One of my astro-buddies gave me a rough example of just how v-a-s-t our own universe is, not so long ago. He gave me a nickel and walked away from where I was standing, to a distance of 75 feet. He held the nickel up and I could barely see it.
Apparently the amount of sky it covered will contain at least 10,000 galaxies, all the way out to the edge of the observable universe. This is also true for every part of the sky. Not individual stars or planets, but whole galaxies - each one containing with millions or billions of stars and planets.

How's that for mindblowing?

Indeed. Consider, too, the evidence of galaxies in our expanding universe are drifting apart and at some point will be so distant to one another, they will likely be impossible to find. Then consider the possibility of universes drifting apart in the same way and the expanse become unfathomable.

[bornagainathiest]

Noggy, on 07 February 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

bornagainathiest, on 07 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg
The prediction and the data agree.

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.
But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

Ummm...help me out here, please.

BAA.

Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse.

"THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE HUMANS, BUT THIS BOOK SAYS THAT GOD DID IT, ITS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST PERFECT ANSWER".

There are lots of theories out there that predicted lots of good things, and lots of bad things. Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation. Multiverse theory also predicts lots of things we cant see. And doesn't predict everything. There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true? You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence. And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena.

Ok then Noggy, let's hear about these "other things" please.

"Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse."

Such as...?
Could you please present these other things - these lots of other things (presumably from peer-reviewed papers) that cause a perfect black-body radiation curve?

"Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation."

Yes, I agree.
Science always deals with inferred knowledge about reality, However, when one explanation fits reality to umpteen decimal places better than any rival theories, why is it necessary to still consider other, less accurate explanations as being equally valid?
Please say why you think this is so. Thank you.

"There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true?"

Please cite these other theories. Thank you.

Please also clarify what you mean by the word, 'true'. Thank you.

"You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence."

Can you please justify this assertion. Thank you.

"And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena."

Once again Noggy...
Please cite what these other things are and who makes these predictions. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noggy,

Of course it's right and proper that ALL science submit itself to testing and questioning, but it's also right and proper that those doing so cite the source/s of their objections and questions.

So, the onus is now squarely upon you to address this issue. I've politely asked you to do so and I would be very grateful if you would please substantiate your objections.

Thanks again,

BAA.

[Suzy]

Noggy, on 07 February 2012 - 10:54 AM, said:

Suzy, on 06 February 2012 - 01:31 PM, said:

Noggy, on 05 February 2012 - 04:11 PM, said:

If its outside our universe we can't know anything about it by definition. If we could prove it, it would be a part of our universe.

As I understand from Deutsch's book if those quantum computers would be built and would work the way predicted that doesn't mean we could know what is happening in other universes. It's just that quantum computers would be able to do computations that they wouldn't be able to do if there's only one universe, because there aren't enough resources for such computations in one universe. However quantum computers could easily do those computations if there is a multiverse.

No, thats the problem. There are LOTS of different interpretations of quantum effects. The multiverse is only 1 interpretation of it. There are OTHER WAYS to explain the phenonmen that is QM. And the other ways are provable. Saying there are multiverses is as provable and scientific as saying that there is a God that created everything. Sure, maybe, but we can't prove it, and there are better ways to explain it.

Of course, currently the multiverse is just one interpretation of QM, nobody said anything else. It's pretty controversial too. (Just like any other interpretation of QM is.) The question is whether there can be a test that distinguishes between different interpretations. I think there can be and what Deutsch writes about quantum computers in his book, if they will work the way it's predicted then it cannot be explained by the Coppenhagen interpretation and the collapse of the wavefunction, for example, however the multiverse interpretation would give a pretty good explanation for it.

Also science is never about 100% certainties, but it's about our best theories at a time. Even if we will never be able to know for 100% certainty if there are really other universes (because we will never be able to visit them - but this way you can never be 100% sure of the Big Bang theory, the TOE or anything in science either), there can be developments made (such as in the area of quantum computation) which will make the multiverse interpretation our best interpretation or theory to explain them - out of the interpretations those exist now at least.

If then someone finds an even better theory or interpretation then that can blow away the multiverse interpretation of course (just like there's a chance for any theory to be blown away if a better is found), but that's just the way science generally works. And while God might have seemed the best explanation for things for ancient people in the past, surely it isn't our best explanation for anything now, considering the data and knowledge we have collected since then. On the Multiverse interpretation the jury is still out.

Edited by Suzy, 08 February 2012 - 07:14 AM.

[Suzy]

bornagainathiest, on 07 February 2012 - 11:26 AM, said:

Suzy, on 06 February 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

Thanks a lot.
This would be a Level I. or Level II. multiverse, right?

Hey, why don't you ask me a difficult question for a change, Suzy?

Seriously though, here's my take on this.

http://space.mit.edu...mark/crazy.html

A Level 1 Multiverse (according to Max) are the, "regions beyond our cosmic horizon".
By that, I take him to mean regions of our own universe that we cannot see, but which we logically and reasonably assume must be there. This link... http://www.sciencefo...82-what-we-see/ ...is very useful because it uses the same Light Cone diagram as the one on the Wiki CMB page - the one lying on it's side.

Please look at the second diagram down and you'll see that Michel123456 has added in the WMAP satellite and the Light Cone of us folks here on Earth. My understanding is that a region beyond our cosmic horizon is anywhere outside of our own Light Cone. These regions are fully connected to the part of the universe we can see and (as Occam's Razor would suggest) they should also share the same properties as our local environment.

Max's description of a Level 2 Multiverse agrees with the article from Universe Today.
Here a completely different and separate bubble emerges from the parent false vacuum and undergoes it's own period of Inflation and becomes a fully-fledged universe. Evidence for it's existence may or may not be found in the Planck CMB data.
We'll just have to wait and see.

So, come next year, if they do find a confirming pattern in the CMB, this would strongly indicate we live in a Level 2 Multiverse. Needless to say, the theological implications of this are tremendous!
As I mentioned earlier in this thread, Genesis 1:1 will have been categorically proven to be 100% wrong. If universes spring spontaneously into existence by purely natural processes, then there's no need to invoke a Creator. God is superfluous and irrelevant.

Btw, lower down on the ScienceForums page, MigL makes a similar kind of objection to Noggy's. Michel123456's response is very good for the clarity with which it shows how unseen regions of our universe do affect us. This is why Dark Flow and the CMB Cold Spot are so exciting. They are equivalent to Point C (event C), and appear to be telling us that what is outside of our Light Cone is having an effect on our observable universe.

That help?

BAA.

Thanks. And what's your opinion about the Level III Multiverse?

[bornagainathiest]

Suzy, on 08 February 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Thanks. And what's your opinion about the Level III Multiverse?

Ohmigosh! I dunno Suzy.

Right now I can't think of any tests we could perform to test the notion.
At least with Levels 1 and 2, there are some predictions and there is the possibility of them being confirmed by observations.

With a Level 3, it's all speculation.

Sorry, but I can't be any plainer than that.

BAA.

Edited by bornagainathiest, 08 February 2012 - 07:49 AM.

[Suzy]

bornagainathiest, on 08 February 2012 - 07:49 AM, said:

Suzy, on 08 February 2012 - 07:19 AM, said:

Thanks. And what's your opinion about the Level III Multiverse?

Ohmigosh! I dunno Suzy.

Right now I can't think of any tests we could perform to test the notion.
At least with Levels 1 and 2, there are some predictions and there is the possibility of them being confirmed by observations.

With a Level 3, it's all speculation.

Sorry, but I can't be any plainer than that.

BAA.

Thanks for your answer. I definitely hope they will work out methods for testing the idea though (I have read about some suggestions). To me this seems to be by far the coolest of the Multiverse theories.

[Legion]

I don't do multi-verses. Hell, I don't even do uni-verses.

Just please give me greater understanding of life and mind.

[stryper]

Yes please. I'll take two universes.

[Voice]

Noggy, on 04 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

lol multiverse theory by definition is unprovable.

Actually, this is true.
In college i sat in on a quantum physics class one day with a good friend who was taking the class. I had the same professor for kinetic physics. As he went through an equation that nearly took up the entire chalk board, integrating integrals, scaling imaginary values, etc., he said that in order for any quantum value to have merit, it must be observable. A dilemma arose in quantum research when there seemed to be one particle unaccounted for in the models which they termed the God Particle. A little something unobservable they said had to be there.
To my knowledge it hasn't yet been observed.

There is point source energy. Observations down to the smallest vibrations reveal that where there should be static nothingness (no vibrations) vibrations are formed, stimulated by something unknown, something that can't be observed except in its apparent affect on nothingness as we know it.

Either of these things might suggest another dimension, we don't know. They're all we have right now for evidence.

[bornagainathiest]

Voice, on 09 February 2012 - 07:50 PM, said:

Noggy, on 04 February 2012 - 01:07 PM, said:

lol multiverse theory by definition is unprovable.

Actually, this is true.
In college i sat in on a quantum physics class one day with a good friend who was taking the class. I had the same professor for kinetic physics. As he went through an equation that nearly took up the entire chalk board, integrating integrals, scaling imaginary values, etc., he said that in order for any quantum value to have merit, it must be observable. A dilemma arose in quantum research when there seemed to be one particle unaccounted for in the models which they termed the God Particle. A little something unobservable they said had to be there.
To my knowledge it hasn't yet been observed.

There is point source energy. Observations down to the smallest vibrations reveal that where there should be static nothingness (no vibrations) vibrations are formed, stimulated by something unknown, something that can't be observed except in its apparent affect on nothingness as we know it.

Either of these things might suggest another dimension, we don't know. They're all we have right now for evidence.

Hello Voice.

There seems to be some confusion here as to what it is that I'm saying, so I'll try and clarify things.
I am not saying that other universes (of whatever Level) are directly observable. Nor am I saying that any other universes will ever become directly observable.

What I am saying is this...

1.
The Cosmic Microwave Background contains a 'frozen' record of events from very early in our universe's history. The CMB has been dated to 380/400,000 years after the Big Bang event, yet imprinted within it is a record of the extremely hot, extremely dense conditions that prevailed in the earliest fractions of a second after the Big Bang.

2.
Those ultra-hot, ultra-dense conditions no longer exist and cannot be re-created by us - the energies are simply too great. However, we can gain an understanding of them by studying what the CMB has handily 'recorded' for us.

3.
If our very young universe interacted with other, separate universes while it was expanding, these collision events might also be recorded by the CMB. The forthcoming Planck satellite data should display certain patterns within the CMB if this is so. Some cosmologists have made tentative predictions that these patterns will be found. If they are found, this will strongly indicate that our universe is not the only one that exists. http://en.wikipedia....i/CMB_cold_spot

4.
I wholeheartedly agree that such separate universes will be forever out of our reach and knowledge, but their presence may have been recorded in the CMB.

5.
The phenomenon of Dark Flow... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow ...is not a direct observation of another, completely separate universe. It is proposed to be the gravitational effects of a region of something that is beyond our observational horizon. This could be a sibling universe or another region of space-time that has different properties to our own. Whatever it is, we can only observe it's effects and not the cause of those effects - so this is not a direct observation.

None of the above "proves" the existence of a Multiverse, so Noggy is quite correct when he says this. However, there remains the possibility that a Multiverse may be strongly indicated by the Planck data and/or further work on Dark Flow. I would just like to point out that a great deal in science generally and Cosmology specifically is strongly indicated.

Does this therefore mean that these things are true or untrue?

Well, personally I think this is the wrong question to ask. If absolute and total proof isn't possible, how about accepting that a certain model/theory is the 'best fit' and going with that?

Thanks,

BAA.

[Voice]

bornagainathiest, on 10 February 2012 - 10:18 AM, said:

If absolute and total proof isn't possible, how about accepting that a certain model/theory is the 'best fit' and going with that?

This is what science is - or is supposed to be. Time now to collect more data.

[bornagainathiest]

Ok Noggy, today's exactly one month since I politely asked you to substantiate your objections. (please see post #23)
You've twice promised to get back to me, but if you've no real intention of doing so, I think the equally polite thing would be for you to just say so.

For what it's worth - I don't expect the likes of Trolls like JayL to ever get back to me. His promises are empty ones.
Nor do I expect our resident and 'Infallible' Christian apologist, Thumbelina to do the same, since she's got me on 'ignore'.
I had hoped for better from you.

Applying the, 'Three strikes and you're out!' rule, I'll be visiting this thread again on April 7.
If there's still no proper response to my questions by then, I'll consider the matter closed.

Thanks,

BAA.

[REBOOT]

bornagainathiest, on 08 February 2012 - 06:14 AM, said:

Noggy, on 07 February 2012 - 06:38 PM, said:

bornagainathiest, on 07 February 2012 - 11:34 AM, said:

Sorry Noggy, but I can't agree.

If a cosmologist makes a prediction (that the CMB will display patterns that indicate collisions with another, separate universe) and then said prediction is confirmed by the data, why should we look for other interpretations?

Take the power spectrum of the CMB. It was calculated to be a perfect black-body radiation curve. Then, when the data came in, this was confirmed. Here... http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Cmbr.svg
The prediction and the data agree.

Why opt for other explanations of the CMB power spectrum, when there's a next-to-perfect fit?

Ok, the jury's still out and will be so until some time next year.
But then, if the Planck data confirms Multiversal theory, will there really be any need to invoke rival explanations?

Ummm...help me out here, please.

BAA.

Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse.

"THERE ARE LOTS OF THINGS THAT CAN CAUSE HUMANS, BUT THIS BOOK SAYS THAT GOD DID IT, ITS THE SIMPLEST AND MOST PERFECT ANSWER".

There are lots of theories out there that predicted lots of good things, and lots of bad things. Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation. Multiverse theory also predicts lots of things we cant see. And doesn't predict everything. There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true? You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence. And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena.

Ok then Noggy, let's hear about these "other things" please.

"Because there are lots of things that can cause that kind of curve that aren't the multiverse."

Such as...?
Could you please present these other things - these lots of other things (presumably from peer-reviewed papers) that cause a perfect black-body radiation curve?

"Just because your theory predicts one thing doesn't mean its real. It just means that it is one possible explanation."

Yes, I agree.
Science always deals with inferred knowledge about reality, However, when one explanation fits reality to umpteen decimal places better than any rival theories, why is it necessary to still consider other, less accurate explanations as being equally valid?
Please say why you think this is so. Thank you.

"There are other theories out there that predict this kind of curve, and also predict other things. What if those other things are true? Is multiverse theory still true? Or is the new theory true?"

Please cite these other theories. Thank you.

Please also clarify what you mean by the word, 'true'. Thank you.

"You can't just say there are multiverses based on one bit of evidence."

Can you please justify this assertion. Thank you.

"And if there are other things that predict the same kind of phenomena, then its probably not the multiverse part of the theory that is predicting that kind of phenomena."

Once again Noggy...
Please cite what these other things are and who makes these predictions. Thank you.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Noggy,

Of course it's right and proper that ALL science submit itself to testing and questioning, but it's also right and proper that those doing so cite the source/s of their objections and questions.

So, the onus is now squarely upon you to address this issue. I've politely asked you to do so and I would be very grateful if you would please substantiate your objections.

Thanks again,

BAA.

I fail to understand why Noggy is so insistent that we can't verify stuff.

Brane collision is a theory... one way to test it is to use our best tool (COBE: Cosmic Background Observer). If that is inconclusive, we've got the brains to tweak the tool or build another one.

Scientific development in the last 100 years has been nothing less than spectacular and has shaken religions off their foundations, enough to forgive Gallileo and give reason to Giordano Bruno.

http://en.wikipedia..../Giordano_Bruno

"Maiori forsan cum timore sententiam in me fertis quam ego accipiam (Perhaps you pronounce this sentence against me with greater fear than I receive it)."^[17] He was quickly turned over to the secular authorities and, on February 17, 1600 in the Campo de' Fiori, a central Roman market square, "his tongue imprisoned because of his wicked words" he was burned at the stake.^[18] His ashes were dumped into the Tiber river. All of Bruno's works were placed on the Index Librorum Prohibitorum in 1603. Inquisition Cardinals who judged Giordano Bruno were: St. Roberto Francesco Romolo Cardinal Bellarmino (Bellarmine), Carlo Gaudenzio Cardinal Madruzzo (Madruzzi), Cardinal Camillo Borghese (later Pope Paul V), Domenico Cardinal Pinelli, Pompeio Cardinal Arrigoni, Paolo Emilio Cardinal Sfondrati, Pedro Cardinal De Deza Manuel, Giulio Antonio Cardinal Santorio (Archbishop of Santa Severina, Cardinal-Bishop of Palestrina).


Burned at the stake... great !

We're lucky to be living in 2012.... at least until the christian fundies take over LOL

[Noggy]

bornagainathiest, on 08 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Ok Noggy, today's exactly one month since I politely asked you to substantiate your objections. (please see post #23)
You've twice promised to get back to me, but if you've no real intention of doing so, I think the equally polite thing would be for you to just say so.

For what it's worth - I don't expect the likes of Trolls like JayL to ever get back to me. His promises are empty ones.
Nor do I expect our resident and 'Infallible' Christian apologist, Thumbelina to do the same, since she's got me on 'ignore'.
I had hoped for better from you.

Applying the, 'Three strikes and you're out!' rule, I'll be visiting this thread again on April 7.
If there's still no proper response to my questions by then, I'll consider the matter closed.

Thanks,

BAA.

I have a bout of incredible laziness, and I realize what this makes you think of me, and how this seems to discredit everything I've said. I just dont have access to the journals I'm wanting access to right now, and am not really willing to go far out of my way (commute across town) to go them. Next time I'm on the other side of campus, hopefully I'll remember this thread. Until then, consider yourself the winner of this debate

[bornagainathiest]

Noggy, on 08 March 2012 - 12:44 PM, said:

bornagainathiest, on 08 March 2012 - 09:36 AM, said:

Ok Noggy, today's exactly one month since I politely asked you to substantiate your objections. (please see post #23)
You've twice promised to get back to me, but if you've no real intention of doing so, I think the equally polite thing would be for you to just say so.

For what it's worth - I don't expect the likes of Trolls like JayL to ever get back to me. His promises are empty ones.
Nor do I expect our resident and 'Infallible' Christian apologist, Thumbelina to do the same, since she's got me on 'ignore'.
I had hoped for better from you.

Applying the, 'Three strikes and you're out!' rule, I'll be visiting this thread again on April 7.
If there's still no proper response to my questions by then, I'll consider the matter closed.

Thanks,

BAA.

I have a bout of incredible laziness, and I realize what this makes you think of me, and how this seems to discredit everything I've said. I just dont have access to the journals I'm wanting access to right now, and am not really willing to go far out of my way (commute across town) to go them. Next time I'm on the other side of campus, hopefully I'll remember this thread. Until then, consider yourself the winner of this debate

Well, so be it Noggy.

But fyi, I really don't consider myself to be any kind of winner here.

I would think of myself in those terms if you were a Christian apologist and this were the Lion's Den.
As I've remarked recently to the A-Man, I'm most active in the Lion's Den because I like to kill and eat any Christians who are foolish enough to enter there. But since this is the Science vs. Religion sub-forum and you aren't any kind of Christian, I can't really claim any kind of 'kill' or 'win' in this instance.

For now, shall we just agree to disagree and let the facts be the ultimate decider, when the time is ripe?

Thanks,

BAA.