Multiverse: One Universe or Many?

[Joshpantera]

I'm going through this very illustrative video: 

 

 

[pantheory]

Ideas of multiverses have been part of speculation and science fiction for a long time now, at least since the 1960's when the Steady State model of Hoyle and others and the Big Bang model were generally the primary competing models in cosmology. At that time Multiverse ideas could have been related to either cosmology, or a separate cosmology. Today multiverse ideas are considered respectable hypothesis most prominently proposed by Stephen Hawking. Most of these hypothesis today accept the Big Bang model.

 

Many or most theorists today are leery of such models, however, as many claim that they do not fall within the framework of science. For them to be scientific models they should be observable, testable, or at least be rational hypothesis stemming from existing theory. An example of this would be Inflation theory. For example Multiverse models fall within the framework of the "many worlds" version of Quantum Mechanics, one of the dozen or so versions of Quantum-Mechanic hypotheses. Hawking believes that his Multiverse version solves several  of the so-called Big Bang theoretical problems. Because of Hawking today such speculation and hypothesis are considered "fashionable,"

 

 

[Thurisaz]

So far, all we can observe is this universe. We can't tell whether there are others, and how they might look, and how many there may be "out there", or even what this "out there" is. In that sense, one can say with quite some justification that all this is (at the current time) just idle speculation.

Which doesn't mean it's not fun to entertain that thought outside of proper science. Niflhel, I absolutely love that concept they followed in the world's largest scifi series about "the Deep", an "interdimensional border zone" between the universes of the multiverse - a region of infinite x and y dimensions but where the z dimension (height) is limited to just below 2000 m because it's basically just the "wrapping" around the individual universes. Part of the storyline involved servant races of the "gods" of that universe enter the Deep and try to construct something huge (diameter of about a lightyear!) to Right a Wrong they found in the structure of the multiverse. Think "scope!"...

[LogicalFallacy]

Hmm so the total energy in the universe is 0. Positive energy = negative energy... does mean you don't need something to create nothing?

[pantheory]

21 minutes ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Hmm so the total energy in the universe is 0. Positive energy = negative energy... does mean you don't need something to create nothing?

 

In Physics, cosmology being part of it, there is no negative energy. Some have proposed such a thing, but such ideas are considered non-mainstream or fringe Physics.

 

But it is correct to say that you don't need something to create nothing.   Although people like Stephen Hawking have proposed that the beginning of the universe could come from nothing, the meaning of that is not nothing at all! They are referring to the known background field, the Zero-Point Field, which may have more energy and mass-potential within it than the rest of the universe combined, including hypothetical dark energy and dark matter.

 

In reality such proposals are not something from nothing proposals at all. Instead, many or most mainstream theorists believe that there was something to start with other than a background field. In most versions of the Big Bang model there was the beginning entity, which could be called the Big Bang entity. From this entity accordingly all energy and matter of the universe evolved from. The present model of this evolution is called the Inflation model. There accordingly was no such a thing as "before that," no time, no space, no reality at all. This type of cosmological model as well would not be a something from nothing proposal.

[bornagainathiest]

8 hours ago, pantheory said:

Ideas of multiverses have been part of speculation and science fiction for a long time now, at least since the 1960's when the Steady State model of Hoyle and others and the Big Bang model were generally the primary competing models in cosmology. At that time Multiverse ideas could have been related to either cosmology, or a separate cosmology. Today multiverse ideas are considered respectable hypothesis most prominently proposed by Stephen Hawking. Most of these hypothesis today accept the Big Bang model.

 

Many or most theorists today are leery of such models, however, as many claim that they do not fall within the framework of science. For them to be scientific models they should be observable, testable, or at least be rational hypothesis stemming from existing theory. An example of this would be Inflation theory. For example Multiverse models fall within the framework of the "many worlds" version of Quantum Mechanics, one of the dozen or so versions of Quantum-Mechanic hypotheses. Hawking believes that his Multiverse version solves several  of the so-called Big Bang theoretical problems. Because of Hawking today such speculation and hypothesis are considered "fashionable,"

 

 

 

Alan Guth, one of the co-formulators of Inflationary theory has this to say about observability, testability and rationality.

 

"A cosmological theory lives or dies on the basis of the description it predicts for the observable universe."

The Inflationary Universe : The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, page 245.  Emphasis is his btw, not mine.

 

Any cosmological theory that fails to make confirmed predictions about the nature of this, the observable universe, must be discarded in favor of one that succeeds.  

That is why Inflation is the accepted, mainstream theory for describing the origin of this universe.  Inflation hasn't failed - it has succeeded.  Yes, it's predictions about the existence of other universes can never be verified, but what it does have to say about this universe has been confirmed by many independent lines of evidence and numerous confirmed predictions.  This is not a matter of 'fashion' it is a matter of hard evidence.  It is on the basis on this success that Inflation builds it's predictions about other universes.  

 

I should also like to draw attention to the elephant in this room.

Almost all of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and theoretical physics is based upon assumption, inference and deduction.  This is because the finite speed of light forces us to observe the universe as it was, not as it currently is.  Therefore, everything scientists say about the nature of the universe beyond the solar system is an assumption, based upon the Copernican principle.  That what we observe from our location holds true for every other location in the universe.  That stars we cannot individually see, in a galaxy 10 billion light years away, are born, live and die in the same way as our Sun.  That the chemical elements in that galaxy (which we can never directly test or sample) are the same as those, here on Earth.  That there are planets orbiting the stars of that galaxy (which we can never see or visit) just as the planets of our solar system orbit our Sun.  

 

Almost all of the wider universe is forever hidden from us and will never be seen, visited or tested by us.

Yet, we have no problem assuming that what holds true on Earth, in our Sun and in our solar system, also holds true everywhere else.  It's therefore a somewhat specious argument to say that because something cannot be observed, cannot be tested and cannot be verified -  it is speculation.  By that logic, almost everything we say we know and understand about in the universe... is speculation.  This would also include any alternative theories of the universe's origin and any alternative theories about how it works.  They can no more be verified by direct experimentation and/or observation than can the accepted, mainstream theories.

 

The existence of an Inflationary Multiverse is indeed an unverifiable prediction.

That is accepted.  However, since ALL cosmological theories (mainstream or alternative) are based upon unverifiable assumptions, verification or non-verification is no basis to dismiss Inflation or to label it as speculation.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

7 hours ago, LogicalFallacy said:

Hmm so the total energy in the universe is 0. Positive energy = negative energy... does mean you don't need something to create nothing?

 

There is no need to invoke speculative concepts like the Zero Point Energy field to explain this, LF.

All that's needed is to understand that matter is considered to be positive energy and the gravitational field generated by matter is considered to be negative energy.

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

 

A universe in which positive energy dominates will eventually collapse in a "big crunch", while an "open" universe in which negative energy dominates will either expand indefinitely or eventually disintegrate in a "big rip". In the zero-energy universe model ("flat" or "Euclidean"), the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.

 

 

A closed universe (the sphere) has too much negative energy and collapses in upon itself, leading to a Big Crunch.

An open universe (the saddle) has too much positive energy and flies apart too quickly for matter to form, ending in a Big Rip.  But a flat universe (like ours) has an exact balance of positive energy with negative energy.  This is because the amount positive energy of matter in the flat universe exactly balances the negative energy of that matter's gravity.

 

Inflationary theory naturally predicts this outcome and this has been amply verified by observations.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

[Joshpantera]

3 hours ago, bornagainathiest said:

But a flat universe (like ours) has an exact balance of positive energy with negative energy.  This is because the amount positive energy of matter in the flat universe exactly balances the negative energy of that matter's gravity.

 

Yin and Yang...

 

What I like about the video is how the competition to Guth was made to foolish near the end of the talk. They complained and whined about an eternal cosmos, but then in the end had only another essentially eternal idea to offer. And that was made light of by both Guth and the moderator. People need to acknowledge the bloody obvious, which is that eternal existence, by one frame work or another, is the meat of the matter when it comes to understanding reality simply because there's no alternative. 

[bornagainathiest]

21 hours ago, Joshpantera said:

 

Yin and Yang...

 

What I like about the video is how the competition to Guth was made to foolish near the end of the talk. They complained and whined about an eternal cosmos, but then in the end had only another essentially eternal idea to offer. And that was made light of by both Guth and the moderator. People need to acknowledge the bloody obvious, which is that eternal existence, by one frame work or another, is the meat of the matter when it comes to understanding reality simply because there's no alternative. 

 

I view the information from this link below from a purely agnostic and scientific viewpoint, Josh.

 

But I'm confident that you will find it interesting on a number of levels.

 

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

The final paragraph is relevant to this thread.

 

More on the WMAP data can be found here... https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[Joshpantera]

This becomes more and more straight forward with time. 

[pantheory]

 

 

Alan Guth, one of the co-formulators of Inflationary theory has this to say about observability, testability and rationality.

 

"A cosmological theory lives or dies on the basis of the description it predicts for the observable universe."

The Inflationary Universe : The Quest for a New Theory of Cosmic Origins, page 245.  Emphasis is his btw, not mine.

 

Any cosmological theory that fails to make confirmed predictions about the nature of this, the observable universe, must be discarded in favor of one that succeeds.  

That is why Inflation is the accepted, mainstream theory for describing the origin of this universe.  Inflation hasn't failed - it has succeeded.  Yes, it's predictions about the existence of other universes can never be verified, but what it does have to say about this universe has been confirmed by many independent lines of evidence and numerous confirmed predictions.  This is not a matter of 'fashion' it is a matter of hard evidence.  It is on the basis on this success that Inflation builds it's predictions about other universes.  

 

I should also like to draw attention to the elephant in this room.

Almost all of astronomy, astrophysics, cosmology and theoretical physics is based upon assumption, inference and deduction.  This is because the finite speed of light forces us to observe the universe as it was, not as it currently is.  Therefore, everything scientists say about the nature of the universe beyond the solar system is an assumption, based upon the Copernican principle.  That what we observe from our location holds true for every other location in the universe.  That stars we cannot individually see, in a galaxy 10 billion light years away, are born, live and die in the same way as our Sun.  That the chemical elements in that galaxy (which we can never directly test or sample) are the same as those, here on Earth.  That there are planets orbiting the stars of that galaxy (which we can never see or visit) just as the planets of our solar system orbit our Sun.  

 

Almost all of the wider universe is forever hidden from us and will never be seen, visited or tested by us.

Yet, we have no problem assuming that what holds true on Earth, in our Sun and in our solar system, also holds true everywhere else.  It's therefore a somewhat specious argument to say that because something cannot be observed, cannot be tested and cannot be verified -  it is speculation.  By that logic, almost everything we say we know and understand about in the universe... is speculation.  This would also include any alternative theories of the universe's origin and any alternative theories about how it works.  They can no more be verified by direct experimentation and/or observation than can the accepted, mainstream theories.

 

The existence of an Inflationary Multiverse is indeed an unverifiable prediction.

That is accepted.  However, since ALL cosmological theories (mainstream or alternative) are based upon unverifiable assumptions, verification or non-verification is no basis to dismiss Inflation or to label it as speculation.  

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

 

 

 

Deduction, Induction, hypothesis, and speculation, require intellectual mind stretching . On the other hand assumptions are not science so the fewer that are needed  the more complete is the theory.

 

The Inflation theory has many of the same problems as does multiverse theory. I don't consider it science either; It is much more of a theoretical problem since it is presently the foundation hypothesis of the Big Bang model.

 

http://webmailb.netzero.net/webmail/new/5?count=1494540505&type=no-magic&session_redirect=true&count=1479082313&randid=171447414

[LogicalFallacy]

So since all cosmological hypothesis require certain assumptions then none of them are science - is that what you are saying pantheory?

 

So do we just chuck out everything we have learned about the universe thus far?

[pantheory]

str

 

So since all cosmological hypothesis require certain assumptions then none of them are science - is that what you are saying pantheory?

 

So do we just chuck out everything we have learned about the universe thus far?

 

The lesser the assumptions the better the theory IMO . The primary assumptions of the Big Bang model are:  "The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. ... The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales............................" The Big Bang model depends first upon General Relativity which is assumed to be correct, upon Special Relativity, and Einstein's cosmological equations, also assumed to be correct. Most cosmologies the assume the Big Bang model is correct as a starting point, also assume Special and General Relativity are also correct. These are major assumptions, all thought to be consistent with observations so that they are assumptions based upon observations and interpretations thereof. Hypothesis which assume that other hypothesis are theories are correct to start with are ofen not well less well founded. Examples of this IMO are most Multiverse hypothesis, whereby assumptions are being made concerning which assume Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy hypothesis.  

 

Other cosmologies do not necessarily require as many assumptions. My own model, for instance, requires no major assumptions.  A minor assumption, for instance, would be that we are not part of a matrix like the movie, that what we perceive has its basis in reality. Simple assumptions like this.

 

The big bang assumptions are not without logic, granted.

 

"So do we just chuck out everything we have learned about the universe thus far?"

 

Learning and knowledge are very different from theoretical interpretations of observations. All observations need interpretation. Aside from this interpretation observation history is our basis of knowledge about the universe and cannot change regardless of what theory may change or be replaced. Therefore fundamental knowledge will not be lost regardless or theoretical insights, or the lack of understanding thereof.

 

[bornagainathiest]

Your model relies upon NO major assumptions, Pantheory?

 

Then it doesn't make the major assumption that the we observe the far distant universe as it was long ago and not as it is today?

 

It doesn't make the major (and unverifiable) assumption that stars in distant galaxies obey the same physics as our Sun?

 

It doesn't make the major assumption that their chemical elements (which we cannot directly test) are the same as that of our Sun?

 

It doesn't make the major assumption that they have planets (which we cannot observe) just like our Sun?

 

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

2 hours ago, pantheory said:

 

The lesser the assumptions the better the theory IMO . The primary assumptions of the Big Bang model are:  "The Big Bang theory depends on two major assumptions: the universality of physical laws and the cosmological principle. The cosmological principle states that on large scales the universe is homogeneous and isotropic. ... The universe has been measured to be homogeneous on the largest scales............................" The Big Bang model depends first upon General Relativity which is assumed to be correct, upon Special Relativity, and Einstein's cosmological equations, also assumed to be correct.

 

General Relativity is not assumed to be correct.

It is supported by multiple, independently-tested, highly accurate confirmations of it's predictions.  The fact that you do not accept them doesn't change these confirmations into assumptions.

 

Most cosmologies the assume the Big Bang model is correct as a starting point, also assume Special and General Relativity are also correct.

 

Again, these are things are not assumed to be correct.

They are supported by multiple, independently-tested, highly accurate confirmations of their predictions.  The fact that you do not accept them doesn't change these confirmations into assumptions.

  

These are major assumptions, all thought to be consistent with observations so that they are assumptions based upon observations and interpretations thereof.

 

No, they are not major assumptions.

They are supported by multiple, independently-tested, highly accurate confirmations of their predictions.  The fact that you do not accept them doesn't change these confirmations into assumptions.

 

Hypothesis which assume that other hypothesis or theories are correct to start with are less well founded. Examples of this IMO are most Multiverse hypothesis, Inflation, dark matter, and dark energy hypothesis.  

 

Other cosmologies do not necessarily require as many assumptions. My own model, for instance, requires no major assumptions.  A minor assumption, for instance, would be that we are not part of a matrix like the movie, that what we perceive has its basis in reality. Simple assumptions like this.

 

The big bang assumptions are not without logic, granted.

 

"So do we just chuck out everything we have learned about the universe thus far?"

 

Learning and knowledge are very different from theoretical interpretations of observations. All observations need interpretation. Aside from this interpretation observation history is our basis of knowledge about the universe and cannot change regardless of what theory may change or be replaced. Therefore fundamental knowledge will not be lost regardless or theoretical insights, or the lack of understanding thereof.

 

 

[pantheory]

 

Your model relies upon NO major assumptions, Pantheory?

 

Then it doesn't make the major assumption that the we observe the far distant universe as it was long ago and not as it is today?

 

It doesn't make the major (and unverifiable) assumption that stars in distant galaxies obey the same physics as our Sun?

 

It doesn't make the major assumption that their chemical elements (which we cannot directly test) are the same as that of our Sun?

 

It doesn't make the major assumption that they have planets (which we cannot observe) just like our Sun?

 

 

 

 

 

"Then it doesn't make the major assumption that we observe the far distant universe as it was long ago and not as it is today?"

 

This would not be an assumption of any theory. We have tested and determined that the speed of light in a laboratory. We know the speed of light is finite whether or not it is necessarily constant. Therefore we know without assumption that from distant galaxies, the lights it produces left countless eons ago.

 

"t doesn't make the major (and unverifiable) assumption that stars in distant galaxies obey the same physics as our Sun?"

 

No theory requires this assumption to be formulated in the first place.

 

"It doesn't make the major assumption that their chemical elements (which we cannot directly test) are the same as that of our Sun?"

 

This is not a necessary requirement to formulate most any theory. An assumptions means that without it the theory would not make sense and could not be formulated. Yes, although  it totally makes sense most theories can derive this fact without assuming it.

 

"It doesn't make the major assumption that they have planets (which we cannot observe) just like our Sun?"

 

Again this is not an assumption of any theory that I know of. The theories themselves can derive this probability.

 

Again, an assumption of theory is one where without it the theory falters and would be contradicted without the assumption. If not it is not a necessary assumption.

 

Yes, general relativity is not an assumption of the BB model, but it is the foundation math for the theory. If general relativity falls then the BB model would need new math to explain its theoretical foundations mathematically. The BB model is called the Lambda, cold dark matter model. It is presently based upon Inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter. If all of these things were somehow proven wrong then the BB would be history. If any of these hypothesis were proven wrong then the BB theory would need reformulation, and it would become a different theory.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

Pantheory,

 

All three cases rely upon the Copernican principle, which is the working assumption that underpins all mainstream astronomy and cosmology theories. 

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copernican_principle

 

"Named for Copernican heliocentrism, it is a working assumption that arises from a modified cosmological extension of Copernicus's argument of a moving Earth.[2] In some sense, it is equivalent to the mediocrity principle."

 

https://www.thoughtco.com/copernican-principle-2699117

 

What this basically means is that in science, you shouldn't assume that humans have a fundamentally privileged position within the universe. For example, in astronomy this generally means that all large regions of the universe should be pretty much identical to each others. (Obviously, there are some local differences, but these are just statistical variations, not fundamental differences in what the universe is like in those different places.)

 

https://phys.org/news/2008-05-copernican-principle.html

 

“The Copernican principle is a cornerstone of most of astronomy, it is assumed without question, and plays an important role in many statistical tests for the viability of cosmological models,” Stebbins told PhysOrg.com. “It is also a necessary consequence of the stronger assumption of the Cosmological Principle: namely, that not only do we not live in a special part of the universe, but there are no special parts of the universe – everything is the same everywhere (up to statistical variation).

.

.

.

"Then it doesn't make the major assumption that the we observe the far distant universe as it was long ago and not as it is today?"

 

This would not be an assumption of any theory. We have tested and determined that the speed of light in a laboratory. We know the speed of light is finite whether or not it is necessarily constant. Therefore we know without assumption that from distant galaxies, the lights it produces left countless eons ago.

 

Extrapolating from what is determined in an Earthly laboratory to what actually holds true in a distant galaxy is an act of assumption on your part, Pantheory.

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

Yes, general relativity is not an assumption of the BB model, but it is the foundation math for the theory. If general relativity falls then the BB model would need new math to explain its theoretical foundations mathematically. The BB model is called the Lambda, cold dark matter model. It is presently based upon Inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter. If all of these things were somehow proven wrong then the BB would be history. If any of these hypothesis were proven wrong then the BB theory would need reformulation, and it would become a different theory.

 

 

None of the things you list can be proven wrong, Pantheory.

 

Proofs only exist in math and in logic.  

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

 

They can falsified by new evidence, but they cannot be proven wrong.

[pantheory]

 

 

 

None of the things you list can be proven wrong, Pantheory.

 

Proofs only exist in math and in logic.  

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Proof

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

http://undsci.berkeley.edu/teaching/misconceptions.php

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scientific_evidence

http://oregonstate.edu/instruction/bb317/scientifictheories.html

 

They can be falsified by new evidence, but they cannot be proven wrong.

 

Yes, of course. None of these theories or hypothesis have been proven wrong or they would not still be the prevailing theory. But as you said, they could be contradicted in a major way by new evidence, and if so the related theory or hypothesis would be either changed or replaced.

 

"Extrapolating from what is determined in an Earthly laboratory to what actually holds true in a distant galaxy is an act of assumption on your part, Pantheory."

 

Assumptions of theory mean those characteristics of reality that do not directly follow from theory. For instance General Relativity does not directly follow from the BB model in that it cannot be derived from the theory. But it is not considered an assumption of the theory since it is part of mainstream physics, which is assumed to be correct by nearly all models. Homogeneity of the universe cannot directly be derived from the BB model, because a BB could have resulted in an uneven distribution of matter. In the same way General Relativity is not considered an assumption of the BB model, it would be an assumption if General Relativity were wrong, which in my model it is conceptually wrong.

 

All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth. This would be true unless the theory itself derives different laws, which my theory does concerning gravity, magnetism, the so-called forces of nature, and other things. So like I said, my own theory makes no assumptions, according to the definition of theoretical assumptions.

 

As I stated before, respectable theories do not list ridiculous assumptions like stating that reality is not part of a matrix for instance.

 

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

 

 

Yes, of course. None of these theories or hypothesis have been proven wrong or they would not still be the prevailing theory. But as you said, they could be contradicted in a major way by new evidence, and if so the related theory or hypothesis would be either changed or replaced.

 

Prevailing theories do not prevail because they are proven right or proven wrong, Pantheory.

No theory can be proven right or wrong.  Proofs only exist in math and in logic, not in the empirical sciences.   Yesterday you claimed (twice) that inflation, dark energy and dark matter could be proven wrong.  And you've done so again today, in the above paragraph.  But in both cases you are describing something that never happens in empirical science.  

 

Theories prevail because the are the current, best explanation of what is observed and they can be falsified by new evidence.  

However, proofs are final and can never be falsified by new evidence.  If you are confused about this matter, I recommend this article.

 

https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-scientific-fundamentalist/200811/common-misconceptions-about-science-i-scientific-proof

 

Proofs exist only in mathematics and logic, not in science.  Mathematics and logic are both closed, self-contained systems of propositions, whereas science is empirical and deals with nature as it exists.  The primary criterion and standard of evaluation of scientific theory is evidence, not proof.  All else equal (such as internal logical consistency and parsimony), scientists prefer theories for which there is more and better evidence to theories for which there is less and worse evidence.  Proofs are not the currency of science.

 

Proofs have two features that do not exist in science:  They are final, and they are binary.  Once a theorem is proven, it will forever be true and there will be nothing in the future that will threaten its status as a proven theorem (unless a flaw is discovered in the proof).  Apart from a discovery of an error, a proven theorem will forever and always be a proven theorem.

 

For your benefit and to avoid further confusion, I should like to point out that the writer is using the words, 'proven theorem' to describe only mathematical proofs.  

He is not referring in any way to a proven theorem of empirical, evidence-based science - because such things do not exist.

 

 

 

"Extrapolating from what is determined in an Earthly laboratory to what actually holds true in a distant galaxy is an act of assumption on your part, Pantheory."

 

Assumptions of theory mean those characteristics of reality that do not directly follow from theory. For instance General Relativity does not directly follow from the BB model in that it cannot be derived from the theory. But it is not considered an assumption of the theory since it is part of mainstream physics, which is assumed to be correct by nearly all models. Homogeneity of the universe cannot directly be derived from the BB model, because a BB could have resulted in an uneven distribution of matter. In the same way General Relativity is not considered an assumption of the BB model, it would be an assumption if General Relativity were wrong, which in my model it is conceptually wrong.

 

All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth.

 

 

Your last sentence describes your model making a major assumption.  

But yesterday you claimed that your model requires NO major assumptions.  You seem to be contradicting yourself.  Yesterday your model made no major assumptions.  Today, by your own admission, it makes one.

 

 

 

This would be true unless the theory itself derives different laws, which my theory does concerning gravity, magnetism, the so-called forces of nature, and other things. So like I said, my own theory makes no assumptions, according to the definition of theoretical assumptions.

 

False.

Above you wrote... "All models including my own assume that what we call the laws of physics are correct and hold true within the universe as  well as here on Earth."

A universe-wide assumption is a MAJOR assumption.  So, today you've contradicted yourself within your own post.  You own model does make a major assumption.  Whereas yesterday... it didn't.  

 

 

 

As I stated before, respectable theories do not list ridiculous assumptions like stating that reality is not part of a matrix for instance.

 

 

Can we have a definitive answer to the question of whether your theory makes a major assumption, Pantheory?

 

Yesterday you said it didn't.

 

Today you say it does.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

[REBOOT]

Multi-verse...

 

It's an interesting theory speculating that this universe with it's laws of physics supporting sentient life forms is the result of a collision between parallel branes within a bulk (hyperspace).

 

It's also some kind of patch solution that would allow cosmic equations to work. But then we still don't know what dark matter is...(84.5% of total mass)  This multiverse theory might be premature and might be totally blown away once we know more about dark matter and energy.

 

Thus, dark matter constitutes 84.5%^{[note 1]} of total mass, while dark energy plus dark matter constitute 95.1% of total mass–energy content

 

Is knowledge of 15% of our own universe enough to speculate about dimensions outside of it ?

[pantheory]

"Theories prevail because they are the current, best explanation of what is observed and they can be falsified by new evidence.  

However, proofs are final and can never be falsified by new evidence.  If you are confused about this matter, I recommend this article."

 

Theories prevail based upon majority opinions and consensus interpretations, because they are believed to be better than known alternatives.

 

Looking back at my postings I do not see where the word "proof" or a tense thereof was used.

 

As you stated, proof is unrelated to theory or hypothesis. Interpretations of observations both pros and cons are what adds to, or takes away support from a theory.

[bornagainathiest]

 

Multi-verse...

 

It's an interesting theory speculating that this universe with it's laws of physics supporting sentient life forms is the result of a collision between parallel branes within a bulk (hyperspace).

 

It's also some kind of patch solution that would allow cosmic equations to work. But then we still don't know what dark matter is...(84.5% of total mass)  This multiverse theory might be premature and might be totally blown away once we know more about dark matter and energy.

 

 

 

Is knowledge of 15% of our own universe enough to speculate about dimensions outside of it ?

 

A point of order, REBOOT.

Collisions between parallel branes refers to Ekpyrotic theory... https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe ...which has been proposed by Paul Steinhardt as an alternative to Inflationary theory.  The 'Implications for Cosmology' section of that Wiki page reads...

 

A key advantage of ekpyrotic and cyclic models is that they do not produce a multiverse. This is important, because, when the effects of quantum fluctuations are properly included in the big bang inflationary model, they prevent the universe from achieving the uniformity and flatness that the cosmologists are trying to explain. Instead, inflated quantum fluctuations cause the universe to break up into patches with every conceivable combination of physical properties. Instead of making clear predictions, the big bang inflationary theory allows any outcome, so that the properties we observe may be viewed as random chance, resulting from the particular patch of the multiverse in which the Earth resides. Most regions of the multiverse would have very different properties.

 

Nobel laureate Steven Weinberg has suggested that if the multiverse is true, “the hope of finding a rational explanation for the precise values of quark masses and other constants of the standard model that we observe in our big bang is doomed, for their values would be an accident of the particular part of the multiverse in which we live.”^[4]

 

The idea that the properties of our universe are an accident and come from a theory that allows a multiverse of other possibilities is hard to reconcile with the fact that the universe is extraordinarily simple (uniform and flat) on large scales and that elementary particles appear to be described by simple symmetries and interactions. Also, the accidental concept cannot be falsified by an experiment since any future experiments can be viewed as yet other accidental aspects.

 

In ekpyrotic and cyclic models, smoothing and flattening occurs during a period of slow contraction, so quantum fluctuations are not inflated and cannot produce a multiverse. As a result, the ekpyrotic and cyclic models predict simple physical properties that are consistent with current experimental evidence without producing a multiverse. This makes these models valuable and, at the same time, vulnerable since they can be falsified by experiments.

 

So, brane collisions in hyperspace do not a multiverse, make.

 

Thanks,

 

BAA.

 

 

[bornagainathiest]

 

"Theories prevail because the are the current, best explanation of what is observed and they can be falsified by new evidence.  

However, proofs are final and can never be falsified by new evidence.  If you are confused about this matter, I recommend this article."

 

Theories prevail based upon majority opinions and consensus interpretations, because they are believed to be better than known alternatives.

 

Looking back at my postings I do not see where the word "proof" or a tense thereof was used.

 

As you stated, proof is unrelated to theory or hypothesis. Interpretations of observations both pros and cons are what adds to, or takes away support from a theory.

 

Yesterday, in post # 16, you wrote...

 

 It is presently based upon Inflation theory, dark energy, and dark matter. If all of these things were somehow proven wrong then the BB would be history. If any of these hypothesis were proven wrong then the BB theory would need reformulation, and it would become a different theory.

 

You claimed that if Inflation theory were proved wrong, then the BB would be history.

.

.

.

Today, in post # 19, you wrote...

 

None of these theories or hypothesis have been proven wrong or they would not still be the prevailing theory.

 

Here you claimed that none of these theories would still prevail if they had been proven wrong.

.

.

.

Clear and unequivocal instances of you claiming that theories can be proven wrong.

 

 

[pantheory]

Yes, I see and agree with you. I did qualify my wordings by using the word "somehow," but agree with you that the words "proof,""disproved," "unproven," or "not proved" should not be used concerning theory or even hypothesis. Even the wordings "true," "valid" or "invalid" concerning discussions of theory should not be used IMO. More accurate wordings can be found.