Google Ads

Google Ads

Bible Wheel Book

Google Ads

+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 4 of 4
  1. #1
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146

    Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist

    This is relevant to the multiverse hypothesis which some disparage as a desperate "fairy tale" invented to avoid the implications of "fine tuning" that we've been discussing in the thread Why is our universe fine tuned for life?.

    From phys.org: Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist

    Quote Originally Posted by phys.org
    In the most recent study on pre-Big Bang science posted at arXiv.org, a team of researchers from the UK, Canada, and the US, Stephen M. Feeney, et al, have revealed that they have discovered four statistically unlikely circular patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB). The researchers think that these marks could be “bruises” that our universe has incurred from being bumped four times by other universes. If they turn out to be correct, it would be the first evidence that universes other than ours do exist.

    The idea that there are many other universes out there is not new, as scientists have previously suggested that we live in a “multiverse” consisting of an infinite number of universes. The multiverse concept stems from the idea of eternal inflation, in which the inflationary period that our universe went through right after the Big Bang was just one of many inflationary periods that different parts of space were and are still undergoing. When one part of space undergoes one of these dramatic growth spurts, it balloons into its own universe with its own physical properties. As its name suggests, eternal inflation occurs an infinite number of times, creating an infinite number of universes, resulting in the multiverse.

    These infinite universes are sometimes called bubble universes even though they are irregular-shaped, not round. The bubble universes can move around and occasionally collide with other bubble universes. As Feeney, et al., explain in their paper, these collisions produce inhomogeneities in the inner-bubble cosmology, which could appear in the CMB. The scientists developed an algorithm to search for bubble collisions in the CMB with specific properties, which led them to find the four circular patterns.

    Still, the scientists acknowledge that it is rather easy to find a variety of statistically unlikely properties in a large dataset like the CMB. The researchers emphasize that more work is needed to confirm this claim, which could come in short time from the Planck satellite, which has a resolution three times better than that of WMAP (where the current data comes from), as well as an order of magnitude greater sensitivity. Nevertheless, they hope that the search for bubble collisions could provide some insight into the history of our universe, whether or not the collisions turn out to be real.

    “The conclusive non-detection of a bubble collision can be used to place stringent limits on theories giving rise to eternal inflation; however, if a bubble collision is verified by future data, then we will gain an insight not only into our own universe but a multiverse beyond,” the researchers write in their study.

    This is the second study in the past month that has used CMB data to search for what could have occurred before the Big Bang. In the first study, Roger Penrose and Vahe Gurzadyan found concentric circles with lower-than-average temperature variation in the CMB, which could be evidence for a cyclic cosmology in which Big Bangs occur over and over.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

  2. #2
    Join Date
    Apr 2010
    Location
    Mio, Michigan
    Posts
    416
    Quote Originally Posted by Richard Amiel McGough View Post
    This is relevant to the multiverse hypothesis which some disparage as a desperate "fairy tale" invented to avoid the implications of "fine tuning" that we've been discussing in the thread Why is our universe fine tuned for life?.

    From phys.org: Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist
    Well Richard,

    It's past my bedtime, but if I go to sleep and dream about parallel universes, I'm going to blame you in the morning.

    Goodnight my friend.

    John

  3. #3
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Posts
    2,564
    The idea of multiverse is just that; an idea. The multiverse is at the stage of being an hypothesis. This makes the idea of a multiverse a long way off becoming theory and might never do so. As long as scientists keep coming up with new things to investigate, a reason is given to continue the flow of research money into such projects. The benefits from this research are yet unknown, which is a good excuse for thinking that there might be some benefit to come. One benefit of the multiverse is that it could provide a way for mankind to survive the time when our universe will die. The death of our universe is a scientific conclusion.

    The article posted by Richard has ifs and suggestions, which is why it is likely to lead to heated discussion on this forum. This will polarize the positions of atheists and non-atheists even more, and might even result in demise of the thread; 'Why is our universe fine tuned for life?'

    Richard was right put this article in a thread of its own and not post this in the thread 'Why is our universe fine tuned for life?'. Visitors to this thread after reading the article, are unlikely to contribute as much as I or Richard would like to the other thread. The opposite is likely to occur and that thread will die as the discussion is switched off or degrades to the point where discussion results in verbal stone throwing. This new thread could be a distraction and instead of an aiding the discussion dealing with the one universe and whether it is fine tuned or not, is now going to be complicated by introducing an hypothesis of the multiverse.

    The article does not give information or data and so has not been written to satisfy the needs of a "rational skeptic" of the multiverse hypothesis.

    David

  4. #4
    Join Date
    Jun 2007
    Location
    Yakima, Wa
    Posts
    15,146
    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The idea of multiverse is just that; an idea. The multiverse is at the stage of being an hypothesis. This makes the idea of a multiverse a long way off becoming theory and might never do so. As long as scientists keep coming up with new things to investigate, a reason is given to continue the flow of research money into such projects. The benefits from this research are yet unknown, which is a good excuse for thinking that there might be some benefit to come. One benefit of the multiverse is that it could provide a way for mankind to survive the time when our universe will die. The death of our universe is a scientific conclusion.
    Yes, the multiverse is only a hypothesis at this time. And that's to be expected given its nature. It is on the edge of our knowledge.

    I very much doubt it will give the human race a way to survive the death of this universe, and that wouldn't matter much anyway. We all are going to die, so who cares? If there is another life after this one, I'm more than happy to get on with it. If not, then I won't be there to mourn. So I don't need to worry about the ultimate fate of the human race. It will be whatever it will be. It's certainly beyond any of us.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The article posted by Richard has ifs and suggestions, which is why it is likely to lead to heated discussion on this forum. This will polarize the positions of atheists and non-atheists even more, and might even result in demise of the thread; 'Why is our universe fine tuned for life?'
    There is no need for polarization because we all know that the multiverse is hypothetical. Indeed, there wouldn't be any polarization at all if the theists would be rational about their beliefs and stop asserting things that they don't know to be true. I have no problem with the possibility of a god existing. The problem is when I am told that I must believe the Bible true no matter what it actually says. That's a preconceived restriction that inhibits proper brain function.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    Richard was right put this article in a thread of its own and not post this in the thread 'Why is our universe fine tuned for life?'. Visitors to this thread after reading the article, are unlikely to contribute as much as I or Richard would like to the other thread. The opposite is likely to occur and that thread will die as the discussion is switched off or degrades to the point where discussion results in verbal stone throwing. This new thread could be a distraction and instead of an aiding the discussion dealing with the one universe and whether it is fine tuned or not, is now going to be complicated by introducing an hypothesis of the multiverse.
    I just posted it here to inform folks that some potential evidence for the multiverse exists. I'm not committed to that idea at all. I don't have any idea if it is true or not. I just wanted to present the latest evidence on a topic that has come up in the other thread.

    As for "verbal stone throwing" - I think that is evoked when folks violate the fundamental rules of reason. I'm a bit of a "fundamentalist" when it comes to rationality. It's fine if folks want to believe things with no logic or facts supporting them, but it gets quite tiresome when they violate the rules of logic in an attempt to prove their unfounded beliefs.

    Quote Originally Posted by David M View Post
    The article does not give information or data and so has not been written to satisfy the needs of a "rational skeptic" of the multiverse hypothesis.
    The article does give some information, but it is not intended to convince anyone of anything since the evidence is insufficient to prove anything.
    • Skepticism is the antiseptic of the mind.
    • Remember why we debate. We have nothing to lose but the errors we hold. Who but a stubborn fool would hold to errors once they have been exposed?

    Check out my blog site

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may edit your posts
  •