Wrong....Totally. We are unable to view the whole Universe and never will due to the expansion of spacetime exceeding "c". All I'm hearing is pseudoscience quack named Farsight, who does not even recognise our Hubble volume. Semantics and definitions are just your red herrings. Talk of multi Universes, is accepted by most mainstream cosmologists, although speculative. According to the BB there is just our spacetime, but then again, the BB is only concerned with the evolution of spacetime from a hot dense state from t+10-43 seconds. To speak beyond the BB is speculative, agreed, so at least you have that right. What rpenner probably meant to say, is that despite the mathematical beauty and predictions of string and its derivitives, as yet we are unable to observe at such tiny scales. Heaven and Hell and sweet baby Jesus are not described mathematically and are non scientific explanations anyway. What is rubbish, is your own unscientific view on the fact that any QGT to be validated, we will either need some predictable scenario stemming from it, or to be able to observe at such levels. In all probability any future QGT will still most likely not be observable .
LOL, it's the expansion of space, not spacetime. As ever you don't have a clue what you're talking about, and there you are siding with multiverse woo. You're back on ignore.
Yes, yes, You have told me that before and I have told you that you are wrong.....Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. — Hermann Minkowski, 1908: And since you are unable to read, I did say multiverses was speculative... What you claim as woo, stems from your own interpretive anti maninstream take on SR/GR and the misinterpretations of Einstein. The whole forum recognise that. Oh, and I'm on Ignore??? Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! I'm mortified!!!
What I'm suggesting (merely as a hypothesis) is that other Big Bangs have occurred/are occurring/will occur, but so far away from ours (either spatially or temporally) that there's no way we could observe them. This hypothesis is dependent on the premise that a space-time continuum exists, independently of the existence of any universe(s), which is completely empty of matter and energy except in the places where universes have come into existence--in other words, nothing more than a coordinate system. This is surely not at all what the multiverse proponents are suggesting. Surely you're not suggesting that the Romans, who coined the word universus a couple of millennia ago, knew enough about cosmology that we should base our own cosmological models on a literal definition of the word from the Iron Age. That is certainly one view of cosmology. And of course, no one knows if it's accurate.
The best theory, to this point, for the beginning of this universe is Inflation Theory. Inflation theory predicts inflation events occur eternally into the future. So it predicts a multiverse. There was an attempt to find evidence of this in the CMBR. The experiment didn't find any yet the discussion was to later examine the Planck data for higher resolution. Don't know where this has gone since the examination of the WMAP data. IE: whether that will be done?
What does string theory have to say about the Higgs boson? Is string theory really "in trouble" because of the LHC results? Or if not, why not?
The trouble with that is that I could suggest that angels fairies and unicorns have occurred/are occurring/will occur, but so far away from us (either spatially or temporally) that there's no way we could observe them. It stops being science, and there's no way to disprove it. It doesn't. Space exists, things exist, their motion exists. But spacetime is just an abstract "continuum" for doing the maths. There's no motion in it because it models all times. We don't live in some static block universe, we live in a world of space and motion, the map is not the territory. The universe is everything. There isn't anything else. The trouble with this is that at the fundamental level you can't distinguish energy and space, and a coordinate system is just another abstract thing that doesn't actually exist. Agreed. The word means what it means. Talking about multiple universes is like talking about multiple everythings, it's Humpty-Dumpty physics, and it's nonsense. See Physicist Paul Steinhardt Slams Inflation, Cosmic Theory He Helped Conceive. Inflation is attracting increasing criticism because it's being seen an unscientific and unnecessary, and oh-so-flexible that it can predict anything. Like string theory it's been around for decades and there's no supporting evidence. None at all.
There's a couple of different things that are referred to as the multiverse theory, as I recall. There's the idea that there are multiple universes existing in higher dimensions or whatever. There's also the idea that the big bang has happened more than once and potentially in different ways giving rise to multiple universes, some short lived, some inhospitable, all seperated from us in ways that mean that we might never observe them directly. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! It's worth noting, however, that that does not mean the hypothesis is untestable as many of these hypotheses make other predictions that are testable, providing a means to poke around the edges, so to speak.
String theory recovers the standard model of particles physics in it's domain of applicability. It recovers GR, QM, Inflation, ..... in domain of applicability. Alphanumeric answered the Inflation one for me. Which LHC results? If you're talking about supersymetry then finding or not finding supersymetry doesn't confirm or falsify String theory. To bad AN isn't around to beef up this discussion. Farsight would have to change his underwear.
There's also the conjecture that the structure of our universe may not be the only kind of a universe that's possible. Perhaps it's theoretically possible for a universe to come into existence in which 1+1 does not equal 2, where F does not equal ma, where pV does not equal nRT, and even that if all A's are B's and all B's are C's, that does not automatically rule that all A's are C's. It might be nothing at all like the universe we're (somewhat) familiar with--a completely different set of natural laws--to the extent that we'd have no way of observing it or even knowing that exists. Of course we have no way of knowing whether this is possible, so it remains an extraordinary assertion unsupported by extraordinary evidence, and therefore scientists have no reason to waste their time wondering about it. Yet it seems a little bit like human hubris to assume that what we can see (and experience in other ways) is not only all there is, but all that can ever be. This isn't like religion, which requires us to accept the existence of forces and other phenomena that violate the well-established laws of physics. It's merely a nagging suspicion that there might be more to reality than our own Hubble Volume.
Well it isn't. No I wouldn't. I'd offer hard scientific evidence and robust references and irrefutable logic as ever. You know, the sort of stuff you run a mile from. Phooey. When you come up with a test for the multiverse hypothesis, I'll buy you your ticket to Stockholm.
Science begins with educated speculation. Angels and Unicorns are not educated speculation. Although our knowledge of the Universe/spacetime is vast, as yet we do not know all there is to know, and even our present excellent models are only applicable within set parameters. What may be impossible to disprove today, may not be impossible to disprove or otherwise tomorrow. That is just Farsight musings. The views of space and time which I wish to lay before you have sprung from the soil of experimental physics, and therein lies their strength. They are radical. Henceforth space by itself, and time by itself, are doomed to fade away into mere shadows, and only a kind of union of the two will preserve an independent reality. — Hermann Minkowski, 1908: That's just a plain old cop out based on the old defining meaning of Universe. While our present models have limited areas of applicability, there is always the chance of other spacetimes, other Universes existing beyond those applicable parameters. The trick though as you and some others have difficulty in defining, is what is speculative and what is defined by present models. That remains speculative at least until we have a validated QGT. I do remember you claiming to have a ToE a while back, but I presume now that that claim was just a load of hot air. Not really...It's simply due to the fact that what was previously acknowledged as the "Universe" or "our spacetime", was somewhat limited by the lack of knowledge at that time. What we really know as "Humpty Dumpty"physics is more akin to you claiming to have a ToE, and defying all and sundry over your other claim that "c" is not constant as generally referred to. Nice link......Revealing Interview....:shrug: Let me say that as a respected physicist/cosmologist, [Paul Steinhardt, not you Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!] his opinion is something that needs to be considered, and I'm sure it will. But it's also worth remembering that another respected cosmologist, Fred Hoyle, was pushing "Steady State" until the day he died. Can I reproduce a part of the interview you linked to? "Horgan: Have you gotten any blowback for your criticism? Steinhardt: For the most part, the discussion has been civil and intellectual. It has been fascinating to hear the variety of views. Horgan: Witten thinks string theory is still “on track” and represents physicists’ best hope for a unified theory. Comment? Steinhardt: I share Edward’s view that string theory represents our best hope at present for a unified theory. However, I think success requires that the string landscape issue be resolved and that we find some empirical evidence for supersymmetry". I hope you notice that he still supports String theory, that which you have no faith or confidence in. Of course though you have me on ignore, so maybe you are of the opinion that no one else will notice your little rather Ironic faux pas. The Interview then goes on and discusses what Professor Steinhardt own view entails....... Horgan: What is your cyclic model of the universe? Is it falsifiable? Steinhardt: The cyclic model emerged when my collaborators and I asked the question: is there any way of explaining the smoothness and flatness of the universe and small ripples in density without inflation? The answer was yes: the key is to have a universe in which the big bang is replaced by a big bounce. In this picture, the present period of expansion and cooling is preceded before the bounce by an epoch of contraction, and the important events that shape the large-scale structure of the universe (smoothing, flattening and generating fluctuations) occur before the bounce during a period of slow contraction. There is no high-energy inflation phase – the universe goes straight from the bounce into a period of slow expansion and cooling. Inflation is not needed to smooth and flatten the universe. Consequently, there is no multiverse. So now even you should be able to see that all this is, is science in action.....discussing speculative scenarios of which we do not have a complete knowledge of as yet. If his "cyclic model" was shown to be valid, that in itself would not invalidate our present standard BB model and the parameters of applicability that the BB entails.....It just extends those same parameters of applicability. This is what I meant about realizing the differences between "accepted evidenced based mainstream cosmology", "logical extended speculative hypothetical scenarios" and your own "Humpty Dumpty" physics of denying the accepted consistency of "c", your confusion about what is accpeted as space, time, and spacetime, and your application of redundant semantics and meaning to Universe. Hope that helps.
The first sentence of this wiki sums it up nicely. http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kaluza–Klein_theory Actually the 2nd paragraph answers your query in some detail.
We wouldn't be stuck with you for awhile while you lick your wounds. Your correspondence with AN was a joke. Just like it is with Pado and everybody else.
The correct phrasing of this sentiment is that you have not seen, despite asking, any independent evidence of Farsight's claim. Farsight's otherwise unsupported claim that he does have a ToE, by which you mean a single precise predictive framework for describing all observed phenomena in the history of observation, is in fact evidence that such a ToE is in the possession of Farsight. Like a witness reporting he had occasion to spy Russell's teapot, it is evidence of existence. By the (US) Federal Rules of Evidence, "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Since less than half of everyone is assumed a priori to possess a ToE, Farsight's claim and Bayesian probability theory can be used to argue that there is a tendency for the fact of the ToE's existence to be somewhat more probable than if Farsight did not so claim. A contrary argument might be that a ToE is so rare and differentially economically valuable to possess and impossible to protect with intellectual property laws so that anyone who did possess a ToE would conceal that possession in favor of private exploitation and so the claim by Farsight weighs against the fact of the existence of the ToE. But is Farsight's claim relevant to this thread? "Irrelevant evidence is not admissible." Even if relevant, Farsight's claim may not be admissible, because it was not sworn testimony and because no one accepts him as an authority. "Before testifying, a witness must give an oath or affirmation to testify truthfully. It must be in a form designed to impress that duty on the witness’s conscience." Further, witnesses are bound to answer to cross-examination. But only, court-certified authorities (expert witnesses) may testify that a collection of writings constitutes a ToE, which is necessarily an expert opinion because they writings must be compared to the behavior of phenomena to know if it possesses the least shred of viability as of model of the behavior of this universe. "A witness who is qualified as an expert by knowledge, skill, experience, training, or education may testify in the form of an opinion or otherwise if: (a) the expert’s scientific, technical, or other specialized knowledge will help the trier of fact to understand the evidence or to determine a fact in issue; (b) the testimony is based on sufficient facts or data; (c) the testimony is the product of reliable principles and methods; and (d) the expert has reliably applied the principles and methods to the facts of the case." So on that basis, Farsight's mere claim is only admissible evidence that he claimed such a thing, not that there actually is a ToE in his possession. IANAL.
Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! OK! Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
Trippy This is the paper I mentioned where an experiment to find evidence of the Eternal Inflating multiverse was conducted with the WMAP data. http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.3667v2
