Advertisement

Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Tuesday, April 23, 2024

Meeting at London's Royal Society will scrutinise basic model first formulated in 1922 that universe is a vast, even expanse with no notable features

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

More from the article...

... If you zoomed out on the universe, well beyond the level of planets, stars or galaxies, you would eventually see a vast, evenly speckled expanse with no notable features. At least, that has been the conventional view.

The principle that everything looks the same everywhere is a fundamental pillar of the standard model of cosmology, which aims to explain the big bang and how the universe has evolved in the 13.7bn years since.

But this week a meeting of some of the world's leading cosmologists will convene at London's Royal Society to ask the question: what if this basic assumption is wrong? ...


#1 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-22 12:18 AM | Reply

Another view...

Physicists Think The Infinite Size of The Multiverse Could Be Infinitely Bigger
www.sciencealert.com

... Not only does God play dice, that great big casino of quantum physics could have far more rooms than we ever imagined. An infinite number more, in fact.

Physicists from the University of California, Davis (UCD), the Los Alamos National Laboratory in the US, and the Swiss Federal Institute of Technology Lausanne have redrawn the map of fundamental reality to demonstrate the way we relate objects in physics could be holding us back from seeing a bigger picture.

For about a century, our understanding of reality has been complicated by the theories and observations that fall under the banner of quantum mechanics. Gone are the days when objects had absolute measures like velocity and position.

To understand the fabric from which the Universe is made, we need mathematics that breaks down games of chance into likely measures.

This is far from an intuitive view of the Universe. In what has come to be known as the Copenhagen Interpretation of quantum physics, it seems there are waves of possibility until there isn't. Even now, it's not at all clear what ultimately decides the fate of Schrdinger's cat.

That hasn't stopped physicists from considering the options. American physicist Hugh Everett suggested in the 1950s that all possible measures constituted their own reality. What makes this one special is merely the fact you happen to be observing it.

Everett's 'many worlds' model isn't quite a theory so much as a way of grounding the absolute weirdness of quantum mechanics in something tangible.

We start with an impression of the infinite multiverse of maybes, or what physicists might refer to as the sum of all energies and positions known as a global Hamiltonian, and then zoom in on what interests us, constraining the infinite within a finite and far more manageable Hamiltonian subsystem. ...


#2 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-22 12:20 AM | Reply

imo, the multi-verse is an interesting thing.

But, don't get me started....

:)

#3 | Posted by LampLighter at 2024-04-22 12:22 AM | Reply

I thought the cosmic background radiation map put this to rest years ago?

#4 | Posted by jpw at 2024-04-22 10:09 AM | Reply

The universe didn't exist a hundred years ago.

#5 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-04-23 01:21 AM | Reply | Funny: 3

#4 that was only in this specific universe, in others in the multiverse it did not.

#6 | Posted by kwrx25 at 2024-04-23 10:24 AM | Reply

Questioning is good. It is fundamental to science. It
is good to return to the drawing board now and then to reexamine
old data, when new data appears.

#7 | Posted by earthmuse at 2024-04-24 06:43 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

#2

god does not play dice.

In order to play dice, you have to exist. god does not exist.

#8 | Posted by DarkVader at 2024-04-24 09:28 AM | Reply

#8 | POSTED BY DARKVADER AT 2024-04-24 09:28 AM | FLAG:

Infinities are hard for the human mind to grasp. In a truly infinite universe, or even more, an infinite of universes in a multiverse, then somewhere in time among them there is a being we would only be capable of perceiving as a god.

IF it's infinite.

And of course, there's always the simulation hypothesis, in which case there's also a god, just with extra steps and computers. But then it's possibly turtle gods, all the way up and down.

Either way - to the article itself, it's always fascinating when we find things we don't understand in the universe. Especially for the physicists that need to come up with new theories.

#9 | Posted by zeropointnrg at 2024-04-24 02:48 PM | Reply

"The universe didn't exist a hundred years ago."

#5 | POSTED BY LEGALLYYOURDEAD

It's true. We thought there was only our galaxy until Edwin Hubble figured it out.

www.esa.int

"In October 1923, using the Hooker telescope, Hubble spotted what he first thought was a nova star flaring up dramatically in the Andromeda 'nebula'. After careful examination of photographic plates of the same area taken previously by other astronomers, he realised that it was a particular kind of variable star, known as a Cepheid, which could be used to measure distance.

It showed Hubble that Andromeda was far away " a million light-years at least " and so was outside the Milky Way. Thus it was a galaxy in its own right, containing billions of stars.

This discovery was a breakthrough, but Hubble's greatest moment was yet to come. He began to study and classify all the known nebulae. In 1929 he made a startling find: most galaxies seemed to be receding from us with velocities that increased in proportion to their distance from us. This relationship is now known as Hubble's Law."

#10 | Posted by LegallyYourDead at 2024-04-24 03:55 PM | Reply

"There is zero evidence for other universes. So the biggest misconception about the multiverse is that it's a bone fide theory that's been proven.

"It isn't - it doesn't really have a mathematical basis - it is a collection of ideas," said Lewis.

"In the cycle of science it remains at the hypothesis stage and needs to become a robust proposition before we can truly understand the consequences."

www.forbes.com

#11 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-24 04:39 PM | Reply

"There is zero evidence for other universes."

Oh so it's on the same footing as G-d.

That's good enough for some of you! (:

#12 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-24 06:10 PM | Reply

12

There are, arguably, better arguments for the existence of God than there are for a lot of other things, including multiverses.

Here's a brief one now, recorded at the Oxford Union by a leading scholar of pure mathematics, that you won't listen to:

www.youtube.com

#13 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-24 06:33 PM | Reply

Does one doubt the existence of the universe we live in?

Of course, like all arguments, it comes down semantics and the parameters we set in our definitions.

If we truly define God or Universe to be infinite on all scales, the there is no room for other Gods or Universes, by definition.

Beyond that, we're getting into the nuance of upper-case and lower-case versions of these things.

#14 | Posted by sentinel at 2024-04-25 08:38 AM | Reply

"There are, arguably, better arguments for the existence of God than there are for a lot of other things, including multiverses."

Not really. Not logical arguments based in empirical observation.

Your video says

"They saw no contradiction between faith in G-d and the utmost excellence in rational inquiry."

Neither do I, because those are orthogonal vectors with no bearing on one another.

Nothing changes in this world, if G-d exists, or doesn't. It's not a serious topic of debate.

#15 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 10:27 AM | Reply

It is absurd for the Evolutionist to complain that it is unthinkable for an admittedly unthinkable God to make everything out of nothing, and then pretend that it is more thinkable that nothing should turn itself into everything.

-Chesterton

#16 | Posted by lee_the_agent at 2024-04-25 12:33 PM | Reply

I didn't make the claim that something came from nothing.

Let me know when you're able to understand that.

#17 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 12:54 PM | Reply

X cannot create X, where X is the material universe.

Where X is a non-material being, then Y as the material universe could be created.

www.youtube.com

(you can click More and then Transcript if you'd rather read it
Lennox is an Oxford Prof specializing in pure mathematics)

#18 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-25 01:03 PM | Reply

"X cannot create X, where X is the material universe."

Why not?

#19 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:04 PM | Reply

"X cannot create X, where X is the material universe."

Again:
The universe cannot create itself.
The universe exists.
Therefore, G-d created the universe!

Is a false syllogism.

#20 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:06 PM | Reply

"X cannot create X, where X is the material universe."

Again:

I don't make any claims about the creation of the universe.

You do. With zero evidence to support it.

#21 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:07 PM | Reply

X gon give it to ya!

#22 | Posted by ClownShack at 2024-04-25 01:10 PM | Reply

"X cannot create X, where X is the material universe."

Is G-d part of the universe?

If you're telling me G-d is not part of the universe, then you must agree with the following:

Nothing changes in this universe, if G-d exists, or does not.

#23 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:10 PM | Reply

- a false syllogism.

A hypothesis.

As in any science, we might ask how something we observe could exist. We observe a material universe that could not create itself, and propose that it could be created by something non-material.

Because as any mathematician will tell you, X cannot create itself.

And your answers are at the link, Grassnoofer.

The claims you make are that anyone who disagrees with your OPINION is being, "absurd".

Just as any fundamentalist does.

#24 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-25 01:43 PM | Reply

"- a false syllogism."
"A hypothesis"

Not a hypothesis, because you don't have a way to test it.

#25 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:46 PM | Reply

"We observe a material universe that could not create itself, and propose that it could be created by something non-material."

^
Calling that something G-d, which is what you are proposing, is just a god of the gaps argument.

#26 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:47 PM | Reply

If you're telling me G-d is not part of the universe, but rather exists apart from it, then you must agree with the following:
Nothing changes in this universe, if G-d exists, or does not.

^
What's your response to this?

#27 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 01:51 PM | Reply

#27

lol... you make a lot of assumptions, mostly false ones.

But hey, that does keep you from having to look at the info presented you in the links you've been given.... which you would check out on any other subject.

All I really hear are the same old "New Atheist" arguments that haven't gotten any better with age.

We have different opinions on this subject, but I know mine are opinions, beliefs, faiths.

You say those are, 'absurd', because you appear to have certainty that you know the truth. And it's no fun debating people who are fundamentalists, as you can see from politics.

My response, however, is that meaning in the form of the Laws of Physics, and in the fine-tuning of the universe, which can be found in almost every new discovery we make in the cosmology, suggests meaning which suggests mind.

#28 | Posted by Corky at 2024-04-25 02:27 PM | Reply

"My response, however, is that meaning in the form of the Laws of Physics, and in the fine-tuning of the universe, which can be found in almost every new discovery we make in the cosmology, suggests meaning which suggests mind."

A suggestion of a suggestion.

That's not a testable hypothesis.

Stop lying about what you are proposing, because it's deeply unscientific.

Also, the fine tuning of the universe is --------- non-starter of a concept. You have no other universe to compare it against, to see how well it's been "tuned." The claim that anything has been tuned is simply not a claim you can test, therefore it's unscientific, and can be dismissed as such.

#29 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 02:51 PM | Reply

Your boy in #18 says:

"What I am amazed at is that serious thinkers today continue to ask us to choose between God and science"

I'm not asking you to choose.

I'm saying they are different and unrelated, like what's for lunch and what movie will I watch.

Your "fine tuning" conflates the two -- G-d tuned the universe, and Science is the process learning how.

You deny the choice. You want both choices to have the same answer. You want belief in G-d to be right, and you want science to show just how right it is.

#30 | Posted by snoofy at 2024-04-25 04:32 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2024 World Readable

Drudge Retort