Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Can the Multiverse Be Tested Scientifically?

Soulskill posted about 3 months ago | from the signs-point-to-no dept.

Space 147

astroengine writes: Physicists aren't afraid of thinking big, but what happens when you think too big? This philosophical question overlaps with real physics when hypothesizing what lies beyond the boundary of our observable universe. The problem with trying to apply science to something that may or may not exist beyond our physical realm is that it gets a little foggy as to how we could scientifically test it. A leading hypothesis to come from cosmic inflation theory and advanced theoretical studies — centering around the superstring hypothesis — is that of the "multiverse," an idea that scientists have had a hard time in testing. But now, scientists at the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics, in Ontario, Canada have, for the first time, created a computer model of colliding universes in the multiverse in an attempt to seek out observational evidence of its existence.

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

String theory is not science (5, Interesting)

Rosyna (80334) | about 3 months ago | (#47493023)

String theory is math, not science.

Re: String theory is not science (0, Troll)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493027)

Science is math.

Re: String theory is not science (2, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493045)

The entire universe is math.

Re: String theory is not science (2, Funny)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493425)

And you can't patent math - awesome, the simple answer to abolishing patents!

/crawls back under rock

Re: String theory is not science (1)

Greyfox (87712) | about 3 months ago | (#47494807)

Pythagoras, is that you?!

A lot of those early mathematicians were a bit on the crazy side, having come to that realization and not having any of the framework for coping with the idea.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495053)

If only we numbered 21, then we could form an equilateral triangle.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495407)

That is a theory. So far measurements and math have not added up. We explain it as measurement errors but so for it has not been proven that math can accurately describe the universe.

Re: String theory is not science (1)

Jason Goatcher (3498937) | about 3 months ago | (#47497139)

Sure it can, we just haven't discovered the formula yet. Even if there's randomness involved that can be described with a formula.

The problem comes when you try to describe things mathematically. Chess has simple rules, even a child can understand them, and yet chess still isn't "solved."

Re: String theory is not science (2)

Concerned Onlooker (473481) | about 3 months ago | (#47495707)

I think that's a little backwards. We have used math to model the universe. The universe is just the universe. It's an impediment to thinking when you mistake the model for the reality.

Re: String theory is not science (2)

Dog-Cow (21281) | about 3 months ago | (#47493053)

But, unlike your post, it is not a non-sequitor.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494379)

The rest of us followed his response. Let me clarify. In math, you learn to recognize when the right side of the equation doesn't make sense. The problem is that we call a sideways 8 infinity, instead of calling it - "rabbit-hole"
For math and science, it's a red pill-blue pill thing.

Here's another non-sequitor. Adding complexity to a problem doesn't make it simpler. Removing causality and trying to sneak it back in doesn't fool anyone.
A multiverse is simply not required if all you are going to do is make shit up.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495327)

Umm....lol wtf are you talking about? Put down the meth pipe, you're all over the place.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495067)

*non-sequitur

I don't think you understand the definition of that term. Hell, you couldn't even spell it.

Re: String theory is not science (3, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493493)

Yeah, but not all math is science. And not everything that possible in math is possible in reality.

Re: String theory is not science (3, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494007)

Yeah, but not all math is science. And not everything that possible in math is possible in reality.

No and no. Math itself does have no connection to reality. Only when it is used to attempt a description of reality. Not all such descriptions have to fit, obviously.

But there's indeed an interesting question: Is there any form of math for which no match to anything in reality exists? Not for a specif application of math (which may not fit), but a specific field of math or a theorem, which has no application to reality?

Reality is limited by reality. Math is not. But does it mean Math > Reality?

Re: String theory is not science (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#47494717)

Is there any form of math for which no match to anything in reality exists? Not for a specif application of math (which may not fit), but a specific field of math or a theorem, which has no application to reality?

Surreal numbers

Re: String theory is not science (4, Funny)

fahrbot-bot (874524) | about 3 months ago | (#47494773)

Is there any form of math for which no match to anything in reality exists? Not for a specif application of math (which may not fit), but a specific field of math or a theorem, which has no application to reality?

Surreal numbers

Congressional accounting.

Re: String theory is not science (1)

DMUTPeregrine (612791) | about 3 months ago | (#47495485)

Also the Banach-Tarski paradox.

Re: String theory is not science (1)

ubrgeek (679399) | about 3 months ago | (#47496381)

> Is there any form of math for which no match to anything in reality exists?

Yes. Standardized tests.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494451)

No it isn't.

Science's language is Math.

Re: String theory is not science (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494697)

Math is a tool science uses to create models. Math isn't empirical, so it's not science.

Re: String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47496103)

No, science presupposes math...

Re:String theory is not science (5, Insightful)

jd (1658) | about 3 months ago | (#47493105)

It's testable, it's measurable, it's repeatable, it's capable of prediction. it's either the simplest model that meets these requirements AND produces correct predictions, OR it is not.

Therefore it is science.

Maths is a science, for the reasons given in the first line. Science is a mathematical system, because ultimately there is nothing there, just numbers. (See: Spinons and other quasiparticles.)

Re:String theory is not science (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493179)

> Maths is a science
> it's measurable, it's repeatable, it's capable of prediction

Nope. Measure -1?

Math isn't knowledge, it's a model. Models aren't science, they are a way to predict it.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

exploder (196936) | about 3 months ago | (#47493901)

Uh, yeah, we can measure -1. The charge of an electron. The distance along the x-axis that I travel when I walk one meter west. The effect on a wave when it encounters an identical one 180 degrees out of phase.

And if negative numbers worry you, this will blow your mind: by all indications, the way things really work, at the quantum level, is unavoidably governed by complex numbers. Don't let that "imaginary" label fool you...those bastards are really real, too. Sorry.

Re:String theory is not science (2, Informative)

Mr. Slippery (47854) | about 3 months ago | (#47494263)

Uh, yeah, we can measure -1. The charge of an electron. The distance along the x-axis that I travel when I walk one meter west. The effect on a wave when it encounters an identical one 180 degrees out of phase.

Not at all. None of those things "are" -1. They are observable phenomena that we tag with the human invention, the word/concept, "-1". Mathematics is not an aspect of objective observable reality, it is a language that we have found useful for describing our observations.

Re:String theory is not science (2)

exploder (196936) | about 3 months ago | (#47494907)

You're right of course. I took the AC to mean that negative quantities don't exist objectively, which is a different issue. I may have misunderstood.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

mark-t (151149) | about 3 months ago | (#47494963)

I think you'll have a considerably harder time convincing yourself that negative numbers don't exist once you finally realize that it's subtraction that doesn't "really" exist.

Re:String theory is not science (3, Informative)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 months ago | (#47495139)

An apple "isn't" 1 either. So by your definition nothing is real, which actually turns out to be true. See also Maya [wikipedia.org] . All science is a model. Our very perception is but a model. "essentially, all models are wrong, but some are useful" [wikipedia.org] . Is math useful? OK, then, it's as real as it gets.

Re:String theory is not science (3, Interesting)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 3 months ago | (#47493251)

No, it's a computer model. A compute model is often (in engineering for example) a conceptual representation of real entities. However in many cases the model is more a conceptual representation of the biases and assumptions of the people who made it, being unreal in that sense. It isn't science and math isn't science either.
The idea that ultimately there's nothing here indicates (though you might not know it) the presence of what Cairns-Smith called "the bomb in the basement of modern physics" and the difference between the thing in itself and the thing as it appears. Physics is good for the latter but has nothing to say about the former.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

medv4380 (1604309) | about 3 months ago | (#47493365)

This hinges on if you believe in one of several mathematical universe hypotheses, or not. As for Cairns-Smith's "bomb" the "feelings" argument presented for it by Cairns-Smith becomes meaningless if feeling, and emotions are simple mathematical constructs of the brain.

Douglas Adams... (2)

careysb (566113) | about 3 months ago | (#47495657)

"Let's be blunt, it's a nasty game" (says The Hitchhikers Guide to the Galaxy), "but then anyone who has been to any of the higher dimensions will know that they're a pretty nasty heathen lot up there who should just be smashed and done in, and would be, too, if anyone could work out a way of firing missiles at right angles to reality."

Re:String theory is not science (1)

DRJlaw (946416) | about 3 months ago | (#47494745)

No, it's a computer model. A compute model is often (in engineering for example) a conceptual representation of real entities. However in many cases the model is more a conceptual representation of the biases and assumptions of the people who made it, being unreal in that sense. It isn't science and math isn't science either.

But it is. Both.

You've confusing hypothesis with observation. This does not purport to be observation. This is an element of the hypothesis -- identifying what sort of tests and observations might be performed, so that the tests can be performed and/or the observations scheduled. Actual tests. Actual observations. Outside of the computer model.

I.e., this is a computer-assistend Gendankenexperiment [wikipedia.org] , similar to other more simple ones which came before which came before.

From TFA:

"Weâ(TM)re trying to find out what the testable predictions of (the multiverse) would be, and then going out and looking for them," said Matthew Johnson of the Perimeter Institute for Theoretical Physics.

"We start with a multiverse that has two bubbles in it, we collide the bubbles on a computer to figure out what happens, and then we stick a virtual observer in various places and ask what that observer would see from there," said Johnson.

So yes, it is science. The fact that you cannot invest 5 minutes of your time to understand it is your flaw, not theirs.

Re:String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493807)

While string theory might be science, maths is not. An most certainly science is not mathematics. I can axiomatize a system where 1+1 = 2 using the Peano axioms. These are all completely true and valid even if in real life 1+1 = 3. Maths simply does not care what happens in real life, it only exists as an extension of logic. The only connection between mathematics and real life is that mathematicians often get inspired by the patterns they see in Nature. This is not dissimilar from painters who often, instead of projecting images from their imaginations alone, in one way or another channel what they see with their eyes in the physical world.

Re:String theory is not science (2)

zr (19885) | about 3 months ago | (#47494829)

Math most certainly isn't a natural science, since it doesnt depend on nature for evidence.

Math most certainly is a science since it does depend on evidence same as any other discipline based on the scientific method.

I modded Rosyna's commend insightful because while technically somewhat inaccurate, she (or he) is making an insightful point that string theory is at this stage of its development is much more about math than about empirical evidence.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

Pino Grigio (2232472) | about 3 months ago | (#47496221)

No it's not testable. I don't know where you get the idea that it is.

Re:String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47496471)

To be pedantic, you can't test math or logic. Both are fictional things that exist inside our heads. We can't even prove if what we experience is actually real. But don't worry, many people have faith in math, even if it can't be proven.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47493947)

Math is a science.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

pigiron (104729) | about 3 months ago | (#47495005)

No. Math is an abstraction. Science is about measuring and explaining actual phenomena. Science may use math to make approximate models of physical reality but is not reality itself.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495427)

Math is one field of applied philosophy. If you try to make it into something else you are doing yourself a disservice.

Re:String theory is not science (1)

ledow (319597) | about 3 months ago | (#47494555)

My university had a school of mathematical sciences, a school of physical sciences, and a school of computer sciences.

If you think that all three are not only completely separate but also not interchangeable in places, then you haven't been taught enough science (of any kind) for an opinion to have much worth.

As a hint, I'm not a physicist. I flunked the physics module that I was required to do as part of my Mathematics & Computer Science degree. I have no need to defend physics. But saying that a theory based on mathematics cannot be science is to misunderstand the scientific purity of mathematics, and the entire point of the sciences all making up one big "science".

Technically, complex numbers do not exist. There are a purely mathematical construct. There is no square root of -1. It's impossible. It cannot and does not exist in our number space. Good luck doing an awful lot of physics without it, before even getting into quantum physics.

And the entirety of quantum physics, I'd like to point out, is basically maths. The fact is that it was maths that we thought HAD to be wrong, because if the maths was right, all this weird shit had to happen - and that we then went and found almost all of that weird shit was actually true in "real life" (i.e. physics) even where it makes hardly any sense to us.

And who figured out the biggest scientific discoveries in physics for the last 100 years? Theoretical physicists. And the primary tool used to do so? Mathematics. At some points, the maths didn't even EXIST and the theoretical physicists had to create the mathematics tool as they went along. So inventing whole new areas of mathematics, that had applications beyond physics.

Sorry, mate... maths is science. Science relies on maths. And off to the side of a lot of science are things that you would never consider "science" because they don't come under what your Science lessons at school taught. One of the biggest of those is Computer Science. Note that this subject DOES NOT INVOLVE any known, branded piece of software or hardware, beyond using them as a tool to find out new things.

Re:String theory is not science (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47496685)

String theory isn't even math, it's alphabet soup with mathematical symbols.

No (4, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493055)

Can the Multiverse Be Tested Scientifically?

You can test specific hypotheses related to how the parts of a multiverse might interact, but no you can't test the general concept of a multiverse since there's nothing inherent to it that requires any detactable phenomena.

My favorite test (0, Offtopic)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 3 months ago | (#47493089)

Yes, quantum suicide [wikipedia.org] . The idea is if you attempt to kill yourself, your consciousness persists only in the subset of universes where the attempt fails, and can become justifiably suspicious that, in its own experience, every effort prove ineffective.

However, I think it is a bit small minded to use this only to test the muiltiverse hypothesis. Given that it's true, why not build a huge robust death chamber which you activate based on, e.g., whether or not you win the lottery, whether or not you quantum tunnel to an alien world, whether or a friend comes by with free pizza.

I admit that cruising the multiverse in a giant suicide chamber is not quite as romantic as other science fiction. . . .

Re:My favorite test (3)

jd (1658) | about 3 months ago | (#47493113)

Wrong multiverse theory. And, indeed, wrong experiment. In fact, the wrongitudinal level of your post is so extreme that it should really be on K5.

Re:My favorite test (0)

physicsphairy (720718) | about 3 months ago | (#47493157)

While the idea was developed with a mind toward the quantum multiverse, the result is effectively the same for any multiverse model which allows for infinite universes. It doesn't really matter whether they are the branching kind or the spatially separated kind.

Re:My favorite test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493443)

K5? Now who's in a different universe.

Re:My favorite test (1)

Ceriel Nosforit (682174) | about 3 months ago | (#47493173)

If I built a similar chamber and got a different lottery number, would I be guilty of causing your 'death'?

Re:My favorite test (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 3 months ago | (#47493369)

According to the theory, you could *both* win the lottery, because the universe would split into two copies.

Re:My favorite test (5, Funny)

Patch86 (1465427) | about 3 months ago | (#47493263)

Correct me if I'm wrong, but this would only "prove" the existence of (that variety of) multiverse in a very small subset of universes.

So, let's say I try to poison myself with a pill from a bottle containing 99 cyanide pills and 1 sugar pill. There is a 99% chance I'll die, and a 1% chance I'll live. So in 1% of all universes, I live. I repeat the expriement multiple times, until only 1 in 1 million universes has a surviving me in. That means that in 0.0001% of universes, a very smug version of me is winning a Nobel prize for proving the existence of the multiverse. In 99.9999% of universes, I am dead and nothing has been proven except that I really shouldn't be allowed access to the lab's supply of cyanide pills.

Re:My favorite test (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493345)

I repeat the expriement multiple times, until only 1 in 1 million universes has a surviving me in. That means that in 0.0001% of universes, a very smug version of me is winning a Nobel prize for proving the existence of the multiverse

No. All you'll have proved, even in those 0.0001% of universes, is that every so often a one in a million chance pays off.

Re:My favorite test (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494243)

Yeah, suppose I have a million sided dice (impressive but maybe it's a virtual dice, anyway we're all convinced it's a fair dice) and I say "I'm going to roll exactly 1,000,000 on this dice", so I roll it and it comes up 1,000,000. You might think "I wish I had luck like that" or you might think "it's obviously rigged somehow" but you're probably not going to think "wow, that proves there's a multiverse!". You can make a bigger dice, 1 trillion sides or whatever, it still doesn't demonstrate that there's a multiverse, just that rare events happen. Which we already know.

Re:My favorite test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493407)

And the version of you that lives would be making a non-scientific philosophical argument.

Re:My favorite test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494307)

That means that in 0.0001% of universes, a very smug version of me is winning a Nobel prize for proving the existence of the multiverse.

There can be only one. When you exit the Nobel ceremony, watch out for those multiverse agents coming to arrest you.

Re:My favorite test (1)

StripedCow (776465) | about 3 months ago | (#47493373)

The problem is that you would probably have to lock the complete universe into your death chamber, because Occam's razor says that the universe has *one* soul.

Re: My favorite test (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494911)

You need to explain your interresting concept further.

Re:My favorite test (1)

Zero__Kelvin (151819) | about 3 months ago | (#47495191)

Occam's Razor says no such thing. What, prey tell, is simple about the idea of one soul? How does it get distributed? Does it grow or shrink with the life and death of living being? There's nothing simple about the proposition it all. If we assume at least one soul then Occams's Razor calls for a one to one correlation of living beings and souls. Indeed, absent the assumption that there is at least one soul, Occam's Razor, if it said anything at all on the subject, would say that there are zero souls. It doesn't get any simple than that.

Re:My favorite test (1)

rubycodez (864176) | about 3 months ago | (#47493911)

a rather foolish test even if the multiverse exists, since you may simply die in all universes. Over one hundred billion humans have existed since 50,000 B.C. but almost all of them are dead. Most humans are dead. One more going into the normal state of most humans doesn't matter and seems very likely.

Re:My favorite test (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47494063)

Seems no different to flipping a coin until you get heads. When you flip heads, stop.

Not quite sure how it provide evidence of anything, though. Someone who flips 10 tails in a row either a) has found themselves in a 10-tail universe with a probability of 1/1024 or b) happens to have flipped 10 tails in a row in the one universe which exists, also with a probability of 1/1024.

Multiverse theory (4, Informative)

jd (1658) | about 3 months ago | (#47493093)

There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested.

Many Worlds: The theory that there are no real "probability waves" in QM, merely overlapping realities that diverge at the time the "waveform" collapses.

This is an easy one. Entangled particles operate using the same physics as wormholes. If one of the entangled pair is accelerated to relativistic velocities, say in a particle accelerator, they will not exist in the same relative timeframe. It would seem to follow that if Many Worlds is correct, one of the particles will be entangled with multiple instances of the other particle, which would imply that every state would be seen at the same time. If the options are left spin and right spin, you'd see an aggregate state of no spin even if no spin isn't a physical possibility. And seeing something that doesn't exist either means you're in a Phineas and Ferb cartoon or Many Worlds is correct.

Foam Universe: This is the sort described in the article.

Yes, impact studies are possible, but they're only meaningful if you have enough data and you can't possibly know if you do. You're better off trying to make a universe, preferably a very small one with a quantum black hole at the throat of the bridge linking this universe to that one. What you will observe is energy apparently vanishing, not existing in any form - mass included, then reappearing as the bridge completely collapses.

Orange Slice Universe: This conjectures that multiple, semi-independent, universes formed out of the same big bang and will eventually converge in a big crunch.

It doesn't matter that this universe would expand forever, left to its own devices, because the total mass is the total mass of all the slices. Although they are semi-independent, they interact at the universe-to-universe level. In this scheme, because there's a single entity (albeit partitioned), leptons cannot have just any of the theoretical states. The state space must also be partitioned. Ergo, if you can't create a state for an electron (for example) that it should be able to take, this type of multiverse must exist.

Membrane-based Universe: This postulates that universes are at an interface between a membrane and something else, such as another membrane.

However, membranes intersecting with the universe are supposed to be how leptons are formed, in this theory. The intersection will be governed by the topology of the membranes involved (including the one the universe resides on), which means that lepton behaviour must vary from locality to locality, since the nature of the intersections cannot vary such as to perfectly mirror variations in the shape of the membrane the universe is on. Therefore, all you need to do is demonstrate a result that is perfectly repeatable anywhere on Earth but not, say, at the edge of the solar system.

Multiverse theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493119)

Studies in Advanced Madness.

Re:Multiverse theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493169)

NEEEEEEEEEERRRRRRRRRRRD!!!!

http://3.bp.blogspot.com/-tZ5DAFGa6fQ/U4kYNKmEAYI/AAAAAAAAJXY/_UAF9p_2OdA/s1600/2431526-4513774994-NERD..png

Re:Multiverse theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493191)

Dude's a fan, not a practicioner. That's a geek. You had 1 job, you failed.

Re:Multiverse theory (1)

Travis Mansbridge (830557) | about 3 months ago | (#47493249)

What happens when two multiverse theories collide?

Re:Multiverse theory (4, Funny)

lister king of smeg (2481612) | about 3 months ago | (#47494593)

What happens when two multiverse theories collide?

We call Walter Bishop and he gives agent Olivia Dunum LSD and puts her in the total immersion tank again...

Re:Multiverse theory (1)

countach (534280) | about 3 months ago | (#47493303)

"There are many multiverse theories and they can all be tested."

Ha ha. You fooled a few people I guess.

"and will eventually converge in a big crunch."

OK, test the big crunch, I dare you.

Not really (4, Informative)

aepervius (535155) | about 3 months ago | (#47493319)

"This is an easy one. Entangled particles operate using the same physics as wormholes. If one of the entangled pair is accelerated to relativistic velocities, say in a particle accelerator, they will not exist in the same relative timeframe. (SNIP)"

That's a misunderstanding of entanglement. There is not per see communication between the particle. When you have an entangled particle there is not one "communicating" the other that it is getting observed. What happens is that *both* particle form a single system with the specific property that when the spin of one particle is measured , the other particle has the anti spin state. Using all sort of relativistic trick on one particle will not do anything whatsoever because there is no communication to the other particle therefor frame of reference do nothing whatsoever.

I dislike the analogy because it does not represent the true nature of QM entanglement , but think of this : you have a red ball and a yellow ball. Put one in a packet at random, keep another one hiddden in a safe on earth. Then send the packet at c speed somewhere. Openning the safe 10 years later will reveal the color of the safe ball and by extent the color of the packet ball no matter how far and that despite not being in the same frame of reference and 10 light years away.
What happens here in entanglement is similar. There is no "teleportation" at c speed of the state of one to the others. Read up on bell's inequality violation.

Re:Not really (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493543)

I'm confused here, can't you keep reading one particle and observing different spins based on when you observed it?

Re:Not really (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | about 3 months ago | (#47493811)

I'm confused here, can't you keep reading one particle and observing different spins based on when you observed it?

Short answer: NO.

Longer answer: measuring state collapses the waveform and every subsequent measurement will be the same.

Disclaimer: I am not a physicist nor do I pretend to be a physicist. These facts established, I am not your physicist, either. If you check back tomorrow, I still will not be a/your physicist.

Re:Not really (1)

MisterSquid (231834) | about 3 months ago | (#47493777)

"This is an easy one. Entangled particles operate using the same physics as wormholes. If one of the entangled pair is accelerated to relativistic velocities, say in a particle accelerator, they will not exist in the same relative timeframe. (SNIP)" That's a misunderstanding of entanglement. There is not per see communication between the particle. When you have an entangled particle there is not one "communicating" the other that it is getting observed. What happens is that *both* particle form a single system with the specific property that when the spin of one particle is measured , the other particle has the anti spin state. Using all sort of relativistic trick on one particle will not do anything whatsoever because there is no communication to the other particle therefor frame of reference do nothing whatsoever. [. . .]

I'm mostly an untutored observer in the domain of Quantum Mechanics, and even I could see the beginner's flaw in the thought experiment for the Many Worlds model.

My best guess is that the OP, understanding the concept of quantum entanglement does not involve communication between particles, is trolling everybody (or just having some fun).

My worst guess is that the OP has gotten so old the OP's mental faculties are slipping and so the OP has achieved subjective immortality [wikipedia.org] but neglected to acquire eternal mental youth.

Re:Multiverse theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494553)

Many Worlds: The theory that there are no real "probability waves" in QM, merely overlapping realities that diverge at the time the "waveform" collapses.

As an interpretation of quantum mechanics, the many worlds interpretative still uses all the same underlying math and makes the exact same predictions. Interpretations are not distinguishable by measurement, and are kind of an extra philosophical layer on top of the science. It is still the same basic theory, unless you add other things to it. The paragraph that followed in the parent post was borderline word salad and had little to no relation to how entanglement behaves.

Re:Multiverse theory (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47494719)

I have nothing critical to say about your post. I am left wondering why people can be so easily deluded by nonsense explanations and false definitions like "collapsing waveforms". Do scientists really think we are that stupid?

just wondering.... (1)

turkeydance (1266624) | about 3 months ago | (#47493143)

1.could there be at least one multiverse with a God? 2. how about an MV where entropy decreases? 3. finally, one where Ilsa stays with Rick?

Re:just wondering.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493159)

Under the current models, all multiverses would have the same laws of physics.

Re:just wondering.... (1)

Snard (61584) | about 3 months ago | (#47493161)

I guess in multiverse #2, Isaac Asimov's story "The Last Question" would have been quite different.

Re:just wondering.... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493207)

> how about an MV where entropy decreases?

some of patterns in Conway's Game of Life?

Yes it can be tested. (1)

Stumbles (602007) | about 3 months ago | (#47493215)

Just use a piece of fairy cake.

Nope (2, Interesting)

countach (534280) | about 3 months ago | (#47493219)

I doubt that there is any possibility to observationally test such a thing, and even if some weird experiment can be devised, I doubt it would really do more than hint at, rather than prove other universes. After all, by definition these other universes are not part of ours, so we can't get at them.

But let's just assume for a minute what is likely, that it can never be proven... Will the pointy headed boffins admit that it is not science, its... well.... something akin to religion really. About as scientific as any religious belief. In which case, shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions? The scientists must admit that certain things could well be true that they can't prove, and that such things are worth talking about in the same breath as "real science", i.e. the things that pretty much everyone admits is true because it is science.

Next time some pseudo intellectual proclaims "that's not science", just remember... neither is a lot of stuff that gets published under the name of science, and which nobody seems to complain about.

Re:Nope (2)

JustNiz (692889) | about 3 months ago | (#47494573)

>> After all, by definition these other universes are not part of ours, so we can't get at them.

I'm not clear how your conclusion necessarily follows from your statement. I'll agree that we probably can't get to them just by changing physical location within our own universe, but that's about it.

Re:Nope (2)

znrt (2424692) | about 3 months ago | (#47494979)

shouldn't we really stop the whining between the scientific and religious factions?

no.

look: if there are scientists (as you say) with blind faith in unprovable beliefs, then they're not being scientific but religious. in this case you are asking to stop the whining between religious factions, and that would be for them to decide. i guess they won't, not because they're religious but because they're factions. religion is ok if (and only if) one limits it's application strictly to oneself.

what these guys are speculating may seem weird but is the effort of theorizing possible explanations for concrete contradictions which need one, because there is a necessity to explain those to progress in our understanding of the world. it's work in progress, sometimes you do have to examine weird possibliities so you eventually find the right track.

classic religion, in contrast, assembles theories equally fantastic which are no necessary explanation for anything (last time i checked), and that makes sense because (most) religion actually doesn't seek to explain, but to people to live happily and stop asking.

if you then throw those "who don't want to know" into factions and confront them then yes, real shit starts to happen, and "whining" is the least concern.

You shouldn't have asked in the headline! (3, Funny)

K. S. Kyosuke (729550) | about 3 months ago | (#47493241)

Don't ask in the headline! You've ruined it for the scientists; now it can't be tested scientifically anymore.

Re:You shouldn't have asked in the headline! (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493333)

Don't ask in the headline! You've ruined it for the scientists; now it can't be tested scientifically anymore.

Google pay 97$ per hour my last pay check was $8500 working 1o hours a week online. My younger brother friend has been averaging 12k for months now and he works about 22 hours a week. I cant believe how easy it was once I tried it out. This is wha I do

Check Freely.... www.MoneyKin.Com

Taking FAMILY GUY way too seriously (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493281)

It's not real. Funny sometimes, still, but not real. And only the dog can hear the baby talk.

Obviously (1)

nospam007 (722110) | about 3 months ago | (#47493353)

You ask Dr. Walter Bishop.

Re:Obviously (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 3 months ago | (#47494101)

First you ask him to put pants on.

Missed Point (1)

Jim Sadler (3430529) | about 3 months ago | (#47493427)

OK, so they seek to find collisions . But there may be endless forms of universes that are incapable of collisions or having any transfer of information or energy between each other. Perhaps thoughts can create a universe that springs into existence in a sort of absolute elsewhere and continues on its own path.

make believe and sell it to the gullible... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493907)

How much salarywise do some of these people who deal with these unprovable makebelieve mental masturbations get ??? and who do they work for as I might have some make believe stuff they also might want to buy...

Arent some of THESE sciencey people also the ones who say God doesnt exist ?? It turns out there is more proof of that then this theorizing they get paid for.

Micromanaging the Cosmos (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47493917)

Now that the enormity of the universe, in what was once an infinite vastness, has been shrunk down in size and creation or big bang within time frame limits of 14 billion years, human groups now hope to micromanage what they do not even know esists, a multiverse? If they could only devise a sustainable management model for life on earth, then they could really celebrate.

Elric? Can you hear? (2)

motorsabbath (243336) | about 3 months ago | (#47494163)

We need to get Michael Moorcock on the red courtesy phone in the lobby - stat!

Even Sheldon Cooper (0)

DogShoes (149641) | about 3 months ago | (#47494427)

knows string theory is bullshit...

Modern physics and understanding of the Universe is perfectly adequate to calculate trajectories but nothing more.

The same can be said for pre-Copernican physics.

As long as Physics continues to confuse Mathematics with reality we'll never get any further than that.

Modern scholars are not great thinkers, they are politicians.

M-Theory and gravity (2)

blincoln (592401) | about 3 months ago | (#47495577)

Ever since I read The Elegant Universe years ago, I've had a number of questions related to this (as I imagine many people have). This is the first time I've seen the topic discussed by professional scientists, though, as opposed to people like myself with a hobby interest in the subject or in science fiction (Alastair Reynolds makes use of it in one of the Revelation Space novels, for example).

For the most part, it seems like String/M-Theory is very difficult (at best) to test using technology we have access to at present. But because it includes the idea of gravity being a force which can travel between branes, it's seemed to me and a few friends of mine that this would definitely produce some interesting effects in the real world.

As the article discusses, there should be some subtle evidence of the effects of gravity from external sources on the large-scale structures of our own universe. I would think maybe even enough to at least partly explain "dark matter" and "dark energy", since those are basically the known matter in our universe behaving as if there were a lot more mass that we can't actually see (one set to hold relatively closely-spaced matter together, and the other to accelerate the expansion of the large-scale structures away from each other, if I understand correctly).

A simple flatland-style analogy for "dark energy" might be that our universe is a sheet of paper which is intersected by a universe which is wrapped around into a tube shape or a torus. The gravity of the mass in that second universe pulls objects in our universe toward it, so for the part of our universe in the "eye" of the tube, they tend to accelerate away from each other. That's a vast oversimplification, but I'm not a physicist :).

For "dark matter", the idea that's always stuck with me since reading The Elegant Universe is that maybe some/all of the most massive objects in our own universe - especially the black holes at the centers of galaxies - are caused by the same kind of cross-brane effect. If you have a bunch of matter clumping together in one brane/universe, and it exerts gravity which can cross into other branes, then it seems like it would create corresponding accretions of mass in other nearby branes. Basically, that what we perceive to be a roughly spherical/point object would effectively be the hyperdimensional equivalent of that same shape that would "pin" itself together across branes.

Where I see this as becoming testable (and I could be wrong - again, I'm not a physicist) is that if this were the case, there should be examples of anomalous astrophysical objects and events, where the mass we observe does not line up with effects we also observe. For example, a stable neutron star suddenly flashing into a black hole when it passes too close (hyperdimensionally, of course) to a large mass in another brane. Another example might be a star or planet whose mass can't be reconciled with its observed size - e.g. maybe there is a planet the size of our moon, but which exerts gravity as if it were made entirely out of a material ten times as dense as uranium.

I know that in the context of our own universe/brane, there's no way to pull matter out of a black hole (other than Hawking radiation), but assuming the "hyperdimensional singularity"-type thing I described above is accurate, would it be possible for the cross-brane components to separate (since they wouldn't actually be touching, just exerting gravity on each other)? If so, there might be even stranger observable effects, like neutron stars that "flash" into black holes, but then return to their former state when the mass in the other brane(s) is pulled too far away. IE they would "blink".

Why didn't I think of that (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495585)

"The problem with trying to apply science to something that may or may not exist beyond our physical realm is that it gets a little foggy as to how we could scientifically test it."

Yeah it gets a LITTLE FOGGY doesn't it? Can't see it can't sense it can't measure it can't go there can't know anything about it because it exists (or doesn't) beyond the knowable universe? Why, create a computer model of it, clearly.

of course it will be tested (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495587)

We build bigger and better quantum computers.

No matter how big, or how fast, every one that we build immediately becomes completely busy doing the work queued by some other universe.

In Ontario, Canada? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495647)

That's like saying the Renaissance Tower is in Texas, USA.

FYI, the Perimeter Institute is in Waterloo, Ontario. The city is home to the University of Waterloo, one of Canada's foremost schools in math, sciences and engineering - no doubt much of the talent at the Perimeter Institute is sourced there.

different laws of nature (1)

flok (24996) | about 3 months ago | (#47495699)

How can you calculate how universe interact when colliding if they have different laws of nature? Maybe the other goes throught the former like a neutrino.

sure (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47495869)

once you step too far outside the observable universe, there is simply a coke machine in the hall.

Infinity of infinity (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47496039)

If a multiverse existed, wouldn't that mean it's infinite? Wouldn't it mean spacetime was infinite?
I mean infinite branches of infinite outcome/decisions... I think spacetime would be full instantly.

A possible explanation. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 3 months ago | (#47496391)

Given infinite time and space - very difficult for humans endowed by evolution to appreciate little more than is required for survival - I always regarded describing the Big Bang as a singularity to be a staggering conceit.
If we had our Big Bang, there must have been an infinite number in an infinite stretch of time and space and therefore our universe is only one of many.
This would also explain why our universe is lop-sided, with positive nuclei and negative electrons, as about half of an infinite number of universes would go each way.
Lacking definitive proof, I've always followed the Okham's Razor logic, but I'm looking forward to more evidence appearing in due course.

Dare to Imagine (1)

lazy genes (741633) | about 3 months ago | (#47496687)

To understand this universe you must try and imagine how things must be like in another universe with different universal laws. String theory will eventually fail, but it is a path that we must follow to get to where we want to go. I have been to the end of that path and realized that the answer I was looking for was right at the beginning (three body systems).
Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?