Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Martin Rees On The Multiverse, Scientific Research & Reality

Posted by Hemos on from the life-the-universe-and-everything dept.

There's an interesting piece by Martin Rees about the nature of the Uni/Multiverse, as well as some of the underlying mechanics. Also, a good bit on the nature of scientific research. You can get the text or the Real version. Good stuff.

4 of 169 comments (clear)

  1. Multiverse theories scientific? by Dale+Dunn · · Score: 5, Interesting
    What is the basis for multiverse theories? Is there anything in observed physics to indicate their possible existence? Is there any data pointing to a multiverse other than the fact that the idea of existence having a finite beginning is "philosophically repugnant".

    If multiverse theories are based on philosophical preference rather than observed data, are not multiverse theories then properly classified as philosophical or metaphysical rather than scientific? Is there any conceivable test that could prove the existence of another universe? If not, then it seems multiverse theories should be published in philosophical journals, and certainly should not be classified as scientific, since science can neither prove nor disprove them.

    This author may be a brilliant scientist, but I think we should keep in mind that he's speculating outside the realm of science.

    1. Re:Multiverse theories scientific? by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      People say that the interference patterns created by single photons, electrons (or even atoms) in two slit experiments constitute "obsverved physical data." Wave/particle duality is another way of saying that we have evidence of many worlds, but don't want to admit it. Quantum collapse is also evidence, showing you can't directly look at one universe from another. These things have been shown over and over.

      I suppose it might be evidence of something else, but what?

      David Deutsch says that if (when) quantum computers get above a few hundred qubits (they're at seven? now), that will also constitute proof, as the calculations that they will do will require more steps than there are atoms in the visible universe.

      Etc.

  2. philosophy by YllabianBitPipe · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Here's my 2 cents worth of amateur philosophy on this subject.

    I think multiple universes is highly likely because each time people have thought our existence is "special" or "one of a kind" we've been proven wrong. For example, the earth is NOT the center of the universe. Neither is the sun the center of the galaxy, neither is our galaxy the center of the universe etc. etc. There are a multitude of other planets, stars and galaxies in the universe. It is no hard leap to see that our universe is likely not special in any particular way and is not likely the only universe.

    I also do not buy into these recent claims that the universe, life on earth or anything on it in particular smacks of some "design" or pre-meditated intent by some creator. One good example is the huge amount of distances between stars and planets. Space travel from here to some other star will likely not happen for thousands of years, not only due to the distance but that speed of light thing. So, I really think if this universe was created for the intent of life, things would be moving along quite a bit quicker (not on the order of trillions of years) and any life would be spaced a bit closer together. What we have here seems to be a really, really, really dull version of the SIMS where your neighbors are trillions of miles away, and your SIMS take millions of years to step outside. If there's a god out there, he's a really boring guy.

    So the only explanation I have for life is that with an infinite amount of universes and planets, the odds are SOMETHING will happen on one infitesimally tiny part of one of them. That something in the larger scheme of things has about the significance of a blip of nothing in nothingness. And that blip is us. That doesn't sound like divine intervention to me.

  3. Re:Martin Reese is... by Merovign · · Score: 3, Interesting

    Interesting.

    If you are bothered by religion, you will be bothered a great deal. You can either seek offense at it, or swim past it. Don't worry about it.

    This message is for those who are either religious or irreligious and find themselves offended by the other.

    On the other hand, if Martin Reese was at your window with a bullhorn trying to convert you, then you are right to be offended. If that is the case, I apologize for intruding in the conversation.

    I say these things largely because, in my teens, I was what you might call an "Atheist Fundamentalist." In other words, from my doubt of religion flowed a certain rudeness and a desire to get my word in on the subject wherever possible.

    For the most part, such things do not bother me now. You might say I have mellowed (few would believe you).

    P.S. I am glad you have faith that there is a logical explanation. I do as well.