Slashdot Mirror
First Observational Test of the "Multiverse"
An anonymous reader writes "The theory that our universe is contained inside a bubble, and that multiple alternative universes exist inside their own bubbles – making up the 'multiverse' – is being tested observationally by UK physicists, who are searching for disk-like collision patterns in the cosmic microwave background (CMB) radiation. Though CMB is generally thought of as a uniform schmear of radiation extending in all directions in our universe, in fact, they say if a multiverse exists, there ought to be imprints trapped in the muck like footprints of where our universe banged into others."
in this universe at least.
If universes can physically interact with each other, can each really be called a "Universe"?
How can I believe you when you tell me what I don't want to hear?
goatse
Or maybe you just don't what what you're talking about, and think that playing a public game of semantics is a suitable replacement for knowledge.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
You know, my 11-year-old son said something kind of interesting last night, on this subject. This month's article in Scientific American is about multiverse theories, and he asked me (paraphrase), "If the universe is contained among a bunch of other universes, and the universe is expanding, isn't it possible that the other universes are exerting pressure on our universe as it's expanding?"
I'd never really thought about that before, and it may be an unanswerable question (along the lines of, "what are the multiverses contain in"), but I thought that was an intriguing thought.
Sometimes it's best to just let stupid people be stupid.
No, not verify. You can only say that the tiny amount of observation we've directed at the hypothesis is consistent or inconsistent with it.
Wow, you're just making it up now. Typical Libertarian. Go back to jerking off to pictures of Ron Paul, and leave serious historical and economic analysis to people who don't treat politics and economics like some sort of a religious statement.
The world's burning. Moped Jesus spotted on I50. Details at 11.
I am going to make the assumption that you are living in the US (based on your other posts.)
Considering that the summary says that "UK Physicists" are researching this, my guess is that neither you nor I are paying for this as a US taxpayer.
Just finished reading The Hidden Reality by Brian Greene, a respected string theorist. He explicitly mentions mining the CMB data for exactly this kind of observation.
You've now proven you know nothing about physics, economics, or American history. That's quite an accomplishment for one thread.
You're assuming that the abilities that make for a good cosmologist are the same as those of a good climatologist, politician, or genetic/agricultural engineer. They're not.
I was expecting this kind of comment. You fell into my trap! Muahahaha! :)
Now, seriously, Karl Popper is a late guest in the show. There are two lines of thought, verificationism and falsationism (Popper and its following). The first one states that you must verify your hypothesis with experiments. Those experiments, though, are nothing more than steps in an endless stair of confirmation. Popper said that scientists should aim for the opposite, that is, you can't verify but you can falsify, and Science's objective (with capital "s") should be to keep trying to falsify hypothesis.
It doesn't matter in the end with which epistemological view you adhere, as they are two sides of the same coin. If you are a verificationist, you keep doing experiments that will verify your hypothesis until you find one that doesn't. If you are a falsationist, you keep doing experiments that will falsify your hypotesis while you wait for the one that succeed in doing that. Either way, you keep on testing: that is the essence of the scientific knowledge.
I rarely respond to comments. Also, don't ask for clarifications: a brain and Google are faster, believe me!
Look,
If you wanted to observe multiple universes, I wish you'd have asked me earlier, mate. I'd have introduced you to my neighbour, Benny "The Shroom" Colforth.
"Flyin' in just a sweet place,
Never been known to fail..."
'universe' comes from Latin words meaning something like "rolled into one". 'University' for example, was originally a synonym for 'guild'. Students in Bologna, Italy, in the Middle Ages formed a guild or university to have bargaining power with tradesmen, landlords, and teachers. The idea caught on and that's how European Universities got started.
So, 'multiverse' could mean 'rolled into many', which to me doesn't seem too far off the mark the way it's applied. Anonymous coward says he (or she or it) prefers 'cosmos' for a space time continuum. The word originally meant 'order' and was in opposition to 'chaos'. (According to the wikipedia, so it's almost certainly true.) It doesn't lend itself to a hierarchical terminology though, does it?
I think it's more productive to say we have a universe, all rolled up into a bundle, but there are other bundles out there, forming a multiverse in the cosmos, which may have come forth from a primordial chaos. But that's me.
In theory, theory and practice are the same; in practice they're different. (Yogi Berra & A. Einstein)
Others worked on more pressing problems, like preventing catastrophic global warming, trying to avoiding using the remaining oil by fighting over it and making sure we are all fed.
Sure, let's throw astrophysicists at economic problems. That's not inefficient and dumb at all. But, wait, we can head that problem off by forcing anyone who wants to be an astrophysicist to instead study something more practical. It's not like exploring esoteric physics has ever resulted in practical applications and the advancement of human well-being. /SARCASM
All that is necessary for the triumph of good is that evil men do nothing.