How Deep Does the Multiverse Go?

It's turtles all the way down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:02 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's turtles all the way down.

Re:It's turtles all the way down by gumbright · 2014-07-13 07:22 · Score: 0

I guess I should be happy this was the obvious response. I would have added a "...duh".
Re:It's turtles all the way down by Mikkeles · 2014-07-13 10:19 · Score: 4, Insightful

But, is it turtles all the way up?

--
Great minds think alike; fools seldom differ.
Re:It's turtles all the way down by Shaman · 2014-07-13 15:20 · Score: 2

MIND. BLOWN.

--
...Steve
Re:It's turtles all the way down by davester666 · 2014-07-13 20:04 · Score: 1

obviously not, as we are on top.

--
Sleep your way to a whiter smile...date a dentist!
Re:It's turtles all the way down by DarthVain · 2014-07-14 01:47 · Score: 3, Funny

It's turtles everywhere!
That extra mass everyone is talking about? Dark Turtles.
Re:It's turtles all the way down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 02:24 · Score: 0

"I like turtles!"
Re:It's turtles all the way down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 03:38 · Score: 0

And they are teenagers! And mutant! And ninjas too!
Re:It's turtles all the way down by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 03:52 · Score: 0

You bet your sweet ass it is.
Re:It's turtles all the way down by steelfood · 2014-07-14 11:39 · Score: 1

No, they're just hiding. Like ninjas.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

Many worlds by Livius · 2014-07-13 07:03 · Score: 5, Funny

In one version of reality, this is a first post!

Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:12 · Score: 0

Not this one, though.
Re:Many worlds by istartedi · 2014-07-13 07:27 · Score: 1

Except in the one where you posted saying it wasn't, but were mistaken because it actually was. That might not be too far from the one where I'm GWB, a frequent Slashdot poster. It's interesting to ponder the concept of what "infinity" really means when you consider all the possibilities on some mundane thing like that.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Many worlds by kruach+aum · 2014-07-13 07:28 · Score: 1

That depends on your concept of identity across worlds. Surely the first post in another multiverse cannot be entirely identical to one in this one, as it exists in a different multiverse, not this one. Furthermore, it also differs from "this" post in that it is first in reply to the article posted on Slashdot*, or /.*. It also differs in that it wasn't made by you, but you*, who further differs from you in such a way that allows him to make that first post where you failed. If you're already so different from you* as to fail where he succeeded, it would stand to reason that any post made by you* is sufficiently different from posts made by you that they do not qualify for identity. In which case, there really is no universe in which your post was the first post.
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:35 · Score: 1, Funny

in one version of reality, "first" means "second". In another version, "first" means "small" and "post" means "penis".
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:45 · Score: 1

Seems you misunderstand infinity. It does not mean that everything (or anything) which is possible is somewhere actual or true.
Just imagine an infinite amount of worlds where everything is the same except for one thing which happens in infinite variations. For example, in this world I am "Anonymous Coward", in another "Anonymous Poster", in another "Nameless Coward", in yet another just "Anonymous", etc... There are an infinite worlds, yet in none of those you're GWB.
Re:Many worlds by istartedi · 2014-07-13 07:56 · Score: 2

What is your criterion for restricting the variations? Why are "Anonymous Coward" and "Anonymous Poster" possible, but not "XFFSF Poster" and GWB as an active Slashdot user?

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:45 · Score: 0

In another, this wouldn't be just more medium.com linkspam.
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:52 · Score: 0

In a parallel universe, my posts are very witty.
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:16 · Score: 0

In a similar way, there is no universe in which you are fun at parties.
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-13 09:34 · Score: 4, Insightful

You've missed the point.
Try a different example. Consider that there are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1. While infinite, none of those values will be 2.
If that's not to your liking, consider something like Penrose tiling where a pattern formed from just two shapes can tile infinitely without repeating.
See, when you ask:

What is your criterion for restricting the variations?
There need not be any such criterion. See, just because a thing is possible does not mean it will necessarily be actualized even given an infinite number of universes.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Many worlds by TapeCutter · 2014-07-13 10:28 · Score: 1

There are an infinite worlds, yet in none of those you're GWB
At least that explains why in this universe GWB doesn't punch himself in the face every now and then.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 12:55 · Score: 0

It doesn't mean otherwise either. The fact is it is unknowable and every idea that anyone has about multiverses is speculation. GP's speculation is just as valid as yours.
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-13 13:27 · Score: 1

No, it's not.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 14:16 · Score: 0

Yes, it is. You have no more evidence (ie. zero) than anyone else does on the topic.
Re:Many worlds by istartedi · 2014-07-13 16:08 · Score: 1

OK, you've done a good job now of explaining what you mean; but my possibility is just as valid as yours. Maybe the multiverse has to include numbers beyond 1.0, and maybe it doesn't.
Maybe it's an infinite set full of bizarre possibilities, and maybe it's an infinite set full of subtle variations on our known theme. We just. Don't. Know.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-13 16:58 · Score: 1

but my possibility is just as valid as yours.
You've still missed the point.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Many worlds by istartedi · 2014-07-13 17:11 · Score: 1

You've still missed the point.
No I haven't. If we were discussing the set of prime numbers and I said "how about six" you could say, "No, because it's divisible by 2 and 3". The set of prime numbers is an infinite set with well known restrictions.
We're discussing alternative universes. If I say, "How about the one where I'm GWB?" You have nothing to say because this discussion started with the premise, and ONLY the premise that alternative universes are an infinite set. There were no other criteria specified. I submit that in the absence of such criteria not only may we speculate on all possibilities, we must.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-13 22:09 · Score: 1

The point was that in infinity does not necessitate every possibility. There is no compelling reason to believe otherwise.

I submit that in the absence of such criteria not only may we speculate on all possibilities, we must.
Again, we have absolutely no reason to suspect that every potentiality is actualized. We do, however, have reason to suspect that it's not.
The AC said:

Seems you misunderstand infinity. It does not mean that everything (or anything) which is possible is somewhere actual or true.
Which should be obvious to you by now. It's trivial, after all, to describe an infinity of universes without assuming every potentiality is actualized. (On an interesting note, it is also possible to describe a plurality of universes in which every potentiality is actualized that is not infinite.)
This is very simple.

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 22:27 · Score: 0

Parent AC here, but narcc has been explaining my point well.
The criterion is: *I* have infinite names (GWB may or may not be one of them, it does not matter), so there are infinite worlds. *You* are still "istartedi" in all of these infinite worlds. So having an infinite number of worlds does not mean there is at least one in which you are GWB.
Don't worry, you are in good company: Friedrich Nietsche made the same error.
Re:Many worlds by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 23:04 · Score: 0

Prove it.
Re:Many worlds by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 03:33 · Score: 1

If he were the first poster, he wouldn't have had the thought to point out that he wasn't the first poster. Hence, if he still posted a comment, it wouldn't have had the same content and thus could not be considered to be *that* comment above.
Unless if he hallucinated that there was already a comment somehow when there wasn't, I suppose.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Many worlds by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 03:36 · Score: 1

See, just because a thing is possible does not mean it will necessarily be actualized even given an infinite number of universes.
Isn't it a mathematical axiom that any event with a >0 probability of occurring, given infinite trials, has a likelihood 1 of occurring?

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-14 04:19 · Score: 1

Nope

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Many worlds by istartedi · 2014-07-14 05:27 · Score: 1

Let's cycle back to what I said in the first place:
That might not be too far from the one where I'm GWBM
Do you see the word might in there?
You and a lot of other people incorrectly read that as must, hence you are arguing against something I never said, namely that infinity necessitates all possibilities. I got caught up in it a bit myself, going off on how unconstrained infinity may include all possibilities until proven otherwise, which I maintain is true.
Fact is, this whole thread actually seems to be an inference problem. There was of course, no way I could have headeed it off at the pass, I must invoke my un-named "rule" at this point:
Inference is broken

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Many worlds by steelfood · 2014-07-14 11:47 · Score: 1

Consider that there are an infinite number of values between 0 and 1. While infinite, none of those values will be 2.

just because a thing is possible does not mean it will necessarily be actualized even given an infinite number of universes.
One statement does not follow the other. 2 cannot exist between 0 and 1. It is impossible. So your example is not relevant to the point you're trying to make.
If something is possible, it is probable. Given an infinite number of universes, the probable is reality in at least one (but likely more than one) of them. You cannot put limits on infinity.
You're trying to say that just because something is possible and therefore probable does not mean it'll happen. That's only true under the assumption of a finite domain.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."
Re:Many worlds by istartedi · 2014-07-14 15:45 · Score: 1

See my post just prior to this one. It all hinges on the word "might" in my first post. I believe you improperly inferred that I was stating all alternatives *must* exist, as opposed to *might* exist. Yuck, I don't relish the thought of being in Nietsche's company. However, that's based on experiences with my peers when we were teenagers. They were just exasperating to talk to, and one of them actually went certifiably insane.

--
For all intensive purposes, "whom" is no longer a word. That begs the question, "who cares"?
Re:Many worlds by Man+Eating+Duck · 2014-07-14 22:43 · Score: 1

Prove it.
I can't prove it as I don't know the math, but I've heard it explained this way:
Imagine a lot of parallel chess games between Magnus Carlsen and Vishy Anand. There might be all three outcomes and a lot of different games played, but not every possible game. The ones where one player loses in five moves, or one player overlooks a trivial mate-in-one, or both players fumble so much as to resemble novice players aren't likely to exist anywhere. The probabilities are simply too low in a game between two high-level chess players.

--
Are you a grammar Nazi? I'm trying to improve my English; please correct my errors! :)
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-15 00:37 · Score: 1

If you don't like the first example, try the second. Again, it's trivial to describe an infinity of universes where not every potentiality is actualized. Give it a shot yourself, you might even find an example that you like.
You're deeply confused about this, as are, apparently, some others. I blame the T.V. show "Sliders".

--
Required reading for internet skeptics
Re:Many worlds by narcc · 2014-07-15 00:41 · Score: 1

It's not a question of evidence. This isn't a question to which empirical methods are suitable!

--
Required reading for internet skeptics

Accelerated expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:08 · Score: 0

The author of the article misses that the expansion is accelerating.

Re:Accelerated expansion by ramorim · 2014-07-13 07:39 · Score: 1

Well, and massively above speed of light in this early days ... If the theory of a dot-expanding-into-a-universe is real, we have a "46 billion light-years in all directions, filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies and having been around for nearly 14 billion years since the Big Bang". :D
Re:Accelerated expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:06 · Score: 0

Why would it be massively above the speed of light? Do you somehow make the assumption that we are at this very moment able to see from or position in the marble-sized volume of space that expanded, to the edge?
Re:Accelerated expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:39 · Score: 0

ftfa "In just a matter of 10^-32 seconds, a region the size of a subatomic particle would have expanded to be larger than our observable Universe is today."
I'm pretty sure that expansion from ~0 to >billions of light years is an infinitesimal fraction of a second is faster than the speed of light.
Re:Accelerated expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:39 · Score: 0

Of course. Galaxies are already moving away from us faster than c, this is well known in the science community. The fastest one discovered is over 2x faster than light. The problem is that pesky red-shift. It's hard to see light from object that are so red-shifted. Gamma Ray Bursts help a lot with that. Nothing can move through space faster than c, but space itself has no limitations. We assume it's expanding, because that's the simplest explanation.
Re:Accelerated expansion by TapeCutter · 2014-07-13 10:50 · Score: 1

Objects cannot move relative to each other faster than light but the space between them has no such restriction. Hyper Inflation lasted until the universe was about the size of a basketball. The big bang didn't end with (hyper) inflation, it is still happening and the universe is still inflating. The boundary to our modern universe is expanding away from us at the speed of light. So, two observers on opposite sides of our visible universe will be speeding away from each other faster than light. Only an observer in our position can see that the two observers at the opposite "edges" existing simultaneously.

Big fan of Starts with a Bang for many years, I must ask Ethan why cosmologists have ruled out the idea that our universe is the interior of a black hole. Neil deGrasse Tyson claims Einstein's equations can be interpreted to mean there is a different universe inside a black hole but he doesn't elaborate. If anyone else knows of a good reason as to why our universe can't be the interior of a black hole then I'd love to hear it.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Accelerated expansion by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 03:40 · Score: 1

Hyper Inflation lasted until the universe was about the size of a basketball.

It's statements like these that just scream out for an actual explanation. How can anyone possibly know that the size wasn't a bowling ball or a softball instead?
Although the answer seems to be "we'll bludgeon you in the face with math about 3 powers above what you understand until your eyes glaze over and you accept it." How much different is that than giving no explanation at all? Discuss :)

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Accelerated expansion by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 03:41 · Score: 1

Big fan of Starts with a Bang for many years, I must ask Ethan why cosmologists have ruled out the idea that our universe is the interior of a black hole. Neil deGrasse Tyson claims Einstein's equations can be interpreted to mean there is a different universe inside a black hole but he doesn't elaborate. If anyone else knows of a good reason as to why our universe can't be the interior of a black hole then I'd love to hear it.
Would that make any difference to us if it was?

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Accelerated expansion by zlives · 2014-07-14 05:01 · Score: 1

i prefer "God wills it"
Re:Accelerated expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 16:26 · Score: 0

Don't all objects inside a black hole end up at the singularity?
Re:Accelerated expansion by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 17:02 · Score: 0

God doesn't play dice, but he does shoot some mean hoops...

Math? by meerling · 2014-07-13 07:08 · Score: 5, Insightful

"Our observable Universe is a pretty impressive entity: extending 46 billion light-years in all directions, filled with hundreds of billions of galaxies and having been around for nearly 14 billion years since the Big Bang."

The observable universe is observable because there has been time for the light to travel that far, which can not exceed the age of the universe. Therefor, if the universe is 14 billion years old, then the furthest we could see in any direction is only 14 billion light years, giving a maximum, diameter of 28 billion light years.
So why does the summary say it's 46 billion L.Y. across and only 14 billion Y. old?

Re:Math? by ledow · 2014-07-13 07:11 · Score: 3, Insightful

If you assume a static, never-changing, fixed space... you might have been right.
Isn't this how we know it's expanding?
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:12 · Score: 0

Because space also stretched during those 14 billion years.
Re:Math? by MRe_nl · 2014-07-13 07:13 · Score: 2

Special relativity
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/S...

--
"Kill 'em all and let Root sort 'em out"
Re:Math? by NEDHead · 2014-07-13 07:13 · Score: 5, Informative

Because the expansion of space is independent of the light traveling through it, and the light that has just arrived came to us in some cased from objects that are now much further away than 14B lightyears
Re:Math? by NEDHead · 2014-07-13 07:14 · Score: 1

That would be cases, not cased. My Apologies
Re: Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:14 · Score: 0

The simple answer from an amateur is because of spacetime expansion, even though galaxies aren't locally exceeding the speed of light, there is more "stuff" being created in the space between them. So from a more global perspective, they appear to be moving faster than light even though it's just an illusion.
Re:Math? by archer,+the · 2014-07-13 07:21 · Score: 1

Does that cover speed as well? 23 Billion Light Year radius and 14 Billion years old implies stuff is/was travelling at 1.6c. And if 46Billion LY was the radius, average speed becomes 3.2c.
Re:Math? by Livius · 2014-07-13 07:37 · Score: 1

I've never heard the explanation as to why that makes light seem to go faster rather than seem to go slower.
Re:Math? by Charliemopps · 2014-07-13 07:43 · Score: 1

The universe is expanding like others said... but it's still an incorrect statement. All of our measurements so far suggest that the universe is flat, and extends in all directions infinitely. It has no size, it's unending. Even more mind boggling is that if the many worlds theory is true, then there are also an infinite number of other universe that are equally as vast. Long story short? There really are Ewoks somewhere.
Re:Math? by wierd_w · 2014-07-13 07:54 · Score: 4, Informative

Given a sufficiently large distance between two discrete points in the universe, the rate of hubble expansion between those points can exceed C.
http://www.universetoday.com/1...
You can think of it this way:
You have a ruler-- You can only move along the ruler at at most, 100 units per second. (we will use this as an analogue for going C) However, for every second, for every 1000 units distance on the ruler, a new unit of distance magically appears. If you have a distance between 2 points that is sufficiently large, (In this case, in excess of 1,000,000 units) more than 100 units will be introduced every second, which is faster than your maximum rate of traversal-- So you will NEVER reach the target-- it receedes faster than you can get to it.
http://www.universetoday.com/1...
Re:Math? by WaffleMonster · 2014-07-13 08:00 · Score: 1

The observable universe is observable because there has been time for the light to travel that far, which can not exceed the age of the universe. Therefor, if the universe is 14 billion years old, then the furthest we could see in any direction is only 14 billion light years, giving a maximum, diameter of 28 billion light years.
So why does the summary say it's 46 billion L.Y. across and only 14 billion Y. old?
The universe is expanding all while light is in transit to our bug-eyed telescopes.
For details: http://arxiv.org/pdf/astro-ph/...
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:02 · Score: 4, Informative

Most people can understand this on their own, but since you need some hand holding:
Imagine an ant on a rubber band. Mark the start position with a dot, let the ant walk for 5 seconds, mark the end position with a dot. The distance between the two dots will be greater if the rubber band was stretching while the ant was walking on it.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:22 · Score: 0

I blame Slashdot for still not allowing edits in 2014. Your post was very informative.
Re:Math? by Livius · 2014-07-13 08:42 · Score: 1

Why does the rubber band carry the ant forward? Isn't it equally plausible that the rubber band moves underneath the ant's feet while her speed remains constant, decreasing her speed relative to the rubber band?
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:43 · Score: 0

Why is your ant suddenly a girl?
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:10 · Score: 0

The strides aren't larger and the ant isn't moving faster. The part of the rubber band behind the ant is getting longer and you should focus on that.
Re:Math? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-07-13 09:30 · Score: 1

No.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Math? by wonkey_monkey · 2014-07-13 09:32 · Score: 1

The universe is expanding like others said... but it's still an incorrect statement.
The statement did say "observable universe."

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:43 · Score: 0

you are assuming we are at the point of original expansion not moving. You are also not taking into account attrition of photons due to intervening matter.
Re:Math? by uvajed_ekil · 2014-07-13 09:47 · Score: 0

Nice trolling - calling people out because you don't understand what is going on, then using an insensitive epithet. Way to do it anonymously, loser. Claim your posts, turd face.

--
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:24 · Score: 1

Stop explaining things to people. Tell the guy who explained this to you the same thing.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:29 · Score: 0

He should focus on why he is compelled to anounce on Slashdot that having a small penis makes him irritable.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:43 · Score: 0

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0310808
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metric_expansion_of_space
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:46 · Score: 0

I've never heard the explanation as to why a stretched rubber band becomes longer rather than shorter.
Re:Math? by Livius · 2014-07-13 10:54 · Score: 2

Suddenly? She was born that way, with the W chromosome and all.
Re:Math? by TapeCutter · 2014-07-13 11:00 · Score: 2

Yeah, confused the hell out of me too the first time I heard it back in the 80's. If you search the "starts with a bang" website you'll find a well written article that explains why. Oh and 46 is the radius from our POV, so it's actually 92 "across".

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:11 · Score: 0

I guess the ant's feet could slip if the rubber band is greased or if you stretch it too abruptly, but that's being contrarian. You're supposed to imagine the ant's feet keeping their grip and then the analogy works.
Re:Math? by Livius · 2014-07-13 11:30 · Score: 2

That's called the luminiferous aether hypothesis.
Re:Math? by complete+loony · 2014-07-13 11:35 · Score: 1

Because they *were* 14 billion light years away, and are now probably 46...

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Re:Math? by ceview · 2014-07-13 12:16 · Score: 2

This is something called the metric expansion of space. The metric value is changing at a local level where the measurement is taken. I think it is misleading to talk about space as a dimension moving at some speed, because speed is really distance per unit time. the expansion of space is just space per space changing. We tend to embed our explanations as if the universe expanded from a point on a piece of paper, it doesn't really work that way, the paper in a sense is being generated as it goes along. The speed of light is just some measured velocity value that happens to be pretty close to c when we measure it at various places around the universe, light goes through the metric of space. The metric of space doesn't really say much about what that speed is. So c just goes along the metric as the metric is generated.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 13:14 · Score: 0

Because general relativity acts like special relativity in any local sense. At any given point and reference frame the speed of light is measured to be c. Space expanding or changing shape is a non-local phenomenon only seen by its effects over a distance. If you measured the speed of light at any point in the path it traveled you would get c, but the cumulative distance has changed and it would take longer to traverse that distance by light released later (assuming current theories are correct, although there is some evidence seen from behavior of molecules and atomic structure in distance galaxies...). It has nothing to do with the old luminous aether theories at this point.
Re:Math? by LesFerg · 2014-07-13 13:49 · Score: 3, Funny

A better analogy would also represent the space time continuum and the gravity well relative to the ant.
See if your ant is walking on a large rubber sheet, then you drop a bowling ball on the spot the ant is currently at... oh wait, the universe just made my ant 2 dimensional.
But you will notice that it is travelling much slower now...

--
If I had a DeLorean... I would probably only drive it from time to time.
Re:Math? by mister_playboy · 2014-07-13 14:53 · Score: 1

Because almost all ants are female.

--
Do what thou wilt shall be the whole of the Law ::: Love is the law, love under will
Re:Math? by Livius · 2014-07-13 17:16 · Score: 1

You're restating the question, not answering it.
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 00:52 · Score: 0

You may have just unlocked the secret of time travel...greasy rubber bands!
Re:Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 08:41 · Score: 0

If you keep asking "Why?" at some point the answer becomes "Because that is the way it seems to be." In this case, special and general relativity have quite a bit of evidence pointing toward them being accurate on various scales, and a core tenant of both is that the speed of light is measured to always be the same in any frame at any point. In neither is there a sense of space moving at a particular point, there is not distinction between moving with ant or under the ant, only that the ant moves at the same speed locally. The distance between where the ant is and where it started on the other hand can change, and the distance between where the ant is and where it is going can change too. How to define distance in a consistent manner under such situations is non-trivial, and why there is a specific kind of distance called the co-moving distance for such situations as it is consistently defined for a bunch of situations. There is plenty around written on what that is, including on Wikipedia. There are other observable effects from this too though, as the angular size of galaxies very far away stops getting smaller with distance, as the expansion causes a slight bend between two sides of the triangle involved. Very far galaxies just get dimmer the further away they are, instead of smaller.

46 Billion Light-Years? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:11 · Score: 0

How can we observe 46 billion light-years away if the light has had only 14 billion years to travel?

Re:46 Billion Light-Years? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:12 · Score: 0

Putting this here because it's an unanswered version of the same question being repeated over and over in the thread.
People always raise something like this as a critique of the results of a theory and never seem to twig that *both of these statements are predictions from the same damned theory*. It is self-consistent if you accept the assumptions that go into it. If you don't accept the assumptions then that's fair enough, but a bit of respect for the people who have actually studied for upwards of ten years to be able to do this stuff professionally might lead one to believe that they haven't overlooked something so painfully obvious.
Re:46 Billion Light-Years? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 13:20 · Score: 0

It's unfortunate you don't have the recall skills enough to remember that you, too, were once ignorant on this subject. For me it calls into question whether you can accurately recall this information well enough to explain it.
Re:46 Billion Light-Years? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 23:15 · Score: 0

I have however, from an age at which I could read on a website, had the reading comprehension to notice that people are asking my question repeatedly and that is being answered there.

I don't understand... by mlzarathustra · 2014-07-13 07:12 · Score: 1

How can we see 45 billion light years away if the universe has only been here for 15 billion years?

Re:I don't understand... by vux984 · 2014-07-13 07:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

The speed of light through space is distinct from the rate at which the universe itself expands. Weird fun things ensue. :p
Re:I don't understand... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:20 · Score: 0

Oversimplified but relevant as a starting point: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XBr4GkRnY04
Re:I don't understand... by uvajed_ekil · 2014-07-13 09:48 · Score: 1

Expansion, of course.

--
This is a hacked account, for which the owner can not be held responsible.

An idea by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:15 · Score: 0

I think there are different nexuses where different universes of the multiverse collide based on the most prominent energies available. I mean, it's just a rough idea. No idea if I'm way off. Think 12/21/2012.

Too bad by Blaskowicz · 2014-07-13 07:28 · Score: 1

I was getting used to the notions of multiverse so broad there exists a copy of me somewhere with a penis in place of the nose and a nose in place of the penis. And that's far from the weirdest things out there.

Re:Too bad by I'm+New+Around+Here · 2014-07-13 15:51 · Score: 1

I almost got to that universe once. But what was actually different was that I was a chicken.

--
If you think I voted for Trump because of this post, you're wrong. I voted for Dr. Jill Stein of the Green Party. Again.
Re:Too bad by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 05:18 · Score: 0

unfortunately your penis is still the same size in all universes

You religious people! by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 07:36 · Score: 0

Therefor, if the universe is 14 billion years old, then the furthest we could see in any direction is only 14 billion light years, giving a maximum, diameter of 28 billion light years.

You fundamentalists! Always insisting that the Universe is only 28 billion years old because the Bible says so.

Oh shit! nevermind.

Brian Green;'s multiverse book by peter303 · 2014-07-13 07:52 · Score: 2

Some of the the mind blowing chapters consider an infinite universe in space and time. Our local area could exactly repeat on the average of 10^150 light years, Brian calculates. And there could many more variants than exact repeats.

Imagine an infinite number of exct copies of yourself, each sparated by immense distances. Image even more variants of yourslef, living slightly to greatly different lives.

Re:Brian Green;'s multiverse book by taxman_10m · 2014-07-13 08:00 · Score: 1

Or maybe this life is as good as it gets for you and your multiverse you's.
Re:Brian Green;'s multiverse book by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:25 · Score: 0

once we reach the edge of the petri dish all bets are off?

Please explain by StripedCow · 2014-07-13 08:04 · Score: 1

Consider the time axis, from minus infinity to plus infinity.
Somewhere along this axis the universe comes into existence.
Call this point t0.

Now why is t0 exactly t0? Shouldn't there be another universe, exactly equal to this one, with time t1 (!= t0).

Now even if time is created as part of a "big bang", there should be a "meta-time" for which this holds.

--
If Pandora's box is destined to be opened, *I* want to be the one to open it.

Re:Please explain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:10 · Score: 0

Now even if time is created as part of a "big bang", there should be a "meta-time" for which this holds.
Why would you assume that? I suppose you will postulate a "meta-space" that existed before the universe too. Sounds like the universe just went ahead and existed 'before' it existed.
Re:Please explain by RussR42 · 2014-07-13 08:15 · Score: 1

Time is a measure of change. Until something changy exists, even if there was some kind of "meta-time", it would be meaningless. So meaningless that positing it's existence is pointless...
Re:Please explain by RussR42 · 2014-07-13 08:17 · Score: 1

goddamnit, *its. It's my first day with these new fingers.
Re:Please explain by Charliemopps · 2014-07-13 09:28 · Score: 1

Consider the time axis, from minus infinity to plus infinity.
Somewhere along this axis the universe comes into existence.
Call this point t0.
Now why is t0 exactly t0? Shouldn't there be another universe, exactly equal to this one, with time t1 (!= t0).
Now even if time is created as part of a "big bang", there should be a "meta-time" for which this holds.
No. Time is a part of this universe. There is no "meta" time, other universes do not necessarily have time. There is no t Minus infinity. We know exactly when time started (ok, to within a few trillionths of a second) You can no more go back further in time than that, than you can make a square circle.
It's something that's hard to talk about because our language is so wrapped up in the idea that time is endless, but it's not.
Re:Please explain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:11 · Score: 0

"Meta-time"?
really?
smoking dope does not make you smart.
Re:Please explain by pla · 2014-07-13 11:35 · Score: 1

I suppose you will postulate a "meta-space" that existed before the universe too. Sounds like the universe just went ahead and existed 'before' it existed.

Know how I can tell you didn't read TFA? Because he says exactly that - That inflation happened before the Big Bang, faster in fact than it did after

If it helps, you could consider the Big Bang the end of FTL inflation, though not 100% accurate (that "first 10^-32 seconds" thing assumes it lasted for a whole 10^-32 seconds, rather than starting at the rate mentioned and ending at a relative (no pun intended) snail's pace.
Re:Please explain by pla · 2014-07-13 11:40 · Score: 4, Insightful

No. Time is a part of this universe. There is no "meta" time, other universes do not necessarily have time. There is no t Minus infinity. We know exactly when time started (ok, to within a few trillionths of a second).

FTA: "The most amazing thing about it, though, is that this is exactly what the Universe was doing before the Big Bang, only with a much greater energy and at a much faster rate! This was the period known as Cosmic Inflation."

Words like "before" presuppose the existence of time. If, as you postulate, time exists only as a function if this universe, then you have just established the de facto existence of "meta time" (at least if you believe TFA).
Re:Please explain by Garble+Snarky · 2014-07-13 19:11 · Score: 1

Good point! It is my understanding that modern science does not claim knowledge of any events prior to the big bang, nor does it claim that such a region of spacetime (or meta-spacetime, or whatever) exists at all. My understanding certainly could be wrong, but if not, it seems to simply suggest that the author of the article doesn't really know what he's talking about.
Re:Please explain by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 23:22 · Score: 0

Time can be expressed as the passage of events. In that regard, time exists in all possible universes by mere virtue of their existence in the grander multiverse(s).
Re:Please explain by pla · 2014-07-14 00:54 · Score: 1

True - I honestly don't have the background to evaluate whether or not TFA has that part correct, but have to give him the benefit of the doubt. :)

One hypothesis of many by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:11 · Score: 0

The multi-world interpretation of quantum mechanics is not the only one, nor even the most accepted. It is just one that popular media has run with (and botched). The Copenhagen interpretation still holds its ground, and (as I understand) is still the most widely accepted in the scientific community. Many scientists have an emotional bias against it because of the special role that observation plays (and the implications that might have regarding consciousness), but that bias does not itself have any scientific basis (and neither does the mind-over-matter woo that trendy religious movements have imposed upon it). The evidence speaks for itself, and that evidence says Copenhagen is sound.

*I* have a personal bias against the word "multi-verse," from a linguistic perspective. The word "universe" already means exactly what we are using the word "multiverse" to mean. But nobody cares.

Re:One hypothesis of many by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:56 · Score: 0

*I* have a personal bias against the word "multi-verse," from a linguistic perspective. The word "universe" already means exactly what we are using the word "multiverse" to mean. But nobody cares.
Hey, I care. Just not very much.

Good article by WaffleMonster · 2014-07-13 08:13 · Score: 1

Especially liked raised BS flag on many worlds interpretation crackpottery.

Re:Good article by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 14:58 · Score: 0

Especially liked raised BS flag on many worlds interpretation crackpottery.
No the author of the article does not understand QM. The Everett interpretation, or the theory of the universal wavefunction or relative state interpretation or "many worlds interpretation" to give it its many names, does of necessity imply the ontological reality to a large number of alternate states. This is particularly true of the modern version of the theory which includes decoherence by the environment to eliminate the quantum superpositions and thus the problem of a preferred basis. Mathematically all of the states on the trace of the reduced density matrix are equally real. All these states exist orthogonally in Hilbert space.

Copyright And The Universe by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:21 · Score: 0

what's completely unrelated to anything that could conceivably ever be observed from within our Universe.

Mickey Mouse released to the public? Never in this universe!

Web 3.0 Bullshit by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:41 · Score: 0

Fuck that web 3.0 Metro-y bullshit. Why the fuck are webpages loading 5Mbyte background images and taking up the whole goddamn screen with content rather than presenting it in a field-of-view sized portion of it?

Here's the deal... by djupedal · 2014-07-13 08:43 · Score: 1

As humans, we can't conceive of what's beyond, simply because we lack the mental capacity. Much like an amoeba is unaware of high interest rates.

Re:Here's the deal... by 93+Escort+Wagon · 2014-07-13 12:12 · Score: 1

Stating that something must lay beyond the "edge" of the universe, as the submitter does, basically means the person doesn't really understand basic cosmology.

--
#DeleteChrome

Anybody noticed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 08:53 · Score: 0

the serial medium.com self-promoting going on? Beyond the general unreadability of medium.com if you don't own a tablet, I thought that slashvertising was frowned upon. Maybe not. This a beta feature?

How deep? by GarethIwanFairclough · 2014-07-13 08:53 · Score: 1

Very.

Speculative. by Oligonicella · 2014-07-13 08:54 · Score: 5, Insightful

Anything dealing with multiverse is speculative. Math does not constitute evidence.

Re:Speculative. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:59 · Score: 0

Agreed. Also;
1. There is only one "universe".
2. Making your arguments more convoluted, doen't make them more correct.
3. Things like singularities and infinity mean your math sucks. Nothing more.
4. "0" is a handy tool, until you start doing stupid things like dividing by zero. You cannot divide by zero. It is nonsense.
Re:Speculative. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:02 · Score: 0

Anything dealing with multiverse is speculative. Math does not constitute evidence.
Tell it to the auditors.
Re:Speculative. by complete+loony · 2014-07-13 11:36 · Score: 2

And since it is outside our observable natural world, it is by definition super-natural.

--
09F91102 no, 455FE104 nope, F190A1E8 uh-uh, 7A5F8A09 that's not it, C87294CE no. Ah! 452F6E403CDF10714E41DFAA257D313F.
Re:Speculative. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 13:03 · Score: 0

As are all the other QM interpretations, to which your argument applies to precisely the same degree.
Oh wait, was there one in particular you didn't like because it makes your worldview uncomfortable? Sorry, you have no objection that's actually science.
Re:Speculative. by swillden · 2014-07-13 13:03 · Score: 1

Anything dealing with multiverse is speculative. Math does not constitute evidence.
By that argument, everything we know about stars, quasars, black holes, and virtually everything else that isn't on our planet and relatively close to the surface is all speculative, too. Nearly everything we know about the stuff not immediately at hand is based on mathematical models, calibrated against "observations" which are often very, very indirect and themselves dependent on many layers of mathematical models derived the same way.
I don't know enough about QM and many worlds theories to know how much really is well-supported, but from what little I've read, the many-worlds hypothesis seems to provide a much better explanation of the spooky action at a distance effects we observe than the alternatives.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Speculative. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 23:28 · Score: 0

Nope. We can apply our mathematics to things within our universe because as far as we have observed, the laws of physics are constant throughout it. Outside of our universe, we have no idea what is going on, therefore our mathematics may likely be completely wrong and worthless.
Re:Speculative. by swillden · 2014-07-14 03:41 · Score: 1

Nope. We can apply our mathematics to things within our universe because as far as we have observed, the laws of physics are constant throughout it. Outside of our universe, we have no idea what is going on, therefore our mathematics may likely be completely wrong and worthless.
The many-worlds hypothesis usually used in explaining the oddities in QM doesn't assume different physics.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Speculative. by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 04:07 · Score: 1

But it allows them.

our mathematics may likely be completely wrong and worthless.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Speculative. by swillden · 2014-07-14 06:29 · Score: 1

But it allows them.

our mathematics may likely be completely wrong and worthless.
Maybe. But this is an area in which we actually can make observations that allow us to refine the math, because it does make testable predictions.

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.
Re:Speculative. by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 06:55 · Score: 1

Okay. Reading your comment, I just took issue with "assume" as it sounded like you were saying "it isn't required therefore it can't possibly ever happen."
Although I'm not quite sure how you mean we can "observe" the multiverse I wouldn't be surprised if there was some argument for that.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF
Re:Speculative. by swillden · 2014-07-14 10:17 · Score: 1

We probably can't observe the multiverse. What we can do is postulate how events might play out if, as is suspected, subatomic particles have some interaction with their counterparts in "nearby" universes. We can model the various possible explanations and use the models to generate testable predictions. Assuming that process ultimately rules out some of the models and favors others, we still won't know that there really are multiple universes, all we'll know is that a model that assumes there are, and assumes they interact in specified ways, is a good explanation for the observed phenomena. "Good" in the sense of being as simple as possible, and no simpler, hard to modify without contradicting observations, etc. Other explanations might work, but just be conceptually weirder and harder for us to think about.
Or maybe we'll eventually find something in the model that demands a multiverse, and for which we can find no other simple, consistent explanations. That will tend to convince us that it really exists. Or maybe the theory will show us a way that we can scale up the interactions to the macro level, where we can observe the multiverse. Or maybe we'll find something that contradicts the multiverse... or maybe none of the above will happen and the whole concept is just a game for very clever people.
Many things are possible, that's why it's fun :-)

--
Note to ACs: I usually delete AC replies without reading them. If you want to talk to me, log in.

not true, IIRC by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 09:08 · Score: 1

Because the expansion of space is independent of the light traveling through it

nonsense statement...had to read twice to be sure, but this is just technobabble and not based on scientific definitions of "space" and "light"

and the light that has just arrived came to us in some cased from objects that are now much further away than 14B lightyears

if I understand you correctly, you're wrong...the whole point of GP, one which I think you're attempting to address, is that the only reason we know the universe's shape is because of "light"...wether the CMB or a GRB...

the CMB & the light from the most distant/oldest objects indicates the 14Billion number...if what you say is true, we'd have to revise the figure

in other words, **NO** there is not 'light' hitting us from 14B ly+ because if that were true we'd have evidence of an older universe, so we'd revise our figure of the age of the universe accordingly

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Re:not true, IIRC by wonkey_monkey · 2014-07-13 09:30 · Score: 3, Informative

nonsense statement...had to read twice to be sure, but this is just technobabble and not based on scientific definitions of "space" and "light"
That's weird, I understood it perfectly as an (admittedly somewhat simplified) explanation of how space expands and how light travels through that expanding space. Don't blame your lack of understanding on what you imagine to be the GP's lack of clarity.

in other words, **NO** there is not 'light' hitting us from 14B ly+
No-one said there is. There is light hitting us which was emitted by objects which are now* more than 14 billion light years away.
*for a given value of "now," that is, but I'm not sure I'd enjoy trying to explain that to you.

--
systemd is Roko's Basilisk.
Re:not true, IIRC by NEDHead · 2014-07-13 09:30 · Score: 2

Let me put it in terms you can understand: If you hold a rubber band with one end in each hand, and put an ant on the rubber band at one end headed toward the other, and the ant moves at a constant rate toward your other hand, and as the ant moves you stretch the rubber band, then your hands will be further apart than the ant has moved when the ant reaches your other hand.
If you have a favorite animal, I can rephrase to accommodate.
Re:not true, IIRC by TapeCutter · 2014-07-13 11:04 · Score: 2

If you have a favorite animal, I can rephrase to accommodate.
Probably wouldn't work with my dog, it would just eat the rubber band.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.
Re:not true, IIRC by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 13:19 · Score: 0

Maybe before chiding someone one what is technobabble and what is scientific you should learn the current state of the particular field of science you are trying to discuss. And I don't mean keeping up to date on latest conference proceedings and journal articles... but just basic stuff covered in a survey talk given to undergrads with nothing more than intro physics or in any pop-sci book at this point. As others have already explained above, and linked to other explanations, you're the one who is incorrect.
Re:not true, IIRC by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 18:27 · Score: 0

Isn't the speed of light fixed? I mean if you were to travel at say half the speed of light while shining a beam forward, that beam of light would not suddenly be traveling at 1.5 times the speed of light.

Math? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:10 · Score: 0

Why are you assuming the observable universe is all the universe that exists?..

When your mother hides behind something, does she no longer exist?

This is just one person's by Bob+Hearn · 2014-07-13 09:11 · Score: 4, Informative

personal opinion of the status of the various ideas labelled "multiverse", inappropriately presented as fact. There is certainly not a consensus view that these opinions are correct, as you might mistakenly infer. In fact, "..., with different Big Bangs but very likely with the same fundamental laws and constants" -- it seems to me the weight of professional opinion is actually more on the other side here. His views on Everett's many-worlds interpretation are also counter to those of most people who accept it as valid in the first place. Perhaps most egregiously, if he is going to borrow (linking to) Tegmark's categorization of the different levels of multiverse, he should at least get them right. But he refers to Tegmark's level 1 as level 0, level 2 as level 1, and is a little confused about the distinction between 1 and 2. If you want a much more thorough, and objective, discussion of the various multiverse ideas, you want to read Brian Greene's The Hidden Reality. And of course Tegmark's Our Mathematical Universe is the latest entry into this field, a manifesto of sorts.

Wait a minute... by cluening · 2014-07-13 09:44 · Score: 0

If the universe is 14 billion years old and 46 billion light years in radius, that means it has expanded at an average of about 3.29 light years per year since the big bang. But... shouldn't it be limited to expanding at a rate of one light year per year?

--
Posted from the wireless couch.

Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:52 · Score: 5, Informative

For fuck's sake. How many times must similar questions be asked?
http://science.slashdot.org/co...
These are all basically the same question, which reduces to "I'm going to assume that the people who spend their lives working on this can't do elementary arithmetic". Instead, they're working within the strongest theoretical framework they can encounter. In this case, that framework is general relativity and, specifically, Friedman-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker spacetimes. A subset of the FLRW spacetimes are the de Sitter and anti-de Sitter spaces. These have exponential expansion or exponential collapse, and as one might imagine, this means that if you somehow attached little radar transceivers to fixed points in (anti-)de Sitter space then the distance between them will change far greater than the speed of light would imply. There is no contradiction here, because in general relativity, the "speed of light" means something propagating along null geodesics, paths along which the observed travel time is zero. Null geodesics basically map out spacetime. This is then entirely and totally distinct from any conception of "space expanding faster than light" - the question becomes meaningless.
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:12 · Score: 0

Yeah, duh.
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:06 · Score: 0

Well, in some ways that's kind of my point in the comment I linked to - people study ten years from the start of a Bachelor's to the end of a PhD just to be at the start of a career in this stuff. It's unlikely that everyone who has ever embarked on a career in relativity or cosmology could have overlooked something so straightforward. So the natural reaction to some odd-looking numbers should be to assume that the researchers probably know what they're talking about and see if they can explain it, rather than (as wasn't done here but has been done in other questions in this thread) to declare things as "nonsense"; or, as was even done here, to strongly imply people have somehow overlooked "ah but the speed of light is a speed limit!" They haven't. These numbers emerge from the theory, they are self-consistent given that theory.
And on a totally different tone, surely even someone who has never studied cosmology before must be getting pretty damned frustrated at seeing the same question reposed repeatedly. Every single cosmology article we get the same question, tens of times. It's answered, in various (sometimes even accurate) ways, each time, at a variety of levels ranging from the entirely intuitive to the fully technical. And *every* *single* *time* we get the same question, repeated again, and again, and again, and normally by people who if they even glanced at the current comments would see someone trying to answer it already.
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:20 · Score: 0

(To clarify, "sometimes even accurate" refers mainly to the fact that almost any explanation that calls to intuitive concepts is going to be inaccurate. Sometimes explanations are dead wrong but for the most part it's people trying to transmit a mental picture of something the human brain simply cannot visualise. Also, to clarify the example I used in the earlier comment, cosmology is not based on de Sitter spaces but these are the extreme example of a universe filled with nothing but a cosmological constant, and they exhibit what at first sight looks like a strongly superluminal expansion. It is postulated, and almost universally accepted (no pun intended), that in the very early universe there was a period of so-called "inflation". This was a period in which the universe underwent quasi-de Sitter expansion, meaning that while it may not have been entirely composed of something acting like a cosmological constant, it was either composed entirely of something acting *almost* like a cosmological constant (as the simplest inflation models do; the only matter is a scalar field, rolling so slowly in its potential that it is basically constant), or there is something acting almost like a cosmological constant but other fields around diluting the expansion somewhat. A universe expanding under the influence of matter or radiation is similarly not restricted to expanding "faster than light" - which is a meaningless statement - but is far less extreme than a de Sitter spacetime.)
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 12:52 · Score: 0

Or, you know, space is expanding, which light propagates on.
Re:Wait a minute... by cluening · 2014-07-13 16:41 · Score: 0

Man, I forgot that I was writing that on Slashdot and that somebody would take the time to go dig up the answer. I'm actually well enough versed in relativistic physics and astronomy to know that my dumb question was wildly oversimplified (I stopped at the Masters level instead of going on for a PhD), but thanks for posting the response anyway - it has more details in it than I had taken the time to read before.

--
Posted from the wireless couch.
Re:Wait a minute... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 01:51 · Score: 0

To be fair, Slashdot editors are know to screw up basic math and/or copy the wrong figures. When I first read it I thought it was wrong and was going to point out someone screwed up the summary.
Re:Wait a minute... by DeVilla · 2014-07-15 14:13 · Score: 1

For fuck's sake. How many times must similar questions be asked?
That depends. How many universes are there in the Multi-verse? At least one times that I guess.

Re:Still nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 09:55 · Score: 3, Informative

For the love of fucking GOD.

http://science.slashdot.org/co...

Read the fucking comments, you cretin, and try and avoid labelling something as "nonsense" which you evidently don't fucking understand.

Re:Still nonsense by frnic · 2014-07-13 10:08 · Score: 0

My, aren't you the literate one. Such an expansive vocabulary to express yourself, my poor mind can barely comprehend what you meant to say.

How Deep Does the Multiverse Go? by whitelabrat · 2014-07-13 10:26 · Score: 1

It doesn't. That shit it cray cray.

Re:How Deep Does the Multiverse Go? by pla · 2014-07-13 11:44 · Score: 1

Naw man, that multiverse, it go so deep, the polyverse be cryin' for mercy!
Re:How Deep Does the Multiverse Go? by pla · 2014-07-13 11:57 · Score: 1

Just shut the fuck up and take it

Spoken like a true AC.

Re:Still nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 10:31 · Score: 0

Read the comment I linked to then, you prick. You might learn something.

Re:Still nonsense by thrich81 · 2014-07-13 11:04 · Score: 3, Informative

Although he is a bit abusive I'd cut the AC a bit of slack; your question/comment has been asked several times on this thread and in past ones. The short answer is that space itself can expand faster than the speed of light and so events we observe from a long time ago can be further than c times the time it took for the light to get here. Even events occurring 'now' from regions in space expanding away from us faster than c will eventually become observable to us, although the concepts of distance and time and 'now' can get really tricky under General Relativity. It is all prescribed by General Relativity, or more properly, by some of the easier solutions of the General Relativity field equation which appear to apply to our Universe. You can't use intuition from Special Relativity when the distances and times involved get cosmological. Sorry I don't have a good reference right now, but it's all in Wikipedia (try General Relativity or Hubble Constant or Age of the Universe, maybe). I looked it all up a while back when I got burned (on /.) using my Special Relativity intuition where it didn't apply.

Grammar by TapeCutter · 2014-07-13 11:12 · Score: 1

"Universe" = everything.
"universe" = everything observable.

But that grammatical rule breaks down if you put the word at the start of a sentence.

--
And did you exchange a walk on part in the war for a lead role in a cage? - Pink Floyd.

Re:Grammar by pla · 2014-07-13 11:36 · Score: 1

"Universe" = everything. "universe" = everything observable.

Fan of Bucky, eh? :)

Dark Side Of Time by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:35 · Score: 0

There are alternate ideas out there that would paint a much different story... (no, not my video).
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oy47OQxUBvw

Re:Still nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:39 · Score: 0

Dude you're SO smart! You're smarter than rocket scientists, pffft bunch of amateurs, you got them good with that bit of expert deduction of yours! Yeah that's totally what this is, right? Science professionals dedicating their lives to this, who just got basic stuff like that painfully wrong, stuff which is so obvious to a genius like you?

The arrogance. It's not the stupidity that gets me with you people, that's not a crime. But the arrogance of thinking you're so awesome when you're not.

Multiversess, you are doing it wrong. by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 11:50 · Score: 0

Actually no, in any number of universes less than infinity your post is first, concurrently. There is nothing to dictate that all multiverses must be different.

Light by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 12:35 · Score: 0

Why is everything we don't know always couched in something we 'think' we know.. light... OK .. it's all we can measure.. and 150 years ago, what would be the measure? I'm always amazed at how smart all the responses in /. are.. yet how shallow.. .. geroge

inaccurate analogy by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 13:43 · Score: 1

your analogy, which i read elsewhere on this thread, is incorrect

**we don't know** the nature of 'space' and the 'universe' like you're making out

'space' is not like a rubberband and 'light' is not analogous to an ant crawling on said rubber band...it's just a bad analogy that doesn't prove anything either way

just confuses things

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

if i was so egregiously wrong... by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 13:46 · Score: 1

you could have explained it more simply

your response is crap...you're being a condescention troll...telling me i need to read up on 'X, Y, or Z thing'

if my response was so dumb, you'd be able to correct things with a paragraph, maybe a bit more

if it's too complex to correct, then it's not something everyone with a college degree (or w/e condescending thing you made it out to be) would know

so explain in detail or STFU

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Re:if i was so egregiously wrong... by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 14:19 · Score: 0

Just read any of the dozen explanations already posted in response to this story... or the ones that get posted every time something similar comes up on Slashdot, or look at Wikipedia which has articles giving a light treatment, more detailed treatment, and yet more detailed level.

telling me i need to read up on 'X, Y, or Z thing'
The key word here is "or"... you just need one of many sources that have already addressed this issue, including right here, or in links already given before your comment was even made. Don't expect everyone to copy-paste it for you, or spend time rewriting the same thing yet again. If you see someone making mistakes as basic as trying to tell someone "Momentum is mass times velocity squared...", do you write a couple pages defining momentum or point out that it is covered hundreds or thousands of times already because it is something in a basic textbook? Especially when the person responds to others who do make explanations with, "You're still wrong," it is obvious that explaining yet again wouldn't accomplish anything. At some point it is more warning to others, because you're beyond hope if you disregard both explanations here and elsewhere, but maybe others can manged to at least follow a link.

you can't explain b/c you don't know by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 13:48 · Score: 1

it's not that you don't *want* to explain, or that you think i wont' understand...no...

you can't explain it

you actually don't understand it yourself and are BS'ing

i did make a coherent point, referencing the two main things we have that give us the age of the universe now

> Cosmic Microwave Background

> Gamma Ray Bursts

There are others, but any new distant event is usually first compared to the two things listed above

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Re:you can't explain b/c you don't know by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 15:29 · Score: 0

And if you are going to reference the CMB, try plugging in the CMB redshift, z=~1090, into a redshift to distance calculator. If you play around with it, you will see that anything with a redshift of over z=1.5 will have a comoving distance of more than 14 billion light years away, and there is a long list of galaxies and quasars that are further away than that (going out to a z=8 at least). Astronomers and cosmologists have been dealing with distances over c*age of universe for some time now.
Re:you can't explain b/c you don't know by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 18:52 · Score: 1

there is a long list of galaxies and quasars that are further away than that (going out to a z=8 at least
what is your point?
you're saying that those galaxies/quasars were formed before the CMB?
you know enough to be dangerous...that's all...have fun with your redshift calculator...there's no productive discussion to be had here

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:you can't explain b/c you don't know by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 16:29 · Score: 0

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

You don't get to act indignant when you are too lazy to use google.

Re:Still nonsense by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 14:02 · Score: 0

If it makes you feel better, just remember there is no such thing as a stupid quetion.
Only stupid people.

What is the basis for the infinite universe? by guises · 2014-07-13 14:28 · Score: 1

Sure, there's probably more Universe just like ours that's unobservable,

This has come up before, and I ended up in an extended conversation with someone who was absolutely insistent that the universe was infinite. But he wasn't able to actually explain this. I don't see the basis for this assumption and I can't understand why it seems to be so widespread, is this some new(ish) theory that I haven't heard of? It's my understanding that the universe, as we currently know it (in other words the area effected by the big bang), extends only a few hundred thousand light years beyond the point of last scattering. Further, since the observable universe is slightly larger than last scattering, whatever may be beyond what we can see is unlikely to be familiar.

Re:What is the basis for the infinite universe? by Gavagai80 · 2014-07-13 16:20 · Score: 1

If you call the level 1 multiverse from the article the universe, which seems reasonable if's all subject to the same physical laws and it's theoretically possible for the universes to expand into each other, the belief appears to be that it's infinite because the physics suggests no reason big bangs wouldn't happen in infinite places.

--
This space intentionally left blank

Someone explain to me please... by Cognizant · 2014-07-13 15:35 · Score: 0

My question might seem stupid but I have to ask. How is it that light from an "observable Universe .... 46 billion light-years in all directions" is reaching earth in a 14 billion year old universe? Thank you.

Re:Someone explain to me please... by Cognizant · 2014-07-13 15:45 · Score: 1

Never mind I think I got it. "Because the expansion of space is independent of the light traveling through it, and the light that has just arrived came to us in some cased from objects that are now much further away than 14B lightyears" If that is correct then It helps my understanding somewhat.

Cross Eyed In Agony by JimSadler · 2014-07-13 16:18 · Score: 1

After considering the concepts in the article I propose that these scientists shift into research for more effective aspirin as a careful reading of the material will leave almost all people with a glorious headache. Talk about trying to put the ocean in a paper bag!

please stop linking to medium.com by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 18:05 · Score: 0

i fucking hate this website

Re:please stop linking to medium.com by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 18:54 · Score: 0

Submitter clearly won't stop. Look at the history: It's serial submission of his own "articles" at medium.com. So it's up to the editors to... edit. So shyeah.

typed a paragraph & made links by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 18:47 · Score: 1

but still didnt engage in the actual discussion...regarding your links...***i already knew that***...or the basics of that...your second link...yes...it's "just a theory" that is unproven...based on several assumptions...but fine

**GIVEN ALL THAT**

you still haven't counted my point, which was that however we age the universe, it is based on certain criteria...therefore, my point still stands...this whole thread is pointless bullshit posturing

it's pointless to argue about the age of the universe...better to talk about the current theories than just fire off bon mots that contribute nothing to the conversation

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

ok now i get it by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 19:03 · Score: 1

yes...you all were right and I was wrong...

see, this is my fault for being so angry about the 'multiverse' theory...it's a ridiculous tautology...

but yeah...it get what you guys were trying to say about expansion of space vs light age...

yeah...sorry

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

disregard last response by globaljustin · 2014-07-13 19:04 · Score: 2

posting this here too...

yes...you all were right and I was wrong...

see, this is my fault for being so angry about the 'multiverse' theory...it's a ridiculous tautology (which we can argue about another time)

but yeah...it get what you guys were trying to say about expansion of space vs light age...

yeah...sorry

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Re:disregard last response by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 01:39 · Score: 0

It is ok to be wrong about the subject, as obviously a lot of people making posts here are and it isn't necessarily correlated with intelligence, etc., because not everyone studies such subjects. What will set people off a lot though is when someone is missing basics on a topic but trying to act authoritative, it comes down more to attitude and how mistakes get handled than what mistakes are actually being made. This is also unfortunately common on Slashdot too, and many mods seem to just mod up based on confidence and previous modders mods, regardless of how detailed or numerous replies are carefully refuting a point.
Re:disregard last response by globaljustin · 2014-07-14 04:30 · Score: 1

thanks for being cool...sorry i was a dick...
really i do know better but sometimes I just dont

--
Thank you Dave Raggett
Re:disregard last response by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 08:27 · Score: 0

lol you got pwned and now you're begging for forgiveness like a whipped dog
Re:disregard last response by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-15 05:20 · Score: 0

Manfully admitted. Golf clap and a bit of respect for you.

Medium Crap by Crass+Spektakel · 2014-07-13 21:59 · Score: 1

Has anyone figured out how to read that Crap Page Medium.com on a normal computer without getting headaches because the letters are pretty much ten times larger than useful?

Right now I have to disable ALL Javascript and then use a alternate CSS to make it readable in Firefox.

--
"Life is short and in most cases it ends with death." Sir Sinclair

Wait, what? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-13 22:25 · Score: 0

"been around for nearly 14 billion years since the Big Bang"
"extending 46 billion light-years in all directions"

I may be jumping to conclusions, but that would seem to be over three times as big as it should be.

Time for an electron by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 03:34 · Score: 0

Since electrons *move* at the speed of light, for them, time doesn't change due to relativity. Does this mean they are everywhere at once?

captcha: ac claims

Theoretical BS justifies alot of cushy jobs? by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 04:03 · Score: 0

SO much theory (the round usage of that term) and so little proof of any of it
Mathematical models only good til the next round of them overthrows these ones.

And no, Im not some anti-science rube. Im just someone sick of theoretics being called 'science'.

QM multiverse stuff? More theoretics created just to try to creatively make someones equations balance (and even most Quantum physicists reject it in their various schism of BELIEF).

You theoretical scientists and sychophants are worse than the cavemen who urinated on fires thinking they were having sex with the gods.

Ever so helpful by TangoMargarine · 2014-07-14 04:51 · Score: 1

[citation needed]

Discrete probability distribution is the best link I can find at the moment for something that has been in the first lesson of the section on probability in every math textbook I've ever seen.

But this is an article about quantum physics so I suppose I should just assume that everything we "know" about math is a lie and just get over it, huh.

--
Unity? Screw that: XFCE. Slashdot Beta? Screw that: SoylentNews. Australis? Screw that: Pale Moon. UX developers DIAF

Re:Ever so helpful by steelfood · 2014-07-14 13:18 · Score: 1

Don't feed the troll. If the best counterargument to a logically stated position is simply "no", then there's no point in discussing this further.

--
"If a nation expects to be ignorant and free in a state of civilization, it expects what never was and never will be."

hum by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 04:55 · Score: 0

Why wouldn't it be possible to travel back in time or future? Why isn't it possible to have parallel universes? I mean everything is made from vibrations(string theory).

In regular terms for Slashdotters by Dareth · 2014-07-14 05:57 · Score: 1

It is just like when you start chasing a girl but never catch her because she keeps running away.

Just be careful, sometimes but only very rarely, do they suddenly turn around and catch you. That is how I ended up married.

--

I only look human.
My mother is a halfling and my dad is an ogre, so that makes me an Ogreling

Fixed by Anonymous Coward · 2014-07-14 13:05 · Score: 0

Anything dealing with multiverse is masturbation.

In theory, 11 universes exist in this universe. by nesdave · 2014-07-19 10:02 · Score: 1

Someone sketched our universe as a slightly flattened sphere with nothing else around it. If that is the case then I am tempted to ask; why can't there be other universes outside of ours and if not, why not? That supposition brings to mind a single molecule in the middle of a void, why would there be no other? Who am I to say, as a speck on a rock circling a star that is part of a galaxy, part of a single component called the Milky Way that is a component of a universe?

Slashdot Mirror

How Deep Does the Multiverse Go?

202 comments