Slashdot Mirror

← Back to Stories (view on slashdot.org)

Can the Multiverse Be Tested Scientifically?

Posted by Soulskill on from the signs-point-to-no dept.

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.

4 of 147 comments (clear)

  1. String theory is not science by Rosyna · · Score: 5, Interesting

    String theory is math, not science.

    1. Re:String theory is not science by Pino+Grigio · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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.

    2. Re: String theory is not science by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 3, Interesting

      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?

  2. Nope by countach · · Score: 2, Interesting

    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.