- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,941
- Reaction score
- 0
Keep saying how the singularity is something we can repeat or observe using QM. That was your claim no?
-
Xenforo Cloud has scheduled an upgrade to XenForo version 2.2.16. This will take place on or shortly after the following date and time: Jul 05, 2024 at 05:00 PM (PT) There shouldn't be any downtime, as it's just a maintenance release. More info here
"The Multiverse Falsified" and fake physics.
- Thread starter unimackpass
- Start date
Keep saying how the singularity is something we can repeat or observe using QM. That was your claim no?
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,941
- Reaction score
- 0
So QM proves something about the singularity even tho the singularity doesn't exist in such models? yeah color me confused
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,526
- Reaction score
- 368
They both describe something seemingly beyond our understanding, but only one attempts at formally explaining the process, which results in logical discussion with more tangible foundations for debate whether you support it or not. The other requires 100% faith. I suppose god made me so skeptical that I refuse to blindly accept his existence. Joke is on him.
For the record, I have not made up my mind on the multiverse theory.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,577
- Reaction score
- 3,792
I know you are confused, there was no singularity in QM. Space-Time in one form or another has always existed in QM models.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,941
- Reaction score
- 0
What if they actually describe a supernatural event? Either an intelligent being, OR maybe some crazy cosmic energy that spontaneously created itself and big banged us all into existence? Unless something shows how our laws of physics got it wrong, (a multiverse is actually proven and suitably explains the contradictions found in physics) I'm gonna believe they are right, and something kinda gnarly happened.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,941
- Reaction score
- 0
Yeah I admit i'm no QM expert lol. I'll have to do some reading to understand what you're talking about specifically.
So QM is suggesting that the universe we reside in (at least the amount of energy) is infinitely old, or more accurately has no beginning?
- Joined
- Dec 16, 2015
- Messages
- 45,243
- Reaction score
- 6,619
See above, basically all of the above. If I were you I would report his ass for screwing over your thread with his bullshit.
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2009
- Messages
- 10,941
- Reaction score
- 0
I'm engaging the topic while you take your whiny little potshots.
- Joined
- Mar 27, 2004
- Messages
- 9,577
- Reaction score
- 3,792
Certain models based on QM are yes, they were in much different forms long ago but there was always a quantum field vacuum with quantum fluctuations.
- Joined
- Sep 28, 2009
- Messages
- 27,309
- Reaction score
- 14,442
Multiverse is real, don’t be stupid. Dr. Doom saved it in secret wars 2. It was awesome. He had a whole wall made out of The Thing keeping Ulttons and Marvel Zombies outside the universe. And there was a Thor police force. Just read the comic people
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 65,561
- Reaction score
- 8,847
Nice try. Any subject, any time. Raised by a scientist reading skeptical enquirers and other science mags constantly. I don't have a doctorate in any area of science, but there isn't much above my pay grade that doesn't involve advanced physics equations.. Which were, of course, what I was poking fun at, but it seems pretty obvious they keep making things up to patch holes in their math; somebody else did that and called it "the greatest mistake of his career."
If there were more dark matter than regular matter, which is what the math indicates, we would perceive it in some fashion outside of math. It's also supposed to be highly volatile..So, yeah, it would cause some celestial events etc.. Sometimes our eyes and what we perceive irl is a decent indicator of what's actually there; not always, but more than not.
Last edited:
- Joined
- Aug 15, 2015
- Messages
- 26,650
- Reaction score
- 5
A lot less wrong than our history of relying this fictional god.
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 25,988
- Reaction score
- 16,044
You can test for multiiverses empirically. I believe they are attempting it at the LHC.
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 49,276
- Reaction score
- 2,462
You sure about that? People who look solely at the sciences and areas of academic study seem to not have a clue about people and about history. I mean of course they know things but the big questions arent even close to answered and the big picture of life/existence not close to complete. Yet for those that study the sciences and areas of academic study in addition to studying the ancient and historical writings and beliefs(biblical and otherwise) have a much more comprehensive view of people and of history. They have much more complete answers to the big questions and a full picture of live and existence.
Perhaps you should expand you're studies?
- Joined
- Jul 7, 2016
- Messages
- 25,988
- Reaction score
- 16,044
We do see it. Look at rotation curves for galaxies.
Also, our eyes are an absolute horrible indicator of what is actually there. Where are you getting that from?
- Joined
- May 7, 2016
- Messages
- 42,438
- Reaction score
- 20,355
What ancient cultures have you studied?
- Joined
- Jul 16, 2007
- Messages
- 49,276
- Reaction score
- 2,462
I haven't studied any specific culture at least on a scholarly level. I'm referring to the different world views and velief systems you see through out history...almost all of which modern intellectuals dismiss outright.
- Joined
- Feb 7, 2011
- Messages
- 1,526
- Reaction score
- 368
I see that your post was poking fun, but I serious in a way; I retract my rude tone... some other posts had me in defensive mode.
While repatching of theories can be demoralizing to some, I'm sure that ,since you state you're well self educated on various topics, you understand this is how the process goes. New evidence proves or makes theories change. Eventually we get some sort of solid model out of the endless trials. And I'm sure you're aware that when you answer one question, many more pop up. It seems like a never ended process, which is good for greedy human nature which always wants more haha.
- Joined
- Jul 3, 2010
- Messages
- 6,220
- Reaction score
- 721
More well thought out logic to reflect on.
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/01/more-multiverse-madness.html
Thursday, January 25, 2018
The “multiverse” – the idea that our universe is only one of infinitely many – enjoys some credibility, at least in the weirder corners of theoretical physics. But there are good reasons to be skeptical, and I’m here to tell you all of them.
Before we get started, let us be clear what we are talking about because there isn’t only one but multiple multiverses. The most commonly discussed ones are: (a) The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, (b) eternal inflation, and (c) the string theory landscape.
The many world’s interpretation is, guess what, an interpretation. At least to date, it makes no predictions that differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So it’s up to you whether you believe it. And that’s all I have to say about this.
Eternal inflation is an extrapolation of inflation, which is an extrapolation of the concordance model, which is an extrapolation of the present-day universe back in time. Eternal inflation, like inflation, works by inventing a new field (the “inflaton”) that no one has ever seen because we are told it vanished long ago. Eternal inflation is a story about the quantum fluctuations of the now-vanished field and what these fluctuations did to gravity, which no one really knows, but that’s the game.
There is little evidence for inflation, and zero evidence for eternal inflation. But there is a huge number of models for both because available data don’t constraint the models much. Consequently, theorists theorize the hell out of it. And the more papers they write about it, the more credible the whole thing looks.
And then there’s the string theory landscape, the graveyard of disappointed hopes. It’s what you get if you refuse to accept that string theory does not predict which particles we observe.
String theorists originally hoped that their theory would explain everything. When it became clear that didn’t work, some string theorists declared if they can’t do it then it’s not possible, hence everything that string theory allows must exist – and there’s your multiverse. But you could do the same thing with any other theory if you don’t draw on sufficient observational input to define a concrete model. The landscape, therefore, isn’t so much a prediction of string theory as a consequence of string theorists’ insistence that theirs a theory of everything.
Why then, does anyone take the multiverse seriously? Multiverse proponents usually offer the following four arguments in favor of the idea:
http://backreaction.blogspot.com/2018/01/more-multiverse-madness.html
Thursday, January 25, 2018
The “multiverse” – the idea that our universe is only one of infinitely many – enjoys some credibility, at least in the weirder corners of theoretical physics. But there are good reasons to be skeptical, and I’m here to tell you all of them.Before we get started, let us be clear what we are talking about because there isn’t only one but multiple multiverses. The most commonly discussed ones are: (a) The many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics, (b) eternal inflation, and (c) the string theory landscape.
The many world’s interpretation is, guess what, an interpretation. At least to date, it makes no predictions that differ from other interpretations of quantum mechanics. So it’s up to you whether you believe it. And that’s all I have to say about this.
Eternal inflation is an extrapolation of inflation, which is an extrapolation of the concordance model, which is an extrapolation of the present-day universe back in time. Eternal inflation, like inflation, works by inventing a new field (the “inflaton”) that no one has ever seen because we are told it vanished long ago. Eternal inflation is a story about the quantum fluctuations of the now-vanished field and what these fluctuations did to gravity, which no one really knows, but that’s the game.
There is little evidence for inflation, and zero evidence for eternal inflation. But there is a huge number of models for both because available data don’t constraint the models much. Consequently, theorists theorize the hell out of it. And the more papers they write about it, the more credible the whole thing looks.
And then there’s the string theory landscape, the graveyard of disappointed hopes. It’s what you get if you refuse to accept that string theory does not predict which particles we observe.
String theorists originally hoped that their theory would explain everything. When it became clear that didn’t work, some string theorists declared if they can’t do it then it’s not possible, hence everything that string theory allows must exist – and there’s your multiverse. But you could do the same thing with any other theory if you don’t draw on sufficient observational input to define a concrete model. The landscape, therefore, isn’t so much a prediction of string theory as a consequence of string theorists’ insistence that theirs a theory of everything.
Why then, does anyone take the multiverse seriously? Multiverse proponents usually offer the following four arguments in favor of the idea:
- Joined
- Feb 23, 2007
- Messages
- 65,561
- Reaction score
- 8,847
Eyes, telescopes, radio telescopes etc...
We saw a supernova with our eyes before we ever mathematically described it. It was a "guest star." Black holes were discovered through math, but they were not a gap filler, they were their own.
