Scientists find evidence for paralel universe

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Scientists believe they have found the first evidence that other universes exist after analysing the data gathered by the European Space Agency's Planck spacecraft.

http://www.kashmirmonitor.in/news-is-our-universe-merely-one-of-billions-47765.aspx

[shrooma]

parallel universes are something completely different from what's been reported here L, what they've 'found' MAYBE evidence for 'other' universes, not parallel ones.

sad thing is, if they DO exist, we'll absolutely never, ever know!

[Big Bad Voodoo]

parallel universes are something completely different from what's been reported here L, what they've 'found' MAYBE evidence for 'other' universes, not parallel ones.

sad thing is, if they DO exist, we'll absolutely never, ever know!

My bad. Maybe multiverse would be better?

[shrooma]

yup, multiverse would be spot on!

(but parallel universes would be MUCH more exciting!)

:-)

[stevemagegod]

parallel universes are something completely different from what's been reported here L, what they've 'found' MAYBE evidence for 'other' universes, not parallel ones.

sad thing is, if they DO exist, we'll absolutely never, ever know!

Never say Never

[shrooma]

Never say Never

.

you did steve!

TWICE!!

:-)

[stevemagegod]

.

you did steve!

TWICE!!

:-)

Never !=Never

[Frank Merton]

There is good experimental evidence for parallel evidence and there is all sorts of "anthropic" evidence for a multiverse setup.

It may be that we can never "prove" any of these things, but we can't "prove" electrons either; we can still get enough evidence to be generally convincing. It is also, it seems to me, sorta the way things just should be -- no end to anything in any direction anywhere.

[shrooma]

There is good experimental evidence for parallel evidence and there is all sorts of "anthropic" evidence for a multiverse setup.

It may be that we can never "prove" any of these things, but we can't "prove" electrons either;

.

huh??

the electron is just about the most proveable thing in science frank!

there would be no anything without them, and they were the first subatomic particle ever discovered, in 1897, by j.j thompson.

[sepulchrave]

the electron is just about the most proveable thing in science frank!

I agree, but to echo what frankmerton said we still can't ``prove'' they exist.

there would be no anything without them,

Not necessarily true.

IF we accept the concept of an objective reality (a safe bet, I think), then there is clearly a lot of ``things'' (apples, cars, thunderstorms, dirt, etc.). We have a very wide-encompassing theories (quantum electrodynamics, for example) that offer an explanation of what these things are composed of (protons, electrons, etc.) and how they interact (electromagnetically, gravitationally, etc.).

What we have not done is an exhaustive study of every ``thing'' to show that they are, indeed, commensurate with the theory, and done an exhaustive study of every possible theory to show that our particular one provides the most accurate depiction of reality.

That is why these things are still ``theories'' (using the scientific definition of the word); it is impossible to conduct a completely exhaustive proof to demonstrate beyond any shred of doubt that these theories accurately model all aspects of reality.

So it is quite reasonable to believe an electron exists, after all quantum electrodynamics is probably the most accurate and widely-supported theory of nature that we have.

But we still can't ``prove'' it.

and they were the first subatomic particle ever discovered, in 1897, by j.j thompson.

Again, J. J. Thompson observed some effects that are commensurate with the existence of a minute charged particle.

[Big Bad Voodoo]

Again, J. J. Thompson observed some effects that are commensurate with the existence of a minute charged particle.

Tesla before him.

[Frank Merton]

We infer the existence of all sorts of things. Neutrinos were "invented" to keep certain conservation principles intact, and their existence was generally accepted before more direct evidence was found, but even now we have no "proof" (in the sense that it is conceivable something else could exist that has so-far fooled us into thinking neutrinos exist) The standard of "proof" in physics is a measure of probability, different from the standard in mathematics, and in fact somewhat arbitrary.