Jump to content
Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
UM-Bot

Hawking's final multiverse theory published

48 posts in this topic

Recommended Posts

StarMountainKid

Oh Oh, many universes like our own. From the perspective of the history of human life on Earth, maybe not a good Cosmic plan. :) 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

So, question for anyone:

Is main-stream cosmology tending towards some form or another of multiverse?

Or is that still largely considered "fringe science", or just an unproven "mathematical possibility" ?

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

I'm no expert, but I think it's one model of how the BB could have occurred. Eternal inflation:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
paperdyer

For all we know, the black holes are where the multiverses "live"  Black holes are like the old Raid Roach Motel commercials.   Light goes in, doesn't come out.

The existence of multiverses has been "discussed" for over 50 years along with multiple time lines. But aren't multiple time lines sort of a subset of the multiverse theory?  Sci-Fi and comic book writers have been making a living off of these theories for years.  Think about this, doesn't every episode of Doctor Who creat a new time line or multiverse?  How many episodes have contradicted an earlier one.  Shouldn't have Matt Smith's Doctor have been the evil regeneration from the Colin Baker "Trial of a Time Lord" series?  Think about it without getting a headache.

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
2 minutes ago, paperdyer said:

For all we know, the black holes are where the multiverses "live"  Black holes are like the old Raid Roach Motel commercials.   Light goes in, doesn't come out.

The existence of multiverses has been "discussed" for over 50 years along with multiple time lines. But aren't multiple time lines sort of a subset of the multiverse theory?  Sci-Fi and comic book writers have been making a living off of these theories for years.  Think about this, doesn't every episode of Doctor Who creat a new time line or multiverse?  How many episodes have contradicted an earlier one.  Shouldn't have Matt Smith's Doctor have been the evil regeneration from the Colin Baker "Trial of a Time Lord" series?  Think about it without getting a headache.

Realizing that, currently, there is no direct proof for a multiverse, I know that some "serious-level" mathematicians as well as high-end theoretical physicists support the multiverse idea.

Doesn't mean they're correct, of course, but I find it interesting that it is considered, by them, to be a real possibility. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid

I think that our universe as the only one that has ever existed is less likely than our universe as just one of many.  

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Off-topic:

Antimatter from bananas...

Source: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/2009/07/23/antimatter-from-bananas

"The average banana (rich in potassium) produces a positron roughly once every 75 minutes."

Potassium-40 is a naturally occurring isotope that is unstable and decays, but it has a huge half life, about a billion years. These days only a small fraction (100 parts per million) of potassium atoms are actually Potassium-40, but objects that are dense in potassium—such as bananas—are likely to have tens of micrograms of the stuff. If one crunches the numbers (as they do in the original article), it turns out that bananas pop out a positron every 75 minutes or so. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Welcome to our weird world, I guess!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Noxasa

In other words, if a universe created in the multiverse does not produce sentient life then it never materializes into a physical universe in the first place since quantum mechanics requires conscious observation.  Thus, only universes that produce sentient life come into a reality, the rest quantumly churn, or stay in, nothingness.  This would mean that there are likely many (maybe an infinite number) universes similar to our own that each produced sentient life.  But that probably doesn't mean that sentient life can not exist in quite different universe structures than our own.  It's just that under this theoretical concept we can suspect that under a multiverse reality that there would be other universes close to our own.  It's interesting to think about.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
2 minutes ago, Noxasa said:

In other words, if a universe created in the multiverse does not produce sentient life then it never materializes into a physical universe in the first place since quantum mechanics requires conscious observation.  Thus, only universes that produce sentient life come into a reality, the rest quantumly churn, or stay in, nothingness.  This would mean that there are likely many (maybe an infinite number) universes similar to our own that each produced sentient life.  But that probably doesn't mean that sentient life can not exist in quite different universe structures than our own.  It's just that under this theoretical concept we can suspect that under a multiverse reality that there would be other universes close to our own.  It's interesting to think about.

I would not agree with your statement that quantum mechanics requires conscious observation. Quantum scale events are occurring all the time everywhere in the universe without our conscious observation. 

Are universes that are not conducive to life real? I think they are, there's just nobody there. 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

I have a tune for all the theoretical physicists who bring us so much in life to ponder.

The tune is "Lick it Up", by KISS

I prefer a "motivational" Pick it Up to denote encouragment to push all boundaries.

Enjoy...

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
12 minutes ago, pallidin said:

Off-topic:

Antimatter from bananas...

Source: https://www.symmetrymagazine.org/2009/07/23/antimatter-from-bananas

"The average banana (rich in potassium) produces a positron roughly once every 75 minutes."

Potassium-40 is a naturally occurring isotope that is unstable and decays, but it has a huge half life, about a billion years. These days only a small fraction (100 parts per million) of potassium atoms are actually Potassium-40, but objects that are dense in potassium—such as bananas—are likely to have tens of micrograms of the stuff. If one crunches the numbers (as they do in the original article), it turns out that bananas pop out a positron every 75 minutes or so. 

A positron is the anti-particle of an electron. When produced, it quickly finds an electron and they are mutually destroyed producing two gamma-ray photons. Just an addition to your off-topic post. :)  

 

  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Go, LHC !!!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin
45 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I would not agree with your statement that quantum mechanics requires conscious observation. Quantum scale events are occurring all the time everywhere in the universe without our conscious observation. 

Are universes that are not conducive to life real? I think they are, there's just nobody there. 

You would be correct.

That mere human conciouness observation of a quantum event actually changing its probability distribution and eventual "state-collapse" is one of the most misunderstood quantum interaction scenarios.

It is FALSE.

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Human "awareness" ALONE of, say, the "double-slit" experiment DOES NOT ALTER the outcome.

Instrumentation, however, necessarily does.

THAT is the difference.

Very misunderstood.

Edited by pallidin
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Similar to Schrödinger's cat, the scenario is entirely misunderstood.

He NEVER meant to prove odd "superposition", rather that "perceived logic" can get in the way of actual truth.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

Schrödinger's cat was purely, by the scientist own admission, a "thought experiment" to expose the fragility and sometimes absurdity of "logic"

There is NO SUPERPOSITION at all, and was verfied as being NO SUPERPOSITION by later studies using mice.

 

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

God bless mice....

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
13 hours ago, StarMountainKid said:

I would not agree with your statement that quantum mechanics requires conscious observation. Quantum scale events are occurring all the time everywhere in the universe without our conscious observation. 

Are universes that are not conducive to life real? I think they are, there's just nobody there. 

Actually he is correct, we have no way of knowing what's happening when we aren't looking. Nor is there any suggestions of anything happening when we aren't looking, it appears our observation makes things happen the way they do.

Look at the quantum version of the double slit experiment if you need clarity.

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
14 hours ago, pallidin said:

Human "awareness" ALONE of, say, the "double-slit" experiment DOES NOT ALTER the outcome.

Instrumentation, however, necessarily does.

THAT is the difference.

Very misunderstood.

It is very misunderstood, unfortunately.

However direct observation, does alter the outcome. If continue to use Young's slit experiment and look what happens when we combine two Josephson junctions together.

The experiment works like this. Imagine a screen of some kind a wall, perhaps with two small holes in it. On one side of this wall is another wall that incorporates a detector of some kind. If we are experimenting with light, the detector might be a white surface on which we can see light and dark bands, or it might be a photographic plate that we can develop and study at leisure. If we are working with electrons, the screen might be covered in an array of electron-detectors for example. There is a source of photons or electrons on the other side,this is not what is important, what is important is the outcome of different variations of the experiment. If we step away from the quantum version for a moment and use water as or medium in the experiment and we try to measure the waves in said water we find that it is easy to see how waves diffract through holes, waves spread through the two holes and form a regular pattern of troughs and crests along the detector because of interference from the waves coming from each hole. If we block off one of the holes in the wall, the height of the waves on the screen varies in a simple, regular way. The larger waves are the ones nearest the hole, across the shortest distance of the tank, and to either side the amplitude of the waves is less. The same pattern is found if we block off this hole and open up the one that was previously blocked. We find the following, intensity of the wave is proportional to the square of the height or amplitude, H 2 , this is the same for each hole, However when both holes are open, the pattern is much more complex. There is indeed a large peak intensity smack in line with the two holes, but there is a very low intensity just either side of the peak, where the two sets of waves cancel out, and a pattern of highs and lows repeating alternately as we move along the screen. Mathematically, instead of finding that the intensity of both holes together is the sum of their two separate intensities it turns out to be the square of the sum of the two amplitudes. For waves whose amplitudes are represented by H and J , say, the intensity I is not H 2 + J 2 , but is given by the expression I = (H + J). (I'm using my phone and don't know how to get a squared symbol on it so the twos in this statement mean squared. Apologises if that is confusing.) But however , the maths works out as I = H 2 + J 2 + 2HJ The extra term is the contribution due to interference from the two waves, and, making allowance for the fact that the H ’s and J ’s can be negative or positive, this explains the interference patterns we see in Young's double slit experiment. Apologises if this long winded, but if we look at the same experiment using a single photon or electron, which are at the quantum scales, we find very strange things occur.  We are left with probably wave functions that Schrodinger uses to describe the probably in the uncertainty principle. Basically diffraction pattern of the electron two-hole experiment is a pattern of ψ 2 .

Interesting things happen when we just use a single electron, or photon in this experiment and we close up one hole or the other. Surely, an electron must go through one hole or the other. We can try experimentally the equivalent of blocking off each hole in turn. When we do, we get the usual pattern on our screen for single-hole experiments. When we open both holes together, however, we do not get the pattern produced by adding up those two patterns, Instead, we get the pattern for interference by waves. So this is just wave/ particle duality. This most interesting thing happens when we try to observe which hole the electron or photon goes through.

Basically it appears the electron or photon knows which hole is open, this is the same if we try and cheat by closing a hole in transit. The outcome is a statistical analysis of that hole being open and it doesn't matter what we do it always appears this way. What does this mean? It appears that the particles know which hole is open or closed and it knows when we are watching them. When we try to look at the spread-out electron wave, it collapses into a definite particle, but when we are not looking it keeps its options open. In terms of probabilities, the electron is being forced by our observation to choose one action out of an array of possibilities. There is a robability that it might go through one hole, and an equivalent probability that it may go through the other or we could say our observation creates the diffraction pattern.

In other words, it does seem unless we observe, measure or look, what ever you want to call it, it does appear that nature herself does not know which hole the particle goes through.

So yes we need to use instrumentation to measure, look and observe but for me it's the act of observing that causes this not the use of instrumentation we use to observe it. Sorry if this is a bit long winded, but I was bored in work and thought this would occupy me for awhile. The above is very much miss understood as is much of our understanding if quantum mechanics. I especially like when people say faster than light communication is possible using our two interpretations of quantum mechanics. But anyways maybe I'm biased as I am a proponent of the many world's interpretation and it's probably why I ascribe that it's the act of observing that causes what we see not the instrumentation used to observe it. I still have to read Dr Hawkings new paper regarding the multiverse hopefully it will led us down a path of better understanding our observations and will eventually led to one of our greatest minds receiving a Nobel Prize.

Edited: I think Feynman described it better with bullets and buckets if anyone is interested. http://www.feynmanlectures.caltech.edu/III_01.html

 

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1
  • Thanks 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
StarMountainKid
6 hours ago, danydandan said:

Actually he is correct, we have no way of knowing what's happening when we aren't looking. Nor is there any suggestions of anything happening when we aren't looking, it appears our observation makes things happen the way they do.

Look at the quantum version of the double slit experiment if you need clarity.

 

According to QM, reality is what can be measured. I think your statement that nothing is happening when we aren't looking is not correct. Events on the quantum scale are happening all the time, but because they are not measured and because of the uncertainty principle we cannot describe these events. In this sense we can't define them as part of our observable reality.

In other words, if we don't know what's going on, by a strict definition, what we don't know is not real by our definition of reality.

But actually, something is going on even when we cannot know what it is. If nothing were happening on the quantum scale unobserved, the universe on the quantum scale would be static. Stars, for instance, would not exist. 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
2 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

According to QM, reality is what can be measured. I think your statement that nothing is happening when we aren't looking is not correct. Events on the quantum scale are happening all the time, but because they are not measured and because of the uncertainty principle we cannot describe these events. In this sense we can't define them as part of our observable reality.

In other words, if we don't know what's going on, by a strict definition, what we don't know is not real by our definition of reality.

But actually, something is going on even when we cannot know what it is. If nothing were happening on the quantum scale unobserved, the universe on the quantum scale would be static. Stars, for instance, would not exist. 

 

I am not saying nothing isn't happening when we aren't looking, what I am saying is we can't determine what is happening when we aren't looking.

  • Like 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pallidin

If I observe, then not observe -with my eyes only- the reflection from the screen of the double-split experiment, no difference in result will occur.

If, however, I place intrumentation in the path prior to or after going through the slits... that's when the phenom occurs.

I think ??

Edited by pallidin

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
danydandan
9 minutes ago, pallidin said:

If I observe, then not observe -with my eyes only- the reflection from the screen of the double-split experiment, no difference in result will occur.

If, however, I place intrumentation in the path prior to going through the slits... that's when the phenom occurs.

You don't know what's happening when your not observering. This is the crux of our issue in quantum mechanics.

https://landing.newscientist.com/department-for-education-feature-3/

Edited by danydandan
  • Like 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.