|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 23, 2011 20:53:30 GMT -5
Hopefully I don't have to explain the title.
This OP is shit. I fully apologize for that.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on May 23, 2011 21:06:39 GMT -5
Absolute value universes? Absolute universes? Um...3 universes? L.L. Beam universes? Shy Guy universes?
|
|
|
Post by SimSim on May 23, 2011 21:13:26 GMT -5
Parallel universes, but what about them?
|
|
|
Post by MaybeNever on May 23, 2011 21:13:58 GMT -5
Yeah, what SimSim said.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 23, 2011 21:22:29 GMT -5
Could be absolute value. Did not think about that.
I wasn't quite sure how to begin the thread. So I just said, "It's about parallel universes" & hoped shit would work out.
How probable are they? Is there any evidence? That sort of thing.
|
|
|
Post by tolpuddlemartyr on May 23, 2011 21:31:11 GMT -5
Son of Universe, the kung-fu blockbuster?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 23, 2011 22:06:46 GMT -5
How would one go about "proving" a parallel universe, anyway?
|
|
|
Post by Art Vandelay on May 23, 2011 22:17:22 GMT -5
there's one in my butthole. I call it the univarse.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on May 23, 2011 22:26:03 GMT -5
How would one go about "proving" a parallel universe, anyway? Finding a doppelganger with an evil goatee?
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 23, 2011 22:39:59 GMT -5
This thread is not going as well as I'd hoped.
|
|
|
Post by DeadpanDoubter on May 23, 2011 22:43:29 GMT -5
An outline of expectations would be nice. GOSH.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 23, 2011 22:54:09 GMT -5
I don't know. Science-y shit!
I don't want to open up with opinions because I'm not confident in my interpretation of the theory.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on May 24, 2011 0:27:56 GMT -5
What type of "parallel universe" do you mean? There are two different concepts that could be described as "parallel universes". In chaotic inflation and similar theories, the Universe is one of many different universes "frozen out" of an ambient inflating structure, like chunks of ice floating in water. The many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics suggests that the Universe splits into many equally real branches corresponding to different observable values whenever an observation is made. The former type of parallel universe is an unobservable consequence of a scientific theory that predicts laws that are in principle testable using certain types of data already available. The latter is a matter of philosophy: there are other consistent interpretations of quantum mechanics that reject the idea that the unobserved values of a measurement are real. Science doesn't care whether elements of a theory are "real" or not as long as the theory is testable and explains the evidence. Choosing an interpretation of quantum mechanics is largely a matter of taste.
|
|
|
Post by Admiral Lithp on May 24, 2011 0:38:12 GMT -5
Actually, the multiverse is the one I thought sounded most probable. The many-worlds one sounded sort of fishy to me. I don't really understand how a subatomic particle being in multiple places translates to that.
|
|
|
Post by Undecided on May 24, 2011 0:57:20 GMT -5
Actually, the multiverse is the one I thought sounded most probable. The many-worlds one sounded sort of fishy to me. I don't really understand how a subatomic particle being in multiple places translates to that. I actually think that the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is the best one that I've encountered, but its advantages are a bit technical. Explaining cosmic inflation is an area of active research. As I recall, the data aren't good enough to differentiate between the various theories available, but they might be in the next decade or two. It's not my field. Shano might know: he does that sort of astrophysics stuff.
|
|