Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Special Relativity is flawed.
You can't be "A" and "-A" at the same time, we must either change the definition of Universe (from all that exists, to something else) or recognize there can't be multiple of them.
There are many meanings of 'universe' - everything that is; a causally isolated spacetime volume; everything of importance to someone; the contents, or every element, of a particular domain (e.g. a knowledge domain); and more, including specialised 'jargon' meanings, such as a 'universe' of financial transaction types, or trades, etc.actually there are two meanings of universe, our universe, or the greater universe if one exists that would include the muttiverse, or where ever god is or such.
There are many meanings of 'universe' - everything that is; a causally isolated spacetime volume; everything of importance to someone; the contents, or every element, of a particular domain (e.g. a knowledge domain); and more, including specialised 'jargon' meanings, such as a 'universe' of financial transaction types, or trades, etc.
Why would you suppose there is a continuous spatial medium beyond it?The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.
Let's start with a couple of axioms.
1.) Matter and energy are finite. If not, we would live inside of an infinitely dense, infinitely hot, soiid mass, of infinite expanse. We don't. No really, I once had a supposedly educated scientist try to make the laughable argument that universe was pure infinite energy. His argument went down in flames.
2.) Space is infinite. Seriously, I've had people try to dispute this axiom. I've asked them to tell me where to find this magic wall that sets the boundary for the edge of empty space, and to describe what is on the other side of that wall.
Now for the science:
An expanding universe like ours will reach a heat-death whether it's infinite or not, and in a finite (but very long) time. Eventually, all the black holes will evaporate, all the non-fundamental particles will decay, and things will go very quiet. But it will never reach absolute zero because of quantum fluctuations of vacuum energy as described by the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle (sometimes called 'virtual particles').The second law of thermodynamics can be precisely stated in the following two forms, as originally formulated in the 19th century by the Scottish physicist William Thomson (Lord Kelvin) and the German physicist Rudolf Clausius, respectively:
A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transform heat extracted from a source which is at the same temperature throughout into work is impossible.
A cyclic transformation whose only final result is to transfer heat from a body at a given temperature to a body at a higher temperature is impossible.
Source: thermodynamics | Laws, Definition, & Equations - Isothermal and adiabatic processes
In other words, heat is transferred from an area of greater concentration, to an area of lesser concentration.
With the radiation of a finite amount of heat, over infinite space, over infinite time, the universe would infinitely approach a temperature of absolute zero. There are inefficiencies in converting energy from one form to another. Any energy which isn't converted to work, is dissipated as heat. No work; no motion.
A temperature scale whose zero point is absolute zero, the temperature of 0 entropy at which all molecular motion stops, -273.15° C. The size of a degree Kelvin is the same as the size of a degree Celsius.
Kelvin -- from Eric Weisstein's World of Physics
In other words, no energy; no work. No work, no motion. No motion; no molecules.
The tangible universe as we perceive it could not, nor cannot, have existed, nor continue to exist, eternally.
Some would argue that the Singularity preexisted the current universe eternally, before the Big Bang.
Nonsense! The same laws would apply to the Singularity; and what would cause the Singularity to go "bang" In the relatively recent past? Eternity is a very long time. If the Singularity was going to go "bang:" it would have done so an eternity ago; and the universe would have already infinitely approached absolute zero.
"Of old hast thou laid the foundation of the earth: and the heavens are the work of thy hands. They shall perish, but thou shalt endure: yea, all of them shall wax old like a garment; as a vesture shalt thou change them, and they shall be changed: But thou art the same, and thy years shall have no end" (Psalm 102:25–27).
Discuss...
You're right that nothing is defined by an absence of anything, so, by definition, it's not a thing, it can't 'exist', it's just a concept of negation; but space exists, it has extent and vacuum energy, it is pervaded by quantum and gravitational fields even in the absence of particles, and you can move through it.If nothing is the absence of something; then how would one define nothing, in the absence of everything? You define space by an abstract relationship of that which is concrete; but there is nothing concrete in empty space, nor outside the confines of the tangible aggregate. That which is without limits is undefined; but you attempt to limit that which is undefined, that which is outside the limits of that what is defined, by that which is defined.
The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.
Sometimes, though, I just like to sit on the sofa and watch box sets on Prime Video and Netflix.You're right that nothing is defined by an absence of anything, so, by definition, it's not a thing, it can't 'exist', it's just a concept of negation; but space exists, it has extent and vacuum energy, it is pervaded by quantum and gravitational fields even in the absence of particles, and you can move through it.
Sometimes, though, I just like to sit on the sofa and watch box sets on Prime Video and Netflix.
.
.
.
.
I feel a session coming on.
Yes, of course, I meant you can move through it in principleSometimes, though, I just like to sit on the sofa and watch box sets on Prime Video and Netflix.
.
.
.
.
I feel a session coming on.
The universe could mean all that is in the realm of our observable universe, or it could mean the totality of the universe, in our observable realm and all that is in the continuous spatial medium beyond it. But saying there are other universes that are constituents of a multiverse is just a belief, without scientific basis for that.
Speedwell said:Why would you suppose there is a continuous spatial medium beyond it?
Kylie said:
I looked with careful consideration. It was not convincing me. Did you expect it would? You would then convert me to your position. What am I finding to object to? There is extrapolation with this. It is what I think is beyond what science deals with, kind of in the way it has been viewed that logic I show is outside the scope of science. There are assumptions made with this. For example this. "Until, that is, you remember that everything that physically exists must be inherently quantum in nature. Even inflation, with all the unknowns surrounding it, must be a quantum field." From that there is the jump to that multiverse consisting of many universes. These assumptions do not pursuade me away from seeing the universe being the physical reality itself, and as designed.
Various types of multiverse have been proposed; they are predictions of well-established theories, given certain plausible assumptions. Whether you or I find the idea intuitive or unintuitive, reasonable or unreasonable, makes no difference to their likelihood - quantum superpositions and entanglement are completely unintuitive and even unreasonable to a classical thinker, but are nevertheless demonstrably real. The problem with multiverses in that respect is that they are not demonstrable.I looked with careful consideration. It was not convincing me. Did you expect it would? You would then convert me to your position. What am I finding to object to? There is extrapolation with this. It is what I think is beyond what science deals with, kind of in the way it has been viewed that logic I show is outside the scope of science. There are assumptions made with this. For example this. "Until, that is, you remember that everything that physically exists must be inherently quantum in nature. Even inflation, with all the unknowns surrounding it, must be a quantum field." From that there is the jump to that multiverse consisting of many universes.
The question is, what is physical reality? is it the fluctuating probability fields of quantum mechanics or the coarse-grained approximation we experience?These assumptions do not pursuade me away from seeing the universe being the physical reality itself, and as designed.
Kylie said:My links were not intended to convince anyone that the multiverse was definitely true. It was just intended to show that there is some scientific evidence that the multiverse may be real and the claim that it's just a belief is not true.
FrumiousBandersnatch said:Various types of multiverse have been proposed; they are predictions of well-established theories, given certain plausible assumptions. Whether you or I find the idea intuitive or unintuitive, reasonable or unreasonable, makes no difference to their likelihood - quantum superpositions and entanglement are completely unintuitive and even unreasonable to a classical thinker, but are nevertheless demonstrably real. The problem with multiverses in that respect is that they are not demonstrable.
The question is, what is physical reality? is it the fluctuating probability fields of quantum mechanics or the coarse-grained approximation we experience?
Also, the physical world you perceive is a predictive model constructed in your head from the neural spike trains from your senses. It's a representation - your eyes have neither the resolution or bandwidth to present the seemingly high-resolution world you see in real-time; the signals from your eyes are used to correct and update the predictive model that is your experiential reality. Your brain introduces adjustments and delays to its sensory inputs to make the world seem coherent and consistent, but these are distortions of your senses.
I suggest that whatever reality is, it's not what you perceive.
It's not formally being used to explain anything yet. Scientific theories explain; the multiverse is merely an hypothesis.But it is a belief when there isn't something that settles it, and it is yet used to explain anything.
Evolution is no philosopher of reality, it's just a matter of survival, so from a pragmatic viewpoint, reality is what you're adapted to survive.This being the case is in a way like a two-edged sword. I have had these same thoughts, which could be applied to you, and all scientists with their conclusions. Ability to perceive as a result of natural processed with survival value having effect on it has it questionable for any perceiving what is really true. How can you or any scientists be trusted then? It would be very limited to what capacity is evolved and not corresponding to actual true reality, which there is not capacity for either sensing or understanding. Any real understanding would have to have another source that makes it reliable.
The demarcation problem has been around as long as science, and falsificationism was itself falsified not very long after Popper proposed it. The fact is that a lot of current science, especially physics, is the product of hypotheses that were unfalsifiable when first proposed.Some physicists say the multiverse is not a legitimate topic of scientific inquiry. Concerns have been raised about whether attempts to exempt the multiverse from experimental verification could erode public confidence in science and ultimately damage the study of fundamental physics. Some have argued that the multiverse is a philosophical notion rather than a scientific hypothesis because it cannot be empirically falsified. The ability to disprove a theory by means of scientific experiment has always been part of the accepted scientific method. Paul Steinhardt has famously argued that no experiment can rule out a theory if the theory provides for all possible outcomes.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?