Ally Bongo Posted May 28, 2016 Share Posted May 28, 2016 Has possibly got a wee bit smaller http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_Science/Rosetta/Rosetta_s_comet_contains_ingredients_for_life Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glasgow jock Posted May 31, 2016 Share Posted May 31, 2016 The creationists are gonna love this Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share Posted June 2, 2016 The Multiverse is getting even closer Scientists usually dont "bet their dog" on something which will have a " Copernican Revolution" http://www.telegraph.co.uk/science/2016/05/31/multiple-big-bang-theory-could-bring-copernican-revolution-says/ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 I was watching a physicist talk about the multiverse and they were talking about inefficient it is, everytime an electron moves it creates a whole new universe. Where does the energy come from? The most inefficient process literally in existence. It doesn't follow the pattern we observe in our own. When spoke about in those terms it doesn't make sense. I don't think someone betting their dog makes it more or less likely. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, phart said: I was watching a physicist talk about the multiverse and they were talking about inefficient it is, everytime an electron moves it creates a whole new universe. Where does the energy come from? The most inefficient process literally in existence. It doesn't follow the pattern we observe in our own. When spoke about in those terms it doesn't make sense. Was the multiverse theory not concocted as an alternative theory to the "conscious observer" theory? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, thplinth said: Was the multiverse theory not concocted as an alternative theory to the "conscious observer" theory? Not that i'm aware of. That doesn't mean much though. One is Quantum physics is it not? The double slit experiment. I think it could explain why gravity is so much weaker a force as it's across many universes or something. I feel sorry for the dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 (edited) 12 minutes ago, phart said: One is Quantum physics is it not? The double slit experiment. I think they are maybe two competing theories to explain the double slit experiment.The Multiverse idea does not require a conscious observer I understand (just endless numbers of universes). The multiverse concept does not appeal to me but then the conscious observer thing is a headfukk in a whole different way. That double slit experiment stuff is quite bizarre. Edited June 2, 2016 by thplinth Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 1 hour ago, thplinth said: I think they are maybe two competing theories to explain the double slit experiment.The Multiverse idea does not require a conscious observer I understand (just endless numbers of universes). The multiverse concept does not appeal to me but then the conscious observer thing is a headfukk in a whole different way. That double slit experiment stuff is quite bizarre. Oh right, yeah. Some folk explain it as a simulation i think. We're in a simulation that cannot contradict itself. So when we look to see what slit it goes through to preserve the programme not contradicting itself, the pattern changes to a straight line. When the information is no longer being checked there is no contradiction and reverts back to the normal wave interference pattern. Consciousness is bizarre as feck, when you think about it, the whole shebang is bizarre are feck. We're just living it so seems normal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 That Feynman quote was quite thought provoking... 'Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, "You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It's the same thing."' Some of the things nobel prize wining scientists are quoted saying about how 'reality 'works' is pretty shocking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 12 minutes ago, thplinth said: That Feynman quote was quite thought provoking... 'Any other situation in quantum mechanics, it turns out, can always be explained by saying, "You remember the case of the experiment with the two holes? It's the same thing."' Some of the things nobel prize wining scientists are quoted saying about how 'reality 'works' is pretty shocking. Can only explain it by referencing the phenomenon itself and non of the actual mechanics behind it. Or ones before Nobel, the super smart ones that changed paradigms with their work. Philosophy is the same realising how fecked up everything is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Should check this out. http://www.nature.com/news/1-500-scientists-lift-the-lid-on-reproducibility-1.19970?WT.mc_id=TWT_NatureNews Same thing happening in Psychology. The ego depletion theory has been put on the rocks, when someone did an analysis of all the studies, real experimental problems. Feynman dealt with in his "Cargo Cult Science" lecture. http://www.lhup.edu/~DSIMANEK/cargocul.htm Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 Check the argument that reproducing a result isn't that important, which to me seems a non-scientific thing to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
thplinth Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 That weird article above with the Lord of Science saying he would bet his dog. FFS the entire scientific method is remain detached and look at the the evidence. Empiricism versus Dog Betting. Multiverse is unproven and so is big bang yet he is chugging himself about multiverse big bangs like they are facts near enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share Posted June 2, 2016 3 minutes ago, thplinth said: That weird article above with the Lord of Science saying he would bet his dog. FFS the entire scientific method is remain detached and look at the the evidence. Empiricism versus Dog Betting. Multiverse is unproven and so is big bang yet he is chugging himself about multiverse big bangs like they are facts near enough. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Ally Bongo Posted June 2, 2016 Author Share Posted June 2, 2016 I guess it's not anything new Michio Kaku said the exact same thing (almost word for word) over 6 years ago The LISA pathfinder went up this year Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest flumax Posted June 2, 2016 Share Posted June 2, 2016 9 hours ago, phart said: I was watching a physicist talk about the multiverse and they were talking about inefficient it is, everytime an electron moves it creates a whole new universe. Where does the energy come from? The most inefficient process literally in existence. It doesn't follow the pattern we observe in our own. When spoke about in those terms it doesn't make sense. I don't think someone betting their dog makes it more or less likely. I hate looking at threads like this. I've a PhD in theoretics, but I've no idea what you lot are on about. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 8 hours ago, flumax said: I hate looking at threads like this. I've a PhD in theoretics, but I've no idea what you lot are on about. That's nothing I had to go get a dictionary to see what you had a PhD in and i still don't know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
phart Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 8 hours ago, Ally Bongo said: I guess it's not anything new Schrödinger came up with it as a possible outcome of his equations in the 50's No point discussing it as it can't be proved. Like God there is no way to confirm or deny. Or at least at the moment we haven't conceived a way too. From Nature again http://www.nature.com/news/big-bang-blunder-bursts-the-multiverse-bubble-1.15346 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 9 hours ago, phart said: That's nothing I had to go get a dictionary to see what you had a PhD in and i still don't know. Me too. Never heard of it before. I thought they were a band. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Orraloon Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 8 hours ago, DonnyTJS said: Was it his auld man that came up with the idea of parallel universes? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DonnyTJS Posted June 3, 2016 Share Posted June 3, 2016 7 hours ago, Orraloon said: Was it his auld man that came up with the idea of parallel universes? Congratulations. He came up with the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics which avoids the need for an observer used in the Copenhagen interpretation. The song has the line "Daddy was a troubled genius". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
.thumb.jpg.5eeaf0fbe501ba3c868c32fd77caef1f.jpg)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.