Psst... Ready to join TalkBass and start posting, make new friends, sell your gear, and more?  Register your free account in 30 seconds.

Time warp

Discussion in 'Off Topic [BG]' started by Suburban_punk, May 27, 2003.


  1. Suburban_punk

    Suburban_punk

    May 13, 2003
    Denver
  2. You just ****ed up my thinking forver. Thanks.
     
  3. Bard2dbone

    Bard2dbone

    Aug 4, 2002
    Arlington TX
    multiverse theory! Ya gotta love it.
     
  4. geshel

    geshel

    Oct 2, 2001
    Seattle
    I came across that article a few weeks ago, and I thought it was suprisingly bad for SciAm.

    The biggest problem is: they put forth the idea of these universe "bubbles" defined by the Hubble distance, the maximum distance light could have travelled since the beginning of time. They make it sound like these bubbles are distinct things. The problem is that they are a continuum - move 6 feet to the left, and your "Hubble bubble" moves 6 feet to the left (and grows a little larger of course). So every point in space has a Hubble volume associated with it.

    So first I think it's pretty lame that the article doesn't really give any indication of this, and in fact does a lot to imply otherwise (that they are distinct).

    Second, their analysis of how "far" you'd have to go to find a Hubble volume exactly like this one but for one little difference, is flawed (I think :) ). Simply because the volumes are not independent, so you can't simply say "in this one, you've got these conditions. . .in this one, you've got thes different conditions. . .etc". They're all interlocked. Maybe they took this into account, but again the article makes it appear as if they based their numbers on them all being distinct, and simply stringing them together as independent variables.
     
  5. P. Aaron

    P. Aaron Supporting Member

    There is a cheezy movie out there from the 60's-70's called "Journey to the Far Side of the Sun". It was about another earth that was mirror image.

    A good movie if you're 8-13 years old. But cheezy.
     
  6. Killdar

    Killdar

    Dec 16, 2002
    Portland Maine
    interesting stuff to think about, but I usually just look at the little picture in life....something like

    "I am a human-animal, and nothing more. I do what human-animals do. There is only one me, and I am only doing what I am doing now. and There are planets and a sun all around earth, and that's all that matters."

    I often venture into the world of quantum-scientific theory, but it always confuses me and leads me back to the inevitable small picture.
     
  7. geshel

    geshel

    Oct 2, 2001
    Seattle
    I wrote to SciAm with my questions above, and George Musser was awesome enough to reply and help straighten me out.

    I'm still not sure whether to say I misunderstood the article, or that it misrepresnted the subject. Either way, the gist of the discussion is:

    - yes the Hubble Volumes are continuous
    - for any observer, things outside the Hubble Volume are independent variables as they cannot possibly have affected what we observe
    - space outside our volume still does, however, have to follow the laws of physics
    - the example of 2^(10^118) possible distributions of protons within one Hubble Volume was a corner case used to create the most conservative estimate, they were not saying that many of those distributions were very likely (as most of them are actually impossible)

    The one thing I still have an issue with is this:

    Actually, it doesn't: it only guarantees that at least two volumes within the box are identical. There may, however, be a great deal of redundancy (99% of the volumes may be identical), leaving the rest to be unique. So, a box that large does not guarantee that there will be another Hubble Volume in it identical to ours.
     
  8. Interesting article.

    I find it hilarious how much many modern scientist mirror ancient theologians - ie. speculating and making definitive statements about things they cannot possibly know that are also completely irrelevant.
     
  9. Suburban_punk

    Suburban_punk

    May 13, 2003
    Denver
    Thank You!!

    I understand that science starts with theories and or ideas then you prove those theories.
    But some of the stuff in the science community today is so "out there" I'm wondering if we'll ever find answers.

    Maybe they said the same things about the guys who said the earth was round?

    Who knows....
     
  10. yoshi

    yoshi

    Jul 12, 2002
    England, London
    "But perhaps he or she now decides to put down this article without finishing it, while you read on."

    ..Must..read..on...must be..better..than counter part.

    Now that IS a good hook! :eek:
     
  11. yoshi

    yoshi

    Jul 12, 2002
    England, London
    "most popular cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy about 10 to the 1028 meters from here."

    ..Wow! Its 100% right!

    ..I have a twin brother...

    (would that mean that according to this theres really 3 other poeple outthere like me?)
     
  12. thrash_jazz

    thrash_jazz

    Jan 11, 2002
    Ottawa, Ontario, Canada
    Artist: JAF Basses, Circle K Strings
    The thing that cosmological models have going for them is that the math supports it.

    For instance, the whole particle-in-a-box question makes a lot more sense once you know how the equations work.

    Of course, that doesn't mean these theories are true, necessarily, but many phenomena have been proven mathematically long before they were actually observed (eg, lasers, special relativity)
     
  13. They like to have some backing of their theories, no one's every just sat down with a bunch of guys and gone "Just imagine this, okay?". Most of these theories build on mathematics and are extensions of earlier proven theories.

    It's a case of blind faith vs. scientifical theories. Don't confuse one with the other.
     
  14. Using the same lagic I also think that there's a degree thing in it also... our universe is possible just one tiny part of a large pice of matter-just a small, microscopic piece of framework. Also, there could be universes inside each tiny atom, to a tiny degree even inside each atom.
     
  15. Killdar

    Killdar

    Dec 16, 2002
    Portland Maine
    to expand on that, I like the idea of our known universe to be a mere clump of dust under a couch somewhere. But that would sort of be comfused with the "every snowflake is different" thing, where no 2 dustbunnies are alike, therefore sort of moving past the paralell universe idea. Oh well.
     
  16. Suburban_punk

    Suburban_punk

    May 13, 2003
    Denver
    LOL!!!