Big Bang & Multiverses (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Monday, February 07, 2011, 01:15 (5039 days ago) @ dhw

David has drawn our attention to an interview between Brian Greene, a string theorist, and David Gelernter, in which Greene suggests that there are many other universes, and many other identical Greenes and Gelernters, who have led identical lives.
> 
> Later he says: "We live in a universe in which the amount of dark energy fits our biological make-up. If the amount of dark energy were substantially different from what we've measured, the environmental conditions would be inhospitable to our form of life. So, while the multiverse contains universes with many different amounts of dark energy, we couldn't survive in most, explaining why we're in this universe and not another."
> 
> So Greene and Gelernter are in other universes, but they are in this universe and NOT in another. I don't think I shall ever understand physics. I alluded recently to Bertrand Russell's celestial teapot, which orbits the sun and is too small to be detected by any instruments. Funnily enough, Russell used the teapot story (Dawkins calls it a "parable") to ridicule the argument for God because, after all, neither theory can actually be disproved. Well, who's going to disprove the theory that we have identical doubles living identical lives on identical planets in other universes, although we're in this universe and not another? Talk about pots and kettles...-What makes it scientifically plausible is the observation that our universe's geometry isn't Euclidean. The inherent problem with this is that though we know our universe has at least 4 dimensions, there's no way to directly corroborate anything beyond that; on a very plain level any higher dimensions from ours we are incapable of perceiving without some very clever trickery--trickery we're not even sure we can perform. That said...-The Large Hadron Collider will be the first instrument that could begin to verify/nullify a multiuniverse, depending upon what particles it finds--or more telling--the ones predicted that it doesn't find.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"