Multiverse theory
Did some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?
No, but there was something I read a while back which pointed at certain aspects of the CMB as being possible imprints of where our universe 'bumped' into another one or three - although I've not heard any more about that and it's something which is hard to test/prove.
Riiiight, "bumped" into "another one or three" which came from?No, but there was something I read a while back which pointed at certain aspects of the CMB as being possible imprints of where our universe 'bumped' into another one or threeDid some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?
As I recall String Theory requires that our 4D universe sits on a brane which itself sits in a higher 10 dimensional space, so the 'bump' could have come from a universe on another brane having bumped into ours... or it could have been universes which are adjacent to our own at the moment of our formation.
Welcome to higher dimensional spaces - they don't work how your brain works
The notion of 'where' breaks down pretty quickly... it's a bit like the slightly mind bending answer to the question 'where did the universe start?' because there answer is where you are, where I am, where everything is.
... the big bang is true.As I recall String Theory requires that ...
You wouldn't be referring to the M-theory now, would you?a higher 10 dimensional space
... the big bang is true.As I recall String Theory requires that ...
Which is the generally accepted case in most quarters... 'how' and 'what was before it' tend to be the questions most hotly debated, also questions about the expansion phase still need to be answered.
You wouldn't be referring to the M-theory now, would you?a higher 10 dimensional space
Meh, practically the same difference, it's all the same general area.
Isn't the M-theory the same theory that supports "nothing creating something"?
Did some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?
Not sure why going into a black hole would yield any evidence of the big bang (OK, well, in fact it wouldn't yield any evidence of anything at all; that's sort of the idea of a black hole), but I'm also not really sure why you'd want more evidence that the big bang is true.
Light travels at a constant maximum speed, so the farther away you look into the universe, the older the light. If you want to see stuff from a thousand years ago, you just look at stuff roughly a thousand light years away. Similarly, if you want to see the big bang, pretty much all you have to do is look at it. It's (I think) about 40 billion light years away (rather than 14, due to the expansion of the universe over time), and it's like, totally right there. The cosmic microwave background was predicted and discovered independently, so it's really pretty compelling evidence.
You assume that it's true.Did some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?
Not sure why going into a black hole would yield any evidence of the big bang (OK, well, in fact it wouldn't yield any evidence of anything at all; that's sort of the idea of a black hole), but I'm also not really sure why you'd want more evidence that the big bang is true.
I know the "light years stuff". It's not proof of the big bang.Light travels at a constant maximum speed, so the farther away you look into the universe, the older the light. If you want to see stuff from a thousand years ago, you just look at stuff roughly a thousand light years away. Similarly, if you want to see the big bang, pretty much all you have to do is look at it. It's (I think) about 40 billion light years away (rather than 14, due to the expansion of the universe over time), and it's like, totally right there. The cosmic microwave background was predicted and discovered independently, so it's really pretty compelling evidence.
You assume that it's true.
Did some explorer fess up and enter those darn blackholes and take photos of those so-called other universes thereby proving there might be some truth in the big bang or the multiverse theory?
Not sure why going into a black hole would yield any evidence of the big bang (OK, well, in fact it wouldn't yield any evidence of anything at all; that's sort of the idea of a black hole), but I'm also not really sure why you'd want more evidence that the big bang is true.I know the "light years stuff". It's not proof of the big bang.Light travels at a constant maximum speed, so the farther away you look into the universe, the older the light. If you want to see stuff from a thousand years ago, you just look at stuff roughly a thousand light years away. Similarly, if you want to see the big bang, pretty much all you have to do is look at it. It's (I think) about 40 billion light years away (rather than 14, due to the expansion of the universe over time), and it's like, totally right there. The cosmic microwave background was predicted and discovered independently, so it's really pretty compelling evidence.
Right, and if I say, 'there's a guy behind you with a knife" and you look behind yourself and light indistinguishable from the light that would be reflected off of a guy with a knife enters your eyes, you have no obligation to assume that there's actually a guy behind you with a knife, but I wouldn't encourage it. That's why science doesn't try to tell you what is, it just tries to create a model of what can actually be observed and then makes observations to see if they fit that model.
Everything you experience with your senses could be a trick. Everything you derive with deductive logic could be a trick too; no formal logic system can prove its own consistency (or, alternatively, an inconsistent system can also prove its own consistency, and proving the consistency of one logic system from within another doesn't help either, for obvious reasons). This "problem" is so deep that you genuinely can't prove anything, except that you can't even prove that you can't prove anything, so maybe you can prove stuff.
Insofar as scientific evidence is a thing that works at all, though, the big bang is pretty uncontroversial, and if the evidence doesn't seem sufficient to you in any practical sense, you should probably also be questioning lots of other things, like, for instance, "is the center of the earth actually made of kittens?"
