Redpill me on the multiverse

Nobody?

>>8361113

There's nothing really to say about it other than its a meme theory

File: 1469653837764.jpg (184KB, 600x372px) Image search: [Google]

184KB, 600x372px

Lol

Its bannannas

>>8361119
Why is it a meme theory.

To clarify, I find the idea of a multiverse extremely disturbing on a philosophical level and would like someone to convince me that it's likely untrue.

Not religious btw just in case it seems that way.

>>8361034

It's probably true because the mediocrity principle says we're not special and our observable universe probably isn't the only universe there is. It also gets you away from the 'everything came into existence from nothing' problem since while we know our observable universe had a beginning it's possible the multiverse it came from had just always existed.

Multiverse =/= Many-worlds

>>8361130
>mediocrity principle

not science

File: X on SCI.png (31KB, 694x968px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 694x968px

>>8361034
>>>/x/

>>8361137

The standard model of cosmology (lambda-cdm) assumed the copernican principle.

>>8361034
I don't wanna think about that.

Just the thought that there might be a universe that is the exact same as ours, but where I fuck everything up and have to live my life in guilt, fear and shame, scares the shit out of me.

>>8361141
Anti-matter is /x/ now?

Why don't we just cede everything to retards, and not even bother.

>>8361162
That's a fairly mild implication of the multiverse, consider that there is also a universe where a (near) immortal version of you is exposed to the most extreme mental and physical pain permitted by the laws of physics non-stop for billions of years.

>>8361173
I don't want this theory to be true. There are an infinite amount of other versions of me walking around out there, and I can't control them.

>>8361179
well too bad it probably is.

>>8361034
It is unfalsifiable.
You may as well believe the universe started existing in its current state at any specific moment and that all evidence otherwise just appears to support that statement.
Or that the earth is flat and satellites are a hoax.
Or that you're a brain in a vat being fed false information.
Or that god is real.

>>8361179
It's not a theory unless you use theory in a way that's divorced from the scientific meaning and is closer to intuition or uneducated guesswork.

It probably exists. Ignore 'muh unfalsifiability' fags they are holding science back at this point.

>>8361034
pop-sci bullshit balloon sensationalism false journalism fuel.

No respectable scientist even mentions multiverse in a scientific context.

>>8362663
>I automatically dismiss ideas that scare me

lol

>>8362671
>I have no evidence so I'll resort to ad-hominems
well that was easy

leave >>>/x/

>>8361124
>To clarify, I find the idea of a multiverse extremely disturbing on a philosophical level

wow bro ur such a deep thinker really makes you philosophically think huh

>>8362680
The existence of life in this universe is compelling evidence for the existence of multiple universes . Additionally, the recent confirmation of gravitational waves is huge evidence for inflation, and inflation almost certainly results in multiple universes.

File: 1473792820457.jpg (54KB, 566x480px) Image search: [Google]

54KB, 566x480px

>>8362688
source: your ass

>>8362688
0/10

>>8362698
>>8362700
http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html

>ITT: engineers feel threatened by modern cosmology

>>8362663
>No respectable scientist even mentions multiverse in a scientific context.
Maldacena, Susskind and Bousso do it.
>inb4 no true scotsman
>Maldacena isn't a respectable scientist even though he has more citations on his seminal paper than anybody else

>>8362705
it's a dumb fucking theory
if we can observe it it's in THIS universe, not some other one

>>8362705
>http://www.space.com/25100-multiverse-cosmic-inflation-gravitational-waves.html
>By Miriam Kramer, Staff Writer
Did you even read it you fucking retard? He's a journalist, not a scientist.

>>8362710
Semantics

>>8362717
Nice try, nigger. Define "universe" and then explain how we could ever observe a universe separate from the one we're in.

>there are people ITT who think science is the process of watching a red ball and saying "yup, it's red. We can't extend this observation to anything else"
topkek

MWI is a load of codswallop invented because the mainstream cannot accept the true nature of reality as described by QM. So to do away with the observer conundrum, MWI postulates that all conditions happen and there's a discrete reality for every minute difference for particle and photon.

This stupidity wouldn't be such a problem if it didn't require gravity to be shoehorned into QM as a quantum field, which has obviously retarded the science of gravity because it has gotten nowhere for decades.

Fuck MWI and fuck the retards who made it popsci.

>>8362748
Are you trying to imply we try to have a quantum theory of gravity because of MWI?

>>8362750

MWI requires gravity to be a quantum field or it doesn't work. This has been a primary driver for the continuing failed attempts at shoehorning gravity as a field when it is clearly a property of spacetime.

>>8362759
Come the fuck on, the attempts to have a quantum theory of gravity are way older than the period in which MWI became popular.

>>8362726
Edge effects, the nature of the other universe may be so alien there is no analog to observation, but it maybe create signature effects at the edge of our framework of observation that gives us hints of metadata.

>>8362760

There are many reasons to try and add gravity to a quantum unified field theory, but I will say that MWI is the dogma keeping theory focussed on that fruitless outcome.

File: 1441622909232.jpg (458KB, 1920x1200px) Image search: [Google]

458KB, 1920x1200px

I would imagine is is possible theoretically considering two variables: 1) This universe exists 2) Time.

Now this universe has manifested itself and seems bound by time, while time dilates/contract in perception due to gravity.

The only question that defies logic is 'why' or precisely 'why this particular universe and why this way', which has led to many metaphysical answers. So to validate the why, there has to be a 'why not'. If everything and anything happens simultaneously.

Since time is only validated by our perception and frames of reference, in a sense, since its infinite, its happening simultaneously. No past or present, a repetition, a constant loop that encompass all. Given that this particular universe exists, I would assume since this universe is possible, in infinite time and space, every other iteration is also occurring. I don't know if these other iterations are bound by the same laws of physics, but since these laws (of our universe) weren't applicable at the beginning of the universe, and since time can last a 1000 years or a second depending on the perception, than other iterations will have infinity different possibilities.

The multiverse theory will go down in history as a simpletons' brainfart. Absolutely garbage science.

>thread full of people shutting on MWI
>not a single one of them puts forward an even vaguely plausible alternative that adequately explains why the laws of physics in this universe allow for life.

"lol"

>>8361034
It's a hypothetical explanation for things that don't really make sense about our universe. There is no real way to test for it so far, so you can basically ignore it.

>>8362794

Anthropic quantum propigation. #dealwithit.

>>8362798
That's not an explanation you retard.

>There is a universe where you are a meme

>>8362827
ayy

>>8362794
because if the laws of physics in this universe didn't allow for life I wouldn't be here calling you a fuckhead on a mongolian comic book board, you ignorant twat

File: 1470412608140.png (121KB, 400x400px) Image search: [Google]

121KB, 400x400px

>>8362827
Id be more surprised if there's one where Im not.

>>8362846
Laughably stupid. might as well just stop doing science if 'It is that way because if it wasn't that way it wouldn't be' is now a valid explanation.>>8362846

>>8361034
It provides a deterministic explanation for seemingly random quantum phenomena, but it's untestable.

Fine tuning argument pretty much requires an answer and that is either a multiverse or a Magical Sky Man.

>>8362926
This.

Its messy but until someone suggests an alternative, it's the best we've got.

And no "life is here because if it wasn't we wouldn't be talking about it" is not a fucking answer.

>>8361034
Dear OP, if you feel the need to ask, then I will assume that you're not actually a student of string- or M-theory. With that in mind, a good easy-to-understand example of where exactly the whole idea of a multiverse came from, can be found here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zqeqW3g8N2Q

In short, the implications of string theory and M-theory by extension, lead to inspecting dimensions as something that always horizontally expand on the current dimension, which eventually end in a position where no more dimensions are possible. Basically, a dimension which would within it contain every possible scenario, reality, law, form of energy, matter, space and time and their combinations... anything that could or could not exist in every shape and state imaginable, an infinite number of times. This, unsurprisingly, implicates the multiverse, as well.

For all practical purposes however, never mind that we're dealing with just a theory at this point, there's no real reason to consider that any multiverse would exist in the here and now, right next door. Basically, in VG terms, even if the multiverse is true, they'd each be in different WoW dungeon instances with no ability to communicate with one another. So how would that then even matter, from a philosophical standpoing?

>>8361124
stop being so easily disturbed

>>8363415

>string-theory

File: Con-Air-DEA-Agent-Duncan-Malloy-11.jpg (22KB, 922x391px) Image search: [Google]

22KB, 922x391px

>>8363929
More like meme theory am I right.

>>8362688
>Additionally, the recent confirmation of gravitational waves is huge evidence for inflation, and inflation almost certainly results in multiple universes.


What?!

No, inflation merely posits that the ONE universe that we all live in has the large majority of it's volume outside our event horizon.

IE, duriing inflation the spacetime metric expanded MUCH faster than the speed of light as observed from inside that metric.

That's not 'multiverses' that's just the possibility that we can't see most of our universe yet.

The event horizon moves outward by one light year every year. Unless dark energy is really inflating the universe even now, eventually we'll get to see all of it.

Note, that's a VERY VERY LONG 'eventually'.

Also, quantum gravity might invalidate inflation theory completely, so who knows, right?

>>8363963
Scientists disagree with you
>>8362705

>>8363963
I'm pretty sure the cosmological horizon can't go to infinity unless the cosmological constant drifts to 0

It's impossible to commit to a theory of multiple universes without first thoroughly comprehending the laws of our universe. Space, time. Past, present. Force, energy, matter.

Instead, what you find are pseudoscientists going on about meme multiverse or simulation theory. The truth is they are incredibly unqualified to be any sort of authority on the matter. This goes doubly for pop scientists. It's all a big circus, really.

Protip: the future already exists. Spacetime is infinite but both space and time have boundaries. There is only 1 universe. Probably.

>>8363963
>eventually we'll get to see all of it.
The distance of the horizon is proportional to 1/H where H is the Hubble parameter. It has a minimum value so no we're pretty much in a bounded box forever.

>>8364068
>protip: here's some shit I pulled out of my undergraduate ass

>There is only 1 universe. Probably.

Doesn't explain fine tuning therefore useless thanks for your time bye.

>>8364068
> Probably
D -
have your mom sign the top of the page.

>>8364089
>It has a minimum value so no we're pretty much in a bounded box forever.
I did note, 'very very long'. :)

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graphical_timeline_from_Big_Bang_to_Heat_Death

We live in a very brief and exciting time in the expected lifetime of the universe. Enjoy the Stelliferous era while it lasts!

Assuming our theories are right, which is not likely. :)

>>8364125
>I did note, 'very very long'. :)
And I noted "forever".
The horizon will never go further than 1/H_min

>>8362686
>Everyone's thought at this at some point
>So belittle those who think about it a little more

I don't understand why you browse a science board if you're going about it like this. Let them keep their philosophical ideas that aren't exactly bad. Don't go apeshit when someone says something that is the equivalent of "I think the multiverse idea raises philosophical questions". Wow. He must think he's such a big shot, telling me that it so profound and shit.

Just stop it.

>>8361034
It's fake and only exist in science fiction

File: hawkingrekt.jpg (71KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

71KB, 1280x720px

>>8363952

>>8363952
gtfo

>>8361034
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gg85IH3vghA
I found this interesting. Take it with a grain of salt, though.

File: image.jpg (35KB, 720x301px) Image search: [Google]

35KB, 720x301px

>>8361034
You took both pills.

Pretty simple really...