A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.
Rules
This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.
It's funny, outside of Hollywood, Comic Books, and Bertrand Russel trying to disprove religion by taking Hawking out of context, is there any real evidence for a multiverse?
I mean I believe that reality is truly infinite and the only reason we have limitations is because we haven't found a way around them yet (Science distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced in my book), so I'm not calling bullshit, but I'm also asking for evidence beyond going "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if?"
Quantum results are hard to explain, but proven (by experiment) to be real. There's a particular mathematical/logical definition of something being 'real' and 'local', that I've still only half got my head around, and it should be true but isn't.
The main experiment is two particles that, if you check one, it affects what you'll see in the other in a particular, but subtle , way. And it's proven mathematically impossible to find an explanation where they don't either communicate faster than the speed of light (so, not 'local') but the effect actually happens ('real').
The trick is in the statistics - the pattern of results - that match up between the two particles in this very particular way. And one way to explain it is that different options are also happening, but in a different universe - i.e. every time two different things could happen, reality splits into two realities, one where this happens and one where that happens.
That's for specific quantum events, but some think those such quantum events underlie all choices and possibilities in reality. So, scale up that idea and you get 'infinite' (actually just very very many) parallel universes, one for every possibility that could ever have happened, branching off into more each time a (quantum) choice happens.
They don't "communicate" faster than light, the wave function itself is non-local and collapses non-locally.
Lol, good joke but wrong, even existing an infinite number of Universe, to be stables they need a infinite number of physical conditions, if not they can't exist. A multiverse, even if there are formong an infinite number of universes, most of them are destroyed in the same moment when are not present this conditions, even so it can exist an infinite number of survivor universes with the correct conditions (∞/n = ∞), paradox conditions are not among these (apart of the infinite itself, used in physics)
there is a universe full to the brim with chickens, all that chicken space.
I love multiverse theory! I also love how a lot of people don't really understand how finite infinites work in the context of multiverse theory!
There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That's because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0, being accepted into a witching school is something that'll never happen for me.
So no, within the context of multiverse theory there is no universe in which multiverse theory doesn't exist, because that is a paradox and as such, has 0 chance of existing. However, it totally possible that a magical universe does exist (I would say we don't know enough about the formation of the universe to accurately judge whether or not such a universe could be possible under the right formative circumstances); it's just that the chances of any of us existing in that universe is 0.
There's a parallel universe in which the fundamental laws of physics are different: the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, how many fundamental particles there are, the cosmological constant, ...
And one where I have a goatee and I'm the evil version of myself, right??
huh
isn't this just Russell's paradox
if I recall correctly Russell's Paradox was how ZFC set theory became the standard set theory
ZF handles it. The C adds the axiom of choice. But ZF is enough for dealing with the Russel paradox. Oddly enough, Zermelo, the Z in ZF, published the Russel paradox a year before Russel.
You're getting into omniverse territory here, I think. But if accurate, then the dimensions without multiverses just lack the ability to perceive, observe, understand, measure, prove, or travel outside of their own universes. There's a whole multiverse of such isolated bubbles that will "know" that there's no multiverse, and we have a 50/50 chance of being in one.
That’s not how statistics works lol
If there are infinite universes, covering all permutations of all properties (i asume thats what they mean by omniverse), then there will be exactly as many universes with a certain property then there are without it. So it is actually 50/50.
In the "multiverse of all possibilities" there will be 50% without a multiverse
We're getting into hierarchies of infinities here, look up cardinality. You can have infinities that can't map to every possibility of a higher infinity
Or, the conjecture of the multiverse, being non falsifiable, makes it as scientific as the boogie man or the tooth fairy. God of the gaps anyone?
This is such anti-intellectual cliche, and it's a damn shame that a generation of Reddit pseudo-intellectuals parroting a Feynman quote has made it so wide spread.
It's not purely a wild, non-falsifiable idea. It comes from a theory to reconcile the very-much-falsifiable-but-not-falsified results of quantum mechanics. IIRC there are three main theories to interpret the results and all of them are down-and-out weird. Last I looked, one of them at least is controversial about whether or not it could (in principle) be experimentally differentiated from the others.