The Universe Shouldn't Exist...

[shunyadragon]

Given that Sagan died in '96, and that was the year Linde proposed infinite inflation, i'm curious as to your evidence for putting him on the list.

You are behaving worse than seer and sparko. If you object to what Carl Sagan and Lindt proposed cite them.

Sagan's death does not take away from his cosmological view.

As far as Linde proposed as far as infinite inflation and the multiverse. These two concepts are not in conflict.

Source: https://www.edge.org/conversation/andrei_linde-a-balloon-producing-balloons-producing-balloonsa-big-fractal

We shouldn't avoid anything. We should try to do our best to use the simplest explanations possible, or what proves simplest, and if something falls into your hands as an explanation of why cosmological constant vacuum energy is so small, and you decide not to accept it for ideological reasons, this is very much what we had in Russia long ago. That ideology told me which type of physics was right and which type of physics was wrong. We should not proceed this way. Once you have multiple possibilities, then you can have scientific premises for anthropic considerations, not just philosophically talking about “other worlds”. Now we have a consistent picture of the multiverse, so now we can tell: "this is physics, this is something serious." That was about multiverse and different versions of it.

When you look at our own part of the universe, you have a galaxy to the right of you, you have a set of galaxies to the left of you. Could it be that our universe was formed differently? Is there a chance that me, my copy, might live somewhere far away from me? How far away from me? Why my exact copy? Well, because quantum fluctuations produce different universes over and over again. Alex Vilenkin has this description of "many worlds in one." He had written a book about it. The question is, how many of these different types of the universes you can produce. And “different types of universes” does not just mean vacuum states, but different distributions of matter. The distribution of matter in our part of the universe, the distribution of galaxies, is determined by quantum fluctuations, which were produced during inflation.

© Copyright Original Source

Put up with references or go back to Plato's cave.

[shunyadragon]

Except Paul Steinhardt no longer believes that, he hold to a cyclic universe, and George Ellis believes that God created the universe. And where do you get that from Carl Sagan? So your list is not trustworthy.

When you object, citations please. You are correct on Steinhardt, he originally supported a multiverse, but Turok and him have since proposed a cyclic universe based on legitimate physicas and Quantum Mechanics.

George Ellis' belief in God does not conflict with his support of the possibility of a multiverse.

Source: http://www.public.asu.edu/~atpcs/atpcs/Misc/DoesTheMultiverseReallyExist.pdf

DOES THE MULTIVERSE REALLY EXIST

Proof of parallel universes radically different from our own may still lie beyond the domain of science

In the past decade an extraordinary claim has captivated cosmologists: that the expanding
universe we see around us is not the only one; that billions of other universes are out there,
too. There is not one universe—there is a multiverse. In Scientific American articles and
books such as Brian Greene’s latest, The Hidden Reality, leading scientists have spoken of a
super-Copernican revolution. In this view, not only is our planet one among many, but even
our entire universe is insignificant on the cosmic scale of things. It is just one of countless universes,
each doing its own thing.

The word “multiverse” has different meanings. Astronomers are able to see out to a distance
of about 42 billion light-years, our cosmic visual horizon. We have no reason to suspect the universe
stops there. Beyond it could be many—even infinitely many—domains much like the one
we see. Each has a different initial distribution of matter, but the same laws of physics operate
in all. Nearly all cosmologists today (including me) accept this type of multiverse, which Max
Tegmark calls “level 1.” Yet some go further. They suggest completely different kinds of universes,
with different physics, different histories, maybe different numbers of spatial dimensions.
Most will be sterile, although some will be teeming with life. A chief proponent of this “level 2”

© Copyright Original Source

[Sparko]

Add more;

George F. R. Ellis
Roger Penrose
Steven Weinberg

Please Shunya, cite their
(all of them) support of their acceptance of the universe was created from a quantum nothing. links.

[shunyadragon]

Another scientist - MICHIO KAKU - Theoretical Physicist, Author, and Science Educator

Source: http://bigthink.com/dr-kakus-universe/a-voyage-through-the-multiverse-and-higher-dimensional-hyperspace

A Voyage Through the Multiverse and Higher Dimensional Hyperspace

The "multiverse" idea—once thought to be so crazy it only belonged on late night television—has now become the dominant theory in all of cosmology. The idea now dominates conversations in science circles and it seems you cannot avoid the theory of the multiverse.

Einstein first gave us the idea that the universe is a soap bubble of some sort and we reside on the skin of this expanding bubble. This observation of an expanding bubble is now one of the greatest experimental achievements of the last century. Now imagine if you run the videotape backwards, the bubble would shrink and eventually become small enough to put in your coat pocket. If this "bang" happened once, it can happen again, again and again. This concept is mind boggling, that idea that entire universes are being created as you are reading this very blog entry.

When speaking about the multiverse, I’m often asked questions about the different kinds of universes that can form as a result of extra dimensions, string theory or even chaotic inflation for example. These are in some sense different kinds of universes but for me personally, it’s very aesthetically pleasing. This all goes back to my childhood with my parents being Buddhist. In Buddhism, you believe in nirvana and timelessness with no beginning and no end. As a child I went to Sunday school where I learned about arks, great floods and the instant of creation when God said, “Let there be Light”. So, all my life I’ve had these two competing paradigms in my head. With the multiverse idea, we have the beautiful melding of these two ideas. The reason being is that we do have this nirvana, this timelessness, this eleven dimensional hyperspace, this arena of string theory. But we also have bubbles that form all the time, almost like a bubble bath. Sometimes the bubbles expand rapidly giving us universes, combine with other bubbles and sometimes even pop. This continual creation, the idea of a multiverse is very pleasing to me because I can now meld Buddhist nirvana with Judeo-Christian epistemology.

We have this arena of eleven-dimensional hyperspace and within it these bubbles start to expand and they vibrate. In string theory we of course have the music of strings which gives us the particles we see in nature. This is also pleasing to me because Einstein spent the last three decades of his life trying to read the mind of God and he asked himself “What are God's thoughts?” Well, believe it or not, for the first time we now have a candidate for the mind of God. The mind of God, according to this multiverse picture, is cosmic music resonating through eleven dimensional hyperspace. When I say "God," I’m talking about the God of Spinoza, not necessarily the personal God that answers prayers and feeds the sick. I’m speaking metaphorically about the God of both harmony and beauty. In other words, as I have stated time and time again, it didn’t have to be this way: our Universe could have been random, chaotic and ugly. And I find it absolutely staggering that we can summarize all the laws of physics going back 2,000 years to the Greeks on a single sheet of paper. The goal of string theory is to, of course, have it in an equation no more than an inch long. In the beginning, there was not light but rather there was the one-inch equation which then drives the gears of the entire Universe. This is the Holy Grail.

We now think that each of these universes have their own constant and their own parameters. These questions for example are for each universe: How long does the proton live? How strong is gravity? How long does the sun burn? So the question is, where is our Universe in this soap bubble of Universes? Our Universe, for instance, has stars that burn for billions of years whereas most of these universes have stars that only burn for a fraction of a second and life never gets started. We are however just now starting to get a glimpse of where we fit into this larger puzzle.

© Copyright Original Source

[shunyadragon]

Please Shunya, cite their
(all of them) support of their acceptance of the universe was created from a quantum nothing. links.

The scientists that support the multiverse view support the Quantum Mechanics theory o the formation of universes from this Quantum world which is described as Quantum nothing. That is the nature of the multiverse is Quantum nothing.

There are o course limits to the multiverse theory, and those that support it only consider the evidence to demonstrate the possibility o the multiverse, because of the limits of evidence, but nonetheless those that do support the multiverse support the Quantum origin of our universe based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics.

[shunyadragon]

JimL is helping you with your analogies, isn't he.

Not necessarily, but agreement and consensus among scientists is by far greater than anything among theologians. Terrible meaningless analogy.

[Cow Poke]

Not necessarily, but agreement and consensus among scientists is by far greater than anything among theologians.

Has "consensus" among scientists ever been proven wrong?

[Sparko]

The scientists that support the multiverse view support the Quantum Mechanics theory o the formation of universes from this Quantum world which is described as Quantum nothing. That is the nature of the multiverse is Quantum nothing.

citations from all of your scientist sources please.

There are o course limits to the multiverse theory, and those that support it only consider the evidence to demonstrate the possibility o the multiverse, because of the limits of evidence, but nonetheless those that do support the multiverse support the Quantum origin of our universe based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics.

more assertions. Shuny, so far all you have shown is that scientist believe in such a thing as a multiverse and/or quantum nothingness creating universes based on NO evidence. That is just a presupposition, not science.

Not to mention, exactly HOW would there be a multiverse made up of quantum nothingness? If it is nothing then it sure isn't a multiverse is it?

[TheLurch]

You are behaving worse than seer and sparko. If you object to what Carl Sagan and Lindt proposed cite them..

Read what i wrote. Read it again. Now think carefully about that, and tell me what exactly i need to cite? Do i need to provide a copy of Sagan's death certificate?


I'll note again, that since you're the one claiming that Sagan supported this idea, it's up to you to provide the evidence, not me. I just find your demand for a citation of when someone died to be more than a little bizarre.

[TheLurch]

Has "consensus" among scientists ever been proven wrong?

Occasionally, though it's far more common for edge cases and exceptions to it to be identified.

[shunyadragon]

Read what i wrote. Read it again. Now think carefully about that, and tell me what exactly i need to cite? Do i need to provide a copy of Sagan's death certificate?


I'll note again, that since you're the one claiming that Sagan supported this idea, it's up to you to provide the evidence, not me. I just find your demand for a citation of when someone died to be more than a little bizarre.

The point of the list was primarily those that the greater universe always existed from which our universe arose based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics, which will logically include those who support the possibility of a multiverse.. It is a act that those that believed in the multiverse supported the description that our universe arose like a bubble within the greater Quantum cosmos. Carl Sagan is on the list because he supported the belief that the greater universe from which our universe has 'always existed.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4

You did not respond concerning Andre Linde, which I gave an accurate citation, and you only gave an incomplete phony assertion.

It is a matter of record you have behaved like a rogue disrupter, and anal grammarian like seer and Sparko, and actually have cited nothing to support a coherent argument.

[shunyadragon]

citations from all of your scientist sources please.




more assertions. Shuny, so far all you have shown is that scientist believe in such a thing as a multiverse and/or quantum nothingness creating universes based on NO evidence. That is just a presupposition, not science.

Not to mention, exactly HOW would there be a multiverse made up of quantum nothingness? If it is nothing then it sure isn't a multiverse is it?

The exspurt (the drip that failed) expounds brilliantly and profusely without any qualifications whatsoever.

It can be assumed from your perspective that you reject the theories and hypothesis of all the scientists that support the origin of our universe, and all possible universe from Quantum nothing based on Quantum Mechanics. Your bias without qualifications is a witness here.

[Sparko]

Occasionally, though it's far more common for edge cases and exceptions to it to be identified.

Actually whenever a new idea takes over, the old consensus is "proven" wrong. Plate tektonics for example. Or the static model of the universe, and so on.

[shunyadragon]

Actually whenever a new idea takes over, the old consensus is "proven" wrong. Plate tektonics for example. Or the static model of the universe, and so on.

In science old consensus are not "proven" wrong. Some old consensus are falsified and discarded such as the 'static universe,' most other contemporary theories and hypothesis evolve and change as new information becomes available.

[TheLurch]

The point of the list was primarily those that the greater universe always existed from which our universe arose based on the evidence of Quantum Mechanics, which will logically include those who support the possibility of a multiverse.. It is a act that those that believed in the multiverse supported the description that our universe arose like a bubble within the greater Quantum cosmos. Carl Sagan is on the list because he supported the belief that the greater universe from which our universe has 'always existed.'

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SYlIYnKmGV4

Wow, that's fundamentally dishonest. In that video, Sagan said nothing about quantum mechanics. He didn't even say that he thought that the universe always existed - he simply suggested it as a possibility. If this is the sort of thing you're using to put together your list, your list is worthless.

You did not respond concerning Andre Linde, which I gave an accurate citation, and you only gave an incomplete phony assertion.

I didn't respond to what you said about Linde, because all i said about Linde was that he proposed eternal inflation in '96. That's it. The date is all that matters, since i was comparing it to Sagan's death, as an indication that Sagan couldn't support this concept because he was, at best, dying of cancer when it was proposed.

Since you are incapable of reading comprehension, you rambled off into some issue that i didn't even mention. Therefore, i had nothing to respond to.