Help ATS with a contribution via PayPal:
learn more

Physicists create world’s first multiverse of universes in the lab

page: 2
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join

posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 12:56 AM
link   
It's very cool science at work, I won't deny. I don't like the possible complications it could pose for us in the future, and have questions.

Are the newly created multiverses stable, and if so, could they be used to hide nanofactories once they come into production within the next decade, as predicted?

Can they be shielded from outside scanning, and if so, could they harbour dangerous micro- or nanotech with impunity?

So many seem to get that "progress glow" and throw caution to the wind when it comes to the "new", or when startling discoveries yield processes we are presently unfamiliar with. So who is watching to make sure the inventions don't fall into the wrong hands, don't get sold to the highest bidder, etc. No one really does this effectively yet, as already scoped by many of us who regularly have something of an overview. The inventions may be "new and improved", with the potential ratcheting up effect for those who will utilize them, but the problems remain the same and relate back to the same root set of problems. We have no one effectively monitoring this from a humanity standpoint, and with power should always, always come proportionate responsibility.

Besides, for the money this likely cost compared to the plight of the homeless ... bah.

Do they propose recreating such a multiverse on a larger scale that could include us as residents or prisoners? While that does have a plus side for refugees, it would have a huge plus side for organized crime and would-be tyrants. What a can of worms for the future.

Which raises the question (food for thought) :

We are supposed to be safeguarding the world for the sake of future generations. If "we" (some) can foresee this much, should we not be putting a stop to it, or raising awareness about it? If so, why stop at only this one?




posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:48 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
It kind of makes you wonder... perhaps we are just a creation sitting on a table in a lab somewhere.


Careful now. You don't want to start a religion talking like that...



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:54 AM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
Can they be shielded from outside scanning, and if so, could they harbour dangerous micro- or nanotech


It could also be that the supposed dangerous nano-tech are just people like us creating things within the limits imposed by that universe, sort of like people, free will and consious thought being the very strings of that universe we observe but being to small to watch for outside observers. Just like computers this "artificial" universe is created based on the shape and laws of our own universe and they cannot break our own universal laws (the illusion can be induced though as in games), we can only impose "restrictions" on theirs: how much gravity and so on. At most I think they would be able to destroy their own universe, but in our universe it is too small to affect us more than maybe a atombomb, but you never know with possible quantum weapons I guess.
edit on 2-2-2013 by Konoyaro because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:25 AM
link   

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
This is pretty cool... the first multiverse created in a lab.
Not really. The paper says "look similar to".

I have pictures of dogs that "look similar to" dogs, but they aren't dogs. The differences are dramatic. The pictures of the dogs can't breed to make puppies.

Arxiv apaper link: arxiv.org...


Thus, thermal fluctuations in a ferrofluid look similar to creation and disappearance of individual Minkowski spacetimes (universes) in the cosmological multiverse.
(emphasis added by me)

edit on 2-2-2013 by Arbitrageur because: clarification



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:38 AM
link   
reply to post by Grimpachi
 


My thoughts exactly...

Anyone having visions of Stephen king and "The Mist"?

To early in the am for these brain exercises.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 01:57 PM
link   
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Not only is it "looks similar" but what it looks similar to is "Minkowski spacetime" so it "looks similar to a model of the universe". One which may be incorrect.
"Spacetime has No Time Dimension"

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 02:48 PM
link   
reply to post by Lucid Lunacy
 


Think of a water pond. You throw a pebble on it, and it causes ripples. Those ripples behave very much like soundwaves in some aspects. You can use those to study some aspects of soundwaves. Now, imagine that, instead of water, you use a liquid that somehow perfectly emulates soundwave behavior with its ripples. Now you can study the behavior of soundwaves by seeing those ripples.

These "universes" they created... they're not real universes, like ours. They're a liquid where light behaves like time would behave as if it was a fourth dimension, and magnetism behaves like gravity in our universe. So they can study them without having to... you know... generate gravity somehow in the lab.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:25 PM
link   

Originally posted by daskakik
reply to post by Arbitrageur
 

Not only is it "looks similar" but what it looks similar to is "Minkowski spacetime" so it "looks similar to a model of the universe". One which may be incorrect.
"Spacetime has No Time Dimension"

“The idea of time being the fourth dimension of space did not bring much progress in physics and is in contradiction with the formalism of special relativity,” he said. “We are now developing a formalism of 3D quantum space based on Planck's work. It seems that the Universe is 3D from the macro to the micro level to the Planck volume, which per formalism is 3D. In this 3D space there is no ‘length contraction,’ there is no ‘time dilation.’ What really exists is that the velocity of material change is ‘relative’ in the Einstein sense.”


Excellent! you are the first other person I've seen mention this paper. I think "time is a measure of the numerical order of change" from that paper sums up exactly why the OPs experiment is bunk (although I don't agree with everything they are saying).

Time is not a physical dimension. Anyone claiming otherwise does not understand the operational definition of time in Relativity or indeed what time is in *any* equation.

The scientists mentioned did not create a universe or a multiverse, they fired some photons into a liquid with some cobalt particles in it.

To them it looks like something someone who made a model about something said they thought a thing might look like. SCIENCE!

edit on 2-2-2013 by yampa because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 06:55 PM
link   

Originally posted by Northwarden
It's very cool science at work, I won't deny. I don't like the possible complications it could pose for us in the future, and have questions.

Are the newly created multiverses stable, and if so, could they be used to hide nanofactories once they come into production within the next decade, as predicted?

Can they be shielded from outside scanning, and if so, could they harbour dangerous micro- or nanotech with impunity?


I feel safe knowing that you are thinking about this stuff for us. Stay vigilant.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 07:19 PM
link   

Originally posted by CryHavoc

Originally posted by OptimusSubprime
It kind of makes you wonder... perhaps we are just a creation sitting on a table in a lab somewhere.


Careful now. You don't want to start a religion talking like that...


I've been saying for a while that this universe being created by a scientist is a lot more logical than being created by some mystical magical being.



posted on Feb, 2 2013 @ 10:22 PM
link   
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Magic bearded man, that's what people have painted. You are correct, except he isn't a scientist as he has full understanding (not much science to be done). Magic is the word atheists use to discredit theists beliefs, except we don't believe in magic. Imagine going back in time to the days of constantin, trying to explain to him a live television broadcast of the moon landing or receiving video from the mars rover. The intracacies of understanding they'd need to comprehend such a device would be nearly impossible to explain to them in a lifetime, and even if you succeeded explaining it, their mental capacity would probably not be able to comprehend what you're explaining and they probably wouldn't believe you. If they did believe you and tried to tell their friends, they'd probably describe it as... magic.

Whose to say this life here isn't just the test that religion has made it out to be? Whose to say that they're not up there in the lab watching us take this test? Whose to say the final judgement isn't exactly like being graded on an exam, if we don't pass we're booted out of the school?

I've never understood how an atheist can put so much faith in man to discredit creationism when man is striving to confirm creationism by creating it ourselves. It's amazing isn't it?
edit on 2-2-2013 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 02:49 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dfairlite
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Magic bearded man, that's what people have painted. You are correct, except he isn't a scientist as he has full understanding (not much science to be done). Magic is the word atheists use to discredit theists beliefs, except we don't believe in magic. Imagine going back in time to the days of constantin, trying to explain to him a live television broadcast of the moon landing or receiving video from the mars rover. The intracacies of understanding they'd need to comprehend such a device would be nearly impossible to explain to them in a lifetime, and even if you succeeded explaining it, their mental capacity would probably not be able to comprehend what you're explaining and they probably wouldn't believe you. If they did believe you and tried to tell their friends, they'd probably describe it as... magic.

Whose to say this life here isn't just the test that religion has made it out to be? Whose to say that they're not up there in the lab watching us take this test? Whose to say the final judgement isn't exactly like being graded on an exam, if we don't pass we're booted out of the school?

I've never understood how an atheist can put so much faith in man to discredit creationism when man is striving to confirm creationism by creating it ourselves. It's amazing isn't it?
edit on 2-2-2013 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)


Even the top religious debater (William Lane Craig) asserts that the universe and life began by supernatural means.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 03:07 AM
link   

Originally posted by Dfairlite
I've never understood how an atheist can put so much faith in man to discredit creationism when man is striving to confirm creationism by creating it ourselves. It's amazing isn't it?

Not really. If mere mortals can do it then that would mean that god is not the only way.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:44 AM
link   
reply to post by Jiggerj
 


And what exactly am I to take from that? Some guy I've never heard of disagrees with me? What are supernatural powers but things we don't understand? Simply because something is described as supernatural doesn't make "magic".

Sorry if I misinterpreted your response.
edit on 3-2-2013 by Dfairlite because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:47 AM
link   
reply to post by daskakik
 


And if we can create new universes and life, then we aren't really 'mere mortals' anymore are we?



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:55 AM
link   
reply to post by Dfairlite
 

No it would bring god down a notch or two, or more.
edit on 3-2-2013 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 01:52 PM
link   

Originally posted by Dfairlite
reply to post by jiggerj
 


Whose to say this life here isn't just the test that religion has made it out to be? Whose to say that they're not up there in the lab watching us take this test? Whose to say the final judgement isn't exactly like being graded on an exam, if we don't pass we're booted out of the school?



If we're being tested...I'd like to know I'm taking this test.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:23 PM
link   

Originally posted by jiggerj

I've been saying for a while that this universe being created by a scientist is a lot more logical than being created by some mystical magical being.


I'm starting to lean towards this idea too. The creators of our universe don't have to be supernatural, omnipotent gods. Maybe they just set another universe off deliberately - once they understood the rules of their own universe properly. Maybe they've been dead for 14 billion years. Maybe no one is looking after us, no one is judging us. When we die, we're dead. And yet maybe we are all still infused with the eternal metaphysical rules that our creators had to learn themselves. A chain of this going on into eternity.



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:26 PM
link   
:shk: yeah right, man created a multiverse



posted on Feb, 3 2013 @ 04:31 PM
link   

Originally posted by rickymouse
:shk: yeah right, man created a multiverse


These guys performing this experiment are a long way from understanding any of the rules of the universe, I think. I doubt these science dudes are much like the super intelligent space architects who might create a real universe.
edit on 3-2-2013 by yampa because: (no reason given)






top topics



 
26
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join