Did Planck Satellite confirm evidence of a Parallel Universe?

Planck Satellite has come back with some interesting data about the CMB Cold Spot.

A cold spot also extends over a patch of sky that is much larger than expected.

The asymmetry and the cold spot had already been hinted at with Planck’s predecessor, NASA’s WMAP mission, but were largely ignored because of lingering doubts about their cosmic origin.

“The fact that Planck has made such a significant detection of these anomalies erases any doubts about their reality; it can no longer be said that they are artefacts of the measurements. They are real and we have to look for a credible explanation,” says Paolo Natoli of the University of Ferrara, Italy.

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk...

This cold spot was predicted by Laura Mersini-Houghton. Many Scientist jumped in and said the cold spot was an artefact or anomaly but Planck shows it's real.

Dr. Laura Mersini-Houghton (née Laura Mersini) is a Cosmologist and Theoretical Physicist, and a Associate Professor at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. She has developed (together with collaborators) a theory for the birth of the universe from the landscape multiverse that included four predictions proposed in 2006,[citation needed] three of which have since been observed: the Cold Spot (2007); Dark Flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB Amplitude (2010).

en.wikipedia.org...

The findings are also a blow to some theories of inflation.

The simplest models of inflation - the theory of the universe's very early, very sudden expansion and speeds greater than the speed of light- do not currently account for the anomalies found in the Planck data.

You have to love science.

Planks has confirmed evidence to support Parallel Universe Theory and in and of itself that is fascinating.

reply to post by Kashai


Good point.

I think it's very interesting on a couple of fronts and really should be followed up on.

1. It's a prediction of a parallel universe and this prediction was confirmed by observation.

2. It's predictions based on the string theory landscape of 10/500 false vacua of compactified dimensions where these extra dimensions will produce 3 dimensional universes ad infinitum. So this could be a scientific prediction that supports string theory.

neoholographic
Interesting thread S&F...Steven Hawking also suggested "imaginary time" prior to the big bang to avoid the singularity, and the difficulty with the physics the singularity requires..peace,sugarcookie1

reply to post by sugarcookie1


Good point.

I don't think there is a true singularity at least in a false vacuum because of quantum mechanics. So before the universe can reach a true singularity, quantum mechanics gets in the way and causes the universe to expand. I think these cycles of the universe occur ad infinitum. There's always a chance that a universe can tunnel to the true vacuum and then all bets are off.

Originally posted by neoholographic
reply to post by Kashai

 

Good point.

I think it's very interesting on a couple of fronts and really should be followed up on.

1. It's a prediction of a parallel universe and this prediction was confirmed by observation.

2. It's predictions based on the string theory landscape of 10/500 false vacua of compactified dimensions where these extra dimensions will produce 3 dimensional universes ad infinitum. So this could be a scientific prediction that supports string theory.

I have written a lot about this recently and feel that when one is shown to be correct. It is important to take a step back, allowing others who were in disagreement an opportunity to respond.

Having said that this is absofriginlutely incredible

Occam's razor
See also: Kolmogorov complexity
Critics[who?] argue that to postulate a practically infinite number of unobservable universes just to explain our own seems contrary to Occam's razor.[24]

Max Tegmark answers:

"A skeptic worries about all the information necessary to specify all those unseen worlds. But an entire ensemble is often much simpler than one of its members. This principle can be stated more formally using the notion of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content in a number is, roughly speaking, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by quite a trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. Therefore, the whole set is actually simpler. Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than a specific solution. The former is described by a few equations, whereas the latter requires the specification of vast amounts of initial data on some hypersurface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we restrict our attention to one particular element in an ensemble, thereby losing the symmetry and simplicity that were inherent in the totality of all the elements taken together. In this sense, the higher-level multiverses are simpler. Going from our universe to the Level I multiverse eliminates the need to specify initial conditions, upgrading to Level II eliminates the need to specify physical constants, and the Level IV multiverse eliminates the need to specify anything at all."

He continues:
"A common feature of all four multiverse levels is that the simplest and arguably most elegant theory involves parallel universes by default. To deny the existence of those universes, one needs to complicate the theory by adding experimentally unsupported processes and ad hoc postulates: finite space, wave function collapse and ontological asymmetry. Our judgment therefore comes down to which we find more wasteful and inelegant: many worlds or many words. Perhaps we will gradually get used to the weird ways of our cosmos and find its strangeness to be part of its charm."[5]

Source