Stephen Hawking's Final Paper On How To Find Parallel Universes

a reply to: projectvxn


Oh please, Hawking was a hack and a mental midget when compared to Leonard Susskind.

originally posted by: gortex
a reply to: Gothmog

Personally I'd go for multiple singularities or seeds within the Void , not necessarily all germinating at the same time.

Interesting . So , the "Void" (cant call it a universe in that case) we live in contains an infinite number of universes in the same 4 dimensions.

originally posted by: norhoc
a reply to: projectvxn


Oh please, Hawking was a hack and a mental midget when compared to Leonard Susskind.

So I used to believe as the plumber from New Jersey discounted the "Hawking Radiation" theory because mass cannot be totally destroyed.
Yet , that theory is coming back in full force. Even Susskind has somewhat backed off on that . The theory goes now that mass can be destroyed to the point the only thing left is the information of that mass that once existed.Thus fulfilling both theories.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: gortex

It's bad enough when I contemplate the possibility we're all there is in this universe without thinking it could be same in all of them. Yes indeed, a 'singular marvel.'

Now , go one step further . All probabilities of all occurrences are happening simultaneously in those universes.
My head hurts...

a reply to: Gothmog

My head hurts...

Thanks for making it contagious.

originally posted by: Kandinsky
a reply to: Gothmog

My head hurts...

Thanks for making it contagious.

But , just think , somewhere in a universe far far away you may be Emperor of your own universe.
Wait , that didnt make me feel any better...

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Some are gonna hate me for saying this but I have always been suspicious of the Stephen Hawking narrative. It just seems ever so slightly......doctored.

No offense to anyone but that's my feeling on it.

Why the, "doctored" meme, that doesn't make sense, the 'Big Bang' is a theory...that uses the scientific method, and it has great standing with scientists who can enable physics, maths, cosmology, observation even...whatever it takes, but it's still a theory, a theory that came from thought and presumably, a desire to understand, and hopefully the ability to realise it.
Hawking would still probably say I/we don't know, and would definitely say we don't for sure, and that would be true say even as we speak, and the big bang theorising is still theorising. I'm not a scientist, so I don't know anything specific about the big bang, or this addtional paper from Hawking, other than what it is saying, but I can say that it wasn't so long ago that 'Quarks' were thought to be some of the first' mass particles to form or compose out of the big bang. Now, at the LHC they have detected the 'Higgs Boson' so the 'Quark' supposition may now be different....and so it goes on.
That's a big difference from having an idea, even faith, or feeling in something, and not doing anything about it.

originally posted by: Gothmog
But , just think , somewhere in a universe far far away you may be Emperor of your own universe.
Wait , that didnt make me feel any better...

We are all creators of our own universes, or at least the little chunk of the hologram in which we exist. And then when we individually die, the universe, having a piece taken out of the matrix, collapses in on itself and ceases to to exist. This is yet another deficiency with trying to express the universe as a mathematical equation, because it doesn't address an individual's objective point of view.

When I die, as far as I'm concerned, it's all gone.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: projectvxn
a reply to: BrianFlanders

Its a good thing your feelings don't matter.

Hawking was a brilliant man whose whole life was devoted to understanding the most extreme phenomena in the universe.

I, for one, will be happy to peruse his latest and last paper.

I have no problem with that. It's just that my "nose" works and when I smell something off I

I'm just going to say so. That's what this forum is for. I love the warm fuzzy story. If I could believe it.

That's fine, but you can't cite your nose in a scientific paper, making it worth far less than those who submit to that kind of scrutiny. In other words, your objection cannot be taken seriously.

originally posted by: Blue Shift

originally posted by: Gothmog
But , just think , somewhere in a universe far far away you may be Emperor of your own universe.
Wait , that didnt make me feel any better...

When I die, as far as I'm concerned, it's all gone.

What if you die, and it's still there and moreover, still observable by you in an altered state? The prediction of your demise may be greatly exaggerated. Care to bet something on the outcome? I suppose it will need to be non-material, sigh.

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Some are gonna hate me for saying this but I have always been suspicious of the Stephen Hawking narrative. It just seems ever so slightly......doctored.

No offense to anyone but that's my feeling on it.

That would be a valid post if it was only Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately for that post , there are many physicists that support the same or similar theories. In fact , I hazard to say , most do.

Ahhh....and there you have it. Most of these physicists are people the general public has never heard of. Hawking was useful in that he was famous. If you could take a big pile of stuff from everyone and put his name on it, people would eat it all up without so much as sniffing it.

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Some are gonna hate me for saying this but I have always been suspicious of the Stephen Hawking narrative. It just seems ever so slightly......doctored.

No offense to anyone but that's my feeling on it.

That would be a valid post if it was only Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately for that post , there are many physicists that support the same or similar theories. In fact , I hazard to say , most do.

Ahhh....and there you have it. Most of these physicists are people the general public has never heard of. Hawking was useful in that he was famous. If you could take a big pile of stuff from everyone and put his name on it, people would eat it all up without so much as sniffing it.

And the rest are not popular ? How bout Michio Kaku ? Albert Einstein ? Sir Isaac Newton ? Nikola Tesla ? Carl Sagan ?
Need I go on ?

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: BrianFlanders

originally posted by: Gothmog

originally posted by: BrianFlanders
Some are gonna hate me for saying this but I have always been suspicious of the Stephen Hawking narrative. It just seems ever so slightly......doctored.

No offense to anyone but that's my feeling on it.

That would be a valid post if it was only Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately for that post , there are many physicists that support the same or similar theories. In fact , I hazard to say , most do.

Ahhh....and there you have it. Most of these physicists are people the general public has never heard of. Hawking was useful in that he was famous. If you could take a big pile of stuff from everyone and put his name on it, people would eat it all up without so much as sniffing it.

And the rest are not popular ? How bout Michio Kaku ? Albert Einstein ? Sir Isaac Newton ? Nikola Tesla ? Carl Sagan ?
Need I go on ?

You can if you want. How many physicists can you name that the average person has ever heard of?

a reply to: Battlefresh

actually - successfully chalenging one of hawkins theories would be the springboard of a persons career

originally posted by: ignorant_ape
a reply to: Battlefresh

actually - successfully chalenging one of hawkins theories would be the springboard of a persons career

Much the same as challenging Einstein's theories were a springboard for Hawking and so many others in fields such as Quantum Mechanics. In fact, I would posit that without Einstein's theories (to challenge) Dr. Stephen Hawking would never have been the household name he is.

a reply to: gortex

Over the years, in an effort to bring the boundaries of the Universe into a more understandable perspective, many have postulated, simplistically, that the Universe was akin to the cellular structure of a larger organism. Our Universe representing but a single cell in the larger organism. And, while simplistic, of course this view ignores the the fact the larger organism has boundaries, within an environment which also has boundaries (and so on, ad infinitum). However, the multiverse concept in some respects almost goes back to a similar concept.

How ironic such theories would be cast aside by the pillars of physics so many years ago as simplistic musings by the uneducated masses, only to circle back all these decades later and embrace similar concepts.

I think when we think of a 'multiverse' concept many envision these multiverses to exist in adjacency with respect to one another, but in reality they likely exist in the same proximate 'space' overlapping in different ways with a multitude of different physical laws.

The more things change, the more they stay the same. Occam's Razor perhaps.

Perhaps our solar system is just one atom in a universe which is just one cell, in a much larger living breathing organism which exists in a much larger still environment, in a much larger solar system...in a much larger universe. And, perhaps this much larger organism looks to the sky and wonders about the bigger picture, much the same as we do on our tiny little atom. And so on, and so on.

a reply to: gortex

First, if hawking was so smart, he wouldn't use the word 'multiverse' it's been said before by others and I'll take up that echo: the very idea of a 'multiverse" implies a singular structure that they all inhabit... and coexist in. If such is the case, as would HAVE to be... it's not 'multi' at all. Multifaceted maybe.

Moving on... "We derive a dual description of eternal inflation in terms of a deformed CFT located at the threshold of eternal inflation." Um... since when is it okay to define something in terms of itself? If the dictionary said "we define 'the' in terms of the observer located at the threshold of 'the'... you'd dismiss it as garbage.

Eternal inflation? Death of the stars? None of that is NEW. We already knew that the universe is infinitely expanding we didn't need hawking redundancy. Same for the heat death of the universe.

And, finally... if the whole paper is about finding parallel structures, then why wasn't a hint of how to do it mentioned?

a reply to: Gothmog

That's just it Goth- why did we need hawking to say what so many others have said already?

originally posted by: schuyler
What if you die, and it's still there and moreover, still observable by you in an altered state? The prediction of your demise may be greatly exaggerated. Care to bet something on the outcome? I suppose it will need to be non-material, sigh.

I imagine that without any senses and without a brain to interpret it, it'll be like the times I've been unconscious from injury or surgery -- which is nothing, no time, no black, no white. No nothing.

However, if there is some kind of residual sentient construct left over from my demise, I'll come by your house one night and ghost the living hell out of you.

a reply to: Blue Shift_javascript:external()

I imagine that without any senses and without a brain to interpret it, it'll be like the times I've been unconscious from injury or surgery -- which is nothing, no time, no black, no white. No nothing.

Perhaps just as sound doesn't exist if there isn't an ear to hear it maybe you're right and without life to observe it the Universe is just waves.