It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Our universe might be really, really big — but finite. Or it might be infinitely big. Both cases, says physicist Brian Greene, are possibilities, but if the latter is true, so is another posit: There are only so many ways matter can arrange itself within that infinite universe. Eventually, matter has to repeat itself and arrange itself in similar ways. So if the universe is infinitely large, it is also home to infinite parallel universes. Does that sound confusing? Try this: Think of the universe like a deck of cards. "Now, if you shuffle that deck, there's just so many orderings that can happen," Greene says. "If you shuffle that deck enough times, the orders will have to repeat. Similarly, with an infinite universe and only a finite number of complexions of matter, the way in which matter arranges itself has to repeat."
"There are a couple of multiverses that come out of our study of string theory," Greene says. "Within string theory, the strings that we're talking about are not the only entities that this theory allows. It also allows objects that look like large flying carpets, or membranes, which are two dimensional surfaces. And what that means, within string theory, is that we may be living on one of those gigantic surfaces, and there can be other surfaces floating out there in space."
"If we are living on one of these giant membranes, then the following can happen: When you slam particles together — which is what happens at the LHC — some debris from those collisions can be ejected off of our membrane and be ejected into the greater cosmos in which our membrane floats," he says. "If that happens, that debris will take away some energy. So if we measure the amount of energy just before the protons collide and compare it with the amount of energy just after they collide, if there's a little less after — and it's less in just the right way — it would indicate that some had flown off, indicating that this membrane picture is correct."
Originally posted by NorEaster
These guys are forgetting about two very fundamental aspects of material reality.
- Existential identity is determined by contextual precedence as well as relative context
- Newton's 1st Law of Thermodynamics only pertains to energy within a closed system, and not to energy as an existential manifestation in general
1. Nothing can be truly replicated, regardless of the size of the universe. This is due to the historical chain of circumstances that reach out behind everything that exists as physical, that are represented by the permanent information that those circumstances did exist, and that they did contribute to the eventual emergence of that physical something that cannot be truly replicated. This truth can't be challenged, and regardless of what some physicist claims, his training does not qualify him to debunk the very fundamentals of existential ramification.
2. This whole "energy cannot be created or destroyed" myth is finally being debunked at the quantum level, so these idiots are inventing crazy realities to try and maintain a wide spread misinterpretation of what Newton was asserting with that 1st Law of Thermodynamics. The idea that a measurable loss of energy after smashing particles reveals that this energy has jumped from our reality into a parallel reality is classic American book-marketing-as-theoretical-breakthrough.
This Greene character is working his career as an author. Believe what you wish, but both of these fundamental tenets of reality cripple the assertions listed in the OP. Reality's pretty cool, but it's not that cool.edit on 7/17/2011 by NorEaster because: (no reason given)
Originally posted by AtlantisX99
However, to paraphrase your first point, you are stating that it is impossible for 'lightning to strike twice' and whilst I do not agree with the idea of matter only being able to arrange itself in so many ways persay, if we are dealing with an 'infinite' size or indeed and 'infinite' number of possibilities, surely that does not preclude the possibility of an emergence of exact same preceedence and context leading to a 'carbon copy'? Admittedly, the idea of identical realities existing in parralell does seem immeasureably unlikely, given the components of the preceedence and context, but I cannot say myself that when dealing with an infinite number of possibilites (as is being suggested) that it can truly be ruled out or indeed proven / disproven, without first proving / disproving the existence and indeed number of parrallel realities.
Originally posted by AlienView
Excuse us humble aliens from the 'other-world' but would one of you prove the existence of any reality anywhere and at any specific time in the known or unknown cosmos. And for that matter do you know where the cosmos is?
And for that matter if you don't know where it is, how do you know that it exists? And for that matter how do you know you exist?
Rene Descartes, called the "Father of Modern Philosophy" said: "Cogito ergo sum" (French: Je pense, donc je suis; English: I think, therefore I am; or I am thinking, therefore I exist)"
In some place somewhere each of your viewpoints is valid. Therefor we suggest focus on viewpoints that will give a practical ability to transcend the limited and trite universe you appear to be currently trapped in.
E=MC2 is one view; Time to 'see' further.........
There is a lot said in the article, but one other thing that really struck me was that there is actually a way to test to see if we are living on a membrane in a larger multiverse. That's right, with the Large Hadron Collider at CERN these physicists can run tests to determine, once and for all, if there are parallel universes and we are simply living in one of many realities: .....