Parallel Universes Proven?

its becoming pretty clear in the modern age that the whole multiverse theory (string theory) could actually really exist and probably does - so many things point to it, unfortunately the day it does get proven profusly it will open more questions then it answered.

whilst that article really offers nothing new to the cause - get past the writing and poor context and its a step in the right direction.

unfortuanately were be waiting a good 5 years before anything like this really gets proven and even then that depends on if the LHC can keep operating for more then 10 seconds without throwing a fit.
 
PhillyDee said:
Proven? In science?

Look no further than the 'Theory' of mavity.
Click to expand...

I like the view of Stephen J. Gould for matters like this "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. ...In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.".

Parallel universes are an interesting idea but I'm not yet convinced that this proves them or even makes them into a likelihood.
 
PhillyDee said:
Proven? In science?

Look no further than the 'Theory' of mavity.
Click to expand...

I don't know if you're trolling, but scientific theory has a different meaning to what you're thinking of.

1.
a coherent group of general propositions used as principles of explanation for a class of phenomena: Einstein's theory of relativity.
2.
a proposed explanation whose status is still conjectural, in contrast to well-established propositions that are regarded as reporting matters of actual fact.
Click to expand...
 
me neither, even the idea of how life began on earth is unclear. the God we know from religion may be wrong but a god may well have artificially introduced microbacterial organisms to the ocean.

we presume it could have been a comet, it could easily have been an experiment after terraforming was completed.

we arent far off the capability to do it to another planet ourselves, so to presume that it couldnt have been done to us by beings from another world, or our gods, is no more far fetched and more likely than life creating itself..
 
I love fox news.


Go watch brass eye and you'll never look at it the same again.

First time a i saw i thought "Awesome American brass eye" :D
 
semi-pro waster said:
I like the view of Stephen J. Gould for matters like this "Well, evolution is a theory. It is also a fact. And facts and theories are different things, not rungs in a hierarchy of increasing certainty. ...In science, “fact” can only mean “confirmed to such a degree that it would be perverse to withhold provisional assent.” I suppose that apples might start to rise tomorrow, but the possibility does not merit equal time in physics classrooms.".

Parallel universes are an interesting idea but I'm not yet convinced that this proves them or even makes them into a likelihood.
Click to expand...

isn't that about the "idea" (for want of a better word) of mavity (ie that there is a weak force between masses) and not "how" it actually occurs (which is still a little grey iirc)


Quite a lot of theories are proved to be wrong on an actual mechanism level yet produce accurate predictions easier than the "right" model so are still used an taught.
 
Tefal said:
isn't that about the "idea" (for want of a better word) of mavity (ie that there is a weak force between masses) and not "how" it actually occurs (which is still a little grey iirc)


Quite a lot of theories are proved to be wrong on an actual mechanism level yet produce accurate predictions easier than the "right" model so are still used an taught.
Click to expand...

The quote is indeed related to mavity but I thought it was at least vaguely applicable here, for a theory in a scientific sense is not something that would be categorically proven - it's merely the best fit until and unless something better comes along, the longer it remains steadfast against challenge the more likely it is to be 'right'.

You're right about mavity too, the Newtonian theory isn't strictly correct but it's close enough for the majority of purposes so it is used where absolute accuracy isn't necessary.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom