Unoffical empeg BBS

Quick Links: Empeg FAQ | RioCar.Org | Hijack | BigDisk Builder | jEmplode | emphatic
Repairs: Repairs

Page 2 of 2 < 1 2
Topic Options
#155251 - 16/04/2003 14:10 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: JeffS]
kswish0
enthusiast

Registered: 06/02/2002
Posts: 212
Loc: Virginia, USA
You people are making my head hurt Stop making me think so hard

Top
#155252 - 16/04/2003 15:00 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: JeffS]
peter
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
Still, I figured we'd had enough debates along these lines recently and decided it'd be more fun just to "roll with it."
I'm glad to hear it. If this sort of untestable "science" had turned up in a certain other thread, it would have put a big hole in my (and, frankly, Karl Popper's) exposition of science as being all about demonstrability and falsifiability...

I hadn't heard the result mentioned in the article, that microwave anisotropy statistics rule out a closed spherical universe -- I thought this was still a very contested issue. And there's a big step between ruling out closed spherical, and ruling in infinite. But anyone whose head isn't messed-up enough by this yet should go and read Borges' The Library Of Babel, which was written (I think) during an earlier period when science suspected the universe of being infinite.

Peter

Top
#155253 - 16/04/2003 15:07 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: peter]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
I hadn't heard the result mentioned in the article, that microwave anisotropy statistics rule out a closed spherical universe
My limited understanding was that the microwave stats ruled out a closed universe of any topology. But I could be wrong.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
#155254 - 16/04/2003 15:21 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: wfaulk]
peter
carpal tunnel

Registered: 13/07/2000
Posts: 4180
Loc: Cambridge, England
My limited understanding was that the microwave stats ruled out a closed universe of any topology. But I could be wrong.
Have you got a reference? I'm annoyed to have completely missed a result of this import...

Peter

Top
#155255 - 16/04/2003 15:25 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: JeffS]
Soulseeker
new poster

Registered: 09/02/2003
Posts: 9
Loc: Fairfield, CA
I don't remember where the theory was from, but I remember my junior year in high school someone proposed a theory that the universe was finite, but looked infinite because it exists in the shape of a mobius strip. I know that made my head hurt at the time.
_________________________
A superhero appears from the shadows...could this be Batman, or just another fat kid with a cape?

Top
#155256 - 16/04/2003 15:49 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: Soulseeker]
revlmwest
addict

Registered: 05/06/2002
Posts: 497
Loc: Hartsville, South Carolina for...
Sort of like Combat.
_________________________
Michael West

Top
#155257 - 16/04/2003 15:51 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: peter]
tfabris
carpal tunnel

Registered: 20/12/1999
Posts: 31596
Loc: Seattle, WA
it would have put a big hole in my (and, frankly, Karl Popper's) exposition of science as being all about demonstrability and falsifiability...
I disagree, I think it's a great example. Here is a pure theory, it's got ideas that are mostly untestable. Astrophysics and particle physics are at the bleeding edge of our learning, and have many facets which are untestable. We're working toward ways of testing many of these things, but until we do, it's still theoretical if it hasn't been tested. We've never sent a probe to the edge of a black hole and observed what it's like, we can only theorize that a black hole exists because of the x-ray radiation emitted near its event horizon. We can observe with a spectrometer that the universe is expanding, but can only guess as to why or when the expansion started.

It's very important to understand that some theories are more theoretical than others, and this is the root of what science is about. A discussion like this is a great example. You can't put finite vs. infinite universe theories into the same boat as things that are testable like elementary biology. They're both science, and they both can be proven wrong and thrown out if we find evidence which contradicts the theory, it's just that one of them's got a lot more evidence backing it up than the other.
_________________________
Tony Fabris

Top
#155258 - 16/04/2003 21:12 Re: Parallel Universes [Re: peter]
wfaulk
carpal tunnel

Registered: 25/12/2000
Posts: 16706
Loc: Raleigh, NC US
My limited understanding was that the microwave stats ruled out a closed universe of any topology. But I could be wrong.
Have you got a reference? I'm annoyed to have completely missed a result of this import...
Okay, I'm obviously not an astrophysicist, and my knowledge of this stuff is far from expansive, so I may be (read: ``probably am'') misinterpreting this, but, from http://www.discover.com/mar_01/featdark.html:
Recent studies of microwave background radiation had hinted that the universe is flat. But last spring, data from balloon-borne instruments lofted over Texas and Antarctica supplied convincing evidence. Minute fluctuations in the radiation were the expected size. The most precise measurements available revealed that the shape of the universe is flat; it has the critical density and omega equals one.
My understanding is that the universe would have to be closed for it to be finite. Then again, my understanding is that would imply a spheroid universe, yet I've also heard theories of a toroidal or moebius-like universe. I don't know how to rectify all that information. Regardless, I'm pretty sure that flat is flat. But I could be wrong.

Also check out the press release for the balloon experiment mentioned, MAXIMA. Apparently there was another one called BOOMERANG, too.
_________________________
Bitt Faulk

Top
Page 2 of 2 < 1 2