Total Posts:46|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Existence of Parallel Universes

Nidhogg
Posts: 503
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
I know a barely anything about parallel universes, but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.

Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own would have 0 distance between itself and our universe due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles, but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules and particles outside our universe. Additionally, that begs the question as to how these particles got there in the first place.

Can anyone clarify to me how science justifies the existence of parallel universes? I can't seem to find any notes on the subject which I can adequately process given my limited knowledge on the subject.
Ridiculously Photogenic Debater

DDO's most mediocre member since at least a year ago
Cheshire
Posts: 11
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 4:44:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own would have 0 distance between itself and our universe due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes

I think I remember seeing something on that idea, so the concept is probably out there.

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles, but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules and particles outside our universe. Additionally, that begs the question as to how these particles got there in the first place.

I would look into M-theory, to find an explanation for that, but the theory is complex and may be more time consuming than you wanted. It also refers to other universes that are not parallel universes but it will go into placement. I have never heard of some sort of space or particles outside the universe; however M-theory states that other universes would not necessarily have the same physical laws as our universe.

Can anyone clarify to me how science justifies the existence of parallel universes? I can't seem to find any notes on the subject which I can adequately process given my limited knowledge on the subject.

Try this link: http://www.daviddarling.info...

I think one of the best reasoning for parallel universes is the many worlds interpretation. It also provides a way to solve the grandfather paradox (it goes over this in the link).
Enji
Posts: 1,022
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/8/2013 6:40:24 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
I know a barely anything about parallel universes, but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.

Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own would have 0 distance between itself and our universe due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles, but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules and particles outside our universe. Additionally, that begs the question as to how these particles got there in the first place.

Can anyone clarify to me how science justifies the existence of parallel universes? I can't seem to find any notes on the subject which I can adequately process given my limited knowledge on the subject.

Some corrections to your assumptions:

> First, there is no boundary to the universe. There are three (general) possible shapes for the universe. The first option is that the universe is closed and finite (ie, one with negative curvature); in such a universe you could (in principle) fly a spaceship far enough in one direction to get back to where you started and there are no boundaries. The second option is that the universe is flat and infinite (ie, one with zero curvature); since it's infinite there are no boundaries. The third option is that the universe is open and infinite (ie, one with positive curvature); again, since it's infinite there are no boundaries. When scientists say that the universe is expanding, they don't mean that the boundaries of the universe are pushing further against nothingness - rather, space itself is expanding.

> Second, parallel universes exist independent of each other; the state of one universe does not affect the state of another universe and there isn't really a concept of distance between the two universes.

In Schrodinger's thought experiment, according to the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics the quantum event is a branching point and the cat is both dead and alive, however the dead cat is in one universe while the alive cat is in a separate universe. Both universes are equally real, but they unable to interact because they are decoherent from each other. Another similar thought experiment from the point of view of the cat is Quantum Suicide, where based on the outcome of a quantum event you are either killed or you remain alive, repeated to infinity. In one set of branches you never die, however in another set you are killed on the first outcome; the fact that you were killed in the first outcome in one branch does not mean that you didn't survive in a separate branch. In this sense, parallel universes should be considered much like modal philosophy.

Of course, this is mostly (or entirely) questionable philosophic justification - however there isn't much empirical justification for any interpretation of quantum mechanics over another. I think I've sufficiently addressed your initial issue with parallel universes since that was a consequence of your assumptions - whether or not you agree with the Many Worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics is up to you (I don't think I do).
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/11/2013 9:04:56 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
I know a barely anything about parallel universes, but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.
Sure, but until we have some empirical evidence, it's all speculation.

Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own would have 0 distance between itself and our universe due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes
1) There is no "physical boundary" that surrounds the Universe. The Universe is "all of existence" and as such, there are no boundaries because the only "thing" that the Universe "is not" is non-existence. In that respect, you can think of the "boundary" as non-existence which of course simply means that the boundary does not exist.

If you subscribe to the MWI (Many Worlds Interpretation) of quantum physics, then simply substitute "Multiverse" for "Universe" above and 1 still holds.

2) "Absolute nothing" is also non-existence; ergo it does not exist. Nothingness is a term defined through negation, it derives it's meaning by attempting to negate "all things" but in doing so it attempts to negate that which cannot be negated: existence. Negating existence gets you non-existence and this is why "nothingness" = non-existence; it is a contradiction and like all contradictions, it does not exist.

3) Now if you've taken the MWI position, then you might SPECULATE that we live in a universe among a sea of universes within the Multiverse, that's fine too. So if you are speculating about universes within a Multiverse, then speculate to your heart's content! So long as you stay within the scope of 1 and 2 above, you should be ok.

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles, but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules and particles outside our universe.
You've heard incorrectly it seems. For starters, there's no such thing as "absolute nothing" as I explained previously. To claim "absolute nothing" is like claiming a square-circle or that non-existence exists. Our Universe is full of quantum particles (last I checked matter is composed of such particles, but I'm sure you are referring to quantum foam), so we need not go as far as the fictitious place "outside the Universe." The theorized "quantum foam" can be all around us; "empty" space is said to be teeming with such particles.

Additionally, that begs the question as to how these particles got there in the first place.
No question begging necessary once you understand that existence transcends all things and so these "particles" are simply transformations of something into something else; the point being that there was/is/always will be something there. This is heavily supported by the laws of thermodynamics which are probably the cornerstone of physics and some of the most tested and consistently shown to be true.

Can anyone clarify to me how science justifies the existence of parallel universes?
It does so based on speculation, on top of assertion, mixed in with a little wishful thinking and topped off with zero empirical evidence.

I can't seem to find any notes on the subject which I can adequately process given my limited knowledge on the subject.
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Enjoy!
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
I know a barely anything about parallel universes,
but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question
as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.

Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing
Nidhogg
#
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
socratus

with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own
would have 0 distance between itself and our universe
due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes
Nidhogg
#
There is 0 distance between these two universes
socratus

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe
is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles,
Nidhogg
#
According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
socratus

but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics
that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules
and particles outside our universe.
Nidhogg
#
Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
socratus

Additionally, that begs the question as to how these
particles got there in the first place.
Nidhogg
#
What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
socratus

.====".
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
I know a barely anything about parallel universes, but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.

You are in hood company because nobody knows anything about parallel universes, they are drug induced figments of imagination.

Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own would have 0 distance between itself and our universe due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes

By definition the Universe is all inclusive, so that wouldn't be two universes, it would be one universe.

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles, but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules and particles outside our universe. Additionally, that begs the question as to how these particles got there in the first place.

I'm fairly certain what is outside the universe isn't outside the universe.

Can anyone clarify to me how science justifies the existence of parallel universes? I can't seem to find any notes on the subject which I can adequately process given my limited knowledge on the subject.

Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 5:22:08 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
Correction: You are in good company...
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/14/2013 12:15:55 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
I know a barely anything about parallel universes, but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.

You are in hood company because nobody knows anything about parallel universes, they are drug induced figments of imagination.

Assuming all that surrounds the physical boundaries of our universe is absolute nothing with no properties whatsoever, any universe existing in that area outside our own would have 0 distance between itself and our universe due to the fact that absolute nothing has no length/width/volume/whatever else to separate two universes

By definition the Universe is all inclusive, so that wouldn't be two universes, it would be one universe.

I've heard the argument raised that what is outside the universe is not absolute nothing but is full of quantum particles, but I'm fairly certain we cannot assume that the laws of quantum mechanics that persist in our universe would not exist and/or have the same rules and particles outside our universe. Additionally, that begs the question as to how these particles got there in the first place.

I'm fairly certain what is outside the universe isn't outside the universe.

Can anyone clarify to me how science justifies the existence of parallel universes? I can't seem to find any notes on the subject which I can adequately process given my limited knowledge on the subject.

Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.

It's not science on drugs lol. It's observational theories.
Where do black holes lead to? Where do electrons disappear to? These are observations that lead to the conclusion that more universes or dimensions may exist.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:29:29 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 12:15:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
It's not science on drugs lol. It's observational theories.
Where do black holes lead to?
Where do electrons disappear to?
These are observations that lead to the conclusion that
more universes or dimensions may exist.
================================================.

Journal: Discover, July 2013
Article: Darklands of the Cosmos.
" . . . visible matter makes up only 4,5% of the Universe"
==.
So, more than 90% (!) of matter is "Darklands of the Cosmos".
It is possible to say that these 90% of unseen matter
of "Darklands of the Cosmos" ( as a Parallel World ) created 4,5% of visible matter.
What is a matter (particles ) of a Parallel World -"Darklands of the Cosmos" ?

In my opinion the particles of Parallel World - Darkland are Dirac"s virtual antiparticles.
==="
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:47:02 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 12:15:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.

It's not science on drugs lol. It's observational theories.
Where do black holes lead to? Where do electrons disappear to? These are observations that lead to the conclusion that more universes or dimensions may exist.

"Where do black holes lead to?" is not an observation, and neither is "Where do electrons disappear to?". There are no observations that lead to more universes, even in theory, they cannot be observed. There is no evidence, only unwarranted speculation.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:36:39 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:47:02 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/14/2013 12:15:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.

It's not science on drugs lol. It's observational theories.
Where do black holes lead to? Where do electrons disappear to? These are observations that lead to the conclusion that more universes or dimensions may exist.

"Where do black holes lead to?" is not an observation, and neither is "Where do electrons disappear to?". There are no observations that lead to more universes, even in theory, they cannot be observed. There is no evidence, only unwarranted speculation.

Are you saying black holes don't exist and electrons don't disappear? If that isn't what you are saying, please do give your theory as to answer the questions.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 10:51:37 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 7:36:39 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/15/2013 4:47:02 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
At 7/14/2013 12:15:55 PM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:

Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.

It's not science on drugs lol. It's observational theories.
Where do black holes lead to? Where do electrons disappear to? These are observations that lead to the conclusion that more universes or dimensions may exist.

"Where do black holes lead to?" is not an observation, and neither is "Where do electrons disappear to?". There are no observations that lead to more universes, even in theory, they cannot be observed. There is no evidence, only unwarranted speculation.

Are you saying black holes don't exist

No, I'm saying thy exist but where they lead to is a meaningless question, like saying tennis balls exist but where do the lead to.

and electrons don't disappear?

The electron is a quantum particle of energy, it is not a physical particle moving around the nucleus, that is just a way of envisioning it, it is actually an energy pattern wrapped around the nucleus in shells. Rather than a physical step that a particle makes in and out of our universe, a quantum leap is a localized process involving wave mechanics and field theory. On the quantum level, the electron doesn"t move in a continuous manner, the energy and its movement is quantized, when there is a change of state the electron either releases or absorbs a photon and its location changes from one discrete energy pattern to another discrete energy pattern around the nucleus. This is probably the most common single event in our universe and it has nothing whatsoever to do with other universes.

If that isn't what you are saying, please do give your theory as to answer the questions.

I certainly don't need my own theory to explain these things, they are very well explained by the standard model of physics, you know, the one that describes physical processes in the universe without reference to other universes.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 1:41:12 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM, socratus wrote:
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
That's not "nothing" and even space itself is not at absolute zero. When things reach absolute zero they loose their individuality and become a singular thing. This is NOT nothing, it is a singular thing. However, being at absolute zero doesn't last very long because the substance will gain energy from the outside (rest of the Universe) and then revert to its original properties.

There is 0 distance between these two universes
There is only one Universe as far as we know, and there is 0 distance between it and itself.

According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
I think it's the Dirac Sea, and this contradicts your previous statement about nothingness. On the other hand, I have always maintained that space is not nothingness.

Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
I believe these (quasi-particles etc.) are more abstractions of the mathematical steps that we use to solve these equations but have no real expression in physical reality.

What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
There isn't a Universe of absolute nothing. One the Universe reached absolute zero, it will be completely full: all of existence will be this one continuous and singular thing.

*********************************************

At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
Priceless! It all sounds really great and it doesn't cost a thing to speculate, but in the end that's all it is: science on drugs.

**************************************************

And what's this about "where do Blackholes lead to"? Who says they lead to anywhere? Last I checked Blackholes follow the same laws of celestial motion as any other celestial object based on General Relativity. If you cross over the event horizon, then you'll eventually end up at the singularity in the center...either that or you'll end up on a space ship captained by Laurence Fishburne! http://www.imdb.com...

And disappearing electrons? Huh? I have no idea what this is all about, but there's these 4 "insignificant" things called the Laws of Thermodynamics that might have something to say about "disappearing electrons": https://en.wikipedia.org...
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 2:26:58 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 1:41:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM, socratus wrote:
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
That's not "nothing" and even space itself is not at absolute zero. When things reach absolute zero they loose their individuality and become a singular thing. This is NOT nothing, it is a singular thing. However, being at absolute zero doesn't last very long because the substance will gain energy from the outside (rest of the Universe) and then revert to its original properties.

There is 0 distance between these two universes
There is only one Universe as far as we know, and there is 0 distance between it and itself.


According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
I think it's the Dirac Sea, and this contradicts your previous statement about nothingness. On the other hand, I have always maintained that space is not nothingness.


Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
I believe these (quasi-particles etc.) are more abstractions of the mathematical steps that we use to solve these equations but have no real expression in physical reality.


What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
There isn't a Universe of absolute nothing. One the Universe reached absolute zero, it will be completely full: all of existence will be this one continuous and singular thing.

*********************************************


At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
Priceless! It all sounds really great and it doesn't cost a thing to speculate, but in the end that's all it is: science on drugs.

**************************************************

And what's this about "where do Blackholes lead to"? Who says they lead to anywhere? Last I checked Blackholes follow the same laws of celestial motion as any other celestial object based on General Relativity. If you cross over the event horizon, then you'll eventually end up at the singularity in the center...either that or you'll end up on a space ship captained by Laurence Fishburne! http://www.imdb.com...

And disappearing electrons? Huh? I have no idea what this is all about, but there's these 4 "insignificant" things called the Laws of Thermodynamics that might have something to say about "disappearing electrons": https://en.wikipedia.org...

[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
Noumena
Posts: 6,047
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 2:30:02 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 2:26:58 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:41:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM, socratus wrote:
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
That's not "nothing" and even space itself is not at absolute zero. When things reach absolute zero they loose their individuality and become a singular thing. This is NOT nothing, it is a singular thing. However, being at absolute zero doesn't last very long because the substance will gain energy from the outside (rest of the Universe) and then revert to its original properties.

There is 0 distance between these two universes
There is only one Universe as far as we know, and there is 0 distance between it and itself.


According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
I think it's the Dirac Sea, and this contradicts your previous statement about nothingness. On the other hand, I have always maintained that space is not nothingness.


Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
I believe these (quasi-particles etc.) are more abstractions of the mathematical steps that we use to solve these equations but have no real expression in physical reality.


What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
There isn't a Universe of absolute nothing. One the Universe reached absolute zero, it will be completely full: all of existence will be this one continuous and singular thing.

*********************************************


At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
Priceless! It all sounds really great and it doesn't cost a thing to speculate, but in the end that's all it is: science on drugs.

**************************************************

And what's this about "where do Blackholes lead to"? Who says they lead to anywhere? Last I checked Blackholes follow the same laws of celestial motion as any other celestial object based on General Relativity. If you cross over the event horizon, then you'll eventually end up at the singularity in the center...either that or you'll end up on a space ship captained by Laurence Fishburne! http://www.imdb.com...

And disappearing electrons? Huh? I have no idea what this is all about, but there's these 4 "insignificant" things called the Laws of Thermodynamics that might have something to say about "disappearing electrons": https://en.wikipedia.org...


[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]

[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]
: At 5/13/2014 7:05:20 PM, Crescendo wrote:
: The difference is that the gay movement is currently pushing their will on Churches, as shown in the link to gay marriage in Denmark. Meanwhile, the Inquisition ended several centuries ago.
SarcasticIndeed
Posts: 2,215
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 2:31:16 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 2:30:02 PM, Noumena wrote:
At 7/15/2013 2:26:58 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:41:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM, socratus wrote:
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
That's not "nothing" and even space itself is not at absolute zero. When things reach absolute zero they loose their individuality and become a singular thing. This is NOT nothing, it is a singular thing. However, being at absolute zero doesn't last very long because the substance will gain energy from the outside (rest of the Universe) and then revert to its original properties.

There is 0 distance between these two universes
There is only one Universe as far as we know, and there is 0 distance between it and itself.


According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
I think it's the Dirac Sea, and this contradicts your previous statement about nothingness. On the other hand, I have always maintained that space is not nothingness.


Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
I believe these (quasi-particles etc.) are more abstractions of the mathematical steps that we use to solve these equations but have no real expression in physical reality.


What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
There isn't a Universe of absolute nothing. One the Universe reached absolute zero, it will be completely full: all of existence will be this one continuous and singular thing.

*********************************************


At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
Priceless! It all sounds really great and it doesn't cost a thing to speculate, but in the end that's all it is: science on drugs.

**************************************************

And what's this about "where do Blackholes lead to"? Who says they lead to anywhere? Last I checked Blackholes follow the same laws of celestial motion as any other celestial object based on General Relativity. If you cross over the event horizon, then you'll eventually end up at the singularity in the center...either that or you'll end up on a space ship captained by Laurence Fishburne! http://www.imdb.com...

And disappearing electrons? Huh? I have no idea what this is all about, but there's these 4 "insignificant" things called the Laws of Thermodynamics that might have something to say about "disappearing electrons": https://en.wikipedia.org...


[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]

[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]

Yeah, chrum should report this.
<SIGNATURE CENSORED> nac
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 4:40:10 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 2:26:58 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:41:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM, socratus wrote:
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
That's not "nothing" and even space itself is not at absolute zero. When things reach absolute zero they loose their individuality and become a singular thing. This is NOT nothing, it is a singular thing. However, being at absolute zero doesn't last very long because the substance will gain energy from the outside (rest of the Universe) and then revert to its original properties.

There is 0 distance between these two universes
There is only one Universe as far as we know, and there is 0 distance between it and itself.


According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
I think it's the Dirac Sea, and this contradicts your previous statement about nothingness. On the other hand, I have always maintained that space is not nothingness.


Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
I believe these (quasi-particles etc.) are more abstractions of the mathematical steps that we use to solve these equations but have no real expression in physical reality.


What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
There isn't a Universe of absolute nothing. One the Universe reached absolute zero, it will be completely full: all of existence will be this one continuous and singular thing.

*********************************************


At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
Priceless! It all sounds really great and it doesn't cost a thing to speculate, but in the end that's all it is: science on drugs.

**************************************************

And what's this about "where do Blackholes lead to"? Who says they lead to anywhere? Last I checked Blackholes follow the same laws of celestial motion as any other celestial object based on General Relativity. If you cross over the event horizon, then you'll eventually end up at the singularity in the center...either that or you'll end up on a space ship captained by Laurence Fishburne! http://www.imdb.com...

And disappearing electrons? Huh? I have no idea what this is all about, but there's these 4 "insignificant" things called the Laws of Thermodynamics that might have something to say about "disappearing electrons": https://en.wikipedia.org...


[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]

[This comment can only be seen by Platinum users of Debate.org]
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 6:49:06 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
There are many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 4D, 5D, 11D, MD . . . . )
and maybe the Parallel World exist in one of them.
===..
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/15/2013 7:21:03 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 4:40:10 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2013 2:26:58 PM, SarcasticIndeed wrote:
At 7/15/2013 1:41:12 PM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/14/2013 4:58:07 AM, socratus wrote:
The Universe of absolute nothing - is vacuum absolute zero: T=0K
That's not "nothing" and even space itself is not at absolute zero. When things reach absolute zero they loose their individuality and become a singular thing. This is NOT nothing, it is a singular thing. However, being at absolute zero doesn't last very long because the substance will gain energy from the outside (rest of the Universe) and then revert to its original properties.

There is 0 distance between these two universes
There is only one Universe as far as we know, and there is 0 distance between it and itself.


According to Dirac vacuum is full of virtual - antiparticles:- E=Mc^2
I think it's the Dirac Sea, and this contradicts your previous statement about nothingness. On the other hand, I have always maintained that space is not nothingness.


Question:
How can these virtual- antiparticles ( -E=Mc^2 ) become
real particles ( for example electrons: E=h*f or e^2=ach*) ?
I believe these (quasi-particles etc.) are more abstractions of the mathematical steps that we use to solve these equations but have no real expression in physical reality.


What is the Universe of absolute nothing : T=0K ?
There isn't a Universe of absolute nothing. One the Universe reached absolute zero, it will be completely full: all of existence will be this one continuous and singular thing.

*********************************************


At 7/14/2013 5:19:50 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
Easy, the process goes something like this, you observe the universe and this is science, then you take a perpendicular universe and turn it 90 degrees to get a parallel universe, and that is science on drugs.
Priceless! It all sounds really great and it doesn't cost a thing to speculate, but in the end that's all it is: science on drugs.

**************************************************

And what's this about "where do Blackholes lead to"? Who says they lead to anywhere? Last I checked Blackholes follow the same laws of celestial motion as any other celestial object based on General Relativity. If you cross over the event horizon, then you'll eventually end up at the singularity in the center...either that or you'll end up on a space ship captained by Laurence Fishburne! http://www.imdb.com...

And disappearing electrons? Huh? I have no idea what this is all about, but there's these 4 "insignificant" things called the Laws of Thermodynamics that might have something to say about "disappearing electrons": https://en.wikipedia.org...


[This comment can only be seen by Gold users of Debate.org]

[This comment can only be seen by Platinum users of Debate.org]

[This comment can't even be seen by Rhodium users of Debate.org]
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 9:28:54 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/15/2013 6:49:06 PM, socratus wrote:
There are many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 4D, 5D, 11D, MD . . . . )
and maybe the Parallel World exist in one of them.
===..
Sure, and maybe not. Speculation can work either way.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
socratus
Posts: 102
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:20:05 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 9:28:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:49:06 PM, socratus wrote:
There are many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 4D, 5D, 11D, MD . . . . )
and maybe the Parallel World exist in one of them.
===..
Sure, and maybe not. Speculation can work either way.

===..
Maybe the Parallel World is hidden in Nothingness
=.
In January, Lawrence Krauss,
a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute
at Arizona State University, published
A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing,
a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just
any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing,
the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory.
But before attempting to do so, the book first tells the story of modern cosmology,
whipping its way through the big bang to microwave background radiation
and the discovery of dark energy.
==="
The secret of God and Existence is hidden
in the ' Theory of Vacuum and Light Quanta' .
the_croftmeister
Posts: 678
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/16/2013 7:28:15 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
Sidewalker, what precisely is your issue with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? The equations for quantum mechanics have been experimentally tested and were derived without alternative worlds in mind, yet a common interpretation suggests that there are other ways of looking at the universe that are incoherent with our own and would thus behave like a 'parallel universe' at least that is my understanding. I personally like the consistent histories explanation.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 8:53:51 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:20:05 PM, socratus wrote:
At 7/16/2013 9:28:54 AM, tBoonePickens wrote:
At 7/15/2013 6:49:06 PM, socratus wrote:
There are many different reference frames
( free, open, closed , 4D, 5D, 11D, MD . . . . )
and maybe the Parallel World exist in one of them.
===..
Sure, and maybe not. Speculation can work either way.

===..
Maybe the Parallel World is hidden in Nothingness
Nothingness = non-existence, so I agree: Parallel World does not exist.

=.
In January, Lawrence Krauss,
a theoretical physicist and Director of the Origins Institute
at Arizona State University, published
A Universe From Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather Than Nothing,
a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just
any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from nothing,
the kind of nothing implicated by quantum field theory.
Ergo, not nothing but actually something. So when we remove the semantic ploy designed to sell books we have: "a book that, as its title suggests, purports to explain how something---and not just any something, but the entire universe---could have emerged from something else." Also, the title REALLY means "A Universe From Something else: Why There Is Something Rather Than Something Else" Wow. I am totally flabbergasted. /*end sarcasm/

But before attempting to do so, the book first tells the story of modern cosmology,
whipping its way through the big bang to microwave background radiation
and the discovery of dark energy.
==="
Well, the discovery that there SEEMS to be some force that is unaccounted for. Einstein dubbed this force the "Cosmological Constant" (also known as vacuum force) but thought it was his greatest blunder...go figure?
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 9:33:12 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/16/2013 7:28:15 PM, the_croftmeister wrote:
Sidewalker, what precisely is your issue with the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics? The equations for quantum mechanics have been experimentally tested and were derived without alternative worlds in mind, yet a common interpretation suggests that there are other ways of looking at the universe that are incoherent with our own and would thus behave like a 'parallel universe' at least that is my understanding. I personally like the consistent histories explanation.

Ruh roh, you"ve unleashed a Sidewalker rant with your question.

My issue with it is it isn"t science; it is a preposterous inversion of what science is and does at its most fundamental level. Science creates theories that describe our observations of the universe, good ones makes testable predictions that can be confirmed through further observations which provides validation of the theory. When we validate a theory we have a conceptual framework that helps us interpret the facts, but the theory is always contingent, a single inconsistent observation can topple a theory such that you either need to modify the theory or find a new one.

Many-Worlds theory is the epitomizing culmination of a bad approach to science that has been gaining momentum in the last few decades. There is a measurement problem in quantum physics and we do not have a theory that solves it, we simply cannot predict precise results that can be measured, the theory only provides predictions in the form of probabilities which leaves us without the ability to establish an exact correspondence between quantum and classical reality. The problem is that the wavefunction evolves deterministically as a linear superposition of different probabilistic states, but the reality is that when we take a look we never find a cat that is both alive and dead; the observation is always of a universe in a definite state.

Everett"s solution was to consider the formula to be what is real and make the universe contingent upon the theory; it alters the facts in an attempt to support some inane idea that the theory is what is absolute. The theory is no longer a description of the universe, it presumes that the theory can"t be what"s wrong or incomplete, it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete, and it invents an almost infinite number of universes to fit the theory, all of them unobserved and unobservable. I don"t know what that is, but it isn"t science.

Einstein said "It is the theory that allows us to see the facts", but I don"t think he ever said anything about inventing facts to fit the theory and I"m sure he never said anything about the theory being what is most real, and that reality should just be an abstraction that is altered to fit the theory. A scientific theory is not some absolute that the high priests of science bring down from the mountain of complexity on their stone tablets, and Many-Worlds is science going way beyond the interpretation of observations to become a tower of abstraction that is completely detached from the reality it was meant to interpret. All because we don"t want to believe we can"t know everything with precision, even though Godel and Heisenberg proved that it is impossible for us to know everything with precision. The Standard Model is explicit what it is describing is not a precisely knowable deterministic system, it"s probabilistic and uncertain, and at best our theories are a kind of triangulation in which complementary pairs of imperfect concepts " wave/particle, position/momentum, value of a field/its rate of change " can be used to home in, as best we can, on phenomena beyond the reach of human ability to know with absolute precision.
But we are just too arrogant to accept that we can"t know everything and we refuse to think that our theories themselves could be a process of triangulation in which complementary pairs of imperfect theories " Classical Physics/Quantum Physics, electroweak theory (QED)/theory of the strong force (QCD), Standard Model/ General Relativity " are used to home in, as best we can, on phenomena that we will never precisely know completely, and it"s just the best we can do. Maps are not territory, and there are limits to our mental powers and our mathematics, and maybe we should consider that we have just taken the theory as far as it can go.

So in recent decades when we see that the theory doesn"t fit the observations, we don"t alter the theory, we don"t just accept that the theory is a limited representation of the reality being described; instead we invent unobserved and unobservable realities to fit the theory. We laws of gravity don"t explain why galaxies hold together so we postulate unobserved and perhaps unobservable dark matter and say we know it by its secondary effects, it"s an inferred phenomena, and what was that secondary inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework doesn"t explain the observations. But our theoretical framework can"t be wrong, we can never accept that we our theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete, so we decide that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only 1% of reality, there must be another 99% of it that is unobserved and unobservable, and we will call it dark matter. The facts didn"t fit the conceptual framework, so we change the facts. And it goes on and on, beta decay violates the conservation law so we invent invisible neutrinos, we observe that the expansion of the universe is accelerating so we invent unobserved and unobservable dark energy, the universe appears to be fine-tuned so we say there are an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to live in one that looks fine tuned. Somewhere along the way, in the last twenty years, the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories went from just 1% of reality, to just one of an infinite number of universes, all of it unobserved and unobservable, so the sacred theory could remain intact. It seems we have gone from an abstract realm of probabilities that is "collapsed" by an observation of the reality it represented, to seeing the universe as a pure abstraction that goes unrealized until it is "collapsed" by a theory that conjures entire universes into existence out of a mathematical reality.

It is something we are doing within in the world of science, but it is no longer science that we are doing.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 10:18:50 AM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 9:33:12 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I've been meaning to get back to this thread. I wanted to have references to what I was talking about previously, but have come up short handed. I could not find a reference to the electron disapearing, therefore I digress on that topic.
However. https://www.youtube.com...

All I need to gather from this video is that physics becomes null and void at the center of a black hole. What we have come to learn about this universe is not valid in a black hole.
A black hole (if it exists) Sucks up all the matter near it due to a force of implosion, creating a gravitational force as an after effect.
Anything after that is fiction as far as observation is concerned.
Still why not ask the question what comes out?

My issue with it is it isn"t science; it is a preposterous inversion of what science is and does at its most fundamental level. Science creates theories that describe our observations of the universe, good ones makes testable predictions that can be confirmed through further observations which provides validation of the theory. When we validate a theory we have a conceptual framework that helps us interpret the facts, but the theory is always contingent, a single inconsistent observation can topple a theory such that you either need to modify the theory or find a new one.

Back in time when we thought the Earth was flat. What thoughts and theories do you think they had before they ventured the oceans and seas?

Many-Worlds theory is the epitomizing culmination of a bad approach to science that has been gaining momentum in the last few decades. There is a measurement problem in quantum physics and we do not have a theory that solves it, we simply cannot predict precise results that can be measured, the theory only provides predictions in the form of probabilities which leaves us without the ability to establish an exact correspondence between quantum and classical reality. The problem is that the wavefunction evolves deterministically as a linear superposition of different probabilistic states, but the reality is that when we take a look we never find a cat that is both alive and dead; the observation is always of a universe in a definite state.

Many worlds in and of itself is fiction unless it can be observed. Nobody would deny that.(I hope.)
That doesn't negate the fact that if black holes exist they way we assume they do; we have a huge vacuum cleaner sucking up crap and spitting it out in unimaginable ways. If we assume that it spits crap out the same way we think our universe acts, it is possible to have another universe since in our universe everything is made of atoms and particles.

Everett"s solution was to consider the formula to be what is real and make the universe contingent upon the theory; it alters the facts in an attempt to support some inane idea that the theory is what is absolute. The theory is no longer a description of the universe, it presumes that the theory can"t be what"s wrong or incomplete, it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete, and it invents an almost infinite number of universes to fit the theory, all of them unobserved and unobservable. I don"t know what that is, but it isn"t science.

Read above.

Einstein said "It is the theory that allows us to see the facts", but I don"t think he ever said anything about inventing facts to fit the theory and I"m sure he never said anything about the theory being what is most real, and that reality should just be an abstraction that is altered to fit the theory. A scientific theory is not some absolute that the high priests of science bring down from the mountain of complexity on their stone tablets, and Many-Worlds is science going way beyond the interpretation of observations to become a tower of abstraction that is completely detached from the reality it was meant to interpret. All because we don"t want to believe we can"t know everything with precision, even though Godel and Heisenberg proved that it is impossible for us to know everything with precision. The Standard Model is explicit what it is describing is not a precisely knowable deterministic system, it"s probabilistic and uncertain, and at best our theories are a kind of triangulation in which complementary pairs of imperfect concepts " wave/particle, position/momentum, value of a field/its rate of change " can be used to home in, as best we can, on phenomena beyond the reach of human ability to know with absolute precision.

What is wrong with getting as precise as possible? Why limit the expectations of what we can do? What is a better tool than curiosity?
You dislike that people are catching onto the ideas that parallel universes/dimensions may exist. Yet, with the popularity of the internet, you disbelieve that bad math would not have been found by now?

But we are just too arrogant to accept that we can"t know everything and we refuse to think that our theories themselves could be a process of triangulation in which complementary pairs of imperfect theories " Classical Physics/Quantum Physics, electroweak theory (QED)/theory of the strong force (QCD), Standard Model/ General Relativity " are used to home in, as best we can, on phenomena that we will never precisely know completely, and it"s just the best we can do. Maps are not territory, and there are limits to our mental powers and our mathematics, and maybe we should consider that we have just taken the theory as far as it can go.

No theory is perfect.
Everything we are taught aside from natural observation, was inherited from another persons intellectual influence. Think about it.
You are only able to communicate with us because of a whole history of other peoples once upon a fiction stories that led to this technology.

So in recent decades when we see that the theory doesn"t fit the observations, we don"t alter the theory, we don"t just accept that the theory is a limited representation of the reality being described; instead we invent unobserved and unobservable realities to fit the theory. We laws of gravity don"t explain why galaxies hold together so we postulate unobserved and perhaps unobservable dark matter and say we know it by its secondary effects, it"s an inferred phenomena, and what was that secondary inferred phenomena? It is the fact that the current theoretical framework doesn"t explain the observations. But our theoretical framework can"t be wrong, we can never accept that we our theories might be wrong or at least incomplete, it must be the universe that is wrong or incomplete, so we decide that the universe that the conceptual framework was supposed to explain is only 1% of reality, there must be another 99% of it that is unobserved and unobservable, and we will call it dark matter. The facts didn"t fit the conceptual framework, so we change the facts. And it goes on and on, beta decay violates the conservation law so we invent invisible neutrinos, we observe that the expansion of the universe is accelerating so we invent unobserved and unobservable dark energy, the universe appears to be fine-tuned so we say there are an infinite number of undetectable universes and we just happen to live in one that looks fine tuned. Somewhere along the way, in the last twenty years, the observed universe we were trying to understand with our theories went from just 1% of reality, to just one of an infinite number of universes, all of it unobserved and unobservable, so the sacred theory could remain intact. It seems we have gone from an abstract realm of probabilities that is "collapsed" by an observation of the reality it represented, to seeing the universe as a pure abstraction that goes unrealized until it is "collapsed" by a theory that conjures entire universes into existence out of a mathematical reality.
It is something we are doing within in the world of science, but it is no longer science th
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 12:56:38 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 10:18:50 AM, pozessed wrote:
At 7/17/2013 9:33:12 AM, Sidewalker wrote:
I've been meaning to get back to this thread. I wanted to have references to what I was talking about previously, but have come up short handed. I could not find a reference to the electron disapearing, therefore I digress on that topic.
However. https://www.youtube.com...

All I need to gather from this video is that physics becomes null and void at the center of a black hole. What we have come to learn about this universe is not valid in a black hole.

Our physical descriptions of space start to break down when they"re applied to the theoretical situation inside black holes where the two separate and distinct theories of general relativity and the standard model overlap. Consequently, the standard equations introduce infinities and zero divisors that in the case of gravity can"t be renormalized out, but that does not speak to what is possible in the real world or indicate the existence of other universes; it only speaks to the limitations of our mathematical equations to adequately represent the situation properly.

A black hole (if it exists) Sucks up all the matter near it due to a force of implosion, creating a gravitational force as an after effect.

Nonsense, there is no force of implosion in physics; it sucks up all the matter because of its gravitational attraction, which is explained by the curvature of space time in general relativity.

Anything after that is fiction as far as observation is concerned.

Nonsense, black holes were described theoretically first, we went out and looked and the theory was confirmed through observations, we found black holes and that validated the theory. The theory says we can"t make observations beyond the event horizon, but the theory predicted that too, once again the observation validated the theory.

Still why not ask the question what comes out?

Because with the exception of Hawking Radiation, it"s theoretically impossible for anything to come out, that"s what put the black in black holes, and it has been observed.

When we validate a theory we have a conceptual framework that helps us interpret the facts, but the theory is always contingent, a single inconsistent observation can topple a theory such that you either need to modify the theory or find a new one.

Back in time when we thought the Earth was flat. What thoughts and theories do you think they had before they ventured the oceans and seas?

They had thoughts and theories that were based on experiences and observations.

The problem is that the wavefunction evolves deterministically as a linear superposition of different probabilistic states, but the reality is that when we take a look we never find a cat that is both alive and dead; the observation is always of a universe in a definite state.

Many worlds in and of itself is fiction unless it can be observed. Nobody would deny that.(I hope.)

OK, and theoretically they cannot be observed, which goes to my point, it is fiction and it isn"t science. The library has an entire section for fiction, and another one for science, the reason for that is that they just don"t go together.

That doesn't negate the fact that if black holes exist they way we assume they do; we have a huge vacuum cleaner sucking up crap and spitting it out in unimaginable ways.

No, it doesn"t spit out, it"s the mass inside the black hole that makes it a black hole, once something falls in past the event horizon, it"s there to stay, and that"s why black holes are black. Matter and energy can be ejected in the process of falling into a black hole, but those jets of energy never made it in, they only came close, once matter/energy crosses the event horizon if doesn"t come back out, and therefore it stays in this universe.

If we assume that it spits crap out the same way we think our universe acts, it is possible to have another universe since in our universe everything is made of atoms and particles.

There is no reason to assume it spits crap out; that is magical thinking fantasy that has nothing to do with science. Energy in a black hole can be released, theoretically at least, it occurs through a very slow process called Hawking Radiation and it still stays right here in this universe.

The Standard Model is explicit what it is describing is not a precisely knowable deterministic system, it"s probabilistic and uncertain, and at best our theories are a kind of triangulation in which complementary pairs of imperfect concepts " wave/particle, position/momentum, value of a field/its rate of change " can be used to home in, as best we can, on phenomena beyond the reach of human ability to know with absolute precision.

What is wrong with getting as precise as possible? Why limit the expectations of what we can do? What is a better tool than curiosity?
You dislike that people are catching onto the ideas that parallel universes/dimensions may exist.

I have no problem with entertaining fantasy, I like fantasy in fact, but I don"t pretend that it is science.

Yet, with the popularity of the internet, you disbelieve that bad math would not have been found by now?

I don"t think it has anything to do with bad math, it has to do with magical thinking that mathematical formulas have the power to create universes, they doesn"t, they are just abstract representations of reality

Maps are not territory, and there are limits to our mental powers and our mathematics, and maybe we should consider that we have just taken the theory as far as it can go.

No theory is perfect.

Yeah, I know....I thought I made that point.

Everything we are taught aside from natural observation, was inherited from another persons intellectual influence. Think about it.
You are only able to communicate with us because of a whole history of other peoples once upon a fiction stories that led to this technology.

Yeah, and so what"s your point?
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater
v3nesl
Posts: 4,463
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 1:09:28 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/8/2013 1:24:41 PM, Nidhogg wrote:
I know a barely anything about parallel universes, but my ignorance has caused me to raise the question as to how a parallel universe could exist in space around us.

Here's the cynic's take on parallel/multi-verses: The more actual science we learn the more impossible it is that it all happened 'by accident', so we need more dice to roll. It's kind of like Y2K - you'd think 14 billion years would do it, but it turns out not to be enough.
This space for rent.
pozessed
Posts: 1,034
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 3:24:45 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
@Sidewalker. All due respect, you are being a hypocrite. You are trying to describe with certainty how black holes exist, without even acknowledging that what you think you know, may be fiction.

1) Black holes are caused from an implosion.

The evidence began arriving 30 years ago from a star 50 million light-years away that had imploded, setting into motion events that created a region where gravity is so great that nothing can escape, even light.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

2) We can use math and observation up to the point of the event horizon. After the event horizon, which is supposedly a singular point in the black hole that is unfathomably small, everything is speculation.
That is what makes you a hypocrite. You are saying with certainty that nothing exists outside of our universe, yet you will theoretically never be able to prove it. That would make your claims science fiction as well until they are proven.

The only claim that you can make with certainty is this. We have no ability to observe how or what a black hole does to physical matter at its center. Until we have the ability to observe past the event horizon it is best to focus on what we know exists rather than what some people think exist.

If you stray away from the comment above and try to explain past the event horizon, you enter the world of science fiction.

I hope I didn't offend you, that was not my intention. I do enjoy the conversation.
tBoonePickens
Posts: 3,266
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 4:53:43 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:24:45 PM, pozessed wrote:
@Sidewalker. All due respect, you are being a hypocrite. You are trying to describe with certainty how black holes exist, without even acknowledging that what you think you know, may be fiction.
Pozessed, you don't seem to have the slightest idea what you are talking about...AT ALL. What Sidewalker has been trying to patiently tell you is that we DO KNOW that Blackholes exist; they have already been observed. The point he is trying to relate to you is that (before Einstein) we had never observed or imagined Blackholes; then Einstein developed his theory of General Relativity; then we realized that a possible solution to his theory led to this thing that we named "Blackholes" but we had never seen one; then we actually saw one. We went from a theory (based on observations) which we then realized that it predicted something we had never imagined or seen before (Blackholes) to then later being able to observe the prediction. Do you understand now, the history of Blackholes and how we got to them through the Scientific Method? This is totally different from how some people have arrived at MWI.

1) Black holes are caused from an implosion.
The evidence began arriving 30 years ago from a star 50 million light-years away that had imploded, setting into motion events that created a region where gravity is so great that nothing can escape, even light.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...
And the implosion is caused by what? Answer: GRAVITY. What Sidewalker was explained to you is that in Physics, there is no such force called "implosion"; the force responsible for Blackholes is called gravity. Your link does not contradict anything that he has said.

2) We can use math and observation up to the point of the event horizon. After the event horizon, which is supposedly a singular point in the black hole that is unfathomably small, everything is speculation.
That is what makes you a hypocrite. You are saying with certainty that nothing exists outside of our universe, yet you will theoretically never be able to prove it.
That doesn't make him a hypocrite nor does he have to prove a negative. It does mean that YOU (and anyone else making the claim) have to prove that there are other universes to begin with. There's already plenty of proof of our current Universe.

That would make your claims science fiction as well until they are proven.
No, it makes the claims of another Universe fiction until YOU or OTHERS can prove it. Again, we already have plenty of proof of our current Universe.

The only claim that you can make with certainty is this. We have no ability to observe how or what a black hole does to physical matter at its center.
Who is saying otherwise?

Until we have the ability to observe past the event horizon it is best to focus on what we know exists rather than what some people think exist.
That is PRECISELY the point Sidwalker has been trying to impress upon you, because you are doing exactly the opposite just like those that speculate about the (MWI) Many World Interpretation! We need to focus on what we know exists (this Universe) rather than what some people think exists (7 other dimensions, some other universes, an infinite number of universes, multiple dimensions of time, etc.) So I totally agree, only you need to practice what you're preaching.

If you stray away from the comment above and try to explain past the event horizon, you enter the world of science fiction.
Which is what Sidewalker was trying to tell you. The MWI is not considered science fiction by the Physics establishment: it IS the status quo in the scientific community today. Sidewalker is in opposition to this (as am I) but we are in the minority opinion.

It is our understanding that past the EH (Event Horizon) lies a singularity. We understand this to be the case because all of the "math" that leads UP TO this EH is OBSERVABLE (verified) and we have no REASONS nor have we made OBSERVATIONS to the contrary. As far as observing the singularity goes, technically the EH is the observable part of the singularity. Ergo, if you observe an EH, you are observing a singularity.
WOS
: At 10/3/2012 4:28:52 AM, Wallstreetatheist wrote:
: Without nothing existing, you couldn't have something.
Sidewalker
Posts: 3,713
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
7/17/2013 7:02:56 PM
Posted: 3 years ago
At 7/17/2013 3:24:45 PM, pozessed wrote:
@Sidewalker. All due respect, you are being a hypocrite. You are trying to describe with certainty how black holes exist, without even acknowledging that what you think you know, may be fiction.

No, I"m describing what scientific theory says about black holes, and yeah, physics can certainly be wrong, but if we are going to talk about electrons and black holes then we are talking about physics.

1) Black holes are caused from an implosion.

The evidence began arriving 30 years ago from a star 50 million light-years away that had imploded, setting into motion events that created a region where gravity is so great that nothing can escape, even light.
http://www.washingtonpost.com...

Black Holes are typically caused when a large star with enough mass reaches the end of its life and it cools enough that its internal pressure can no longer keep gravity from making it collapse under its own weight, I suppose you can call the collapse of its core matter an implosion, but the force involved is gravity.

2) We can use math and observation up to the point of the event horizon. After the event horizon, which is supposedly a singular point in the black hole that is unfathomably small, everything is speculation.

Everything is physical theory, and the physical theory that predicted black holes was validated by observation. The theory is pretty explicit about what happens beyond the event horizon and is consistent with the observations.

That is what makes you a hypocrite. You are saying with certainty that nothing exists outside of our universe, yet you will theoretically never be able to prove it.

Nope, I"m not saying with certainty that nothing exists outside of our universe; I"m just saying that black holes and quantum leaps are not considered evidence of that.

That would make your claims science fiction as well until they are proven.

Nope, my claims are science; your claims are unscientific fiction.

The only claim that you can make with certainty is this. We have no ability to observe how or what a black hole does to physical matter at its center. Until we have the ability to observe past the event horizon it is best to focus on what we know exists rather than what some people think exist.

Nope, science is inferential, there are plenty of things we can discover that we can never observe directly, black holes and quantum leaps are two of them, but there is strong scientific evidence that validates the theories I spoke of.

If you stray away from the comment above and try to explain past the event horizon, you enter the world of science fiction.

Nope, you"re the one that brought up electrons and black holes, so we are talking about physics, and physics is about as real as science gets. Neither electrons, nor anything beyond the event horizon of a black hole has ever been or will ever be directly observed, but that doesn"t mean science doesn"t know a lot about them, and it certainly doesn"t make them science fiction.

I hope I didn't offend you, that was not my intention. I do enjoy the conversation.

No offense taken, I enjoy the conversation too.
"It is one of the commonest of mistakes to consider that the limit of our power of perception is also the limit of all there is to perceive." " C. W. Leadbeater