I think the multiverse is arranged as such:
Universe
Unichorus
Universe
Unichorus
Bridge
Unichorus
Unioutro

12/22/2009 1:49:08 PM

Instead of a Theory of Everything

a lot of these people should instead be working on

a Theory of Something

12/22/2009 1:50:59 PM

Quote :

"This is a misleading statement. When entering the realm of theoretical physics, it is very important to disregard all naysayers, as these individuals seldom bring anything ingenious to the proverbial table. These skeptics are the same types of people that, in their day, considered Newton and even Einstein, to be borderline lunatics. The truth is, even the simplest of minds can reject and discredit a theory for lack of evidence, but only great minds can take on the monumental task of persevering and arriving at a superior answer for the theory of everything. Through the sheer force of his own will, and an effort to rule out the basic assumptions that his theory rested upon, Einstein succeeded in failing to rule out curved space time. Before Einstein captured the data from his first real test of his theory of general relativity, outside of several complex and incomplete mathematical equations, his theory had the equivalent validity of string theory; in that, no clear test had been performed to propose that the basic assumptions of his theory were not evident in the natural world. The actual test involved measuring the distance of the stars that surrounded the sun during a total eclipse. Without a total eclipse of the sun, the stars would not be visible because of the Sun’s brightness, making the measurements nearly impossible to collect. Based on Einstein’s theory, the stars should appear to be farther away from the sun, due to the gravity of the Sun, which will curve space time and alter the stars appearance. He was right."

He also presented the idea for those experiments when he presented the theory. "Here is my mathematical model. I don't know if it's right or not. But here is a way to test it."
When the experiments were performed, he was proven to be right.

String theory might be proven right, might not.

But I'm not quite sure what this has to do with the multiverse thought experiments. Are you claiming that if string theory is correct, then the multiverse is correct? Like, the "every decision you make spawns a separate, parallel universe wherein you made the opposite decision" shenanigans? That shit is just a crazy thought experiment that doesn't necessarily violate any laws of physics but also can't be proven.

12/22/2009 8:30:12 PM

so very interesting. so difficult to comprehend the size of space and the bodies within.

12/22/2009 10:52:28 PM

Quote :

"Are you claiming that if string theory is correct, then the multiverse is correct?"

No. In theoretical physics the core question that is asked is rarely whether or not something is correct, rather it is an exercise in determining what underlying assumptions are incorrect. From there, we theorize in conjunction with those findings and branch out in ways that may seem like science fiction. Many people will consider the ideas that arise from these discussions as "crazy" which is perfectly natural, unless of course, the idea is perfectly natural in the natural word, if you take my meaning. I was specifically referring to M-Theory, which is a different kind of multiverse theory, that is an integration of string theory. Basically, I did not want people to discard all variations of the broader concept entirely, which is why I believe the original statement was misleading. The correct theoretical and academic approach is to point individuals towards M-Theory, instead of closing the door out of ignorance or some other unacceptable reason. Theoretical physics is about imagination, creativity, and discovering the beauty that lies within the universe. It is not about being right about simple, easily attainable points. These individuals end up being satisfied with shooting people down, and contribute little beyond that to the overall discussion. Similar to shooting fish in a barrel, so to speak. Instead, the real goal is to rule out what is clearly wrong in regards to the basic assumptions that support a theory, and building the universe back up into whatever your mind's eye can create. This is the inspiration, the passion, and the power that drives all theoretical physicists. Naysayers are not welcome, as they tend to hinder understanding, instead of nurture it, as we have seen here already.

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 8:00 AM. Reason : -]

12/23/2009 7:35:01 AM

^ that may all be true, but i don't think it has much to do with what I originally said.

Saying that something is or may be unprovable or untestable doesn't imply that we should just turn our nose up at it and not think about or investigate it

12/23/2009 9:33:51 AM

Quote :

" Like, the "every decision you make spawns a separate, parallel universe wherein you made the opposite decision" shenanigans? That shit is just a crazy thought experiment that doesn't necessarily violate any laws of physics but also can't be proven."

if i hear my grandma talk about this shit one more time i'm gonna go insane. she's like IT'S BEEN PROVEN!!1!

[Edited on December 23, 2009 at 10:34 AM. Reason : asdf]

12/23/2009 10:33:20 AM

^ ha, it's better than my grandma who's best advice for nearly everything, from getting a job to getting over the flu is "just pray and turn yourself over to God. he will take care of you"

12/23/2009 11:17:47 AM

While your life circles the drain...

12/23/2009 11:54:32 AM

^^lol..yeah, the other side of the family is like that . i get asked if i've been saved pretty much everytime i see them and they tell me how scary it is that i haven't

12/23/2009 12:12:53 PM

Quote :

"nonetheless, it's laughable that the American Museum of Natural History would rip off a webcomic...."

of course it is laughable, jackass, it was a joke

12/23/2009 11:51:25 PM

Damn you Shaggy. I'm still playing that sagan cosmos remix a month later.

1/18/2010 8:05:31 AM