8 ms·
Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
- codeulike 9y agoQuite a lot of people worrying about the definition of the word 'universe' in this thread.
- pegasus 9y agoAnd with good reason. "Discovering a parallel universe" is nonsensical in the common acceptance of those words. Parallel lines never meet and the universe by definition contains all there is. So people are grasping for alternative definitions of the words that might make the statement satisifiable.
- codeulike 9y agoJust leave it be. We don't worry about atoms not actually being atomic anymore either.
- Symmetry 9y agoAt one point "Split an atom" was by definition nonsensical because atoms were conceived of as the smallest, unsplittable bits of matter. But then we found out that we could split these pieces of matter we'd mistakenly called "atoms" and rather than renaming them we just changed the definition of "atom" to correspond to what we'd always been calling "atoms". In practice I don't think this was unreasonable and I wouldn't strongly object to doing the same with what we've been calling "The universe".
- exodust 9y agoMight we think of a new word to describe a "sub-universe", like the one containing all our galaxies? This would allow for "universe" to be the thing that contains many or infinite sub-universes? Okay.. I'm done, I just confused the hell out of my brain.
- tim333 9y agoThe concept of another universe is pretty commonplace - see 'Star Wars expanded universe' and similar. The fact that we haven't found a real one doesn't mean the concept is nonsensical.
- 24gttghh 9y agoWouldn't we just use the word, "Multiverse"? >Our conjecture strengthens the intuition that holographic cosmology implies a significant reduction of the multiverse to a much more limited set of possible universes.
- keithwhor 9y agoImagine the look on Stephen Hawking 1011156B's face when he finds out Stephen Hawking 7086C published the exact same paper that he did, died two weeks later, and the combination of those events compelled scientists in that Universe to eventually master interdimensional travel, when 1011156B only got laughed at.
- blackflame7000 9y agoThis sounds like something Rick Sanchez would say
- nothrabannosir 9y agoWell, to be fair… if he suffers from the same ailment, I quite easily can imagine his look, actually.
- throwaway613834 9y agoSome people's senses of humor...
- einrealist 9y agoHow is the Hawking ID generated? Which universe is used for synchronization? Do we need a new UUID level? Will the NISTs of all universes ever come to an agreement? So many questions...
- andygates 9y agoMultiversally-Unique ID's are going to be so long...
- zaarn 9y agoDepends on how many of them there are. If there is infinite, there is no MUID, if it's finite and below 2^64 then a traditional UUID should be enough to assign a UUID per universe and then assing a UUID for objects within.
- russdpale 9y agoTruly amazing. Thank you Professor Hawking! RIP.
- erric 9y agoThis statement is in the same domain as “thoughts and prayers”, which is the same as saying, ”I’m wishing at you really hard”. Rest implies an awaking or movement at some point in the future, but for Hawking, he didn’t believe in that. Maybe it’s just something to say, like acknowledging someone sneezing?
- ArbitraryString 9y agoI always thought rest is a euphemism in this case.
- tutts 9y agoOr maybe it's a metaphorical expression of sadness over the recent death of a respected idol?
- erric 9y agoMaybe, but I suspect not.
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- erric 9y agoClearly a lot of butt hurt, faithers can't form an intelligent rebuttal, so, down votes.
- epaga 9y agoSomething I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics rather than the sciences? What am I missing (I assume it has to do with my understanding of the word "universe")?
- amelius 9y agoI guess that if we can interact with (measure) a separate universe, then we should adjust our definition of "universe".
- cperciva 9y agoWhat if you can observe past interactions with it, but it is no longer possible to interact with it? Would you say it's still part of "our universe"?
- adrianN 9y agoI'm no physicist, but my impression is that the observable universe is already smaller than the universe.
- fooker 9y agoWell, due to the universe being ~13 billion years old, there is no way to observe(/interact with) entities that are more that 13 billion light years away at present. That does not put these things in a different universe.
- maxerickson 9y agoWho cares. If you had clear proof of the existence it would be useful to describe it. People would argue about the words used and it wouldn't really matter. Pluto didn't get any smaller when they decided it wasn't a planet anymore.
- SaturateDK 9y agoUntil it's published and reviews there isn't much to say. But it's exciting to me, hope I can read it soon.
- kgwgk 9y agoAs the article mentions, you can read it already: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702v2 https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702v2
- SaturateDK 9y agoOh, I was a bit too quick there it seems. Thanks! :-)
- deleted 9y ago[deleted]
- codeulike 9y agoAnd then he leaves. Hmmm, suspicious.
- _xgw 9y agoHopefully to a parallel universe. :)
- baytrailcat 9y agoLooking forward to more and more discoveries and theories coming up in this field. Apart from providing a satisfactory answer to the quandary of "fine-tuned Universe" problem, there has been some observed anomalies for which multiverse theory provides explanation. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_flow
- poelzi 9y ago:) The problem with physics is, that it went into the wrong direction in the last 100 years and as a result, everybody which looks beyond pop science papers knows, that it does not fucking fit. The fine-tuned Universe is a Problem of the model and the requirement of dozens of free chose-able variables required to make the model fit observations should give you a red sign. And even then it's a bad fit, in very aspect. 10%+ difference in calculations vs observations is a pretty strong hint that your model is far from reality. The model I'm following does not have dark matter, because it does not require it. I have also expansion of the universe, without abstract higher dimensions etc. But of course, this can not be done without breaking paradigms and this is the problem. Physicists have shown to be tho most short sighted and ignorant scientists of all: http://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7426.full.pdf http://www.pnas.org/content/112/24/7426.full.pdf