7 ms·

Astronomers Find First Possible Evidence Of Other Universes

40 points by rms 16y ago

geuis 16y ago
This is very interesting, but the title should be more along the lines of "Astronomers find possible evidence...", not the definitive statement as it is currently written.
- rms 16y ago
  Very much agreed, I edited the title to add the word possible.
- dazzawazza 16y ago
  Agreed, I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the first half of science articles being overwhelmingly positive and the latter half laden with caveats. It's a common tabloid technique.
  - dhimes 16y ago
    Sadly scientists are largely funded by those who read tabloids. We would find an article that focused one the debate between the camps as interesting as the current article if not more so, but to most people it would simply paint scientists as people who couldn't be trusted to make up their minds.
rms 16y ago
A big universe is a very interesting place to find ourselves. There are all sorts of weird philosophical complications if you think about it deeply. I recommend the writings of Max Tegmark on philosophical cosmology. He's an exceptional popular science writer and doesn't dumb it down. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html The Multiverse Hierarchy is probably where to start.
robryan 16y ago
I'm not a big fan of how these papers create a model of something they would like to find and them apply it to a massive dataset, then finding even small evidence for something the supports their model assuming it is really there.
- hartror 16y ago
  Neither are the bulk of astronomers, certainly their reaction to Roger Penrose's study was extremely skeptical.
rms 16y ago
Also see http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.ht...
- jasonlotito 16y ago
  > Most cosmologists believe that the Universe, and with it space and time, exploded into being some 13.7 billion years ago at the Big Bang, and that it has been expanding ever since. I read things like this, and I can't help but think it's just wrong (and that whatever science is saying is being distorted). Time did not start 13.7 billion years ago, and space didn't just pop into existence then. To suggest that suggests something came from nothing. So I can only assume that when science says space and time, they don't literally mean space and time, sort of like how science and laymen differ in their use of the word theory. In this case, I assume "space and time" being created 13.7 billion years ago means space and time that we can see, as we know it, and following our rules (whatever that is).
  - deleted 16y ago
    [deleted]
  - swombat 16y ago
    Welcome to cosmology and relativity. Yes, it's hard to wrap your mind around the concept of space and time being dimensions much like the x, y, z axis. Yes, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea that this spacetime "thing" forms a 4-dimensional blob that is not infinite. Yes, it's almost impossible to visualise what it means that this spacetime blob that is our universe has a point where you cannot go 1 second earlier because there is nothing there. Yes, it's hard to even imagine the idee of nothing. Quantum physics, Relativity and Cosmology all have an annoying characteristic, which is that they're not intuitive. Quantum physics is unintuitive because things don't behave classically (i.e. like pebbles) at that scale, instead they behave like wave-particles. Relativity is unintuitive because space and time are tightly linked together and this is not an effect that we observe during the course of our daily lives. Cosmology is unintuitive because the timescales and concepts it deals with are so mind-boggling. So I can only assume that when science says space and time, they don't literally mean space and time, sort of like how science and laymen differ in their use of the word theory. Nope, they do mean space and time. And yes, they do mean that something came from nothing - or rather, if you study the topic, that something came from <X> where <X> is unknowable. Interestingly, this leaves a pretty good place for that "God" concept to hide.
tybris 16y ago
Why is at that wherever Roger Penrose's name turns up extraordinary claims are being made that eventually don't hold up?
nickpinkston 16y ago
Does anyone else feel this is about as equally cool as NASA's arsenic bugs hype? I mean I kind of assumed you could get bacteria to do that, but some (?) evidence of other universes - pretty cool.
sorbus 16y ago
So, they've found patterns in the cosmic background radiation which, statistically speaking, would be incredibly likely to be there (you can also find triangles in it). And they're claiming these random fluctuations as proof for an entirely unproven model of the universe. Hmm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm not seeing any evidence.
virtualzer0 16y ago
Sounds like one of the latest Stargate Universe episodes: "The Ancients discovered complexity and coherence, neither naturally occurring, in the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe." http://www.gateworld.net/universe/s2/207.shtml http://www.gateworld.net/universe/s2/207.shtml

40 points by rms 16y ago

geuis 16y ago

This is very interesting, but the title should be more along the lines of "Astronomers find possible evidence...", not the definitive statement as it is currently written.

rms 16y ago
Very much agreed, I edited the title to add the word possible.
dazzawazza 16y ago
Agreed, I'm getting increasingly annoyed with the first half of science articles being overwhelmingly positive and the latter half laden with caveats. It's a common tabloid technique.
- dhimes 16y ago
  Sadly scientists are largely funded by those who read tabloids. We would find an article that focused one the debate between the camps as interesting as the current article if not more so, but to most people it would simply paint scientists as people who couldn't be trusted to make up their minds.

rms 16y ago

A big universe is a very interesting place to find ourselves. There are all sorts of weird philosophical complications if you think about it deeply. I recommend the writings of Max Tegmark on philosophical cosmology. He's an exceptional popular science writer and doesn't dumb it down. http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/crazy.html The Multiverse Hierarchy is probably where to start.

robryan 16y ago

I'm not a big fan of how these papers create a model of something they would like to find and them apply it to a massive dataset, then finding even small evidence for something the supports their model assuming it is really there.

hartror 16y ago
Neither are the bulk of astronomers, certainly their reaction to Roger Penrose's study was extremely skeptical.

rms 16y ago

Also see http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.html http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.ht...

jasonlotito 16y ago
> Most cosmologists believe that the Universe, and with it space and time, exploded into being some 13.7 billion years ago at the Big Bang, and that it has been expanding ever since. I read things like this, and I can't help but think it's just wrong (and that whatever science is saying is being distorted). Time did not start 13.7 billion years ago, and space didn't just pop into existence then. To suggest that suggests something came from nothing. So I can only assume that when science says space and time, they don't literally mean space and time, sort of like how science and laymen differ in their use of the word theory. In this case, I assume "space and time" being created 13.7 billion years ago means space and time that we can see, as we know it, and following our rules (whatever that is).
- deleted 16y ago
  [deleted]
- swombat 16y ago
  Welcome to cosmology and relativity. Yes, it's hard to wrap your mind around the concept of space and time being dimensions much like the x, y, z axis. Yes, it's hard to wrap your mind around the idea that this spacetime "thing" forms a 4-dimensional blob that is not infinite. Yes, it's almost impossible to visualise what it means that this spacetime blob that is our universe has a point where you cannot go 1 second earlier because there is nothing there. Yes, it's hard to even imagine the idee of nothing. Quantum physics, Relativity and Cosmology all have an annoying characteristic, which is that they're not intuitive. Quantum physics is unintuitive because things don't behave classically (i.e. like pebbles) at that scale, instead they behave like wave-particles. Relativity is unintuitive because space and time are tightly linked together and this is not an effect that we observe during the course of our daily lives. Cosmology is unintuitive because the timescales and concepts it deals with are so mind-boggling. So I can only assume that when science says space and time, they don't literally mean space and time, sort of like how science and laymen differ in their use of the word theory. Nope, they do mean space and time. And yes, they do mean that something came from nothing - or rather, if you study the topic, that something came from <X> where <X> is unknowable. Interestingly, this leaves a pretty good place for that "God" concept to hide.

tybris 16y ago

Why is at that wherever Roger Penrose's name turns up extraordinary claims are being made that eventually don't hold up?

nickpinkston 16y ago

Does anyone else feel this is about as equally cool as NASA's arsenic bugs hype? I mean I kind of assumed you could get bacteria to do that, but some (?) evidence of other universes - pretty cool.

sorbus 16y ago

So, they've found patterns in the cosmic background radiation which, statistically speaking, would be incredibly likely to be there (you can also find triangles in it). And they're claiming these random fluctuations as proof for an entirely unproven model of the universe. Hmm. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and I'm not seeing any evidence.

virtualzer0 16y ago

Sounds like one of the latest Stargate Universe episodes: "The Ancients discovered complexity and coherence, neither naturally occurring, in the cosmic background radiation left over from the Big Bang at the beginning of the universe." http://www.gateworld.net/universe/s2/207.shtml http://www.gateworld.net/universe/s2/207.shtml