Experiments to contact "other universes" in the multiverse.

On Saturday, 18 August 2018 18:14:59 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 13:33:31 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Chris L Peterson:

Not every
multiverse theory requires that it be impossible to transmit
information between them. And even more to the point, such theories
often predict certain things measurable in our own universe which
would argue for the existence of others, even without it being
possible to connect with them in any direct way.

This research is very important fundamental work.

To quote Fermi, "Where are they?"

Yours is one point of view. Another is that the "multiverse" is
nonsense, based on so-called "string theory," or "M-theory," which is
not a theory but only a guess, as it offers no means to test it.

The latter would be a view from the position of ignorance. There are
multiverse theories that do not descend from string theory or issues
of quantum gravity. Theories which, do, in fact, make testable
predictions. Exploring unlikely theories which go to the fundamentals
of cosmology is work that needs to be done.

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory going.

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 11:33:35 AM UTC-6, Davoud wrote:

Yours is one point of view. Another is that the "multiverse" is
nonsense, based on so-called "string theory," or "M-theory," which is
not a theory but only a guess, as it offers no means to test it.

But surely that ceases to be true when experimenters are getting funding to do
work based on it...

John Savard

On Saturday, August 18, 2018 at 2:54:30 PM UTC-6, Gerald Kelleher wrote:
So well and good, once the celebrity theorist died with a Church service and a
burial in Westminster Abbey no less, the spell many were under has been broken.

I know Isaac Newton was into alchemy, but I wasn't aware that Stephen Hawking was
into sorcery...

John Savard

On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 19:36:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 August 2018 18:14:59 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 13:33:31 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Chris L Peterson:

Not every
multiverse theory requires that it be impossible to transmit
information between them. And even more to the point, such theories
often predict certain things measurable in our own universe which
would argue for the existence of others, even without it being
possible to connect with them in any direct way.

This research is very important fundamental work.

To quote Fermi, "Where are they?"

Yours is one point of view. Another is that the "multiverse" is
nonsense, based on so-called "string theory," or "M-theory," which is
not a theory but only a guess, as it offers no means to test it.

The latter would be a view from the position of ignorance. There are
multiverse theories that do not descend from string theory or issues
of quantum gravity. Theories which, do, in fact, make testable
predictions. Exploring unlikely theories which go to the fundamentals
of cosmology is work that needs to be done.

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory going.

It is mathematically elegant. But in the scientific sense, it's a very
weak theory, because as David pointed out, much of it lacks any way of
being tested.

A profession entirely built on slogans and stock phrases is best left to its own devices but it does hinder the wider population from connecting with what they experience and see.

These are people who believe the moon spins by conjuring up a 'tidal locking' term so wordplays dictate observations rather than the obverse where observations dictate conclusions, at least when something as basic as the moon phases and its orbit around the Earth is concerned.

On Sunday, 19 August 2018 00:02:28 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 19:36:34 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

On Saturday, 18 August 2018 18:14:59 UTC-4, Chris L Peterson wrote:
On Sat, 18 Aug 2018 13:33:31 -0400, Davoud wrote:

Chris L Peterson:

Not every
multiverse theory requires that it be impossible to transmit
information between them. And even more to the point, such theories
often predict certain things measurable in our own universe which
would argue for the existence of others, even without it being
possible to connect with them in any direct way.

This research is very important fundamental work.

To quote Fermi, "Where are they?"

Yours is one point of view. Another is that the "multiverse" is
nonsense, based on so-called "string theory," or "M-theory," which is
not a theory but only a guess, as it offers no means to test it.

The latter would be a view from the position of ignorance. There are
multiverse theories that do not descend from string theory or issues
of quantum gravity. Theories which, do, in fact, make testable
predictions. Exploring unlikely theories which go to the fundamentals
of cosmology is work that needs to be done.

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory going.

It is mathematically elegant. But in the scientific sense, it's a very
weak theory, because as David pointed out, much of it lacks any way of
being tested.

String theory only exists because the math says it should. Though they'll never actually see a string, admittedly. Maybe they'll develop some kind of observation (like proving the Big Bang via expansion observation) that'll help it out?

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 08:58:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

String theory may be untestable, but it's the best theory going.

It is mathematically elegant. But in the scientific sense, it's a very
weak theory, because as David pointed out, much of it lacks any way of
being tested.

String theory only exists because the math says it should. Though they'll never actually see a string, admittedly. Maybe they'll develop some kind of observation (like proving the Big Bang via expansion observation) that'll help it out?

Any good theory needs to generate predictions that can be tested. So
yeah, a predicted observation would be great. Elegant math doesn't cut
it. Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.

These under-developed adults propose self-important monotony so one day they can propose math as the be all and end all while the next they propose that it isn't. This descent has been going on for decades and as a big fan of the Discovery magazine in the early 80's, I remember encountering a comment that only really makes sense in this era -

"A Langrangian is not a physical thing;it is a mathematical thing - a
kind of differential equation to be exact.But physics and maths are so
closely connected these days that it is hard to separate the numbers
from the things they describe.In fact,a month after [Philip]
Morrison's remarks,Nobel Prize winner Burton Richter of the Stanford
Linear Accelerator Center said something that eerily echoed it: "
Mathematics is a language that is used to describe nature" he said
"But the theorists are beginning to think it is nature.To them the
Langrangians are the reality " Discover Magazine ,1983


Posters here are plagued with a pseudo-intellectual stare and can't raise a discussion but lean on old familiar phrases meant to prop up the phony area of astrophysics. This thread is an example of an entirely fictional narrative with no depth, logic or direction.

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 19:15:02 +0200, Paul Schlyter
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Aug 2018 10:54:14 -0600, Chris L Peterson
wrote:
Math isn't science. Math isn't related to how the Universe works.

Math is really philosophy.

But with much more rigor.