

Astronomers Find First Possible Evidence Of Other Universes - rms
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/26132/

======
rms
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> The Multiverse Hierarchy is
probably where to start.

------
robryan
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
Neither are the bulk of astronomers, certainly their reaction to Roger
Penrose's study was extremely skeptical.

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

------
rms
Also see
[http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.ht...](http://www.nature.com/news/2010/101210/full/news.2010.665.html)

~~~
jasonlotito
> 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).

~~~
swombat
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.

~~~
jasonlotito
Yep, a pretty good summation of everything I've ever read on the topic. =)

> 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.

See, that's what I have an issue with. Just because we can't record something
or didn't record something doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't exist. We just
haven't found a way to measure it. So something happens some time ago called
the big bang, changing the layout of the universe. This doesn't mean time or
stuff didn't exist before that. It simply means things changed.

I know I'm stepping on toes and making light a topic people spend their lives
pondering, but while concepts of time make for interesting theories, time
isn't anything but a human concept that we've categorized. Thought games make
time something you can fool with, but I've never read anything regarding
showing time as anything that can be manipulated (granted, while I love
reading this stuff, it's far outside my field).

The concept of string theory is, at the very least, something which can be
measured at some point. Time, however, is something that cannot be
manipulated.

Of course, as mentioned, this isn't my field so please, take these comments as
merely that: and uninformed but interested outsider.

~~~
swombat
_See, that's what I have an issue with. Just because we can't record something
or didn't record something doesn't mean it doesn't/didn't exist. We just
haven't found a way to measure it. So something happens some time ago called
the big bang, changing the layout of the universe. This doesn't mean time or
stuff didn't exist before that. It simply means things changed._

No, that's what I'm saying. You don't understand this concept of spacetime,
because it is not intuitive, and so you do not "get" the reality that the
physics (which has ample amounts of supporting evidence and is not in doubt)
predicts.

Time can easily be manipulated, and it is manipulated all the time. Travel at
the speed of light, and time ceases to pass for you. Travel really close to
the speed of light and time will pass much more slowly for you. See the twin's
paradox (which is only a paradox because it contradicts our intuition) for an
easily understandable example of why. This effect (time dilation) is proven by
mountains of evidence in the form of decay rates of particles, which change
depending on their speed. It is not up for argument. Any subsequent theory
must explain this observed effect.

So, back to the initial question, your intuitive understanding of "time" is
what is faulty. We have this perception of "time passing", but as far as we
know that may just be an illusion in our heads. The only physical principle
that has a clear direction in time is the increase of entropy. Time clearly
exists, but the constant, measured passing of time is something that our
brains made up to make sense of the world. There is no more necessity for time
to exist than there is for for a balloon to exist. Time can be stretched,
squeezed, and otherwise messed with. And it can even cease to exist.

Yes, this is hard to wrap your head around. Welcome to physics.

~~~
jasonlotito
> Travel at the speed of light, and time ceases to pass for you.

My understanding is this is all about perception. But basically, it's all
about my perception of someone traveling at the speed of light as seeming to
slow down. Even you say it: time ceases to pass for you as a perception. If I
travel away from you at the speed of light, you cease to move as I see it, but
you are still really moving.

Or am I off the mark here?

Yeah, here:
[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Time_travel_to_the_...](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_travel#Time_travel_to_the_future_in_physics)

"These theories state that, relative to a given observer, time passes more
slowly for bodies moving quickly relative to that observer, or bodies that are
deeper within a gravity well."

That seems pretty straight forward, but is flawed to think that suggests time
passes more slowly, only the perception of it does. I've read up a number of
tests but from what I remember, they all discuss verifying this perception of
slowed time as being accurate rather than actually slowing time. Which I
admit, I might have missed. =)

Could you recommend any good and interesting literature on this topic?
Something for a layman interested in wrapping my head around this? =)

Edit: rereading a lot of this, traveling faster then the speed of light is
described as going back in time. It's not. Seeing the past, sure, but that's
perception, again.

------
sorbus
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
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>

------
nickpinkston
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.

------
geuis
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.

~~~
dazzawazza
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
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.

