Elizabeth Spieler at Thinkers

Extropia DaSilva: Today we are discussing…ALL THE MYRIAD WAYS…[2011/01/11 15:30]  Extropia DaSilva: ALL THE MRYRIAD WAYS: The cosmic microwave background has provided tentative evidence in favour of eternal inflation, a theory in which there are parallel universes, some with laws of physics different to our universe. What does this mean for our sense of reality and what is possible[2011/01/11 15:31]  Khannea Suntzu: Sounds like the web will slowly metamorph into a cyberspace with wildlands and projects and barrens and jungles and dingy coastal settlements[2011/01/11 15:31]  Khannea Suntzu: Booty bays[2011/01/11 15:31]  Lem Skall: deja vu? have we talked about this before?[2011/01/11 15:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Probably, Lem ;)[2011/01/11 15:31]  Extropia DaSilva: As a patternist, I find this fascinating because of the implications for immortality.[2011/01/11 15:31]  Zobeid Zuma: We have, but I don’t think it’s been a Topic.[2011/01/11 15:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “what is real anyway?” is a common question for Thikers….[2011/01/11 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, if this is true, anything and everything is real.[2011/01/11 15:32]  Extropia DaSilva: Nothing is impossible. Everything must exist, even if, on our universe, it violates the laws of physics.[2011/01/11 15:32]  Lem Skall: what is real is only what is in our universe, to hell with what happens in others[2011/01/11 15:33]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh, hello T. Pull up a seat, we just started.[2011/01/11 15:34]  Ivy Sunkiller: hiya Scarp, T![2011/01/11 15:34]  Zobeid Zuma: Even if that’s true (and we are already heavyily into speculation), how could it possibly have any practical relevance to us?[2011/01/11 15:34]  Taboo Warden: ” real ” is noting more then one persons chemical reaction within there brain[2011/01/11 15:34]  Scarp Godenot: helloooooowwweee[2011/01/11 15:34]  Marchal McMahon: their[2011/01/11 15:34]  Extropia DaSilva: How does cosmology ever have practical relevance?[2011/01/11 15:34]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (hello :)[2011/01/11 15:35]  Zobeid Zuma: That too! :D[2011/01/11 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: hah Extie :D[2011/01/11 15:35]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway, the problem in saying “everything taht is possible is real” is that it just manages to redefine the meaning of the word “real”[2011/01/11 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Granted, half of all philosophy is about defining the meaning of words :)[2011/01/11 15:36]  Khannea Suntzu: Adjacent universes may leave gravitational shadows – these would be most selfevident in very large cosmological patterns… But what if quantum processes themselves, what if our paradoxiucal understanding of time – what if the unique cosmological inplications of consciousness and direction evolution – all have implications that interweave with thes e adjacent dimensions?[2011/01/11 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me is reading Russel[2011/01/11 15:36]  Archmage Atlantis: Wishes he could join the puppy pile[2011/01/11 15:36]  Archmage Atlantis: did i say that out loud>[2011/01/11 15:36]  Lem Skall: could we ever move from one universe to another and thus change our reality?[2011/01/11 15:36]  Taboo Warden: rather then say anything is possible what about saying , we will continue to find things when looked for ?[2011/01/11 15:36]  Extropia DaSilva: Maybe we should not care. But somebody clearly cared enough to formulate the theory of multiverses, and find a way to test its validity, and others bothered to carry out the test. Why did we do this, if it is of no practical value?[2011/01/11 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Some claim that we move between one universe and another every Planck moment, lem ;)[2011/01/11 15:36]  Scarp Godenot: Doesn[2011/01/11 15:36]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: BTW, Extie,. what WAS the test?[2011/01/11 15:37]  Scarp Godenot: Doesn’t the infinite multiple universe theory violate the principle of Occam’s Razor more than any other possible theory?[2011/01/11 15:37]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: oh btw; Hello everyone[2011/01/11 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Errrrrr…some kind of pattern in the CMB that is diagnostic of another universe colliding with ours.[2011/01/11 15:37]  Lem Skall: Gwyn, then that is another thing all together, our reality is not one universe but the sequence in time of movements between universes[2011/01/11 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello T[2011/01/11 15:37]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: sorry I was lost in a whatsit[2011/01/11 15:37]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (I would believe you, Scarp)[2011/01/11 15:37]  Extropia DaSilva: Scarp: No.[2011/01/11 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Extie: it’s not a “test”, it’s a “possible, plausible explanation” :P[2011/01/11 15:38]  Marchal McMahon: What pattern in the CMB?[2011/01/11 15:38]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: uh…[2011/01/11 15:38]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (Yes, Lem 🙂 )[2011/01/11 15:38]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: excuse me making a mess[2011/01/11 15:39]  Scarp Godenot: What could be a greater stretch in explaining diffraction grating effects than saying it is multiple universes? I can’t think of anything.[2011/01/11 15:39]  Lem Skall: hey, why the parentheses?[2011/01/11 15:39]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: (Because I like them 😉 )[2011/01/11 15:39]  Extropia DaSilva: Theoretical physicists have found no plausible way to completely turn off inflation. So, the simplest explanation for that is this: Inflation is never completely turned off. And so long as it is turned on somewhere, universes are created.[2011/01/11 15:39]  Lem Skall: (I don’t)[2011/01/11 15:40]  Lem Skall: who turned it on in the first place?[2011/01/11 15:40]  Marchal McMahon: Good (Baal)[2011/01/11 15:40]  Extropia DaSilva: Also, this does follow a trend in cosmology, where what we think is ‘the universe’ turns out to be a small part of something larger.[2011/01/11 15:40]  Khannea Suntzu: So we will have to migrate. Almost certainly into dimensions that cannot give rize to life normally – and we move into those dimensions while this one perishes. Clear enough.[2011/01/11 15:40]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ok, I’m afraid that my knowledge of cosmology is not good enough, Extie… please explain to me why an inflating universe “creates” universes.[2011/01/11 15:40]  Extropia DaSilva: It is always turned on, Lem. That is why the model is called ‘eternal inflation’.[2011/01/11 15:40]  Khannea Suntzu: Gooid explantion for the Great Silkence. We live in a hatchery.[2011/01/11 15:41]  Scarp Godenot: Yes, let’s take inflation. Our theory sucked for making the size of the universe work with the big bang…. SOOoooo we tweak the mathematics and add this fudge factor called inflation to fix our theory, instead of saying MAYBE our theory sucked?[2011/01/11 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Note that there is the *visible* universe, and there is everything eklse beyond the lightspeed barrier ;)[2011/01/11 15:41]  Khannea Suntzu: /me thinks of soap bubbles[2011/01/11 15:41]  Lem Skall: Khan, what wil we be when we grow up?[2011/01/11 15:41]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Scarp: Einstein did that with the cosmological constant ;)[2011/01/11 15:41]  Khannea Suntzu: /me wiggles fingers below chin.[2011/01/11 15:42]  Archmage Atlantis: stamps tiney size 14 foot[2011/01/11 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Anyway, I’m not worried about inflation or lack thereof; as said, there is an alternative explanation which says that the speed of light varies with time; the end result is exactly the same in terms of practical observation: an ever-expanding universe.[2011/01/11 15:42]  Scarp Godenot: I have never gotten behind inflation. It seems like such a bold faced fudge factor.[2011/01/11 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: My question is…[2011/01/11 15:42]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Why does inflation “require” that multiple universes are created?[2011/01/11 15:42]  Khannea Suntzu: CAPtain Jack ShhhParrrrrow *slllrp* !![2011/01/11 15:42]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, you know energy cannot be created or destroyed, right Gwyn? Inflation turns on and off randomly, due to quantum uncertainty. When it is turned on there is an enormous vacuum energy, and when it turns off the energy has to go somewhere, and it is turned into heat (what we detect now as the CMB) which then follows the standard Big Bang model.[2011/01/11 15:43]  Marchal McMahon: Scarp, have you looked at einsteins equations?[2011/01/11 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Inflation turns on and off… randomly??[2011/01/11 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: yeah[2011/01/11 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *scratches head*[2011/01/11 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: Throughout the multiverse I mean.[2011/01/11 15:43]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Now that’s news for me.[2011/01/11 15:43]  Archmage Atlantis: Does Gwyn know that, about the destruction or creation of energy?……..[2011/01/11 15:43]  Scarp Godenot: How about we throw out the big bang theory, now that we can’t possibly uise it to explain dark energy already.[2011/01/11 15:43]  Extropia DaSilva: It should not be if you study this at even a layperson’s level.[2011/01/11 15:44]  Khannea Suntzu: Yes. Inflation is like soap bubbles. Depending on surface tension and vacuum pressure some soap bubbles shrink, while others swell up. Some even *suddenly* flow into other bubbles. Anything goes.[2011/01/11 15:44]  Extropia DaSilva: To throw it out, you need a new cosmology that explains everything it can, and more besides.[2011/01/11 15:44]  Marchal McMahon: Wha[2011/01/11 15:44]  Archmage Atlantis: Ok, will mostly agree Ex[2011/01/11 15:45]  Marchal McMahon: What is wrong with the current cosmology?[2011/01/11 15:45]  Extropia DaSilva: otherwise, why bother? You might as well stick with the best you have.[2011/01/11 15:45]  Khannea Suntzu: There may be a phase shift on the way rushing to us at the speed of light. When it hits we’ll see a slight change in natuyral constants and only intertebrate life will survive – anything more conplex will not be ‘reverse compatible’.[2011/01/11 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I’m afraid that in the days I studied cosmology things were WAY simpler.[2011/01/11 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Ah, geocentric models… lol[2011/01/11 15:45]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me thinks that Khannea is quoting from a Series B SF movie ;)[2011/01/11 15:46]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: Ah you mean the Warp, Khanni…[2011/01/11 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: Marchal, I think people are suggesting that dark matter, dark energy, inflation, do not exist and were just retrofitted to the big bang to excuse having to say ‘this model does not predict our universe, and is a failure’,[2011/01/11 15:46]  Khannea Suntzu: Good thing I am very rugged being a demon, But you apes will all be toast.[2011/01/11 15:46]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: A friend wrote an RPG around that concept[2011/01/11 15:46]  Scarp Godenot: OR, you say we need to find a new theory to fit the facts. At some point theories cease to function. In hindsight it becomes obvious. But momentum of the old theory keeps going even in the face of facts that don’t jive.[2011/01/11 15:46]  Archmage Atlantis: Gwyn, the more knots one ties, the more difficult it is to find the rope[2011/01/11 15:46]  Marchal McMahon: dark matter doesn’t exist[2011/01/11 15:46]  Archmage Atlantis: Before it hangs someone[2011/01/11 15:46]  Extropia DaSilva: What makes you say that, Marchal?[2011/01/11 15:46]  Marchal McMahon: then explain why spiral galaxies don’t fly apart[2011/01/11 15:47]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: /me agrees in tehnon-existance of Dark Matter[2011/01/11 15:47]  Taboo Warden: could it be possible to have a ” black hole ” made os super compressed energy rather then matter ?[2011/01/11 15:47]  Taboo Warden: of *[2011/01/11 15:47]  Extropia DaSilva: I dunno. Matter and energy are equivilient so, why not?[2011/01/11 15:48]  Scarp Godenot: Does it matter?[2011/01/11 15:48]  Scarp Godenot: ha ha[2011/01/11 15:48]  Extropia DaSilva: the multiverse simply too wasteful?[2011/01/11 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: rofl Scarp! ;D[2011/01/11 15:48]  Khannea Suntzu: Gravity operates differently. Black Holes are graviton stars – they ‘burn’ matter into space. The extended models will show that under extreme conditions matter and energy can be converted into space. Thats what black holes do – they are treadmills carrying out space from the galactic center.[2011/01/11 15:48]  Taboo Warden: i wonder just how many different ” states ” energy can take ?[2011/01/11 15:48]  Marchal McMahon: first of all you haven’t established that it exists[2011/01/11 15:48]  Archmage Atlantis: too much energy required to decide Scarp[2011/01/11 15:48]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I’d say if we define “The multiverse” as simply “the visible universe plus everything else that we don’t see beyond the lightspeed horizon”, I’d be fine with that ;)[2011/01/11 15:49]  Scarp Godenot: So far, postulating multiple universes is just hot air, as there is no way to ever measure or test their existence.[2011/01/11 15:49]  Taboo Warden: energy is bade of particals no ?[2011/01/11 15:49]  Taboo Warden: made *[2011/01/11 15:49]  Marchal McMahon: if yoyu don’t see it, how do you know its there[2011/01/11 15:49]  Extropia DaSilva: But, aparrently they have found a way.[2011/01/11 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Or waves, Taboo ;)[2011/01/11 15:49]  Taboo Warden: yes right[2011/01/11 15:49]  Archmage Atlantis: I have a speach coach that can help with that lisp[2011/01/11 15:49]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hoot/Marchal: I don’t ;)[2011/01/11 15:49]  Marchal McMahon: what way, second time I’ve asked[2011/01/11 15:50]  Khannea Suntzu: They see *something* Hoot.[2011/01/11 15:50]  Marchal McMahon: what is something?[2011/01/11 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, they can see how it interferes with the visible universe, sure[2011/01/11 15:50]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: dimples in the CMB[2011/01/11 15:50]  Archmage Atlantis: what they see, of course, Hoot[2011/01/11 15:50]  Extropia DaSilva: Personally, I have a harder time accepting that Universe is anything other than infinite and eternal. That is not to say the universe we can detect with our instruments is infinite or eternal.[2011/01/11 15:50]  Khannea Suntzu: Might be instrumental artifacts but there is someting odd happening in the cosmic background radiation. Nothig can explain stuff like ‘the great attractor’.[2011/01/11 15:50]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh, very well put, Extie![2011/01/11 15:51]  Taboo Warden: or mesure its effect on some other body , observe the reaction and theorize as to the caused based on observation[2011/01/11 15:51]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: “there is a structure” oh wait that was the show I was watching[2011/01/11 15:51]  Zobeid Zuma: I don’t have any problem with the universe being finite.[2011/01/11 15:51]  Archmage Atlantis: 1 point for ex[2011/01/11 15:52]  Archmage Atlantis: Ok, Zo, add 1[2011/01/11 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s however interesting how that theory strangely re-uses some concepts of the (currently out-of-fashion) superstring theory…. which also postulates an infinite, eternal ‘universe’, of which ours is just a tiny speck of dust, where two ‘branes have brushed each other.[2011/01/11 15:52]  Khannea Suntzu: I have massive problems with us happen to be at a very odd cosmological reasons – unless there is an inherent reason that ‘beings such as humans’ energe specifically in this cosmological stage.[2011/01/11 15:52]  Extropia DaSilva: If it is finite it has to have a beginning. Everything that has a beginning, has an end (Neo, she adds, so as to completely quote the Oracle from Matrix). I cannot believe in a universe that has an ending.[2011/01/11 15:52]  Extropia DaSilva: Well..[2011/01/11 15:52]  Zobeid Zuma: Why not, Extie?[2011/01/11 15:52]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well… that’s a question of faith, Extie ;)[2011/01/11 15:53]  Khannea Suntzu: No[2011/01/11 15:53]  Extropia DaSilva: I can believe A universe has an ending. But not Universe.[2011/01/11 15:53]  Khannea Suntzu: Its a matter of elimnination Gwyn.[2011/01/11 15:53]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: How so, Khannea? :)[2011/01/11 15:53]  Archmage Atlantis: Dang always wanted to be Neo……….instead of Quatro[2011/01/11 15:53]  Taboo Warden: lol what would the escape velocity of the universe be ?[2011/01/11 15:53]  Scarp Godenot: Yes, let’s leave ‘belief’ out of the quesiton. Because ‘belief’ is irrelevant to argument.[2011/01/11 15:54]  Zobeid Zuma: A universe we can believe in![2011/01/11 15:54]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: why is it irrelevent?[2011/01/11 15:54]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: The visible one, Taboo? A bit above 300,000 km/s ;)[2011/01/11 15:54]  Scarp Godenot: belief has no need for proof[2011/01/11 15:54]  Amara Shan: no…keep it real….[2011/01/11 15:54]  Archmage Atlantis: Now that is a good topic to argue Scarp….can always count on you *g*[2011/01/11 15:54]  Scarp Godenot: by definition[2011/01/11 15:54]  Khannea Suntzu: We lived in a very unique and precise moment in the alleged cosmological time. The moment ‘just after the big bang’. If theories are correct there will be some very curious transitional shifts in cosmnological devekopment, That is all… suspicious ‘narrative’.[2011/01/11 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, of by “belief” in this case, what Extie means is, “let’s suppose that our universe is infinite. Let’s see if starting from that premise we can conclude some interesting characteristics that happen to validate the facts we observe” — then, ok, I’d be fine in accepting that premise.[2011/01/11 15:55]  Archmage Atlantis: suspects nothing[2011/01/11 15:55]  Archmage Atlantis: hears nothing[2011/01/11 15:55]  Marchal McMahon: I disagree with the premise[2011/01/11 15:55]  Archmage Atlantis: knows nothing[2011/01/11 15:55]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: questions everything? ;)[2011/01/11 15:56]  Marchal McMahon: Using “if” you can prove anything[2011/01/11 15:56]  Scarp Godenot: a belief is different than a postulate, what you are presenting is a postulate Gwyn[2011/01/11 15:56]  Taboo Warden: what do you mean by the term ” infinite ” ?[2011/01/11 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: In this case, eternal[2011/01/11 15:56]  Archmage Atlantis: well, except the cutie I wish would come over…..but……..[2011/01/11 15:56]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: “having no end”[2011/01/11 15:56]  Khannea Suntzu: /me questions why Aeni keeps wiggling so restlessly…[2011/01/11 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Having no beginning and having no end, aye[2011/01/11 15:56]  Extropia DaSilva: without beginnin or end, extends endlessly.[2011/01/11 15:56]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: /me *nods*[2011/01/11 15:56]  Spyspace Resident: it would be wierd if the universe had an end to it[2011/01/11 15:56]  Marchal McMahon: why[2011/01/11 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: “weird” is irrelevant; nothing is weirder than quantum mechanics![2011/01/11 15:57]  Zobeid Zuma: If there’s an end to it, it’s so very very far away from anywhere that we can see, that it’s only natural we’d have a hard time imagining it.[2011/01/11 15:57]  Marchal McMahon: why is QM weird, it works?[2011/01/11 15:57]  Taboo Warden: well unless it can generate new hydrogen it will all burn out and no new suns will form so i would say yes there just might be an end[2011/01/11 15:57]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Still, I’m fine with the premise; I still fail to understand whereit leads to :)[2011/01/11 15:57]  Archmage Atlantis: What is there is an end to what we are able to understand, even tho there are things beyond that[2011/01/11 15:57]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: The universe having an end is no weirder than a star or human life having an end[2011/01/11 15:57]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, one way around it is to suppose the universe is finite, but the beginnng somehow joins up to the end. So maybe the consequence of the final effect is to cause the begining, and so it cycles?[2011/01/11 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Oh I like that, Extie 🙂 hehe[2011/01/11 15:58]  Marchal McMahon: depends if the curvature is + or -[2011/01/11 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Then again, I’m suspect… lol[2011/01/11 15:58]  Archmage Atlantis: Moebius stip?[2011/01/11 15:58]  Marchal McMahon: problem is that it is flat[2011/01/11 15:58]  Taboo Warden: then there would have to bne more matter then is knowen to cause a colaps[2011/01/11 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh, it has to be positive.[2011/01/11 15:58]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: Oh hello Extie, long time no see[2011/01/11 15:58]  Archmage Atlantis: Klein bottle?[2011/01/11 15:58]  Khannea Suntzu: Bah you humans and your circular self closed cognitive loops, so tedious.[2011/01/11 15:58]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: lol[2011/01/11 15:58]  Zobeid Zuma: I actually find the idea of a closed, stand-along universe aesthetically appealing. But I doubt the universe cares what any of us consider aesthetically appealing.[2011/01/11 15:58]  Marchal McMahon: It has to be +, Why,[2011/01/11 15:58]  Extropia DaSilva: Hello T. yes:)[2011/01/11 15:58]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: I know Khanni, aren’t they[2011/01/11 15:58]  Zobeid Zuma: stand-alone, even[2011/01/11 15:59]  Extropia DaSilva: Because only positive curvature can produce a cyclic universe.[2011/01/11 15:59]  Marchal McMahon: NOT TRUE[2011/01/11 15:59]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Au contraire, Zobeid 😉 One might postulate that the universe IS aesthatically appealing because we evolved in it to appreciate its aesthetic appeal (aye, that’s the Antropic Principle popping up again)[2011/01/11 15:59]  Archmage Atlantis: Ex, I have never heard you state things with such conviction[2011/01/11 16:00]  Marchal McMahon: and that asumes it is cycle, a point to be shown[2011/01/11 16:00]  Archmage Atlantis: No wiggle room[2011/01/11 16:00]  Pussy Control: 342.000000[2011/01/11 16:00]  Extropia DaSilva: I think it is. Negative curvature just makes everything accerate away and you end up with a de Sitter space of uniform temperature.[2011/01/11 16:00]  Taboo Warden: or then again , we could all just be one ” big ” simulation[2011/01/11 16:00]  Zobeid Zuma: That seems unlikely, Gwyn, simply because what we see on a human scale is so small. :)[2011/01/11 16:00]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Alas :)[2011/01/11 16:00]  Marchal McMahon: how about something that is flat[2011/01/11 16:00]  Zobeid Zuma: “Common sense” often misleads us.[2011/01/11 16:01]  Archmage Atlantis: Prefer A Lad, but will live with Alas[2011/01/11 16:01]  Scarp Godenot: postulating us as a simulation or as contolled by god doesn’t address any of these problems, merely puts them off[2011/01/11 16:01]  Khannea Suntzu: Its more likely there are flows and eddies and quiet places and sargasso’s Extrophia – conplex and totally unexpected morphology.[2011/01/11 16:01]  Extropia DaSilva: I think a flat curvature gives you a kind of equlibrium?[2011/01/11 16:01]  Taboo Warden: i dont recall saying just how was running the simulation[2011/01/11 16:01]  Marchal McMahon: no[2011/01/11 16:01]  Taboo Warden: who*[2011/01/11 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh. Well I would have to look it up then.[2011/01/11 16:02]  Spyspace Resident: do you guys hear a song?[2011/01/11 16:02]  Zobeid Zuma: Also from a thermodynamic standpoint. . . It looks like everything has to eventually “run down”. So even if the universe doesn’t ever end, as such, it may become so static that it might as well (from our standpoint) be ended.[2011/01/11 16:02]  Extropia DaSilva: Yes. Whoever is playing that song, could you stop?[2011/01/11 16:02]  Archmage Atlantis: Is there a Hoot ‘n any , Sr?[2011/01/11 16:02]  Taboo Warden: the conscious universe theory makes a good case for this all just being a simulation[2011/01/11 16:02]  Marchal McMahon: yes[2011/01/11 16:02]  Scarp Godenot: There is no difference in who or what is running a simulation, the same problems exist[2011/01/11 16:02]  Amara Shan: is it in the simm?[2011/01/11 16:03]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: I heard a song Extiee and just muted the source[2011/01/11 16:03]  Zobeid Zuma: It’s Spyspace’s LP record.[2011/01/11 16:03]  Extropia DaSilva: Taboo, some physicists believe information, not matter or energy, is fundamental. So it could be that universe is a kind of simulation. A natural one.[2011/01/11 16:03]  Archmage Atlantis: Uh, like, ….., this is a sim….or a boutique…..where[2011/01/11 16:03]  Khannea Suntzu: ‘this part of the cosmnological field is rich and turbulent, churned about by a few hundred Great Attractors that fill the vacuum froth with a nice even structure. It allows formulation of life in the local half trillion light year region. In most directions its emptier. Curved bubbles of high dimensional spaces. Entertain the possibilities.[2011/01/11 16:03]  Archmage Atlantis: is Daddy’s credit card[2011/01/11 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: What’s a “cosmological field”?[2011/01/11 16:04]  Zobeid Zuma: Isn’t “natural simulation” sort of contradictory? :D[2011/01/11 16:04]  Marchal McMahon: some physicists, could you name a couple[2011/01/11 16:04]  Ace of Spades ~ MH: 171.000000[2011/01/11 16:04]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hoot: Eric Verlinde for one[2011/01/11 16:04]  Archmage Atlantis: At this age it is, Zo…..requires enhancement drugs[2011/01/11 16:04]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, what I meant was, the theory of digital physics says the universe is the result of some almighty cellular automata or something like that.[2011/01/11 16:05]  Ace of Spades ~ MH: 171.000000[2011/01/11 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It’s a possible *model*[2011/01/11 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Looking good! Ataraxia ;)[2011/01/11 16:05]  Extropia DaSilva: But nobody and nothing built it. It is just the fundamental level of reality.[2011/01/11 16:05]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Exactly. It’s a *description*[2011/01/11 16:05]  Marchal McMahon: The problem with his theory is that there is nothing experimentaly to back it up[2011/01/11 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Agreed, hoot.[2011/01/11 16:06]  Luisa Bourgoin: Motörhead and philosophy…[2011/01/11 16:06]  Marchal McMahon: Might as well claim Santa Claus[2011/01/11 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So in the end it might go the same way as superstring theory[2011/01/11 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Naaah Hoot — it’s not THAt bad :D[2011/01/11 16:06]  Scarp Godenot: Yes, when there is no test or observation, we are just in the field of speculation, also known as bullshit…. ha ha[2011/01/11 16:06]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Even Einstein had to wait for over a decade until someone came up with a way to validate his lunatic theories ;)[2011/01/11 16:06]  Spyspace Resident: Do you guys think someone created the universe sort of like secondlife?[2011/01/11 16:07]  Marchal McMahon: Not a decade, it was immediate[2011/01/11 16:07]  Khannea Suntzu: No[2011/01/11 16:07]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, bullshit can be good in cosmology — it paves the road for future generations to find a way to test models :)[2011/01/11 16:07]  Luisa Bourgoin: possible! and someone incapable, too :P[2011/01/11 16:07]  Marchal McMahon: the motion of the pherilion of mercury[2011/01/11 16:07]  Archmage Atlantis: I met Santa, a nice guy, hangs around with pink bunnies………..sorta Hugh Hefner in a fat suit[2011/01/11 16:07]  Ataraxia Azemus: Thanks Gwyn! Hi guys :)[2011/01/11 16:07]  Lem Skall: so second life is really third life[2011/01/11 16:07]  Khannea Suntzu: Note ‘someone’ – something.[2011/01/11 16:07]  Khannea Suntzu: Might be Ggoogleplex Life for all I care[2011/01/11 16:08]  Scarp Godenot: Depends on our level of embedded simulations, Lem[2011/01/11 16:08]  Lem Skall: I’ll believe something like that when “someone” in SL creates another world within SL[2011/01/11 16:08]  Archmage Atlantis: (The reindeer, they are my ppl)[2011/01/11 16:08]  Marchal McMahon: There are plenty of virtual worlds around, Science Sim for one[2011/01/11 16:09]  Ataraxia Azemus: I’m going to have to skip tonight. My lag is killer….take care, guys! :)[2011/01/11 16:09]  Archmage Atlantis: “after the elephants, the turtles”[2011/01/11 16:09]  Ivy Sunkiller: byes Atari :)[2011/01/11 16:09]  Hits From The Bong: 162.000000[2011/01/11 16:09]  Archmage Atlantis: ” and then “[2011/01/11 16:09]  Luisa Bourgoin: latest matter regarding antimatter: “Fermi Gamma-ray Space Telescope have detected beams of antimatter produced above thunderstorms on Earth” 16:10]  Archmage Atlantis: ” I think it’s turtles all the way down”[2011/01/11 16:10]  Marchal McMahon: What is the problem with that[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: Playing…[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: g_iPlaying=1[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: Link=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: g_iWasLinked=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: g_iFinished=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: Stopping…[2011/01/11 16:11]  Marchal McMahon: High energy produces electron positron pairs[2011/01/11 16:11]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: ARch: quoted from Terry Pratchett? ;)[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: g_iPlaying=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: Link=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: g_iWasLinked=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: DEBUG: g_iFinished=0[2011/01/11 16:11]  AC-DC – Back In Black: whispers: Playing…[2011/01/11 16:11]  Archmage Atlantis: Pratchett quoted from the Vedas.[2011/01/11 16:12]  Scarp Godenot: I nuked him[2011/01/11 16:12]  Luisa Bourgoin: Pratchet made a point: a fantasy world should stand on some solid foundation pillars. strong like elephants. at least if it’s swimming through space on a giant turtle[2011/01/11 16:12]  Marchal McMahon: Dolphin not turtle[2011/01/11 16:12]  Extropia DaSilva: No Gwyn it is a famous story. This cosmologist was confronted by a woman who told him his theory was wrong, and that the universe rested on the back of a turtle. When he asked her what the turtle rested on she just replied ‘oh, son, it is turtles allll the way down!’.[2011/01/11 16:13]  Astronomer Somerset: thank you[2011/01/11 16:13]  Marchal McMahon: belongs to constellation of Dolphinus[2011/01/11 16:14]  Lem Skall: what do those turtles eat?[2011/01/11 16:15]  Scarp Godenot: Where does the poop go?[2011/01/11 16:15]  Lem Skall: maybe that’s what they eat, trickle down[2011/01/11 16:15]  Astronomer Somerset: I have a problem with multiverses in that if they exist then all possible variations should exist which means for every universe there also has to be an anti unverse and if this was the case all the universes would cancel each other out[2011/01/11 16:15]  Archmage Atlantis: Humans, ya got to luv them *g*[2011/01/11 16:15]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aha, nice argument, Astronomer :)[2011/01/11 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Very well put :)[2011/01/11 16:16]  Marchal McMahon: Why does ther have to be an anti universe[2011/01/11 16:16]  Luisa Bourgoin: seems like we got these matter-antimatter annihilation every day isnide earth’s atmosphere[2011/01/11 16:16]  Ste Sullivan: How would they cancel eachother out if they’re in different places?[2011/01/11 16:16]  Extropia DaSilva: I heard something similar. If everything in the multiverse is possible, that includes ‘the multiverse does not exist’. And as soon as this is true…*poof*![2011/01/11 16:16]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Hehe[2011/01/11 16:16]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: you can have an infinte number of apples without a single orange[2011/01/11 16:16]  Lem Skall: there is no opposite of a universe if there is an infinite range[2011/01/11 16:17]  Scarp Godenot: There is no way that multivers theories make any sense. Those who propose them never consider the implications past the initial mathematical rationalizations.[2011/01/11 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Aye, well, good question… what is the “opposite of an universe”*[2011/01/11 16:17]  Marchal McMahon: again what experimental evidence points to this?[2011/01/11 16:17]  Lem Skall: evil Kirk[2011/01/11 16:17]  Astronomer Somerset: because mater and anti mater coexist for every quark there is an anti quark nature abhours an inballance[2011/01/11 16:17]  Archmage Atlantis: evil Data[2011/01/11 16:17]  Extropia DaSilva: Someone explained to me why this is not the case. I say ‘explained’. I mean, told me something in technical gobledegook.[2011/01/11 16:17]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: So long as they are not *in contact*, there wouldn0’t be a problem, right?[2011/01/11 16:17]  Luisa Bourgoin: I constantly miss the point about having multiple multiverses, at all. What’s the deal? Do we need them?[2011/01/11 16:17]  Marchal McMahon: ha, then what is the anti mater particle corresponding to a photon?[2011/01/11 16:18]  Extropia DaSilva: Oo…I do not know.[2011/01/11 16:18]  Lem Skall: another photon[2011/01/11 16:18]  Amara Shan: there has to be the possibility of buffer zones then between them[2011/01/11 16:18]  Extropia DaSilva: Does it count if it has zero mass?[2011/01/11 16:18]  Lem Skall: is there zero mass?[2011/01/11 16:18]  Scarp Godenot: A dare energy ton particle! hah a[2011/01/11 16:18]  Ste Sullivan: One of the current big scientific questions is “Where is all the anti-matter?” We still don’t know.[2011/01/11 16:18]  Scarp Godenot: dark[2011/01/11 16:18]  Extropia DaSilva: A photon has zero mass.[2011/01/11 16:18]  Archmage Atlantis: Is zero a number?[2011/01/11 16:19]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: I don’t think that there makes any sense in talking about “space” between multiple universes 😛 Because that “space” would have to be “in” something….[2011/01/11 16:19]  Lem Skall: a photon HAS mass[2011/01/11 16:19]  Astronomer Somerset: but all universes would have to co exist within the same space we have yesterday today and tomorrow and all exist within the same space time continum[2011/01/11 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: No.[2011/01/11 16:19]  Marchal McMahon: it does NOT[2011/01/11 16:19]  Lem Skall: Yes[2011/01/11 16:19]  Ste Sullivan: A photon has mass.[2011/01/11 16:19]  Marchal McMahon: bull[2011/01/11 16:19]  Scarp Godenot: Let’s not forget that space is not separate from time.[2011/01/11 16:19]  Ste Sullivan: I read about it a while back.[2011/01/11 16:19]  Amara Shan: true…so where does all the antimatter sit?[2011/01/11 16:19]  Marchal McMahon: where[2011/01/11 16:19]  Extropia DaSilva: A photon does not have mass. That is why it can travel at the speed of light.[2011/01/11 16:19]  Archmage Atlantis: Hindi mathematicians considered that for a long while[2011/01/11 16:19]  Marchal McMahon: photons don’t have mass !![2011/01/11 16:19]  Lem Skall: photons get deflected by gravity too[2011/01/11 16:19]  Marchal McMahon: so[2011/01/11 16:19]  Ste Sullivan: Someone did some experiment on whether light has any measurable mass, and apparently it does.[2011/01/11 16:20]  Lem Skall: yes they DO[2011/01/11 16:20]  Luisa Bourgoin: if black holes suck in light, the later must respond to gravity e.g. own some mass[2011/01/11 16:20]  Astronomer Somerset: no a photon has no mass it has inertia and it is the inertia which has mass[2011/01/11 16:20]  Marchal McMahon: light has no mass, it has momentum[2011/01/11 16:20]  Extropia DaSilva: Seriously Lem, either you have proved every physicist and cosmologist wrong, or photons are massless.[2011/01/11 16:20]  Lem Skall: give my Nobel prize[2011/01/11 16:20]  Marchal McMahon: Lem, site your evidence.[2011/01/11 16:21]  Amara Shan: lol show evidence Lem[2011/01/11 16:21]  Astronomer Somerset: it is only when a photon moves that it has mass[2011/01/11 16:21]  Marchal McMahon: give a reference[2011/01/11 16:21]  Archmage Atlantis: There is the fundatmental error Ex, that there is a right and a wrong[2011/01/11 16:21]  Ste Sullivan: Meh, maybe you’re right that a photon has no mass.[2011/01/11 16:21]  Lem Skall: just quote me, what I don’t count?[2011/01/11 16:21]  Extropia DaSilva: In this case there is. And Lem is wrong.[2011/01/11 16:21]  Marchal McMahon: no you don’t[2011/01/11 16:21]  Scarp Godenot: It is interesting that we always want to push the big questions to their limits when we occupy personally such a small space and time. I think we can’t stand not to know, but there is little hope of knowing.[2011/01/11 16:21]  Ste Sullivan: “The short answer is “no”, but it is a qualified “no” because there are odd ways of interpreting the question which could justify the answer “yes”. Light is composed of photons so we could ask if the photon has mass. The answer is then definitely “no”: The photon is a massless particle. ” (from a quick google search)[2011/01/11 16:22]  Marchal McMahon: a photon has no mass when it moves either[2011/01/11 16:22]  Extropia DaSilva: I think so too Scarp. In fact…this is a discussion topic we shall debate in two week’s time;)[2011/01/11 16:22]  Luisa Bourgoin: I like this toppic 🙂 … we could use laser beams[2011/01/11 16:22]  Marchal McMahon: since it always moves at the same speed “c”[2011/01/11 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: A beam of light can be deflected by a gravitational field.[2011/01/11 16:23]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: ah the lumiferrous ether must be distorted by mass, then, and the light mearly follows the path laid out for it XD[2011/01/11 16:23]  Astronomer Somerset: the photon is a fundamental particle and like all fundamental particles at that highest quantum level thos particle have no mass they are energy packets its only when they combine and give off energy to become protons and neutrons that they aquire mass[2011/01/11 16:23]  Zobeid Zuma: So in that respect it at least acts like it has mass. :)[2011/01/11 16:23]  Amara Shan: yes[2011/01/11 16:23]  Marchal McMahon: if a photon had mass the range of the electomagnetic field would be finite by Heisenburgs uncertainty principle[2011/01/11 16:24]  Ste Sullivan: “Sometimes people ask “If light has no mass how can it be deflected by the gravity of a star?” One answer is that any particles such as photons of light, move along geodesics in general relativity and the path they follow is independent of their mass. .. Another answer is that the light has energy and momentum which couples to gravity.” : 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: Oh well, you cannot argue against Heisenberg.[2011/01/11 16:24]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: I’m not sure about Heisenberg[2011/01/11 16:24]  Astronomer Somerset: if a photon had mass we would have no light it would never escape the gravitational pull of a star[2011/01/11 16:24]  Extropia DaSilva: Hehe[2011/01/11 16:24]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: however I *am* very tired[2011/01/11 16:24]  Lem Skall: do photons have energy? yes,. then don’t they have mass too?[2011/01/11 16:24]  Marchal McMahon: no[2011/01/11 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Put your feet up, T. The sofa is long enough.[2011/01/11 16:25]  Scarp Godenot: And another is it is all just the interaction of super strings.[2011/01/11 16:25]  Marchal McMahon: they also have momentum & spin[2011/01/11 16:25]  Archmage Atlantis: I apologize for the religiomysticism, but This is the arguement our species is to answer[2011/01/11 16:25]  Astronomer Somerset: no mass and energy are interchangable[2011/01/11 16:25]  Zobeid Zuma: Seems like there are plenty of other particles that have mass and escape from stars. :/[2011/01/11 16:25]  Marchal McMahon: E=pc[2011/01/11 16:25]  Extropia DaSilva: Stars yes. Black holes, no.[2011/01/11 16:25]  Marchal McMahon: pis the momentum[2011/01/11 16:25]  PlanetNiles Dreamscape: /me yawns[2011/01/11 16:25]  Ste Sullivan: Light doesn’t escape from black holes either.[2011/01/11 16:25]  Luisa Bourgoin: are there any tiny “grey holes” known?[2011/01/11 16:26]  Archmage Atlantis: Then we shall cede to the next[2011/01/11 16:26]  Marchal McMahon: you can have radiation escaping from black holes according to Hawkins[2011/01/11 16:26]  Astronomer Somerset: the only particles to leave a star are photons all else are electro magnetic waves[2011/01/11 16:26]  Extropia DaSilva: Well, there is such a thing as a quark star, Luisa. I guess that would be the closest thing to a grey hole.[2011/01/11 16:26]  Luisa Bourgoin: indeed! either skip onto next toppic … or change to battle axes :)[2011/01/11 16:26]  Ste Sullivan: Hawking radiation is a special type of radiation.[2011/01/11 16:27]  Scarp Godenot: ONe thing that is clear to me at the moment is that there is a crisis in cosmology right now. Things don’t add up according to prevailing theories. It is an interesting time.[2011/01/11 16:27]  Ste Sullivan: If it exists at all.[2011/01/11 16:27]  Marchal McMahon: photons are EM waves Astronomer Somerset[2011/01/11 16:27]  Zobeid Zuma: I’m bothered by the thermodyamic implications of that.[2011/01/11 16:27]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well put, Scarp :)[2011/01/11 16:27]  Lem Skall: so if you send photons onto an object there is no force applied to the object? don’t give me that momentum thing again[2011/01/11 16:27]  Extropia DaSilva: I think the radiation is where the event horizon is, though. A virtual particle pair is formed at the border, one half of the pair disappears over the border, and the other half flies away as radiation.[2011/01/11 16:27]  Marchal McMahon: Hawkins radiation is EM[2011/01/11 16:28]  Marchal McMahon: Lem there is a transfer of momentum[2011/01/11 16:28]  Luisa Bourgoin: Scarp, very politely summarized … yes, many theories seem to be faulty at best[2011/01/11 16:28]  Lem Skall: isn’t that what force is?[2011/01/11 16:28]  Marchal McMahon: yes[2011/01/11 16:28]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: It will be interesting to read scientific articles in 2100 and see them laughing about all the crazy ideas we had …. ;)[2011/01/11 16:28]  Lem Skall: so force without mass?[2011/01/11 16:28]  Archmage Atlantis: For me, Ste Sullivan, it does exist as a time at a point……..and a point is multivariate……..with many numeric representations[2011/01/11 16:28]  Marchal McMahon: yes[2011/01/11 16:28]  Lem Skall: wow[2011/01/11 16:28]  Astronomer Somerset: hawkins radiation is thought to generate at the event horizon as the mass is spaghettified energy is created in to parts positive and negative it is the negative mass which is destroyed the positive particle escape according to professor hawkins[2011/01/11 16:29]  Lem Skall: I just learned something[2011/01/11 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: ㋡[2011/01/11 16:29]  Amara Shan: :)[2011/01/11 16:29]  Extropia DaSilva: Uhhh…what Astronomer said.[2011/01/11 16:29]  Luisa Bourgoin: Gwyn, at least 2100 we should have reached the cozy knowledge level of medieval ages, again[2011/01/11 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Well, I’m still at a loss to understand why a model of ‘chaotic’ inflation “requires” multiple universes to work….[2011/01/11 16:29]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: yay for that, Luisa! haha[2011/01/11 16:29]  Marchal McMahon: so am I[2011/01/11 16:30]  Scarp Godenot: Don’t forget from our point of view timewise, things never reach the center of the black hole….. heh[2011/01/11 16:30]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: Good, Hoot, then I don’t feel so stupid when asking that question :)[2011/01/11 16:30]  Marchal McMahon: sorry not true[2011/01/11 16:30]  Astronomer Somerset: inflation theory like the big bang is wrong[2011/01/11 16:30]  Lem Skall: hehe I have an alt named Hoot in EVE and I thought you were talking to me[2011/01/11 16:30]  Extropia DaSilva: ‘I have committed the ultimate sin, formulating the existence of somerhing that can never be proved’- Enrico Fermi, referring to the ‘neutrino’. Which we now regularly detect. Let that be a lesson, oh people who say ‘the multiverse will never be experimentally proven!’.[2011/01/11 16:30]  Marchal McMahon: If you fall into a black hole you will reach its center in a finite amount of time[2011/01/11 16:31]  Gwyneth Llewelyn: If by “wrong” you mean “inaccurate to explain some teeny details”, well, yes, but it’s the best approximation we have…[2011/01/11 16:31]  Extropia DaSilva: And with us getting into black hole physics…my time is up![2011/01/11 16:31]  Marchal McMahon: There are 3 types of neutinos[2011/01/11 16:31]  Extropia DaSilva: NEXT WEEK: NEEDLESS THINGS..

This entry was posted in after thinkers. Bookmark the permalink.

One Response to THINKERS 11th JAN 2011: ALL THE MYRIAD WAYS

  1. Archmage Atlantis says:

    A few brief comments on the conversation befor I arived
    at the meeting.

    “Sounds like the web will slowly metamorph into a
    cyberspace with wildlands and projects and barrens and
    jungles and dingy coastal settlements” – sounds
    reasonable to me, follows the pattern of life since the

    “what is real is only what is in our universe, to hell
    with what happens in others” – sounds like a decision
    to only credit the pattern one has accepted, while
    ignoring or denying others.

    “what is real is only what is in our universe, to hell
    with what happens in others” – sounds close to my
    experience….my interpretation of others, no matter
    how close, is generally flawed in detail.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s