Multiverses

[lcwelch]

Religion is based on faith and belief - not mathematical proof.

Science is based on mathematics and experimental verification.

I claim we need a third noun. A field of scientific study based on and consistent with mathematics but can never be proven.

I modestly propose the word Stience.

Multiverses are Stience.

[minkwe]

"Rubbish" sounds better.

Multiverse is "Rubbish"

[Joy Christian]

"Rubbish" sounds better.

Multiverse is "Rubbish"

Multiverses may be based on and consistent with mathematics, but they are not consistent with physics.

[lcwelch]

I expand on this need for a new word in my blog http://retiredgrump.blogspot.com/

True, it may be "Rubbish" but may be incapable be being proven so,...thus...

[muon200]

The universe has plenty of room for everything. The multiverse idea is not needed to add more stuff on top of everything. Just add all your new stuff far beyond the 14 billion light year visible universe. Put it out 13 trillion light years away and it is still in my universe.

[lcwelch]

I claim it a matter of belief (and not science) that our universe has room for everything.

There is a formulism in mathematics called "analytic continuation" which one can be used as a metaphor to go beyond our visible universe. If we were to travel in direction "x" at a high velocity (relative to the center of our galaxy), the visible universe - in the direction of "x" (in front of us) expands while in the direction of "-x" (behind us) is contracted. Thus the definition of the "visible universe" is dependent on where we are - and represents nothing more fundamental. Thus there is no reason to expect "our universe" that happens to be beyond what is visible to be any different from what we can see. Thus no room there for an alternative universe.

The semantics in this subject can get murky. I define "our universe" as everything we see, or in principle, could physically travel to (even though it may take eons.)

[lcwelch]

Another Stience topic...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... r-paradox/

[Q-reeus]

Another Stience topic...
http://www.scientificamerican.com/artic ... r-paradox/

Last paragraph in that puff piece the most relevant. The notion that a possibly self-consistent situation involving a single particle or even particle-pair can translate into the equivalent for an enormously complex assemblage that is a living breathing human is just laughable. And as I have tried to make clear, GR is not self-consistent whereas Yilmaz gravity or modified variant is. And the latter simply does not permit CTC's thus any bizarre 'grandfather paradoxes' or similar.