I have a few problems with these theories on the universe. Why am I wrong?

Please explain that in a little more detail, I get there no Cecil is me verse. I just want to get my head around the infinite a little better.

Thanks

Capt

Right, any frame of reference would measure the same rest mass for any given particle. If two protons collide with energy (as it appears in the lab frame) 15 GeV, and a 15 GeV particle popped out, it would just sit there, at rest.

If we watched it from a moving frame, the two protons would be colliding with a different kinetic energy, dependent on our frame’s velocity. And so the resulting particle would pop out with extra energy. But that extra energy would be due to us measuring it in a moving frame. Once we take that into account, we would get the same rest energy.

There are some rather disturbing implications to the Many-worlds interpretation. It would mean there are universes so horrifying our imagination is insufficient to describe them. Of course the opposite would be true as well. Our universe isn’t all that bad all things considered.

Ordinarily I would defer to your greater knowledge.

However, the Scientific Americanarticle cited in post #14 repeatedly refers to MW
as a “theory”, in one case (p4) quoting Wheeler’s use of the word.

As I understand it, the Many Worlds interpretation is by its nature entirely untestable. It is arguably a philosophical speculation as much as a scientific one.

Well, we could posit that the CMBR is generated by an unseen form of matter or energy with heretofore-unknown properties. What would we call such a thing, though? :wink:

Let’s say we started with only one Cecil-is-you universe to begin with. Since the universes keep splitting for every quantum probability at every quantum of time, even a second later, that single universe will have spawned uncountable googols of other universes. Enough that I’d call it infinity, even if it was something less. Furthermore, each of those googol universes is spawning another googol universes every second, growing exponentially.

According to the following 17-year old site, whose bona fides I cannot vouch for,
MW can in principle be verified experimentally:

[Many%20Worlds%20FAQ"]http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html]Many Worlds FAQ](http://www.physics.wustl.edu/~alford/many_worlds_FAQ.html)

See Q37. Reliance on AI gives me pause.

Even if MW is untestable, though, Big Bang cosmology seems to me no less so.

Most folks can’t get past infinity to begin with, so to speak. I doubt the OP would be comfy with any of the consequences of a single but infinite universe. Frankly, I’m not too comfy myself! It’s hard to apply the mathematician’s concept of infinity to the real world; we can’t expect it to match “common sense” expectations.

Well, I doubt we’d need enough AI to pass the Turing test. I wonder how much intelligence would be required, or why intelligence but not simply “intelligent data recording” would be required.

Well, Big Bang cosmology (in its many forms) led to many predictions of what we’d observe today. Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is a great example. The theory led to a scientist to realize it should be measurable. At the same time, someone was trying to figure out what his super sensitive detector was detecting when he wasn’t pointing it at anything. Bingo, he (the latter, not the former) got a Nobel Prize.

Someone once said that the multiverse theory is economical in terms of assumptions, but very expensive in terms of universes.

Well put!

Oh, so he should just ignore the information most readily available to him? Television presents the most accepted and agreed with facts, not Jumbo Joe’s dimensional relativity hypothesis of mirroring planets cough and syntax multiplying dog treats floating around in dark matter perplexed by intrinsic bologna. Honestly, there’s nothing wrong with Television. It’s wrong a lot, but it presents EASILY available information for people to think about.

Did it ever refer to it as a ”scientific theory” . Note that the common use of the term “theory” is not the same as the scientific use of the term.

Commonly confused by many, but SA should have known better, sloppy editing on their part.. They used the term “idea’ more often, but the best term to use is “interpretation”, such as in the *Copenhagen interpretation *. Other call it a “thesis”. Also a good term.

In any case, “Many worlds” is not a ‘scientific theory” .

What television doesn’t do well is provide the background and context needed to understand sophisticated and complicated topics. I’ve tried watching the shows put on by scientists like Brian Greene and they are worthless compared to the books. How do I know? Because the OP watched them and got nothing of value out of the experience.

Nobody has ever found a way to do advanced science in an hour television show. My advice stands. Put down the remote and pick up a book. They’re readily available, too.

The problem, though, is that RaftPeople is in one of the universes where every post comes out stupid. Much like there’s a multiverse where every coin flip comes out heads.

Moebius Discs!

That is genius.

First, let’s see if we can get the damn link to work:
Many Worlds FAQ

It works with the post preview.

From MW FAQ Q37, AI discussion in** underlined bold **(repeat caveat: I have no idea if the author is an authority):

There is plenty of evidence for BB, but it cannot be manipulated in a laboratory
like the radio waves predicted by Maxwell’s Electromagnetic Theory (or whatever
it was until Hertz discovered what had been predicted).

These are the choices on who I have to go with here as far as the appropriateness of using the word “theory” for MW:

(A-B-C-D collectively) Hugh Everett III PhD, John A. Wheeler PhD, Juan Maldacina PhD, and the venerable Scientific American

vs (E) Wikipedia as interpeted by DrDeth

(A-B-C-D) win, and (E) loses.

At least a half-dozen logical fallacies. Argument from authority is the most obvious.

Let me make myself clear . Chronos and myself were referring to the term “scientific theory”. Not a theory that is scientific. The term has a precise meaning, if you don’t like wiki here are a few more:

http://www.biology-online.org/dictionary/Scientific_theory

http://psycnet.apa.org/psycinfo/1953-03119-000

http://suppescorpus.stanford.edu/articles/mpm/84.pdf

By showing that you don’t know the difference between the laymans definition of “theory’ and the scientist’s definition, this put you in the group that sez “Well, evolution is just a theory”. :rolleyes:

You are totally incorrect.

Argument based on expert authority speaking on a subject within its area of expertise is not a fallacy.
Rebuttable on the merits, perhaps; fallacious, no.

I like Wiki, just not as much as Scientific American et al

Your first link informs us with a whiff of circularity that “A scientific theory summarizes
a hypothesis or group of hypotheses that have been supported with repeated testing…
One definition of a theory is to say it’s an accepted hypothesis”. Maybe I’ll get to the others
later, maybe not.

But anyway, fine-- although Everett and Wheeler are unfortunately no longer with us, Malcadina is.
Wiki tells us he can be located at the Institute for Advanced Study in Princeton, NJ. I am sure he
and the Scientific American would appreciate your correction, even at this late date.

By belaboring this foolery you place yourself in the group that sez “Well, General Relativity
was not a theory, it was a hypothesis (or something) until they had a chance to examine
a full eclipse of the Sun.” The distinction is utterly useless in normal parlance, and I suspect of
limited utility elsewhere, except to certain classes of internet chatroom pedant.