Empirical Evidence for Multiverse

[SteelCurtain]

DBP, is there another source than the daily mail? :cringe:

The difference, Chad, is that no one here so far as I know accepts the any of the various multiverse theories totally, without exception, or claim them to be inviolable in nature. They are merely (at least to me) cool hypotheses that might explain some of the anomalies we see in the cosmos.

Also, these theories are the result of interpreting observed phenomena. Your religion does the exact opposite. You start with a conclusion, and sift out all of the evidence that contradicts said conclusion, and then claim perfect revelation.

[AFTT47]

Strange thread. What's this got to do with us? Has someone here championed alternate universes as fact? I don't think so. The multiverse idea has been around for a long time, mostly as speculation. It was definitely a fringe idea although recently it has become mainstream. It's still mostly hypothesis at this stage of the game. And you're wrong about there being no possibility of detecting them. I can't say whether or not the Planck data is actual evidence but M theory (Google it) predicts that gravity is not confined to the universe with the mass that generated it. So you're full of shit anyway.

[downbeatplumb]

[SteelCurtain]

Awesome.

[AFTT47]

downbeatplumb, that detection of gravity waves has been discredited.

[downbeatplumb]

downbeatplumb, that detection of gravity waves has been discredited.

Bugger.

[LostLocke]

By definition, the constants and physical laws that make our universe possible would not apply in another. In short, our version of physics would have no applicability to the 'natural' laws of an alternate universe.

Really?
Where does it say another universe couldn't have the same physical properties as ours? What observations and tests have been done that say, "If another universe exists, it must have different properties than ours."?

[houseofcantor]

It's not a theory, but a likely conclusion. What you're looking for is Lambda Cold Dark Matter model, which is where we're at. Numerous theories and other models got us there, such as the Standard Model and inflationary theory. When launching an attack, one should know what it is one is attacking, lest one look more ass than pompous. 

[Angrboda]

What's your point, Chad?

[Faith No More]

................(crickets)

Not only is there no empirically verifiable evidence for the multiverse, there could not ever be. By definition, the constants and physical laws that make our universe possible would not apply in another. In short, our version of physics would have no applicability to the 'natural' laws of an alternate universe. The multiverse is an unfalsifiable faith-based theory.

And just when the hell did you suddenly start caring about empirical, verifiable evidence? You'll prattle on and on about metaphysical universals and you have the balls to dismiss the multiverse based on a perceived lack of verifiable evidence? Suddenly you're a logical positivist when it comes to the multiverse?

I know it's hard to maintain consistency when you're trying to force the evidence to fit a pet conclusion, but even you should be able to recognize and hang your head in shame for such blatant intellectual dishonesty.