Is there a real chance that there is a multiverse?

[Edwardo Piet]

Multiverses Shmaltiverses.

[Aractus]

Keep those peer-reviewed articles coming, Arki

I didn't claim to put forward an answer to the OP. The fine-tuning argument is a good one, and can't be directly refuted. It is true that our universe just so happens to have the right conditions that allow life to exist, and we have not observed any other universes, therefore it would be remarkable if our universe is indeed unique. With that said, I don't think a lack of scientific knowledge in this area is proof enough that our universe is unique and is designed.

[Alex K]

Keep those peer-reviewed articles coming, Arki

I didn't claim to put forward an answer to the OP. The fine-tuning argument is a good one, and can't be directly refuted. It is true that our universe just so happens to have the right conditions that allow life to exist, and we have not observed any other universes, therefore it would be remarkable if our universe is indeed unique. With that said, I don't think a lack of scientific knowledge in this area is proof enough that our universe is unique and is designed.

Heh, I was talking to our weird friend Arkilogue, not you Aractus
But I still agree with your assessment. I also believe that fine tuning is present and not a figment of the imagination. I don't buy at all the arguments just waving it away like "look at all the empty space, it's hostile, and we don't know how life could otherwise look, and there's only one universe so the concept is meaningless, etc etc.. and I'm annoyed by them. To me it's clear from the physics that by tinkering just a bit with the parameters of the universe, you get one where there are no stars in the best case, and nothing approaching higher order structures in the worst case.

[bennyboy]

The big thing is that he could show evidence for entanglement between the sound quanta emanating outside the horizon and the ones falling in, just like with Hawking radiation coming from pairs of virtual particles created spontaneously near the event horizon where one comes out and one with negative energy falls in.

Oh, wow. I didn't realize what a parallel a sonic black hole could be.

I have a question, but it might be a bit dense. Does the negative energy particle, which is inside the event horizon, think IT'S in a vast expanse of space, and that its partner is the one trapped? Is it possible that the apparent curvature has an inverse relationship depending on which side of the line you fall on?

[Aractus]

Heh, I was talking to our weird friend Arkilogue, not you Aractus

Oh, right.

All good then!

[Alex K]

The big thing is that he could show evidence for entanglement between the sound quanta emanating outside the horizon and the ones falling in, just like with Hawking radiation coming from pairs of virtual particles created spontaneously near the event horizon where one comes out and one with negative energy falls in.

Oh, wow.  I didn't realize what a parallel a sonic black hole could be.

I have a question, but it might be a bit dense.  Does the negative energy particle, which is inside the event horizon, think IT'S in a vast expanse of space, and that its partner is the one trapped?  Is it possible that the apparent curvature has an inverse relationship depending on which side of the line you fall on?

The question is certainly not absurd because there are many such dualities in physics.
I think for ordinary schwarzschild black holes, the answer is most likely no. If you trace mathematically what a particle does inside the event horizon (and one can do that uniquely, because the apparent singularity at the Schwarzschild horizon can be avoided mathematically by going to suitable time-dependent coordinates), it falls into the central singularity in finite time as measured by the particle itself. That seems to be objectively different from the experience an outgoing particle has.

That being said, mathematically ideal eternal electrically charged and rotating black holes could serve as wormholes leading to white holes spitting stuff back out. Even weirder, and that will go in your direction, Hawking and others posited that black holes and white holes might in fact be the same thing, so would the particles coming out have fallen in some time. I don't know enough about it, and whenever I think I understood it, I always get confused again. I think it falls flat because there are no such objects in the universe.

[Mister Agenda]

I didn't claim to put forward an answer to the OP. The fine-tuning argument is a good one, and can't be directly refuted. It is true that our universe just so happens to have the right conditions that allow life to exist, and we have not observed any other universes, therefore it would be remarkable if our universe is indeed unique. With that said, I don't think a lack of scientific knowledge in this area is proof enough that our universe is unique and is designed.

Heh, I was talking to our weird friend Arkilogue, not you Aractus
But I still agree with your assessment. I also believe that fine tuning is present and not a figment of the imagination. I don't buy at all the arguments just waving it away like "look at all the empty space, it's hostile, and we don't know how life could otherwise look, and there's only one universe so the concept is meaningless, etc etc.. and I'm annoyed by them. To me it's clear from the physics that by tinkering just a bit with the parameters of the universe, you get one where there are no stars in the best case, and nothing approaching higher order structures in the worst case.

And you know the parameters of the universe can be tinkered with how? Not disputing, but I thought it was as yet unknown whether the cosmological constants could have been different from what they are.

[Mister Agenda]

Arki, can you explain your "theory" to me as if I am three? I failed to decipher your wall-of-theory back there...

Sure.

The universe is like a bubble in an ocean with no top, bottom or sides.  There is only one ocean and it's infinite.

Our universe is not the only bubble in the ocean and they are all patterned the same...because there is only one ocean and it's infinite.


Getting a little more illustrative, Think of infinite white light; no matter where you pull that light apart (prism) you will get the same distribution of the same colors in the same order. So it is with the distribution of forces within each and every universe from the infinite unified state.


The only major difference between my starting state and the Big Bang theory is that my singularity has no border, is not surrounded by a nothing space that does not exist that our perspective should not be in, as shone in every media representation. I correct for that error of perspective and treat the prior to beginning singularity as an infinite field of matter in equilibrium.

That is an interesting idea. How do you know it is true?

Bear in mind, the romantic in me hopes that there are multiple cosmos and I think it's a real possibility. I have no prejudice against it being true.

[Cyberman]

Nothing for nothing but I think that's Boggle or Scrabble....never seen words form in Bingo but I'm sure it randomly happens.

Clearly you've never been down the Mecca on a Saturday night.

[Cyberman]

Arki, can you explain your "theory" to me as if I am three? I failed to decipher your wall-of-theory back there...

That's not a coincidence.  He knows if you ever realize that the relative space-time expression of flibbertyflibbets doesn't mean anything, then nobody here will ever listen to him, ever again.

I take great exception to this, particularly the use of the phrase "ever again". That writes implications which it can never cash.