Philosophy for our times: cutting edge debates and talks from the world's leading thinkers
Already a member? Sign in
Already a member? Sign in
Want to see more?
Sign up to continue watching. Membership is completely free, and gives you unlimited access to our videos, articles, courses and much more.
mikecc2691 on 29/06/2015 11:45am
when these waves interact, beat frequencies will be generated. The associated waves will not be part of the original landscape.
BackToAnalogue on 22/12/2014 8:27pm
This is quite clearly an important and significant development. The strength of the correlation between predicted effects and observed phenomena is too strong for it to be anything else.
Laura is observing that the Cosmology community is having difficulty understanding her Mathematical methods and so they are not giving due consideration to the results. Clearly with any such breakthrough there is a risk that a model could in some way feedback known data through its transformations in a way that makes it appear to give a prediction when in fact it is really replaying known ‘information’. This can be problematic to identify because we don’t know what is causing the phenomena we have observed and so it is possible that it is related to something we already know about. In other words there is a risk that a model can produce a ‘selffulfilling prophecy'.
When we get several new observations which all have an extraordinarily strong correlation to modelled predictions, then it is always either because this is what has happened; or it is because we have made a major breakthrough.
Normal good mathematics and data analysis practise should ensure that this ‘false prophesy’ risk is eliminated and so I believe that it is likely that it has been. But it has happened before, (and is almost certainly responsible for some of our current misconceptions), and so that possibility needs to be eliminated. It should be possible for one or two independent Mathematical reviewers to be able to do that without needing to understand and verify all of the detailed Mathematical Methods. It requires an analysis of the data that has been fed into the model and the data that has been analysed from the observations in order to identify any data sets which are common to both processes. If there are none then ‘happy days’; if there are some in common then we need to verify that we are not simply comparing two transforms of that common data. This is a straightforward task and is probably best carried out by someone objective who is not looking for their own interpretation of what may be happening i.e. not a Cosmologist.
If that all comes out fine then I would argue that the results are so strong that it is not necessary to understand the detailed Mathematical methods. This is a model of a major scale system and so if the modeller says ‘it looks something like (but not precisely like) this’, then that is more than sufficient information to be able to test different propositions with.
I would however suggest that you avoid using the term ‘multiverse’ and instead refer to ‘earlier, different Universes’. Also the term ‘entanglement’ implies some kind of weird ‘quantum communication’ between particles which those of us who prefer the real world are resistant to (to put it mildly). I would expect that many practical Astronomers are also ‘Schrodinger’s Cat nonbelievers’ so if you instead talk about ‘information from a previous event in an earlier Universe or Universes’ then I would hope there would be less resistance, because people like myself will not then be asked to ‘believe in the unbelievable’.
Daniel Bollag on 02/10/2014 10:14pm
I agree with the math and the general question of where a black hole comes on if the collapsing*no longer has the mass to cause it. However the below paper suggests a different answer to that very puzzling question it suggests that the black hole is puncture in space time and therefore the gravity is coming from outside our universe please see below paper:
Abstract:
Singularity is a Puncture in Spacetime.
Gravity is geometrical in nature and implies elasticity/plasticity, which infers a break ing point to our universal fabric. The assertion of the author is that when a mass reaches its Schwarzchild radius, it has reached the breaking point of our universe and as a consequence, may puncture it. This may in turn expose our universe to the "Absolute Gravity" (g=c in all directions) of infinite space outside our universe (this does not take into account any other universe that may exist). Out of this process, a black hole forms from the point of singularity/puncture until the original point of the Schwarz child radius. We will discuss some of the possible consequences of this theory as well as its possible effects on universal expansion and its multiverse implications.
Full paper can be found below:
https://www.academia.edu/8095060/Singularity_is_a_Puncture_in_Spacetime
Copy and paste the code below to embed or link to this video.
Embed: 

Link: 

Video SeekConverted to a link which jumps to that point in the videoExample: 00:34

Bold TextExample: [b]Bold[/b]

Italic TextExample: [i]Italics[/i]

Underlined TextExample: [u]Underlined[/u]

Website linkLink to another website or URLExample: [url]http://www.website.com/[/url]
Join the conversation