FRINGE: IRL

[Warped]

Controversial Study Suggests Our Universe is One of Many

The sky holds many wonders, such as stars, galaxies, supernovas, neutron stars and black holes, but now scientists claim it could hold something potentially more extraordinary — hints of an earlier universe, or even other universes.

However, a number of other researchers dispute these findings as evidence for past and other universes, suggesting that it could be easy to see something that isn't there in the data.

Circles in the sky?

The evidence in question is said to lie in the haze of microwaves permeating the cosmos that was left over after the Big Bang. This light, and patterns within it, has granted scientists a picture of the earliest years of the universe.

However, a little over a month ago, a pair of physicists said they found something potentially even more extraordinary in this radiation — giant rings they said could be evidence of a universe that existed before the Big Bang roughly 13.7 billion years ago.

The cosmic microwave background is normally slightly blotchy, showing variations in hot and cold that apparently originate from microscopic fluctuations in the very earliest moments after the Big Bang. Recently, a pair of researchers claimed to have found concentric ring patterns where this radiation is less patchy than normal.

So what are these circles within circles? They might be nothing less than the aftermath of collisions of supermassive black holes in a past universe, akin to ripples in a pond, according to calculations from mathematical physicist Roger Penrose at the University of Oxford in England and physicist Vahe Gurzadyan at Yerevan State University in Armenia that appeared online Nov. 16.

A simple error?

However, their analysis has been greeted with skepticism, to put it mildly. Papers from no less than three different groups of researchers have appeared contesting their interpretation.

"It looks to us as if they made quite a simple error in the end," cosmologist James Zibin at the University of British Columbia in Vancouver, a co-author on one of the rebuttal papers, told SPACE.com.

Zibin and the other researchers said they could see the rings of reduced fluctuations that Penrose and Gurzadyan proposed. However, they went on to simulate how the cosmic microwave background might appear given inflation, the theoretical process by which the universe is thought to have expanded very rapidly in the first split-seconds after the Big Bang.

"We saw the same kinds of patterns in those simulations," Zibin said.

But Zibin and his colleagues are not suggesting they saw circles in the sky. Just because there are patches of sky that are less splotchy with microwave fluctuations, and that those patches could match up to part of a ring doesn't mean a ring is there. "You can convince yourself to see lots of things," he said. "There's a famous story of someone identifying what looked like 'S' and 'H' in the cosmic microwave background, and the joke is these are Stephen Hawking's initials."

Other skeptics make similar arguments.

"Penrose has a nice theoretical model, but so far there is no indications in the data on whether the model describes our universe or not," theoretical physicist Ingunn Kathrine Wehus of the University of Oslo, a co-author of one of the rebuttal papers, said in an email interview.

Other universes?

Scientists have long speculated that our universe might not be alone, but instead could be one of many in a vast "multiverse." As opposed to the former scenario, where scientists are looking for evidence of a universe predating our own, these vast multiverses could exist simultaneously with ours.

In a separate recent project, a team of researchers led by Cosmologist Hiranya Peiris of University College London suggests that the cosmic microwave background displays evidence of collisions between our universe and others. These findings, they say, could prove that our universe resides in a single bubble embedded in the multiverse.

When our bubble expanded during inflation, it might have collided with another bubble. In a paper posted online Dec. 9, they suggest this impact could leave a mark. Indeed, they contend, data from NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) space observatory, which studies the cosmic microwave background, suggests there is a preferred direction in the universe that one might expect from such a collision.

"They looked at 15 different indicators, and four seemed to be consistent with their scenario," cosmologist Arjun Berera at the University of Edinburgh in the United Kingdom, who did not take part in this study, told SPACE.com.

Peiris and her colleagues cautioned that their tentative findings were far from conclusive proof for a multiverse. However, the European Space Agency's Planck space observatory launched in 2009 could provide more precise data to answer the question.

"The story's not over," Berera said.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/universe-multiverse-big-bang-cosmic-microwave-background-101218.html

We first thought we were the center of it all, then we found more planets, then we found our galaxy and others and now billions of other galaxies and very recently other planets. now science is pointing towards other universes. but confirming other universes would shatter everything we know about science and how grand it all is....not that it wasn't grand before.

now even in our time humans and robots/CPUs are merging faster and faster. Who is to say that in our lifetime we won't open a gateway in our world to another. Or for a brief moment look through a wormhole for a short time. I personally think we should be sending small cameras at the speed of light towards our local neighbors like Alpha Centauri. we can send particles smashing into each other at nearly the speed of light and one could only believe that it won't be long before we start sending larger and larger objects in unison fast distances. Only one can dream.

 

[Remus]

Yeah, I've heard about these concentric rings in the microwave background before. It's a fact that more and more theoretical physicists and cosmologists are taking the multiverse concept seriously, however concrete evidence hasn't been found yet.

Also LOL at Stephen Hawking's initials in the microwave background.

 

[Tyguy]

I think our eventual breakthrough in figuring all this out lies at the quantum scale. Not only are we at the beginning stages of quantum teleportation, we're getting closer and closer to quantum computing. I'm amazed at how little attention some of this stuff is getting...and not because it's too complex (which of course it is), but because of the lack of interest.

I mean really...why does simply observing an experiment have an affect on its outcome?

 

[Remus]

I think our eventual breakthrough in figuring all this out lies at the quantum scale. Not only are we at the beginning stages of quantum teleportation, we're getting closer and closer to quantum computing. I'm amazed at how little attention some of this stuff is getting...and not because it's too complex (which of course it is), but because of the lack of interest.

Hey who cares right? As long as the mases get their daily dose of celebrity gossip!

I mean really...why does simply observing an experiment have an affect on its outcome?

Yeah, that's creepy as hell. I could hardly believe it when I first heard about it. What it means however... your guess is as good as mine.

 

[VirusType2]

I mean really...why does simply observing an experiment have an affect on its outcome?

I don't believe that. Matter, changing it's behavior when you observe it? It has to be that the equipment used to observe it is affecting it in some way that we don't understand. It seems extremely obvious to me. I think it's irresponsible to not consider the possibility, and turn it into some kind of spooky mystery for more attention.

 

[Remus]

I don't believe that. Matter, changing it's behavior when you observe it? It has to be that the equipment used to observe it is affecting it in some way that we don't understand. It seems extremely obvious to me. I think it's irresponsible to not consider the possibility, and turn it into some kind of spooky mystery for more attention.

You're making two assumptions here: one, that they overlooked an obvious explanation, and two, that they know about said explanation, but they are deliberately overlooking it in order to create media attention.
The former is highly unlikely, however the later is a possibility.

I really need to dig more into this. See who conducted said experiments etc.


Also @KiplingsCat

Heisenberg Compensators! HEPR DERP

 

[VirusType2]

The former is highly unlikely, however the later is a possibility.

Indeed. Especially considering that it worked. Not including computer science, my highest level of education in science is biology 1, and I knew exactly what you guys were talking about because of the media sensation.

It is interesting, and mysteries often create more interest than the explained, I guess.

 

[ríomhaire]

I mean really...why does simply observing an experiment have an affect on its outcome?

You can't make a measurement without interacting with something. When you watch something happening you don't think you're affecting it but you can't see it without millions and billions of photons bouncing of it. If you're watching something on an everyday scale those photons aren't going to be affecting anything in any significant way. If you're observing electrons those photons would have a huge affect on their behaviour.

 

[Solaris]

I think our eventual breakthrough in figuring all this out lies at the quantum scale. Not only are we at the beginning stages of quantum teleportation, we're getting closer and closer to quantum computing. I'm amazed at how little attention some of this stuff is getting...and not because it's too complex (which of course it is), but because of the lack of interest.

I mean really...why does simply observing an experiment have an affect on its outcome?

Unfortunately that seems to be one of the concepts from the whole thing that is twisted and somewhat misrepresented by the Scientists themselves.

To quote reddit, it affects in the outcome in the same way that if you were firing junk cars into space in random directions trying to find the location of the ISS, only when a junk car bounced back would you know you've hit it, however you've also affected it by firing a car at it. Lightrays and particles behave in a similar fashion.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding where it isn't as amazing.

 

[15357]

Didn't the Catholic church say this a few centuries ago?

 

[Remus]

It is interesting, and mysteries often create more interest than the explained, I guess.

And it's extremely annoying. Virtually all science related articles in the media are designed to get an emotional knee jerk reaction from the public.

Just off the top of my head:
-Article about solar flares. Oh noes we're all going to die!!11
-Voyager probe malfunctions. Aliens have taken control of it!!11
-Articles about nanotechnology. Gray goo run for your lives!!11
etc. etc.

The people that approve this sensationalist garbage should get a swift kick in the balls.

 

[Avoidist]

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?" because you will get "down the drain," into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that. - Richard Feynmann on the very subject you are discussing.

While I could rattle off about 20 fun facts about quantum mechanics you probably didn't know about I can't give you a straight answer to that question. The round-a-bout way of talking about it is that observation requires an interaction, and an interaction is an exchange of 4-momentum, that is momentum and energy. This will change the state of the particle, and "collapse the wavefunction" because if we measured the interacting particle we would gain "information" on what the particle was doing.

I.e. in the classic double slit experiment a detector gains information because, by random chance due to the statistical nature of quantum mechanics, it observed a pulse corresponding to an elecron passing (by or not passing by), and in doing so localised the particle to one slit or the other "collapsing the wavefunction" - a wavefunction is a probability distribution on how likely the particle is to appear with some particular property such as position or momentum. That interaction with the detector involves the exchange of photons between the electron and detector which act as the interaction as described above. If you don't have an interaction, there is no exchange and you can't obtain much information on the electron - therefore, no detector, no collapse and we see an interference pattern build up over time.

However, just by having the detector at one of the slits, you can still collapse the wavefunction even if it passes through the other slit because you have eliminated a region of space (where the detector is) where the electron could not have passed, and on some fundamental level the electron as a wavefunction has still "interacted" with the detector.

Science is hard. I should know.

Anyway, back to Astrophysics. We're sitting on Earth and looking out at this stuff and making the best guesses we can. We might just be looking at statistical anomalies or bunnies on the moon in this case, but there is a precedent for this sort of thing. And no, sensationalist media doesn't help, but then, astrophysicists don't really care about sensationalist media, they live on http://arxiv.org/archive/astro-ph/.

 

[<RJMC>]

 

[Stigmata]

Unfortunately that seems to be one of the concepts from the whole thing that is twisted and somewhat misrepresented by the Scientists themselves.

To quote reddit, it affects in the outcome in the same way that if you were firing junk cars into space in random directions trying to find the location of the ISS, only when a junk car bounced back would you know you've hit it, however you've also affected it by firing a car at it. Lightrays and particles behave in a similar fashion.

Tell me if I'm wrong, but that's my understanding where it isn't as amazing.

Actually, in more recent "observer-effect" experiments, what's being observed is no longer the electrons themselves, but the binary state of the devices that measure whether an electron has been detected. Observing something that observes the electron, changes where the electron goes. D:

 

[McGooTheWise]

These discoveries are so astounding, and so far beyond our reach at the present... I think this is proof that the "Big Chill" theory could be debunked easily. if our universe has a set limit on the size it can reach, than perhaps it has stopped already. Hopefully these multiverse don't follow the same physics as balloons... The more they expand, the thinner the walls get, and eventually pop... Expelling its contents forever into the void between separate universes.

Perhaps I'm getting ahead of myself here, but has anybody thought of this, and maybe that black holes are a tear in the universe? Weather it leads to another universe, or an area between universes I couldn't say, but ideas like this excite me, so I apologize for sounding like a fool. lol

 

[PvtRyan]

One of the most fascinating effects of the quantum world on the macroscopic one is that of quantum tunneling. Because without it, there would be no stars and thus no sun, as the temperatures inside the core are simply not sufficient to overcome the barrier between two nuclei. But the fact that electrons orbit the nucleus not in the way the moon orbits earth, but in a probability cloud means that sometimes, an electron can simply appear behind the barrier and overcome it like that. Electronics these days are getting small enough to be affected by this as well, causing a leak of current.

 

[Emporius]

A rather simple example is observing matter with the naked eye. To do this it must have light source providing light for us to see it, which will grant the object energy. Boom, it will act differently.

 

[VirusType2]

A rather simple example is observing matter with the naked eye. To do this it must have light source providing light for us to see it, which will grant the object energy. Boom, it will act differently.

Like a cockroach.

 

[Solaris]

A rather simple example is observing matter with the naked eye. To do this it must have light source providing light for us to see it, which will grant the object energy. Boom, it will act differently.

Well that doesn't apply at all, as the light hits the object irrelevant of observation.

I don't think I buy most of this quantum mechanics stuff in all honesty, maybe in some cases it is nessacary to interfere with a system to observe it, such as launching cars at a satellite. But I doubt that the mere fact of observation causes the change.

If the second is true it would of cause have massive philosophical implications, (if a robot observed it, would it still change?) but also it seems absurd and probably is down to misinterpration.

 

[Tyguy]

While I could rattle off about 20 fun facts about quantum mechanics you probably didn't know about...

Well now you've tickled my fancy...let's hear it!

And yes, I want a full 20

 

[Slug Advisor]

Actually, yeah, explain everything in quantum physics to me. In small words, preferably.

 

[ríomhaire]

I don't think I buy most of this quantum mechanics stuff in all honesty,

Whether or not you buy it doesn't change the fact that all our observations point towards quantum mechanics being right. Quantum mechanics is backed up by study after study, experiment after experiment but of course you know better, don't you? I'll just go tell the scientific community that it's all actually a load of crap and all their data is wrong, shall I?

maybe in some cases it is nessacary to interfere with a system to observe it, such as launching cars at a satellite. But I doubt that the mere fact of observation causes the change.

It is not possible to observe without some sort of interaction happening. Interaction causes change. There is no way around it.

 

[Warped]

COMPLETELY UNRELATED BUT VERY STRANGE:

Arkansas game officials probe mystery of falling birds

(CNN) -- Arkansas game officials hope testing scheduled to begin Monday will solve the mystery of why more than 1,000 blackbirds fell from the sky just before midnight New Year's Eve.

The birds, most of which were dead, were found within a one-mile area of Beebe, about 40 miles northeast of Little Rock, the Arkansas Game and Fish Commission said.

As of Saturday, between 4,000 and 5,000 blackbirds had been found dead, said Keith Stephens with the commission.

Karen Rowe, an ornithologist for the commission, said the incident is not that unusual and is often caused by a lightning strike or high-altitude hail.

A strong storm system moved through the state earlier in the day Friday.

Officials also speculated that fireworks shot by New Year's revelers in the area might have caused severe stress in the birds. Rowe said Sunday there was evidence that large fireworks may have played a role.

Biologists believe the deaths were stress-related from either fireworks or weather, Stephens said.

"Since it only involved a flock of blackbirds and only involved them falling out of the sky, it is unlikely they were poisoned, but a necropsy is the only way to determine if the birds died from trauma or toxin," Rowe said.

The dead birds will be sent for testing to labs at the Arkansas Livestock and Poultry Commission and the National Wildlife Health Center in Wisconsin.

The necropsies will begin Monday, Stephens said, and the findings should be available sometime this week.

CLICK FOR VIDEO

I hate stories like this sometimes, they're really strange and I'd hate to have that happen in my town

 

[CyberPitz]

Reading that article made my mind melt with confusion...yet I'm still interested!!