Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by away on Friday December 17, 2010 @09:43PM (#2018731)

Scientists call it the Big Bang Theory. And in Science, the word "theory" is supposed to basically be the equivalent of a proven phenomenon. Scientists do not admit that the Big Bang theory is broken. They really believe that everything in the universe came from nothing even though it violates everything in cause-and-effect.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by ceejayoz on Friday December 17, 2010 @10:05PM (#2018762)

Go back far enough and everything boils down to "something from nothing" or "something was always there". Both options violate everything in cause-and-effect.

We either don't exist - demonstrably false - or the universe's start doesn't necessarily abide by cause-and-effect as we humans understand it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by yters on Saturday December 18, 2010 @02:54AM (#2019128)

Couldn't God have created everything from nothing? God is philosophically understood to be a self sufficient being. He is also understood to be all powerful, thus capable of creating something from nothing.

Seems a justified and tidy resolution to the supposed problem you refer to.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by Flankk on Saturday December 18, 2010 @03:12AM (#2019149)

You are just adding another layer of abstraction. Something created God or God has existed forever.

If the universe existed forever, you don't need to create a God to create the universe.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by away on Saturday December 18, 2010 @09:52PM (#2020929)

There is a difference though. From what we know of the big bang, there is a starting point of the universe. The universe being started from nothing violates physical laws. A spiritual entity wouldn't be bound by the same physical logistics. Even if someone argues that it is "unlikely" for God to exist, it is still atleast a logical possibility.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by ceejayoz on Saturday December 18, 2010 @10:38PM (#2021005)

> From what we know of the big bang

There's a lot we know we don't know of the Big Bang.

> The universe being started from nothing violates physical laws.

So does a God. Something has to be violating physical laws as we currently understand them (and we hardly know everything yet...), so adding God doesn't really get you anywhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by yters on Sunday December 19, 2010 @06:15PM (#2022800)

No, it's a third option because God is outside of time. So, since the term "always" is tensed, it doesn't apply.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by ceejayoz on Monday December 20, 2010 @11:38AM (#2024801)

Why can God exist outside of time, but not a natural process?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by yters on Tuesday December 21, 2010 @08:02AM (#2027629)

"Process" is time bound by definition. There are also other characteristics of God's causality that natural processes cannot have. For instance, free will is the ability to create something from nothing, and natural processes cannot do this.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by kd0amg on Saturday December 18, 2010 @03:29AM (#2019161)

That would be a case of "something was always there."

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by chrisaycock on Friday December 17, 2010 @10:59PM (#2018846)

> And in Science, the word "theory" is supposed to basically be the equivalent of a proven phenomenon.

No, that's a "theorem". A "theory" refers to a widely accepted idea, like gravity or evolution.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by yters on Saturday December 18, 2010 @02:52AM (#2019126)

I think you mistake an indicator for an indicated. A theory tends to be widely accepted because it is the best explanation for evidence.

If something is a theory just because it is widely accepted, then that would make the idea that "lifting our arms is hard due to gravity" a theory, whereas the correct view is merely an idea that experts believe is correct.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by btilly on Friday December 17, 2010 @10:11PM (#2018773)

And in Science, the word "theory" is supposed to basically be the equivalent of a proven phenomenon.

Citation please.

There are a lot of theories in science. They vary greatly in how well accepted they are.

As for the source of the Big Bang, there is a wide variety of speculation on that. Including a previous universe collapsing (no coming from "nothing" and a quantum fluctuation. But until we have a theory that combined general relativity with quantum mechanics, we won't have a real idea how reasonable different theories are.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by jerf on Friday December 17, 2010 @11:51PM (#2018918)

You post that as a comment on an article claiming to have found support for a variant of the eternal inflation theory? Scientists are proposing all sorts of variants of various theories and many of them are way more upset about an initial singularity at the start of the universe than you, a known problem since pretty much the first day it was proposed, with numerous discussions on how this is incompatible with quantum mechanics and all kinds of other known issues it has. I take it you didn't read the article or actually know anything about the state of modern cosmology, which implies that you're just triggering on keywords and then knee-jerking a post in response. Please take that elsewhere.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Scientists find first evidence that many universes exist by away on Saturday December 18, 2010 @10:00PM (#2020941)

The scientists are not "upset" about the inaccuracies of this. If they truly thought that the Big Bang has a lot of problems, why would they not call it the Big Bang Hypothesis? Scientists don't propose this as a "possibility that may have occured", they speak of it as a fact where only tiny details need to be worked out.

[ Parent | on HN ]