In a multiverse, is there a universe that started first?

How does science work? And what's all this about quantum mechanics?

Moderators: AMod, iMod

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: In a multiverse, is there a universe that started first?

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:26 am

Greta wrote:
Obvious Leo wrote:So we can at least agree that Larry Krauss is a fuckwit, although he's never left much room for doubt.
Leo, which physicists do you like?
Nearly all of them but undoubtedly I have a few favourites. Paul Davies, Lee Smolin, Brian Greene, Lisa Randall, Frank Wilczek, Sean Carroll and Carlo Rovelli stand out from the crowd. Max Tegmark is always a thought-provoking renegade and although the best work of Penrose lies in his past it's still well worth reading. Generally I'm willing to respect any theorist willing to admit that physics has got it all wrong and in all fairness I can say that this number is steadily growing.

User avatar
Greta
Posts: 4389
Joined: Sat Aug 08, 2015 8:10 am

Re: In a multiverse, is there a universe that started first?

Post by Greta » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:28 am

Thanks Leo. Apart from LK, which ones don't you like?

Trying to get a lie of the land. Brian Greene is a surprise inclusion, being a string theory researcher.

Obvious Leo
Posts: 4007
Joined: Wed May 13, 2015 1:05 am
Location: Australia

Re: In a multiverse, is there a universe that started first?

Post by Obvious Leo » Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:54 am

Greta wrote:Thanks Leo. Apart from LK, which ones don't you like?

Trying to get a lie of the land. Brian Greene is a surprise inclusion, being a string theory researcher.
I wouldn't say there's any I don't like, including Krauss who I have actually met and found very charming. Brian Greene is gradually moving away from string theory, as are nearly all of them except for a few diehards, but what Greene never tried to claim was that string theory could possibly be a physical model, a stance for which I regard him highly. He had simply drawn the perfectly logical conclusion from the Standard Model that subatomic particles could not possibly be fundamental entities and was trying to fit this conclusion within the parameters of the spacetime paradigm. Like most he now seems to have realised that this can't be done because the paradigm itself is flawed but this doesn't mean that string theory has been a waste of time. I wouldn't be at all surprised to see a modified revival of it in a process model of reality because the strings aren't too much different in concept from Conway's gliders. Unfortunately the stringies headed off in the wrong direction from the outset because physics already had too many dimensions superfluous to requirements, but the mathematics of the model are really quite beautiful. (If you like that sort of thing).

I don't like physicists who make the universe out to be some sort of spectacularly complex thing which only a few mathematical supergeeks could possibly be smart enough to understand. That has simply got to be bullshit and I hold this view with the support of possibly the two greatest geniuses of all in 20th century physics.

"It should be possible to explain the universe to a barmaid".....Albert Einstein

"The universe will ultimately reveal itself to be an entity of the most sublime austerity"...John Archibald Wheeler.

And a more prosaic observation from a simple country lad.

"If it sounds like bullshit it probably is".... Leo

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests