Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
1–10 of 78 posts
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#2Imagine the look on Stephen Hawking 1011156B's face when he finds out Stephen Hawking 7086C published the exact same paper that he did, died two weeks later, and the combination of those events compelled scientists in that Universe to eventually master interdimensional travel, when 1011156B only got laughed at.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#3Truly amazing. Thank you Professor Hawking! RIP.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#4Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question?
If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the realm of philosophy and metaphysics rather than the sciences? What am I missing (I assume it has to do with my understanding of the word "universe")?
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#5Until it's published and reviews there isn't much to say. But it's exciting to me, hope I can read it soon.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#6Until it's published and reviews there isn't much to say. But it's exciting to me, hope I can read it soon.
As the article mentions, you can read it already: https://arxiv.org/abs/1707.07702v2
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#7Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the r…
I guess that if we can interact with (measure) a separate universe, then we should adjust our definition of "universe".
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#8Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the r…
>If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not
This literally contradicts what the first paragraph of the article. It says that this paper "lays the theoretical groundwork for discovering a parallel universe". If you've discovered it, you've tested and proved that it exists.
Furthermore, the article states that it's a "mathematical paper which seeks proof of the 'multiverse' theory". Assume for a second that there is mathematical proof of the multiverse theory. In order to disprove this, you now need to disprove the math.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#9Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the r…
At this point, if we discovered something resembling the current conceptions of parallel universe, we would probably just re-define "universe" to refer to what we traditionally think of as a universe. In much the same way that we do not have any problem with talking about sub-atomic particles; even though that is sub-atomic is a concept that does not make any sense.
In this case, from the article, it sounds like there is only a very weak interaction. In fact, since it is only "evidence" left behind in background radiation, it is possible that there is no ongoing interaction, but rather some remaining artifact from when the universes did interact.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#10Something I've never understood and would greatly appreciate understanding: could someone ELI"5" how the concept of "parallel universes" will not always be a metaphysical instead of a scientific question? If there are truly separate "universes", then by definition wouldn't it be the case that there would be no way to test (or falsify) whether they exist or not, so would the question of their existence not be in the r…
To attempt to clarify the question:
Are you saying "separate universes" would be part of the same "universe" if they could be interacted with (so interaction forms the "universe boundary")?