Until 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
[deleted]
Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
21–30 of 78 posts
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#22Something 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 ther…
For now, we can define the current Univers as a set of universal constants that rule it.
Other constants would actually lead to a different universe.
Now, if we strech our imagination, let's have an "space" (meta universe ) where universes are just regions where this contants are active, and there is a slow transision from one "unverse" region to the other. Much like arctic reagion vs. tropical. However, this transision is unlike anything, could be a spacetime/quantum level/?? transition. At this moment, this transition is not measurable.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#23Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that if we can interact with (measure) a separate universe, then we should adjust our definition of "universe".
What if you can observe past interactions with it, but it is no longer possible to interact with it? Would you say it's still part of "our universe"?
I'm no physicist, but my impression is that the observable universe is already smaller than the universe.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#24Earlier quoted context omitted.
I guess that if we can interact with (measure) a separate universe, then we should adjust our definition of "universe".
What if you can observe past interactions with it, but it is no longer possible to interact with it? Would you say it's still part of "our universe"?
Well, due to the universe being ~13 billion years old, there is no way to observe(/interact with) entities that are more that 13 billion light years away at present.
That does not put these things in a different universe.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#25Something 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")?
Pretty much, it's more that I'm saying that would have been my understanding of the word "universe" until now, but that may be actually an incorrect understanding of the word as Hawking means it.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#26Imagine 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.
How is the Hawking ID generated? Which universe is used for synchronization? Do we need a new UUID level? Will the NISTs of all universes ever come to an agreement? So many questions...
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#27Imagine 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.
Well, to be fair… if he suffers from the same ailment, I quite easily can imagine his look, actually.
Some people's senses of humor...
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#28Truly amazing. Thank you Professor Hawking! RIP.
This statement is in the same domain as “thoughts and prayers”, which is the same as saying, ”I’m wishing at you really hard”. Rest implies an awaking or movement at some point in the future, but for Hawking, he didn’t believe in that. Maybe it’s just something to say, like acknowledging someone sneezing?
I always thought rest is a euphemism in this case.
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#29Something 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 ther…
>even though that is sub-atomic is a concept that does not make any sense.
Can you please explain this? How is sub-atomic nonsensical? It just means "constituent particles of an atom."
Re: Two weeks before death, Hawking submitted a paper on parallel universes
#30Earlier quoted context omitted.
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 ther…
>even though that is sub-atomic is a concept that does not make any sense. Can you please explain this? How is sub-atomic nonsensical? It just means "constituent particles of an atom."
“Atom: late 15th century: from Old French atome, via Latin from Greek atomos ‘indivisible’, based on a- ‘not’ + temnein ‘to cut’.”