The point the author of this article makes is valid. Its so ironic that cosmologists who so very often complain about speculative metaphysics not based on empirical data have gone so wacky lately and create unproveable hypotheses based on philosophical speculations (e.g., Stephen Hawkings forever unproveable imaginary time and speculative baby universes which rely on it. Theyre so desperate to deny the obvious (which they greet with horror) that they hypocritically become unscientific to do it.................. But, if the multiverse hypothesis has any shred of reality behind it, how can scientists prove (or at least gather some observational evidence) that we exist inside one of an infinite ocean of universes? This question is a tough one for scientists as many critics will argue that the multiverse hypothesis is nothing more than metaphysics, or a philosophical discussion. We are forever cocooned inside our universal ‘bubble and can therefore never experience what is going on ‘outside — if, indeed, there is an outside — so whats the point in thinking about it? Through a brief analysis of CMB maps of the entire sky, it appears that these circular rings are not present, potentially disproving a multiverse filled with colliding universes. Or it at least suggests the collisions arent happening now — perhaps the multiverse is in some quiescent state?
Posted on: Wed, 23 Jul 2014 13:54:56 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015