Is the Universe Losing Energy and Heading Towards an Unfortunate End?

[Drakkith]

So, are there any scientific proofs backing the existence of multiverses? i.e. many universes?

And, can they possibly be in multiple dimensions other than the ones we are currently present? Perhaps, the molecules might even be in a strange octahedrilon* shape.

*Some random 64 (8^2) dimensioned shape i made up.

There are several theories that support a multiverse, but none of them have any evidence yet. String theory predicts 11 dimensions I believe, but they don't quite work the way you are imagining it.

 

[cephron]

Neither religion nor philosophy actually observes nature and tries to understand it.

A small nitpick here. I think loads of philosophies and religions observe and try to understand nature--it's just that their goals, methodologies and assumptions are worlds different from those of science.On topic: I'm curious about what Rob D meant when he said:

Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere.

I don't know what this is referring to. If it's black holes, I thought Hawking had just recently established that neither infalling energy nor information is lost...?

 

[Chronos]

I think if we stick to observables, it makes more sense than 'wow' models.

 

[bapowell]

A small nitpick here. I think loads of philosophies and religions observe and try to understand nature--it's just that their goals, methodologies and assumptions are worlds different from those of science.

They observe nature in a radically different way. Science teaches us to shape our views in accordance with evidence. Religion is the denial of evidence for the sake of preserving a preconceived picture of reality. That's the important difference.

 

[cephron]

They observe nature in a radically different way. Science teaches us to shape our views in accordance with evidence.

Yes, agreed.

Religion is the denial of evidence for the sake of preserving a preconceived picture of reality. That's the important difference.

Not necessarily. Creationism doesn't speak for all of religion. I don't think the statement above is either a definition of religion, a necessary implication, or a common denominator across religions...

But again...on topic: found the article where Hawking shows that information is not lost in black holes. My mistake; I thought it was recent, but it's actually really old. Article is here: http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/week207.html
Doesn't this show that there are no "bits of our universe being cast off somewhere"? We get all the energy and information back.
Or when Rob D said

Besides, if Hawking is right, bits of our universe are being cast off to somewhere.

Was he referring not to black holes but something else entirely?

 

[Rob D]

Was he referring not to black holes but something else entirely?

No ceph it was black holes precisely. It amounts to a paradox, something in which I feel Hawking revels, and is centered around the problem that all the conservation laws are broken whenever a BH "eats" matter and it aparently either reorders it in such a manner that we cannot detect it, something that doesn't meet the math or it puts it somewhere else. The question: Where do that matter go? Same for the energy and information swallowed. If it is all imperishable and cannot leave existence, where is it?

I Dinna Kin,
RD

 

[cephron]

Well, I'm certainly no expert, but my understanding is that all of this matter, energy and information is radiated back out in the form of Hawking radiation as the black hole evaporates.

 

[phinds]

Well, I'm certainly no expert, but my understanding is that all of this matter, energy and information is radiated back out in the form of Hawking radiation as the black hole evaporates.

I think the problem is that Hawking radiation takes care of the matter/energy but does NOT take care of the information.

 

[cephron]

Well, the article to which I posted a link (4 posts up from this one) seems to say that Hawking thinks the information is preserved. So, if we're working under the premise that "if Hawking is right", then that would suggest that absolutely nothing from our univere is lost in black holes. Of course, that article is almost a decade old now, I don't know about any more recent developments than that...

 

[TheTechNoir]

So youre going to judge me by my age ?

You judged yourself by your age... Repeatedly & redundantly. We get it, you're under the impression that you don't know anything. So therefore it is a waste of our time for you to tell us things. Stick to asking questions if you're going to be insistent on your ignorance.

 

[TheTechNoir]

Also you guys are referring to the information paradox, no? I thought Hawking conceded defeat to Susskind eventually.

 

[jetwaterluffy]

Didn't they show this idea was mathematically inconsistent recently?

 

[Rob D]

I'll have to do some research on the more populist aspects of the debate. I think we're all aware of the friendly intellectual battle that raged between Drs. Hawking and Susskind although I didn't know that it included the quantum constituents of "Hawking Radiation".

Since Feynman is not available settle the matter, and the question is highly hypothetical, I am somewhat loath to ameliorate my previous position absent some good math or hard data.RD