My Universe is Cooler than Your Universe

Brian Greene explains some complex physics in a fairly understandable way. His presentation is really entertaining. He’s a very charismatic talker and he uses some funky animations to illustrate the concepts he discusses.

Our universe is the only one in the multiverse that allows us to exist, which is explained through string theory and the concept of the multiverse itself? Seems quite…indistinct to me. Throughout my study of physics, I always found string theory to be interesting, but I feel like something’s just a little bit off about it.

What do you guys think? Is his explanation sound enough for you to accept the existence of the multiverse and the explanation of why our universe has allowed life to form?

[Via TED]


8 Responses to My Universe is Cooler than Your Universe

  1. Intriguing but sadly string theories are "not even wrong". They're mathematical constructs that may never be proven or disproven empirically.

  2. I guess it almost kinda sorta proves that Jet Li's "The One" is false. Though that does have a Multiverse :D Also, what about aliens? I wanna meet some quarians!

  3. I gave up on string theory years ago when I learned how little evidence they rely upon, not to mention it started because some guy found an equation in a book and figured, "hey, I could make this work"! That being said, there is apparently an experiment they have proposed for viewing the results of a graviton particle leaving our universe by observing its wake, but until I hear anything from that I am skeptical. Frankly, at this point it just sounds like Physicists who wasted the 90's away trying to justify their doctoral thesis. As a Physics Major myself, I can only hope to one day waste my life in such a way >.>

  4. Not a fan of this presentation. Lackluster string theory presentation. Lackluster multiverse presentation. Cheesy non-sequitor closing remarks covering for not really having a conclusion.

    Was the whole point of his presentation that we should NOT seek an explanation for the amount of dark matter in our Universe? That seems to be the opposite of scientific inquiry. Was it that ours is the only universe that can support life? His comparison to the habitable zone around our sun was a good analogy, but that habitable zone is really quite large. Even outside the habitable zone, you could find life on the moon of a particularly hot gas giant, or even on the edge of a tide-locked planet proximal to a sun. There are many ways and many place for life to exist.

    Far too much "I have an idea, so stop doing research" mentality for me. This isn't the Victorian Era, we keep doing research until we achieve results or until someone else's results render our research irrelevant.

    Or until the grant money runs out.

  5. I cannot see it that way, I would rather think that all possible options to happen are already there, but that the choice is made by the path that is taken. I think time is more something that is showing to us as particular moments following on to eachother on a certain kind of time line. If we would live in a hologram and our experience of time would only be formed by all these actions that actually take place at the same moment but then only labeled with a key that tells us where they should be put on the time line, you can get all kind of possibilities, which also means that everything that is surrounding us, or what we think that is surrounding us, always can change as it has more of a projection. I would make a difference between lifeforms and life though, because all life forms together are "life". There is only "one life" with endless possibilities. We're just not able to understand what 'endless' means because we are living in a limited body. The physics we're handling are also only working in the world we're projected in, out of that box, things may work completely different. And I think that we only would go discover more of the universe if we are able to expand our box we're living in and the 'being able to think out of that box'… so what I would guess is that our universe would change as soon as we would expand our discoveries, so I would, simply said, think of universe more as an idea of projection of some kind of intelligence and I would never think in terms of multiverse because that would imply that they are not connected, but I think everything is connected somehow.

  6. A good presentation that falls flat at the end. The whole thing begs the question can we change the frequency of the strings in our universe?

  7. John Wheeler was closer to the mark I think. Reality is the appearance of things. Whether those things appear to the eyes, the ears, our senses of proprioception, magnetoreception or our faculty of deductive reason. Whatever we sense by these things exists and there is nothing outside of those senses which fits into the criteria of what we call "existence". In other words; one cannot say that some thing exists which one has never seen, heard, deduced or imagined in their own head. Although it doesn't act as a proof it is interesting to note that the word "Existence" etymologically means "to appear". This doesn't mean that the conscious mind has the "free-will" to create the universe spontaneously. What it means is that the bare definition of existence is the appearance of things to a conscious mind. These other universes may exist as a deductive projection out of the mind of someone in this universe, but in-and-of themselves they do not have the quality of existence.

    Think about the relativity of time and space. They are relative to our position as observers. We experience time at a certain rate which differs according to our experiences. A person driving a strange route to a new job generally finds the experience seems to drag on compared to when they've been driving the same route for ten years. The experience of time itself changes according to the organization of our brains. If there were no brains there would be no experience of time either and it's relativity. What would a brain-less universe be like in terms of the procession of time? It would be meaningless. We only talk about "the past" and "the future" relative to our own experience, in the absence of that experience there is no past or future. Wheeler said that consciousness brought existence into being, that nebulae didn't exist until we began experiencing them. But what I want to say is that the experience itself was also an inevitable consequence of the conscious mind and that the conscious mind is every bit a part of the entire universe and merely performs a function no more or less necessary than the existence of nebulae. This seems to put human consciousness at the center of creation, but it does not because it is merely a constraint to have consciousness whether it is manifest in humans or some other species. Besides the problem with anthropomorphism is not that it isn't true, the problem is that it is nice to believe and we should never believe something simply because it is comforting. But we shouldn't throw ideas away because some people find them comforting either.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.