this post was submitted on 26 Jan 2025
1051 points (96.2% liked)

Science Memes

11829 readers
441 users here now

Welcome to c/science_memes @ Mander.xyz!

A place for majestic STEMLORD peacocking, as well as memes about the realities of working in a lab.



Rules

  1. Don't throw mud. Behave like an intellectual and remember the human.
  2. Keep it rooted (on topic).
  3. No spam.
  4. Infographics welcome, get schooled.

This is a science community. We use the Dawkins definition of meme.



Research Committee

Other Mander Communities

Science and Research

Biology and Life Sciences

Physical Sciences

Humanities and Social Sciences

Practical and Applied Sciences

Memes

Miscellaneous

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
 
(page 2) 50 comments
sorted by: hot top controversial new old
[–] silverchase@sh.itjust.works 9 points 6 days ago (1 children)

So can there be multiverses that contain every other multiverse other than itself?

[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 3 points 6 days ago

I think you mean, multiverses that every multiverse that doesn't contain itself. In which case, obviously yes. And it's made up entirely of barbers.

[–] HawlSera@lemm.ee 6 points 6 days ago (13 children)

It's funny, outside of Hollywood, Comic Books, and Bertrand Russel trying to disprove religion by taking Hawking out of context, is there any real evidence for a multiverse?

I mean I believe that reality is truly infinite and the only reason we have limitations is because we haven't found a way around them yet (Science distinguishable from magic is not sufficiently advanced in my book), so I'm not calling bullshit, but I'm also asking for evidence beyond going "Hey, wouldn't it be cool if?"

[–] fsxylo@sh.itjust.works 7 points 6 days ago (4 children)

It was always a hypothesis that filled in a math equation but has no proof.

load more comments (4 replies)
[–] milicent_bystandr@lemm.ee 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

Quantum results are hard to explain, but proven (by experiment) to be real. There's a particular mathematical/logical definition of something being 'real' and 'local', that I've still only half got my head around, and it should be true but isn't.

The main experiment is two particles that, if you check one, it affects what you'll see in the other in a particular, but subtle , way. And it's proven mathematically impossible to find an explanation where they don't either communicate faster than the speed of light (so, not 'local') but the effect actually happens ('real').

The trick is in the statistics - the pattern of results - that match up between the two particles in this very particular way. And one way to explain it is that different options are also happening, but in a different universe - i.e. every time two different things could happen, reality splits into two realities, one where this happens and one where that happens.

That's for specific quantum events, but some think those such quantum events underlie all choices and possibilities in reality. So, scale up that idea and you get 'infinite' (actually just very very many) parallel universes, one for every possibility that could ever have happened, branching off into more each time a (quantum) choice happens.

[–] apolo399@lemmy.world 3 points 6 days ago

They don't "communicate" faster than light, the wave function itself is non-local and collapses non-locally.

load more comments (11 replies)
[–] gandalf_der_12te@discuss.tchncs.de 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

There's a parallel universe in which the fundamental laws of physics are different: the weight of an electron, the gravitational constant, how many fundamental particles there are, the cosmological constant, ...

[–] normalexit@lemmy.world 4 points 5 days ago (1 children)

And one where I have a goatee and I'm the evil version of myself, right??

load more comments (1 replies)
[–] Cruxifux@feddit.nl 6 points 6 days ago (7 children)

If multiverse theory was true and infinite, there would be a universe where someone figured out how to destroy every universe.

load more comments (7 replies)
[–] echolalia@lemmy.ml 4 points 6 days ago (1 children)

huh

isn't this just Russell's paradox

wikipedia

if I recall correctly Russell's Paradox was how ZFC set theory became the standard set theory

ZF handles it. The C adds the axiom of choice. But ZF is enough for dealing with the Russel paradox. Oddly enough, Zermelo, the Z in ZF, published the Russel paradox a year before Russel.

[–] MossyFeathers@pawb.social 4 points 6 days ago (2 children)

I love multiverse theory! I also love how a lot of people don't really understand how finite infinites work in the context of multiverse theory!

There might be a universe in which magic exists. However, there is no universe in which I exist and magic exists. That's because I was born into a mundane version of the universe, so there are infinite possibilities, but because my existence in a magical universe is 0, being accepted into a witching school is something that'll never happen for me.

So no, within the context of multiverse theory there is no universe in which multiverse theory doesn't exist, because that is a paradox and as such, has 0 chance of existing. However, it totally possible that a magical universe does exist (I would say we don't know enough about the formation of the universe to accurately judge whether or not such a universe could be possible under the right formative circumstances); it's just that the chances of any of us existing in that universe is 0.

load more comments (2 replies)
load more comments
view more: ‹ prev next ›