Multiverse on BBC2 Horizon

[ollypenrice]

OK, I must try to see this programme.

There's a problem with the word 'infinite' in cosmology. The surface of a sphere is not infinite since you can have a larger sphere than the first one, but both are unbounded in the sense that they have no starting point or frontiers. 

Olly

Edit.

Just had a look at Quilted Universes on Space.com. I was surpised to read this;

Because the observable universe extends only as far as light has had a chance to get in the 13.7 billion years since the Big Bang (that would be 13.7 billion light-years), the space-time beyond that distance can be considered to be its own separate universe.

The part in brackets is surely misleading? A light travel time of 13.7 billion years only puts the source at a distance of 13.7 billion LY in a static universe, but ours seems to be expanding. OK light does only 'get' 13.7 billion LY in 13.7 billion years but the source is several times further away than that at the end of the light's flight.

[Tonynexevo925]

Watching it now... One thing for sure is that none of us will ever know the answers...

Interesting programme and definitely thought provoking.

[Tonynexevo925]

Just in the middle of reading the pratchett/ Baxter "Long Earth" series of books - links well to this programme.

[colon2010]

I stopped watching Horizon and many other BBC science documentaries many years ago because of the tone of the programme/ production style and worst of all the skin crawling voice overs of the past 5 years or so.

For me the programme has become soporific to say the least. The message is lost in the medium if you will, or precisely the constant, this is so exciting cut to scientist doing so silly playing with a toy / inference, this is a puzzle etc type of motif. This is overlain with the most soporific of voiceovers, which not only dominate the scientists' message with the voice / mindset of the BBC, but also sounds like the readings of a nursery rhyme or a childrens story being read.

I not only did not feel informed i felt patronised. The music is equally bad in this regard, it beguiles and lulls you off into a la la land of silky voices and lilting music more suited to an hypnotherapy tape, than a popular science programme introducing lay people to the professional world of the scientist.

Richard Feynmann never did this he smiled and filled your mind with the most amazing things and left one in no doubt that these were difficult concept and some could be approached with metaphor, but many could not. He treated one as an adult who was willing to listen and to learn.

I got approximately 10 minutes into the programme and couldnt stand her voice any more or the metaphor over message, i could not stand the way the scientist were treated as props for the programme never being allowed to fully express their ideas. This also happenes frequently on Stargazing Live were the guest scientist are cut off in the middle of what they are saying to cut to some inconsequencial switch to say K9 when Carolyn Porco was talking about NASA fuding i beleive and has happened too many times to remember all of them. Again BBC is more important than the message or the scientists.

If one looks up Multiverse theories on wikipedia for example their many many theories and they are all interesting and some of them may well exist. Many very intelligent people have made it their lives work studying these models. Yes Physics must have testable experiments to prove the theory and i dont know how many of these theories can be tested. But in creating these models the physists and mathmeticians develop new mathematical models and new techniques along the way, which are useful in themselves. There are an enormous amount of mathematics out there waiting for an application, who are we to redicule or deride those who have given so much?

[symesie04]

^{May I ask...}

^{What is the point of finding out?}

^{If there are MV's - what are we going to do with that knowledge.}

^{At least the surgeon who thought about organ replacement had a goal to achieve with it rather than just 'because were human and we are able to think blah blah blah'.}

Well as mentioned theres the pure fact of just knowing for starters. Humans epic desire for knowledge.

Then as also mentioned theres the potential physical gains from our quest to obtain the knowledge. All of todays technology comes from our desire to know more.

But then theres this, our whole ability to define our universe and our place in it ultimately helps us to define ourselves. Humans are still struggling to throw off the chains of ancient blinkered beliefs but even the small strides we have made have helped us redifine ourselves and our roles to both each other and the Universe and those we share it with. If humanity is to continue its march to freedom of mind and liberation in the form of a true understanding of purpose then it must continue striving to unlock the secrets that lurk beyond our current understanding. Why would you limit yourself to a few steps when a whole world of exploration awaits?

[tony210]

I felt it was not presented as a series of propositions- argument and debate are invaluable and a way to move forward - in this area more than others multiple interpretations are the starting point -anything else is a distraction - maybe I like the argument more than the result- Tony.

[Smithfire]

Will anyone who agrees by in large with the multiverse theory,please answer in laymans terms if possible, the question in my original post.

Clive