digg

Join DiggAbout

Discover and share the best of the web!
Learn more about Digg by taking the tour.

See the original image at latimes.com

Mysteries of time, and the multiverse

latimes.com — In his studies of entropy and the irreversibility of time, Caltech physicist Sean Carroll is exploring the idea that our universe is part of a larger structure.

Bury
show profanity settings
expand all
  • linga99, on 07/04/2008, -13/+47Deep...
    • plnegative1, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2I disagree.
      • macwac, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3i have to agree with plnegative1 - what he states in the article doesn't need any deep thinking at all, just basic physics (understanding of entropy) and an imagination. Its like the ending of MIB 2 - btw, crap movie. Anyone who has done physical science knows that the start of the universe (creation) was not the big bang, we know what it was like at 10 ^-43 second, the muted explosion at 10^-35 second, but have no clue as to what happened before that. Assuming that 10^-43 second = start of time (creation), would be ignorant - as he stated in the ending paragraph. He is no more right in his theory of a multi universe than a person believing that God created us at that time.. 10^-44 second - until empirical evidence proves either right or wrong; then the question is what happened before that?
      • Mushroomhero, on 07/06/2008, -1/+0the big crunch.
      • cutright, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0That's not the leading theory any more and doesn't agree with the theory of inflation. There was nothing in the "beginning". Carroll is on the right track, but I like Alex Vilenkin's explanation much better in his book Many Worlds in One.
    • FirEnRain432, on 07/06/2008, -1/+7I totally agree. time has always baffled me, especially the one time in 1998 when i was on my way to the cinema to see rain man and i got caught in some traffic and a bunch of time went by causing me to miss part of the movie. i was angered so i telephoned my neighbor and told him he oughta learn some respect or the people in michigan might just have some words to say to him. he was obviously confused so i tried to clear it up for him by recommending that he reads saturdays newspaper (the article about the tree people)
    • CiXeL, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1im oshun and im deep
  • Inohavehalos, on 07/06/2008, -33/+5842.
  • xwfilm, on 07/06/2008, -20/+4This isn't merely revolting, it's impossible to boot!
    • DukeMojo, on 07/06/2008, -1/+12Revolting? Impossible? What? How?
    • xwfilm, on 07/06/2008, -2/+3Apparently NO ONE here has watched the new Futurama movies...
    • GassyTurd, on 07/06/2008, -2/+0Sounds like my old PC. Goodbye Micro$hit.
    • Senious, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Religious fool that is convinced that anything contradicting their preacher is SATAN!!!!
      • Scranklin, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1he was quoting futurama, he's not a religious nutbag.
  • mrmorris, on 07/06/2008, -29/+2How did this make frontpage with so few digs and only 3 commends? Oh well.
    • KaiUno, on 07/06/2008, -1/+7If you're going "oh well" anyway, would it be so hard to just not type it up at all?
    • specialK16, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1It's been happening a lot lately. Probably a side effect of the new recommendations engine.
  • Gimjee, on 07/06/2008, -12/+7Pretty cool.
  • aphexcoil, on 07/06/2008, -4/+16You guys may want to read up not only on multiverses, but multiple worlds theory, too:

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpret ...

    (Previous courses in quantum mechanics will be helpful, but not required)
    • dullnation, on 07/06/2008, -1/+13I always wondered about that concept. Does that mean that every peice of fiction ever written could have actually taken place in another universe?
      • Kristijan12, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7That is a cool thought.

        Have you also considered that in some other universe you have probably dated "that" girl you just don`t have luck to date here?
      • wolferz, on 07/06/2008, -0/+13Given an infinite universe there are infinite possibilities. Given infinite possibilities in an infinite universe with infinite time, all possibilities will come to pass.
      • pbone, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5my mind = blown
      • wakananda, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Welcome to the Garden of Forked Paths. Travel between worlds is possible, and a vast conspiracy conceals the truth from you. Escape from Earth Prime!
      • dullnation, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I think I had the misfortune of dating "that" girl in this universe.
      • cutright, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0First of all, inflation does not predict an infinite universe... just an infinite observable universe, i.e. the universe is just expanding faster than we can observe.

        "Given infinite possibilities in an infinite universe with infinite time, all possibilities will come to pass."

        I disagree ... that could be "probable" but certainly not definite. For example, it's possible for an infinite set to have any number of unique objects that are found in the set only once. To believe the universe has every possibility that could possibly occur... occur, is simply that... a belief.

        My point is that it is certainly imaginable, feasible, and (given our incomplete knowledge of physics and cosmology) for all we know even probable that every piece of fiction only occurred in our imaginations. However, I certainly won't argue that it's not possible and I actually hope that it is the case. It's just flawed logic to conclude with certainty that it is the case.
    • DaviDTC, on 07/06/2008, -6/+1Kristijan12: and ***** your mom and dad and both at the same time. Is that a cool thought?
  • Kyrgizion, on 07/06/2008, -9/+24Our universe is observably 3-dimensional, 4-dimensional if you count time.
    Mathematically it is possible to prove the existence of higher dimensions. So it seems logical that our "all" is, in fact, merely a part of a bigger whole indeed...
    • ColinCampbell, on 07/06/2008, -1/+29But the fact that these constructs exist mathematically do not make them real in a physical sense, just possible.
    • DukeMojo, on 07/06/2008, -6/+10That has nothing to do with the article.
    • drkroman9, on 07/06/2008, -8/+6is time truly an empirical 4th dimension? seems to me that the concepts of time are manmade
      • oilcan, on 07/06/2008, -0/+16mathematically speaking, it is definitely a 4th dimension. A cross section of a single dimension is a zero dimension singularity, or a point. A cross section of a 2-dimensional plane is a line or a single dimension. A cross section of a 3 dimensional space is a plane or a 2 dimensional plane. A cross section of a 4 dimensional space is a 3 dimensional space. And note that nothing ever changes in these examples. I'm not saying, hey, look, the dot on the line is travelling from here to there. because this indicates change or progression of events within a system. now, if you take any single particular moment in our 'time' you could describe it as a 3 dimensional space. but being a cross section of a progression of events, it is as it is, nothing in it changes. An effective cross-section of 4 dimensional space is nothing but, well, space. so, given that time is thought of in this way, it makes absolute sense to consider it a fourth dimension. length, length and width, length and width and depth, then length width depth and duration. hope this makes sense.
      • humanerror, on 07/06/2008, -0/+16Light leaves the sun and 8 minutes later it arrives at the Earth. The name 'minutes' and the number 8 are arbitrary, man-made conventions, but the actual interval between light leaving and light arriving is not. The interval is an aspect of spacetime that we 3-dimensional creatures call 'time' for convenience.
      • jebudas, on 07/06/2008, -1/+7The way I always think of it is that you can plot a point on an XYZ axis and that's 3D. Now start plotting points and also moving the axis, that's 4D.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4You guys are bright. I love this stuff.
    • fas2, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5Mathematically it is not possible to prove the existence of anything.
      • Daz3, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1You can mathematically prove the existence of contradictions.
      • fas2, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1No you can't. Show me one.
      • Daz3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"Suppose that sqrt{2} is rational, so sqrt{2} = {aover b} where a and b are non-zero integers with no common factor (definition of rational number). Thus, bsqrt{2} = a. Squaring both sides yields 2b2 = a2. Since 2 divides the left hand side, 2 must also divide the right hand side (as they are equal and both integers). So a2 is even, which implies that a must also be even. So we can write a = 2c, where c is also an integer. Substitution into the original equation yields 2b2 = (2c)2 = 4c2. Dividing both sides by 2 yields b2 = 2c2. But then, by the same argument as before, 2 divides b2, so b must be even. However, if a and b are both even, they share a factor, namely 2. This contradicts our assumption, so we are forced to conclude that sqrt{2} is irrational."

        There is a proof that contradictions exist.
      • fas2, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Good try, but that is a proof by contradiction. Mathematics is found on set theory and logics. Contradiction is a semantic definition in logics. Proving the existence of something defined makes no sense.
      • Daz3, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1"Proving the existence of something defined makes no sense."

        So if something is defined, such as a unicorn, proving its existence makes no sense? I think you are getting a little bit lost.
    • karmabandit, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Someone has been misreading too many pop-sci articles. Sure there are dozens, hundreds, probably millions of different mathematical models that can explain our universe as part of a higher dimensional multiverse, but just because those models exist doesn't make them true. There have been plenty of elegant, simple mathematical models presented in the past that explain all of our world, but make additional wrong predictions. There is no "proving" when it comes to mathematical models-- just making predictions and testing them in the real world.
      • Mushroomhero, on 07/06/2008, -0/+0It's necessary to come up with as many mathematical models as possible as that increases our chances of coming to the "right" conclusions about our universe.
  • SilverStandard, on 07/06/2008, -10/+8I look to the possum people for my answers, not silly physicists.
    • LSDRunner, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3You must live in Yelm, WA with all the lizard folk.
  • Perk, on 07/06/2008, -13/+3Pantheistic Solipsism anyone?

    Rah Rah R.A.H....

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pantheistic_solipsism
  • tcasey, on 07/06/2008, -7/+5Sean Carroll's genius is glowing.
    • Amadeus2490, on 07/06/2008, -6/+16Sean Carrolls' penis is showing.
    • ComplexBlue, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2Sean Carroll's freeness is growing.
  • xander, on 07/06/2008, -20/+9Stupid article and a stupid theory - it the same old "it's turtles all the way down" - our universe is just part of the bigger one, and that one is part of yet bigger one and so on and so one.. But it simply has to stop somewhere.
    • DukeMojo, on 07/06/2008, -4/+12Not theoretically...

      Food for thought: If there's something, then there was probably always something; because something cannot come from nothing.

      0=/=1
      • Kristijan12, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2You believe that there was always something in the past to the infinity. And that doesn't seem illogical to you, but something came from nothing does? My point is none of them seem logical.
        But one of them must be truth right?
      • DukeMojo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3@Krist:

        Not necessarily. For all we know there is no such thing as time, or at least in the way we look at it. What if there was no such thing as yesterday or tomorrow, but that we are in a constant state of "now" that continually builds itself up and breaks down?
      • Kristijan12, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3To Duke:

        If you are right and there is no time but just continual build up of "now".
        How do you call past now that we have experienced?
        You want to sugest maybe that all of the history, and future is happening at this "now" as well?
        Elaborate a bit!
      • DukeMojo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3"If you are right and there is no time but just continual build up of 'now'."

        Build up AND Break down

        "How do you call past now that we have experienced? You want to sugest maybe that all of the history, and future is happening at this "now" as well?"

        No, that the idea of "history" and "future" are just words humans use to understand and define the way we perceive the world to work. My opinion is this:

        That most everything that "happens" is based on mathematical probability. The chances of an egg turning into an omelet are astoundingly higher than the chances of an omelet turning into an egg. In theory there is still a very small chance that it could happen, but probably (key word) would not happen within the life time of our universe. History and Future are tools of the human mind. We use this inherited ability of probability that what we learned to have happened (history) will happen again if it occurs often (future). We can make guesses using probability of what has happened in the "past" to what may happen in the "future".

        My point is that the idea of anything other than "now" may be an abstract one.

        Though this is all opinion, I have no earthly clue if I'm right or even close.
      • GassyTurd, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2The thing about infinity that blows my taint hair back is that if you divide infinity in half, each half is still infinite.
      • vandaste, on 07/06/2008, -1/+0also food for tought: something can come from nothing.

        0= -1+1
      • Kristijan12, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2To Duke:
        "Though this is all opinion, I have no earthly clue if I'm right or even close."
        I am glad that you have stated that. Many times i have argued with people who are absolutely convinced there is no time, although they don't have a clue what they're saying.
        Your theory is interesting, well who knows it just might be the truth.
        Guess will never know.
    • hugoguzman, on 07/06/2008, -3/+24"But it simply has to stop somewhere"...says who?
    • AreTooDeTo, on 07/06/2008, -3/+10you're saying "it simply has to stop somewhere" believing 100% that what we know about physics is completely correct. the fact of the matter is that we know so little with physics and the universe. or we know everything. what i'm saying is that we do not know how much or how little we know, so it's naive to say that things need a beginning and an end, because that just might not be the case.

      just a question to think about, if things need a beginning and an end, where does the universe end, or where is the ending point of everthing? how did time start? will time ever end? they're meant to be a rhetorical questions but you can respond if you have an answer if you want.

      and i'm sorry if i came off as hostile, it's just the way i type. i'm just trying to share my point of view on the topic.
    • greenm1981, on 07/06/2008, -2/+6Who says it has to stop somewhere?
    • jbetancourt, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Look up Zeno's paradox: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zeno%27s_paradox
    • bratterscain, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Ok, so let's say the universe stops at a certain point? What's outside the universe to posit that the universe is? 0 exists to posit the existence of positive and negative numbers. Do we say it's nothing?
    • plnegative1, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Fractals don't stop.
    • Senious, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1It's hilarious when you meet people with such little vision. if not infuriating : /
  • TaintBrush, on 07/06/2008, -7/+49"I don't want to give advice to people about their religious beliefs, but I do think that it's not smart to bet against the power of science to figure out the natural world. It used to be, a thousand years ago, that if you wanted to explain why the moon moved through the sky, you needed to invoke God."
    • JoeCool1986, on 07/06/2008, -14/+3Yes, but at the same time he openly admits that's it's rare to find systems in a state of low entropy in nature (which the universe was in at the time of the big bang). He says that this could be explained by our universe being a little part of a big picture, where entropy is high. Why also could this not be explained that the system of low entropy was created by an intelligent being? Just like the ordered pack of playing cards is made that way by the manufacturer?

      I think the science in this article supports the idea of an intelligent creator far more than opposes it.


      P.S. when I say intelligent creator, I'm not talking about anti-evolutionism at all, I'm talking about an intelligent being starting it all way back when at the big bang and then you can believe whatever you want after that.
      • bratterscain, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5The word "rare" in a universe/multiverse of perhaps infinite possibilities really doesn't mean much.
      • JoeCool1986, on 07/06/2008, -4/+3"doesn't mean much"
        That's not what the physicist from Cal Tech says in the article. He directly states that the fact that the universe started in a state of low entry should not be taken from granted. In fact the whole article is trying to explain this phenomenon.

        So who are you to say "hogwash, we don't need to worry about that. We can just say that there were infinite universes and we're just in the one that got it right"? Are you a physicist too?
      • nova77, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4"Why also could this not be explained that the system of low entropy was created by an intelligent being?"

        Simply because such intelligent being would have an even higher entropy, hence you're making your problem worse.
    • com2, on 07/06/2008, -8/+4And a few hundred years ago Science said that the sun revolved around the earth & the earth was flat. The more we know the more we realize we don't know.
      • DarkReign16, on 07/06/2008, -2/+13Actually, science didn't say that, religion did. And it was more than just a "few hundred years ago". Science ended up proving those ideas wrong, and it's why the earth is no longer thought to be flat, nor the sun thought to orbit earth.
      • 4DFX, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Why do christians (assuming that's what com2 is) lie and thus violate their own commandment rather than accept that they're wrong?
      • com2, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2@4dfx - wth how do you get I'm a Christian out of that? & what magic are you using to assume I'm lying and not just merely wrong.
      • com2, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1The quote I was making was originally "The More You Learn, the More You Realize What You Don't Know" which is an established fact. I apologize to all the religion haters out there, you know who you are.
    • tufftugg, on 07/06/2008, -7/+1 In the beginning God created...
  • denizen42, on 07/06/2008, -5/+4His teaching company course is brilliant.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Thanks, I'll check it out. Teaching Co kicks ass. I've listened to roughly an extra bachelor's degree worth of their courses over the past few years. Mostly courtesy of the public library.
  • M0stBlunt3d, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2Good read
  • BaoUnit, on 07/06/2008, -10/+4Reminds me of the movie, "The One" featuring Jet Li. It had similar philosophy about multiverse but we, as in a further technologically advanced society, found a way to travel between them, although traveling between these universes was illegal.
  • DukeMojo, on 07/06/2008, -2/+8That....actually makes a lot of sense. I never thought of entropy and time in such a way. Way to think outside the box!
    • desertDenizen, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2"Low-entropy configurations are rare."

      Awesome.

      That made it click for me. Wow. The pre-conditions of the big bang were probably rare, extremely unlikely. Therefore possibly a local phenomenon in something larger.

      /click -- light bulb going on
  • Pylons, on 07/06/2008, -3/+19"Time is an illusion, lunchtime doubly so." Douglass Adams ftw
  • DirtPile, on 07/06/2008, -2/+31So does this mean it actually *is* possible to make the Kessel run in less than twelve parsecs?
    • nigma, on 07/06/2008, -3/+4A parsec is a measure of space, not time.
    • DirtPile, on 07/06/2008, -5/+1Star Wars reference, idiot.
      • AreTooDeTo, on 07/06/2008, -1/+4i think nigma was referencing blue harvest, the family guy take on a new hope
    • harlowsmonkeys, on 07/06/2008, -2/+6@nigma: A parsec can also be used as a measure of time. This is basic relativity.

      (That said, they still botched it in Star Wars. 12 parsecs would be about 40 years, which is not impressively quick for the Kessel run).
      • trogdoor, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1How can you use a unit based on parallax as a unit of time? Unless you mean light parsecs.
      • harlowsmonkeys, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2In relatively, you don't have space (3 dimensions) and time (1 dimension). You have spacetime (4 dimensions). The separation between two points in spacetime can appear to be spatial, or temporal, or both, depending on the frame of reference of the observer. Time can be measured in units of distance if you wish, or distance can be measured in units of time. The conversion factor between a given time unit and a given distance unit is the speed of light expressed in terms of the latter per the former.
    • JKAL, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1you need to realise this was in a galaxy far far away, so their races could be structured completely different than ours,
      Having said that Lucas always said "Star Wars is a Science Fantasy to Science Fiction." so arguing the laws of physics in Star Wars is pointless.
      • i38warhawk, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1Maybe the galaxy is so far away that it is in another Universe, and in that universe parsecs are a measure of time.
    • bobbothegod, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0 I read somewhere that to get through the "Kessel Run" you would have to travel through "The Maw" which is a cluster of black holes. One would need to travel around the area at great distance in order to avoid being sucked into one of the event horizons unless in a very fast ship.

      The Falcon was "The fastest ship in the galaxy" so Han made the trip in less than 12 parsecs, rather than 18 or 24.
  • uptwolait, on 07/06/2008, -1/+18Yeah, but what's the turtle standing on then?
    • humanerror, on 07/06/2008, -0/+15another turtle
      • MarrowMan, on 07/06/2008, -12/+1You idiot, It's a native legend of The Creator, and his creations.
      • humanerror, on 07/06/2008, -0/+12no I'm pretty sure it's another turtle
  • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/06/2008, -7/+12Our universe is a cancer growing on a larger universe.
    • FreeTalkLIve, on 07/06/2008, -3/+5Watch the cancers digg me down.
    • bratterscain, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1May be. It may have to have a host to be in it's present form, who knows, but calling it cancer it trying to over-simplify.
  • WarpDigger1492, on 07/06/2008, -2/+9Ironically, I just finished the Golden Compass trilogy.

    Very deep stuff.
    • Vessol, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Good series. It deals with the string theory, the basics of it at least and adds fantasy elements.
    • CptBuck, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6Thats not ironic at all.
  • NiteCoder, on 07/06/2008, -9/+4all theoretical... The problem you have to recognize with any argument for multiverses, is that the discussion begins because someone doesn't like the concept of an ordered, designed universe, and so makes guesses about what else could possibly be.

    There isn't any physics, astrophysics, or any other data they are trying to explain, just a distaste for what the existing data currently point to.

    As such theoretical multiverses are beyond any type of observance (by their very definition) there will also never be away to prove they exist. Of course, they can't be disproved either, but shouldn't physicists start the research at the data, rather than at their desired conclusion?
    • kh99, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1All of science is theoretical, that means nothing.

      You don't know that theories on multiverses or any other area won't lead to some better understanding of what we can observe in our universe. One thing we do know is that the theory that the universe was designed by a creator doesn't lead to any better understanding. That's why no one would seriously consider that as a scientific theory unless they were trying to support their belief in God. So basically you have it backwards as far as which theory is a result of "distaste" for a given conclusion.
      • NiteCoder, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1"All of science is theoretical, that means nothing."

        After that hogwash, I really don't see how anyone could listen to anything else you say.

        The point is, why is a physicist making up theories when not a single piece of information anywhere supports or leads to the conclusion he's trying to reach?

        I suspect he's trying to push so called Level 2 multiverses, but even if he only considers Level 1 multiverses (which are just unobservable areas of a still single universe) there still isn't any type of data leading into that discussion. He's just making it all up.
      • kh99, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1"After that hogwash, I really don't see how anyone could listen to anything else you say."

        Fair enough - I missed that point. Obvious you know a lot more about multiverses than I do. But I still object to the idea that the only reason to think about it is because of a distaste for the idea of a creator. Even if true, that's a dead end as far as gaining any knowledge.
    • skidzilla, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Digging you up, people need to learn the difference between 'Hypothesis' and 'Theory'.

      Strings etc might be testable someday, but not even in the lifetimes of the people born today.
      • skidzilla, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Oh wait I missed the part where he said 'all of science'. What an idiot. :P
      • kh99, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4Oh - I didn't know if your first comment was refering to me or the other guy. In any case, you're right, people use the word "theory" incorrectly, and so did I. But I only meant to say that nothing is proven beyond a doubt, there is just a set of theories. It was a stupid response to his comment because I didn't really take the time to understand. I read it as another one of those comments by people who want "creator" theories accepted as equivalent to any other theory by arguing that they're all "just theories". However, I noticed that NiteCoder used that as an excuse not to reply to the rest of my comment.

        As for the point he *was* making - maybe I'm still missing the idea, but how is it any different than thinking about what happened all the way back to fractions of a second before the big bang? Isn't that all theoretical?
      • JoeHague, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1To skids- I might be going out on a limb but I think academia is closer to proving or disproving string theory than you or I might imagine.
    • Senious, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3I really hate the word theory... When evangelicals start spouting off that all of science is theory it's so full if ignorance it just makes me want to slap them. "Technically" electricity is a "Theory" ie the theory of electricity, yet everyone manages to flip the lights on and sit down at night and watch some TV. The word theory is thrown around a lot in science but that is no reason to discredit any scientific finding merely because theory is tacked on to the statement. We should just start referring to all the information in religious texts as myth and see how many faces we can turn red with anger.
  • voodoozombie, on 07/06/2008, -19/+4OMG PLEASE STOP. There cannot be anything more than the universe, that's what uni-verse means. This guy is a poor imitation of Brian Greene. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brian_Greene
    • AreTooDeTo, on 07/06/2008, -0/+6well, what if we got the name wrong? that's why they are saying it is possibly a multi-verse
    • juniorb, on 07/06/2008, -2/+7I stopped at OMG.
  • Rudegar, on 07/06/2008, -13/+11get in a wheelchair and talk using a computer then maybe i'll listen :P
  • NewSc2, on 07/06/2008, -2/+7"Can you give me a simple explanation of entropy?

    One way of explaining entropy is to say it's the number of ways you can rearrange the constituents of a system so that you don't notice the change macroscopically.

    If you mix milk into a cup of coffee, the more mixing that occurs, the more disordered the milk molecules become and the more entropy builds. If all the milk was somehow separated from the coffee, that would be low entropy."

    That's gotta be one of the worst explanations of entropy I've ever heard of. He could have used the perfume in a jar example. And number of ways you can rearrange constituents without changing a system's macroscopic properties? I get it, but, still...
    • BelatedHero, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5Entropy, how can I explain it? I'll take it frame by frame it,
      to have you all jumping, shouting saying it.
      Let's just say that it's a measure of disorder,
      in a system that is closed, like with a border.
      It's sorta, like a, well a measurement of randomness,
      proposed in 1850 by a German, but wait I digress.
      "What the ***** is entropy?", I here the people still exclaiming,
      it seems I gotta start the explaining.

      You ever drop an egg and on the floor you see it break?
      You go and get a mop so you can clean up your mistake.
      But did you ever stop to ponder why we know it's true,
      if you drop a broken egg you will not get an egg that's new.

      That's entropy or E-N-T-R-O to the P to the Y,
      the reason why the sun will one day all burn out and die.
      Order from disorder is a scientific rarity,
      allow me to explain it with a little bit more clarity.
      Did I say rarity? I meant impossibility,
      at least in a closed system there will always be more entropy.
      That's entropy and I hope that you're all down with it,
      if you are here's your membership.
      • amoo3, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Only on Digg...
      • bobbothegod, on 07/07/2008, -0/+2You down with entropy?

        Yeah, you know me!
      • BelatedHero, on 07/07/2008, -0/+1Finally, someone who knows where this came from.
  • kookbutt, on 07/06/2008, -19/+7It's amazing that God created all this. The human mind can't even fathom His creation. He truly loves us all. Believe in Jesus.
    • MattNF, on 07/06/2008, -3/+14Oh man, it's like you're TRYING to get dugg down.
    • plnegative1, on 07/06/2008, -2/+3Um...... obviously man has "fathomed" creation... the computer you're typing on... yeh that came from understanding physics... electricity and magnetism.... and the car you drive... thermodynamics as wells as other things. Just because God created something doesn't mean that man kind couldn't possibly understand it.
    • tufftugg, on 07/06/2008, -3/+1Amen... every knee shall bow, and tongue confess that Jesus Christ is Lord.
      • RonBurgundy76, on 07/07/2008, -1/+2Hard to reconcile that with the whole free will thing, isn't it?
  • LSDRunner, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5Translation/Summary: We're just like the citizens of Whoville in Dr Seuss' Horton Hears a Who.
  • Pusod, on 07/06/2008, -17/+3OPEN LETTER TO SEAN CARROLL:

    Dear Mr. Carroll,

    Congratulations on your article in the L.A.Times. My thoughts were exactly the same regarding a "multiverse" until I read the part when you said "...it's not smart to bet against the power of science to figure out the natural world." Way to be P.C. there Mr. Carroll! You say that about the natural world because your studies encompass all that is natural. When talking about spiritual beliefs you discredit the notion that there is no "spiritual" phase in the cycle of the universe whether it be God's creation or some kind of natural phenomena. People live, and then we die and you sit there theorizing the universe as if on a quest for the meaning of life and creation. This to me sounds like you are seeking an explaination but are closing yourself off to another variation of truth and that is... the spiritual beliefs of religion and the significant impact (good or bad) it has in our world. I would take that bet any day!

    Sincerely,
    Baho Pusod
    • MarrowMan, on 07/06/2008, -4/+5God is simply a metaphor for the power within us, nothing more, no heaven or hell, no angels, no demons, just Void. get over it.
    • Bamont, on 07/06/2008, -1/+10I think you misunderstood his point. The reality is that there is ZERO amount (not a shred) of certifiable proof that any kind of spiritual presence exists on this planet, or in the universe. Why should he even stop to consider that because people (who are, for lack of a better word, ignorant) are too afraid to admit their own mortality that they cling to a false sense of security within spirituality - would have any kind of presence in something such as science? All main-stream religions have gone out of their way to try and debunk, hide, and blind the populace from scientific discoveries because the truth of science out-weighed the "belief" of faith. In other words - god has no place in science, and nobody as intelligent as this man should stop to consider another alternative that's never been proven (and can't, and never will be).
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 07/06/2008, -3/+2The reality is that there is ZERO amount (not a shred) of certifiable proof that multiple universes exist either.

        Everybody believes in something at some point. Nobody should try and force anyone to believe like they do (science or religion or spirituality). Try to convince or discuss...sure.
      • Pusod, on 07/06/2008, -4/+1Well maybe you don't know Jesus! Don't get me started! LOL! But seriously, I can see your point and I know a lot of other people who need hard evidence as proof of God and all things spiritual. i'm sure no matter how many stories you've heard of people testifying to having been cured of cancer when there was only a 10 percent chance of survival, or read that they found an infant spared from the fire of a burning building when all odds were against it. The skeptics will just scoff at the thought of miracles and just call it blind luck. Have you ever had anything happen to you or anyone else you know that was just simply "miraculous" which science cannot explain? Or will you take the easy way out and call it luck.
      • TheCatsPants, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5"testifying to having been cured of cancer when there was only a 10 percent chance of survival"
        If they had a 1 in 10 chance of surviving it's not a miracle.

        "infant spared from the fire of a burning building when all odds were against it"
        If the baby was actually discovered to be fire-proof, that would be a miracle.
        I always find it strange that some people think that because the odds are against something that it's a miracle if it does happen. The odds are that you won't die today, but if you did would that be a miracle too? After all, the odds are against it....
        Someone wins the lottery - is that a miracle?
        Someone slips on the pavement and cracks their head on the pavement and dies instantly - is that a miracle?
        Bad things happen and good things happen. To claim that it's a miracle if it's something *nice* is just naive and magical thinking.
      • gordonj, on 07/07/2008, -0/+5Humans are incredibly bad at naively gauging probabilities of events occurring. If for instance, to use the above example, somebody recovers from a form of cancer that has a 10 percent chance of survival, the probability is of course 0.1, which seems like quite an unlikely event, however if you take into account all of the people who have the cancer, the chances that some of them will survive is very high. For those people who do, it is not a miracle, they are just the lucky ones in the 10% who survive on average. This should be self-evident, but it seems that people are often effected by an ascertainment bias, where they don't take into account the misses as well as the hits. Surely for something to be a miracle it must be impossible to begin with, otherwise it is just chance.
      • TheCatsPants, on 07/07/2008, -0/+4@gordonj
        Absolutely. Even if it was 1:10,000 chance of surviving the cancer, if the person does survive, then they are just one of the 1 in every 10,000 that survive. That's just how the odds are calculated in the first place.
        For every person that wins the lottery, millions lose money on it. It's how it works.
  • somespecial, on 07/06/2008, -8/+2I bet this guy doesn't know what he's talking. I wouldn't bet against me.
  • iharbinger, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Myst anyone?
  • infinitejones, on 07/06/2008, -5/+4"If you really believed the conventional story that the Big Bang was the beginning, that there was nothing before the Big Bang, I think that's a very difficult fact to explain. . . ."

    Sheesh, wait until the creationists pick up on that one and start throwing the quote around, completely out of context! "Caltech Physicist says the Big Bang can't be explained!!!"
  • nemojonze, on 07/06/2008, -3/+8our universe is a fart from the ass of the multiverse.

    Dugg for the dodge and burn halo around Dr. Carroll's dome.
  • HanSolo69, on 07/06/2008, -2/+2DC Comics has been exploring this for decades now. A little late to the game mister physics professor. And who believes anything anyone from Calcutta Technical Institute says?
    • RobotKeaton, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1This guy clearly never read Crisis on Infinite Earths.

      There's no more Multiverse, Dr. Stupid
      • SirBruce, on 07/06/2008, -1/+2Dude, when was the last time you read comics? 1984? There have been many other Crises since then, changed the universe several times, and guess what, they brought the multiverse back now.
      • RobotKeaton, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1Dude, the multiverse was brought back like a year ago. You don't have to go back to 1984. And those 'Many other Crises' you refer to, do you mean Infinite Crisis? Because that's only one.

        In any case, I mostly stopped reading DC Comics (with the exception of All Star Superman) because of the Crisis nonsense. It's just too hard to follow for a casual reader.
  • kookbutt, on 07/06/2008, -9/+1Caltech is crap anyways. Stanford is where it is at.
  • JerzyBricklayr, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7Did anyone else immediately think of the move 'The One' with Jet Lee after reading the title?
  • Pledio, on 07/06/2008, -2/+1So the Mormons were right!
    • nemojonze, on 07/06/2008, -1/+5right down to the magic underwear
    • bobbothegod, on 07/07/2008, -0/+0And magic glasses...

      "Dumb Duh Dumb Dumb Dumb"
  • 5730, on 07/06/2008, -4/+14"In his studies of entropy and the irreversibility of time, Caltech physicist Sean Carroll is exploring the idea that our universe is part of a larger structure"

    In other news: USA exploring the idea that its part of a larger planet.

    OH digg me down please!
  • bizcochoman, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2great interview
  • bashar2, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4So there's another universe somewhere where a man named Al Gore has been the president of a country called the United States of America for the past 8 years.
    • novenator, on 07/06/2008, -0/+3and he single handedly hunted down and killed osama bin laden with his bare hands
  • DuffyDirect, on 07/06/2008, -0/+5he combined pokemon with the jet li movie 'the one'
  • rmeddy, on 07/06/2008, -0/+4This carries the idea further ,pretty cool.


    Part 1:http://youtube.com/watch?v=JkxieS-6WuA
    Part 2:http://youtube.com/watch?v=ySBaYMESb8o
  • exhilator, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2god damn stupid earth we live in. i hope aliens abduct me where there is free sex and people are able to speak their mind and do whatever the ***** they want to do, ***** this stupid planet
  • docsimmons, on 07/06/2008, -6/+1Who cares?
    • desertDenizen, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7Smart people. If you're not intellectually curious, you wouldn't understand the idea of intellectual curiosity for its own sake. Go watch tv.
  • kipmartin, on 07/06/2008, -6/+4is it me, or does every theory that proposes a final and definitive answer to a big question simply spawn another question? like, OK, the 'multiverse' created the universe. um, then who created the multiverse? some myopic Caltech genius might say, "Science will explain it!" but science never explains anything, it just observes, measures, predicts, and provides context in terms of what we see.

    i dont care whether you are a Baptist or a Buddhist--we are observing illusion. this world (Universe) is unexplainable with western science. i believe the 'multiverse' is so much more than Fudd's First Law of Opposition, "If you push something hard enough, it will fall over."

    Science knows how to measure and predict probabilities and thats about it. who made the multiverse? who made the thing that made the multiverse? come on.
    • FordSVT1, on 07/06/2008, -2/+5It's a good thing science doesn't claim to be able to answer the ultimate question, it's only the religious who feel threatened by that idea and so they frame science in that manner. Science is for science class, God is for religious or philosophy class.
      • WalkerTXclocker, on 07/06/2008, -1/+3Agreed except I'd say Its only stupid religious people. You can be religious and still believe in science.
    • desertDenizen, on 07/06/2008, -1/+4The Dalai Llama enthusiastically supports scientific exploration and seems more optimistic than you that the scientific and spiritual paths both look at the same reality through different lenses that are ultimately reconcilable once we get smart enough. Don't give up just yet, it's just now starting to get interesting.
  • RAGEdemon, on 07/06/2008, -4/+9Wow... I wish Bush could be this articulate.

    Hopefully a few centuries down the line, thanks to people like Darwin, Newton, and this guy, people will look back and laugh at how people used to believe in magical beings in the sky... Even the president of the united states who made all his decisions based on such beliefs.

    Much like how today we laugh at people who used to burn poor old grannies as so called "witches" in times past.

    "Thou shalt not suffer a witch to live".

    WTF? Witches exist? Oh the bible says they do? Then it MUST be true! :D
    • YAOMTC, on 07/06/2008, -0/+7You managed to bash both Bush AND religion on a science submission. Dang, man.
    • winampman2, on 07/06/2008, -2/+2If someone likes vanilla ice cream and it makes them happy, but you like chocolate ice cream better, you have no right to criticize and condemn their choice.

      If someone likes their religion and it makes them happy, you have no right to criticize and condemn their choice. (Of course, the same ought to go for them, they have no right to criticize or condemn you just because you don't have a religion.)

      So please don't say things like "Hopefully someday religion will disappear".
      • RAGEdemon, on 07/07/2008, -1/+3Firstly, you are misquoting me. Second, you are comparing apples to oranges. There is no proof of religion. In fact there is masses of counter proof to religion. There is massive proof for "Science". You might have heard of it.

        Religious people can do whatever they like if their beliefs don't effect me. But they do. They effect me, my family, my fellow countrymen... in fact, the whole world. To top it off, the highest office int he land is currently occupied why a religious nut who has started 2 wars in the name of god, and is diverting money away from Science projects and into religious churches and institutions... because "God" told him so. Meanwhile the country falls apart around him.

        When it effects my whole universe, why the ***** don't I have the right to call people on it?

        Stem Cell research anyone?
  • xelerated, on 07/06/2008, -3/+1This is cool... and its almost like it was "designed"..... but I'm sure some uneducated red neck will still claim evolution.
  • vinceislegend, on 07/06/2008, -4/+13Titties.
  • Papajohn56, on 07/06/2008, -3/+7pseudoscience everywhere in these comments
    • novenator, on 07/06/2008, -1/+1true, but one eras pseudoscientist can be the next eras unrecognized genius
  • ohnoihavenoname, on 07/06/2008, -0/+1I was hoping he'd at least attempt to back up his claim that "Our experience of time depends upon the growth of entropy." Even if entropy worked backwards for a span of time (and you were somehow able to live through it), your perception of time wouldn't reverse, you'd simply think -everything else- was going backwards and that you still were going forwards. Our experience of time depends simply on memory. At this point in time, I can't remember tomorrow morning. Tomorrow night I will.
    • winampman2, on 07/06/2008, -0/+2You're assuming that going backwards in time = remembering everything going backwards in time. How do you know that? How about this: if you go backwards in time after breaking an egg, you'll have a whole egg in front of you and no memory of breaking an egg.

      And if you think about it, "memory" is actually your neurons firing and making connections, forming a memory in your brain. If you go back in time, and entropy worked backwards, those neural connections (and your memory) will become undone, and you won't remember what happened.
  • rectagon, on 07/06/2008, -7/+2YAWN. This is yet another attempt to avoid a singularity start to the universe. The religious implications are unavoidable... but endless attempts are made. Proving the multiverse is impossible... heck... more impossible than proving God started the whole things. Welcome to the next religion.
  • Fetching more discussions...
    Show 51 - 66 of 66 discussions
  •  

    Login or register to add a comment

    Create a new account or login to join in the conversation on Digg. You'll also be able to Digg stories to help promote things you like.


© Digg Inc. 2008 — Content posted by Digg users is dedicated to the public domain.
DIGG, DIGG IT, DUGG, DIGG THIS, Digg graphics, logos, designs, page headers, button icons, scripts, and other service names are the trademarks of Digg Inc.