On 22 July 2014 05:47, John Clark <[email protected]> wrote: > If you're interested in physical evidence of the multiverse it will > probably come from radio telescopes not particle accelerators. Back in > March of this year there was a report of variations of the polarization of > the microwave radiation from the Big Bang that could only have come from > Inflation during the Big Bang and it's very hard to explain how inflation > could happen without a multiverse. More recently some have said that the > variations in the polarization might have come from local conditions around > the Milky Way and not from the Big Bank at all. Much more data about this > coming from a number of other independent experimenters is going to become > available very soon to clear this up. If that variation in polarization is > real then the multiverse almost certainly is too; if the variation is not > real then the multiverse may or may not exist. One way or another we will > know before Christmas. >
Thanks. As (I think) David Kaplan said in the movie, it's a "f***ing cool" time to be alive if your interested in physics. For the purposes of this thread I'm specifically interested in whether the MV "opposes" supersymmetry in some sense. I suspect that the difference has been blown up a bit for popular consumption in the movie, and that both can coexist, but that's only a suspicion. Cosmological evidence for the MV is great, but still seems "indirect" in a similar sense to subatomic evidence (imho) - unless we see a "cold spot" or something in the CMBR that indicates a domain wall within observational reach (or a "dark flow" which I think might be a prediction of MV theory?) we have to deduce it from theory in the same way we do from observations of which particles exist. It's the best theory we've thought of so far, of course! - but maybe there's something better we haven't thought of yet. Of course. SUSY also sounds like a neat idea, and allegedly it's the only (?) such theory that fits in with general relativity. Not that I understand why that is, even to a first approximation. But I doubt they meant that SUSY *with the observed particle masses* is the only theory that could fit with GR, so that still (ISTM) leaves room for a MV to give a smorgasbord of different particles across the whole schmeer... -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
