das ende der nahrungskette schrieb:
One of the most basic facts of life is that the future looks different
from the past. But on a grand cosmological scale, they may look the same.
Link
http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?id=the-cosmic-origins-of-times-arrowprint=true
dazu von Not Even Wrong:
http://www.math.columbia.edu/%7Ewoit/wordpress/?p=689
As with all claims about the multiverse, the problem is whether they are
even in principle scientifically testable or not. If they're not,
they're not science and promoting them to the public is a bad idea. The
only thing I can find in the Scientific American article that addresses
the testability issue at all is the following:
As of right now, the jury is out on our model. Cosmologists have
contemplated the idea of baby universes for many years, but we do
not understand the birthing process. If quantum fluctuations could
create new universes, they could also create many other things---for
example, an entire galaxy. For a scenario like ours to explain the
universe we see, it has to predict that most galaxies arise in the
aftermath of big bang--like events and not as lonely fluctuations in
an otherwise empty universe. If not, our universe would seem highly
unnatural.
This doesn't seem to have anything to do specifically with the
Carroll/Chen claims about the arrow of time, but rather is just a
restatement of one of the desired properties of multiverse models, that
they don't lead to Boltzmann Brains.
sers
Robert
