Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Posts by the blogger are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Marcel-Marie LeBel: on 11/26/18 at 1:48am UTC, wrote Jonathan, I guess you are the reason why this 2008 ! old blog surfaced up...

Jonathan Dickau: on 11/20/18 at 17:50pm UTC, wrote Sorry again... I should have read more of the linked attachment before...

Jonathan Dickau: on 11/20/18 at 16:07pm UTC, wrote Sorry, Some of these arguments appear vacuous, or depend on hidden...

Agus uye: on 11/17/18 at 7:20am UTC, wrote The page is very amazing happy to be on your page I found your page from...

reseller propolis: on 5/24/18 at 2:45am UTC, wrote Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil Khasiat Propolis Brazil ...

songjoong df: on 1/2/18 at 8:48am UTC, wrote jual qnc jelly gamat di magelang jual qnc jelly gamat di mataram jual qnc...

songjoong df: on 12/27/17 at 6:38am UTC, wrote cara menjadi reseller qnc jelly gamat Cara Menjadi Agen Qnc Jelly Gamat ...

Moshe: on 4/3/08 at 23:16pm UTC, wrote Thanks Anthony. I see some difference between the two scenarios: the...


RECENT FORUM POSTS

Jason Wolfe: "I wonder why there is no interpretation of QM that says the wave function..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Georgina Woodward: "Re.macroscopic objectivity: How an outcome is to be called, the method..." in Schrödinger’s Zombie:...

Jason Wolfe: "Joe Fisher, I'm not sure reality is sensible. But the NDE/ghost stuff is..." in First Things First: The...

Joe Fisher: "Today’s Closer To Truth Facebook page contained this peculiar piece of..." in First Things First: The...

Jahangir kt: "A great website with interesting and unique material what else would you..." in Our Place in the...

Steve Dufourny: "I am going to tell you an important thing about the aethers. I thought that..." in Alternative Models of...

halim sutarmaja: "dewapoker hadir untuk semua pecinta game poker dengan teknologi terbaru dan..." in New Nuclear "Magic...

Jason Wolfe: "As for religious fundamentalists, I would rather deal with them, then with..." in More on agency from the...


RECENT ARTICLES
click titles to read articles

First Things First: The Physics of Causality
Why do we remember the past and not the future? Untangling the connections between cause and effect, choice, and entropy.

Can Time Be Saved From Physics?
Philosophers, physicists and neuroscientists discuss how our sense of time’s flow might arise through our interactions with external stimuli—despite suggestions from Einstein's relativity that our perception of the passage of time is an illusion.

Thermo-Demonics
A devilish new framework of thermodynamics that focuses on how we observe information could help illuminate our understanding of probability and rewrite quantum theory.

Gravity's Residue
An unusual approach to unifying the laws of physics could solve Hawking's black-hole information paradox—and its predicted gravitational "memory effect" could be picked up by LIGO.

Could Mind Forge the Universe?
Objective reality, and the laws of physics themselves, emerge from our observations, according to a new framework that turns what we think of as fundamental on its head.


FQXi BLOGS
November 20, 2019

CATEGORY: Blog [back]
TOPIC: If the world ended tomorrow, would we notice? [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Mar. 31, 2008 @ 16:17 GMT
In recognition of FQXi of Doomsday week, suppose the world ended tomorrow. In particular, suppose that, as discussed in Kate Becker's fun article, we live in a 'false vacuum', that can decay to a lower energy state. The decay would take the form of a bubble of 'true' vacuum that grows at the speed of light, smashing into us with enormous energy without warning, annihilating everything we hold...

view entire post


Bookmark and Share
this post has been edited by the forum administrator

report post as inappropriate


Moshe wrote on Apr. 1, 2008 @ 00:30 GMT
Seems to me that the confusion here is assuming that two objects that are completely identical are necessarily one and the same object. Without this confusion the answer to the question seems straightforward: if the world ended tomorrow, then those of us (say in the multiverse ensemble, just to avoid MWI issues) encountering the bubble will notice, those who don't encounter the bubbles will not notice. Those two "worlds" were identical up to that point, but are no longer so. They were not the same "world" even up to the point when their history was identical, the same way that two identical tennis balls are not a single tennis ball.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


FQXi Administrator Anthony Aguirre wrote on Apr. 3, 2008 @ 19:31 GMT
Moshe,

I don't think it's quite as simple as that. To elaborate on what is troubling, imagine the old thought experiment of the star-trek teleporter that disassembles you, then creates a perfectly identical copy elsewhere. If you would be willing to use one of those, then I submit you should be troubled by the scenario I outlined, as follows. Suppose the teleporter transported you to some immensely faraway place. That should not change your willingness to get in, which is presumably based on the idea that there is a continuity of experience between 'you' and 'your re-creation' far away. But then how is there any difference between this continuity of existence, and the one that would exist across a version of you ended by bubble annihilation, then continued in a different branch of the wavefunction, or continued in a faraway place in the universe?

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Moshe wrote on Apr. 3, 2008 @ 23:16 GMT
Thanks Anthony. I see some difference between the two scenarios: the teleporter presumably is some complicated but perfectly causal process. The relation between the new and old self is perfectly deterministic. The unitary evolution here is what provides the continuity. My perception will probably not be continuous, but that is not very different from sleeping. It is much easier for me to think that two people that happen to be identical up to a point in time (in a specific slicing etc.), but which were never in causal contact, are just two different people, I see no reason to count them as the same.

The MWI version is less straightforward for me, but I suspect it is because I don't really understand it.

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Jonathan J. Dickau wrote on Nov. 20, 2018 @ 16:07 GMT
Sorry,

Some of these arguments appear vacuous, or depend on hidden assumptions I choose not to adopt. Recent papers by Cumrun Vafa and collaborators throw water on many of those arguments and/or the assumptions (look at arXiv:1806.08362 and arXiv:1806.09718 for starters). I will explicate.

First off; I think Paul Steinhardt (one of Vafa's co-authors, whom I met at FFP11) has given compelling reasons (explained in Scientific American articles) why Inflation is suspect, or is questionable as the true early universe cosmology.

Second; it is distinctly evident that the universe is getting run down over time, as evidenced by the 2nd law of Thermodynamics. This leads many to conclude the universe will have a cold dark end. So if the cosmic expansion continues we do not live in a stable vacuum per se.

Third; given Vafa's reasoning and in light of such evidence; it stands to reason that the stable vacua of String Theory lie solely or mainly in the pre-decoupling era of the cosmos, where there a balance of particle annihilation and particle pair creation.

As it turns out; the absence of catastrophic events like those described by Becker is one of the reasons used by Steinhardt to rule out the Inflationary Universe hypothesis. So it seems silly to use an unproven or questionable theory to rule out other theoretical considerations.

All the Best,

Jonathan

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate

Jonathan J. Dickau replied on Nov. 20, 2018 @ 17:50 GMT
Sorry again...

I should have read more of the linked attachment before writing. I read the blog post and glanced at the other, but I see there is more to the cited stories. It's sort of like judging a paper by its abstract or a book by its cover. I'll recuse myself until I've taken time to digest, next time around.

Best,

JJD

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Marcel-Marie LeBel wrote on Nov. 26, 2018 @ 01:48 GMT
Jonathan,

I guess you are the reason why this 2008 ! old blog surfaced up in the

"New in blog"...

- Still waiting for this year's contest...

All the bests,

Marcel,

Bookmark and Share
report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.