He's a scientist; I'm in computer support.
Let's talk about Avi Loeb and his theory about alien
He's a scientist; I'm in computer support.
The interview above is worth a read, and a lot of serious thought, because there's an idea there that's really critical to science, and it isn't whether or not aliens have visited (exactly).
In particular he compares his theory on alien visitation with the multiverse theory.
Which of these is more deserving of ridicule?
So bizarre that there's no really good theory for what it might be. Except maybe for Dr. Loeb's theory.
The hypotheses we form can and should help guide us in how we look.
And because "Aliens!" is based on observable phenomena: us.
The competing theories are all about phenomena with NO prior observations.
Why is it unsafe to talk about "Aliens!" but safe to talk about the "multiverse"?
Yet the notion has always (to me) been utterly absurd.
But this isn't the scientific theory of the multiverse at all.
But under this theory, there'd be an infinite number of "adjacent" universes spinning off of that one single particle at the tip of my pinky toe.
In such a multiverse system, the "nearest" (by measure of similarity) million, trillion... heck the nearest googol of alternate universes would be utterly identical to ours.
And really, an utterly pointless one.
https://t.co/XiHA9cRwjR
So THAT'S why we never saw Oumuamua leaving the solar system. https://t.co/pSlwmRMctU
— Thomas A. Fine \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@thomasafine) February 27, 2020
https://t.co/hj1ytCbFDH
But the thought that's been running around in the back of my mind for the last two years is... if all of a sudden something shows up in orbit around the Earth, I'd be very suspicious of that something.
— Thomas A. Fine \U0001f1fa\U0001f1f8 (@thomasafine) February 27, 2020
More from Science
The physicist Hugh Everett III was born #OTD in 1930. His \u201crelative state\u201d formulation of quantum mechanics, which we now call the \u201cMany Worlds Interpretation,\u201d was published in 1957. pic.twitter.com/ZqMsZcPJDG
— Robert McNees, the bastegod (@mcnees) November 11, 2020
We look at the night sky and see photons arriving to us, emitted by distant stars. Let's contrast two different theories about how stars emit photons.
One theory says, we know how stars shine, and our equations predict that they emit photons roughly uniformly in all directions. Call this the "Many-Photons Interpretation" (MPI).
But! Others object. That is *so many photons*. Most of which we don't observe, and can't observe, since they're moving away at the speed of light. It's too ontologically extravagant to posit a huge number of unobservable things!
So they suggest a "Photon Collapse Interpretation." According to this theory, the photons emitted toward us actually exist. But photons that would be emitted in directions we will never observe simply collapse into utter non-existence.
Simulation: Riding in car for 120 min w/ infected passenger who seems fine other than a cough every few mins. (1) a lot of SARS-CoV-2 virus (in fine aerosol particles) accumulation in car cabin w/ windows closed; (2) cracking window open slightly = dramatic reduction. #COVID19 pic.twitter.com/bCmrmnLUPG
— Dr. Richard Corsi (@CorsIAQ) April 4, 2020
2/ Related air exchange rates were based on experimental results in literature for mid-sized sedans. Particle deposition to indoor surfaces were accounted for, as the surface to volume ratio in a 3 m3 cab is large. An important outcome was the intake fraction (IF)
3/ Here, IF is the number of particles (or virions in collective particles) inhaled by a receptor DIVIDED BY the number or particles (or virions in collective particles) emitted by an infector.
4/ Integrated over the two hour drive (in this example) the IF for all windows closed & a receptor at rest is 0.08 (8% of what comes out of the infectors respiratory system ends up in the respiratory system of the receptor). 8%! That is a very high intake factor.
5/ With additional ventilation from cracking a window open drops the IF to 0.012 (1.2%) still relatively high. Can get lower by opening more windows.