Science Forums 2

[msafrin]

Thank you for confirming that my supposition regarding
a Multiverse,as proposed by Martin Rees does at least have merit.
You said;
<Because we are unable to probe anything beyond the de Sitter horizon - simply because light, or anything else which moves at the speed of light will never escape from any other universe and enter our own. Thus we cannot see anything which does not come from our own Universe. So we (might) never be able to observe anything directly.>

I totally agree that our chances of ever making any observations from beyond our own universe is nil,but simply as rhetorical conjecture (as 'Devil's Advocate')
I might propose to you that the speed of light,as suggested by some,may not be as immutable as once believed EVEN within our own universe and if for argument's sake, the physics of another universe would allow for a speedier 'speed of light', perhaps the supposition 'that light from another universe might indeed escape and observed by us someday' is a theory that could very well be **contemplated as science**.

<Martin Rees says that since it can be contemplated then it is indeed science - I am not sure this is sufficient for me.But I agree that the theory is intriguing.>

I highlighted the words "contemplated as science" to mock Mr.Rees because I agree with you that his guideline for what he thinks can be constituted as science is not sufficient for me,either.

QUESTION:How does Mr.Rees incorporate the evidence for the
'Big-Bang' into an overall Multiverse? Was the Multiverse
also created by the 'Big-Bang'?

Do you know the basis for the naming of the 'de Sitter horizon'?