I most heartedly concur with your post. I find it fascinating that theorists are vigorously pursing these questions, wherever it leads. Definitely, "gobbledygook" it is not.

Ref.1 Z. Beeblebrox, Proof of the number of Universes, Pub. 1903, Betelgeuse main library (closed during 2009 for refurbishment)

Will women know them?

Some info on white holes can be found here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/White_holes .

Also, what's white hole???

"There are some things Man will never know".

I couldn't agree more. But please, lets not decide right away which ones these things are going to be.
We'll write down the score the day the last human dies.

Still: Not imaginable is NOT not knowing. I can't imagine the four dimensions of space-time, but I know that they exist. And there are many more examples….

So the quest continues, and the next big issue is to understand how the cosmological constant, which drives the accelerated expansion of the universe, has the comparatively small value it has.

LC

Great opening to make fun of Anaconda. Just sayin'

Crowel, are locked into a serious defense of this gobbledygook?

Judging from the length of your responses, I would say you are.

Professional back scratching…

LC

Dr Flimmer wrote: What is easier to understand? A universe stretching from and to infinity in time or a universe that had a day with no yesterday and will face the Judgement Day (or all the possibilities in between)?"

How about simply saying Man is not privileged to know how the Universe started or how it will end, or how far it stretches.

There are some things Man will never know — pretending otherwise is a disservice to Science and potentially dangerous if elements of Science get locked into a serious defense of this kind of gobbledygook.
'

My bad 100%. You have taught me a lesson, not to allow myself to assume, which is something I try to avoid and have obviously failed here.

I'm really sorry man. Please forgive me.

say what?! How does that work?

mmfiore, get your facts right.
EPR is not a paradox (although originally conceived as one), it's a reproducible experimental fact.
Wave-Particle Duality has been abandoned as a concept for 50 years. Think quantum fields.

LC

It might be worth my pointing out that 20 years ago I worked out and wrote on how general relativity when worked as a Schild’s ladder and the spin entanglement system of quantum mechanics has the same Galois algebraic representation GF(4), which is also the root space for the SO(8) group. So quantum mechanics and general relativity at least within this “partial functor” are equivalent, and might ultimately prove to be two aspects of an identical system. The system for GF(4) is the hexacode error correction code C_6, and it is possible that extended quantum error correction codes might embed both gravitation and quantum mechanics as different aspects of a single structure.

Cheers LC

No physicist in the whole world will abandon quantum mechanics due to philosophical reasons. It's predictions have come true with an unheard-of precision. It is the newest of the "big" physical theories but it is the one theory that is checked and tested best. Even better than GR, which is also tested rather well.
Quantum mechanics describe the reality – no doubt about that.

Einstein was right about the shortcomings of Quantum Mechanics and so therefore String Theory is also the incorrect approach. As an alternative to Quantum Theory there is a new theory that describes and explains the mysteries of physical reality. While not disrespecting the value of Quantum Mechanics as a tool to explain the role
of quanta in our universe. This theory states that there is also a classical explanation for the paradoxes such as EPR and the Wave-Particle Duality. The Theory is called the Theory of Super Relativity.
This theory is a philosophical attempt to reconnect the physical universe to realism and deterministic concepts. It explains the mysterious.

MWI can be dispensed with, as frankly can all so called quantum interpretations. I would say that the best approach to these matters is Zurek's decoherence and einselection work, which has a minimum of the sorts of metaphysics that other interpretations invoke.

LC

Or it should, if it hadn't been non-relativistic in the first place…

http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/arxiv/pdf/0910/0910.1589v1.pdf

involves pocket universe logic. The paper discusses the number of local FRW regions which are determined by the value of the scalar field of inflation in local regions. The estimate given here involves counting of modes for N e-folds. An e-fold is the number of volume increases due to de Sitter exponential expansion. So the estimate is somewhat reasonable.

The pocket universe model is a bit odd, for it proposes there are regions of high scalar field density on a space which topologically (causally) disconnects regions by S-matrix domains of support. I might as well consider a toy model to make a point about the pocket universe. The universe may well have emerged from some sort of quantum fluctuation. An easy model for this is a virtual wormhole. Inside the regions which connect up there exists a three-ball of space, and the wormhole junction results in a topological suturing of these two 3-balls into a three sphere. Now assume that inflation takes place by puncturing a hole in the three ball. This point or the boundary is removed "to infinity" from the perspective of the antipodal point and the space is converted to R^3 plus pt. If we consider the "reciprocal" of this space with r –> 1/r the point that is removed is a singularity or in complex variables (complexified coordinates) a pole. An integration around this point of field propagators might then result in a branch point which connects this R^3 to other R^3 surfaces — similar to Riemann sheets. For various reasons I find this to be a more aesthetic picture of what might be called the multi-verse.

So this would I think clean up some of the issues with pocket universes. This preserves the basic idea of e-fold statistics on how inflaton fields "hop," but might prevent what I see as offensive boundary issues. The statistics have some bearing on the cosmological constant and the entropy of the universe. In fact if you are at all savy on matters of cosmology, there are relationships between the cosmological constant and the vacuum energy of the universe and its entropy. So there may be some observational support which could be given to this type of cosmology.

LC