post by [deleted] · · score: 0 (0 votes) · ? · GW · 0 comments

This is a link post for


Comments sorted by top scores.

comment by Vladimir_Nesov · 2012-06-19T20:15:05.762Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

this seems like it would be evidence for many worlds, if true

A bad motivation, unless you also post things that seem like they would be evidence against many worlds, if true.

I don't want to speak out of my area of expertise

Please don't in cases like this, there is too much noise in the news to let it through without filtering by understanding of what is being said. Discussing settled science is much more fruitful. Here is what John Baez says about the same article (link to the science daily writeup he references):

I bet this supposed anomaly doesn't really exist. There are hundreds of theoretical papers that use big crazy theories to explain tiny glitches in experimental data... and usually, the glitches just go away. So before you start explaining these far-out theories to the public, you should start by talking about how good the experimental data is! But this article doesn't do that.

comment by Nick_Tarleton · 2012-06-19T20:05:47.042Z · score: 4 (4 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

This has nothing to do with MWI. It looks like it's about mirror matter, which can at a stretch be called a single parallel world that weakly interacts with ours (but "different type of matter that weakly interacts with normal matter" is much more accurate).

comment by RobertLumley · 2012-06-19T21:07:00.657Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

OK, Thanks. I didn't know there were theories that seriously posited other worlds other than MWI, so I just assumed that when I read it. I'm retracting the post. I think the only person who has any desire to see this thread is betterthanwell, but I think you two can continue your conversation via pm.

comment by betterthanwell · 2012-06-19T20:56:34.695Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

I have some half-baked questions that probably belong in the Ask a Physicist thread, but I will plop them here for visibility. Please stop me when my reasoning goes belly-up.

Mirror matter is a candidate for dark matter. This stuff is like the normal stuff, only it has it's "parity bit"* flipped with respect to normal matter, and therefore only interacts with us through the weak interaction. Does mirror matter feel curves in space time made by the normal stuff? Otherwise, how does something exist in the same spatio-temporal coordinates as us, yet respond differently to gravity? Can mirror matter coalesce into massive objects? Could we detect mirror planets passing in front of ordinary stars? Would our space-time be distorted by mirrored black holes in a way we can detect?

*I'm being flippant here. How is parity quantized in physics?

comment by JoshuaZ · 2012-06-19T20:04:37.997Z · score: 1 (1 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

This doesn't seem that noteworthy. Physicists are proposing weird ideas all the time. Wait until they have some substantial evidence for the claim. Right now they just have a tentative hypothesis to explain a fairly weak experiment.

comment by betterthanwell · 2012-06-19T20:13:58.854Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

Is this any more likely to be true than the FTL-neutrinos?

First: Is what likely to be true? The quantitative result of the experiment, or their interpretation of it?

Second: Sounds like you noticed that one of the two scientists is affiliated with Gran Sasso?
They have recently acquired a reputation of jumping the gun at times. (Okay, cheap shot.)

Third: It would be something of a surprise if two scientists with a relatively simple apparatus were to make a discovery that would overshadow even the anticipated discovery of the Higgs particle at LHC. Is it likely that there is still low-hanging fruit of this size in physics?

comment by Thomas · 2012-06-19T19:54:35.471Z · score: 0 (0 votes) · LW(p) · GW(p)

This is the same thing as the MW in the Everett's sense?

I doubt. Except if both are an illusion only. Then they are the same, of course.