First Source Entry Draft

Part1–

Smithsonian Magazine Can Physicists Ever Prove the Multiverse Is Real? By Sarah Scoles

Part 2-

The article talked about the different opinions of the multiverse how one will say the expansion never really stopped after the Big Bang Theory other say it did ;however, what’s consider as science is what is able to be seen, backed up with evidence. The multiverse isn’t something that is visible to the eye many even say it’s quite impossible to ever be proven. The multiverse started as an idea now it has been moved from a hypothesis to a theory but not enough evidence to know for certain how well it represents reality. Richard Dawid says there is more to how an evidence can be prove saying if it meets the three criteria’s he impose it most likely means it’s  true. A theory is meant to describe the world without contact to observe it then it’s no natural science or physics. Some scientist have found indirect pieces of evidence or direct evidence such as the reason explaining why the universe is probable  or looking for some type of stretch marks left on the cosmic microwave background. This is such an essential theory that many scientist won’t give up looking for the evidence until it’s  proven  no matter if the evidence will never show up.

Part 3-
I agree with the article since this is such a complex topic that many agree and others disagree other’s believe it but need evidence to actually be certain. Proof is necessary in order to be consider scientific truth ; however, I also can see how this can be consider as logical in order to explain how the mysteries of the universe we have right now and it’s reason’s behind it . In the article it says “ We are working on a problem that is very hard, and so we should think about this on a very long time scale,” Polchinski has advised other physicists. That’s not unusual in physics. A hundred years ago, Einstein’s theory of general relativity, for example, predicted the existence of gravitational waves. But scientists could only verify them recently with a billion-dollar instrument called LIGO, the Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory.” This quote illustrates how whiteout the right scientific tool this theory wasn’t been able to be proven not because the scientists didn’t believe it to be truth but perhaps the resources wasn’t still invented to prove the theory or disprove it. “But, historically, that undergirding has often collapsed, and scientists haven’t been able to see the obvious alternatives to dogmatic ideas. For example, the Sun, in its rising and setting, seems to go around Earth. People, therefore, long thought that our star orbited the Earth.” This article tells me about the research questions is how another theory for many years we believed to be fiction never would have imagined as being truth people saying it’s impossible to find evidence to prove it, could easily be proven with an single invention even though it took years to do so never gave up. That how the multiverse seems to be seen right now as to be unrealizable, fiction ;nevertheless, it doesn’t mean that it can’t be proven as some truth we have a vast galaxy and so much it’s yet be discover it’s just right now, it can’t be seen but it could be out there. Other information I need to look up is scientist who are well known that agree with this theory’s or disagree with this theory. I will ask the author to explain or if she knows scientist who are trying to invent a tool to prove this theory if not what else are they looking into to prove it.

The author knew not to just put in one side of the story but all of it to explain why some scientist think the way they think. Her choice of genre affect the meaning and credibility of the document by not just looking into what one scientist had to say but instead in what many had to say of this topic with facts about the past, scientific topics proven. Explaining what science is about, what is consider as science the format such as a hypothesis, research, evidence etc. The authors writing styles was also good, she was very much aware of her audience and purpose when writing this article that she knew people will want a certainty answer. So she gave reasons to both sides explaining why people say what they say targeting both her audience who believe this theory or disbelief this theory with quotes, research, numbers maps.

Part4–

“This cosmos is huge, smooth and flat, just like inflation says it should be. “It took some time before we got used to the idea that the large size, flatness, isotropy and uniformity of the universe should not be dismissed as trivial facts of life,” Linde wrote in a paper that appeared on arXiv.org in December.“ Instead of that, they should be considered as experimental data requiring an explanation, which was provided with the invention of inflation.”

“The detailed, all-sky picture of the infant universe created from nine years of WMAP data. The image reveals 13.77 billion year old temperature fluctuations (shown as color differences) that correspond to the seeds that grew to become the galaxies. (NASA / WMAP Science Team)“

“They are hunting for the stretch marks that inflation would have left on the cosmic microwave background, the light left over from the Big Bang. These imprints could tell scientists whether inflation happened, and help them find out whether it’s still happening far from our view. And if our universe has bumped into others in the past, that fender-bender would also have left imprints in the cosmic microwave background. Scientists would be able to recognize that two-car accident. And if two cars exist, so must many more.”

“In a universe that is, in fact, the only universe, the chances are vanishingly small. But in an eternally inflating multiverse, it is certain that one of the universes should turn out like ours. Each island universe can have different physical laws and fundamentals. Given infinite mutations, a universe on which humans can be born will be born. The multiverse actually explains why we’re here. And our existence, therefore, helps explain why the multiverse is plausible.“

“First, if scientists have tried, and failed, to come up with an alternative theory that explains a phenomenon well, that counts as evidence in favor of the original theory. Second, if a theory keeps seeming like a better idea the more you study it, that’s another plus-one. And if a line of thought produced a theory that evidence later supported, chances are it will again.“

”So far, all of science has relied on testability. It has been what makes science science and not daydreaming. Its strict rules of proof moved humans out of dank, dark castles and into space. But those tests take time, and most theoreticians want to wait it out. They are not ready to shelve an idea as fundamental as the multiverse—which could actually be the answer to life, the universe and everything—until and unless they can prove to themselves it doesn’t exist. And that day may never come.“