A friend on Facebook recently asked why multiple universes exist. Not just why they are possible, but why do some physicists think that it's probable that they exist. I replied on Facebook, and decided it was an excellent topic to write an article about. In short, the answer is:

Without multiple universes, it's very unlikely that the universe would have anything interesting in it.

You can check out my lengthier response in our new article Why Are There Multiple Universes?

It's been a somewhat slow month in regards to news on dark matter and dark energy, but there have been a handful of interesting stories ... mostly having to do with the desire for future news.

For one thing, astronomers with the National Research Council of the National Academy of Sciences have determined their major research priorities for the next decade, and dark energy comes up high on the list alongside search for exoplanets and

• Discover Blog - Astronomers Announce Priorities: Dark Energy, Exoplanets, Cosmic Origins, Aug. 16
• Astro2010: The Astronomy and Astrophysics Decadal Survey

Also, a new analysis of the gravitational effects of dark energy have helped to narrow down the effects of dark energy.

• Photonics Online - Cosmic Lens Used to Probe Dark Energy for First Time, Aug. 24
• Discovery News - Probing the Dark Side of the Universe, Aug. 24

Last night, actor Jim Parsons received the Primetime Emmy award for Outstanding Lead Actor in a Comedy Series, as a tribute to his amazing acting ability in portraying physicist Dr. Sheldon Cooper on the CBS sitcom The Big Bang Theory. If you never thought that physics could be funny, then keep in mind that Parsons beat out funny men (and personal favorites) Steve Carrell, Tony Shaloub, Larry David, Alec Baldwin, and Glee frontman Matthew Morrison to get the award.

Jim Parsons, who plays Sheldon Cooper on CBS's The Big Bang Theory
Source: Mark Mainz/Getty

The show centers around four physicists (actually, three physicists and one engineer) who are stereotypical - okay, make that beyond stereotypical - geeks. Two of them are roommates, and across the hall lives an attractive, and relatively normal, girl. When the show began, most of the humor came from the dynamic between the geeks and the girl, but at this point (they're about to begin their fourth season) the show has really balanced out and the intra-geek interaction is just as funny.

And the bulk of the humor of the show rests firmly on the deadpan delivery of over-the-top intellectualism from the mouth of Jim Parsons. His character, Sheldon Cooper, is a brilliant string theorist, and also one of the most oblivious social misanthropes on the planet. It would be very easy for Sheldon Cooper's character - described on Slate.com as having Asperger's, though the writers deny it - to be just a one-joke character, but instead he is fascinatingly dynamic.

Sheldon has become an absolute icon of the geek lifestyle, consistently wearing geek-themed t-shirts (over long-sleeved undershirts). In fact, someone has a nice little franchise collecting these together over at SheldonShirts.com. (NOT an endorsement ... although if you buy there, let me know how it goes. I've had my eye on one of Howard's belt buckles for quite some time.) Sheldon's nemesis of the third season, Star Trek alum Wil Wheaton, is actually author of a book called Just a Geek ... making it something of a war of geek icons.

As a science geek, what's best about the show is that they actually respect the science. Most science fiction on television will throw real science out the window at the first hint that it will interfere with the plot, but here's a sitcom, for heaven's sake, which goes to painstaking lengths (including getting UCLA physics professors to consult on the set design) in order to maintain authenticity. The very first scene of the series consists of an elaborate joke involving Schrodinger's cat, for heaven's sake.

If you haven't seen The Big Bang Theory, and are a geek, then you should. Now. Seriously. Go out and buy it.

The show has an audience beyond science geeks. I heard about it originally from a non-geek relative and my wife says that it's helped her understand me better (which, now that I think about it, may not be a compliment). In fact, by my calculations, the non-geek fanbase must be pretty large. I don't think geeks make a big enough voting block to swing the Emmy Parson's way without enthusiasm from the non-geek crowd.

Or maybe they decided the winner through a spirited game of Paper-Rock-Scissors-Lizard-Spock.

Most people know about black holes, but their enigmatic cousins white holes have gotten a lot less publicity over the years (possibly because we don't know that they actually exist). Just like black holes, they are allowed by the theory of general relativity. The difference is that it seems like everywhere we look in space we stumble upon some evidence of black holes, with supermassive black holes apparently lying at the heart of nearly every galaxy. So why don't we see any evidence of white holes?

One reason may be that they explode immediately upon being created, according to a recent analysis by University of Oregon in Eugene's Dr. Stephen Hsu. He suggests that if a white hole were to show up independently in space, it would neither absorb nor emit radiation of any kind. Such an unstable white hole would apparently have no choice but to explode in a form of "quasithermal radiation" (whatever that means), meaning that there wouldn't be any lying around in space to examine.

Of course, in theory, we could always make some of our own with that nice new particle accelerator we have over in Europe ...

Related Articles:

• Discovery News - Why Don't We See White Holes in Space? by Jennifer Ouellette
• arXiv - White holes and external black holes by Dr. Stephen Hsu
• Time - Science: And Now, White Holes! (June 21, 1971)

(Note: If you like the Discovery News article, we also have a review of Jennifer Ouellette's fine book, Physics of the Buffyverse. Nothing to do with white holes, as I recall, but I take any opportunity to connect vampirism and physics.)