Universe or Multiverse?

[Wuwei]

I just wanted to expand on potential a bit as it relates to a topic in string theory called landscape and possibly multiverse as well. As you pointed out, every object has potential. This potential can be plotted on a multi-dimensional graph. The object's initial state or position on the graph is called minima. The object needs additional energy to move to the next state. If it does not find that additional energy then it can get stuck in a given minima and fail to move to the next state. Similarly our universe too can get stuck at a given minima. The different versions of string theory simply describe different sates of the universe. We simply have not yet theorized a version of string theory which describes the current state of our universe. These different states of the universe have very different properties. For example in one state, the space can be three dimensional and in another state, space can be of more dimensions (up to 10 dimensions). This is where string theory start to converge with the idea of multiverses each with their own unique properties.

I haven't heard of the local minimum aspect in multiverses. I have read that shortly after the big bang there were possibilities of different phases, similar to the solid state phases of carbon (graphite, diamond, etc). After a point when the temperature of the universe dropped to a certain point, the laws of physics were frozen into it's current form (or phase). That is the same concept as annealing some types of metals: a hot metal is cooled in a way to lock in a particular phase. It now makes sense, the local minima mathematically represent the different phases our universe can (could) be in. As you say, since the universe is much cooler now, we are stuck in our current local minimum.

As far as the dimensionality of space-time, if there were more or less than 3 space-like dimensions, the inverse square law would no longer be valid in gravity or EM theory.

One interesting thing about string theory is that all 10 dimensions are closed – circular. Space and time are huge circles encompassing the closed universe. The remaining dimensions are tiny circles;10^20 times smaller than the diameter of a proton. It would be interesting to see what a universe would be like where some of the large dimension circles are interchanged with smaller dimensional circles. I assume that what you meant by different states of the universe.

 

[zaangalewa]

What's your consensus? ...

Ignoramus, ignorabimus. We don't know - we never will know. We can use the idea of parallel universes for thought experiments or illustrations. So I think for example if parallel universes would exist then - on reasons of the exactness of natural constants for life in our cosmos - only some of some googols of such universes would be able to contain living structures. So intelligent life would always take a look in a nearly endless gigantic universe and they could ask themselve the same about their own anthropic pinciple there.

 

[zaangalewa]

... Why do you think quantum entanglement does not contradict theory of relativity?

... No mediator ...

 

[Muhammed]

The universe is everything that exists everywhere, therefore it is illogical to say that there are multiple universes.

 

[xband]

A multiverse is what drunken cosmologists think up when sleeping under a bridge in a vain effort to explain the big bang before the big bang. Interesting but makes no sense. Thinking when one universe touches another universe, Big Bang.

 

[zaangalewa]

The universe is everything that exists everywhere, therefore it is illogical to say that there are multiple universes.

No no. In case all positive and negative energy of an universe would be 0 then there could be in every point of this "everywhere and everything" here an infinte number of universes. Let me calculate: This would be ... hmm ... hmhm ... got a result: a little more than a lot of possible and impossible universes in total - and how many universes are in the nothing where our universe came from no one knows really to say. In case a universe would look like a turtle then maybe our world lives on the back of a turtle which lives on the back of a turtle which lives ... . That's an older variation of this theme. Or perhaps our universe is Miss Matryoshka Multiverse. Or ...

 

[SixFoot]

The universe is everything that exists everywhere, therefore it is illogical to say that there are multiple universes.

"Universe" also means a particular sphere of activity, interest, or experience.

We could always follow the FireFly approach of simply call it The 'Verse though.

 

[SixFoot]

... Thinking when one universe touches another universe, Big Bang.

Membrane collision. That's my favorite one of the Big Bang theories.

 

[SixFoot]

This is where we left off:
There is a contradiction between Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics in the form of entangled particles. SixFoot suggested that there is no contradiction at all as entangled particles simply communicate to each other via a hidden dimension.

This raises a question. Are these dimensions continuously scattered ove the universe so as they are accessible anywhere anytime? This question is raised because space-time as we know does not seem to matter to these entangled particles. They can be anywhere even separated by blackholes and yet they can communicate instantly.

So is the space-time mere an illusion? If that is the case, the very foundation of Theory of General Relativity is shaken. By the way, this is a new trend emerging in Quantum Mechanics. If you take space-time out of the equation then the most credible mediator for gravity as of today goes out of the picture. Thus we are only left with graviton. At least in the case of space-time, we can perceive it even if you call it an illusion. Gravition on the other hand is a pure theoretical construct. I am not discounting it but I am merely pointing out the reality.

I think gravity has become a barrier to our progress in theoretical physics as we still do not understand what truly mediates it.

Unsure of the original source on this, but it's pretty much what I hear when listening to String Theory being explained:

"String theories require extra dimensions in addition to the 4D spacetime to work. Since we do not encounter these extra dimensions, it is proposed that these extra dimensions may be curled up into loops of small size. How small these extra dimensions have to be in order to not contradict known experimental results has been investigated and the result is surprising - it can be as big as one millimeter (Initially these dimensions were thought to be as small as Planck length).

This realization opens up an interesting possibility of explaining why gravity is weak compared to other forces. In string theory, gravitons (mediator particles of gravity) are closed strings whereas the other interaction carriers are open strings attached to 4-D submanifolds (the so-called branes - our universe is supposed to be one such brane). Closed strings are not attached to the brane and are free to propagate into other dimensions. This "leakage" makes gravity look weak to those living in one of the branes."

If gravity bends spacetime on our lower planes, it doesn't seem illogical (to me) that it could be interacting beyond our dimension as well. Some say magnetism is simply an exchange of photons between two oppositely charged particles (fields?). If magnetism is so glaringly simplified like that, perhaps we've just over-complicated Gravity to the point of confusion, which brings us to the fun part of research, conversation, empirical data, and philosophy.
(magnetism as a photon excchange @ 3:00 of the video)


For me, even though visualizing any of this is mind-numbing at best, extra-dimensions seem to be the simplest of explanations. It could also solve the issue of extra Gravity due to "dark matter". We see things through one lens from far away, but like an ant on a rope, things would likely look a lot different if only we could get a closer look.

 

[SixFoot]

I just wanted to expand on potential a bit as it relates to a topic in string theory called landscape and possibly multiverse as well. As you pointed out, every object has potential. This potential can be plotted on a multi-dimensional graph. The object's initial state or position on the graph is called minima. The object needs additional energy to move to the next state. If it does not find that additional energy then it can get stuck in a given minima and fail to move to the next state. Similarly our universe too can get stuck at a given minima. The different versions of string theory simply describe different sates of the universe. We simply have not yet theorized a version of string theory which describes the current state of our universe. These different states of the universe have very different properties. For example in one state, the space can be three dimensional and in another state, space can be of more dimensions (up to 10 dimensions). This is where string theory start to converge with the idea of multiverses each with their own unique properties.

I haven't heard of the local minimum aspect in multiverses. I have read that shortly after the big bang there were possibilities of different phases, similar to the solid state phases of carbon (graphite, diamond, etc). After a point when the temperature of the universe dropped to a certain point, the laws of physics were frozen into it's current form (or phase). That is the same concept as annealing some types of metals: a hot metal is cooled in a way to lock in a particular phase. It now makes sense, the local minima mathematically represent the different phases our universe can (could) be in. As you say, since the universe is much cooler now, we are stuck in our current local minimum.

As far as the dimensionality of space-time, if there were more or less than 3 space-like dimensions, the inverse square law would no longer be valid in gravity or EM theory.

One interesting thing about string theory is that all 10 dimensions are closed – circular. Space and time are huge circles encompassing the closed universe. The remaining dimensions are tiny circles;10^20 times smaller than the diameter of a proton. It would be interesting to see what a universe would be like where some of the large dimension circles are interchanged with smaller dimensional circles. I assume that what you meant by different states of the universe.

Please, by all means, keep going. I'm feeling a bit like Johnny-5 this morning and I'm hungry for more input!

 

[Wuwei]

Please, by all means, keep going. I'm feeling a bit like Johnny-5 this morning and I'm hungry for more input!

Documentaries often leave something to be desired. They are like books on various aspects of science. A science book can be chock full of advanced mathematics or none at all. I read that some publishers will not accept a book for general readership if it has even only one simple mathematical formula in it.

There is a lot of very interesting aspects to the various advanced topics in science that any high school grad can understand if only a little math is involved, but nobody publishes at that level.

This is something I have only seen once somewhere. It is very simple, but it gave a much deeper understanding of Relativity. Bare with me.

The Pythagorean theorem to find the distance along a diagonal is:

D = sqrt( x^2 + y ^2)

Suppose I told you the the dimensions were x =3 and y = 4. What is D. You would say 5? I fooled you because x is in inches and y is in centimeters. In order to solve it now, you need to have a conversion factor for the units of measurement. It would be

D = sqrt( (2 in)^2 + ( 3 cm * (1 in / 2.54 cm))^2 )

To simplify it lets just rename the conversion factor:

c = (1 in / 2.54 cm)

The Pyth theorem for that case is now

D^2 = sqrt( x^2 + (y*c)^2 )

That version is the distance between two points


Suppose we are told that time is a fourth dimension. The Pyth theorem for that case is

S^2 = sqrt( x^2 + y^2+ + z^2 + t^2 ), ... where t is time.

Oops I forgot we need a conversion factor. Suppose x, y, and z are in miles, the conversion factor for time must be some constant, c, in units of distance/time. Those units are a velocity which happens to be 186000 miles/hour, the speed of light.

So it turns out that when we think of the velocity of light as the maximum that any object can travel, we are missing the very important fact that it is really a conversion factor to make the Pyth theorm work. However that's not quite all of it. The conversion is also multiplied by an imaginary number i, where i^2 = -1.

That gives an unusual distinction between space and time. So the result is

S = sqrt( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (t*c)^2 ) ... the t term has a minus sign.

This version is the distance between two events.

The thing that struck me about that analysis is that the velocity of light is just a conversion factor. And it was shown that anything with a zero mass (photon) is obligated to travel at the speed of that conversion factor. Variable S is no longer a distance because it involves time. S is an event (a point in space and time), separated by another event.

Maybe tomorrow I will show why I think quantum entanglement isn't as bizarre as some might think.

 

[SixFoot]

Please, by all means, keep going. I'm feeling a bit like Johnny-5 this morning and I'm hungry for more input!

Documentaries often leave something to be desired. They are like books on various aspects of science. A science book can be chock full of advanced mathematics or none at all. I read that some publishers will not accept a book for general readership if it has even only one simple mathematical formula in it.

There is a lot of very interesting aspects to the various advanced topics in science that any high school grad can understand if only a little math is involved, but nobody publishes at that level.

This is something I have only seen once somewhere. It is very simple, but it gave a much deeper understanding of Relativity. Bare with me.

The Pythagorean theorem to find the distance along a diagonal is:

D = sqrt( x^2 + y ^2)

Suppose I told you the the dimensions were x =3 and y = 4. What is D. You would say 5? I fooled you because x is in inches and y is in centimeters. In order to solve it now, you need to have a conversion factor for the units of measurement. It would be

D = sqrt( (2 in)^2 + ( 3 cm * (1 in / 2.54 cm))^2 )

To simplify it lets just rename the conversion factor:

c = (1 in / 2.54 cm)

The Pyth theorem for that case is now

D^2 = sqrt( x^2 + (y*c)^2 )

That version is the distance between two points


Suppose we are told that time is a fourth dimension. The Pyth theorem for that case is

S^2 = sqrt( x^2 + y^2+ + z^2 + t^2 ), ... where t is time.

Oops I forgot we need a conversion factor. Suppose x, y, and z are in miles, the conversion factor for time must be some constant, c, in units of distance/time. Those units are a velocity which happens to be 186000 miles/hour, the speed of light.

So it turns out that when we think of the velocity of light as the maximum that any object can travel, we are missing the very important fact that it is really a conversion factor to make the Pyth theorm work. However that's not quite all of it. The conversion is also multiplied by an imaginary number i, where i^2 = -1.

That gives an unusual distinction between space and time. So the result is

S = sqrt( x^2 + y^2 + z^2 - (t*c)^2 ) ... the t term has a minus sign.

This version is the distance between two events.

The thing that struck me about that analysis is that the velocity of light is just a conversion factor. And it was shown that anything with a zero mass (photon) is obligated to travel at the speed of that conversion factor. Variable S is no longer a distance because it involves time. S is an event (a point in space and time), separated by another event.

Maybe tomorrow I will show why I think quantum entanglement isn't as bizarre as some might think.

I blacked out a little toward the end there, but the hypotenuse is S! lol

Thank you for that, this was definitely one of the best posts I've seen in a science section of a message board in a very long time. I understood most of it and there's just enough to keep me content with Googling the rest. Who knows where hobbies could lead?

 

[Wuwei]

I blacked out a little toward the end there, but the hypotenuse is S! lol

Thank you for that, this was definitely one of the best posts I've seen in a science section of a message board in a very long time. I understood most of it and there's just enough to keep me content with Googling the rest. Who knows where hobbies could lead?

Thanks. I made typos in two places. Maybe that is why you blacked out.

I had:

D^2 = sqrt(....) and
S^2 = sqrt(....)​

They should be

D = sqrt(....) and
S = sqrt(....)​

 

[zaangalewa]

... Thinking when one universe touches another universe, Big Bang.

Membrane collision. That's my favorite one of the Big Bang theories.

As far as I heard this theory - the only existing serios real alternative (as crazy as this idea seemed to be) - is dead since we found two black holes dancing waltz and sending gravity waves by doing so. On reasons I don't know this seems to be impossible in this theory about branes. A good theory is falsifyable - so this shows only that excellent scientist made this theory. Nevertheless everything seems to come back to the very old idea that god created the world out of nothing. But how to find this nothing where everything came from? A nothing is not a lot.

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's your consensus?

Does Gravity interact with matter, regardless of it's dimensional origin? If so, is Gravity the answer to Dark Matter...?

Will we ever even be able to peer deep enough into the world of the Very Small to test these things (perhaps via String Theory)?

I'd love to hear everyone's theories on the matter.

No Politics Please.

How anyone can say anything other than unsure is beyond me. We just don't know.

 

[zaangalewa]

What's your consensus?

Does Gravity interact with matter, regardless of it's dimensional origin? If so, is Gravity the answer to Dark Matter...?

Will we ever even be able to peer deep enough into the world of the Very Small to test these things (perhaps via String Theory)?

I'd love to hear everyone's theories on the matter.

No Politics Please.

How anyone can say anything other than unsure is beyond me. We just don't know.

But we know nothing on different levels of competence. Scientists should know how to build a cathedral of knowledge. If we don't know: On what reasons do we not know? Are there ways? Are there no ways?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's your consensus?

Does Gravity interact with matter, regardless of it's dimensional origin? If so, is Gravity the answer to Dark Matter...?

Will we ever even be able to peer deep enough into the world of the Very Small to test these things (perhaps via String Theory)?

I'd love to hear everyone's theories on the matter.

No Politics Please.

How anyone can say anything other than unsure is beyond me. We just don't know.

But we know nothing on different levels of competence. Scientists should know how to build a cathedral of knowledge. If we don't know: On what reasons do we not know? Are there ways? Are there no ways?

Scientists are looking for information and ploughing forwards with their ideas. However, on the multiple universe thing, I'd say we so far away from knowing that it's ridiculous to even bother.

 

[zaangalewa]

What's your consensus?

Does Gravity interact with matter, regardless of it's dimensional origin? If so, is Gravity the answer to Dark Matter...?

Will we ever even be able to peer deep enough into the world of the Very Small to test these things (perhaps via String Theory)?

I'd love to hear everyone's theories on the matter.

No Politics Please.

How anyone can say anything other than unsure is beyond me. We just don't know.

But we know nothing on different levels of competence. Scientists should know how to build a cathedral of knowledge. If we don't know: On what reasons do we not know? Are there ways? Are there no ways?

Scientists are looking for information and ploughing forwards with their ideas. However, on the multiple universe thing, I'd say we so far away from knowing that it's ridiculous to even bother.

A second ago a universe was where you was. What is now there?

 

[frigidweirdo]

What's your consensus?

Does Gravity interact with matter, regardless of it's dimensional origin? If so, is Gravity the answer to Dark Matter...?

Will we ever even be able to peer deep enough into the world of the Very Small to test these things (perhaps via String Theory)?

I'd love to hear everyone's theories on the matter.

No Politics Please.

How anyone can say anything other than unsure is beyond me. We just don't know.

But we know nothing on different levels of competence. Scientists should know how to build a cathedral of knowledge. If we don't know: On what reasons do we not know? Are there ways? Are there no ways?

Scientists are looking for information and ploughing forwards with their ideas. However, on the multiple universe thing, I'd say we so far away from knowing that it's ridiculous to even bother.

A second ago a universe was where you was. What is now there?

Still here. Nothing has changed much from a second ago.

 

[G.T.]

I just wanted to expand on potential a bit as it relates to a topic in string theory called landscape and possibly multiverse as well. As you pointed out, every object has potential. This potential can be plotted on a multi-dimensional graph. The object's initial state or position on the graph is called minima. The object needs additional energy to move to the next state. If it does not find that additional energy then it can get stuck in a given minima and fail to move to the next state. Similarly our universe too can get stuck at a given minima. The different versions of string theory simply describe different sates of the universe. We simply have not yet theorized a version of string theory which describes the current state of our universe. These different states of the universe have very different properties. For example in one state, the space can be three dimensional and in another state, space can be of more dimensions (up to 10 dimensions). This is where string theory start to converge with the idea of multiverses each with their own unique properties.

I haven't heard of the local minimum aspect in multiverses. I have read that shortly after the big bang there were possibilities of different phases, similar to the solid state phases of carbon (graphite, diamond, etc). After a point when the temperature of the universe dropped to a certain point, the laws of physics were frozen into it's current form (or phase). That is the same concept as annealing some types of metals: a hot metal is cooled in a way to lock in a particular phase. It now makes sense, the local minima mathematically represent the different phases our universe can (could) be in. As you say, since the universe is much cooler now, we are stuck in our current local minimum.

As far as the dimensionality of space-time, if there were more or less than 3 space-like dimensions, the inverse square law would no longer be valid in gravity or EM theory.

One interesting thing about string theory is that all 10 dimensions are closed – circular. Space and time are huge circles encompassing the closed universe. The remaining dimensions are tiny circles;10^20 times smaller than the diameter of a proton. It would be interesting to see what a universe would be like where some of the large dimension circles are interchanged with smaller dimensional circles. I assume that what you meant by different states of the universe.

Please, by all means, keep going. I'm feeling a bit like Johnny-5 this morning and I'm hungry for more input!

thats what she said..lol


nah, awesome thread though. thanks.