Universe or Multiverse?

[Wuwei]

Another thought occurred to me. According to wiki

The most widely accepted hypothesis on the form for dark matter is that it is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that interact only through gravity and the weak force.​

On the other hand, suppose that dark matter had identical laws to the Standard Model of this universe. But further suppose that Planck's constant were different and/or the mass of an electron and quark, etc are different. Then none of the three forces, weak, EM, and strong could interact with matter in our universe because conservation laws would be violated. These differences can be extremely small and still have violations at the microscopic level.

It seems that the speed of light would have to be the same for both universes because otherwise the Pythagorean theorem of the four space-time dimensions would not mesh. That is important because the metric of space would have to be the same if the gravitation of general relativity were to hold between the two universes. We already know that gravitation is one proven force between dark matter and our matter.

 

[boedicca]

Of course we live in a Multiverse. Where else do all the missing socks one has put in the dryer go?

 

[I amso IR]

Is the universe flat? How about the Milky Way? It looks flat from a distance or on a dark night, from Colorado. Most artists offer renderings which appear flat, the Milky Way that is. Any thoughts?

 

[G.T.]

Is the universe flat? How about the Milky Way? It looks flat from a distance or on a dark night, from Colorado. Most artists offer renderings which appear flat, the Milky Way that is. Any thoughts?

it doesnt look flat to me

 

[Unkotare]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

 

[I amso IR]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

Thank you Unkotare. When I look up at the Milky Way it seems elongated with breadth, but no real depth. Perhaps the faintness of it's shape is deceptive in that the Milky Way is not a solid mass. As for GT's response, exactly what does the Milky Way look like to you?

 

[G.T.]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

Thank you Unkotare. When I look up at the Milky Way it seems elongated with breadth, but no real depth. Perhaps the faintness of it's shape is deceptive in that the Milky Way is not a solid mass. As for GT's response, exactly what does the Milky Way look like to you?

Without going so far as mocking you, which Im not and I really promise that......the 1st three dimensions are observable and proven to exist.

The milky way is, by proxy of us even being inside of it, not 1 dimensional.

 

[I amso IR]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

Thank you Unkotare. When I look up at the Milky Way it seems elongated with breadth, but no real depth. Perhaps the faintness of it's shape is deceptive in that the Milky Way is not a solid mass. As for GT's response, exactly what does the Milky Way look like to you?

Without going so far as mocking you, which Im not and I really promise that......the 1st three dimensions are observable and proven to exist.

The milky way is, by proxy of us even being inside of it, not 1 dimensional.

Thank you for that response. I will not argue that the Milky Way has no volume nor that it lacks three dimensions. My question simply relates to three points. It seems to have length, breadth but in comparison not a heck of a lot depth, rectangular in shape so to speak. From an earthly perception it may well be a cube, poorly defined. Perhaps it is a ball shape or a disc shape. When I look up, down or aside to it, it seems longer than it is wide and not awfully deep. That is what I am relating to. That we are located within it certainly will affect our perception of it. Do we even know it's dimensions and if so, how were we able to learn them? After all, "you can't get there from here" seems to apply. Cheers and good talking to you.

 

[G.T.]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

Thank you Unkotare. When I look up at the Milky Way it seems elongated with breadth, but no real depth. Perhaps the faintness of it's shape is deceptive in that the Milky Way is not a solid mass. As for GT's response, exactly what does the Milky Way look like to you?

Without going so far as mocking you, which Im not and I really promise that......the 1st three dimensions are observable and proven to exist.

The milky way is, by proxy of us even being inside of it, not 1 dimensional.

Thank you for that response. I will not argue that the Milky Way has no volume nor that it lacks three dimensions. My question simply relates to three points. It seems to have length, breadth but in comparison not a heck of a lot depth, rectangular in shape so to speak. From an earthly perception it may well be a cube, poorly defined. Perhaps it is a ball shape or a disc shape. When I look up, down or aside to it, it seems longer than it is wide and not awfully deep. That is what I am relating to. That we are located within it certainly will affect our perception of it. Do we even know it's dimensions and if so, how were we able to learn them? After all, "you can't get there from here" seems to apply. Cheers and good talking to you.

We, as in science(no me), would know its dimensions - it's basically a calculation between all of its outer points in every direction.

 

[G.T.]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

Thank you Unkotare. When I look up at the Milky Way it seems elongated with breadth, but no real depth. Perhaps the faintness of it's shape is deceptive in that the Milky Way is not a solid mass. As for GT's response, exactly what does the Milky Way look like to you?

Without going so far as mocking you, which Im not and I really promise that......the 1st three dimensions are observable and proven to exist.

The milky way is, by proxy of us even being inside of it, not 1 dimensional.

Thank you for that response. I will not argue that the Milky Way has no volume nor that it lacks three dimensions. My question simply relates to three points. It seems to have length, breadth but in comparison not a heck of a lot depth, rectangular in shape so to speak. From an earthly perception it may well be a cube, poorly defined. Perhaps it is a ball shape or a disc shape. When I look up, down or aside to it, it seems longer than it is wide and not awfully deep. That is what I am relating to. That we are located within it certainly will affect our perception of it. Do we even know it's dimensions and if so, how were we able to learn them? After all, "you can't get there from here" seems to apply. Cheers and good talking to you.

here you go.


See the Milky Way Galaxy Like Never Before in Stunning 360-Degree View (Video)

 

[I amso IR]

Is the universe flat? ....?

No

Thank you Unkotare. When I look up at the Milky Way it seems elongated with breadth, but no real depth. Perhaps the faintness of it's shape is deceptive in that the Milky Way is not a solid mass. As for GT's response, exactly what does the Milky Way look like to you?

Without going so far as mocking you, which Im not and I really promise that......the 1st three dimensions are observable and proven to exist.

The milky way is, by proxy of us even being inside of it, not 1 dimensional.

Thank you for that response. I will not argue that the Milky Way has no volume nor that it lacks three dimensions. My question simply relates to three points. It seems to have length, breadth but in comparison not a heck of a lot depth, rectangular in shape so to speak. From an earthly perception it may well be a cube, poorly defined. Perhaps it is a ball shape or a disc shape. When I look up, down or aside to it, it seems longer than it is wide and not awfully deep. That is what I am relating to. That we are located within it certainly will affect our perception of it. Do we even know it's dimensions and if so, how were we able to learn them? After all, "you can't get there from here" seems to apply. Cheers and good talking to you.

here you go.


See the Milky Way Galaxy Like Never Before in Stunning 360-Degree View (Video)

The video was enlightening and jogged my memory back to the many science and discovery channel shows made to explain space to the masses. That they, the channels, have been changed in favor of more programs involving humanism on this planet we inhabit as well as ancient aliens is disheartening for me. I had forgotten the spiral shaped galaxy we also inhabit. I needed to see that to recall it. Still appears flat to me inspite of it's peanut shaped core. Flat and circular so to speak, certainly broader than deep. My simplistic mind at work. And if I remember correctly, earth is thought to be located close to the outer edge in one of the tenticles curling outward. That would explain "my bad" or impression. So much to learn with so little time as my train ride through life is in view of it's final destination, or as Herman the German would say, "End station bittie, alle aufstiegen". Please forgive my spelling as German is my second language. Any how, a rough translation would be, "End of the line, everyone please debark".

 

[Vikrant]

Another thought occurred to me. According to wiki

The most widely accepted hypothesis on the form for dark matter is that it is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that interact only through gravity and the weak force.​

On the other hand, suppose that dark matter had identical laws to the Standard Model of this universe. But further suppose that Planck's constant were different and/or the mass of an electron and quark, etc are different. Then none of the three forces, weak, EM, and strong could interact with matter in our universe because conservation laws would be violated. These differences can be extremely small and still have violations at the microscopic level.

It seems that the speed of light would have to be the same for both universes because otherwise the Pythagorean theorem of the four space-time dimensions would not mesh. That is important because the metric of space would have to be the same if the gravitation of general relativity were to hold between the two universes. We already know that gravitation is one proven force between dark matter and our matter.

You brought up interesting points.

I think, there are four forces not three: gravitational force, weak force, strong force and electromagnetic force. Why would those 4 forces cease to interact with matter if the value of Planck's constant or mass of quark or electron were something else? I am curious. As far as law of conservation of mass or energy is concerned, it simply states that mass / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It does not say anything about how they can be quantized.

I do not think Pyth Theo is necessary to explain any aspect of Theory of General Relativity. Einstein used the concept of Pyth Theo not the actual theorem along with Galilean Relativity to explain why matter cannot travel faster than light. However, why does Theory of General Relativity have to hold true in the new universe if it is nothing but a True Vacuum?

 

[Wuwei]

You brought up interesting points.

I think, there are four forces not three: gravitational force, weak force, strong force and electromagnetic force. Why would those 4 forces cease to interact with matter if the value of Planck's constant or mass of quark or electron were something else? I am curious. As far as law of conservation of mass or energy is concerned, it simply states that mass / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It does not say anything about how they can be quantized.

I ignored gravity because it is the only force that clearly exists for both dark matter and our universe. Furthermore gravity can be considered a space warp (so far), while the other three forces are quantized with particles that mediate the forces.

In QED, if you think of a Feynman diagram, consider an EM interaction with dark matter. A regular electron will emit a regular photon which has some wavelength. That photon will have an energy and momentum that is given by a relation with Planck's constant. When that photon intermediates an interaction with a dark electron, it must have a different momentum and energy because (I'm assuming) the dark matter photon has a different Plank's constant. It is hard to see how an electron can react to a dark electron without a violation of the conservation of energy and momentum.

You are right; I agree with you that conservation laws don't say anything about how mass/energy can be quantized. However suppose that the electric charge were slightly different in a dark electron. I don't see how there could be an observable interaction of an electron with a dark baryon, for example, because of the conservation of charge. The intermediate charge of a baryon / dark-electron combination may even be an irrational number for the total charge. I think it would be difficult formulating a theory of a quantum version of the dynamics between particles with different charges.

The ultimate result that I am getting at is that there would be no experiment that can detect matter that follows a Standard Model of particles which have slightly different fundamental constants such as charge or Planck's constant.

A third option is that I'm full of shit about a dark universe following the Standard Model of particles with different constants.

I do not think Pyth Theo is necessary to explain any aspect of Theory of General Relativity. Einstein used the concept of Pyth Theo not the actual theorem along with Galilean Relativity to explain why matter cannot travel faster than light. However, why does Theory of General Relativity have to hold true in the new universe if it is nothing but a True Vacuum?

What I mean by "Pyth Theo" is a "Pythagorean-like" theorem that defines the space-time interval that is invariant under a Lorentz transformation. This would certainly apply as a local metric. Of course the global metric must be given by tensors.

I don't know what you mean by the new universe being nothing but a True Vacuum. I would think it can't be a vacuum if it is seen to gravitationaly affect the course of galaxies in our universe.

 

[SixFoot]

Another thought occurred to me. According to wiki

The most widely accepted hypothesis on the form for dark matter is that it is composed of weakly interacting massive particles (WIMPs) that interact only through gravity and the weak force.​

On the other hand, suppose that dark matter had identical laws to the Standard Model of this universe. But further suppose that Planck's constant were different and/or the mass of an electron and quark, etc are different. Then none of the three forces, weak, EM, and strong could interact with matter in our universe because conservation laws would be violated. These differences can be extremely small and still have violations at the microscopic level.

It seems that the speed of light would have to be the same for both universes because otherwise the Pythagorean theorem of the four space-time dimensions would not mesh. That is important because the metric of space would have to be the same if the gravitation of general relativity were to hold between the two universes. We already know that gravitation is one proven force between dark matter and our matter.

You brought up interesting points.

I think, there are four forces not three: gravitational force, weak force, strong force and electromagnetic force. Why would those 4 forces cease to interact with matter if the value of Planck's constant or mass of quark or electron were something else? I am curious. As far as law of conservation of mass or energy is concerned, it simply states that mass / energy can neither be created nor destroyed. It does not say anything about how they can be quantized.

I do not think Pyth Theo is necessary to explain any aspect of Theory of General Relativity. Einstein used the concept of Pyth Theo not the actual theorem along with Galilean Relativity to explain why matter cannot travel faster than light. However, why does Theory of General Relativity have to hold true in the new universe if it is nothing but a True Vacuum?

I'm about to go shower then head to Missouri S&T for enrollment.

Thank you both for helping to push my inspiration over the edge. I'm very excited to have math in my life again.

 

[Vikrant]

Wuwei,

By True Vacuum, I meant Vacuum State or Quantum Vacuum. Theoretically, in order to attain Vacuum State, a space has to be devoid of any particles and the temperature has to be absolute zero. As we know, this is not possible because it contradicts with The Law of Thermodynamics as observed in the current state of our universe.

So far our discussion has been around Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. If we take it further and introduce String Theory then we have a universe where everything is made up of vibrating strings. The dimensions in which the constituent strings of an element vibrate is attributed to unique properties of the element. When the universe changes its state, there is no guarantee that these strings will vibrate in exact same manner they have been in the current state of the universe. As we know, according to The String Theory, gravity too is composed of strings. So there is no guarantee that in the new state of the universe, the gravity will have the properties we are familiar with.

 

[Vikrant]

SixFoot,

Look at the Light-Cone model; it is fairly simple to conclude from the model that when the speed of a matter starts to approach the speed of light, time starts to dilate. Time stops when the speed reaches that of light. If a matter could travel faster than light, it would enter what we call past event (going back in time).

Now ask yourself, what can you do to go in future without having to wait for the future to happen? What is your thought on that?

 

[Wuwei]

By True Vacuum, I meant Vacuum State or Quantum Vacuum. Theoretically, in order to attain Vacuum State, a space has to be devoid of any particles and the temperature has to be absolute zero. As we know, this is not possible because it contradicts with The Law of Thermodynamics as observed in the current state of our universe.

It's hard to figure what a vacuum universe would be. Mach's principle would become meaningless, and space would be Euclidean.

So far our discussion has been around Theory of General Relativity and Quantum Field Theory. If we take it further and introduce String Theory then we have a universe where everything is made up of vibrating strings. The dimensions in which the constituent strings of an element vibrate is attributed to unique properties of the element. When the universe changes its state, there is no guarantee that these strings will vibrate in exact same manner they have been in the current state of the universe. As we know, according to The String Theory, gravity too is composed of strings. So there is no guarantee that in the new state of the universe, the gravity will have the properties we are familiar with.

I'm probably old fashioned but I always had trouble accepting gravitons. I always thought that a warped space was elegant enough, and there was no aesthetic need for quantizing the force. It doesn't seem that both gravitons and warped space could coexist since one would obviate the other. If gravitons existed, would space still be warped? Would the universe be closed as it seems to be?

It is easy to see that particles in the universe cannot interact with dark matter. It's harder to see how gravitation can be different in dark matter since it is the only force that is common between the two.

 

[Vikrant]

^
It seems to me that you are attempting to explain the fundamentals of universe/multiverse based on laws that are only valid for the bubble we live in. Vacuum State is entirely possible in a certain bubble. As a matter of fact, string theory versions paint very depressing pictures of most states/bubbles in our universe/multiverse. Life is impossible in most of them. Gravity is a luxury that only seem to be found in some bubble/states. And so on. This makes Mach's principle irrelevant to our discussion.

Warped space is real but it is not responsible for mediating gravitational force. Graviton is the force carrier for gravity in string theory and it makes sense because gravity just like EM is a field. Neither special nor general relativity is adequate in explaining everything we observe in the bubble we live in. I am not even talking about particles that are too small for us to see. Let us take an example of black holes. Black holes are massively dense objects that can arrest light. Yet, gravity has compacted them into a point called singularity. This pretty much is as small as an object can get. So then the question arises: do you use theory of relativity or quantum mechanics to explain black holes? As it turns out, there are aspects of black holes that neither quantum mechanics nor general/special relativity can explain. In light of this, you cannot say that either of those two grand theories are complete. We need to fill in the gaps left by general/special relativity and quantum mechanics. This task is enormous but string theory so far seems to be rising to the occasion.

I did not suggest that there are two different properties for gravity in our bubble. What I suggested was that gravity may not even exist or it may have fundamentally different or similar property in a different bubble. There is no requirement that gravity has to exist in a given bubble or that it has to have same properties as the gravity we observe in our bubble.

 

[SixFoot]

SixFoot,

Look at the Light-Cone model; it is fairly simple to conclude from the model that when the speed of a matter starts to approach the speed of light, time starts to dilate. Time stops when the speed reaches that of light. If a matter could travel faster than light, it would enter what we call past event (going back in time).

Now ask yourself, what can you do to go in future without having to wait for the future to happen? What is your thought on that?

Seems to me that if something were to travel through physical space faster than light, something else other than sheer speed must come in to play in order for said matter to "change directions" and flow backward in time.

If we accelerate fast enough, we will leave Earth's orbit. If matter/mass-less particles accelerated fast enough, it would leave spacetime's "orbit" (for lack of a better word)?

If matter were to travel faster than the fields themselves of spacetime can handle, would it "rip" through, causing the change in direction/time?

My mind always... LOOPS back to these differing "directions". lol

 

[SixFoot]

Update on college. I'll be transferring to University of Missouri S&T next year. I start Columbia College on August 29th.

Algebra, Finite Mathematics, Calculus and Analytic Geometry, and of course, Computer Science, are the agenda for the next 12 months.

I've never felt like a bigger nerd in my life, nor have I ever felt so happy about it.