Universe or Multiverse?

[WelfareQueen]

The problem with all of this is it's nothing but pure conjecture. I thought science was supposed to be about observation and measurement.

This is just a bunch of physicists talking out of their ass.

My theory is that tiny green monkey too small to ever observe or measure fly out of God's ass every time he farts. The tiny monkeys are the substance that holds the universe together. Prove me wrong.

Sadly, my statement is subject to just as much "science" and experimentation as the questions posed above. This is why physics has largely become irrelevant.

There was no way to prove that the Sun didn't rotate around the Earth...

....Until it was proven.

A little less idle speculation and a little more scientific evidence would be welcome.

Agreed. Problem is, I have a hard time finding people with the capacity to have these conversations with (that I may learn more), so I'm stuck trying to spark meaningful conversations with fellow armchair science-enthusiasts on a message board. lol

I'm a physics fan and don't mind the speculation. I just wish there was more evidence. My personal theory is heresy, but I think the mathematics that underlie Quantum Mechanics is wrong. I do not think the universe is probabilistic. Einstein famously said God does not play dice.

Nothing of major consequence has been done in Physics since the 1930's. Everyone has tried to formulate a unified field theory but with zero success. I think the lack of success is due to the mathematical underpining of Quantum Mechanics.

The nuclear weak force, the nuclear strong force, and electromagnetism have been joined in the Standard Model.....but the equation is like 3 pages long and is tortured and ugly. Again...why?

Physicists need to re-evaluate the mathemathics in Quantum Fields. That would unlock the key to everything else. Just my opinion....but I think I'm right.

 

[SixFoot]

The problem with all of this is it's nothing but pure conjecture. I thought science was supposed to be about observation and measurement.

This is just a bunch of physicists talking out of their ass.

My theory is that tiny green monkey too small to ever observe or measure fly out of God's ass every time he farts. The tiny monkeys are the substance that holds the universe together. Prove me wrong.

Sadly, my statement is subject to just as much "science" and experimentation as the questions posed above. This is why physics has largely become irrelevant.

There was no way to prove that the Sun didn't rotate around the Earth...

....Until it was proven.

A little less idle speculation and a little more scientific evidence would be welcome.

Agreed. Problem is, I have a hard time finding people with the capacity to have these conversations with (that I may learn more), so I'm stuck trying to spark meaningful conversations with fellow armchair science-enthusiasts on a message board. lol

I'm a physics fan and don't mind the speculation. I just wish there was more evidence. My personal theory is heresy, but I think the mathematics that underlie Quantum Mechanics is wrong. I do not think the universe is probabilistic. Einstein famously said God does not play dice.

Nothing of major consequence has been done in Physics since the 1930's. Everyone has tried to formulate a unified field theory but with zero success. I think the lack of success is due to the mathematical underpining of Quantum Mechanics.

The nuclear weak force, the nuclear strong force, and electromagnetism have been joined in the Standard Model.....but the equation is like 3 pages long and is tortured and ugly. Again...why?

Physicists need to re-evaluate the mathemathics in Quantum Fields. That would unlock the key to everything else. Just my opinion....but I think I'm right.

I think we're mostly on the same page as far as wanting to know more, and you'll have to bear with me in the future as I struggle with translating jumbled blobs of creative thought into sensible text. This brain of mine hasn't been firing on all cylinders since 2011.

 

[sealybobo]

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.

Scientists have this 1 billion dollars telescope in Louisiana or somewhere down south and it saw two black holes collide. When that happened the whole universe shook. You didn't feel it but it happened.

This is just one bubble. This is just our seeable universe. How can there be an end? What's beyond that wall? Just because we can't go there doesn't mean there doesn't exist.

Think of infinity. Dark matter is infinite. Within dark matter are bubbles and those bubbles are universes. Universes can collide. Black holes might lead to other universes

Gravitational Waves From Colliding Black Holes Shake Scientists' Detectors Again

Here is the piece I heard. Very interesting stuff we are finding out. This woman scientist said we live in a sort of jello like universe. In other words when two black holes collide, everything shakes. We could be standing 10 feet apart and space would bend a little and we would be either further or closer for a few millakajillioth of a second.

But there has to be more than just our seeable universe. How could there not be? We think so small. For example it is hard to imagine just how far apart every star is. How long it would take us to get to the nearest star. I think the truth/facts are so much better than the myths. Better to say I don't know when that's the truth and keep looking for more evidence/facts. Science is my religion.

 

[Vikrant]

There may be many bubble universes, but I simply cannot believe there are other versions of ourselves in them.

The universe is a lot more mysterious than even the wildest of the wildest of our imagination can imagine. May be there is a collection of entangled particles somewhere in this universe which is an exact replica of particles that represent you. Entangled particles are real and when the entanglement happens the distance does not matter. Entangled particles can be at the opposite ends of the universe and yet their respective states are synchronized. This is an extremely mysterious part of quantum mechanics as it defies theory of relativity.

I disagree with the defiance of Relativity part, hence my questions about the Multiverse. Perhaps entangled particles are simply sending information to and fro in a different direction than our 4D reality currently allows us to see or understand (i.e. inter-dimensional travel of information)?

What is your 4D reality?

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

Because I don't think the information is violating the speed of light, even though it can seemingly transmit information instantly from light years away.

I think it's simply moving in a different direction that allows the information to travel, similar to the metaphor of bending a piece of paper to bring two points in space together when explaining "FTL" travel.

That way, there's no violation of Relativity (as far as I can tell).

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

 

[SixFoot]

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.

Scientists have this 1 billion dollars telescope in Louisiana or somewhere down south and it saw two black holes collide. When that happened the whole universe shook. You didn't feel it but it happened.

This is just one bubble. This is just our seeable universe. How can there be an end? What's beyond that wall? Just because we can't go there doesn't mean there doesn't exist.

Think of infinity. Dark matter is infinite. Within dark matter are bubbles and those bubbles are universes. Universes can collide. Black holes might lead to other universes

Gravitational Waves From Colliding Black Holes Shake Scientists' Detectors Again

Here is the piece I heard. Very interesting stuff we are finding out. This woman scientist said we live in a sort of jello like universe. In other words when two black holes collide, everything shakes. We could be standing 10 feet apart and space would bend a little and we would be either further or closer for a few millakajillioth of a second.

But there has to be more than just our seeable universe. How could there not be? We think so small. For example it is hard to imagine just how far apart every star is. How long it would take us to get to the nearest star. I think the truth/facts are so much better than the myths. Better to say I don't know when that's the truth and keep looking for more evidence/facts. Science is my religion.

Well, thankfully, we won't die for wondering. lol

"Giordano Bruno (Italian: [dʒorˈdano ˈbruno]; Latin: Iordanus Brunus Nolanus; 1548 – 17 February 1600), born Filippo Bruno, was an Italian Dominicanfriar, philosopher, mathematician, poet, and astrologer.[3] He is remembered for his cosmological theories, which conceptually extended the then novelCopernican model. He proposed that the stars were just distant sunssurrounded by their own exoplanets and raised the possibility that these planets could even foster life of their own (a philosophical position known ascosmic pluralism). He also insisted that the universe is in fact infinite and could have no celestial body at its "center"."

 

[SixFoot]

There may be many bubble universes, but I simply cannot believe there are other versions of ourselves in them.

The universe is a lot more mysterious than even the wildest of the wildest of our imagination can imagine. May be there is a collection of entangled particles somewhere in this universe which is an exact replica of particles that represent you. Entangled particles are real and when the entanglement happens the distance does not matter. Entangled particles can be at the opposite ends of the universe and yet their respective states are synchronized. This is an extremely mysterious part of quantum mechanics as it defies theory of relativity.

I disagree with the defiance of Relativity part, hence my questions about the Multiverse. Perhaps entangled particles are simply sending information to and fro in a different direction than our 4D reality currently allows us to see or understand (i.e. inter-dimensional travel of information)?

What is your 4D reality?

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

Because I don't think the information is violating the speed of light, even though it can seemingly transmit information instantly from light years away.

I think it's simply moving in a different direction that allows the information to travel, similar to the metaphor of bending a piece of paper to bring two points in space together when explaining "FTL" travel.

That way, there's no violation of Relativity (as far as I can tell).

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

I'm not talking about bending space to get the information there. I'm talking about the information traveling in a direction that we are prohibited from traveling (because we are 3D creatures).

The wormhole metaphor wasn't the best example, but I have a hard time imagine something moving on a 5th dimensional axis (or any hyper-dimensional axis for that matter), and it came to mind with similarities.

The point is, the information is traveling instantaneously, regardless if it's on the other side of the universe or not. If it's not traveling faster than the speed of light, then what is it moving through?

 

[Vikrant]

The problem with all of this is it's nothing but pure conjecture. I thought science was supposed to be about observation and measurement.

This is just a bunch of physicists talking out of their ass.

My theory is that tiny green monkey too small to ever observe or measure fly out of God's ass every time he farts. The tiny monkeys are the substance that holds the universe together. Prove me wrong.

Sadly, my statement is subject to just as much "science" and experimentation as the questions posed above. This is why physics has largely become irrelevant.

There was no way to prove that the Sun didn't rotate around the Earth...

....Until it was proven.

A little less idle speculation and a little more scientific evidence would be welcome.

Agreed. Problem is, I have a hard time finding people with the capacity to have these conversations with (that I may learn more), so I'm stuck trying to spark meaningful conversations with fellow armchair science-enthusiasts on a message board. lol

I'm a physics fan and don't mind the speculation. I just wish there was more evidence. My personal theory is heresy, but I think the mathematics that underlie Quantum Mechanics is wrong. I do not think the universe is probabilistic. Einstein famously said God does not play dice.

Nothing of major consequence has been done in Physics since the 1930's. Everyone has tried to formulate a unified field theory but with zero success. I think the lack of success is due to the mathematical underpining of Quantum Mechanics.

The nuclear weak force, the nuclear strong force, and electromagnetism have been joined in the Standard Model.....but the equation is like 3 pages long and is tortured and ugly. Again...why?

Physicists need to re-evaluate the mathemathics in Quantum Fields. That would unlock the key to everything else. Just my opinion....but I think I'm right.

No body from the camp of String Theory is saying that they have answers for all the questions. Both quantum mechanics and theory of relativity are inadequate when it comes to explaining workings of our universe. That is why we need a theory (unified) that can explain how universe works without contradicting any aspect of it. As we stand now, theory of relativity and quantum mechanics contradict each other. At the same time both are experimentally verified to be true. That means there is a gap in our understanding which needs to be plugged in. At the moment, String Theory is the best we have. May be in future, we will have something more promising.

 

[SixFoot]

"If it's not moving across something, it must be moving through something."

Finally, something articulate enough to ask better questions with came out of my brain today. lol

Thanks for the conversation, folks.

 

[Vikrant]

The universe is a lot more mysterious than even the wildest of the wildest of our imagination can imagine. May be there is a collection of entangled particles somewhere in this universe which is an exact replica of particles that represent you. Entangled particles are real and when the entanglement happens the distance does not matter. Entangled particles can be at the opposite ends of the universe and yet their respective states are synchronized. This is an extremely mysterious part of quantum mechanics as it defies theory of relativity.

I disagree with the defiance of Relativity part, hence my questions about the Multiverse. Perhaps entangled particles are simply sending information to and fro in a different direction than our 4D reality currently allows us to see or understand (i.e. inter-dimensional travel of information)?

What is your 4D reality?

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

Because I don't think the information is violating the speed of light, even though it can seemingly transmit information instantly from light years away.

I think it's simply moving in a different direction that allows the information to travel, similar to the metaphor of bending a piece of paper to bring two points in space together when explaining "FTL" travel.

That way, there's no violation of Relativity (as far as I can tell).

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

I'm not talking about bending space to get the information there. I'm talking about the information traveling in a direction that we are prohibited from traveling (because we are 3D creatures).

The wormhole metaphor wasn't the best example, but I have a hard time imagine something moving on a 5th dimensional axis (or any hyper-dimensional axis for that matter), and it came to mind with similarities.

The point is, the information is traveling instantaneously, regardless if it's on the other side of the universe or not. If it's not traveling faster than the speed of light, then what is it moving through?

I see what you are saying. There is an interesting article written by Ashoke Sen. He is a very respected theoretical physicist. He explains how the universe could appear very different if observed from different dimensional frames.

Here is the link:
http://www.hri.res.in/~sen/current2.pdf

The question I have for you is that can you theoretically demonstrate that dimension(s) can shorten the distance between two spatially separate objects?

You do not have to go 5D or even 4D. We all understand 2D and 3D pretty well so just use 2D and 3D as an example to make your point. Thanks!

 

[Vikrant]

"If it's not moving across something, it must be moving through something."

Finally, something articulate enough to ask better questions with came out of my brain today. lol

Thanks for the conversation, folks.

Don't be underestimating us redneck and brownneck folks

 

[SixFoot]

"If it's not moving across something, it must be moving through something."

Finally, something articulate enough to ask better questions with came out of my brain today. lol

Thanks for the conversation, folks.

Don't be underestimating us redneck and brownneck folks

I don't underestimate my own kind.

 

[SixFoot]

I disagree with the defiance of Relativity part, hence my questions about the Multiverse. Perhaps entangled particles are simply sending information to and fro in a different direction than our 4D reality currently allows us to see or understand (i.e. inter-dimensional travel of information)?

What is your 4D reality?

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

Because I don't think the information is violating the speed of light, even though it can seemingly transmit information instantly from light years away.

I think it's simply moving in a different direction that allows the information to travel, similar to the metaphor of bending a piece of paper to bring two points in space together when explaining "FTL" travel.

That way, there's no violation of Relativity (as far as I can tell).

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

I'm not talking about bending space to get the information there. I'm talking about the information traveling in a direction that we are prohibited from traveling (because we are 3D creatures).

The wormhole metaphor wasn't the best example, but I have a hard time imagine something moving on a 5th dimensional axis (or any hyper-dimensional axis for that matter), and it came to mind with similarities.

The point is, the information is traveling instantaneously, regardless if it's on the other side of the universe or not. If it's not traveling faster than the speed of light, then what is it moving through?

I see what you are saying. There is an interesting article written by Ashoke Sen. He is a very respected theoretical physicist. He explains how the universe could appear very different if observed from different dimensional frames.

Here is the link:
http://www.hri.res.in/~sen/current2.pdf

The question I have for you is that can you theoretically demonstrate that dimension(s) can shorten the distance between two spatially separate objects?

You do not have to go 5D or even 4D. We all understand 2D and 3D pretty well so just use 2D and 3D as an example to make your point. Thanks!

I'll try... lol

From Point A to Point B is the span of a distance in a 1D world.

The dashed lines indicating a 2D axis demonstrate that another direction is possible when traversing these points.

If a 1D person saw a 2D person appear at Point A, then see him disappear and reappear again at Point B, for all the 1D person can comprehend, the 2D person just flashed in an out of existence (excluding considerations of the "time" it took to travel between two points, because "time" is moving in one direction here).

But that didn't happen at all. Mr. 2D simply moved in a different direction to get there.


Thinking of the 4th Dimension - "time" - as something that seemingly moves in a single direction at a time (like a 1D universe), perhaps the 5th dimension adds an Up/Down axis of movement for "time", and the 6th adds depth, then "time" could feasibly move forward, backward, side-to-side etc., therefore enabling information to travel Cosmic distances in the blink of an eye, without violating Relativity. It is merely our comprehension that gets violated.

 

[Vikrant]

What is your 4D reality?

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

Because I don't think the information is violating the speed of light, even though it can seemingly transmit information instantly from light years away.

I think it's simply moving in a different direction that allows the information to travel, similar to the metaphor of bending a piece of paper to bring two points in space together when explaining "FTL" travel.

That way, there's no violation of Relativity (as far as I can tell).

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

I'm not talking about bending space to get the information there. I'm talking about the information traveling in a direction that we are prohibited from traveling (because we are 3D creatures).

The wormhole metaphor wasn't the best example, but I have a hard time imagine something moving on a 5th dimensional axis (or any hyper-dimensional axis for that matter), and it came to mind with similarities.

The point is, the information is traveling instantaneously, regardless if it's on the other side of the universe or not. If it's not traveling faster than the speed of light, then what is it moving through?

I see what you are saying. There is an interesting article written by Ashoke Sen. He is a very respected theoretical physicist. He explains how the universe could appear very different if observed from different dimensional frames.

Here is the link:
http://www.hri.res.in/~sen/current2.pdf

The question I have for you is that can you theoretically demonstrate that dimension(s) can shorten the distance between two spatially separate objects?

You do not have to go 5D or even 4D. We all understand 2D and 3D pretty well so just use 2D and 3D as an example to make your point. Thanks!

I'll try... lol

From Point A to Point B is the span of a distance in a 1D world.

View attachment 78364

The dashed lines indicating a 2D axis demonstrate that another direction is possible when traversing these points.

If a 1D person saw a 2D person appear at Point A, then see him disappear and reappear again at Point B, for all the 1D person can comprehend, the 2D person just flashed in an out of existence (excluding considerations of the "time" it took to travel between two points, because "time" is moving in one direction here).

But that didn't happen at all. Mr. 2D simply moved in a different direction to get there.


Thinking of the 4th Dimension - "time" - as something that seemingly moves in a single direction at a time (like a 1D universe), perhaps the 5th dimension adds an Up/Down axis of movement for "time", and the 6th adds depth, then "time" could feasibly move forward, backward, side-to-side etc., therefore enabling information to travel Cosmic distances in the blink of an eye, without violating Relativity. It is merely our comprehension that gets violated.

I liked the part where you added dimension to account for time to move side to side What does that mean?

Your explanation is quite plausible if we live in a universe where everything is entangled. The distance is mere an illusion caused by myriad of dimensions.

I like where it is going though

 

[SixFoot]

Because I don't think the information is violating the speed of light, even though it can seemingly transmit information instantly from light years away.

I think it's simply moving in a different direction that allows the information to travel, similar to the metaphor of bending a piece of paper to bring two points in space together when explaining "FTL" travel.

That way, there's no violation of Relativity (as far as I can tell).

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

I'm not talking about bending space to get the information there. I'm talking about the information traveling in a direction that we are prohibited from traveling (because we are 3D creatures).

The wormhole metaphor wasn't the best example, but I have a hard time imagine something moving on a 5th dimensional axis (or any hyper-dimensional axis for that matter), and it came to mind with similarities.

The point is, the information is traveling instantaneously, regardless if it's on the other side of the universe or not. If it's not traveling faster than the speed of light, then what is it moving through?

I see what you are saying. There is an interesting article written by Ashoke Sen. He is a very respected theoretical physicist. He explains how the universe could appear very different if observed from different dimensional frames.

Here is the link:
http://www.hri.res.in/~sen/current2.pdf

The question I have for you is that can you theoretically demonstrate that dimension(s) can shorten the distance between two spatially separate objects?

You do not have to go 5D or even 4D. We all understand 2D and 3D pretty well so just use 2D and 3D as an example to make your point. Thanks!

I'll try... lol

From Point A to Point B is the span of a distance in a 1D world.

View attachment 78364

The dashed lines indicating a 2D axis demonstrate that another direction is possible when traversing these points.

If a 1D person saw a 2D person appear at Point A, then see him disappear and reappear again at Point B, for all the 1D person can comprehend, the 2D person just flashed in an out of existence (excluding considerations of the "time" it took to travel between two points, because "time" is moving in one direction here).

But that didn't happen at all. Mr. 2D simply moved in a different direction to get there.


Thinking of the 4th Dimension - "time" - as something that seemingly moves in a single direction at a time (like a 1D universe), perhaps the 5th dimension adds an Up/Down axis of movement for "time", and the 6th adds depth, then "time" could feasibly move forward, backward, side-to-side etc., therefore enabling information to travel Cosmic distances in the blink of an eye, without violating Relativity. It is merely our comprehension that gets violated.

I liked the part where you added dimension to account for time to move side to side What does that mean?

Are you saying that spatial distance is just an illusion? If that is the case then I have no argument against your post

Well, mostly I'm here to learn and hear it spoken by different people. I have a pretty consistent state of insomnia going for myself, so I have extra hours to soak in information on all the things that catch my attention. I first got the idea to watch some science documentaries to help bore me to sleep in 2012 and I made the mistake of starting with How the Universe Works. Now I watch such things in the same way people watch sitcom TV, and somehow I'M the boring one at home! lol


As far as time moving side to side, it's the best way I can think of "stopping" time. 5th dimension would of course include forward and backward as well.

 

[Vikrant]

Your information is incorrect. Theory of relativity already takes into consideration what you are calling "bending of space". For example, why do you think the speed of light is constant? It is because light according to Einstein alters the space it travels through.

So the space has no effect on communication between those entangled particles. That is why it defies the theory of relativity. Einstein was so uncomfortable with this fact that he devised a thought experiment called Spooky Action at Distance to mock the concept of entangled particles. However, ironically, scientists later conducted physical experiment and to their surprise, Spooky Action at Distance turned out be real and Einstein was proven wrong on this count.

This tells you that universe was not created for our convenience and it is far more mysterious than we think.

I'm not talking about bending space to get the information there. I'm talking about the information traveling in a direction that we are prohibited from traveling (because we are 3D creatures).

The wormhole metaphor wasn't the best example, but I have a hard time imagine something moving on a 5th dimensional axis (or any hyper-dimensional axis for that matter), and it came to mind with similarities.

The point is, the information is traveling instantaneously, regardless if it's on the other side of the universe or not. If it's not traveling faster than the speed of light, then what is it moving through?

I see what you are saying. There is an interesting article written by Ashoke Sen. He is a very respected theoretical physicist. He explains how the universe could appear very different if observed from different dimensional frames.

Here is the link:
http://www.hri.res.in/~sen/current2.pdf

The question I have for you is that can you theoretically demonstrate that dimension(s) can shorten the distance between two spatially separate objects?

You do not have to go 5D or even 4D. We all understand 2D and 3D pretty well so just use 2D and 3D as an example to make your point. Thanks!

I'll try... lol

From Point A to Point B is the span of a distance in a 1D world.

View attachment 78364

The dashed lines indicating a 2D axis demonstrate that another direction is possible when traversing these points.

If a 1D person saw a 2D person appear at Point A, then see him disappear and reappear again at Point B, for all the 1D person can comprehend, the 2D person just flashed in an out of existence (excluding considerations of the "time" it took to travel between two points, because "time" is moving in one direction here).

But that didn't happen at all. Mr. 2D simply moved in a different direction to get there.


Thinking of the 4th Dimension - "time" - as something that seemingly moves in a single direction at a time (like a 1D universe), perhaps the 5th dimension adds an Up/Down axis of movement for "time", and the 6th adds depth, then "time" could feasibly move forward, backward, side-to-side etc., therefore enabling information to travel Cosmic distances in the blink of an eye, without violating Relativity. It is merely our comprehension that gets violated.

I liked the part where you added dimension to account for time to move side to side What does that mean?

Are you saying that spatial distance is just an illusion? If that is the case then I have no argument against your post

Well, mostly I'm here to learn and hear it spoken by different people. I have a pretty consistent state of insomnia going for myself, so I have extra hours to soak in information on all the things that catch my attention. I first got the idea to watch some science documentaries to help bore me to sleep in 2012 and I made the mistake of starting with How the Universe Works. Now I watch such things in the same way people watch sitcom TV, and somehow I'M the boring one at home! lol


As far as time moving side to side, it's the best way I can think of "stopping" time. 5th dimension would of course include forward and backward as well.

I hope I did not sound too harsh in my reply. I went ahead and modified my post. I need to do some work so I will take a break from this forum. I will come back later to add my 2 cents.

I am not sure if you had a chance to read the article I posted but it has a very good explanation of space-time dimension with respect to string theory. It uses compactification to drive the point home. I found it quite intuitive.

 

[anotherlife]

I think the multiverse must be true, for many reasons. For example, it is an experimental fact, that in a good enough vacuum, particles are observed to hop in and out of nothing. Same is observed in semiconductors with a very low number of charge carriers in them. Always when you have many particles, but not enough to make a statistics, you end up with this observation. These are the mesoscopic systems, and work in line with he multiverse theory. Also, maybe quantum entanglements can be modeled like this too. Then there are the electron diffraction experiments. The biggest proponent of the multiverse is time itself though. If time is a derivative of increasing universal entropy, then it is a mathematical necessity that there be another, mirror universe, when there is a universal decrease of entropy.

 

[Wuwei]

@ SixFoot.
You might be interested in the theory of multiverses of Andrei Linde. Look him up.

It was noticed almost 100 years ago that the total energy of the universe is zero, within observational error. The energy of mass of the universe is balanced out by the negative gravitational potential energy.

Potential energy is hard to understand for some. If you lift a rock you are taking energy away from it so it's has negative gravitational potential energy. When you drop the rock, the energy returns as positive kinetic energy as it falls.

Particles in our universe are continually popping in and out of existence, in a sense by borrowing energy from the future and returning it to the past. Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of time and energy.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, then it can pop up into existence without too much violation. Look up virtual particles here: Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

This may sound far out but string theory (unproven but not yet impossible) can describe the universe and all the plethora of different types of particles in a 10 dimensional space. One theory shows mathematically that an 11 dimensional space of membranes can provide multiverses. When the membranes clash in spots, a new universe is born, but it most likely not have the same properties as our universe, and may not support life of any kind.

 

[SixFoot]

@ SixFoot.
You might be interested in the theory of multiverses of Andrei Linde. Look him up.

It was noticed almost 100 years ago that the total energy of the universe is zero, within observational error. The energy of mass of the universe is balanced out by the negative gravitational potential energy.

Potential energy is hard to understand for some. If you lift a rock you are taking energy away from it so it's has negative gravitational potential energy. When you drop the rock, the energy returns as positive kinetic energy as it falls.

Particles in our universe are continually popping in and out of existence, in a sense by borrowing energy from the future and returning it to the past. Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of time and energy.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, then it can pop up into existence without too much violation. Look up virtual particles here: Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

This may sound far out but string theory (unproven but not yet impossible) can describe the universe and all the plethora of different types of particles in a 10 dimensional space. One theory shows mathematically that an 11 dimensional space of membranes can provide multiverses. When the membranes clash in spots, a new universe is born, but it most likely not have the same properties as our universe, and may not support life of any kind.

The Brane Theory regarding the Big Bang definitely sounds more logical than a Singularity, and it solves the problem of there being a "center" to the Universe, if they hit each other flush. Hell, it even seems like Inflation would be unnecessary in such a scenario (the way it's described now anyway).

I really like your comment regarding borrowing energy from the future and returning it to the past. It gave me great visuals of what I've been trying to understand with these higher dimensions.

 

[Vikrant]

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.

 

[Vikrant]

@ SixFoot.
You might be interested in the theory of multiverses of Andrei Linde. Look him up.

It was noticed almost 100 years ago that the total energy of the universe is zero, within observational error. The energy of mass of the universe is balanced out by the negative gravitational potential energy.

Potential energy is hard to understand for some. If you lift a rock you are taking energy away from it so it's has negative gravitational potential energy. When you drop the rock, the energy returns as positive kinetic energy as it falls.

Particles in our universe are continually popping in and out of existence, in a sense by borrowing energy from the future and returning it to the past. Look up Heisenberg's uncertainty principle of time and energy.

If the total energy of the universe is zero, then it can pop up into existence without too much violation. Look up virtual particles here: Are virtual particles really constantly popping in and out of existence? Or are they merely a mathematical bookkeeping device for quantum mechanics?

This may sound far out but string theory (unproven but not yet impossible) can describe the universe and all the plethora of different types of particles in a 10 dimensional space. One theory shows mathematically that an 11 dimensional space of membranes can provide multiverses. When the membranes clash in spots, a new universe is born, but it most likely not have the same properties as our universe, and may not support life of any kind.

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.