1veedo

There is a new model for Newtonian Mechanics. I'm not sure of the details but they added some variables, one new equation, and revised older equations. Something to do with relating all the equations to a function...I don’t remember. The guys working on this theory claim that when applied to the standard big bang model, it eliminates the need for the unknown dark matter and, ironically, eliminates the need for left over energy from 0 state fluctuations. I don’t know how well the theory works with the small though. And I wish I could remember the name of it too. It was like Revised New State Newtonian Mechanics or something. I’ll look it up later and feed some links from another hard drive after I get it installed.

There is a new model for Newtonian Mechanics. I'm not sure of the details but they added some variables, one new equation, and revised older equations. Something to do with relating all the equations to a function...I don’t remember. The guys working on this theory claim that when applied to the standard big bang model, it eliminates the need for the unknown dark matter and, ironically, eliminates the need for left over energy from 0 state fluctuations. I don’t know how well the theory works with the small though. And I wish I could remember the name of it too. It was like Revised New State Newtonian Mechanics or something. I’ll look it up later and feed some links from another hard drive after I get it installed.

So after having sex porn is a bigger tern on?

Temperature variations is a standard cycle that's happened throughout earths history. Scientists studying in Antarctica have decided that the ozone layer isnt depleting, and astronomers claim that the sun's burning brighter then ever; but, the sun alone doesnt account for all of the global climate change. I’m not too worried about the temperature though. We’ve been through ice ages before. In the paleolithic, they lasted 40 - 60 thousand each with around 20 thousand years in between when the Earth got really hot, then started getting colder. The last ice age ended c. 8000BCE so we’re due another ice age in the next 10 thousand years or so. I'm not sure of the accuracy of this statement, but I heard from [a very reliable and extremely smart] friend that in 500 million years (500 thousand?) the atmosphere, regardless of human interaction, will no longer be able to support humans nor many other species of animals (most mammals will die). I may google this in the near future.

?? Can you explain your first post post again? I dont quite understand what you're talking about.

I thought what you actually had was 'real' time and 'imaginary' time. The way it sundsl like its constructed is one time dimension describing the evolution of 4 spacial dimensions, one of which is time. ie T[x, y, z, imaginary time] After reading it again it seems more like euclidean field theory replaces real time with the imaginary time axis it corresponds to. Rather than having 4 dimensions of space-time, in imaginary time it's 4Dspace.

Yes, one is enough for coliding branes. But are you implying that these branes are static? They evolve on their own as well, and every once in a while have an outside force acting on them. ------ http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_qc.html This explains two of the concepts I was talking about earlier. 1) Quantum cosmology has two dimensions of time. 2) Time can be described as a spacial dimension.

:roll: lets recap. If I remember correctly, in the self reproducing model, you have one time dimension that treats all the ‘pokcet universes’ as particles. Basically you have a False Vacuum that creates a +universe that can fluctuate into three universes with the uncertainty of the charge between the false vacuum..... So you get -universes and so on. However, these pocket universes will evolve on their own, and can switch charges. This, kindof like time travel, affects the “main” timeline so everything down the road will fluctuate, universes will go out of existence, or will switch charges... etc. Lets explain this visually. (V[acuum] s[mall] L[arge]) 1. V s- V L+ Vs - V 2. V s- V s- V 0 V s+ V s+ V 1.1 V s+ V L- V s+ V The new second ‘second’: V + V which can of course break into tow smaller negative and a large neutral pocket universe. Just like particles. PS: This is a universe from nothing model.

Do you mind explaining where my post misinterpreted you? “to suggest that there be no time dimension is jsut silly” It was a statement similar to that one that started this whole thing. Don’t be so dogmatic, please. What if we could represent time as another spacial dimension? We have a quanta of time, namely the chronon, there is a model where time is treated like a particle. Alan has at least two main theories that each have many theories of themselves. One is known as inflation, and the more commonly known one is multi-universe theory (bassed off inflation). I never saw him mention only one time dimension (it may have been to explain a concept, so don’t pull things out of context if you wish to challenge that statement). I said earlier that I remember reading the concept of a quantum mechanical model of 2 time dimensions in his book. That doesnt necessarily mean his basic model. There are other models that attempt to explain why the universe exists, several actually, that he explains throughout that last third of his book. Beside, that is one theory (actually hypothesis but whatever). M-Theory cosmology is a definite 2D(+). If we conclude that our brane lays in a higher brane, and not just another dimension, then we have 3D of time. But the least amount of time dimensions in this cosmology is 2. I remember this one cosmology, I think some black hole cosmology where a black hole is a seed for a new universe (it is a singularity) has infinite ‘layers’ of time. Each universe could be explained as a quanta that interacts with other universes through the higher ‘mother’ universe or something which is seen as black hole interactions (black holes themselves are treated similar to atoms). Its been a while sense I read an article on it though.

I said with NO time, nothing happens. “but for most theories, with out time: nothing happens.” What you did is called a strawman, which is pointless because I don’t want to debate you. I really meant most cosmologies, and I never tried to argue that multiple timeD’s were ‘natural.’

I read the abstract and it says nothing abotu only one dimension of time. If there’s only space, then wouldnt you agree that nothing would ever happen. Unless, of course, we conclude time really doesnt exist in first place...but for most theories, with out time: nothing happens. And again, I'm not taking a position. You're taking the rather limited side that there is only 1 time dimension. This is pointless. You're not even responding to everything I say.

Bad spelling, on wordperfects part. I guess it was red and I just chose the first word. I meant ridicule. http://www.m-w.com/cgi-bin/dictionary?book=Dictionary&va=ridicule&x=0&y=0

I agree. Any truth goes through several stages. Reticule Opposed is Accepted

Maybe unconventional but necessary? It depends on where you look. I know Alan Guth's model of inflation (multiple universe theory) has 2D, that's where I got the idea that quantum mechanics was 2D. Maybe not the original theory, but the mathematics are when applied to cosmology. I also know M-Theory cosmology is; simply, because each brane is not on one standard time and therefore the branes themselves lie in a higher dimension of time (and space). I've read on numerous occasions about models, especially in cosmology, that require more then one dimension. I just remembered a chapter in The Universe in a Nutshell. In time travel, although Hawking doesnt think its possible, he sais that the most likely model is where time would diverge and could eventually converge again IF the characteristics of one universe were identical to the other. I’m not trying to say that we *are* in more then one dimension of time, and I’m net even saying time exists. Personally, I think its pointless to say “this is the way it is” because such statements can only be made on current scientific knowledge. Instead, I was originally just pointing out that some theories have more then one so people wouldnt be so dogmatic about this concept. PS: I'm pretty sure that proof applies to even space dimensions. Even so, thats just one hypothis, and may only apply to relativity to begin with.

I dont know abotu you, but my money's on nuclear power.

This is just part of string theory. My over all article is really just bringing a few seemingly distant concepts together to propose a theory of cosmic origin.

If you really think about it, the past and future are merely illusions. There can be an infinite number of futures due to the randomness in QM, and there can be a number (probably infinite) of different pasts that could lead to the universe’s current state. With the conservation of information, the only actual physically real state is the right now, which is of course relative. ‘This’ state is only the preset of another state which is a fully random outcome in accord with QM. Mathematically, the only thing preserved is the information of the current state which can correspond to a number of previous states. Thus, anybody who thinks the future is ‘out there’ is only deluding themselves. The only reason we can ask ‘why are we here’ or ‘where we are going’ is because, were the current state any different, we would not be able to ask such questions. Any thoughts?

I'm not trying to argue with time. There *are* models that require more then one. One example is M-Theory cosmology; colliding brane hypothesis. Btw, that theory is very similar to the multiuniverse proposal in inflation devised by Allan Guth (sp) which is also 2D. It was in his book that I most remember the explanation for quantum mechanics requiring 2D of time to work with inflation, and attempted to hit on in the other thread. Its not really so much physics, but in cosmology I’ve noticed that frequently there is more then one time dimension. If you really want to talk about this more keep it in the other thread, please.

I probably has more to do with inflation... The history of a photon (or any particle for that manner) is a path in spacetime (not physically, but because of the conservation of information), and if spacetime eventually curves to a point then these spacetime paths will converge and intersect at that point. If this were to happen in the past, such that the spacetime paths emerge from the point of intersection and gradually curve away from each other, the point of intersection would appear to constitute the beginning of spacetime. So weather or not time exested before 10^-43 is irrelivant

?? It merely discuses what yourdadonapogos was originally talking about...I thought he might be interested in reading it.

The principle of ignorance tells us that the beginning of this universe was totally undefined. There were no mechanics dictating how it should act; no mechanics could. We cant even conclude there was a point when the universe wasn’t in existence. Nothing: no time, matter, energy, space, information, nor any properties whatsoever. So the second you state “something cant come from nothing” the second you apply a property to nothing. So therefore nothing is unrestricted. This is why quantum mechanics is grounded in the laws of probability. There was a probability that nothing would fluctuate, but there was also a probability for each and every possible state to fluctuate. This may as well be infinite. As long as you have a stable, net charge of 0 universe, anything has the possibility to exist; including nothing. Actually, “stuff” comes from nothing all the time based off this property. In empty space, if we look at it real close in short time frames, we see it's no longer "empty." Matter can spontaneously come into existence as long as the system is balanced; prohibiting it from breaking any of the conservation laws. (remember, 76% of dark energy comes in the negative form of gravity) An important principle in quantum mechanics involves two uncertainty relations. One concerns a particles position p and momentum q stating (delta p)(delta q) = h / 4pi which implies that the more you know about a subatomic particle’s location, the less you know about it’s momentum and the same holds conversely. The other uncertainty relation concerns the energy of a particle e and the time it had the energy t stating (delta e)(delta t) > h. Following the mathematics, you can graph the probability of a particle’s location and momentum along with its energy at a given time. This graph is sortof like a cloud. The darker it is in certain areas, the more likely we’d find a particle there if we poked in our head. This cloud stretches infinitely, and this is where the concept of quantum tunneling comes from. Quantum mechanics also postulates that a vacuum/quantum fluctuation could, under the right circumstances, bring that particle out of existence or even bring another particle into existence. It even proposes that a fluctuation could give rise to this very universe. Such an event would have had no cause, and could have ben created from / out of nothing, with a total energy of zero. This makes a lot of sense in quantum physics. And, there is excellent theoretical and empirical evidence to support this. According to M-Theory, we live on an 11D Brane world but we tend to only notice 3 spacial and one time dimension because they’re the big ones, the rest are rather small (I’ll explain why bellow). Branes, like everything else, are subject to quantum fluctuations themselves. The creation of out universe would be similar to the creation of a bubble. Water is comprised of H2O molecules and as the get excited, they bump into each other. If they bump ento each other hard enough, they will form a bubble. From there it could get bigger or smaller dependent on how many molecules join or leave the bubble. Most bubbles collapse back to liquid again but a few, that reach a certain size will continue to grow. The patterns of a brane world is quite similar. Think of a balloon. The uncertainty principle allows brane worlds to appear from nothing. The interior [“of the balloon”] is the higher dimensional space and the outside is where we live. Very small ones would have a short life but a few, like ours, that had a quantum fluctuation beyond a certain size is likely to keep expanding; this is why the universe is expanding today. We now know that there are 3 large dimensions with another 7 giving us 10 spacial dimensions ( + 1 time giving us 11). But why are 3 so much larger then the rest? Strings wrap around dimensions, and they constrict the dimensions like rubber bands so they cant expand. If a looped string and it’s antipartner were to collide, they’d turn into energy which is a straight (or unwrapped) string; a string that cant wrap around the dimensions. And if enough of the strings turn into energy, it would allow and actually “feed” those dimensions to expand. Think of two point particles on a straight line: they will eventually collide unless they’re both going the same speed. But if you put point particles on a plane, they’re less likely to collide. It’s the same with strings, just harder to visualize. If you have them on a 3 P-Brane, then they will most certainly collide, but if you put them on a higher dimension, the chance of two colliding goes down dramatically. Because of the enormous heat in the early universe, all of these 10 dimensions are trying to expand. And at the same time, the wrapped strings try to keep them at their original plank sized radii. Eventually, a thermal fluctuation would make three dimensions larger then the others and the strings in these dimensions are very likely to collide. As the restriction grows less, the dimensions will expand more making it harder for more strings to wrap around them because it takes more energy to wrap around a larger dimension (T Duality). In this way, the more it expands, the harder is gets for them to contract and stay at plank’s length. Eventually, it requires too much energy for a string to stay on the larger dimensions so they all, well most of them, would move to the still-small ones. The inflationary model of the big bang does not, however, say that all the stings "slipped off" so in principle, with the expansion of the universe, there can be strings that stretch light years through the universe. The discovery of one would be very string empirical evidence for M-theory. At this point, you get to the traditional big bang model. The universe condenses forming galaxies who condense farther forming stars. Eventually, simple amino acids would combined into self-replicating substances on many different planets (trillions if modern day estimates are correct) and follow the law of evolution on each planet. But how long ago did inflation start? We already know that all galaxies are moving away from us and that the farther they are from us, the faster they’re moving away. When looking at great distances, we see photons emitted from an earlier point in history so we’re essentially looking back in time. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that all galaxies were moving away from us and came up with the Hubble parameter (more commonly known as Hubble’s constant but it’s not a constant, it changes over time). He realized this because all galaxies had a red shift and the farther away they were, the bigger the shift was (Doppler Effect). Before getting into some mathematics, this already poses some propositions. We know that at one point in time, the universe would be a hot, dense, plasma. I can’t stress how much theoretical and empirical evidence there is to support this. Hubble’s constant is: v/d. v = velocity the universe is expanding and d is the distance from us the galaxy is. The inverse of H is a time unit because v = Hd so 1 / H = d / v. Distance / velocity is time (I can go 5 miles in half an hour: 5 / .5 = 10 miles / hour). So T = 1 / H (substitution). H is measured in km / s / Mega Light Year, which can be converted to years. T = (10^6 ly * 9.5 * 10^12 km* 1y) / (3 * 10^7 H km / s / MLY * MLY * ly * s) Which is 9.5 * 10 ^11 / 3H years. The geometry of this universe is rather flat so it’s a reasonable assumption that H stays close enough to itself that 15 billion years is a real good estimate. We can however write an algorithm that gets v and d at different points in history then average that using the small cosmological constant and other factors to get approximately 14.55 billion years after plugging that value for H in the equation. There have ben other calculations using an HR diagram with galaxies that renders a time of 13.8. There are many ways to calculate the age of the universe (and many ways to prove the universe started in a singularity), and all of them tell us that the universe is around 10 - 15 billion years old. There is very little doubt that the inflationary model is in fact correct. The big bang explains a number of phenomena including the expansion of the universe, the existence of the cosmic background radiation, and the relative proportions of various sorts of matter. Burn me for being an infidel, 1veedo

heres a link: http://www.chaos.org.uk/~eddy/physics/universe.html

Thats ironic because many, many models of string theory have more then one dimension. Even in M-Theory (the most predominant model), time is represented as 1D but in M-Theory the mathematics are anticommunitive and antiassociative, and you have i. M-Theory technically has two dimensions of time, but it can be represented in 1D [the equations are very complex to say the least]. Well, this is how I remember the concept being explained. I think it was either one of Greene’s books or Hawking’s. Green I know mentions the fact that there are 2 dimensions of time but I think Hawking actually explains the concept in the universe in a nutshell. many worlds asserts that these universes actually ‘exist,’ but the ‘standard’ model as you call it works with the conservation of information. Weather or not the universes used to sum the event exist or not is entirely irrelevant. I thought everybody knew the universe had two time dimensions. The common belief that time has 1D is a assumed conclusion drawn from the fact that time enters our experience as a scalar quantity. The real reason why time appears as a scalar quantity is that our equations of motion lie in the fact that no matter how many dimensions of time may exist, they have nothing to do with directions in space. There are models with one dimension of time, and I’m not arguing that in the ‘real’ worlds there actually are, but in QM and many other theories there is more then 1 time dimension.

Yes. In quantum cosmology (the whole a + b = 0 thing), universes can not only be entagled by each other but groups of similar universes can clump together. If there are very diferent universes, then they dotn interact with each other much. If they have similarities, then their similarities will sum or interact with each other, affecting the universes/difernt universes' paths etc If there is a similarity from the 'future' of another universe, it will interact with the 'past' of the other universe. This way, you get "strings" of universes, and you also need a time quanta called a chronon. It gets kindof confusing because the process just goes on and on and on, adn the sum of EVERYTHING equals 0; thats why everything seems so symetrical and "elegant". PS: This is why quantum mechanics has two+ dimensions of time, and more then just 3D of space.

The probability of a chair just appearing from no ware is very very small. Dont ask me! As a physicist once said “I cant visualize multiple dimensions, I just let the math do all the talking.” As for our universe popping into existence, I like quantum cosmology’s model. Maybe I’ll start a thread soon on the topic, I’ve mentioned it a couple times. A + B = 0, we see A and B... Clasical theories have only one. But “modern” theories generally have two, and sometimes more. You’re lookign at the world in the eyes of Newton so to speak. Its mealy the averaging of quantum effects that give us a Newtonian experience. For example, quantum mechanics. delta(t) * delta(e) > h Any time energy fluctuates less then h, t would fluctuate at a (multiple of?) 10^-43. IE -2 * plank. I think the big thing is that it can fluctuate at sqrt(-1) if delta(e) does ‘something special’ (I’m a little rusty on this subject). Add in sumoverpaths and what you get is “multiple universes.” So basically, at every chronon, every possible out come occurs (sums), and ends up each in another “parallel” universe. You get a grid (X, Y). If you fluctuate back in time, [because of the conservation of information, not the actual existence of these universes], you end up not only along a different Y, but a different X as well. (So you can kill yourself and avoid a big paradox, because it branches off, and its not just one line.)