Rakdos Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 is the multiverse shown in the Michael Chrition Book timeline real or made up
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 hey fagel, learn the meaning of the word universe. uni=one vers=truth e=noun universe=one truth the universe means everything and dont say atom a=not tom=cut atom=indivisible ,because the definition of the universe as i have seen in books, magazines, ect. is everything (the extent of the estended dimensions)
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 hey fagel, atom doesn't fit the definion, but universe does
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 hey fagel' date=' learn the meaning of the word universe. uni=one vers=truth e=noun universe=one truth the universe means everything and dont say atom a=not tom=cut atom=indivisible ,because the definition of the universe as i have seen in books, magazines, ect. is everything (the extent of the estended dimensions)[/quote'] I love the way you embrace general physics speculation with one hand, then throw out other general physics speculation with the other. You're like some kind of super... thing. Using the literal definitions of words is also a bad idea, as science generally defines things very precisely (something I don't think you've taken on board; anything empirically unproven is a postulate, not a theory) and the two usually don't aline in any brilliant or argument winning way. Re: the original question. I've not seen any way for two multiverses to interact after their formation, which means that, even if this is true, there is no way we can possibly measure it, so the only correct scientific thing is to assume that they don't exist. They're perfectly harmless though, so do what you like with them. They make for a decent scifi premise.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 how can there be more than one universe. define a universe if it isn't the extent of the four unfurled dimensions? I am not being sarcastic or anything, i just want to know.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 how can there be more than one universe. define a universe if it isn't the extent of the four unfurled dimensions? I am not being sarcastic or anything, i just want to know. By there being... more than one. The leap of faith (as it were) from 0 to 1 is much harder than from 1 to many.
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 i dont understand how there can be more than one everything(unless u r talking about brane theory in which there is a four dimensional "reality" less than a milimeter away separtaed from us by two dimensions)
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 The universe, in this sense, isn't 'everything'. Remember what I said about literal interpretations of words?
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 then what is your definition of universe? A volume of space time that is accessable by physical means.
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Speaking of which, since I'm not into physics(beyond a mild curiosity) but can you tell me what the 11 dimentions are in the superstring theory?
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 what you are talking about is the four extended dimensions. and is that or is that not everything? therefore universe lives up to its name. there are two configurations for the dimensions. calibi-yau manifolds or brane theory. brane is separated a little bit by if u want ten or eleven dimensions. but it goes like this: there are two four-dimensional "realities" less than a milimeter apart separated by two (or three depening on the string theory) dimensions
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Speaking of which, since I'm not into physics(beyond a mild curiosity) but can you tell me what the 11 dimentions are in the superstring theory? The 4 main ones, then 7 more. The 7 more are postulated to be as a Calibi-Yau space, which can be explained as follows. Have you heard of flatworld? The thing Einstein used to make a comparison of 4-D space? It involves little 2 dimensional beings on a 2 dimensional surface. Lets take one of these 2 dimensional beings and put it on a thin pipe. In one direction, the pipe is infinite (like our time/distance dimensions). In the other direction however, it's curled up very tightly (if you see what I mean); it's a finite dimension. You can only travel a short way in it before you come back to yourself. This dimension is like the 7 new ones postulated by several of the superstring postulates.
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 I though it was something like: space, time, gravity, etc Or am I way off here?
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 I though it was something like: space' date=' time, gravity, etc Or am I way off here?[/quote'] Gravity isn't a dimension, it's a force. Dimensions are distances, that's all. (Admittedly that's shoehorning 'Time' into the distance category, but that's a chance we'll just HAVE TO TAKE!)
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Ok, sry about the gravity thing. But from what you guys said that these 7 extra dimentions are Calibi-Yau space, and they are all the same? Or is there (any hypothesised) variations within the Calibi-Yau space? If so, they why is there a need for 7 of the identical items, more or less?
ydoaPs Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 there are infinite variations of calibi-yau space. it depends on the theory. it is to cancel out the tachyon frequencies
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Isn't a value that is Infinite (especially in Physics) is meaningless?
Sayonara Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Post #5 ...and the fact that "this word means X so therefore Y can't happen" is just stupid.
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 ...and the fact that "this word means X so therefore Y can't happen" is just stupid. Uhm, I guess this was addressed to me. I was basing it on this quote: M-Theory The standard model was designed within a framework known as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which gives us the tools to build theories consistent both with quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. With these tools, theories were built which describe with great success three of the four known interactions in Nature: Electromagnetism, and the Strong and Weak nuclear forces. Furthermore, a very successful unification between Electromagnetism and the Weak force was achieved (Electroweak Theory), and promising ideas put forward to try to include the Strong force. But unfortunately the fourth interaction, gravity, beautifully described by Einstein's General Relativity (GR), does not seem to fit into this scheme. Whenever one tries to apply the rules of QFT to GR one gets results which make no sense. For instance, the force between two gravitons (the particles that mediate gravitational interactions), becomes infinite and we do not know how to get rid of these infinities to get physically sensible results. http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html So in light of the above quote, is the word, idea, concept(whatever) of Infinite IS or IS NOT meaningless in Physics?
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Isn't a value that is Infinite (especially in Physics) is meaningless? Infinite variations. It's just one of them. A calibi yau space is just a term for some things grouped in a way mathematically devised by Calibi and Yau.
JaKiri Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Uhm, I guess this was addressed to me. Nah, it wasn't.
admiral_ju00 Posted July 8, 2004 Posted July 8, 2004 Thank you, JaKiri, for the assist. Great info and great help you've provided me with.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now