time travel via multiple universes?

[dstebbins]

The multiple universes hypothesis states that, anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternative universes.

 

It is also my personal belief that, if these universes exist, we should be able to travel to them, for practical or vacation purposes. It seems, to me, to be a mere matter of tapping into the eleventh dimension.

 

So, if the multiple universes theory is true, then there must also be a universe that plays out exactly like ours, but get started at a different point in time. For example, there might be a universe where George W. Bush is being sworn into office, not nine years ago, but as we speak. For a visual picture of what I'm talking about, open up a youtube video. Then, copy that URL, and open that same youtube video in another tab or window, without taking down the first one, and without pausing the first one. The exact same video is playing, and the video will play out exactly the same way, but they are a few seconds apart. So, there might be a universe out there that took place exactly five minutes after ours did, but other than that, has the exact same course of events, meaning that, as we speak, I am sitting down to write this thread.

 

So, if we can tap into the eleventh dimension, perhaps we could use that as a ghetto form of time travel by traveling to a universe that plays out exactly the same way ours does, but a small amount of time apart. It's April 15, 2010 for us, but it's July 4, 1776 for the destination universe that the tourist went to to witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Do you think that might be a plausible option, provided we can find a way to tap into the eleventh dimension?

[Sisyphus]

"Tap into" = travel in that direction? Why 11th? Anyway, the many-worlds interpretation is not about different universes separated by space in some orthogonal direction.

[dstebbins]

"Tap into" = travel in that direction? Why 11th? Anyway, the many-worlds interpretation is not about different universes separated by space in some orthogonal direction.

When I say "tap into," I mean harness.

 

I say the 11th dimension because that was the dimension that gave way to the respectability of the many-worlds theory.

 

It was the introduction of the 11th dimension that enabled Lisa Randall of Harvard University to provide an explanation for the weakness of gravity, but only by introducing a parallel universe.

 

If it weren't for the 11th dimension, the many worlds theory would be about as crackpot and aristotle-like as the believe that the natural state of an object is rest. Without the eleventh dimension, there would be no proof of the many worlds theory, any more so than there is proof of extraterrestrial life (just because it CAN happen doesn't mean it DOES happen).

[Sisyphus]

When I say "tap into," I mean harness.

 

And what do you mean by "harness?"

 

I say the 11th dimension because that was the dimension that gave way to the respectability of the many-worlds theory.

 

"Interpretation," not "theory." And many-worlds is different from brane theory. And it's not that there is a special 11th dimension, but that certain hypotheses have 11, total.

 

It was the introduction of the 11th dimension that enabled Lisa Randall of Harvard University to provide an explanation for the weakness of gravity, but only by introducing a parallel universe.

 

I don't know a lot a lot about string theory, but I'm pretty certain that's not accurate. Not a "parallel universe" in the sense of many-worlds interpretation, but a different brane, separated in a higher dimensional "bulk."

 

If it weren't for the 11th dimension, the many worlds theory would be about as crackpot and aristotle-like as the believe that the natural state of an object is rest.

 

The many world's interpretation is not crackpot, as part of the whole idea is that it's fundamentally unprovable. Aristotlean physics is demonstrably false.

[dstebbins]

And what do you mean by "harness?"

Look it up in the dictionary.

 

"Interpretation," not "theory."

Attorney, not lawyer.

Supervisor, not assistant manager.

Big rig, not 18-wheeler.

 

I don't know a lot a lot about string theory, but I'm pretty certain that's not accurate. Not a "parallel universe" in the sense of many-worlds interpretation, but a different brane, separated in a higher dimensional "bulk."

They are still, fundamentally, similar.

 

The many world's interpretation is not crackpot, as part of the whole idea is that it's fundamentally unprovable. Aristotlean physics is demonstrably false.

So, if it is unprovable, then what about religion?

 

Just because the existence of God cannot be disproven, should we all accept God? Should atheism be bashed?

[Sisyphus]

Look it up in the dictionary.

 

I know what the word means. I just don't understand what harnessing a dimension would mean.

 

Attorney, not lawyer.

Supervisor, not assistant manager.

Big rig, not 18-wheeler.

 

They're not synonyms. A theory is a predictive model. "This is what we will observe." An interpretation is an explanation of a model. "This is why we observe what we do." A theory can have multiple interpretations, or none.

 

They are still, fundamentally, similar.

 

They're really not, though. It's like saying Mars is a split off timeline of Earth.

 

So, if it is unprovable, then what about religion?

 

Just because the existence of God cannot be disproven, should we all accept God? Should atheism be bashed?

 

If you want to make the comparison in the religion forum, go right ahead.

[dstebbins]

Can someone who actually has an education respond?

[ydoaPs]

Can someone who actually has an education respond?

 

There's no reason for flaming. ESPECIALLY flaming mods(they know where you live and they have access to liquid nitrogen).

[zombieSquirrel]

Definitely

 

"They are still, fundamentally, similar."

 

They're really not, though. It's like saying Mars is a split off timeline of Earth.

 

I think you mean something like alternate realities or universes. The extra dimensions in string theory are comparable to the three spacial dimensions and time dimension we exist in.

 

I watched a show that eventually led to a theory about how membranes might collide, and that somehow could cause a new universe to form. Don't know if we could travel to one if it turns out they exist, though.

[toastywombel]

The multiple universes hypothesis states that, anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternative universes.

 

It is also my personal belief that, if these universes exist, we should be able to travel to them, for practical or vacation purposes. It seems, to me, to be a mere matter of tapping into the eleventh dimension.

 

So, if the multiple universes theory is true, then there must also be a universe that plays out exactly like ours, but get started at a different point in time. For example, there might be a universe where George W. Bush is being sworn into office, not nine years ago, but as we speak. For a visual picture of what I'm talking about, open up a youtube video. Then, copy that URL, and open that same youtube video in another tab or window, without taking down the first one, and without pausing the first one. The exact same video is playing, and the video will play out exactly the same way, but they are a few seconds apart. So, there might be a universe out there that took place exactly five minutes after ours did, but other than that, has the exact same course of events, meaning that, as we speak, I am sitting down to write this thread.

 

So, if we can tap into the eleventh dimension, perhaps we could use that as a ghetto form of time travel by traveling to a universe that plays out exactly the same way ours does, but a small amount of time apart. It's April 15, 2010 for us, but it's July 4, 1776 for the destination universe that the tourist went to to witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

 

Do you think that might be a plausible option, provided we can find a way to tap into the eleventh dimension?

 

The multiple universe's hypothesis? I have never heard of that one, maybe you mean the many worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

 

The many world's interpretation stems partially from Feynman's Sum over histories, or Path integral formulation.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Path_integral_formulation

 

The idea that any quantum state from A to B takes every possible path or history. This formulation isn't referring to universe as much as the particles in it though. So according to the more widely accepted Copenhagen interpretation, it is the observation that causes the wave function to collapse, and bring about the reality in which we exist.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copenhagen_interpretation

 

Furthermore, transferring through these universe's would be impossible, by definition of the word universe.

 

For example, in the many-worlds hypothesis, new "universes" are spawned with every quantum measurement. These universes are usually thought to be completely disconnected from our own and therefore impossible to detect experimentally

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe

 

A universe is a closed system, and encompasses everything in that universe, so it would not be plausible to think we could travel, in a controlled fashion or at all, between universe's.

 

Now you seem to have blended the many worlds interpretation with string theory. Specifically it seems you are talking about m-theory.

 

Which describes our universe as having ten dimensions that started from the big bang. The eleventh dimension is the link between different big bangs, and different existences.

 

Furthermore, according to m theory, if there were a lower/higher dimensional universe it would be folded up in a closed string, comparative to us. This string does not exist in any brane (a dimensional bubble per say. That allows open strings to interact with other open strings) because it is closed. The universe might also exist in a higher brane (membrane or dbrane) but according to string theory, only gravity can travel through branes that are not part of the same dimension. (membrane, dbrane, brane) all refer to different dimensions)

 

So far the whole big idea around m-theory (string theories in general) is to unify the forces of nature. We have been able to unify them all except for gravity. String theories state that gravity is the only force that can travel between dimensions/membranes/dbranes/branes, which is why the force appears so incredibly weak.

 

So between all the dimensions the only known shared law of physics would be gravity. Other than that, we have no idea about the environment or nature of these dimensions. Finally, if the only force that can travel between these dimensions is gravity, than there is no way we (beings comprised up of matter) could reach these other dimensions or even attempt to understand them.

 

The many worlds interpretation is just that. An interpretation among others that stems from quantum mechanical laws. String Theory is totally different. I would suggest reading up on the two topics.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/String_theory

 

String theory is of interest to many physicists because it requires new mathematical and physical ideas to mesh together its very different mathematical formulations. One of the most inclusive of these is the 11-dimensional M-theory, which requires spacetime to have eleven dimensions,[8] as opposed to the usual three spatial dimensions and the fourth dimension of time.

 

Compare this short tidbit from the many worlds article and it is obvious these are different topics.

 

Many-worlds is an interpretation of quantum mechanics that asserts the objective reality of the wavefunction, but denies the reality of wavefunction collapse. It is also known as MWI, the relative state formulation, theory of the universal wavefunction, parallel universes, many-universes interpretation or just many worlds.

Edited April 15, 2010 by toastywombel

[mooeypoo]

Can someone who actually has an education respond?

Not to this attitude. This attitude is not acceptable in this forum.

~moo

[Farsight]

The multiple universes hypothesis states that, anything that can happen does happen in one of the alternative universes.

It's a hypothesis, and there's no evidence for it.

 

It is also my personal belief that, if these universes exist, we should be able to travel to them, for practical or vacation purposes. It seems, to me, to be a mere matter of tapping into the eleventh dimension.

Don't "believe" in things for which there's no evidence.

 

So, if the multiple universes theory is true, then there must also be a universe that plays out exactly like ours, but get started at a different point in time.

It's like anything can happen. It's not scientific.

 

For example, there might be a universe where George W. Bush is being sworn into office, not nine years ago, but as we speak. For a visual picture of what I'm talking about, open up a youtube video. Then, copy that URL, and open that same youtube video in another tab or window, without taking down the first one, and without pausing the first one. The exact same video is playing, and the video will play out exactly the same way, but they are a few seconds apart. So, there might be a universe out there that took place exactly five minutes after ours did, but other than that, has the exact same course of events, meaning that, as we speak, I am sitting down to write this thread.

It's speculation riding a hypothesis on top of a wild idea. It just isn't science.

 

So, if we can tap into the eleventh dimension, perhaps we could use that as a ghetto form of time travel by traveling to a universe that plays out exactly the same way ours does, but a small amount of time apart. It's April 15, 2010 for us, but it's July 4, 1776 for the destination universe that the tourist went to to witness the signing of the Declaration of Independence.

The eleventh dimension is another unsupported hypothesis.

 

Do you think that might be a plausible option, provided we can find a way to tap into the eleventh dimension?

No. Sorry. You can't travel through time because time is a measure of motion. Clocks clock up motion, the second is defined by the motion of light. We've got freedom of motion through space, but not time.