1123581321 Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I was wondering, if you exclude m-theory and quantum theory, do you still have a multiverse...
timo Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 I don't need either m-theory or quantum theory to fantasize about parallel universes. So in this sense: yes. 1
1123581321 Posted October 28, 2010 Author Posted October 28, 2010 No. timo i mean, in physical, theoretical and or hypothetical terms.. not merely a notion of the mind.
timo Posted October 28, 2010 Posted October 28, 2010 (edited) Well, I must admit that I don't understand how parallel universes are physical, theoretical or hypothetical with m-theory (not that I knew what that is) or quantum mechanics (I've got a vague idea what that is). I'm only an average stupid little physicist - I don't understand all the cool stuff that non-physicists talk about in the Internet all the time. But I wouldn't mind if someone tried to explain it to me. Edited October 28, 2010 by timo 1
1123581321 Posted October 29, 2010 Author Posted October 29, 2010 well timo, the theory of parallel universes or the multiverse is at the frontiers of cosmology and theoretical physics. The multiverse is based on elegant mathematics such as m-theory - which states that, from an extension of string theory, whereby all string theories are unified that membranes can exist or 'branes' if you like to call them. And these branes come in different shapes and sizes according to their dimensional status if you like to call it. Basically, the theory states that the strings in string theory can propagate through multiple dimensional space to actually become one of these branes. The conclusion of m-theory is that we may actually be inside one of these enormous membranes floating around in a much larger hyperspace with many other membranes in a megaverse of membrane universes. So, in a sense string theory and m-theory are interchangeable - kind of like the mass/energy relationship with E=mc(squared). And with quantum mechanics, i meant quantum theory. Quantum mechanics is the 'mechanics' of the quantum world, so basically the workings and operations of mass and energy at the atomic and subatomic level. Whereas quantum theory revolves around the idea of quantised matter and energy and when this applied to the universe as a whole, the idea of the multiverse is encountered. All of this is top end physics and is always being mathematically research etc.. hope this helps
Skaffen Posted November 9, 2010 Posted November 9, 2010 well timo, the theory of parallel universes or the multiverse is at the frontiers of cosmology and theoretical physics. The multiverse is based on elegant mathematics such as m-theory - which states that, from an extension of string theory, whereby all string theories are unified that membranes can exist or 'branes' if you like to call them. And these branes come in different shapes and sizes according to their dimensional status if you like to call it. Basically, the theory states that the strings in string theory can propagate through multiple dimensional space to actually become one of these branes. The conclusion of m-theory is that we may actually be inside one of these enormous membranes floating around in a much larger hyperspace with many other membranes in a megaverse of membrane universes. So, in a sense string theory and m-theory are interchangeable - kind of like the mass/energy relationship with E=mc(squared). And with quantum mechanics, i meant quantum theory. Quantum mechanics is the 'mechanics' of the quantum world, so basically the workings and operations of mass and energy at the atomic and subatomic level. Whereas quantum theory revolves around the idea of quantised matter and energy and when this applied to the universe as a whole, the idea of the multiverse is encountered. All of this is top end physics and is always being mathematically research etc.. hope this helps Doesn't this just increase the size of the Universe, yet accept we are not technologically capable of detecting it yet? If we can conceive it, it is part of our Universe - a workable approach IMO is just to accept our Universe is (in an Absolute sense) only potential. Multiverse flipside interpretation...easier to keep focused. I suppose it is easier to just allow the imagination to redefine Universe and excuse it with a word like Multiverse. I also understand the reductionist standpoint is not as sexy.
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