The Whole Universe - Frame Dragging

[Appolinaria]

I believe the universe spins. If we find enough evidence suggesting that the universe spins, then there is a new problem.

 

 

 

What is it spinning relative to? The only way to answer that is by saying there must be something outside the universe, which goes directly against what relativity has to say about space and time in general.

 

I think the universe spins, too. & since it's proven to be flat, if it is expanding, while spinning, it would create a spiral shape, right? which is implying something weird.... that it's actually in motion through an area of non space time.

Edited October 13, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Mystery111]

I think the universe spins, too. & since it's proven to be flat, if it is expanding, while spinning, it would create a spiral shape, right? which is implying something weird.... that it's actually in motion through an area of non space time.

 

Sure it can be viewed this way. So what is it rotating in?

 

I've pondered this question. Suppose we get really exotic and steal an idea from certain string theories suggesting our universe is floating about in a multidimensional pool. It could be an eleven dimensional pool. 26 dimensions for some boson theories. Or maybe even a simple 5 dimensional vacuum where our branch is rotating relative to other branches floating about.

 

But this goes against what I am comfortable with. I don't believe in parallel universes, (or at that a multiverse) and I certainly don't believe in any dimensions existing in this universe that is higher than four. So obviously I am at a problem with what relativity could say about a rotating machian universe.

[Appolinaria]

Sure it can be viewed this way. So what is it rotating in?

 

I've pondered this question. Suppose we get really exotic and steal an idea from certain string theories suggesting our universe is floating about in a multidimensional pool. It could be an eleven dimensional pool. 26 dimensions for some boson theories. Or maybe even a simple 5 dimensional vacuum where our branch is rotating relative to other branches floating about.

 

But this goes against what I am comfortable with. I don't believe in parallel universes, (or at that a multiverse) and I certainly don't believe in any dimensions existing in this universe that is higher than four. So obviously I am at a problem with what relativity could say about a rotating machian universe.

 

 

Why don't you believe in parallel universes? Just out of curiosity.

 

I just feel like humans haven't been around very long, and we've already observed so many things about our universe. Wouldn't it be kind of disappointing if there wasn't more?

[Mystery111]

Why don't you believe in parallel universes? Just out of curiosity.

 

I just feel like humans haven't been around very long, and we've already observed so many things about our universe. Wouldn't it be kind of disappointing if there wasn't more?

 

Aren't we happy with the one we have?

 

For a true, self-consistent universe would mean that we will never actually know of any other universes existing out there. Besides... there is no other truer definition of a universe other than one which encompasses everything. I suppose I believe in what Smolin believes:

 

''

1. There is only one universe. There are no others, nor is there anything isomorphic to it. Smolin denies the existence of a multiverse. Neither other universes nor copies of our universe — within or outside — exist. No copies can exist within the universe, because no subsystem can model precisely the larger system it is a part of. No copies can exist outside the universe, because the universe is by definition all there is. This principle also rules out the notion of a mathematical object isomorphic in every respect to the history of the entire universe, a notion more metaphysical than scientific.''

[Appolinaria]

i understand that the definition of the universe is everything... but thats only because its everything we can observe and infer right? so another universe contradicts everything that defines it, but maybe its just way beyond our comprehension. i dont think that means we can rule it out tho.

 

 

 

if we werent capable of observing anythig beyond our solar system, that would be our universe...

we could say the forces from further space are just the laws of our universe. the planets revolve just because thats just the way our universe works. so using this as kind of an analogy, wouldnt the mere fact that we have constant forces in our universe imply that there is a force acting upon it entirely? or is this just a naive thought. as above, so below.. i d

ont think space time should cancel out this idea... i know science is only what we can prove but i think this is an interesting thoughr

[Mystery111]

i understand that the definition of the universe is everything... but thats only because its everything we can observe and infer right?

 

Indeed, which would seem to indicate that speculating on the existence of parallel universes is nothing more than a philosophy and not science because there is no way to even measure the physical existence of other universes, which are self-consistent and self-contained.

 

Even if parallel universes help to explain why we are in the specific universe we are in today, a problem of fine tuning ect, it still won't provide us with a credible measurable or observational solution. All we have to measure that theory against is our universe, so what good will it help us to infer on any other universal existance?

 

You see when you actually study why people think other universes exist, other universes in the mathematical model is just a bunch of potential states. The physics which exists in the minima is where you find all these different quantum states. Some see this as parallel universes, but that is all they are, is a bunch of minima interpreted as different states independantly might I add.

[Appolinaria]

i understand that the definition of the universe is everything... but thats only because its everything we can observe and infer right?

 

Indeed, which would seem to indicate that speculating on the existence of parallel universes is nothing more than a philosophy and not science because there is no way to even measure the physical existence of other universes, which are self-consistent and self-contained.

 

Even if parallel universes help to explain why we are in the specific universe we are in today, a problem of fine tuning ect, it still won't provide us with a credible measurable or observational solution. All we have to measure that theory against is our universe, so what good will it help us to infer on any other universal existance?

 

You see when you actually study why people think other universes exist, other universes in the mathematical model is just a bunch of potential states. The physics which exists in the minima is where you find all these different quantum states. Some see this as parallel universes, but that is all they are, is a bunch of minima interpreted as different states independantly might I add.

 

 

 

Thank you so much for your responses.... and patience. I've asked you so many questions.

 

I honestly don't even know the basics of physics, but if I understood the terms you used correctly, then I have a question. So, if there are a bunch of potential states, what makes a state occur as opposed to just being a possibility? If the other universes are just in a potential state, why is ours existing?

 

Am I even defining these words properly, haha ...

[Mystery111]

You're defining it perfectly.

 

Because of the wave function, and applying quantum mechanics to the beginning of time, we are told that one universe did not just appear from the vacuum from a single possible state. Instead, if there was no one around to observe the early universe, then every universe that could be a possibility arose alongside our own universe. It's odd to think of a system having more than one state at a time. This is analogous to a single particle system having a spin up-spin down superposition; meaning a particle can have both a spin up directionality and a spin down directionality simultaneously.

 

The reason for this is because Eigenstates of a system can overlap as possibilities, it is not until you take the absolute square of the wave function [math]|\psi|^2[/math] does any one singular existence appear. Because of this, there are ways to avoid the early universe undergoing creation alongside a great many other universes; that is by saying the wave function of our universe was already determined at big bang. The closest model we have to that kind of theory is the Bohmian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics. In this interpretation, the state vector of the universe [math]<\Psi>[/math] has already collapsed and produced the one reality it will evolve into, and the wave function we see is driven by what are called Pilot Waves.

 

Saying the state vector of the universe [math]<\Psi>[/math] has been determined is an analog of someone attentively watching a quantum system and collapsing it's wave function. Parallel Universes just takes the wave function, seriously. It interpretes the wave function as being real, but existing in another vacuum state. Each quantum vacuum is very similar to other universes, maybe differing by only a small quantum difference, but other vacuums will be so different, they would maybe last for only a fraction of second. Again, the latter here comes down to fine tuning. Believing in parallel universes is matter of preference, but I doubt we will ever be able to confirm their existences.

 

Though I will add, the idea that the universes wave function was determined at the big bang still has one major problem. Why did the universe choose the state we observe and none of the other (infinite) possible states it could have been in. That is why parallel universes can be appealing to people, because it seems to remove that question, for there is no question when every possibility came into existence.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Mystery111

[Appolinaria]

Before I write my response to this, what exactly is "someone attentively watching a quantum system and collapsing it's wave function."? How is that possible? Through thought? Is that proven?

 

Sorry, once again, oblivious to physics

Well if it is, then in the Bohmian interpretation, wouldn't there need to be an observer to collapse the wave function in the big bang? Like a super conscious?

There are about 500 words & concepts here that I need to look up, these 4 paragraphs have helped so much. Thanks for making it as simple as possible so I could attempt to understand it.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Mystery111]

Before I write my response to this, what exactly is "someone attentively watching a quantum system and collapsing it's wave function."? How is that possible? Through thought? Is that proven?

 

It's just pop culture which focuses on human observation. Human observation is almost certainly an interaction on the system, but it's not unique in that we are the only system which can ''observe'' - two particles for instance can observe each other when they come into contact with each other. But as for attentively watching a quantum system all we would be doing is locating a particle by using light for instance. In fact, a really good example of disturbing the evolution of something through a series of observations is the Zeno Effect. The evolution of the system will become non linear, meaning that normal radiative runnaway of a particle ripe to give up all its energy can be held in suspence, in theory, for as long as you want so long as you were willing to make a series of short equidistant observations on the system. There is even an anti-zeno effect.

 

The thing which happens in the zeno effect, is just the same as saying something is watching it and disturbing its normal evolution by altering its wave function.

 

Well if it is, then in the Bohmian interpretation, wouldn't there need to be an observer to collapse the wave function in the big bang? Like a super conscious?

 

If you want, but you don't need to infer on God when science is involved.

 

Instead, there are other ways to solve the problem of how our universe assembled correctly in the beginning, and that is by using the transactional interpretation. In this theory, the universe has both a past and a future as histories which are complimentary to each other. The future can interact through waves of information which will ''interact'' with the past. Waves moving back in time are called 'Echo Waves'. Waves moving forward 'Offer Waves.' Each wave moving in time will continue to oscillate until the meet up in the present time and collapse. Because of this, it opens up new idea's how past states and future states can effect each other. Whilst actions in the future can effect the past physically, things which happen in the past effect the future statistically.

 

Wheeler's delayed choice experiment explains just this. A photon may travel great lengths across the universe, but because of the wave function and something called ''Sum over Histories'' the photon will not travel one path alone. A photon may travel all path's which would be available for it. It isn't until some detector here on earth, perhaps a scientist in his lab observing this photon reach his lense that something remarkable happens. All the histories it is allowed to have suddenly deflate and only one path the photon took remains! In this sense, the scientist observed something in the present time frame, and would effectively alter and change the past history of the photon! So Dr. Cramers Transactional Interpretation makes a lot of sense to people, even me.

 

But what has this got to do with the early universe, and how it came into existence? Well much the same thing applies to the universe as a whole again. Actions made in the future cone of our universe are constantly sending quantum information back to the beginning state of our universe, defining everything which a common observer could not do!! This would need to infer the idea that when the big bang happened, the end of the universe happened also, assuming their is indeed a beginning. I think it is still accepted by many physicists that end stories in this sense are very important when speculating the beginning states. So we can remove all our problems associated to the wave function allowing as many universes to arise by deploying the Bohmian Interpretation with the addition of quantum waves in the form of the Transactional Interpretation to explain how the universe was defined from very early on.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Mystery111

[Appolinaria]

hmm this is all very complicated for me.

 

so, in the wheeler experiment, the present affects the past, resulting in the past then affecting the future?

 

so they're all connected.. changing one, changes the other.

 

but where do these past/future waves originate? how does the past have a physical state that can be altered?

 

I need to read more about this to really grasp it.. it's way beyond me

[Mystery111]

so, in the wheeler experiment, the present affects the past, resulting in the past then affecting the future?

 

Yes. In this interpretation, time does not have a preferred directionality. It is time symmetric, meaning it allows positive and negative time directions. If indeed a quantum particle can have many histories, then the universe applied as a whole also has many histories... many different pasts all existing side by side... again this is due to a wave function as well. So if a scientist in the lab can observe a particle and define a true proper history, then that scientist is effectively shaping that particles past - a single history. In much the same sense, assuming the cosmology of the universe can be expressed in quantum terms, then some maximum state of information in our universes history could be shaping up the past history of the universe.

 

so they're all connected.. changing one, changes the other.

 

Some times there might not be any changes in the physics at all. Understanding how this sort of stuff effects each other is very complicated, well, can seem complicated. But in theory, it is quantum differences which are effectively altered in this model. The early universe, when quantum mechanics ruled the first instant of time is what we are mostly interested in. The ''other'' states the universe could have arose in somehow did not, and maybe this is because information from our future horizon is somehow effecting the past.

 

but where do these past/future waves originate? how does the past have a physical state that can be altered?

 

They originate from what is called the emitter. The emitter sends out a combination of a retarded field which propagates into the future and an advanced field which propagates into the past. The emitter could be something as simple as an electron.

Edited October 14, 2011 by Mystery111

[Appolinaria]

I have a question, according to that transactional interpretation theory, RIGHT at the beginning of the universe & time, would there only be future histories?

[Mystery111]

I have a question, according to that transactional interpretation theory, RIGHT at the beginning of the universe & time, would there only be future histories?

 

Yes. Very good question.

 

As soon as a beginning has been initiated, the idea is that the universe has also an end story... what this end could be is a number of things.

[Appolinaria]

Yes. Very good question.

 

As soon as a beginning has been initiated, the idea is that the universe has also an end story... what this end could be is a number of things.

 

Is there a common feature of all observers? Like, can only something that consists of a type of particle, or being in a certain state, make an observer?

 

also, what are neutrinos?

Edited October 17, 2011 by Appolinaria

[Mystery111]

Did we even talk about neutrino's... Ok since you asked so politely ...

 

Nuetrino's are a very light, alloof and elusive subatomic particle which has three generations of existence due to possessing a very small small. They were once thought to have no mass at all, but this idea ran into difficulties. A nuetrino is a fermion which means it follows the same spin statistics as electrons protons and neutrons. Meaning they have a spin 1/2.

 

Is there a common feature of all observers? Like, can only something that consists of a type of particle, or being in a certain state, make an observer?

 

To allow a particle to be an observer, it needs to observe common observables of other particles. For instance, spin, energy, mass are all observables of a quantum system. A particle may not have a well defined spin on it's own until another particle gets real close and begins to define it's properties. This is how decoherence in principle works.