Parallel Universes

[MajinVegeta]

Yeah, like in Zeno's paradox?

[KHinfcube22]

ZENO? don't know about thay, I got this off the enders series. ya know, SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, or maybe XENOCIDE

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

The space outside would also have to be inf. large and be some type of antimatter.

 

What ARE you talking about?

[JaKiri]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

ZENO? don't know about thay, I got this off the enders series. ya know, SPEAKER FOR THE DEAD, or maybe XENOCIDE

 

Every one of your posts improves understanding what you mean like adding cadmium improves water purity.

[MajinVegeta]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

The space outside would also have to be inf. large and be some type of antimatter.

 

that is not possible because if the "outside" was all antimatter, the the particles that make up the universe will collide with the antimatter, and would basically blow up the universe. Even then, it is still not possible because antimatter is such a general term. Antimatter just describes matter that collides, and annihaltes other particles.

Example: the antimatter of a photon is a fermion. If they are put togther in an encampased area, they will collide and annihilate each other.

A fermion possibly won't even collide and annihalte a hydrogen particle.

[fafalone]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

Example: the antimatter of a photon is a fermion. If they are put togther in an encampased area, they will collide and annihilate each other.

A fermion possibly won't even collide and annihalte a hydrogen particle.

 

 

???????????

 

 

a photon is its own anti-particle.

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by MajinVegeta

that is not possible because if the "outside" was all antimatter, the the particles that make up the universe will collide with the antimatter, and would basically blow up the universe. Even then, it is still not possible because antimatter is such a general term. Antimatter just describes matter that collides, and annihaltes other particles.

Example: the antimatter of a photon is a fermion. If they are put togther in an encampased area, they will collide and annihilate each other.

A fermion possibly won't even collide and annihalte a hydrogen particle.

 

fermions are particles of half integer spin, that may not occupy the same quantum states in a system (such as electrons) the only comparable group os the boson, which has integer spin and may occupy the same quantum state (such as in lasers (photons) or Bose Einstein Condensates (some atoms - although these are bosons in nature, and not strictly bosons as they are not fundamental))

 

Antimatter describes something with opposite quantum numbers, so foe example an electron will have a charge of -q and a positron will have a charge of q. Antimatter is demonstrated to exist when considering the symmetries of the results of the Dirac Equation (Relativistic QM)

[fafalone]

Why is a photon its own anti-particle if its spin quantum number is 1, shouldn't there be an anti-photon with spin -1... i know all the other quantum numbers are zero.

[Radical Edward]

spin isn't included in the particle antiparticle relations since it is just a measure of a quantum equivalent of angular momentum. an electron may have a spin of +/- 1/2 and so may a positron. It is the fact that the photon has a spin of 1 that leads to many energy level transitions in the atom being forbidden, since the spin must be conserved in all interactions.

[KHinfcube22]

can one manipulate the spinning of the paricle/anti-particle?

[MajinVegeta]

Originally posted by fafalone

???????????

 

 

a photon is its own anti-particle.

 

[sigh] Okay, I thought I grasped the idea of antiparticles....for a moment there.

 

[Radical Edward]

Originally posted by KHinfcube22

can one manipulate the spinning of the paricle/anti-particle?

 

yes. This is the basis of a type of quantum computer. You have do do it through interactions however, as spin must be conserved in all interactions. (spin is the quantum analogue of angular momentum, which must also be conserved in all interactions)

[matter]

That article is.. interesting. :scratch:

 

Why do the people there have to be identical to us? Why can't they just be other people? I don't understand that really.

[aman]

When matter and anti-matter collide, don't they release their energy in photons which pretty much are basic energy quanta and neither of the above?

There also is no other universe with another blike, faf, or Saya. God is not that cruel. Besides, what would be the point. It would have to make scientific sense, and even nature seems to learn from its mistakes. Just for thought.

Just aman

[alt_f13]

If the universe ends, wouldn't there be an infinite ammount of "time" for another universe to begin?

 

That reminds me, in what "time frame" would the universe have been created if time is a product of the universes creation, ie how could the superstring multidimensional membranes collide if there is no time? Or is time an arbitrary concept? Come to think of it, how could the membranes be multidimensional if dimensions were a result of the universe?

 

Or did I totally mess that up?

 

If time is a dimension, end of story, we should be able to manipulate our place in it, which brings me back to my idea of temporal momentum.

 

If time is a dimension, we should be able to measure and compare it using vectors (I guess that's velocity).

 

What is m*s a measure of again?

 

I had an idea... I bet light is the key to measuring time in meters. I came to that in a very convoluted way and forgot how. If someone can see where I was going with that, please tell me. Comparing distances at near light speed with distances at normal speed perhaps(?).

[Sonar]

A different but identical plane of the 4th dimension. Can be interefered with and has the same rules. It really is quite possible. But unless time is proven to be able to be bent and viewed, not really proven.

[aman]

alt_f13 said in post #40 :

That reminds me, in what "time frame" would the universe have been created if time is a product of the universes creation, ie how could the superstring multidimensional membranes collide if there is no time? Or is time an arbitrary concept? Come to think of it, how could the membranes be multidimensional if dimensions were a result of the universe?

 

Or did I totally mess that up?

 

If time is a dimension, end of story, we should be able to manipulate our place in it, which brings me back to my idea of temporal momentum.

 

If time is a dimension, we should be able to measure and compare it using vectors (I guess that's velocity).

 

If we wanted to consider time relative to dimensions we might have to consider phase.

Our best instruments can measure snapshots of time in attoseconds. If our reality was presented to us in slice increments of 1 attosecond I don't think we would notice any difference from what we experience now. That leaves a lot of room for other information.

I like the example of the movie "Contact" where the signal received was a pulse. On the pulse was video and audio and sandwiched in that was a library.

Maybe the key to our phase is Pi mathematically and the key to other phases would be a totally different constant

How about 1 attosecond divided by Pi for our phase.

Yoops it's late and I'm ramblin but I just was pondering phase and maybe this might work as an example of other potential dimensions.

Just aman

[KHinfcube22]

If the universe ends' date=' wouldn't there be an infinite ammount of "time" for another universe to begin?

 

That reminds me, in what "time frame" would the universe have been created if time is a product of the universes creation, ie how could the superstring multidimensional membranes collide if there is no time? Or is time an arbitrary concept? Come to think of it, how could the membranes be multidimensional if dimensions were a result of the universe?

 

Or did I totally mess that up?

 

If time is a dimension, end of story, we should be able to manipulate our place in it, which brings me back to my idea of temporal momentum.

 

If time is a dimension, we should be able to measure and compare it using vectors (I guess that's velocity)[/quote']

But if times a dimension, then there are dimensions without time, as there may be dimensions without depth. But if there is no time, then there is no speed or distance. S=d/t d=S*t...no time, means no distance and no speed. Without distance there is no width, height, or depth. Only points, which also may be debated on wether for an inf small point has distance, just an inf small one. Was this said already and been overruled? If I am wrong, which is very likely as not, then plesae correct me. OLD THREADS DIE HARD

[slickinfinit]

the universe could be inf. large AND still have space outside. The space outside would also have to be inf. large and be some type of antimatter.

In my opinion your statement lacks the balance it is tryin to explain if our known universe can be measured to a diameter then it is not infinite it is expanding and the outer parts are dark matter that I think is what balances gravity so we dont all fly off in a infinite velocity, makin our universe stable

[alt_f13]

In my opinion your statement lacks the balance it is tryin to explain if our known universe can be measured to a diameter then it is not infinite it is expanding and the outer parts are dark matter that I think is what balances gravity so we dont all fly off in a infinite velocity, makin our universe stable

 

If that ain't a whole lotta speculation, I don't know what is.

 

And KHinfcube22:

 

You sure can have speed, distance and time without depth, as clearly shown by the mouse moving accross my screen... So why can't we have distance without time? I mean, if time stopped, I'd still be 6 feet tall, but wouldn't be going anywhere.

 

And I think we can measure time using vectors. Imagine a point in space, at (3,4,5) at time (0). It could be represented as (3,4,5,0). Now it sits there for a second, leaving it at (3,4,5,1). Super. Now it moves one unit on x dimension over a period of one second; (4,4,5,2).

 

The point turned into a 2 dimensional shape, but on a plane we can only experience as motion. [(3,4,5,0),(4,4,5,2)].