The Multi-Universe Theory
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
20-03-2015, 03:11 PM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
The multiverse are simultaneous, utilizing the same substance. The only difference being time.

A new type of thinking is essential if mankind is to survive and move to higher levels. ~ Albert Einstein
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
21-03-2015, 09:05 AM (This post was last modified: 21-03-2015 09:09 AM by Hafnof.)
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
(20-03-2015 02:54 PM)Richard_C Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 08:39 AM)Chas Wrote:  It is the membrane vibrating, not the dimension.
A membrane made of what?

M-Theory is an offshoot of string theory. It comes about partially because there are so many competing string theories that are all somewhat contradictory to each other. Membrane theory tries to draw out a framework in which several string theories can be understood in a consistent way.

In conventional string theory the basic idea is that the smallest possible indivisible thing isn't an atom, isn't a subatomic particle, isn't a hadron or a lepton, but is something smaller again - so small we can't possibly directly observe it at this time and may never be able to. It's hard to say what it is made of just as Mendeleev would have had trouble describing what an element was made of or for us today to describe what light is made of. It's may of... stringyness. The main point of the string though is that it would vibrate in a way that could be mathematically described and would result in the properties of very small particles we know exist such as electrons.

So M-theory pretty much says strings exist but are all different slices or ways of looking at a single contiguous membrane that itself is vibrating. You could stop there and think of it is a metaphysical exercise to combine several other metaphysical exercises into a coherent model of quantum physics... but this model does offer us to some tantalising questions about the universe itself. Say that this membrane pretty much... "is" the universe. LIke, the universe is a single membrane made of something we can't describe but which is stretched out over all space and time. Then, could there be other membranes? In fact, what would happen if two membranes in some sense collided. Could we end up with something like the big bang: The formation of a new membrane from the collision of two existing membranes?

This is all very speculative, however.

(20-03-2015 08:37 AM)Richard_C Wrote:  
(18-03-2015 08:39 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  There are many multiverse theories. Most don't produce testable predictions so remain firmly in the domain of metaphysics for the time being. Therefore unless you are working to advance one of the specific theories it is probably best to take a step back into philosophical territory.

Some multiverse hypotheses are intended to explain the origin of the universe, the cause of the big bang if such a cause can be said to make sense. This family of hypotheses can be contrasted with religious creation stories. In the words of Carl Sagan:
So this class of multiverse hypotheses cover possibilities of an uncaused universe or eternal multiverse.

Another branch of multiverse hypotheses set out to explain quantum "wave function collapse" by describing possibilities such as parallel universes being created whenever a particle is absorbed, or quantum systems of various scales that come into sync or out of sync depending on interactions between them.
But aren't these theories also an attempt to explain how a singularity can exist? I don't understand the singularity anyway, but I think that is what Hawking is getting at with his illustration of the different histories of the universe starting at a "pole" like the physical one on earth.

Well actually... it is not necessarily the case that there ever was a singularity. We know that the size of the entire observable universe was very small and that that universe has been expanding since that time. What we don't know is what the universe looked like at the very early stages of the big bang. It could have been very small without actually being infinitely dense. The thing is that we have this big bang theory that makes good predictions and which we think is a good model... but doesn't actually describe the creation of the universe. It describes how the universe changed from a very early hot dense state to the state we find it in now. The theory of evolution describes how life evolved over time but does not describe how life got started. Similarly although we think of the big bang theory as mostly describing the early universe it really is a theory about how the universe changed over time but does not describe how the universe itself got started. We have good reasons to think that the universe was once in a hot dense state - the uniform temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation shows that it is almost certain that parts of the universe that are very far apart now were once right next to each other. It's challenging to try and find ways to investigate anything beyond the hot dense state that the big bang theory assumes, and even the theory of cosmic inflation that describes the very rapid initial expansion of the universe is not completely settled yet.

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
21-03-2015, 06:57 PM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
(21-03-2015 09:05 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  
(20-03-2015 02:54 PM)Richard_C Wrote:  A membrane made of what?

M-Theory is an offshoot of string theory. It comes about partially because there are so many competing string theories that are all somewhat contradictory to each other. Membrane theory tries to draw out a framework in which several string theories can be understood in a consistent way.

In conventional string theory the basic idea is that the smallest possible indivisible thing isn't an atom, isn't a subatomic particle, isn't a hadron or a lepton, but is something smaller again - so small we can't possibly directly observe it at this time and may never be able to. It's hard to say what it is made of just as Mendeleev would have had trouble describing what an element was made of or for us today to describe what light is made of. It's may of... stringyness. The main point of the string though is that it would vibrate in a way that could be mathematically described and would result in the properties of very small particles we know exist such as electrons.

So M-theory pretty much says strings exist but are all different slices or ways of looking at a single contiguous membrane that itself is vibrating. You could stop there and think of it is a metaphysical exercise to combine several other metaphysical exercises into a coherent model of quantum physics... but this model does offer us to some tantalising questions about the universe itself. Say that this membrane pretty much... "is" the universe. LIke, the universe is a single membrane made of something we can't describe but which is stretched out over all space and time. Then, could there be other membranes? In fact, what would happen if two membranes in some sense collided. Could we end up with something like the big bang: The formation of a new membrane from the collision of two existing membranes?

This is all very speculative, however.

(20-03-2015 08:37 AM)Richard_C Wrote:  But aren't these theories also an attempt to explain how a singularity can exist? I don't understand the singularity anyway, but I think that is what Hawking is getting at with his illustration of the different histories of the universe starting at a "pole" like the physical one on earth.

Well actually... it is not necessarily the case that there ever was a singularity. We know that the size of the entire observable universe was very small and that that universe has been expanding since that time. What we don't know is what the universe looked like at the very early stages of the big bang. It could have been very small without actually being infinitely dense. The thing is that we have this big bang theory that makes good predictions and which we think is a good model... but doesn't actually describe the creation of the universe. It describes how the universe changed from a very early hot dense state to the state we find it in now. The theory of evolution describes how life evolved over time but does not describe how life got started. Similarly although we think of the big bang theory as mostly describing the early universe it really is a theory about how the universe changed over time but does not describe how the universe itself got started. We have good reasons to think that the universe was once in a hot dense state - the uniform temperature of the cosmic microwave background radiation shows that it is almost certain that parts of the universe that are very far apart now were once right next to each other. It's challenging to try and find ways to investigate anything beyond the hot dense state that the big bang theory assumes, and even the theory of cosmic inflation that describes the very rapid initial expansion of the universe is not completely settled yet.

A salient point is that as physically-grounded theories they generally admit of testable predictions in principle.
(which is good news, I suppose; we might consider how long it took for direct experimental studies of the Higgs field - about 50 years!)

It's certainly true that the existing theories describing our universe break down sufficiently close to its origin point - an origin point which only exists insofar as it is an extrapolation backwards from known conditions by assumed rules. What makes extradimensional "super"-universal structure interesting is that it provides the framework to produce something like an origin event for something like our observable universe, existing coherently and explicably within some "larger" framework.

Naturally, however, applying naive macroscopic intuition to these kinds of situations is a fool's errand.

... this is my signature!
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like cjlr's post
26-03-2015, 01:16 PM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
http://www.iflscience.com/physics/large-...dimensions

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/M-theory

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

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

Ok, so M-theory actually unifies all five string theories. M-theory and other multiverse theories suggest upwards of 11 dimensions. Supersymmetry does not support a mutiverse. The higgs-boson was supposed to have pointed us in a direction of supersymmetry or the multiverse, however the higgs fell right in between where it was predicted to be. Higgs was found at a weight of 125 and around 113 supports supersymmetry and around 131 supports a mutliverse (this is all in a documentry on Netflix).

I also read an article that suggested that our universe is the spawn of a 4th dimensional black hole.

Either way, I hope that these theories are proven one way or another in my lifetime. If not, then I'm rooting for when we die that we move to a different plane of existence and learn the answers or travel to another universe where our alternate versions gain our knowledge and strength such as in Jet Li's "The One" (not the best movie but great concept).

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

-Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like USMCLoggy's post
27-03-2015, 08:19 AM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
[Image: 1425571451-20150305.png]
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3660

Give me your argument in the form of a published paper, and then we can start to talk.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like Hafnof's post
29-03-2015, 07:17 AM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
(27-03-2015 08:19 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  [Image: 1425571451-20150305.png]
http://www.smbc-comics.com/index.php?id=3660
I love that cartoon.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
29-03-2015, 07:47 AM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
(26-03-2015 01:16 PM)USMCLoggy Wrote:  Supersymmetry does not support a mutiverse.
I don't understand that statement. Why would the existence of susy be an argument against a multiverse?
Quote:The higgs-boson was supposed to have pointed us in a direction of supersymmetry or the multiverse, however the higgs fell right in between where it was predicted to be. Higgs was found at a weight of 125 and around 113 supports supersymmetry and around 131 supports a mutliverse (this is all in a documentry on Netflix).
Sounds strange. I don't think a 125 GeV Higgs boson is an argument against a multiverse either. Can you recall what their argument was why the 131 would be necessary to support a multiverse?
Quote:Either way, I hope that these theories are proven one way or another in my lifetime.
Don't hold your breath Tongue
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
30-03-2015, 09:40 AM
RE: The Multi-Universe Theory
(29-03-2015 07:47 AM)Alex K Wrote:  
(26-03-2015 01:16 PM)USMCLoggy Wrote:  Supersymmetry does not support a mutiverse.
I don't understand that statement. Why would the existence of susy be an argument against a multiverse?
Quote:The higgs-boson was supposed to have pointed us in a direction of supersymmetry or the multiverse, however the higgs fell right in between where it was predicted to be. Higgs was found at a weight of 125 and around 113 supports supersymmetry and around 131 supports a mutliverse (this is all in a documentry on Netflix).
Sounds strange. I don't think a 125 GeV Higgs boson is an argument against a multiverse either. Can you recall what their argument was why the 131 would be necessary to support a multiverse?
Quote:Either way, I hope that these theories are proven one way or another in my lifetime.
Don't hold your breath Tongue

The 125 GeV Higgs didn't support either Susy or Multiverse. It had something to do with the math behind the predictions. The 125 wasn't heavy enough to support the current math for Multiverse and it was too heavy for Susy. I'd have to watch the documentary again to get the full expaination for it.

Who are we? We find that we live on an insignificant planet of a humdrum star lost in a galaxy tucked away in some forgotten corner of a universe in which there are far more galaxies than people.

-Carl Sagan
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: