The Ten Dimensions

[TacitBlue]

Maybe when one expanding universe impacts another, they pop like a balloon!
The only option, of course, is to create and inter dimensional cruise missile with which to destroy all nearby universes.  :P

[H]

[quote]O.K., this all hypothetical: Our universe is expanding, according to scientic data. If other universes exist and they are ever expanding, like ours, it seems eventually they would intersect. What do you suppose would be the ramifications of this?

[Mushroom_Farmer]

[quote]Maybe they've already intersected, thus the great calamity of the big bang. Aren't physics a string of enemas?

[alrot]

O.K., this all hypothetical: Our universe is expanding, according to scientic data. If other universes exist and they are ever expanding, like ours, it seems eventually they would intersect. What do you suppose would be the ramifications of this?
We may need Alrot's quantum physics on this one.

Its not that simple, the universe was created in a singularity and unique event , see

[Hagar]

[quote]Before 15 billons years ago no buddy knows...no time no place no nothing,.."Trust me this is very hard for me to understand it too"(could be much longer remember that the time was created because of this, the density of the matter could be distortioned by the infinitive gravitational field in our baby universe)

The space & Time and the matter was a concequence of this Big Bang, before the clock began to work ,a small particle smaller than a

[H]

and the main question HOW? Humanity possibly won't ever know.

Not possibly but certainly. Just remember this is all theory which cannot be proven.

We often disagree on the technicality, although your combined statement does not necessarily support itself since "cannot be proven" may or may not only be applied to the here and now. Just because I can't fathom an observation of time reversal does not mean that it can never be; very, very very not probable in my lifetime, let alone those to come.

8-)

[Hagar]

We often disagree on the technicality, although your combined statement does not necessarily support itself since "cannot be proven" may or may not only be applied to the here and now. Just because I can't fathom an observation of time reversal does not mean that it can never be; very, very very not probable in my lifetime, let alone those to come.

Until someone can provide eye-witness evidence to this 'Big Bang' or any other theory of creation I can quite confidently state that it can never be proven.

[Romulus111VADT]

This is beginning to sound like a debate I had in Quantum Physics.....

The Universe is a great place to try Quantum mechanics.....

[alrot]

Whether like or Not Its closest to be true ,than being a "THEORY" Please Read!!!!

Arno Allan Penzias---Robert Woodrow Wilson---Edwin Hubble


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_mic ... _radiation


http://antwrp.gsfc.nasa.gov/apod/ap980621.html


Have a good day Gentlelman!

[Chris_F]

Physics tells some odd tales that don't make a lot of sense to us in our daily lives because we experience only a very limited scope of the universe.  Einstein's contributions to physics started with a simple question: what happens if you try to run and catch up with a beam of light.  Consider the earth is moving relative to the sun the sun is rotating around the galaxy and the galaxy is expanding away from other galaxies.  So we're moving and if we're moving we must be moving in a direction.  But no matter which direction we look in the speed that we see light moving is the same: you can't catch up to a beam of light.  The only way THAT can happen is for time and space to change as we move.  Time is relative.  Space is relative.  A train is actually shorter when it's moving than when it's stopped. Run really fast and time moves slower for you than it does for someone sitting still.  We don't notice this because the change is so small that even the most sensitive instruments can't detect it, until you move really, really fast.

Then he thought "if I were in a windowless room how would I know whether I'm accelerating or simply standing on the surface of a body and experiencing gravity?"  The answer: gravity is a distortion of time and space.

Fascinating.  And experimentally proven time and again.  Can't argue with experiments.

On to the big bang...

If gravity is a distortion of time and space and gravity is a result of matter, then funny things happen at the moment of the big bang, time and space get crunched up in a little ball.  It's not that the big bang happened at a certain time, it's that time didn't exist before the big bang.  The closer you get to the big bang the more compressed time gets and you can never get to a "before" for the big bang.  There wasn't a "before" for it to be before.

We live in a world where seconds meld in to minutes meld in to hours meld in to days.  We live in a world where we drive 55mph to the store two towns over.  This stuff sounds like nonsense.  But if we lived in a world where we moved at near the speed of light for micro-seconds or eons we'd notice this stuff and it would seem commonplace.

The "10 dimensions" thing is a result of string theory.  String theory is the attempt to join Einstein's relativity to Quantum Mechanics.  If you think relativity is odd you'd be blown away by Quantum Mechanics.  Quantum Mechanics has been show to experimently describe the microscopic world of atomic particles with utmost precision.  But if you cruch relativity down to this relm funny things happen.  You encounter nonsensical answers.  Probabilities of events greater than 1.  Infinity.  Stuff that tells us we're wrong about something.  

String theory attempts to describe the world, not as made up of a handfull of fundamental particles but as one particle string which vibrates at a given resonance and this creates what we see experimentally as the fundamental particles.  It's from here that the multi-dimension thing arises: they're necessary to make the math work.  Is it real?  Don't know.  Unlike relativity and quantum mechanics there's no experimental proof.  But it makes for a very promising theory in that it does allow those two experimentally proven principles to co-exist.

[Loafing Smurf]

I agree that much of this theory is an uncertainty.

But, I still wondering about the possibility of other universes. It may seem hard to grasp, our universe started at the point of singularity, made space and time and so on. But, I'm still unclear on how the theory of alternate universes is disproved.

Can you elaborate on how Quantum Mechanics "doesn't fit according to Issac Newtons laws"?

See what I mean the possibility of """Other Universes"""ar alrernate universes Ideas began by some unfixed issues of the Quamtum Mechanical Problems, were quamtum particles law doesn't fit according to Issac Newtons laws .. The creation of a universe doesn't need a place, A Universe creates a place,..This is complex Mushroom_Farmer...

[Chris_F]

I agree that much of this theory is an uncertainty.

But, I still wondering about the possibility of other universes. It may seem hard to grasp, our universe started at the point of singularity, made space and time and so on. But, I'm still unclear on how the theory of alternate universes is disproved.

Can you elaborate on how Quantum Mechanics "doesn't fit according to Issac Newtons laws"?

I don't know where such an alternate universe would exist.  If Einstein is correct and mass effects space and time then at the moment of the big bang all space was compressed down to a single point.  It's  hard to accept because it's so foreign to our day-to-day lives, but if one went back to the "Restaurant at the beginning of the universe" to steal a Hitchhiker's concept, and wanted to observe the big bang from the vacuum of space, one wouldn't have been able to do it.

Given our normal observations one would assume that, at the moment of the big bang the area surrounding that explosion was just vacuum.  So, given this thought, it should be entirely possible to park a space ship a couple miles away and watch the show.  Therefore, wouldn't it be possible that somewhere else there was this other big bang going on?  An alternate universe so to speak?

The answer is no.  All of what we know as "space" or "distance" or whatever was compressed at the moment of the big bang.  There wasn't any "there" there.  You couldn't park a space ship some distance away from the big bang because there would be no place to park it.  The entire "there" part of the universe was collapsed in to that single point of the big bang.  It wasn't a big bang occuring in a vacuum, it was a big bang AND NOTHING ELSE.  It's hard to wrap your mind around it but there wasn't even a PLACE that wasn't involved in the big bang.  It was all collapsed down.  Time, space, everything.  We'd normally think of time and space as immutable constants, and the big bang in this view would just be a compression of mass, with time and space evenly laid out around it.  Plenty of places to park our space ship.  But this isn't the case, time and space were compressed along with the mass.

So where else would this hypothetical universe exist?  There wasn't an existance outside of the big bang in which the alternate universe could exist.  There wasn't a place in existance for it to exist in.  How do we know?  Experimentally we can't know.  But if we assume Einstein was right, and experimentally we HAVE proven that he was, then we can assume this to be true by extension.  The only way for an alternative universe to exist would be to disprove Enistein's general relativity and explain away the experimental results supporting it with some alternative theory.  Not quite likely.

Which brings us to Newton.  Newton wasn't wrong per-sae, but ultimately its been found that he was only correct for the macroscopic universe that we inhabit every day.  Had he had a powerful enough microscope he could have witnessed the quantum phenomena himself and realized his mechanics were lacking the resolution at those scales.  Likewise on a larger, universal scale.

An example?  Put an electron in a box.  Newton would posit that, unless you open this box the electron will remain forever in the box.  However quantum mechanics has shown that, if you constrain the motion of a particle too much (try to determine both its velocity and position) it won't comply.  Make that box smaller and smaller and eventually the electron will simply phase right through the box and pop out on the other side.  It's an odd behavior entirely foreign to our everyday, but again it fits with theory and that theory has been experimentally proven to an astonishing degree.  Newton would be astonished to learn that all things have both the characteristics of particles AND waves.  To Newton something was either a particle OR a wave.  In our box example, our electron particle takes on wave like characteristics (phase cancelations and the like) in order to pass through our box.  Newton's laws of mechanics were wrong about this type of behavior.

We could also give examples of Newton being "wrong" on large scales as well, and how his laws of gravity, while experimentally correct in as far as describing the motion of planets, don't properly describe the phenomenon.  It's not that Newton was "wrong", just that he was only right under specific (although wide ranging) conditions.  They're the special case, and folks like Einstein and Max Plank and others have ammended them to apply to more and more general conditions.

[alrot]

Great work there Chris!!!!

Can you elaborate on how Quantum Mechanics "doesn't fit according to Issac Newtons law

I would have to talk of uncertanty, gravity in subatomic particles (wich doesn't exist) and a couple hundreds reasons of why the quamtum univrse its totaly asbtract according to issac newton's laws, Read a little why you have to see waves as a particles or viceversa according to your point of view , and Why a cat is inside of a box in two stages ,aLive and dead at the same time

[TacitBlue]

Back to the other universe thing: So there was absolutely nothing before the big-bang, no space, no time, no matter. I can accept that. Now, our uiniverse is expanding right? So one would assume that it expanding into this nothingness from which it began right? So if there is more of this nothingness, then couldn't there be another big bang? I know, since the nothingness is infact nothing, therefore it cannot exist and there cannot be "more" of it. But, if it contained one big bang, why couldn't it contain another? I know that so-called big bang began from a "singularity" or single point, but couldn't it only be single relative to it's surroundings? My brain hurts... more coffee... :-?

[Chris_F]

Back to the other universe thing: So there was absolutely nothing before the big-bang, no space, no time, no matter. I can accept that. Now, our uiniverse is expanding right? So one would assume that it expanding into this nothingness from which it began right? So if there is more of this nothingness, then couldn't there be another big bang? I know, since the nothingness is infact nothing, therefore it cannot exist and there cannot be "more" of it. But, if it contained one big bang, why couldn't it contain another? I know that so-called big bang began from a "singularity" or single point, but couldn't it only be single relative to it's surroundings? My brain hurts... more coffee... :-?

Not quite.  The nothingness is expanding while the universe is expanding.  There's nothing outside the nothingness.  Make sense?  :)

Probably not.  Let's say you go to the edge of the material universe, beyond which there's vacuum.  You travel outward.  (Here's where my Einstein gets sketchy so Alrot can correct me).  You'll perceive that you're traveling on and on and on in to nothingness but an outside observer will perceive that you're staying in the same place, sounds weird but the essence of relativity is that observations of the universe will be different for different observers depending on their motion, and all of these observations are accurate descriptions of the universe.  There's no nothing to travel in to.  Space and time do not physically extend beyond that certain point.  Granted this is all moot since your physical presence, the mass from your body and space ship, will warp space nearby and negate much of this anyway.  But it's a thought experiment so we'll skip that.

One could think of the universe as a large group of entities existing in a giant vacuum.  But it isn't.  It's a giant group of entities within the boundries of space/time.  Outside those boundries there is no space or time.  In other words, nothing exists.  Not distance, not time, and certainly not matter.  The universe isn't a group of things expanding in a vacuum, it's a group of things AND all space AND all time.

Colapse down to the moment of the big bang, and all that space and time is scrunched up.  There is no space and no time outside of the universe in which another universe can exist.  There's no vacuum.  It's hard to understand the concept of no space and time.  In our ordinary experiences space and time are immutable.  Leave the earth and you can float in a space ship in space and time over its surface in a vacuum.  Why not do the analogous thing for the big bang?  Because our ordinary experience and the relativistic and quantum worlds are vastly different.  If there is no space and time then there is nothing.  That means there is nothing outside the big bang because there is no space and time.  Fast forward and the story is the same.  The universe is all things AND all space AND all time and outside of it isn't vacuum.  It's nothing.  It's more than nothing, it's an irrelevant proposition to assume that there is a place or time for all that nothing to be there.  It simply doesn't exist.  Beyond the edge of the unvierse doesn't exist.

Back to our reletivistic observer traveling in the space ship beyond the edge of the universe.  The observer moving in to the distance perceives that they're traveling in to the great beyond, but the motionless observer doesn't see that person going anywhere.  So can either observer ever expect to travel somewhere and find some other universe?  No.  There's no place to go to to find such things.

The other universe boundry is the black hole.  There space and time get so compressed that they end in singularity.  A point in space at which all time happens at once.  Everything that ever was there is there.  Fall in to a black hole and you'll see youself falling forever towards a "thing".  But someone outside the black hole will instead see you smeared across the surface of its "event horizon", the point at which you essentially disappear.  You'll never hit the bottom of that black hole, and you'll always see yourself as falling, but to the outside observer you definately hit a point at which you splat against the event horizon.  Does the black hole have a bottom?  The motionless observer would say yes but you, falling in to it, would say no.  Which is all irrelevant anyway since you most definately would be very, very dead.