Many-worlds theory
- Locked due to inactivity on Aug 4, '16 4:34pm
Thread Topic: Many-worlds theory
-
Except it's incorrect to say multiple universes, as there is in fact only one.
-
What do you mean? The entire basis of branes and half of the ability for String theory to work relies upon the fact that there are other universes. Take that aspect away and its like removing half the foundation of a building, it all just comes crashing down.
-
i think we have to define universe here
-
Universe: A separate place from our own existence where the laws of physics can be different and events can happen differently than in our space, also these spaces are separated in hyperspace and can never be reached by any means that does not involve hyperspace.
-
Uuhh no lol. The definition of Universe is: all existing matter, space and energy considered as a whole.
Branes and strings are theoretical units of point particles which are described to be of "higher demensions" but dimensions aren't really the same as the universe.
Dimensions are to the universe as humans are to the galaxy. That is-A part (no matter how relatively complex) of the larger whole. -
And that aside bro... The laws of physics are never different. The whole thing is that if you subject a thing to the exact same condintions as another thing you'll get the exact same result. If for instance you boil a 8oz of water into steam on earth, but are unable to heat the water sufficiently to vaporize it elsewhere in space, this doesn't mean physics works differently, It means the situation is different.
The string theory doesn't rely on hypothetical hyperspace physics. It relies on mathematical constants I observed in our relationship to the Universe. -
Lol *that are observed. Not "I" observed
-
So you admit the possibility of multiple dimensions? Because I remember you said this theory doesn't have to do with multiple dimensions or something. @Slim
-
The many worlds theory doesn't to my knowledge.
The string theory does.
The existence of multiple demensions is pretty much fact. You can observe them for yourself. -
How? Unless it's some sort of scientific observation,
-
No, as the theory of string theory states that there are other universes, what you are thinking of is the multiverse, which contains all regions all possible histories and all possible physical possibilities considered a whole. If you're going off the infinite-universe theory then that's a whole different theory.
branes are not point particles, they are the "substance" to which strings attach. Thus, they are the different universes.
When I mean dimensions, I mean in the same sense as movement, plus those higher dimensions that we cannot travel in.
Hahaha thats actually really hilarious XD you're comparing two things in our own universe, in others, initial conditions could be and are different, causing things not to be the same, such as maybe gravity is actually stronger in another universe, meaning that would life would have to develop on a small moo of a larger planet so that it wouldn't be crushed, or even worse for life, protons themselves are unstable, therefore ridding that universe of the ability to make atoms. These thing couldn't occur in our universe, but they do in others, as stated in string theory.
higher dimensions cannot be observed, as you cannot freely travel through tie or go to other universes XD
There HAS to be higher dimensions for there to be other worlds in the first place. -
Naw bud im thinking of the literal, scientific definition of the universe. The multiverse is extremely dated, and even in its day physicists acknowledged the term multiverse is a misnomer. Of course its irrelevant now because theres very llittle actual math to back it up anyway.
I'll admit that the math to the string theory is lightyears beyond me, but i do seriously doubt that such obvious illogical terminology would be tolerated in the work of such an accomplished scientist. basically man, show me where stephen hawking wrote that. Cause i aint buying it.
Im comparing space to space. No matter how many universes you think there are, or how hilarious you actually find them, it doesnt change a mathematical constant and if it did, then we would have no rational means of observing the alternation. In short: alders razor.
And again, if higher demensions could not be observed than it would fall under alders razor.
The only tottally necessary bases for the many worlds theory is the double slit experiment. Anything else is unsubstantiated. -
I know it sounds like im just saying no, no, no over and over, but im just sayingthat there is a system of ddefinition that is used and i just dont believe you're fully aware of what definitions youre using to get your point across.
Now in service to arguing agaimst that point you're throwing in all this other stuff but bro, its just irrelevant and wrong.
So im sorry im being a little harsh but all this is beside the point. -
To be clear: youre missing the point
-
No, I'm not missing the point, the idea of the multiverse on it's own doesn't make sense, but within string theory it is needed for it to work. The way the idea was first re-brought up was in the process of trying to figure out the whole before-the-big-bang mystery, and the idea of branes colliding would explain the birth of the universe perfectly, and without that, you just can't explain all of this, and it all just reverts back to the "Oh well you know our universe came from absolutely nothing" idea which makes no sense whatsoever. So the assumption became that if our universe is a brane, than what are other branes? Obviously, other universes. this eventually became integrated into the framework of String Theory.
This thread is locked, therefore no new posts can be made.
