OT: More Physics talking

Hey exec, where are you ? I miss our treats about phisics

Here is the thing, I recently read a great article about how current view of universe implies in parallelle universes, actually 4 diferent levels of it. Anyone interested in a summary and some discussion ?

 

pass me one parallel universe man!

 

wait wait:
(smoke, smoke..)

Oh yeaaaaaah..... suuuure man...
drop the phisґ thing...

 

Quantum Bong Hit

 

.... Don't be surprised if you get the munchies and turn into a human black hole, devouring all in it's path!

 

why so modest? only four?
it contradicts many phylosophies imho.
another strange thing for me is discrete nature of integer four.

 

Not only 4, 4 diferent levels, types of parallel univ.

Acording to observations, universe seems to have an more or less regular mass distribution. As universe is infinite we have infinite mass, so by simply probability there must be similar Hubble bubbles (will explain below) and even equals ones in some part of the universe. Estatistics say it's from 10 to 10e28 meters away. But we can't seem them. We can observe only the space inside our Hubble bubble, that is the space from where light has reached us in this 14 bilions of universe existance. We can observe actually 17 billion light years (due to relativistics efects). This estatitics are made by simply calculating every possible quantum state that the particles in our Hubble bubble can be and how often they repeat. So since universe is infinite, if we wait long enough (to our hubble bubble to expand enough) we might find another earth somewhere. This is Level I multiverse. Basically, same phisical laws, same constants, but with diferent initial conditions (resulting in diferent outputs) in each universe.

This was easy to swallow right ? May I continue to Level II ?

 

Do those parallel things have something to do with the Pangalactic thing in hitchhikers guide to galaxy?

 

may i ask you replace your billions to scientific powers?
i ensure you that billion in russian is 10e9, and has a synonym milliard.
while germans for example understand billion as 10e12.
rus trillion is 10e12, but you can think of trillion as 10e18. dunno.
et cetera.

i can explain russian names of numbers, but i think it will be offtopic here, k?

so, hubble bubble is a radius the signal can reach since universe birth?

and theoretically we cannot know what is happening outside hubble bubble.

therefore we can wait for anything outside, if long enough.
following Occam, i personally wait for nothing. i'm zenning just within our hubble bubble.

and you cannot approve that i'm wrong right now.

you have just a hypothesis. i can answer you that there are dragons outside indeed.

as for searching for your geminum, i think that you can find him within our "galaktikos" already. more or less ressembling to you.

 

is there any universal level where females only want one thing?
is there any chance to get there, perhaps when pings are bad and i can warp?

 

Im still quite unclear, after reading all those popular science books and sites - how exactly cosmologists model Universe? infinite space with finite matter in it, or infinite space with infinite matter but finite density, or....?

is the big bang starting as a point (ie in the beginning space was infinitely small stuff), or it is of infinite size itself?

ok, ok - yeah, youre right, it cant be a point - thats only the assymptotical limit. and then infinitely small interval is already infinitely big. yeah, my questions are stupid!

You know, this is almost as hard as Theory of Sets.

Meanwhile if youre interested in ripples in Solar plasma - thats my work.

 

Thats RIDICULOUS!

Ok, lets formulate in clearer terms.

Space is IRxIRxIR, I think we dont need time here, or do we?
We want a mapping to something that is infinitely dense. So if matter is finite - space has to be converging to a point. Any subinterval of IR (however small) is identical to IR, but the point is not. hmmm - yes we can rise density infinitely but never make it infinity. ok, this makes sense. anyway all the equations will fail somewhere there, and so we dont have physical laws.

what if matter is infinite. obviously of lower or equal power to IR. We dont have problems mapping it into the intervals I think? The density will still remain finite outside the limit itself.

So there is no difference between the two? Apart from the fact of course that if matter is finite, density will be zero all the time. ...hum-hom...

grrrrrr

YES. IM a COMPLETE IDIOT! Any finite set would have a measure of zero! So matter must be infinite if we are ever to see anything!

 

whata shame


But there is another thing here! Because of the Heisenberg law we have the Planck constant, which means that you could look at space as discrete. You can actually measure space absolutely!

Anyone into Quantum Mechanics? Is the planck constant, as applied to space and time giving different results on differently curved spacetime?

Otherwise we have a problem, I think?

 

Yeah, wild stuff. You know, funny enough, I just currently got curious about Metaphysics again after watching that Deep Space 9 chapter which was about this parrallel universe stuff .

So, I initiated a quick google search and found this, I think it's a good read, sums lots of the stuff up:



http://members.rotfl.com/log/text/reflmph/english/reflres.htm

Regards
heartc

 

Interesting, there's one part of the article called "What Says Occam ?" I'll write it down.

The first argument is that multiverses are vulnerable to Occam's razor because they postulate the existence of worlds that we can never observe [this is general, including level II III IV multiverses that can't be observed even if we wait long enough] Why should nature be so wasteful and indulge in such opulence as an infinity of diferent worlds ? Yet this argument can be turned around to argue for a multiverse. What precisely would nature by wasting ? Certanly not space, mass or atoms - the uncontroversial Level I multiverse already contains an infinity of all three, so who cares if nature wastes some more? The real issue here is the apparent reduction to simplicity.[...] But the entire ensemble is often much more simpler than one of its members.[...] For example consider the set of all integers. Which is simpler, the whole set or just one number ? Naively, you might think that a single number is simpler, but the entire set can be generated by a quite trivial computer program, whereas a single number can be hugely long. THere the whole set is actually simpler.

 

The universe is infinite. Any argument on this ? Or do it simply ends at some point ? What would be on the other side ? Even Einstein's gravity implies this. The case where the universe could be finite is if it had a 'closed circuit' shape, like a donut for example, with no edges. The cosmic microwave radiation background meassurements fits the infinite space way better than the finite one.
Measurements of the same background indicates that matter is more or less well distrubuted.
Mathly speaking, the density is more or less constant. You take a finite amount of space and calculate it. As you grow the amount of space, the amount of matter will grow as well, and even when it's grown to infinite the density will stay finite.

 

before mankind thought of gas, they thought, the air is... 'empty'. then they couldn't really imagine what 'elementary particles' should be like - to show them, the movie "the incredible shrinking mr c" has been made.
the equation of mass and energy resulted for a while in pseudo-religious controversion: traditionalist weight-watchers insisted it to be a lie and burned their warping cons, jim morrison saw the end and stepped right through to the other side and dave cutted hal3000 off from energy to change his physical state to god.

but then the day will come, where the last prime-number will have been found and still are numbers left and the pilots of fh won't start from a field anymore, because zero has been lost and there is no beginning left -
at that time, and some more to forget 'that time', nobody will get more excited about the dimensions of some 4d-hyperboloids nearby than we about diffundive exchange of gas molecules through proteine-membranes while breathing.
and there will be uncertainty


"when i was just a little child,
i asked my mother: what will i be?
will i be here or will i be not?
that's what she said to me:

que sera, young star,
you'll see - will be uncertainty.
and when there is no more galaxy,
you will see ledada
...as a class4 black-star!"

(from the continuum of two beginnings, early red-shift)

 

Infinity of space:
the number of points on segment [0;1] (set with closed margins) is infinite.
but the set is limited, as you see.
if you afraid of bouncing the borders, i can offer you set (0;1) with opened margins. it is two points less than [0;1], but still infinite and still limited.
Another sample of infinite and limited is circle or sphere.

Though local space looks like Euclid, the environment may be not so linear.

Infinity of energy:
Haven't seen any provements it's true. Looks like weighting the Earth with kitchen balances, and watch outscaling.

Spare energy:
Put the tennis ball on your table, please. Or any other artefact or natural object. It doesn't matter. You have a system of potential gravitational field keeping the ball on the surface. On the other hand you have thermal energy of the table and the ball. Being transformed to kinetic, this energy can make the ball bouncing fron the surface. Yeah? I'm sure in 20°C system you can take the heat so temperature falls to -20°C, and this amount of energy will be enough energy to force ball jumping.
But one don't see it everyday.

Theoretically you can wait infinite time for it, and witness the ball jump up.
You can make your waiting even more useful, if you will expect a neighbour hubble bubble will knock into you door.

My current reason tells me that you won't see both ever.

Because such hypothesis' are made by:
1.forgetting some natural law we aware of
2.moving beyond known matter

Michailo Lomonosov, founder of Moscow State University in 1755 tells the same:
"The nature is simple and it doesn't luxuriate for causes".

Newton Isaak: "The nature is miserly for causes".

 

I am awed at the cerebral lack I manifest in respect to some of you brainiacs
All I know how to do is defeat MOST enemy pilots at this grand competition of airial combat. I am certain however in a chess match..

 

bytor, read morihei ueshiba, art of peace.
http://www.cs.ucsd.edu/users/paloma/Aikido/artpeace.html

Even when called out
By a single foe,
Remain on gaurd,
For you are always surrounded
By a host of enemies.

In the Art of Peace we never attack. An attack is proof that one is out of control. Never run away from any kind of challenge, but do not try to suppress or control an opponent unnaturally. Let attackers come any way they like and then blend with them. Never chase after opponents. Redirect each attack and get firmly behind it.

Left and right,
Avoid all
Cuts and parries.
Seize your opponents' minds
And scatter them all!

etc etc