BACK TO HOME PAGE SITE NAVIGATION CONTACT POETRY FORUM STORY FORUM   Horoscope  Radio  Gallery  FAQ   Search   Memberlist   Usergroups   Register   Profile   PM's   
Log in 
 
General Forum Index -> Articles & Essays

On M-theory, Parallel Universes, and Gravity [BBC]

Ladies Lifestyle and Living Store
  Author    Thread Post new topic Reply to topic
Hieloz



Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Midwest
On M-theory, Parallel Universes, and Gravity [BBC]

Before I summarize and add to what I saw, let me say that I have an interest in Quantum Mechanics and generally physics, if anyone else in the forum has the same, please please PM me, it is extremely difficult to find people, specially women, to talk to about this, like I said in my introductory post to the forum, I'm a fairly brainy person, and most girls I have talked to really aren't...which really makes me feel isolated and most of my friends are male [which I just lost but I won't go into that].

So if you are interested and want to discuss physics, QM, or anything like that PM me, I always enjoy intellectual conversation.


quote:

On M-theory, Parallel Universes, and Gravity [BBC documentary, Physics].

☼ M-theory: there are 11 dimensions, the membrane of the universe if you so wish.


◘ Some think it's a floating type of fabric-membrane
◘ Some think it's a vibrating bubble made up of bubbles



☼ Gravity is a weak force compared to say, atomic or even electromagnetic forces; can gravity be "leaking" through those 11 dimensions?


◘ Furthermore, what if it's not actually going but drifting into our own universe? And thus by that time it's actually just a faint signal of universe.
◘ Thus, there is another membrane, along with ours [we sit here], but this other membrane is fuzzy and gravity is strong there, we only see the "tail end" of gravity.



☼ The essence of the universes revisited once more; there are an infinite number of them, therefore a fraction of them will have life, civilizations, while others certainly won't.

☼ A violent but perhaps suitable idea:
The membrane in the 11th dimension is like violent huge ocean waves, banging into each other and repelling.


The big bang was a collision between two parallel worlds.

→→→ My notes: Now I can see this, but does that mean, that out of two parallel worlds...another one is created? It could go with the theorem of conservation of energy, where the resting energy of the collision would dissipate to the "air" [space] while the actual collision is turned into a world.
Wow.


◘ So how did it happen? For clearer envisioning: planes are NOT flat, they can't be, they have ripples, the parallel universes in the 11th dimension are membranes.
-- From this: two planes [membrane like] come together, but since they are both moving and have ripples, they collide with each other at their peaks/troughs hit in different times at different places.

◘ When the collision takes place, the membrane basically imparts those ripples into real matter.

In short, the ripples colliding created the big bang.

◘ This means that the big bang can be followed back, you can follow back the beginning of our world through the collision of others.


→→→Note: it seems almost moronic to think our universe is special as the documentary suggested; this makes sense to me, then they mentioned them trying to create universes of their own in the lab. What for? I suppose it could have its uses, a universe with space to store everything you don't need? It might seem severely irresponsible in itself, it might even be just like human nature to try to create things which we do not have enough information about.

In fact some people might say that they are trying to play "god". I don't believe humans are able to create their own universes now, I do not think the human race is ready for that kind of responsibility, but then again, it's just like humans to try to speed up that process. Perhaps, we will never BE ready.




If you want to watch the documentary, here's a link:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?do...49085849253581

I hope it still works.
_________________
"Every system fails to return to an equilibrium"

Post Fri Sep 21, 2007 10:03 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


Hieloz,

Hello Smile

I will try to watch the documentary over the weekend…but until then here are some of my thoughts.

There are so many unanswered questions about our universe that it is easy to see…we do not know enough to try to create a universe.

Black holes…could they be the gateway into another universe? Who knows…I don’t but it is an interesting possibility.

Once upon a time people thought the earth was their universe then other planets where discovered…then the solar system became their universe then a galaxy was born. Soon other galaxies followed so why not other universes and dimensions?

There are people who believe the laws of physics are concrete and cannot be changed or broken…well a thousand years ago those would have been the same people who believed the world was flat. When people start putting constraints on ideas and thought that is when they stop thinking and looking for other avenues to engage their curiosity.

Astronomical evidence clearly indicates that the observable universe has been expanding for at least the past 13+ billion years.
If we look at the inflationary Big Bang model we see the universe being hot and dense at the start then immediately going through a period of hyperexpansion.

An alternate theory to this asks the question…what if the universe started out cold and vacuous?

This is something Paul Steinhardt and Neil Turok thought about and came up with the Cyclic model in which they theorize that the universe was never a tiny ball of engery that exploded forth in an instant. They theorize the universe is a small cross section of a much grander universe whose true magnitude is hidden in dimensions we cannot perceive. What many people see as the Big Bang they Steinhardt and Turok say is the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours.

Quantum theory asserts that even the total vacuum of empty space is seething with subatomic particles. These particles are constantly moving in and out of existence and add up to a huge amount of energy. According to Einstein's theory of special relativity this energy is equivalent to an enormous amount of mass which leads to a collision of an unimaginable magnitude.

More later:)

Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Sat Sep 22, 2007 6:14 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Hieloz



Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Midwest


quote:
Originally posted by Eiregirl:
What many people see as the Big Bang they Steinhardt and Turok say is the result of a collision between our three-dimensional world and another three-dimensional world less than the width of a proton away from ours.



Well two dimensions would be basically a line [although traditionally in the physics classes I have had they talk about planes, still planes have a height/depth], indeed what the document was saying was that when two universes [I'm not sure it talked about worlds, but I don't recall at the moment] collided our Universe was formed, in other words it created matter [our Universe].

Traditionally the work of Einstein [up to his death-bed] and many other scientists at the current slot in time is trying to unify physics in an elegant manner; meaning a Unified Theory of Physics, which combines Quantum Mechanics, Electromagnetism [the forces that were early on combined by Maxwell and his minions Very Happy], and Gravity, which is the force that causes many pains to physicists, because Quantum Mechanics does not go well with Gravity, the math basically breaks.

Gravity is actually not a strong force, compared to say the strong nuclear force that binds neutrons and protons together in a nucleus; it can be thought about in this way: you can actually take all of yourself, or your matter, and jump up and down, meaning you can "overcome" the force of gravity with your own force, how is that strong?

So the fact that Gravity is not a strong force puzzles physicists and mathematicians alike, one possible answer is that our gravity is merely a "drift" of another universe's gravity, in this case, another Membrane.
_________________
"Every system fails to return to an equilibrium"

Post Sat Sep 22, 2007 11:55 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


Hieloz,

"[I'm not sure it talked about worlds, but I don't recall at the moment]" The term "world" was used by Steinhardt in a paper he submitted. Smile


Bert Ovrut said, “What’s very beautiful about these brane models is that one can actually compute the spectrum of particles, and what you get is something like our real world.” I like that statement Smile

If you are familiar with M-Theory I am sure you have some knowledge of String, Superstring and the Cyclic theories since they all have some commonalities to them. One of the ideas in superstring theory is that there are extra dimensions it's an essential element to that theory and it’s necessary to make it mathematically consistent. In one particular formulation of Superstring theory there are 11 dimensions. Six of them are curled up into a tiny little corner and I will not bother with them at the moment. There are 3 spatial dimensions and a dimension of time. The three dimensional space that we move through sits next to a hyper-surface membrane that is the boundary of the extra dimension. There is another boundary or membrane on the other side. In between these “boundaries” is a bulk volume of space.

Like Paul Steinhardt said, “It's like we are one end of a sandwich, in between which there is a so-called bulk volume of space. The branes have physical properties. They have energy and momentum, and when you excite them you can produce things like quarks and electrons. We are composed of the quarks and electrons on of these branes. And, since quarks and leptons can only move along branes, we are restricted to moving along and seeing only the three dimensions of our branes. We cannot see directly the bulk or any matter on the other brane.”

In the cyclic model when these membranes collide it creates heat which excites the particles and radiation which in turn causes the membranes to bounce apart. These membranes are attracted to each other and this attraction is causing our three dimensions to stretch out in order to reach the membrane on the other side…our expanding universe and the same is happening to the universe on the other side. It does not matter whether there is a “universe” on the other side or just some huge clump of matter there is going to be a gravitational effect.

Ahhh we are back to gravity.

With the advent of “dark matter”, which has not yet been explained to my liking. Many astrophysicists and cosmologists use the idea that dark matter has gravitation effects on galaxies in order to explain what Newton’s laws on gravity cannot explain instead of embracing Modified Newtonian Dynamics (MOND) which perfectly predicts the motions of galaxies. That is something dark matter theorists cannot do consistently.

Can we have omega equals 1?

“If you have a universe, which is cyclic, it is eternal, so you don't have to explain the beginning.” Paul Steinhardt
Well Mr. Steinhardt…the cycle had to start somewhere.


Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Mon Sep 24, 2007 7:06 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Hieloz



Joined: 20 Sep 2007
Posts: 10
Location: Midwest


Most if not all of the theories trying to explain where the Universe begin have to do with finding an unifying theory of physics.

In other words basically making the math "not break", String theory did not achieve the test of explaining what came before the big bang [some physicists I have talked to even called it not a theory, since it cannot explain what came before the big bang], therefore people sought to find other theories in this case Membrane theory.

I'm not sure what the point to your comments are and I am confused :/ but that's ok.

My intent with this discussion was really to see what others thought about it, in regards to the principles and the idea that our universe and our world [in other words the matter could possibly have been born out of the collision of two membranes]. So what does everyone think about it? In your own words?


I also think it was a shame that Einstein died thinking that there was no such "unruly" behavior as QM seems to suggest and instead thought the Universe and God couldn't make it the way.

In my experience of Physics, things [almost] always boil down to elegant equations, such as E = m[c^(2)], indeed essentially what this is saying is that energy equals matter times the speed of light squared, sometimes energy equals just matter, sometimes it boils down to kinetic energy [the energy of a moving body, like a ball being kicked] and/or potential energy [the energy of an unmoving body or mgh (mass * gravity * height, this could be like a book just being lifted by you off the table in the y or z direction depending how you look at it)] the point is that when you add up every piece of energy just like you add oranges with oranges, you have a simple result; in my experience you tend to simplify things enough that equations are elegant in that way.

Which is why I think that eventually the unified version of physics WILL be just as simple/elegant.
_________________
"Every system fails to return to an equilibrium"

Post Tue Sep 25, 2007 1:48 am 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


“Most if not all of the theories trying to explain where the Universe begin have to do with finding an unifying theory of physics.

In other words basically making the math "not break", String theory did not achieve the test of explaining what came before the big bang [some physicists I have talked to even called it not a theory, since it cannot explain what came before the big bang], therefore people sought to find other theories in this case Membrane theory.”

That is the case with most all theories. The theorists put forth their ideas for the rest of the community to try and find flaws with it. Sometimes they hold up to the scrutiny and sometimes they do not. Sometimes they are modified along the way.

“I'm not sure what the point to your comments are and I am confused :/ but that's ok.”

The point was to have a conversation with you...about cosmology theories. You started out talking about M-Theory of which is very similar in some ways to string, superstring theories and especially the cyclic theory. If you would not mind stating what confuses you I will endeavor to explain myself understandably.

“My intent with this discussion was really to see what others thought about it, in regards to the principles and the idea that our universe and our world [in other words the matter could possibly have been born out of the collision of two membranes]. So what does everyone think about it? In your own words?”

I will think it over and get back to you on that Smile I am sorry if I misunderstood your intent...I thought you would be interested in talking about and comparing the various theories.

What grabbed my attention was this…
“So if you are interested and want to discuss physics, QM, or anything like that PM me, I always enjoy intellectual conversation.”
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Tue Sep 25, 2007 4:46 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Eiregirl



Joined: 21 Jul 2005
Posts: 10230
Location: Chasing a pink bunny


The search for the theory of everything…in other words…something that will explain everything about the universe(s).

To directly comment on whether or not our universe being born out of a collision of two membranes as postulated by M-Theory…I totally think it is possible. It has been shown that it is possible…theoretically shown. I do not believe the theory is totally complete yet Witten and many other phsycists have said so but it along with other theories look promising in providing at least some unification of GR and QM.

How to unify general relativity and quantum mechanics. That is what almost everyone is looking for in the field. The vast array of ideas that have arisen in the search for that “unifying” theory are fascinating and for myself personally it is not possible to discuss the possibilities of one theory in this field without looking at others that are similar or taking parts of one theory and seeing how it would react incorporated inside another…this alone shows that M-Theory is not at all compatible with Penrose’s twistor theory. Therefore one of them is definitely wrong…which one?

Is M-theory the current best candidate to lead to this unification? It has some very good possibilities since it has already provided some very good information on the holography principle and there are many promising aspects of this theory but is it the unifier? Maybe…maybe not. Perhaps after a few decades of scrutiny and a couple of modifications it will be. Then again maybe M-theory does not fit the bill.

What is missing between quantum mechanics and general relativity that makes them not fit? The answer may lie in another dimension…another dimension of time.

I do not know if you have heard of Itzhak Bars or not. He is a physicist at USC and I think he is onto something with his Two-Time theory. If he is right…and things are looking good from what I have read, then he just might have the answer to unify GR and QM. From current analysis it could also easily fit with M-Theory simply by adding an extra dimension of space and an extra dimension of time. I really think he is onto something. The extra dimensions of Two-Time do not have to be huge they could be as small as atom or smaller. Many theorists believe there are extra dimensions of space so why not an extra dimension of time?

Sometimes when I look at theories put forth by theorists that keep adding more and more just to make the theory work I often think of “entia non sunt multiplicanda praeter necessitatem”. But hey…you have to do what you have to do to make it work…right? Smile

Hugs,
Eiregirl Arrow
_________________
All poems and stories posted by Eiregirl are Copyright 2005 - 2008 Aoibhegréine These literary works are my property under copyright. If you wish to use my work for any purpose please ASK FIRST.

Post Thu Sep 27, 2007 4:10 am 
 View user's profile Send private message Visit poster's website  Reply with quote  
Phoenix
Moderators


Joined: 27 Jan 2005
Posts: 1664
Location: Tallahassee Florida


Ok, very interesting read here.... and no I am not at all an expert on qm. I did find the movie "What the bleep do we really know anyway" very interesting in that they showed how an atom can be two places at one time. This supports my own experiences in bi-location and energetics.

Did either of you, or anyone else see that movie, and what was your take on it?

phoenix
_________________
"A little work won't hurt you bad, but just in case I'm wrong, you'll be smiling when they pronounce you dead." Amanda Marshall 'This could take all night

Post Fri Sep 28, 2007 5:26 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77
What the bleep do we know!!!

I was looking forward to see that movie, I thought it had a perfect title to talk about the strangeness of quantum mechanics, so I got a copy, popped it in the dvd player, and watched it.

At first it looked really good, with all this slick animations and I love Marlee Matlin, the actress that played the main character (I saw her for the first time in the L word, she played the deaf artist that Bette was flirting with). So I said to myself, hey, we have everything here for a good documentary!

But the movie increasingly got weirder as it went along. I'm familiar with QM, and some of the claims that were made in this movie where completely dishonest and I though that there was something really wrong in the undertone to the whole thing. I thought, this looks like a bunch of people promoting physics in a cult like manner instead of actually teaching physics in an objective way.

They mixed QM with consciousness saying that we, as the observer, created what surrounded us just by looking at it, meaning that the simple fact that we witness the universe make it come into existence and it goes on pulling our leg even more by saying that we could have total control over the universe by using the power of our minds because that is how quantum mechanics works.

Now... there is a serious interpretation of QM that involves the role of consciousness in our perception of the world it's called "consciousness cause collapse" but it has nothing to do with us actually controlling our macroscopic environment with our minds, it is rejected by most of the scientific community and it is only 1 interpretation of QM among others (Quantum decoherence, The school of Copenhagen, the transactional interpretation, Bohm-De Broglie interpretation etc etc...) and the movie didn't mentioned that, claiming that "this is how the world works". This is complete BS, because, ultimately, scientists themselves don't known how QM works, they don't really understand it, it is very mysterious. Like the great physicist, Richard Feynman once said : "If you think you understand quantum mechanics then you don't understand quantum mechanics." This is why there are so many interpretation of QM.

So in my opinion they were abusingly using the genuine strangeness of QM and the genuine strangeness of consciousness to promote some kind of fake view of the world... But why would they do that? I couldn't understand why. Why saying all this quantum mumbo jumbo?

There was this lady in the movie that I was very attracted to. In her late 50's, blond hair, gorgeous green eyes, there was something really hypnotizing about her. I wanted to know who she was so I checked in the credits and I had 2 answers for the price of one. I found out who she was and I understood what this whole movie was really about.

It turns out that this pretty lady is called J. Z. Knight... A self proclaimed medium that "channels" a 35 000 years old Lemurian warrior called Ramtha. Ramtha claims that he is "enlightened" and knows almost all there is to know about the world. He is the main character of a cult named "Ramtha school of enlightenment". The husband of Ms. Knight died from aids in the 90's without receiving proper medical assistance because Ramtha claimed that "he" (J.Z. Knight) could heal him in some "supernatural" ways.

I later found out that "What the bleep do we know..." was produced by 3 members of Ramtha school of enlightenment. So here we have it, this "documentary" is nothing more than a pseudo-scientific infomercial promoting Ramtha's cult.

Post Thu Dec 06, 2007 8:03 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
Alice In Quantum Land



Joined: 04 Dec 2007
Posts: 77
Back To Strings Theory

Hieloz asked what did we think about a unified theory that will explain everything about the universe.

I'm not all that familiar with Strings and M-theory because they are simply way out my intellectual reach lol.

But I would like to point out that the original reason for Strings, super-strings and so on is not about describing what happened before the big bang but to unite the 4 four fundamental interactions that we already know of "Strong, Electromagnetism, weak and gravity". If we succeed in unifying all of them this might give us good clues at if not what happened before the bigbang but at least at what happened at "Planck's epoch", because this is the point where modern physics break down.

What is really needed is a quantum gravity theory (string-theory tries to do that while embracing the other interactions as well) but other theories are being looked at that does not try to unite every thing but only give a quantum explanation of gravity (Loop quantum gravity for example).

So I think that we really can't say anything right now as to what happend before the big bang, not even right after the bigbang, we can only speculate (and I think that it's a good thing to speculate) since we are missing some very important data.

Now as to what I think about a "Theory of every thing" that would describe everything there is to know about the world in a simple and elegant way, is that we should be careful about these kind of claims, we've been there before, Newton's theory of gravity was called "Universal law of gravity" back in the days, then Einstein came along. Lord Kelvin once said, back in the XIX century something like : "Physics is almost complete, there are only two little clouds left in a bright blue sky" these 2 "little" clouds led to quantum mechanics and general relativity... So let's be careful... In the mean time, let's sit back, relax because I'm sure that nature will surprise us one more time, as it always does.

Post Fri Dec 07, 2007 4:43 pm 
 View user's profile Send private message  Reply with quote  
  Display posts from previous:      
Post new topic Reply to topic

Jump to:  


Last Thread | Next Thread  >

Forum Rules:
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum

 


Search For Posters!


Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group

In Association with Amazon.com
     
Terms & Conditions Privacy Statement Acknowledgements