Topic: Universe to multiverse - Modern physics
metalwing's photo
Fri 08/07/09 05:46 PM
Edited by metalwing on Fri 08/07/09 05:54 PM
This is a very good lay explanation of modern physics by one of the top modern physicists. A lot of the old theories are already out the window. This summery is a few years old but current in thinking.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-rg3uNrI8tE&feature=related

And here is Michio Kaku on the modern theory of time travel

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RnkE2yQPw6s&NR=1


cas6285's photo
Fri 08/07/09 06:05 PM
Cool I remember reading about the multiverse theories as of late. Its very interesting, at this point if its proven then fact has become stranger then fantasy.

az_grrl's photo
Sat 08/08/09 02:07 PM
I sooo love M-Theory!

Michio Kaku is spectacular! Last book of his I read was " Physics of the Impossible" and it was so interesting.

I'm finishing up Brian Greene's "The Fabric of the Cosmos" and it's stunning.

The possibility that we're just floating on a 'brane' with an infinite number of other 'branes' is so wild. And I love how the big bang can be explained this way.... not proven of course, but love the idea.

Aaahhhhh...... science is soooo much fun!

Quietman_2009's photo
Sat 08/08/09 02:14 PM
read Robert Heinlein's "The Number of the Beast"

the premise of the story is that if there are infinite multiverses, then any universe imagined by man is accessible

including Oz, Lilliput, etc.

creativesoul's photo
Sat 08/08/09 02:21 PM
Interesting theory soon to be tested, yes?

bigsmile

metalwing's photo
Sat 08/08/09 02:31 PM

Interesting theory soon to be tested, yes?

bigsmile


Like all of physics, the first test is "does the math work?'. This is what gave us the atom bomb.

creativesoul's photo
Sat 08/08/09 02:41 PM
Math for a multiverse?

How can that be acheived objectively?

creativesoul's photo
Sat 08/08/09 02:45 PM
Isn't the inception of dark matter and dark energy the direct evidence of GR's math not working?

huh


metalwing's photo
Sat 08/08/09 03:04 PM

Isn't the inception of dark matter and dark energy the direct evidence of GR's math not working?

huh




GR didn't work from the beginning. It was just an "overview" theory that seems to fit most things. QM started to fill the holes but items like gravity still just didn't pan out. String theory started to explain a lot, but the five basic strings theories had math that worked with themselves, but not each other. M-theory tied everything together and the mathematical concepts are NOT mutually incompatible.
Michio Kaku is one of the tops in his field and does a better job than most of explaining the significance of the "gelling" of eleventh dimensional mathematics. Michio Kaku discusses "white holes" as perhaps being the source of dark matter.

creativesoul's photo
Sat 08/08/09 03:25 PM
That is interesting. I thought that the existence of black holes were conceived of through the field equations of GR.

If white holes are the opposite side of the 'drain' froma black hole, then they rely on that math as well, yes?

metalwing's photo
Sat 08/08/09 04:02 PM

That is interesting. I thought that the existence of black holes were conceived of through the field equations of GR.

If white holes are the opposite side of the 'drain' froma black hole, then they rely on that math as well, yes?


GR doesn't work in a some areas. Black holes evaporate. GR doesn't have a way to deal with that. I posted a thread about a month ago on the requirement for five dimensions to explain the problem. The jump from five to eleven is progressive to heal the rifts in GR.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9i8vnCGumMw&feature=related

The objective creation of the eleventh dimensional math to create the multiverse scenario is what modern physics is all about; at least since 1995. It is no different from the Euclid geometry in the world you know.

Michio Kadu is somewhat the "front man" for the field. His book "The Physics of the Impossible" was a best seller and explains the "objective path that was taken".

creativesoul's photo
Sat 08/08/09 04:16 PM
So 'M' theory intends to merge QM and GR while simultaneuosly 'fixing' both where needed?

I find the idea of 'M' theory to be very interesting, but why does it not go against Occam's razor.

The complexity is required in essence or just to keep the other two theory's information that we believe to be correct intact?

I love philosophy, so you must realize that I enjoy theoretical physics as well...

I look forward to the answers which will come from the current paths.

drinker

metalwing's photo
Sat 08/08/09 05:34 PM

So 'M' theory intends to merge QM and GR while simultaneuosly 'fixing' both where needed?

I find the idea of 'M' theory to be very interesting, but why does it not go against Occam's razor.

The complexity is required in essence or just to keep the other two theory's information that we believe to be correct intact?

I love philosophy, so you must realize that I enjoy theoretical physics as well...

I look forward to the answers which will come from the current paths.

drinker


The dimensions are required "in essence". Parts of old theories fall away like leaves in autumn 'leaving' a new "branch".

I think you will enjoy this vid.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZnQLsERqTIg

And if you need a visual, this vid has some good graphics.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xE7xRgfPjAI&NR=1&feature=fvwp

AdventureBegins's photo
Sat 08/08/09 10:11 PM

Cool I remember reading about the multiverse theories as of late. Its very interesting, at this point if its proven then fact has become stranger then fantasy.

or reality has caught up with fantasy.

bigsmile Alterverse, multiverse, universe.