Posted on 05/19/2013 10:59:00 PM PDT by LibWhacker
Special relativity was more narrow in its scope, a look at an experiment that had negated the theory of ether. M-theory is much more ambitious, and arises from an existential discomfort with the Big Bang theory. That is because Big Bang theory is an argument in favor of theism, and many scientists feel that if God does exist, He ought not to. Special theory was a ripe fruit, because if Einstein had been hit by a bus on the way to the Patent Office, someone else likely would have produced something similar in short order.
Pinto: Okay. That means that...our whole solar system...could be, like...one tiny atom in the fingernail of some other giant being.......This is too much!......That means...one tiny atom in my fingernail could be...
Professor Jennings: Could be one little tiny universe.
Pinto: Could I buy some pot from you?
Given the gobs of new information that is flowing in, it seem premature to be looking for some grand theory. But scientists need rewards as much as others, including grant money.
The Universe is commonly defined as the totality of existence,[1][2][3][4] including planets, stars, galaxies, the contents of intergalactic space, and all matter and energy.[5][6] The broadest definition of universe is that it is simply everything, while a narrower definition is that the universe is limited to what can be observed.[dubious – discuss] Similar terms include the cosmos, the world and nature.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe
We can't look out into space without looking back into time. So the dimension of time, if it is actually a bona fide dimension like the others, is definitely confounding my understanding of the situation. So I tried to reduce it to a two-dimensional analog (two of space and one of time), but the analogy seemed to break down rather quickly. Reduce it to one dimension of space and one dimension of time and things begin to make a little more sense because it then becomes apparent that the time dimension is not orthogonal to the space dimension, but coincident with it -- so that lineman, existing on an expanding line, looks back in time and says to himself, "How can the early linear universe, which I know was a very short line segment indeed, seem to be even longer than the present-day linear universe?" But it's not. It only seems that way to him because information about it is brought to him through time along an expanding historical timeline. If he could see his universe as it exists today, he could see that it is much longer than anything he could see before and he would no longer think the ancient universe dwarfed the universe he's living in.
Is that a valid interpretation? My teensy brain doesn't know. But until a real physicist comes along and explains how things really are to me, that's my story and I'm sticking to it! :-)
One of the fascinating new ideas about gravity is that, unlike light, it leaks out of our universe and other universes, dissipating its felt effects on us. That notion is invoked as a way to explain why gravity is so much weaker than the other known forces in nature.
But if the universe expanded out from a single point at the moment of the big bang, and as I have been told, nothing can move faster than the speed of light,
Today nothing can move faster than lightspeed. But way back then in the first seconds/moments after the Big Bang, they believe the rate of expansion was far, far faster than lightspeed.
Strictly speaking, there can be only one universe. That’s what the “uni-” part of the word means.
If these other places apart from our known universe exist, if there is any detectable connection to or effect from these other places, then, technically speaking, even if some of them have different laws of physics, or some of them are completely empty, they’re just other parts of an even bigger, grander, multifaceted universe than known universe. In other words, there is still only one universe,,,just far, far larger than we imagined.
There was no Big Bang, there will be no Big Crunch. What we are seeing as “background radiation” is little more than the Hawking radiation from galactic black holes.
Space/time isn’t just warped, it’s bent and twisted around the various gravitational phenomena.
Light, I’m betting, has a limit. About 14 billion years. Before so much of it’s energy gets absorbed or diffused to a point where we no longer recognize it as light. The further out we look, the more we tend to see.
A bit like finding three species of dinosaur in one dig and concluding this was where all life started from...
Very funny. There is nothing to grab. Your statement is faith based. First there was nothing and then there was something. Must happen a million times a day in the multi verse, right?
If you have a grounding in physics and want to read the literature the conclusions are hardly faith based. There’s no shame in not understanding the matter but blowing off the conclusions of good people who’ve spent a lifetime studying the field because it doesn’t meet your definition of logical is not a credit to your thinking ability.
“But, but, what does this mean for the Miss Universe pageant? Somewhere/some time Helen Thomas has won the title??”
Yes.
As Niels Bohr said, “We all agree that your theory is crazy, but is it crazy enough?”.
Look pal, you want to compare GRE scores and /or IQ’s and engineering degrees fine. I think I’ll hold my own. You want to explain how there is nothing and then there is a universe I’m all ears. Is this a unique event or does it happen often in the multiverse? My understanding of the multiverse is that all possibilities will happen. Hence, God will happen and universes will pop into existence from nothing with regularity.
So it should be easy for you to explain how, in language that even the hoi polloi like myself can understand, there is nothing and then there is something. Quantum physics can not explain it any more than Newtonian Physics denies it. In our universe energy and mass are conserved. So where’d the petrol come from to explode the grapefruits?
I mentioned a book you ought to read. Apparently you can’t do that. You can have your side of the question; I’ll stay on my side with Einstein and Hawking.
Be well, that is if whatever that is ever clears up.
Right. You can not observe t-1 and you can not observe anything outside our universe. I understand your problem. There is nothing wrong with faith. Just don’t pass it off as settled science that is falsifiable. Cheers!
Don’t pass your ignorance as an argument.
So enlighten me. How do you observe t-1 slick? How do you observe other universes? Why does gravity from the multiverse act on bodies in our universe while light is not observed? Is the weak force G in the multiverse just faster than light and the light will eventually show up? Come on you’re obviously a Mensa type. Grow a pair and answer a question. Any question.
Why should I join the already too large group who have failed at the task of educating you? I don’t give a rats ass if you ever figure anything out. Your ignorance is obviously your comfort. Keep it close.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.