The Theory Of Everything
25990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 8/23/12
I was having a discussion not too long ago with a co-worker who is an avid believer in Christianity, whereas I am an agnostic. Among the numerous discussions we've had, one topic came up regarding creation. Being that I enjoy discussions involving theoretical physics, philosophy, and other topics of an intellectual nature, I rose to the challenge of explaining an alternate point of view. Granted, I could have gone down the road of 'your argument is invalid!' and other emotionally charged responses but to me that's a waste of time. I wasn't out to change his mind about what he believes, if it makes him happy with the world and how it works around him he's entitled to believe it.

Anyhow, I started going into a discussion that I'd seen not long ago regarding the universe as an 11 dimensional object in the omniverse and how each universe within the greater scheme vibrates and oscillates at a particular frequency just slightly out of phase with each other. When any two points of any two 11 dimensional universes touch, it creates what we consider the 'big bang', and in doing so a new 11 dimensional universe comes into being. Each object reverts to its original state, and no three universes that were involved in the interaction have any ability to further influence the others.

From a purely scientific standpoint, it seems like a perfectly logical theory, since we can't actually test it given that no two universes can resonate at the same frequency for more than the briefest of seconds after its creation due to rapid expansion and other such extenuating circumstances. At least... it makes sense to me.

I suppose the reason I bring this up is because I wonder if there are any other people who are interested in the same topic and wouldn't mind talking about it.
4370 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 8/23/12
I often talk about philosophy,physics,and more recently human morality with my friends after school. The majority of our discussions are on physics, mainly the multi-verse. See me and my friends are often baffled by the sheer amount of stuff that exists. We often talk about how multidimensional space is created as it is perceived and how every possible possibility exists.

Just think of this. When I move my hand to type on the keyboard I am moving particles(air,dust, microscopic things, subatomic things). As I move my hand particles bounce of each other moving in all kinds of directions. For every course that a particle could take a new reality is created that branches of from out own FOR EVERY SINGLE PARTICLE!!! that is crazy.
25990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 8/24/12
That's a fairly interesting analogy for the theory regarding the many-world interpretation. That being, every possible outcome of every 'random chance' event is represented in a separate universe as having come to pass. Basically that's like saying when you roll a dice, every possible outcome, 1 through 6, actually comes to pass in a separate universe. Indeed, any choice we make in a day can be represented in a separate universe as having come to pass under this model.

This leads me to a postulation on time travel. I've given this subject a great deal of thought and have had numerous debates and the one thing that seems to stick out in my mind is that if 'time travel' in the classic sense is impractical, the ability to traverse the gap between multiple universes might very well not be. In the classic method of thinking, time is a constant, it does not move in any direction but one, from point of origination to point of termination. While we can dilate the perception of that passing through means such as approaching the speed of light, we can not use any known or theoretical method to make the leap backward. However, that does not mean that there are not universes in which time has not yet progressed far enough to be in sync with our own current timeline.

If we are to follow this line of thought, then not only can we visit a point in our own past, any changes we make would be irrelevant to the universe we departed from given that we are, in effect, simply visiting a universe in which the possibility for our being at a certain point in a particular place in another universe's timeline actually occurs. It is no different in our own universe. If someone from a 'future' timeline were to visit our own time, the span we consider to be our 'present' time, it is simply because we are inhabiting a universe in which such a thing is supposed to happen. The issue with this is simply finding a way to bridge the gap between two universes who exist in a state that is in quantum opposition with our own. How this can be overcome is up for speculation as I don't myself know enough about quantum vibration and the like to say how it could be undertaken. But an interesting theory nonetheless.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/25/12
The problem with string theories is that there is many school of theory based on the same concept of strings...
And none of them offer any testable prediction...

Apart from string theory, there is other theories that tries to unify GR & standard model... which are also pretty interesting.
Though they are not as successful as string in achieving a quantum theory(on paper), they're interesting concept that I hope would be give more exposure...
25990 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
34 / M
Offline
Posted 8/25/12
One of the reasons that theoretical physics offer few, if any, testable predictions is because most of the concepts and theories being formulated deal with things that we as humans can't readily comprehend. As a species, we perceive 4 of the 11 (or 26 depending on which school of thought you prefer) dimensions that make up our universe. That is, we can perceive things as having one dimension, two dimensions, three dimensions, and we perceive time. The rest of them are beyond our limited perceptive organs, and we therefore have to rely strictly on mathematics to quantify things in 5 and higher dimensions.

A great deal of the disconnects between theoretical physics and general relativity, I believe, stem from perception and not necessarily from any flaw in the theories themselves. It is not outside of the realm of possibilities that our general relativity only works because we are basing it solely on four dimensional perception of the physical world. I would argue, then, that if we were to attempt to apply general relativity in an environment that accounts for five or more dimensions in a quantifiable manner, our general relativity would no longer function properly.

This, inevitably, leads to a logical disconnect between theoretical physics and general relativity, as they are attempting to reconcile vastly different things. Whereas one is attempting to reconcile our natural and physical world, the other is attempting to grasp, in whatever limited capacity we are able to do so, conditions of being well outside our own experiences. It is extremely difficult, then, to make them both work in harmony with one another without proper frames of reference.
13761 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
25 / M / Somewhere.... per...
Offline
Posted 8/27/12

jonileth wrote:

One of the reasons that theoretical physics offer few, if any, testable predictions is because most of the concepts and theories being formulated deal with things that we as humans can't readily comprehend. As a species, we perceive 4 of the 11 (or 26 depending on which school of thought you prefer) dimensions that make up our universe. That is, we can perceive things as having one dimension, two dimensions, three dimensions, and we perceive time. The rest of them are beyond our limited perceptive organs, and we therefore have to rely strictly on mathematics to quantify things in 5 and higher dimensions.

A great deal of the disconnects between theoretical physics and general relativity, I believe, stem from perception and not necessarily from any flaw in the theories themselves. It is not outside of the realm of possibilities that our general relativity only works because we are basing it solely on four dimensional perception of the physical world. I would argue, then, that if we were to attempt to apply general relativity in an environment that accounts for five or more dimensions in a quantifiable manner, our general relativity would no longer function properly.

This, inevitably, leads to a logical disconnect between theoretical physics and general relativity, as they are attempting to reconcile vastly different things. Whereas one is attempting to reconcile our natural and physical world, the other is attempting to grasp, in whatever limited capacity we are able to do so, conditions of being well outside our own experiences. It is extremely difficult, then, to make them both work in harmony with one another without proper frames of reference.


There is nothing that disconnect theoretical physics and GR...
I think you're saying that GR and QM doesn't co-exist, right?

Theoretical physics is a school of physics that deals with theory and hypothesis... GR is theoretical when Einstein first came up with it...

String theory predicts a Universe of higher dimension... although we cannot see these dimension, we should be able to make observable prediction based on the math of string theory. But 20 years into string theory and nobody gave any prediction for us to test the theory...

It is something like saying that God created this Universe but offer no real evidence to ventilate the claim.
39137 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / San Francisco Bay...
Offline
Posted 9/1/12 , edited 9/1/12
String Theory is just a philosophy. It honestly makes as much scientific sense as saying God allows quantum physics and relativity to exist in the same universe paradoxically for no apparent reason--except String Theory involves for a lot more math. The reason is that String Theory offers no testable predictions, which in turns means it lacks scientific validity, which means all it is and--unless it can start making testable predictions--is just philosophy.

That isn't to say it's without merit though. Lorentz took a similar approach when resolving Newton's Law and Maxwell's Equations without having any experimental evidence (albeit, Lorentz is a mathematician). Later, Lorentz' work proved scientifically valid when experiments were able to test his predictions (albeit, that is after Einstein gave it physical meaning in his Theory of Special Relativity).
You must be logged in to post.