[Edstock]

I believe you hit the "add reply" button.

I don't know that you did; it could have been Schrödinger's cat, but I want to believe.

http://songphon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/movie_xfiles.jpg

[Deanh]

Trimdingman, on Nov 15 2009, 12:04 AM, said:

You never really believed in Santa Claus. Your parents knew that it was a fib, so they allowed you to learn the truth before it became too ingrained in your psyche. There are, however, adults who believe in flying angels and arks full of animals, and a president with magical powers.

NO SANTA?????? thx trim, whats next no easter Bunny????

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, on Nov 19 2009, 10:50 PM, said:

I believe you hit the "add reply" button.

I don't know that you did; it could have been Schrödinger's cat, but I want to believe.

http://songphon.files.wordpress.com/2007/07/movie_xfiles.jpg

You did and didn't both according to the "uncertainty principal". This opens the door to multiple universes. If there actually are four dimensions, as has been shown by many experiments, what do you think makes them up? It has to be three dimensional universes. Our universe is/was an elimentary particle, like a photon or an electron "before" the Big Bang. Maybe all elimentary particles are actually universes that make up the fourth dimension. They appear small to us because they are travelling at the speed of light relative to us.

[Trimdingman]

Deanh, on Nov 20 2009, 12:55 AM, said:

NO SANTA?????? thx trim, whats next no easter Bunny????

They probably exist somewhere in another universe.

[Edstock]

Trimdingman, on Nov 21 2009, 06:30 AM, said:

You did and didn't both according to the "uncertainty principal". This opens the door to multiple universes.

Actually, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't. It was Schrödinger who took the concept and suggested that there could be a "both" quantum-state, that gets resolved into one of either, when the experimenter looks.

Quote

If there actually are four dimensions, as has been shown by many experiments, what do you think makes them up?

Good question that nobody knows the answer to.

Check out Lisa Randall. Besides being nice to look at, she's really smart. Her interview with Charlie Rose is well worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...=searchfeed%20#

Her web site can be found here:

http://space-time-en...isaRandall.html

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, on Nov 21 2009, 06:53 PM, said:

Actually, Heisenberg's uncertainty principle doesn't. It was Schrödinger who took the concept and suggested that there could be a "both" quantum-state, that gets resolved into one of either, when the experimenter looks.



Good question that nobody knows the answer to.

Check out Lisa Randall. Besides being nice to look at, she's really smart. Her interview with Charlie Rose is well worth watching:

http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-4...=searchfeed%20#

Her web site can be found here:

http://space-time-en...isaRandall.html

If the fourth dimension follows the pattern of the first three, it has to be made up of three dimensional universes. Zero dimensions is a point. One dimension, a line, is made up of many points. Two dimensions is a plane, made up of a vast quantity of one dimensional lines. This plane warps into the third dimension, so the third dimension is its "time". The third dimension is made up of two dimensional planes. Three dimensional space warps into the fourth dimension, which is time. Our local time is bounded by the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch, (if that is what happens). All time is made up of countless universes starting and ending in the twinkling of an eye from our perspective. If you go to the speed of light, M or mass goes to infinity, or to a very great value. What could be more dense than a whole universe compacted to the size of a photon?

Mathematically there are supposed to be six dimensional universes existing in a seventh dimension. Then they talk about four "curled up" dimensions. These four additional dimensions are included in the other seven. Our own universe is "curled up" from the perspective of an "observer" in another universe. There only need to be seven dimensions.

[Edstock]

Trimdingman, on Nov 22 2009, 07:03 PM, said:

If the fourth dimension follows the pattern of the first three, it has to be made up of three dimensional universes. Zero dimensions is a point. One dimension, a line, is made up of many points. Two dimensions is a plane, made up of a vast quantity of one dimensional lines. This plane warps into the third dimension, so the third dimension is its "time". The third dimension is made up of two dimensional planes. Three dimensional space warps into the fourth dimension, which is time. Our local time is bounded by the Big Bang, and the Big Crunch, (if that is what happens). All time is made up of countless universes starting and ending in the twinkling of an eye from our perspective. If you go to the speed of light, M or mass goes to infinity, or to a very great value. What could be more dense than a whole universe compacted to the size of a photon?

Mathematically there are supposed to be six dimensional universes existing in a seventh dimension. Then they talk about four "curled up" dimensions. These four additional dimensions are included in the other seven. Our own universe is "curled up" from the perspective of an "observer" in another universe. There only need to be seven dimensions.

I sure wish you would read more. You probably didn't bother to check those links.

You contend: "If the fourth dimension follows the pattern of the first three, it has to be made up of three dimensional universes. "
Then you say: "Three dimensional space warps into the fourth dimension, which is time"

Time is not something that "follows the pattern of the first three" dimensions. Time doesn't follow anything; indeed, the concept of "following" the "pattern" of the three dimensions (whatever that "pattern" is) is irrelevant to time, which can cheerfully exist whether or not there are any dimensions.

Then you spout: "Mathematically there are supposed to be six dimensional universes existing in a seventh dimension. "

Well, that's your opinion. Please cite some reference to back this up. Because, as it stands, Lisa disagrees with you, and though you claim to have a vaunted intellect, somehow, I believe she knows more about this than you do.

Now I will admit that I don't know that she knows more about dimensional theory than you do, but because she is a published Harvard professor and you are not, I believe she knows more than you do. :hysterical:

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, on Nov 23 2009, 12:55 AM, said:

I sure wish you would read more. You probably didn't bother to check those links.

You contend: "If the fourth dimension follows the pattern of the first three, it has to be made up of three dimensional universes. "
Then you say: "Three dimensional space warps into the fourth dimension, which is time"

Time is not something that "follows the pattern of the first three" dimensions. Time doesn't follow anything; indeed, the concept of "following" the "pattern" of the three dimensions (whatever that "pattern" is) is irrelevant to time, which can cheerfully exist whether or not there are any dimensions.

Then you spout: "Mathematically there are supposed to be six dimensional universes existing in a seventh dimension. "

Well, that's your opinion. Please cite some reference to back this up. Because, as it stands, Lisa disagrees with you, and though you claim to have a vaunted intellect, somehow, I believe she knows more about this than you do.

Now I will admit that I don't know that she knows more about dimensional theory than you do, but because she is a published Harvard professor and you are not, I believe she knows more than you do. :hysterical:

I have been trying to understand what four dimensions look like for going on 50 years. I can now see it. Two scientists named Calabi and Yau came up with a mathematical model of a six dimensional manifold which fits into the latest theories. I am not a mathematical genius, but I trust the physicists who are. This is where it now stands. Strings are now branes of "p" dimensions, or p-branes. Macro universes and curled up universes are indistinguishable from the vantage point of a higher dimension. This is why I do not see why we need these other four "curled up" dimensions.

[Trimdingman]

I have read and re-read many books on this subject, as I find it fascinating. If we look at what we already know to be true, the concept of multiple universes is not out of line. We are ok with billions of galaxies, black holes, particle/waves 40 orders of magnitude smaller than the head of a pin. Compared to that, multiple universes would be more likely to exist than not.

[J-150]

Trimdingman, on Nov 24 2009, 01:00 PM, said:

I have read and re-read many books on this subject, as I find it fascinating. If we look at what we already know to be true, the concept of multiple universes is not out of line. We are ok with billions of galaxies, black holes, particle/waves 40 orders of magnitude smaller than the head of a pin. Compared to that, multiple universes would be more likely to exist than not.

and STAP is closing in those universes as well

[Edstock]

Trimdingman, on Nov 24 2009, 01:47 PM, said:

This is where it now stands. Strings are now branes of "p" dimensions, or p-branes.

According to some. Problem is, it's all conjecture, as the string freaks cannot devise a physics experiment to prove their conjectures, or beliefs or whatever you want to call them. P-branes and pea-brains. :hysterical:

Quote

Macro universes and curled up universes are indistinguishable from the vantage point of a higher dimension. This is why I do not see why we need these other four "curled up" dimensions.

If they're indistinguishable, they could be unicorns. Or Elvis, depending on how high your dimension is. A bottle of Jack probably helps.

[NickF1011]

J-150, on Nov 24 2009, 02:06 PM, said:

and STAP is closing in those universes as well

:hysterical: :hysterical: :hysterical:

[Edstock]

J-150, on Nov 24 2009, 03:06 PM, said:

and STAP is closing in those universes as well

No, there's one universe where Trim is Prime Minister of Canada, STAP makes a V-12 CV that gets 60 mpg, and P-71 is President of Ford . . . . people drink a lot, in that universe, to find an alternate reality. :)

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, on Nov 24 2009, 07:40 PM, said:

According to some. Problem is, it's all conjecture, as the string freaks cannot devise a physics experiment to prove their conjectures, or beliefs or whatever you want to call them. P-branes and pea-brains. :hysterical:


If they're indistinguishable, they could be unicorns. Or Elvis, depending on how high your dimension is. A bottle of Jack probably helps.

A "macro" universe is one in which you find yourself. Relative to you, it is not moving. You are moving with it. All other universes are like our universe pre Big Bang, and are elimentary particles skipping along at the speed of light. If you were "out there" in the fourth dimension, all universes, including this one would be like that also. Time is not constant. It varies with speed. This is not noticable unless you approach the speed of light. At the speed of light, time goes on a tangent to near infinity, or some very large Planck value; the end/beginning of time. This is only true if you are inside of a universe. If you are in the fourth dimension, time is spacial.

[Edstock]

Trimdingman, on Nov 25 2009, 05:40 AM, said:

All other universes are like our universe pre Big Bang,

Your opinion. Nobody knows what pre-Big Bang conditions were like.

Quote

and are elimentary particles skipping along at the speed of light.

Elementary particles have mass, and cannot be "skipping along at the speed of light".

Quote

If you were "out there" in the fourth dimension, all universes, including this one would be like that also.

Your opinion. Nobody knows.

Quote

Time is not constant. It varies with speed. This is not noticable unless you approach the speed of light. At the speed of light, time goes on a tangent to near infinity,

No, time does not go on "a tangent" to "near infinity": the concept of time going "to near infinity" is preposterous. :hysterical:

Einstein pointed out that time is variable according to your point of reference, time is relative, thus we have Relativity.
If you are on a starship at, say, .99 of C, and you boil a 3-minute egg, timing it with your wrist-watch will be just like timing it in your condo in Halifax, or wherever; to you, there is no difference.

But, if an observer on a planet or a space station could watch you as your star ship went past, he would see that your watch was hardly moving.

Quote

or some very large Planck value;

Leave Planck out of this. Irrelevant to the concept of time.

Quote

the end/beginning of time.

Nobody knows.

Quote

This is only true if you are inside of a universe. If you are in the fourth dimension, time is spacial.

Your opinion. Nobody knows. Time cannot be "spacial" or even spatial: if it were, it wouldn't be time. The spatial conditions of the universe are irrelevant to time. As to other conjectured universes, nobody knows.

This post has been edited by Edstock: 25 November 2009 - 06:17 PM

[Mark B. Morrow]

Edstock, on Nov 25 2009, 04:46 PM, said:

Your opinion. Nobody knows what pre-Big Bang conditions were like.


Elementary particles have mass, and cannot be "skipping along at the speed of light".


Your opinion. Nobody knows.


No, time does not go on "a tangent" to "near infinity": the concept of time going "to near infinity" is preposterous. :hysterical:

Einstein pointed out that time is variable according to your point of reference, time is relative, thus we have Relativity.
If you are on a starship at, say, .99 of C, and you boil a 3-minute egg, timing it with your wrist-watch will be just like timing it in your condo in Halifax, or wherever; to you, there is no difference.

But, if an observer on a planet or a space station could watch you as your star ship went past, he would see that your watch was hardly moving.


Leave Planck out of this. Irrelevant to the concept of time.


No body knows.


Your opinion. Nobody knows. Time cannot be "spacial" or even spatial: if it were, it wouldn't be time. The spatial conditions of the universe are irrelevant to time. As to other conjectured universes, nobody knows.

This thread is getting to be like an episode of the Big Bang Theory without the cute chick.

Well Isn't That Special?

Attached File(s)

•  CHURCH_LADY.jpg (119.57K)
  Number of downloads: 3

[Edstock]

Mark —

Check out

WHY DOES THE UNIVERSE LOOK THE WAY IT DOES?

A Conversation with Sean Carroll

http://www.edge.org/3rd_culture/carroll09/...ll09_index.html

Inflation does not provide a natural explanation for why the early universe looks like it does unless you can give me an answer for why inflation ever started in the first place. That is not a question we know the answer to right now. That is why we need to go back before inflation into before the Big Bang, into a different part of the universe to understand why inflation happened versus something else. There you get into branes and the cyclic universe. ... I really don't like any of the models that are on the market right now. We really need to think harder about what the universe should look like.

Worth the read, with video, too.

[Trimdingman]

Edstock, on Nov 25 2009, 05:46 PM, said:

Your opinion. Nobody knows what pre-Big Bang conditions were like.


Elementary particles have mass, and cannot be "skipping along at the speed of light".


Your opinion. Nobody knows.


No, time does not go on "a tangent" to "near infinity": the concept of time going "to near infinity" is preposterous. :hysterical:

Einstein pointed out that time is variable according to your point of reference, time is relative, thus we have Relativity.
If you are on a starship at, say, .99 of C, and you boil a 3-minute egg, timing it with your wrist-watch will be just like timing it in your condo in Halifax, or wherever; to you, there is no difference.

But, if an observer on a planet or a space station could watch you as your star ship went past, he would see that your watch was hardly moving.


Leave Planck out of this. Irrelevant to the concept of time.


Nobody knows.


Your opinion. Nobody knows. Time cannot be "spacial" or even spatial: if it were, it wouldn't be time. The spatial conditions of the universe are irrelevant to time. As to other conjectured universes, nobody knows.

Since time is variable with speed, there has to be a higher dimension. Call it "space-time". There is such an animal as Planck time. You have probably read about time dialation, but cannot imagine what it is like. Suppose that you are on a flatbed train car. You have a clock which consists of a beam of light bouncing up and down between two mirrors. The train starts to move. A stationary observer on the ground sees the beam of light move up or down, and also sideways, in a slight curve. He observes the beam of light travel a greater distance in the same time than the person on the train does. Since the distance between the two mirrors is constant, time has to be the variable. We would disintegrate before we travelled anywhere near the speed of light, but there are particles, such as photons that do. Photons are light. The speed of light, or that neighbourhood is normal for these particles, as though they were being carried along by a stream. It is a higher dimensional stream, because these particles move in all directions. According to the Big Bang theory, our universe started out as such a particle. It had to exist somewhere, in some medium. Was it the only one of its kind? That doesn't make much sense. It would take a heck of a lot of these to make up a whole other dimension. Our universe is still an elimentary particle if you are looking at it from the outside. In four dimensions, you would look at time like pages in a book, or a movie disk. Events would change with each re-visit. You would not be able to go back and re-watch the same history happen. Time wouldn't really matter, it would just be another spacial direction to go.

Time dialation is not just some theory. It has been proven by many different experiments.

[goinbroke2]

I haff a mouf fuww uf peaut buurr....

and if I do have a mouth full of peanut butter, why does it change the way I type?

must be a dimensional time shift..or the end of civilization...or $5000.00 gold....

[Edstock]

Trimdingman, on Nov 27 2009, 06:02 AM, said:

and also sideways, in a slight curve.

No. Unless it passes close to a massive object that is distorting the dimensions of space. Light travels in straight lines, otherwise. Perhaps you have heard of "gravitic lensing" which is the magnification of the light emitted by distant objects in the universe by massive objects like galaxies that are closer to us.

As to Planck Time, "It is the time required for light to travel, in a vacuum, a distance of 1 Planck length". Pray tell us, what the hell does that have to do with time dilation?

This post has been edited by Edstock: 27 November 2009 - 07:29 PM