I was wondering, if you exclude m-theory and quantum theory, do you still have a multiverse...
Welcome to ScienceForums.Net!
|
After you've registered, come in and introduce yourself, or visit the forum index. If you need any help registering, posting, or if you just have some questions about our site, please feel free to contact us at staff at scienceforums dot net.
|
|
| Guest Message © 2012 DevFuse | |
Page 1 of 1
the multiverse ?
#4 28 October 2010 - 05:05 PM
Well, I must admit that I don't understand how parallel universes are physical, theoretical or hypothetical with m-theory (not that I knew what that is) or quantum mechanics (I've got a vague idea what that is). I'm only an average stupid little physicist - I don't understand all the cool stuff that non-physicists talk about in the Internet all the time. But I wouldn't mind if someone tried to explain it to me.
This post has been edited by timo: 28 October 2010 - 05:06 PM
Forum madness is no excuse for forum rudeness (after H.J. Farnsworth)
- Posts: 2,860 | Joined: 02-May 04
Reply
#5 29 October 2010 - 12:41 PM
well timo, the theory of parallel universes or the multiverse is at the frontiers of cosmology and theoretical physics. The multiverse is based on elegant mathematics such as m-theory - which states that, from an extension of string theory, whereby all string theories are unified that membranes can exist or 'branes' if you like to call them. And these branes come in different shapes and sizes according to their dimensional status if you like to call it. Basically, the theory states that the strings in string theory can propagate through multiple dimensional space to actually become one of these branes. The conclusion of m-theory is that we may actually be inside one of these enormous membranes floating around in a much larger hyperspace with many other membranes in a megaverse of membrane universes. So, in a sense string theory and m-theory are interchangeable - kind of like the mass/energy relationship with E=mc(squared). And with quantum mechanics, i meant quantum theory. Quantum mechanics is the 'mechanics' of the quantum world, so basically the workings and operations of mass and energy at the atomic and subatomic level. Whereas quantum theory revolves around the idea of quantised matter and energy and when this applied to the universe as a whole, the idea of the multiverse is encountered. All of this is top end physics and is always being mathematically research etc..
hope this helps
hope this helps
- Posts: 209 | Joined: 17-April 10
Reply
#6 9 November 2010 - 12:00 AM
1123581321, on 29 October 2010 - 12:41 PM, said:
well timo, the theory of parallel universes or the multiverse is at the frontiers of cosmology and theoretical physics. The multiverse is based on elegant mathematics such as m-theory - which states that, from an extension of string theory, whereby all string theories are unified that membranes can exist or 'branes' if you like to call them. And these branes come in different shapes and sizes according to their dimensional status if you like to call it. Basically, the theory states that the strings in string theory can propagate through multiple dimensional space to actually become one of these branes. The conclusion of m-theory is that we may actually be inside one of these enormous membranes floating around in a much larger hyperspace with many other membranes in a megaverse of membrane universes. So, in a sense string theory and m-theory are interchangeable - kind of like the mass/energy relationship with E=mc(squared). And with quantum mechanics, i meant quantum theory. Quantum mechanics is the 'mechanics' of the quantum world, so basically the workings and operations of mass and energy at the atomic and subatomic level. Whereas quantum theory revolves around the idea of quantised matter and energy and when this applied to the universe as a whole, the idea of the multiverse is encountered. All of this is top end physics and is always being mathematically research etc..
hope this helps
hope this helps
Doesn't this just increase the size of the Universe, yet accept we are not technologically capable of detecting it yet?
If we can conceive it, it is part of our Universe - a workable approach IMO is just to accept our Universe is (in an Absolute sense) only potential. Multiverse flipside interpretation...easier to keep focused. I suppose it is easier to just allow the imagination to redefine Universe and excuse it with a word like Multiverse. I also understand the reductionist standpoint is not as sexy.
- Posts: 34 | Joined: 04-November 10
Reply
Share this topic:
Page 1 of 1

Help
Sign In »
Register Now!











