# quocdat

Members

13

0 Neutral

• Rank
Quark

## Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

1. ## the infinite problem

Thank you so much for clarifying it out for me.
2. ## the infinite problem

Lately, I came up with a problem that I cannot solve and seems to be paradoxical. The problem is simple: A = x0 + x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 +... with x > 1. The sequence goes on to infinity. If we multiply A to x, we will get A.x = x( x0 + x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 +...) A.x = x1 + x2 + x3 + x4 +... A.x = A - x0 = A - 1 A- A.x = 1 So : A = 1/(1 - x) This clearly cannot be true since if x is 2, A would be -1 instead of infinity. However, I don't know what did I do wrong or does the problem even make sense or not. I would be thankful to receive help from you guys. Thank you.
3. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

Actually, though it may seem confusing at first, it is all logical. I thought that in order to withstand the enormous forces and gigantic sources of energy throughout the univers the interaction between the two worlds must be unbreakable. However, if we consider the fact that the two universes are completely alike to one another, in another way, what happens in one universe would also occur to the other so the symmetry cannot be broken in this era ( unlike the chaotic early age of the universe). This means that although the interaction is very weak, if there are no changes in the symmetry, then the bond would still last, that is the true reason why particles don't just disappear and then reappear once again constantly. One more important reason for this is that if the amount of energy in each bond is huge, then we would violate the law of energy conservation. Of course, we can fix that by saying that the system consists of two universes instead of one but this is more likely and simpler. If you imagine in the early era of the universe when the two universes had not been the same yet if a photon in our universe hit a stable electron ( an electron that is already connected to a positron in the other universe), what would happen? If the amount of energy in the bond is big, then you would think that the photon will not have enough energy to break the bond, but since we are talking about the early age of the universe when everything is hot and dense, we can say with absolute confidence that the photon has enough energy to break the bond no matter how strong it is since the electron came from the photon anyway. So if the amount of energy stored in the bond is huge, then what would happen after the bond is broken and the electron get deflected, will a gigantic amount of energy just come out of nowhere? To me, it is hard to believe that a big amount of energy would just appear out of nowhere and most of the energy is stored in the bond, not in the universes. So, the only logical explanation to me is if the amount of energy in the bond is a super tiny amount that would break under any smallest non-symmetrical impact. So the electron in our little example would be deflected, leaving behind the positron it really thin and weak, if no force is acted on it, then it would just last internity. Oh, and another thing. T Sorry, there was an error in my laptop. What I meant to say is: If we imagine an electron and positron bonding to each other, their bond would first have an enormous amount of energy since they would both stop moving when joining together. However, most of the energy in the bond will be evenly distributed between the two particles and they will continue to move at near the speed of light, only a tiny amount of energy is left in the bond. This fit our current knowledge that space in that early age was hot and dense so particles were moving near the speed of light, not losing most of their energy in an instance.
4. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

I just came up with a way to prove this theory...I think. My confidence is not so high on this one. But here it goes. I have changed my mind about the fact that the bond between the two universes is super weak, not super strong. The amount of energy that is in these bonds must be really small since what would happen if in the chaotic age of the universe when two universes had not bonded to each other yet, it was possible for a photon to hit an electron in one universe only, so what will happen? Well, in my opinion, the photon would break the bond and the electron spring free from the bond and a positron bounced back and forth. But perhaps due to the fact that the universes were in a high energy state so new particles were created to compensate for the lost one. However, after the creation era, the universe did not have enough energy to compensate anymore. So if we can somehow get the number of particles of the universes through time, we should see that number would reach the maximum and then it would slowly fall down until it reaches the number we see today. If we see this pattern, the theory should be the only theory able to explain it.
5. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

I just have another idea of how we can support the theory. We cannot prove it directly since the symmetry between two universes is indestructible, so every pair of particles we create will lose their bouncing ability since they will interact with the particle from the other universes or they can interact with their own kind from the other universes and then destroy our anti-particle either way. In short, there is no way to replicate what happened 10^-32 s after the big bang. However, we can still support the theory (not proving it) by studying the background radiation. I'm not even sure if this is possible or not, it's just an idea in theory. If we measure the energy level of this chaotic time, we should be able to see that the energy level gradually dropped since the interaction between two universes needs energy so it takes some of the kinetic energy from the particles, slowing it down. Now if we can find a way to find out the exact time when the creation of stable matter and antimatter stopped, we can conclude that there must be a minimum level of energy density to create stable matter as we know today. I haven't figured it out how can we find this trace from such a long time ago, but if we can, then we should be able to conclude that there is a relationship between energy and the chances of creating stable matter and antimatter. If somehow, in the best and most futuristic way possible, we find out the amount of matter and antimatter in space through a period of time, then the number, according to my theory, is supposed to drop steadily when the universe cooled down. This our observation that there are no stable electrons or positron ( not counting virtue particles) suddenly pop in from nowhere into existence and that the universe is not constantly making new things to take all of it space, the creation process can only take place in a chaotic, unpredictable when there is no real source from photons and the energy level was high like the big bang. After a while, interaction started to link the two universes together and the creation stopped.
6. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

Yes. If we create a positron and an electron, then the same thing would happen in the other universe, since they will both appear at the same time and with the same coordinates in both universes, they will form two locks and two stable pair are born. This makes creating bouncing particle impossible for us since the two universes are identical. Thank you for making realise this. This does not really say that the theory is wrong since in the early age of both universes, they were not the same. Photons moved at different direction in both universes because right after the big bang, there was no matter yet, so there were nó real sources for the photons. Now, if we create a pair, there would have to be a matter source, so the same thing, even the random, uncertainty things of quantum mechanics, would have to take place in the parallel universe as well. So it would be nearly impossible for us to reinact the big bang and prove this theory. So even though the theory, in my opinion is still a good explanation about the existence of the universe, proving it would be kind of impossible. Maybe this can only be something to think on paper but cannot be proven in real life. This does not mean that it is a terrible idea, but the future for the theory is quite gloomy.
7. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

We cannot just accelerate electron and positron and then collide thêm with each other, we need to create a pair and accelerate both of them to nearly the speed of light and then collide thêm to each other, and we need to do this while keeping them from colliding to each other at first. We also need to repeat the experiment since even when traveling at near the speed of light, the chance of one particle standing i still not 100%. Only when we do the test and find out that only one particle, electron or positron is let standing, then we can conclude that the theory is right. We also cannot just smash a stable electron and positron since they do not posses the bouncing ability between two worlds and will surely cancel each other out. Even if moving at 99.9999% the speed of light, the probability that one particle is let standing is still very small.
8. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

In my opinion, the only way for this to be tested is that we create a pair of matter and anti-matter particles, then give them energy so that they move close to the speed of light and smash them to each other. There should be a chance that they do not destroy each other but what is left would be a particle or an anti particle. This happens in black holes' event horizon all the time since virtue particles there have an enormous amount of potential energy, so some of the virtue particles, in fact a great deal of it will be real particles. However, matter black holes should suck in anti-matter and anti-matter black holes should suck in matter (in the other universe). So we are left with matter only in our universe that we know as Hawking radiation. So i we can get close a black hole's event horizon and detect one trace of anti-matter there, this they shall be proven.
9. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

I don't have enough math skill to build the complete model of the process. However, I believe that it is an interaction that connects the two universes, kind of like quantum entanglement but in a higher diemsion. For this I need an advanced skill in calculus which is something I am still trying to gain. I know that due to the interaction, the processes in both universes must be the same, just with anti-matter. Velocity, spin, mass...in both universes must be the same. In other words, there is an anti quocdat writing this right now. Oh and one correction, the lock mechanism will only be activated when the centers( imagine particles as spheres) are in place, so the inequation must be 2r, not 4r.
10. ## Twin universes - our answer for our own existence?

First of all, in the beginning, thế number of matter and anti-matter we're the same, this is obvious and suit our knowledge so far. Due to the property of quantum mechanics, there are more anti-matter bounced to the other universe is just due to our luck. In fact, the chance that the universe being destroyed in the first place was higher since there was an equal chance for matter to bounce. However, that chance is not 100% and we exist due to luck. The lock mechanism will go on forever since it is unbreakable, is not, then anti matter would jump back and the universe would be destroyed. However, in order for it to form, the particle needs to move at speed close to the speed of light and has a gigantic amount of energy, something only exist in the hot early age of the universe. My theory also say that when matter and anti matter collide with each other, they do not necessarily have to destroy one another, in fact, if at the time of the collision, one pop out of our universe, the locked pair will be created and matter or anti-matter will be created. There are more matter than anti matter i because of luck.