is the multiverse shown in the Michael Chrition Book timeline real or made up

hey fagel, learn the meaning of the word universe.

 

uni=one

vers=truth

e=noun

 

universe=one truth

the universe means everything

 

and dont say atom a=not tom=cut atom=indivisible ,because the definition of the universe as i have seen in books, magazines, ect. is everything (the extent of the estended dimensions)

a=not tom=cut atom=indivisible

hey fagel, atom doesn't fit the definion, but universe does

hey fagel' date=' learn the meaning of the word universe.

 

uni=one

vers=truth

e=noun

 

universe=one truth

the universe means everything

 

and dont say atom a=not tom=cut atom=indivisible ,because the definition of the universe as i have seen in books, magazines, ect. is everything (the extent of the estended dimensions)[/quote']

 

I love the way you embrace general physics speculation with one hand, then throw out other general physics speculation with the other. You're like some kind of super... thing. Using the literal definitions of words is also a bad idea, as science generally defines things very precisely (something I don't think you've taken on board; anything empirically unproven is a postulate, not a theory) and the two usually don't aline in any brilliant or argument winning way.

 

Re: the original question.

 

I've not seen any way for two multiverses to interact after their formation, which means that, even if this is true, there is no way we can possibly measure it, so the only correct scientific thing is to assume that they don't exist.

 

They're perfectly harmless though, so do what you like with them. They make for a decent scifi premise.

how can there be more than one universe. define a universe if it isn't the extent of the four unfurled dimensions? I am not being sarcastic or anything, i just want to know.

how can there be more than one universe. define a universe if it isn't the extent of the four unfurled dimensions? I am not being sarcastic or anything, i just want to know.

 

By there being... more than one. The leap of faith (as it were) from 0 to 1 is much harder than from 1 to many.

i dont understand how there can be more than one everything(unless u r talking about brane theory in which there is a four dimensional "reality" less than a milimeter away separtaed from us by two dimensions)

The universe, in this sense, isn't 'everything'. Remember what I said about literal interpretations of words?

then what is your definition of universe?

then what is your definition of universe?

 

A volume of space time that is accessable by physical means.

Speaking of which, since I'm not into physics(beyond a mild curiosity) but can you tell me what the 11 dimentions are in the superstring theory?

what you are talking about is the four extended dimensions. and is that or is that not everything? therefore universe lives up to its name.

 

there are two configurations for the dimensions. calibi-yau manifolds or brane theory. brane is separated a little bit by if u want ten or eleven dimensions. but it goes like this: there are two four-dimensional "realities" less than a milimeter apart separated by two (or three depening on the string theory) dimensions

Speaking of which, since I'm not into physics(beyond a mild curiosity) but can you tell me what the 11 dimentions are in the superstring theory?

 

The 4 main ones, then 7 more.

 

The 7 more are postulated to be as a Calibi-Yau space, which can be explained as follows.

 

Have you heard of flatworld? The thing Einstein used to make a comparison of 4-D space? It involves little 2 dimensional beings on a 2 dimensional surface.

 

Lets take one of these 2 dimensional beings and put it on a thin pipe.

 

In one direction, the pipe is infinite (like our time/distance dimensions).

 

In the other direction however, it's curled up very tightly (if you see what I mean); it's a finite dimension. You can only travel a short way in it before you come back to yourself. This dimension is like the 7 new ones postulated by several of the superstring postulates.

I though it was something like: space, time, gravity, etc

 

Or am I way off here?

I though it was something like: space' date=' time, gravity, etc

 

Or am I way off here?[/quote']

 

Gravity isn't a dimension, it's a force.

 

Dimensions are distances, that's all. (Admittedly that's shoehorning 'Time' into the distance category, but that's a chance we'll just HAVE TO TAKE!)

gravity isn't a dimension. and u r way off. sorry

Ok, sry about the gravity thing.

 

But from what you guys said that these 7 extra dimentions are Calibi-Yau space, and they are all the same? Or is there (any hypothesised) variations within the Calibi-Yau space? If so, they why is there a need for 7 of the identical items, more or less?

there are infinite variations of calibi-yau space. it depends on the theory. it is to cancel out the tachyon frequencies

Isn't a value that is Infinite (especially in Physics) is meaningless?

Post #5

...and the fact that "this word means X so therefore Y can't happen" is just stupid.

...and the fact that "this word means X so therefore Y can't happen" is just stupid.

 

Uhm, I guess this was addressed to me.

 

I was basing it on this quote:

 

M-Theory

 

The standard model was designed within a framework known as Quantum Field Theory (QFT), which gives us the tools to build theories consistent both with quantum mechanics and the special theory of relativity. With these tools, theories were built which describe with great success three of the four known interactions in Nature: Electromagnetism, and the Strong and Weak nuclear forces. Furthermore, a very successful unification between Electromagnetism and the Weak force was achieved (Electroweak Theory), and promising ideas put forward to try to include the Strong force. But unfortunately the fourth interaction, gravity, beautifully described by Einstein's General Relativity (GR), does not seem to fit into this scheme. Whenever one tries to apply the rules of QFT to GR one gets results which make no sense. For instance, the force between two gravitons (the particles that mediate gravitational interactions), becomes infinite and we do not know how to get rid of these infinities to get physically sensible results.

 

http://www.damtp.cam.ac.uk/user/gr/public/qg_ss.html

 

So in light of the above quote, is the word, idea, concept(whatever) of Infinite IS or IS NOT meaningless in Physics?

Isn't a value that is Infinite (especially in Physics) is meaningless?

 

Infinite variations. It's just one of them.

 

A calibi yau space is just a term for some things grouped in a way mathematically devised by Calibi and Yau.

Uhm, I guess this was addressed to me.

 

Nah, it wasn't.

Thank you, JaKiri, for the assist.

Great info and great help you've provided me with.