JaKiri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 You're still misunderstanding. I never said that universes occupied the same space because electrons can. I said that it isn't true that they definitely can't, because electrons can. This isn't very complicated. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 No, this is very stupid. As Cap likes to say, "Give me proof or give me death." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 No, this is very stupid. As Cap likes to say, "Give me proof or give me death." Proof of WHAT? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 No, this is very stupid. As Cap likes to say, "Give me proof or give me death." JaKiri is trying to say that becasue electrons can take up the same theres a definite chance that universes can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 With the definition that JaKiri has given, the universes cannot occupy the same place without being the same universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 With the definition that JaKiri has given, the universes cannot occupy the same place without being the same universe. That is definitely not true! I've explained this so many times that if you don't start making sense on the next post I may actually go insane. [edit] Also, please explain what you wanted me to prove exactly. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Explain it again. And if u use an analogy make it a relevant one this time. How has the universe in any way demonstrated that, macroscopically, it can be the same place as another. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
atinymonkey Posted July 10, 2004 Share Posted July 10, 2004 Explain it again. Please, for the love of the giant zombie lobster Jesus, don't ask physicists to explain their explanations. I'm sure there is a law about that somewhere. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JaKiri Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 Explain it again. And if u use an analogy make it a relevant one this time. How has the universe in any way demonstrated that, macroscopically, it can be the same place as another. Here's your biggest problem. I don't actually have to explain anything. We're dealing with something of which we have no evidence or knowledge, and it is not the way of science to mindlessly say 'x can't happen' when it is impossible to say anything about x, the mechanism, or anything else. The burden of proof is upon YOU to say why it is impossible for things that share the same space have to be nondistinct; hell, it's down to you to explain why there has to be a concept of distance. I gave examples of how things like this can take place, so I have done more than is required for my end of the discussion; if you think the example of the electrons was irrelevent, then you didn't get the point of it; I could explain again what I said before in this thread, but I'd just be repeating myself, and frankly I'd deem the effort it takes me wasted at best, because you appear to be of the mindset that actively doesn't want to read what I, or anyone else, says. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 You appear to be in that mindset. I have come to that conclusion from multiple threaads. Distance is what separates objects. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Rakdos Posted July 11, 2004 Author Share Posted July 11, 2004 here is an off-the-wall kind of thing what if the distance is really small, too small to even really be considered as distance like less-than-attometer-distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 There would still be distance. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CrelmToothpaste Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 i will try to explain this VERY simply so that you can understand. what i believe he is trying to beat into your stubborn head is that your preconceptions about space could theoretically be wrong. do you have ANY proof that distances between objects actually exist? DO YOU? oh.. you perceive them? well good for you, but that is NOT proof in any way. he is merely SPECULATING that your perception of reality may be wrong and that SEVERAL realities could occupy the same "space", however, due to the way you experience reality, you can only PERCIEVE one. thank you, have a nice day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 11, 2004 Share Posted July 11, 2004 do you have ANY proof that distances between objects actually exist? DO YOU? oh.. you perceive them? well good for you' date=' but that is NOT proof in any way. [/quote'] Uh, stand away from a wall and throw a ball at it.It dosnt hit the wall instantenously... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CrelmToothpaste Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Uh, stand away from a wall and throw a ball at it.It dosnt hit the wall instantenously... so what? you percieve the ball hitting the wall in a second.. but how can you prove that there is any distance between the wall? how can prove that the time you release the ball and the time it hits the wall aren't the same? you percieve time in a linear fashion, but that doesn't mean it IS linear, and it certainly doesn't dismiss the possibility of there being other "universes" that you aren't percieving. don't get me wrong! i'm not saying that there is no space between the ball and the wall! i'm just saying, our perconceptions of how it works aren't necessarily "all that there is" to it, if you catch my meaning. i am also not claiming to be an expert on the matter, i've only had a couple semesters of college level physics and an astronomy class. i'm just stating some observations. in the end, the fact that there could be other universes doesn't affect my life in any substantial way.. or maybe it does? who cares! (yes i know people care and it is interesting to think about, because of this scientists will labor to prove / disprove such theories) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 I suspect that JaKiri's "why do they have to be separated by distance" query could be fulfilled quite easily with a model that sees our own universe existing in dimensions 1-4 and another universe existing in dimensions 5-8 (or larger ranges, if need be). The idea of "distance between location X in dimension 2 and location Y in dimension 7", you see, makes no sense - hence the original query. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Actually I ought to expand on that: You can give a valid distance between points in the dimensional group 1-4, because we define the first, second and third dimensions as those which describe volume. My assumption is that there is no reason why dimensional groups should have interdependency. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 so what? you percieve the ball hitting the wall in a second.. but how can you prove that there is any distance between the wall? Look, at a high speed camera image of a bullet slicing a playing card in half.The bullet clearly travels between the sides of the card (standing vertically) and the so there must be a distance between them. Because the bullet moved a measureable space in the card.So there has to be a distance it traveled from first hitting the card until exiting its other side. Like here:http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-c/bullet-queenheart-1b.jpg Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest CrelmToothpaste Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 Look' date=' at a high speed camera image of a bullet slicing a playing card in half.The bullet clearly travels between the sides of the card (standing vertically) and the so there must be a distance between them. Because the bullet moved a measureable space in the card.So there has to be a distance it traveled from first hitting the card until exiting its other side. Like here:http://www.rit.edu/~andpph/photofile-c/bullet-queenheart-1b.jpg[/quote'] you're not understanding what i'm saying. your perception is this: i have a picture of the bullet at x time and y time. they are at different spots in the coordinate system at both times, therefore it moved a distance... but you can't have it moving a distance WITHOUT the use of TIME. what i'm trying to get you to think about is this: how do you know that your perception of time is the only way it can be perceived? isn't it equally plausable that all time exists at once and the bullet is in both places at the same "time"? our human measurement of time is just a byproduct of how we experience it... its not the definitive triumphant truth of the matter. so in thinking about this, i'm trying to get you to realize that human perception is not the defining factor of the existence of anything (other than that of perception itself)... thus it is conceivable that other universes are in the same space as this, we just aren't "experiencing" them. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ydoaPs Posted July 12, 2004 Share Posted July 12, 2004 You don't need time to have distance. For example, from my finger tip to my elbow is about one cubit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 13, 2004 Share Posted August 13, 2004 The concept of distance between two "worlds" (nowadays you use the world "world" instead of "universe" because, as has been pointed out, there can only be one universe) is irrelevant. In most theories of the multiverse (I say most because there are multiple theories), the "space" inbetween the different worlds is more of a topological space, so there is no distance, just relationships. There are also "many worlds" (ie multiverse) theories in which every world exists at the instance of the collapse of the wave function of a particle, and the particle exists in all of the worlds, meaning it travels every possible path. I'm sure you've heard of this, because it is a popular subject in pop science books. Anyways, Feynmann used this idea to describe the wave function propagator, and, amazingly enough, it describes the way the universe works. So, even though you might not believe it, it has been shown by experiment to be a possible correct theory. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamLord Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 The thing is there is no way to prove whether or not there are multiple universes. Some recent theories are that the universe does have an end, it is not infinite, it is not everything. These theories state that the universe constantly expanding at the moment, and someday will stop expanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fuhrerkeebs Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 You can prove whether the multiverse exists or not. Deutsch originally proposed that if you had an intelligent q-computer, it would be able to distinguish between a multiverse and a universe. The problem is that we have no idea how to create intelligence. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DreamLord Posted August 16, 2004 Share Posted August 16, 2004 Well, yes, that's what I mean. I'm not saying that there is absolutely no way of proving or disproving the multiverse theory. I'm saying given our current technology we have no way of proving it. Some day we may though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
paganinio Posted August 30, 2004 Share Posted August 30, 2004 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'] CHEERS!! we need some other word to describe 'universe' in physics P.S.What language is that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now