Stephen Hawking gets a Pats jersey

[raduray]

String theory is so au courant. It embodies what is considered beautiful mathematics, well beyond my ken. However, so far it has not made any falsifiable predictions and thus fails the test of being actual science. Nice for philosophical jerking off though.

Sheldon's gonna come after you.

 

[The Brandon Five]

mini fractals ?

And what are those made of.

 

[The Brandon Five]

Waves?

So matter is really just energy in disguise?

Maybe it's energy that "identifies" as matter.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I once had a brilliant (but marginally sane) Philosophy Prof, who posed this scenario: "Now suppose, Mr. X, that you had kept a parakeet in your home for a year or so, feeding and caring for it. Then, one day, in front of your eyes, it exploded. What might you conclude? Would you conclude that it was not a parakeet in the first place or that you now know something new about parakeets, namely that "they explode?'"

Or would you conclude, Mr. X, that you shouldn't give alka seltzer to birds?

All I get about multiverse stuff is that it's considered a perfectly valid possibility that each possibility manifests, in every possible combination, in every moment. So every moment a finite but very large number of universes spawn from "the" universe.

Usually in scifi this is scaled way up, which is perfectly legitimate - what if a gnat distracted the ref, he flipped the coin slightly differently, it was heads instead of tails, Team X beats Team Y in the SB, etc. Very comforting to imagine that we're in that one crap-ass universe where David Tyree doesn't catch the ball on his helmet, and I'm sure Seahawks fans conversant with the Many Worlds Interpretation use it to explain the Butler pick.

But here's the thing, it's a progressive phenomenon; the universes branch off moment by moment, but getting from universe A to universe B? I'd like to know more about how one manages that. Every moment you continually peel off alternate universes, but in each you (and the rest of the universe) have taken exactly one chain of actions, it's just that the universe resolves into all of the possibilities - but "this" universe isn't interacting with the others.

Serious question. how do you "get there"? Is there even theory on this, or just TV shows?

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

Or would you conclude, Mr. X, that you shouldn't give alka seltzer to birds?

All I get about multiverse stuff is that it's considered a perfectly valid possibility that each possibility manifests, in every possible combination, in every moment. So every moment a finite but very large number of universes spawn from "the" universe.

Usually in scifi this is scaled way up, which is perfectly legitimate - what if a gnat distracted the ref, he flipped the coin slightly differently, it was heads instead of tails, Team X beats Team Y in the SB, etc. Very comforting to imagine that we're in that one crap-ass universe where David Tyree doesn't catch the ball on his helmet, and I'm sure Seahawks fans conversant with the Many Worlds Interpretation use it to explain the Butler pick.

But here's the thing, it's a progressive phenomenon; the universes branch off moment by moment, but getting from universe A to universe B? I'd like to know more about how one manages that. Every moment you continually peel off alternate universes, but in each you (and the rest of the universe) have taken exactly one chain of actions, it's just that the universe resolves into all of the possibilities - but "this" universe isn't interacting with the others.

Serious question. how do you "get there"? Is there even theory on this, or just TV shows?

This gets mind-boggling in a hurry. The first three dimensions are easy. Time is the fourth. Then it really gets complicated - there maybe be at least ten dimensions total and the possibilities of multiverses.

My headaches might lessen if we can go to an alternate universe with BB, TB, but no Goodell.

 

[Galeb]

So matter is really just energy in disguise?

Maybe it's energy that "identifies" as matter.

Only when observed.

 

[reneluar]

Sign the atheist beast XLVIIIIIIZ

 

[zydecochris]

So matter is really just energy in disguise?

Maybe it's energy that "identifies" as matter.

I can't, weigh in on String Theory or the multiverse (I don't know that high falutin stuff) but this matter energy issue has been old hat physics for almost a century because of certain guy named Albert Einstein. In his famous E=mc2 (E equals m c squared) equation, he was stating that mass and energy are equivalent and essentially different forms of the same thing. That might be the most profoundly impactful result of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So, matter and energy are the same, just in different forms.

 

[PatsFanSince74]

Or would you conclude, Mr. X, that you shouldn't give alka seltzer to birds?

All I get about multiverse stuff is that it's considered a perfectly valid possibility that each possibility manifests, in every possible combination, in every moment. So every moment a finite but very large number of universes spawn from "the" universe.

Usually in scifi this is scaled way up, which is perfectly legitimate - what if a gnat distracted the ref, he flipped the coin slightly differently, it was heads instead of tails, Team X beats Team Y in the SB, etc. Very comforting to imagine that we're in that one crap-ass universe where David Tyree doesn't catch the ball on his helmet, and I'm sure Seahawks fans conversant with the Many Worlds Interpretation use it to explain the Butler pick.

But here's the thing, it's a progressive phenomenon; the universes branch off moment by moment, but getting from universe A to universe B? I'd like to know more about how one manages that. Every moment you continually peel off alternate universes, but in each you (and the rest of the universe) have taken exactly one chain of actions, it's just that the universe resolves into all of the possibilities - but "this" universe isn't interacting with the others.

Serious question. how do you "get there"? Is there even theory on this, or just TV shows?

I don't know the answer to that question, but I do know that there are not many threads like this one on a Jets Board.

 

[The Brandon Five]

I can't, weigh in on String Theory or the multiverse (I don't know the that high falutin stuff) but this matter energy issue has been old hat physics for almost a century because of certain guy named Albert Einstein. In his famous E=mc2 (E equals m c squared) equation, he was stating that mass and energy are equivalent and essentially different forms of the same thing. That might be the most profoundly impactful result of Einstein's Theory of Relativity. So, matter and energy are the same, just in different forms.

I don't think that's what the equation shows. It shows how much potential energy that mass has. Here is a good explanation:


Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

Summing Up

• Matter and Energy really aren’t in the same class and shouldn’t be paired in one’s mind.
• Matter, in fact, is an ambiguous term; there are several different definitions used in both scientific literature and in public discourse. Each definition selects a certain subset of the particles of nature, for different reasons. Consumer beware! Matter is always some kind of stuff, but which stuff depends on context.
• Energy is not ambiguous (not within physics, anyway). But energy is not itself stuff; it is something that all stuff has.
• The term Dark Energy confuses the issue, since it isn’t (just) energy after all. It also really isn’t stuff; certain kinds of stuff can be responsible for its presence, though we don’t know the details.
• Photons should not be called `energy’, or `pure energy’, or anything similar. All particles are ripples in fields and have energy; photons are not special in this regard. Photons are stuff; energy is not.
• The stuff of the universe is all made from fields (the basic ingredients of the universe) and their particles. At least this is the post-1973 viewpoint.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

This gets mind-boggling in a hurry. The first three dimensions are easy. Time is the fourth. Then it really gets complicated - there maybe be at least ten dimensions total and the possibilities of multiverses.

My headaches might lessen if we can go to an alternate universe with BB, TB, but no Goodell.

I thought the other 6 to n dimensions are all some bizarre thing that I don't understand, dimensions all curled in on themselves and not pervasive like the 3 dimensions of space and that of time. Very general question - can these extra dimensions be found everywhere in a continuum that you can measure down to the Planck length/time? Or are those units inapplicable? I have very little understanding of string theory, but then I think that's pretty common.

And again back to the earlier question - is there some mechanism in string theory that gets you from one sequence of events to another sequence of events in MWI quantum physics?

 

[PatsWickedPissah]

I thought the other 6 to n dimensions are all some bizarre thing that I don't understand, dimensions all curled in on themselves and not pervasive like the 3 dimensions of space and that of time. Very general question - can these extra dimensions be found everywhere in a continuum that you can measure down to the Planck length/time? Or are those units inapplicable? I have very little understanding of string theory, but then I think that's pretty common.

And again back to the earlier question - is there some mechanism in string theory that gets you from one sequence of events to another sequence of events in MWI quantum physics?

There is AFAIK and I'm fairly certain (I'm an engineer who has astrophysics as one hobby, not a PhD) that there is no evidence or observation whatsoever of any of those string theory postulated extra dimensions, not that we can measure things readily at the Planck Length as you correctly reference.

It's theory/philosophy wrapped in mathematics that the theoreticians who understand that level find elegant. There have been many cases where mathematics has led to discovery of actual physical things but String theory after several decades still has made no testable predictions. It's not falsifiable unlike Einstein's theory of Relativity, etc. which made many testable prediction of things that once checked out were measured to be true, time and again, e.g. the bending of starlight around the sun by the sun's gravity (a distortion of space-time) observed during a solar eclipse.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

This explains the ten dimensions.

Good luck understanding it.

Here's a Visual Guide to the 10 Dimensions of Reality

 

[zydecochris]

I don't think that's what the equation shows. It shows how much potential energy that mass has. Here is a good explanation:

Matter and Energy: A False Dichotomy

My explanation, that "mass and energy are equivalent and essentially different forms (or manifestations) of the same thing" is the standard interpretation of Einstein's famous equation. That is how I was taught in school, and that is how I summarize mass and energy equivalence to my current Introductory College Physics students.

That said, some theorists (which I am admittedly not) argue about "what energy really is" or "what matter really is", such as the guy you reference (although please note that Einstein's equation describes the relationship between energy and mass, not matter, and the distinction is significant).

However, I would be a lousy physics professor if I pooh-poohed differing opinions on physics (I actually normally welcome that type of stimulating discussion), especially without backing it up (and I admit I don't have time today to carefully read the article you posted), so thanks for posting an unconventional and interesting view, I look forward to thinking about it and reading up on it later (after finishing my final exam to be given this Tuesday, I'm wayyyy behind schedule).

 

[Deus Irae]

You guys need to stop with the multiple/parallel universes nonsense. The NFL has already ruled on this. There is only one universe. It's Roger Goodell's, and we're just living in it.

 

[zydecochris]

You guys need to stop with the multiple/parallel universes nonsense. The NFL has already ruled on this. There is only one universe. It's Roger Goodell's, and we're just living in it.

Your right, I think the NFL proved that multiple universes don't exist in the Well's Report.

 

[RecoveringCowboy]

You guys need to stop with the multiple/parallel universes nonsense. The NFL has already ruled on this. There is only one universe. It's Roger Goodell's, and we're just living in it.

A good friend of mine would sharply disagree with that assertion - she does not believe in Hell.

 

[zydecochris]

There is AFAIK and I'm fairly certain (I'm an engineer who has astrophysics as one hobby, not a PhD) that there is no evidence or observation whatsoever of any of those string theory postulated extra dimensions, not that we can measure things readily at the Planck Length as you correctly reference.

It's theory/philosophy wrapped in mathematics that the theoreticians who understand that level find elegant. There have been many cases where mathematics has led to discovery of actual physical things but String theory after several decades still has made no testable predictions. It's not falsifiable unlike Einstein's theory of Relativity, etc. which made many testable prediction of things that once checked out were measured to be true, time and again, e.g. the bending of starlight around the sun by the sun's gravity (a distortion of space-time) observed during a solar eclipse.

Great post, spot on.

I wanted to add that another more "each and every day" example proving Einstein's Theory of Relativity are the GPS systems that many of us have become so dependent on. These systems would be largely useless without the incorporation of relativistic effects predicted (and confirmed) from Einstein's theory.

 

[Rusty Coupe]

Could be the new Rutgers with their knowledge of the IGL and ability on special teams.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

This explains the ten dimensions.

Good luck understanding it.

Here's a Visual Guide to the 10 Dimensions of Reality

Okay. Looks like an exercise of "I can think of it this way so maybe it's true." But thank you, this does answer the question of the theoretical mechanism whereby we go "elsewhere" in timelines. My mistake was in believing that dimensions behave as I perceive them, being a flatlander and all.

Oddly, though, my perception of length, width, and height is not of higher and lower dimensions; they appear equally perceivable, as they would to an ant on the newspaper; the ant could perceive, for example, the height of another ant, or the hands of the gigantic god-like being which is folding over this enormous piece of real estate (which must happen often in the ant's world, making them perhaps tremendously religious creatures).

The point is that there is a hint of dimension 3 from dimensions 1-2, because there are no two- or one- or zero- dimensional beings; they are imaginary exercises.

I really do love an elegant diagram. But as you point out the proof is that ants don't understand Mobius strips. I'm kind of underwhelmed, although greatly appreciate how clearly the narrator and graphic describe the unprovable premise LOL.

Now I know that mathematically it all could make a tremendous amount of sense, so please don't get me wrong. The animated explanation only falls apart, not necessarily the underlying unprovable theory.