Hyperspace & Parallel Worlds

[Minneserenity]

Has anyone else read Michio Kaku's books on parallel worlds and hyperspace? I also heard him on NPR, and he recently spoke here in MN as well.

I was filled with hope for our future.

Additionally the book the Gekko's Foot, and the foresight.org website paint a very optimistic picture of the potential for nanotechnology.

I cannot help but wonder what relationship nantotechnology might bear to quantum mechanics and M Theory as one of the main things that holds our technology back is resonant circuitry. We may need to tap vastly higher or lower frequencies to be ever able to perceive and utilize the phenomena that M theory only posits right now. And such circuits built on the nanoscale with incredible precision sounds as if it might yield exactly that.

Regards,

M.

[venom mama]

as for parallel worlds

no

there are to many options

and there is not enough space

someone may argue space is vast and endless

but if every choice we made or did not make was happening, everywhere, with everyone

it is just not possible

[scameter]

Why? Because you cannot conceive of it?

[sonrisa]

V'girl-- but if every choice we did or did not make was happening, everywhere, with everyone

-- but V'girl, that's what infinity is

ps, how's the baby, btw?

[Minneserenity]

<<but if every choice we did or did not make was happening, everywhere, with everyone

-- but V'girl, that's what infinity is>>

The article below (click here if you prefer the whole article: (http://www.physica.freeserve.co.uk/p105.htm).

I've Max Tegmark's "Parallel Worlds" article from Scientific American magazine; but there's no way I feel like typing that much. I couldn't find it on the web, so here's the next best thing:

Parallel Universes
BBC Two 9.00pm Thursday 14 February 2002

http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/...ralleluni.shtml (http://www.bbc.co.uk/science/horizon/2001/paralleluni.shtml)


"Everything you're about to read here seems impossible and insane, beyond science fiction. Yet it's all true.

Scientists now believe there may really be a parallel universe - in fact, there may be an infinite number of parallel universes, and we just happen to live in one of them. These other universes contain space, time and strange forms of exotic matter. Some of them may even contain you, in a slightly different form. Astonishingly, scientists believe that these parallel universes exist less than one millimetre away from us. In fact, our gravity is just a weak signal leaking out of another universe into ours.

The same but different

For years parallel universes were a staple of the Twilight Zone. Science fiction writers loved to speculate on the possible other universes which might exist. In one, they said, Elvis Presley might still be alive or in another the British Empire might still be going strong. Serious scientists dismissed all this speculation as absurd. But now it seems the speculation wasn't absurd enough. Parallel universes really do exist and they are much stranger than even the science fiction writers dared to imagine.

Greater dimensions

It all started when superstring theory, hyperspace and dark matter made physicists realise that the three dimensions we thought described the Universe weren't enough. There are actually 11 dimensions. By the time they had finished they'd come to the conclusion that our Universe is just one bubble among an infinite number of membranous bubbles which ripple as they wobble through the eleventh dimension.

A creative touch

Now imagine what might happen if two such bubble universes touched. Neil Turok from Cambridge, Burt Ovrut from the University of Pennsylvania and Paul Steinhardt from Princeton believe that has happened. The result? A very big bang indeed and a new universe was born - our Universe. The idea has shocked the scientific community; it turns the conventional Big Bang theory on its head. It may well be that the Big Bang wasn't really the beginning of everything after all. Time and space all existed before it. In fact Big Bangs may happen all the time.

Of course this extraordinary story about the origin of our Universe has one alarming implication. If a collision started our Universe, could it happen again? Anything is possible in this extra-dimensional cosmos. Perhaps out there in space there is another universe heading directly towards us - it may only be a matter of time before we collide."

It's interesting to note that Mr. Kaku grew up in an environment of both Eastern philosophy and Orthodox Christianity. He commented in his book Hyperspace that while the model of our own universe may be compatible with Genesis, the multiverse model actually bears a closer resemblance to Eastern Philosophical models. What's more, the Gnostics taught that our universe was the product of an "demigod" that created a separate universe with us in it. After this life there may be indeed far more in heaven and earth...and beyond even that...than in our philosophies.

Regards,

M.

[sonrisa]

yes yes! that was on The Science Channel one nite: Turok, Steinhardt, & Ovrut worked the thing out on a train to London- 2 universes bumped into each other & bang!- as in Big Bang- viola! our universe was born!

They also said that this happens all the time, our universe could have already birthed other universes- there was another dude on the show who claims you can make alternate universes in your basement (don't ask)- the effects wouldn't be catastrophic.

Not like when 2 cars collide into each other & wreck, but more like when they bump into each other in a parking lot: you feel something stopping your movement- not a jolt, you just stop- you & the other driver get out, look at the cars, determine that no damage was done, & you each go on your separate merry ways. It's the same with the universe- the effects, if any, would be extremely minute. The difference is, of course, that 2 cars bumping into each other do not make a 3rd car. Whereas the result of 2 universes bumping into each other is a 3rd universe.

Hinduism sez that our universe is merely a dream of Brahma's. And that along side him there are an infinite number of other Brahmas, each dreaming their own universe.

everything old is new again....

:)

[Thomas Knierim]

Minneserenity: Has anyone else read Michio Kaku's books on parallel worlds and hyperspace?

I read "Hyperspace" some ten years ago and although my memory of much of the details discussed in this book has somewhat faded, I remember it to be an enthralling read. Michio Kaku is quite a wizard, both as a speaker and as an author. His knowledge about theoretical physics is immense and he is more than ready to enter into philosophical and scientific speculations. He is a marevellous speaker. Not only is he able to put the most technical concepts into accessible language by drawing on metaphors and visualisations, but his thought is also very quick. He anticipates the train of thought and the questions of his conversation partner, which enables him to lead the discussion whereever he wants. And he seems to want to go very fast and very far. In other words, he is bloody brilliant.

On the other hand, I must admit that I am disposed to somewhat more technical and somewhat less speculative reading when it comes to physics. Mind you, physics is not my field of expertise, so I depend on popular literature entirely. But I usually prefer a few less metaphors in exchange for a few simple graphs or formulas... a more conservative approach probably. :)

Did you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? PBS/Nova made a 3-hours science program out of it which is now available online. You can download it piecemeal from the PBS website, or in three 1-hour chunks from Google video.

As a side note: Whether or not there are "parallel" spacetime bubbles, I think that the term multiverse would fit quite well to describe the observable universe, since each galaxy can be viewed as a universe of its own.

Cheers, Thomas

[Minneserenity]

<<have you read brian greene's 'the elegant universe' and his 'the fabric of the cosmos'>>

No, but I'll check it out eventually.

M.

[Minneserenity]

Hi Sonrisa, :)

<<yes yes! that was on The Science Channel one nite: Turok, Steinhardt, & Ovrut worked the thing out on a train to London- 2 universes bumped into each other & bang!- as in Big Bang- viola! our universe was born! >>

Yes, I saw that too. Pretty cool, huh!

Just an aside Sonrisa: I really appreciate your spontaneous and fearless enthusiam. It makes places like this much more fun and real. Thanks.

<<They also said that this happens all the time, our universe could have already birthed other universes- there was another dude on the show who claims you can make alternate universes in your basement (don't ask)- the effects wouldn't be catastrophic.>>

Yes, Michio talks about that too in his book.

<<Not like when 2 cars collide into each other & wreck, but more like when they bump into each other in a parking lot: you feel something stopping your movement- not a jolt, you just stop- you & the other driver get out, look at the cars, determine that no damage was done, & you each go on your separate merry ways. It's the same with the universe- the effects, if any, would be extremely minute. The difference is, of course, that 2 cars bumping into each other do not make a 3rd car. Whereas the result of 2 universes bumping into each other is a 3rd universe.

Hinduism sez that our universe is merely a dream of Brahma's. And that along side him there are an infinite number of other Brahmas, each dreaming their own universe.>>

I forget if it was Emerson or Thoreau who said something about all of this being a dream within a dream.

Warning! Warning! What's to follow is blatant unscientific speculation:

What if souls chose to incarnate in all "realities" simultaneously to experience all possibilities at once? It certainly would be extremely efficient, but just contemplating it sort of make my head spin.

<<everything old is new again....>>

Yes, and there's still probably so much that we don't even know that we don't know. I'm hoping they come up with Star Trek replicators so I don't have so much domestic work when I get home. B)

M.

[sonrisa]

MinneS-- Yes I saw (the show) too. Pretty cool, huh!

-- yep! Personally, I think The Science Channel runs its best stuff on Tuesday nites


MinneS-- I really appreciate your spontaneous and fearless enthusiasm. It maes places like this much more fun and real. Thanks.

-- thank you for the compliment.


MinneS-- What if souls chose to incarnate in all "realities" simultaneously to experience all possibilities at once?

-- it would seem to me that if you exist physically in any number of universes, your spirit would somehow have to inhabit each of your bods. For the most part, we are only aware of this reality, but maybe echoes of the other realities seep thru. This may explain why we sometimes miss something we never had, becuz we have it in other realities. Maybe we experience deja vu becuz we have already done in other realities whatever we are expriencing the deja vu in this one.

does that make sense?

[Minneserenity]

Hi Sonrisa: :)

<<-- it would seem to me that if you exist physically in any number of universes, your spirit would somehow have to inhabit each of your bods.>>

Yes, this would seem to be the case.

<< For the most part, we are only aware of this reality, but maybe echoes of the other realities seep thru.>>

That seems a reasonable supposition all things considered.

<< This may explain why we sometimes miss something we never had, becuz we have it in other realities. Maybe we experience deja vu becuz we have already done in other realities whatever we are expriencing the deja vu in this one.>>

Interesting... That never occured to me.

<<does that make sense? >>

Yes, in a strange way it does.

Okay, here's some more speculative weirdness:

What if the soul has the ability to multiplex its conscious awareness in infinite alternative realities? However if that were the case, maybe many of those realities would have no alternate you's or me's in them, so infinite multiplexing of consciousness would not be necessary.

And by the way, you're welcome. ;)

M.

[Minneserenity]

Thomas,

<<I read "Hyperspace" some ten years ago and although my memory of much of the details discussed in this book has somewhat faded, I remember it to be an enthralling read. Michio Kaku is quite a wizard, both as a speaker and as an author. His knowledge about theoretical physics is immense and he is more than ready to enter into philosophical and scientific speculations. He is a marevellous speaker. Not only is he able to put the most technical concepts into accessible language by drawing on metaphors and visualisations, but his thought is also very quick. He anticipates the train of thought and the questions of his conversation partner, which enables him to lead the discussion whereever he wants. And he seems to want to go very fast and very far. In other words, he is bloody brilliant.

I entirely agree. He was enthralling in NPR. Bot very astute and even hilarious at times.

<<On the other hand, I must admit that I am disposed to somewhat more technical and somewhat less speculative reading when it comes to physics. Mind you, physics is not my field of expertise, so I depend on popular literature entirely. But I usually prefer a few less metaphors in exchange for a few simple graphs or formulas... a more conservative approach probably.>>

I am mathematically "challenged"--never got past trig., so I tend to stick with the laypeson versions too. And I've always loved Sci. Fi., so go figure, huh.

<<Did you read The Elegant Universe by Brian Greene? PBS/Nova made a 3-hours science program out of it which is now available online. You can download it piecemeal from the PBS website, or in three 1-hour chunks from Google video.>>

No, but I'll check out the link, thanks.

<<As a side note: Whether or not there are "parallel" spacetime bubbles, I think that the term multiverse would fit quite well to describe the observable universe, since each galaxy can be viewed as a universe of its own.>>

It's fascinating that we can apparently now see past our own single Genesis into what existed before our universe existed, into the "interbetween" where an infinity of universe float like bubbles in the 11th spatial dimension, where even our concepts of time and space and perhaps even mind simply do not apply.

But in the meantime, nanotechology seems to hold out great promise for humanity and many say that it will--not might--render our present primitive limited economic systems (and limited cultural prejudices derived therefrom) and manufacturing methods hopeless archaic, obsolete and make this period look as backwards and dark as the 19th century or even earlier.

M.

[Thomas Knierim]

Minneserenity: It's fascinating that we can apparently now see past our own single Genesis into what existed before our universe existed, into the "interbetween" where an infinity of universe float like bubbles in the 11th spatial dimension, where even our concepts of time and space and perhaps even mind simply do not apply.

Well, that is the problem. We cannot. We can't currently go beyond the origin of this universe. We do not even understand the first second of the origin of this universe. String theory has not been empirically corroborated, neither have M-brane and multiverse theories. It is not science fiction, but neither is it (corroborated) science yet. Some people say it is philosophy.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

sonrisa-- does that make sense?

psyche-- yes it does
but then again I'm crazy
so does that count?

-- yep u betcha! we r all crazy in our own speshul ways, some more than others

MinneS-- what if the soul has the ability to multiplex its conscious awareness in infinite alternate realities?

-- I agree with Psyche on this one- it would be a given, a natural property of the soul.

I also agree with you that if you or I don't exist in a given reality, then our respective souls would not multiplex in that reality

ps, I'm watching the Science Channel- they are showing the most beautiful photos of galaxies & nebulae. Now they are discussing BB theory. Some scientists reject it but they can't say why.

hmmmmm............

[Minneserenity]

<<Well, that is the problem. We cannot. We can't currently go beyond the origin of this universe. We do not even understand the first second of the origin of this universe. String theory has not been empirically corroborated, neither have M-brane and multiverse theories. It is not science fiction, but neither is it (corroborated) science yet. Some people say it is philosophy.>>

That's absolutely true at the moment, yes.

However I read in Scientific American magazine that at the moment there's also at least one experiment that may give more weight to M theory's vision of more than 3 spatial dimensions via a particle acceleration experiment that may reveal loss of key energies that can only be accounted for if there are additional spatial dimensions.

While this will not prove M theory, it will certainly be a step in the right direction. I don't know about the rest of you, but I'm certainly up for a little cheerful news as sick as I am hearing about the dreary news on NPR every single day not it seems.

Meanwhile, M theory, as Kaku et al. have noted, does have that lovely symmetry that dovetails with the other major theories that have withstood the tests of time. We may not have resonant ciruitry up to the task right now to perceive strings or metadimensional phenomena; but I have more faith in science that in most religions.

Now for the non sequitor segment of this missive:

To everyone else + Thomas,

I resume graduate school the beginning of next month.

Consequently I will not be around here much for the the next several weeks or so until I get more acclimated to my new role as a graduate student full time.

Maybe after I get settled into a comfortable grad. school/work/domestics routine, I may have more to share here that will be of both interest and help since at heart I'm a pragmastist even with so-called metaphysical issues. ;)

Best wishes to those who were considerate enough to share their time and thoughts with me--especially Thomas, Sonrisa and Psyche. I enjoyed our talks, and I hope you did too.

M.

[sonrisa]

I have enjoyed our talks too, so don't make a stranger of yourself. Drop in from time to time & good luck with your studies. Is it more libary science, or something else?

[Minneserenity]

<<I have enjoyed our talks too, so don't make a stranger of yourself. Drop in from time to time & good luck with your studies. Is it more libary science, or something else? >>

Thank you, and thanks also for making me feel welcome.

Perhaps after I've read the reading material you and a couple of others recommended I'll share my impressions here.

In my case the former since an MLIS required for the field, but it's also applicable to a wide range of professions.

M.

[sonrisa]

ok y'all. I'm watching a rerun of Cosmos & Carl Sagan is talking about oscillating universes. He's saying the Big Bang is actually the result of a Big Crunch. He's also saying that as a Big Crunch turns into a Big Bang the laws of nature are randomly reshuffled- in other words the new universe will have a different set of physics, chemistry, etc....

ok now he's discussing the Electron Hypothesis. That's the one where our universe is spinning around in a giant electron in a giant universe, which is itself spinning around in an even bigger electron in an even bigger universe, which is also spinning around in a giant electron of it's own & so on & so on, ad infinitum. Conversely, the electrons in our universe all house mini-universes of there own, & the mini-electrons in those mini-universes contain even tinier universes with tiny electrons, & so on & so on, ad infinitum.

any thoughts peepulz?

[Thomas Knierim]

psyche: thomas in brian greene's 'the elegant universe' in explaining the BB it starts at 10-43 or -46 second after the big bang

...which means we don't understand the first second completely. It's just a single measly second, but a very important one.

Minneserenity: I resume graduate school the beginning of next month. Consequently I will not be around here much...

Good luck with your studies! Hope you will be back.

sonrisa: I'm watching a rerun of Cosmos & Carl Sagan is talking about oscillating universes. He's saying the Big Bang is actually the result of a Big Crunch.

Cosmos and Star Trek used to be my TV staples back in the 70s. :lol: Understandably, the science (or respectively the fiction) in there is getting a bit dated. It sems that Big Crunch is provisionally shelved since the 1998 supernovae observations. I say "provisionally", because we do not yet know much about the nature of "dark energy", hence, we cannot say whether the observed acceleration will continue or revert.

The macro/microcosm analogy theory, on the other hand, has been shelved permanently since the early 20th century. I think Sagan brought it up just as a brain teaser.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

Thanx for the update Thomas. I have been watching Cosmos this time around specifically looking for dated stuff :D

I have noticed a few things, but other times I'm not so sure. Either the editors edited out the glaringly dated stuff when they remixed the series back in 2001, or else Dr Sagan was very prescient.

ps, I like Trek too, in all it's incarnations

[Thomas Knierim]

@sonrisa,

If you are interested in cosmology I recommend "Einstein's Biggest Blunder", which can be downloaded from Google video. In this film, the Portuguese physicist João Magueijo introduces the idea that the speed of light may not always have been constant. This is also known as the variable speed of light theory (VSL).

VSL is a minority position in the scientific community. Today most cosmologists stick to the mainstream inflation model. However, VSL has some interesting properties. For example, it provides an elegant solution to the flatness problem. What is more, the film gives some interesting insights into Einstein's life and 20th century cosmology.

Cheers, Thomas

[sonrisa]

danke Thomas, I shall have to watch that. But the speed of light being constant, isn't that Einstein's fudge factor? Or something having to do with the speed of light that he fudged because he didn't like certain physics theories? For, instance he rejected the Heisenberg Principle, which is regarded as a cornerstone of quantum mechanics.

[namtso]

Here's something kind of interesting about the speed of light -

"IBM slows light, readies it for networking"
11 / 02 / 05

"IBM has created a chip that can slow down light, the latest advance in an industrywide effort to develop computers that will use only a fraction of the energy of today's machines.
The chip, called a photonic silicon waveguide, is a piece of silicon dotted with arrays of tiny holes. Scattered systematically by the holes, light shown on the chip slows down to 1/300th of its ordinary speed of 186,000 miles per second. In a computer system, slower light pulses could carry data rapidly, but in an orderly fashion. The light can be further slowed by applying an electric field to the waveguide. "

Complete article at http://news.zdnet.com/IBM+slows+light,+rea...22-5928541.html (http://news.zdnet.com/IBM+slows+light,+readies+it+for+networking/2100-9584_22-5928541.html)
printable version: http://news.zdnet.com/2102-9584_22-5928541.html

[schrodinger]

Here's something kind of interesting about the speed of light -

"IBM slows light, readies it for networking"
11 / 02 / 05


This is all very interesting, but you may be surprised to learn that there is no new physics here, only new applications. Ever since the communications industry started using microwave frequencies and waveguide devices, we have known that the speed of light can be either slowed or exceeded, in waveguides. At first, this may seem startling and in opposition to all the accepted laws of physics. However it really is not in conflict with anything. What happens in a waveguide; the path of light waves is made either longer or shorter than the straight-line path of the guide. This is achieved by causing the light wave to move at an angle, so what we are really talking about is angular velocity. Slowing down light is no big achievement; any substance other than a vacuum does this. However, using angular velocity we can both reduce and exceed the speed of light in a waveguide operating in a vacuum or air. The overall speed, in relation to the length of the guide, decreases by the same amount the angular velocity increases, so the speed up effect has to be taken over a chosen fraction of the guide’s length, while the slow down effect is taken over the length of the guide. Although the effect has been known for at least forty years, only now are we seeing some actual applications. Most of the applications I expect will be in exotic super computers and equally exotic military and medical equipment.
I write this mainly to clear up any possible misconception regarding the constancy of the speed of light in a vacuum. I might also add we know nothing about what might have existed before the big bang, or even if there was a big bang, but that should not stop anyone from speculating about it, or parallel universes. My own speculation about this leads me to think that a black hole in this universe is a star in another universe, and vice versa, but I am not prepared to defend that speculation! :argue:

[namtso]

This is all very interesting, but you may be surprised to learn that there is no new physics here, only new applications.
I didn't know that, thanks. I'm pretty much a physics nano-wit. My science knowledge pretty much comes from Discover and Popular Science magazines. Not really sure those are the most reliable sources for science info. Seeing as how I don't really have even a passing background of knowledge in the science or mathematics disciplines, that's pretty much the sort of thing I find accessible. The fact that the word "layman" sounds very much like "lame" does not escape me.

[schrodinger]

The fact that the word "layman" sounds very much like "lame" does not escape me.

There was nothing at all "lame" about your posting.
The main thing is; You have a keen "interest", and that sounds to me very much like "scientist"! ;)