Tying Up the Multiverse with String

Another married couple, as with Dray & Monongue. There are of course a range of issues with multiverses. There are level 1 pocket universes, then there are Dp-branes connected by type I-II open strings, a sort of QCD-like sandwich of sorts, and so forth. These multi-cosmologies (the multiverse) are probably related to our universe by variations in orbifold windings, or Calabi-Yau configurations. The differences in their structures are what might govern the dynamics of open strings connecting these Dp-branes, just as potential differences govern the motion of a particle.

Lawrence B. Crowell

Hasn't cosmology and strings already been done?

thunderbolts.info e/m field and plasma the new physics

h/t anon

The plasma universe, thunderbolts EU stuff is pure balderdash.

LC

Lawrence,

And multiverses is....?

Inflation....

Block time...

Big Bang singularity....

Lately I've been obsessively following the meltdown of the economy, as bailout money balloons the stock market. These people are playing with the worlds wealth and the lives of billions of people and they are delusional. I'm supposed to think that what comes out of the world of physics and math isn't delusional, when, by all appearances, it appears to be going off the deep end? Possibly some of what is in plasma physics is off the mark, but it does make some interesting observations. It does tie into Carver Mead's observations about the electron. It seems to be more about the network as the basis of reality, rather than particle physics' focus on the node.

Here is the difference between science and "The Glass Bead Game".

SCIENCE:

1. Study nature.

2. Discover a new pattern or relationship.

3. Use proposed pattern/relation to generate a definitive prediction, which is unique to the hypothesis, quantitative [or very high quality qualitative], NON-ADJUSTABLE, and feasible.

4. Test your prediction empirically [not with thought experiments].

5. Accept nature's verdict.

----------------------------------------------

THE GLASS BEAD GAME [Hesse, a good read]

1. Study mathematics [after all, nature and empirical evidence are only "anecdotal"].

2. Construct an abstract theory with ad hoc model-building; the more hermetic the better.

3. Use the abstract theory to generate pseudo-predictions, which are non-unique, quantitatively "plastic", highly adjustable, usually unfeasible.

4. Avoid real testing and apply copious arm-waving or heavy fudge to any "unwanted" empirical results.

5. Assume nature is wrong [it couldn't possibly be your "intuition"].

-----------------------------------------------------

There you have the past and the present. Do you prefer the science of Democritus, Bacon, Galileo, and Einstein? Or are you happy with the post-modern physi-babble, of which the Nielsen-Ninomiya papers are archetypal examples?

If it's real science, why can't they even predict the specific properties of the dark matter? That's an easy one to answer.

Yours in science [the testable kind],

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

I don't think things are this stark. Though I agree the Nielsen papers look a bit off the wall. Having mathematical knowledge is useful in your toolbox. I don't think mathematics is physics, but I think physics exhibits structure which is understood mathematically.

One of the factors in our age is that the available "information space" for physics has expanded enormously. So there is a wide range of theoretical plausibilities which can be advanced, far wider than in the past.

Cheers LC

Sigh,

For the hundreth time:

First: The Concepts

Then: The Physical Analysis

Finally: The Mathematical Formalism.

"Books on physics are full of complicated mathematical formulas, but thought and ideas are the beginning of every physical theory."

Do we have it yet?

And yes there is so much more pseudo-science to gorge on these days. For example: the completely untestable "multiverse" pipe dreams, the execrable "anthropic reasoning", choose-whatever-properties-you-like "wimps" and the whole "string theory" charade. Then there are ideas that cannot even be defined as pseudo-science like "strange matter", "Boltzmann brains" [ha,ha; totally insane!], etc, etc., ........... ......... ..........

Time to show the philistines the door,

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

How much of it is mental origami? You can fold it any number of ways and make any shape you want, but does it have any bearing on reality?

I keep making the point that time isn't some dimension along which events exist. That this is simply the narrative model we examine second hand. It is a consequence of motion, not the basis for it. We don't travel the fourth dimension from yesterday to tomorrow. Tomorrow becomes yesterday because the earth rotates. Yet no one with a PhD cares to dispute the point, as I'm not a member of the club, but if time isn't some meta-dimensional block time, are any of these other meta-dimensions anything more than topography in motion?

I agree with you Robert. I does seem like the old joke about the drunk looking for his keys under the streetlight because that's where the light is shining.

My guess is that time is purely relational and intrinsically linked to relative motion, as you infer. The arrow of time is, in my opinion, a simple result of the fact that nature is strictly causal and strictly deterministic [in the modern nonlinear dynamical systems definition of deterministic].

That said, I am a very strong believer in General Relativity, so I could not recommend abandoning the 4-d approach to modeling natural phenomena, unless someone comes up with something better and can demonstrate/test its superiority empirically.

When scientists look back from the vantage point of, say, 2050, I suspect they will look at what is going on now in theoretical physics and say: "How could they have been so far off track and so unscientific without realizing it?!?"

Not everyone is oblivious to this sad state of affairs. And luckily science is self-correcting in the long run. The Nielsen/Ninomiya fiasco heralds the demise of the whole tower of untestable assumptions. It's only a matter of time before the ungainly Ptolemaic edifice collapses.

Out with the old SubStandard Paradigm, and in with the new Discrete Fractal Paradigm!

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert,

What are dimensions? They seem to have this semi-mystical aura, but really they are just directional projections. Frankly I have trouble with defining space as three dimensional as well. Consider the singularity concept that all space emerged from a point, so that all space is a projection of that original point. Wouldn't the interior space essentially be infinitely dimensional? In reality, that is what space is. Being isotropic, there is no definable centerpoint from which to project three dimensions against a larger frame of reference. As entities on the surface of this planet, we can locate ourselves in terms of longitude, latitude and altitude, but that is still just a subjective point against a subjective frame. To project our subjectivity against what is necessarily objective may be necessary for initial comprehension, but we need to appreciate the inherent limitations, or go off on wild goose chases. Think in terms of those who originally thought the earth was flat, or that the earth was the center of the universe. From their point of reference, it made complete sense and if there were a few anomalies and unanswered questions on the periphery, they were inconsequential to the core of the paradigm. How much of current theory is like that? Built up on some basic assumptions, such as the linear narrative concept of time that is a consequence of our necessary subjectivity. Look at physics today, as it grows exponentially more complicated and compare that to the age of epi-cycles. The people developing epi-cycles were not dumb, by any stretch of the imagination. They helped to lay the foundations of geometry, celestial mechanics, etc. Keeping the model on track required ever greater feats of intellectual dexterity, but the real problem lay hidden in their most basic and subconscious assumptions. Suffice to say, modern physics has far more unwritten rules about what is acceptable and what is not. All it would take to bring down the edifice of cosmology is for someone to find another explanation for intergalactic redshift. No one within the circle of respectability dares consider it though, so we have ever more fantastical fudges to explain any observational issues, from inflation to dark energy. One of the points I keep raising and Lawrence has been gracious enough to respond, is how can we have expanding space from a point, yet still have a constant speed of light against which to measure it? If space is actually expanding, wouldn't this most basic measure have to stretch along with it, otherwise it's just increasing distance in stable space. Yet, if it did stretch, could we even detect the expansion?

I don't mean to question Einstein's logic, but maybe we need to go back and reconsider some of the basic conceptual assumptions from which he was working.

JM,

I highly recommend that you study nature, rather than play with abstract glass beads.

You're chances of understanding nature will be much improved, and you won't drive yourself mad.

I'll read your comments more carefully tonight.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Robert,

I'm a farmer and horse trainer. Nature is all I do study.

Dimensions are distances. Godel idea was that fourth dimension of space-time is not time, is spatial too. Out of Godel idea follows physical time is run of clocks in 4 dimensional timeless space.

In timeless space there is no "temporal" distances. Clocks measure only numerical order of material change in timeless space.

yours amrit

amrit,

It's probably more of a projection. Distance would be the marks on the line. The idea of time as a dimension is based on the narrative construct. The string of events. It's actually somewhat primitive, but with sufficient mathematical notation can be considered quite sublime.

Do any Fqx scientists participate in these discussions?

If not, what's the point?

John with discovery of inner time based in neuronal dynamics it is clear that space is timeless. That forth dimension of space time is spatial too declare already Godel. So physical time is run of clocks.

yous amrit

amrit,

Yes, time going from past to future is the motion of the point of reference against context. The hand of the clock moving against the face. The sun moving across the sky from east to west. The person moving from one event to the next. What doesn't get noticed, about time, is that this is always against relative context. Relative to the hand of the clock, it's the face moving counterclockwise. The earth actually rotating west to east. For all of our actions, there is the "equal and opposite reaction." So the creation of these events, one day coming and going, generations of people rising and falling, is a consequence of this motion, not the basis for it. Particle physics focuses on the individual point of reference moving against context, so time is the series of events it moves through, but the broader field effect is of the cumulative motion that creates and defines the events, of which any particular point of reference is embedded.

Hogg says: "a fractal universe is untenable".

---------------------------------------------

Regarding arxiv:0910.3374v1 (another just-so story)

Professor Hogg says: "a fractal universe is untenable".

He looks at nature and can only see a homogeneous blur.

Ah, but the porcines are so notoriously near-sighted, don't you know.

RLO

www.amherst.edu/~rloldershaw

Anon,

No they don't, but my experience is that in the forums where they do, if you wander too far off the reservation, you get banned. In my case, raising the specific issue of time as not the basis for motion, but a consequence, has had me banned from physicsforums and Cosmic Variance. So I thank FQXi for allowing me the opportunity to have my say, even if hardly anyone is listening, as few people in my life much care for discussing physics anyway.

Robert,

To paraphrase; The universe doesn't repeat itself, but it does rhyme.