"Certainly, the workings of antiparticles no longer flummox him. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Sarangi believes that "anti-universes" and their interplay with regular universes could help tackle one of the prickliest problems in physics: why our universe is the way it is."

So if I drop a 3-Dimensional particle such as a Proton,into another "Univere" Landscape, one that is other than 3-Dimensional, say 7-Dimensional, what are the consequences, do Protons still exist as..well uh 3-Dimensional Protons?

Where have all the anti-protons gone!

"(Because there are hundreds of different parameters in the theory that can change, the landscape is actually a hyper-dimensional terrain, with valleys representing the most energetically stable values for each parameter.)"

Surely if the dimension is stable, then the particles that reside therein are trhemselves stable, thus the Proton is the most stable particle?

Lets face it, if there was 10^500 dimensions, whats the chance of a stable particle such as the Proton choosing the correct 3-D landscape?

String theory tends to want things both wasy, probably right, and definetly maybe wrong!

That anon was definatly maybe me!

best p.v

    I don't see how a universe-anti universe process can be a "direct analogue" of the particle pair creation tunneling process? Wouldn't the universe-anti universe pair by definition be causally disconnected from the inflating universe, unlike the electron which interacts directly in spacetime with virtual particles?

    It seems like it would then require *two* tunneling processes, one through the causal boundary (domain wall?) of the inflating universe followed by the energy barrier tunneling.

    Hello dear Paul,

    I don't understand really why people wants extradimensions, that has no sense , really , it's not our foundamental referential in 3D all that.

    Never we have found extradimensions, always our datas and experiments are in 3D , always the observations and all correct correlations are in 3D .

    How can we have the good models if we don't respect these foundamentals laws, constants,.....it's the best road to be rational in my humble opinion.

    We can't confound our topology,the universal rotating dynamic of spheres needs this referential to be in synchro with the evolution, the gravitation and the relativity of the space time.

    With these kinds of ideas, it's a landscape of consfusions simply .

    Regards

    Steve

    The Born-Infeld action is a sort of "square root" of the standard action term. This has a number of features which places gauge field actions on a same polynomial or linear footing with Dirac fields. This is then used to study Hawking-Moss tunneling physics.

    Tunneling usually involves how a quantum particle may traverse a tunneling region with a potential energy larger than the kinetic energy of the particle. The Schrodinger equation (SE)

    iħ∂ψ/∂t = (ħ^2/2m)∂^ψ/∂x^2 V(x)ψ

    in one dimension is the classical example in Mertzbacher and other texts. For a stationary phase ψ(x,t) = ψ(x)exp(-iEt/ħ) and we have a basic position dependence with ψ(x) ~ exp(ikx), the SE is easily seen as

    Eψ = (ħk)^2/2mψ V(x)ψ,

    And the solution for the wave vector k or momentum p = ħk is

    p = sqrt{2m}sqrt(E - V(x)).

    The tunneling probability may be explicitly computed by knowing the form of V(x) and working out boundary conditions, which is not conceptually difficult but a bit tedious to work through. The form of the momentum p here though is imaginary if V(x) is larger than E, and the tunneling probability is greater than zero. Now the form of the wave function with this imaginary p is of the form ψ ~ exp(-|p|x/ħ), which for the magnitude |p| very large (equivalently large V(x)) is a rapidly dropping to zero exponential. So we don't expect a significant tunneling process.

    If the potential is very large at its peak V_{max} ~ 2mc^2 for m the mass of an electron there is a probability that the e-e^ pair created here will annihilate the e^- at one side of the potential with the e^ and the pair generated e^- escapes to the other side. Since this is a quantum process then what ever information is carried by the initial e^- is the same as on the e^- which has tunneled through. This is a sort of resonance phenomenon.

    So what does this have to do with cosmologies and the landscape? Hawking, Halliwell and others proposed a version of the "no-boundary cosmology" where a spacetime cosmology with a particular arrow of time and a CPT violation (say left handed) is mirrored by another cosmology with an oppositely directed arrow of time and a CPT violation which is opposite (say right handed). So we might think of these as a cosmology and "anti-cosmology" with opposite quantum numbers or topological indices and ..., all which make things cancel out to zero. So we then have a huge landscape with a large potential barrier. The basic Friedmann-Lemaitre-Robertson-Walker metric has a tunneling barrier, which is a local aspect of the more general landscape potential barriers. So the symmetrical portion of a cosmology can be then this curious anti-cosmology.

    Now consider a region near a black hole singularity. There the tidal forces of gravity are enormous and a wave function is then squeezed. The phase space volume it occupies is "squashed," and this means its uncertainty in certain directions becomes very large while the conjugage momenta uncertainties becomes very small. As such a patch or region near the singularity is sufficiently quantum uncertain that it may become lost in this quantum noise. In effect this patch and the quantum vacuum energy it contains has quantum tunneled out of the universe which contains this black hole, or it "ventures" into this potential hill. For a large potential hill there are virtual quantum pairs of these cosmologies (universe plus anti-universe) or a virtual biverse. Will this little patch or bubble of vacuum energy near the singularity has some probability of annihilating with the anti-universe which then lets the virtual universe escape beyond the potential well. This patch or virtual bubble of spacetime then becomes the "seed" for a nascent cosmology.

    The Born-Infeld action is the machinery one can use to examine this type of tunneling process. The square root in the computation of the momentum above is generalized into a type of action which has a square root of ordinary action or Hamiltonian (energy) terms.

    Cheers LC

    15 days later
    • [deleted]

    I stopped after reading the third paragraph "It's fashionable these days..." and I fail to understand (enlighten me...grasshopper) why it is that we run to the multiverse (making/allowing more of them) when we hardly can understand the one we do have. Unless of course...the anthropic principle just has to be put to death. And lo-and-behold that's what is mentioned in that article in the paragraphs that follow. WHY? All anyone seems to be doing is moving the goal posts out of reach from whateve4r the truth is. It smacks me of someone who does not know how to play the game of checkers so rather than learning the rules--for one must play if they draw air into lungs (regardless of how unsavory the rules - of 'life' - might be) they just add more and more squares to the board--an infinity of squares.

    I can see dimensions as a possibility (we have three that we are happy in and then one -time- which just upsets us...as if it is a broken dimension). Isn't life more into abstracts (as values) that materialism (ya ain't taking anything with ya when you pop through life through death and 'perhaps' come out the other side...and not affected any longer...by time). Science does it's testing within the materialistic world (five senses) but there is much more out there that science cannot seem to grasp onto...be it dark matter, or integrity, gravity (can see it) or love. Why does science (and scientists) tie their hands and then expect to discover new concepts? Let's get outside the box: be it materialistic, religious, Anthropic or philosophic...I do not care how unsavory the truth is...I just want the truth...any scientists out there want something other than the truth?

      • [deleted]

      Hi,

      Yes indeed we want the truth......the spheres and the sphere.....

      Regards

      Steve

      Write a Reply...