CHAPTER TWO IT’S A MATTER OF SPACE Part One Black Holes Gravity has a strange effect on light. It will couple with light, and bend it around large masses. The idea arose from Einstein, and on the 9th of November in 1919, light was seen to bend around the sun during an eclipse (see more on gravity in 'brushing up on relativity.') The times reported on the discovery, 'space would no longer be looked at as extending indefinitely in all directions. Straight lines would not exist in Einstien’s space. They would all be curved and if they traveled far enough they would return to their starting point.' Finding that our universe was not a Euclidean flat spacetime was indeed a marvel of physics. It showed that space was highly twisted and curved into time, and that gravity itself was a product of these bends in time and space through the presence of matter. It was these types of distortions that led the way for a new prediction in Einstien’s 'theory of relativity.' It predicted a black hole - a whopping gravitational body, unto which nothing can escape its grasp. The center of a black hole has perfect infinite curvature; and it is here that the distortions of space and time become so highly stressed it can actually rip a hole in the fabric of spacetime itself. This is the singularity at the center of the black hole - but it wasn't the same as the singularity of the big bang. A black hole has this strength because it is a dense concentration of mass. Actually, this mass is so dense, it actually drags space and time around with it, and the curvature it produces is fantastic. For a space shuttle to leave earth's gravitational pull, it needs to have a speed that is strong enough to make the 'escape velocity.' You can imagine the escape velocity is stronger the closer you are to the earth's core. To leave earth, you need a constant speed of something like 25,000 mph. Now, take the speed of a photon (light) - the fastest particle known. The speed of light is very hard to grasp - saying that it travels 186,000 miles a second isn't always easy to reconcile; just remember, the sun is 15 million km away, and it takes a photon a little over 8.3 minutes to reach us! Now imagine a massive body in space with such a high concentration of mass, it is actually able to stop light itself - this is a black hole - and this must mean it has an escape velocity of light! A photon, traveling quite happily will be abruptly slowed down until it reached zero-speed. All Luxens (that is particles with a speed of light v=c) and obviously all Bradyons (particles with a velocity under the speed of light v<c) would inexorably be trapped by the intense pull of the black hole... only a hypothetical particle called the 'Tachyon' could escape its pull, quite easily actually. A Tachyon is a particle that moves faster than light v>c. The idea that an object with a large concentration of dense mass goes right back to the 18th centaury - just after Einstein developed his important relativity theory. It was a physicist Karl Schwarzschild (that is were the black hole gets the name, ‘Schwarzschild radius’ from) who discovered a mathematical solution to the equations of the theory that described such an exotic object. It was only later in the 1930's that theorists Oppenheimer, Volkoff and Snyder took the theory seriously. Certain stars that cannot support itself against its own gravitational field have a special destiny ahead of them - a star that does this will collapse and form into a black hole. It was John A. Wheeler that coined the term 'black hole' - before that, it had been called 'frozen stars.' Our star, as big as it is, will not collapse until another 5-6 billion years. Altogether, our sun will have lived a total of 11 billion years, and this is quite a good lifespan. Other stars will not be so lucky. They would collapse into a spherical black hole in half that time. Let's consider a star that is 666,000 times that of the mass of planet earth - this star will have a lifespan of about 5.5 billion years. And there will be much heavier stars out there. You can imagine, a star with 5.5 billion years as a lifespan would not have given earth enough time to develop life properly; in fact, if science is correct, there wouldn't have been enough time to allow human life to form, considering science informs us that human life did not appear until only about 100,000 years ago, and the earth being 6 billion-odd years old itself. This is another factor that makes human life on earth rather extraordinary. Physicist Stephen Hawkings, arguably the best mind in the world, has spent much of his time working on the theory of Black Holes. His contribution into the hypothetical black hole is astounding, and if you want more information on his work, i advise you to read his book, 'A Brief History of Time.' A black hole has something called 'the event horizon' - the event horizon is the spherical surface, or boundary of the black hole. This is the point, that if anything passes it, nothing can escape (apart from a Tachyon mentioned earlier), or unless an object began its journey from the interior; this is because of a strange rule: You cannot pass the surface twice. It was this reason it was called the event horizon, just like a sunset horizon - you can travel towards it but never quite reach it, or at least, this is what it would be like for an observer sitting comfortably away, watching me traveling towards the black hole... It would seem to take an infinitely long amount of time, and it would look like as if the closer i got to it, the slower i would be in momentum, until it looked as if i had stopped completely. This is because time becomes highly dilated between the traveler and the observer who is a bit away - this is the bizarre effect of relativity. We must take these facts into consideration, when one moves closer to the weird singularity. If our calculations are singular, this means that aspects, like a time interval, or space itself take on infinite values. If this is hard to imagine or a little tedious on the mind - do not fret - anything you don't understand just move on and tackle it later. If one passed the event horizon, you will inevitably move closer and closer to the singularity in its center, moving faster and faster because space is dragging you closer to the speed of light. To an observer who is sitting comfortably far away from the event horizon, the hole itself appears static. However, if we moved a little closer to the boundary, it would become visible that the hole itself has a remarkable velocity - in fact, a black hole spins with a velocity of the speed of light. Once inside of the black hole, spacetime are distorted to such a degree, that space and time switch roles (more on this in next part). We could not jump into a nonrotating black hole - the force of the black hole would rip matter apart! How big can a black hole be? Most black holes will have formed from supernovae, so it is expected that they will be as big as a standard candle (usually depicted as bright white dwarfs - the remnant of stars) and much bigger, and if Stephen Hawkings is correct, each supergalaxy has a supermassive black hole at their centers. And if theory is correct, the universe itself has a supermassive black hole at its center, where all matter orbits over billion upon billions of years. And there is even a theory suggesting our universe is a black hole itself, based on the fact that our universe has a lot of mass, but isn't too dense. And if black holes do exist, Stephen Hawking believes we might be able to detect a small black hole, as it will radiate a glow... a natural lantern in space. I presume that black holes would also be more visible nearer stars. Light reflects off natural objects and creates the ability to see them. A black hole would absorb light, and it would become visible as a hole. The attention black holes have received over the years is truly mind-blowing... let us just hope that the work does not go in vain, and that black holes do indeed exist. They should exist... after all, Cosmology and Relativity Theories predict them as real 'things out there'. Whether or not they are indeed portals into other universes is another thing... Though, if theory is right, a lot of physicists will be proven wrong; it would seem to indicate a universe without the collapse of the wave function, as we shall see later in part three. Part Two Falling into a Black Hole If black holes do actually exist, there is some debate as to whether a human could endure a trip into one – the reason why is because anything that falls into Black Holes get’s shredded into spaghetti. Why would we even want to jump into a black hole? Well, theory says that 'wormholes' which are topological openings inside the black hole might lead to other universes! This is the theory of parallel universes, and we shall see more on this theory in next part. It was John A. Wheeler who named these openings as wormholes. The problem is, if one does not enter a wormhole in the correct way, there is the chance that the object will be stretched apart. It was in 1935, Albert Einstein and Nathan Rosen predicted that black holes themselves where natural bridges into another possible universe. This bridge from one world into another, came to be known as the 'Einstein-Rosen Bridge,' and most of the developments of this theory came from several physicists - some being Arthur Eddington, John Wheeler and Martin Kruskal. So let's imagine i decided to jump into a spinning black hole inside a space ship... what would i see? Well, before i entered, i would see nothing spectacular. I would just see a big ball of darkness. I wouldn't even see it rotate at first - neither do i feel anything - i am in what is called a state of 'free-fall'. Free-fall is when all the atoms and molecules i am made of are all being pulled at the same rate. Even my ship is being pulled at the same pace towards the black hole. A good way to compare this is with astronauts that orbit our earth - they too are in a state of free-fall. Now i begin to pass the event horizon (remember that is the first boundary, or surface). Now something quite remarkable happens. The space coordinates switches roles with the time coordinate. What does this mean? Well, we move through space freely, back and forth without any problems, and when we consider time, that imaginary dimension, we tend to think we sweep along with it without recourse. Once i pass the event horizon space begins to drag me and my ship, and i begin to move in one direction only - that being forward - however, i begin to move through time backwards and forwards, just as easily as i had moved through the space dimension. In this case, we say that space has become 'timelike', and time has a 'spacelike' character - they are thus interchangeable given the correct conditions. As i move closer and closer to the black hole, the force of gravity becomes stronger and stronger. Now, suppose my legs are closer to the dreaded center of the black hole, i will begin to feel as if my body was being stretched. A greater force will be pulling at my feet, than that of the force pulling at my head. This is called the 'gravitational tidal effect' - thus called because it is similar to the tidal effect on earth caused by the moon. If i looked out of a window towards the singularity, i would see something rather interesting. The center will look like a dark sphere, with a halo of light surrounding it. This light is coming from another universe. And, if i looked back out of the event horizon, i might be fortunate enough to see the universe, and all of its history and future flash past me as if it took no time at all. I would see all the stars die out... most of them forming black holes, but they would not be visible to the naked eye. I might even see the universe undergo an 'omega point' (the end), as a 'Big Crunch' were everything is drawn back, or quite possibly by a 'Big Rip', were everything physical is ripped apart by the universal pressure of acceleration, (note however, someone outside of the black hole cannot see you). Now i have crashed into the dreaded singularity, and i will no longer exist. Here, just like the Big Bang singularity mentioned in part one of chapter one, everything takes on infinite attributes - the laws of physics become invalid. However, you might not crash into the center. It is possible you can fall into the 'inner horizon' - this horizon is adjacent to the singular region. Here, space and time flows the correct way. In theory, you can float around in the inner horizon without ever crashing into the dreaded center. If our universe is indeed a black hole, you might imagine we exist in the inner horizon. Now, if one passes by the singularity, we might be able to move out of the inner horizon and pass through a second inner horizon, and then by finally passing another outer horizon, we will have entered another universe - but i had better be careful. There is a very good chance that this universe is made up mostly of antimatter. If i come into contact with antimatter, me and my ship will explode in a flash of light, (more on antimatter in last chapter). [In was in the finishing of this book, I would like it known to my readers that Hawkings has changed his mind on the theory of Black Holes, as he no longer believes that it is possible for a spacetime traveler to jump into one and move into other universes… This was proposed because of a fundamental problem involving information. If information moved into a Black Hole, it would suggest that the information would be lost, but here lies the paradox, because information can never totally be lost. Thus instead, he now believes that information is ‘’mangled’’ and returned back into this universe through quantum tunneling. In fact, a more recent research into mathematics shows us that there actually needs not be any Black Holes at all! If any do exist, then they would have formed at the very beginning of time. But to keep things not too complicated, I will continue with the idea that it is all still possible, and this is based on one well-known fact: That is, that our mathematics could be formulating a lie, instead of the truth. Thus, as much as I like the idea that no one can travel into other universes, because I protest against the multiverse theory, I must admit still that we may have it all very wrong, because mathematics may be pointing to the wrong conclusions… Who knows but God? We will certainly never achieve any unification, as I believe. Such knowledge must be left to God alone > Thus, for the sake of it, let us imagine we have got it wrong, and that universal spacetime traveling is possible…] Part Three Parallel Universes Subatomic matter behaves very differently to larger masses. One example of this estranged behavior is called the 'double slit experiment' introduced by physicist Thomas Young in 1805. This experiment consists of a machine that shoots a beam of photons, electrons or even atoms towards film screen - but before the particles reach the screen and leaves tiny marks, it needs to pass through either an upper slit, or a lower slit that are closely separated (see diagram). Each slit can be closed, or both can be left opened by the choice of the observer. Now, when the beam of particles hit the screen, you would suppose the particles had to pass through either the upper slit or the lower slit, yes? However, the strange thing is, is that if you close down one of slits, more particles reach the screen than if you left both slits open! How can this be? You would imagine more particles reaching the screen if both slits were opened - but this is not the case. One strange answer came about. The particle wasn't a pointlike particle at all. It acted as though it were a wave! If one uses the wave description, the problem seemed to go away. We know how waves act in the sea, and this also means that the particle will take these attributes on board. A wave could reach both slits at the same time - and just like a wave coming into contact with two openings, the wave can split into two smaller waves, one, as i am sure you can guess, in each slit. If the two waves travel different paths, they can be made to interfere with themselves after passing the slits; in doing so, less waves reach the screen. If one slit is only open, the wave will travel through the slit, and, just like a wave hitting the shore, it will hit many places simultaneously on the screen - thus hitting more places with one slit open, than having both slits open. However, the particle wasn't only just a wave - after all, when it hit the screen, it left a tiny 'pointlike' mark. Somehow when the wave hit the screen, it hit many places on the screen as dots. Thus, a new description had to made for a particle that traveled through space as a wave, and finishes its journey as a single object - this description has been come to be called the 'wave-particle duality.' The particle therego was in fact a wave and a particle simultaneously. Why did the particle act as a wave? Well, at first, physicists thought that the wave was a product of the human mind - it wasn't real, and it was just a means for us to keep track of experiments. The wave became to be called the 'quantum wave function.' This was a wave of possibilities. The wave probability enables us to calculate the possibility for a particle and its path, location, spin, orbital reference, ECT. The wave spreads out over space, and resembles likelihoods, not actualities... or does it? In 1957 physicist Hugh Everett the third, came up with a rather bizarre conclusion concerning the wave function. His idea was that if the experiment says that the particle passed through both slits at the same time, then both particles, the one traveling past the upper slit, and the particle traveling through the lower slit, must both exist. Question is though, how and where does this extra ghostly particle exist? The answer was parallel universes. Somehow, an identical particle existed in a parallel world; the wave represented the amount of particles it was composed of, thus one particle passed the upper slit and a particle passed the lower slit, and each 'branch', or universe, it was represented as a wave, having quite a real effect in each universe. However, why should the particle be a wave and then suddenly become a particle again? It turns out that our universe, according to Everett, is constantly splitting and merging every time some measurement is performed or when something comes into contact with something else. Each time the universe split, it would represent the wave function splitting into as many possibilities as there where outcomes, and the merging would represent the universe becoming superimposed all over again. Thus, in the double slit experiment, when the particle moves through both the slits simultaneously, this represents the universe splitting, creating as many universes as the possibility allows - in this case, two universes - and the merging represents the pointlike dot when it hits the screen. However, it turns out that the experiment represents only two universes - yet, it turns out that our universe is in fact one in an infinite amount of parallel universes, all 'superpositioned' upon each other, like layers on a cake. It is amazing, i think at least, that something so science-fiction like parallel universes can be taken rather seriously by top physicists today. The theme is almost unimaginable... just think about it - an infinity of universes - an infinity of earths for that matter, with an infinite amount of me's, and an infinite amount of you's - worlds were i exist, and worlds were you do not - worlds were you exist and i do not. Worlds that neither of us exist... worlds that are barren of life, and worlds with life more weird and wonderful than we could ever imagine. Worlds of paradise, and hell worlds galore! And each universe is unique, as there maybe several outcomes to a certain event, but only one individual outcome is allowed in any single universe. Thus, whenever i flip a coin and observe what side it has landed on, i become apart of the splitting of the universe, and my body is projected into two me's - one in this universe looking and observing a heads, let's say, and another me in the 'newly born' universe observing a tails. However, this easy-creation of universes disturbs some scientists. The idea is, if you flip a coin in 100 tosses, you create something equivalent to 1,267,650,600,228,229,401,496,703,205,376 universe-possibilities real (1); that is a little over 10^30. If every 6 billion-odd souls on earth simply stopped to flip a coin a hundred times, you could imagine the amount of universes that would split off from our own.* * In fact, the parallel universe theory has undergone some variations over the years. Some scientists believe that not only is our universe prone to split, but all the parallel universes might in fact also split. Matter in each of these universes permitted to contain matter, are in equal proportion, which is around 10^80 particles in each universe. However, this is where we tend to get a little confused - even though a particle, according to parallel universe theory, exists in two worlds as a wave in the double slit experiment, there is only one particle ever present whenever the universes merge! There will always be a single particle present, provided no one comes along and decided to observe the little particle, or a large electrical force pulls it out of its superpositioning - or simply, whenever anything comes into contact with something else; even in a tragedy. Take me for instance. Imagine i decided to cross the road, and i never looked both ways. A car hits me and i die... 'Sianara?' Well, yes and no. I do indeed die, but i die as the unfortunate outcome of this world - in a parallel universe i am living quite happily. When the car hit me, the universes flew apart, each providing a certain outcome unique among the rest. Neither would it do us any good to say that time passes at the same rate in each of these universes - that wouldn't be accurate at all. It would be like the differential time zones on planet earth - i will be asleep in one universe, whilst i am totally awake here and now (more on 'time' in last part). Some universes might be so similar to ours, the only quantum difference is that you might be wearing a red tie, instead of a blue tie... A universe with these differential time traits are called 'self-contained' time. Now, not every physicist agrees with parallel universe theory - take for granted some of the best minds in the quantum mainstream, like Stephen Hawkings entertain the 'many world hypothesis,' instead of the 'collapse of the wave function.' The wave function permeates all of spacetime. Created by Erwin Schrödinger, the mathematical function would predict the infinite amount of possible locations or paths an atom can have; for instance, in the double slit experiment, the wave represents two paths - thus the paths are represented by the wave function. The collapse of the wave function is the sudden reduction in the value of probability. The idea, is that the world suddenly reduced to a single calculation - the wave is said to collapse - the usual way to describe the collapse, is to imagine a balloon being deflated. I believe in the collapse - i simply cannot believe that the universe is constantly splitting and merging. Although, the collapse itself has been attacked by some physicists over the years. The most famous attack was by Albert Einstein - as you may know - he was highly critical of the conditions brought about by the simple act of observation - and it wasn't an isolated case... as he carried his displeasure for Quantum Physics right to his death. He also brought to our attentions, that quantum physics failed as a complete theory - it failed to explain how an observer comes to know something. I think this question can only be answered by accepting that the human observer is somehow apart of that knowledge - instead of believing that the observer is separate of that information. One way to imagine this, is that knowledge or information (as both are the same thing) starts and ends with the individual who measures a system. The system itself, or the universe around it cannot make sense of information - there is simply no intelligence present to make any resolution - it can only act to this information by a collapse and the system will 'quantum jump' into a new state - thus the information only becomes meaningful when intelligence is involved. In this sense, knowledge that is true knowledge begins and ends with us; the rest is up to God. Once we have this knowledge inside our neural networks, we turn it into experience, which then processes as memory, and this is how we come to know something. What is a quantum leap? Some of us will know it as a jitterbugging particle that moves from one place to another without going in-between - a discontinuous change from one state into a new state - others, as that 'cornie' 1980's show. If we are indeed to take Hawkings seriously by viewing the universe as an atom, does that mean the universe will quantum leap in the future? Coming back to this question, two main things can happen, depending on what kind of energy state our universe is in. There are two known states called 'Ground State,' and 'Excited State.' A ground state atom arranges its inhabitants; the electron, the proton and the neutron ect., to a certain frequency, so that they can have the smallest energy possible. If our universe isn't in a ground state, it could have come from a singularity in space, a bit like the kind found inside of black holes... However, i would like to add, that Hawkings is not so sure any more if singularities really exist. Thus, if our universe is in a ground state, it wouldn't have come from a singular region. Instead, it will have had at its center an opening in the fabric of space and time; this is a worm hole, threaded with a substance called 'exotic matter' - we will see more on this in chapter four. This wormhole might loop in on our own universe, and anything that can travel through it, might turn up in a different region of space, at a totally different time of history - theoretically, i could jump into the wormhole a few minutes after big bang, and end up coming out of the wormhole, 40-odd billion years later when the universe decides to contract. Or, if theory is correct as we have seen, it might link this universe up with other universes. A ground state atom will not spill out energy - this means that it is a very stable particle. If our universe is in its ground state, it will not be able to quantum leap in the future. If the atom is in an excited state, then it will eventually spill out its energy and will inexorably quantum leap. If it was a universe i am speaking about here, it will spill out its energy, quite possibly into a branch that is in its ground state, and will quantum leap. Stephen Hawkings believes our universe is in a ground state. And what if parallel universe theory indicates a new presence - a divine presence? I've heard some arguments put forth that parallel universes predicts the existence of a God... for sure. They say, that because there are an infinite amount of universes, there must be a God, and because God is omnipresent, he/she would exist in every universe. Well, i can't argue with that statement, and I’m not sure many can. An infinite amount of universes must indicate an infinite of amount of 'states' a universe can be in; these states are the statistical differences found in each universe. Some universes will have a small quantum mistake different to ours, others will be much more weird and maybe even mind boggling. Thus it might just be a case of searching enough universes until one holds fit for the temple of an omnipotent being. Part Four Hyperspace From the view of the wave function, planet earth, containing its 6 billion-odd conscious observers must make the planet more real than any other unhabited planet, since the wave function is constantly being collapsed - the wave function still exists in all of space and time, but its value is vanishingly small. You can imagine our entire planet being projected via the wave function throughout all of space and time, right past Pluto, to the very boundary or surface of the expanding universe - though this wave function is highly unlikely. It is the most likely result of the wave function that makes our planet what it is, including everything in it. The quantum wave function governs absolutely any result possibility; and that must also mean the universe as a whole, not just planets. Stephen Hawkings is the founder of a new scientific principle called, 'Quantum Cosmology.' Now... before you point out it is a contradiction, because 'quantum' refers to the world of protino's and neutralino's, and 'cosmology' refers to the large universe of planets and infinite space, it was meant to conflict; Stephen Hawkings say's that we should view the universe as an atom. In the very beginning, just before Big Bang, the wave function governed how our universe would start up. According to theory, our universe had an infinite amount of setup conditions it could have chose from, and the wave function governed which one was most likely to occur. However, because no one was there to observe the early universe, each possibility had to arise side-by-side. Our universe, according to Stephen Hawkings, is the way it is because of a high probability factor. There will be other universes that have a wave function that surround our own, but there values will be vanishingly small. These universes will have remained superimposed on our own universe ever since big bang. This brings the uniqueness back into a universe that is one of an infinite amount of universes. If there exists an infinite amount of universes, we could imagine an infinite number of parallel universes with similar life as this one, and that takes away the importance of 'us'. Yet, the analogy of imagining the universe as an atom has brought the importance back to our universe, because our universe is, according to Hawkings, the 'correct one', with a high probability factor. There is no current method for us traveling to these other universes - our technology is simply, far too inadequate; we don't even know how to prove their existences for that matter. Hawkings believes that there might be a baby twin universe, curled up into the 6th dimension of spacetime - if this is true, as is predicted by 'hyperspace theory', we may be able to probe it someday. What is hyperspace theory? Before the Big Bang, it states that our universe had ten dimensions, just like superstring theory predicts. Then, very suddenly, the universe 'cracked', and our universe was born. This cataclysmic event allowed our 4-dimensional space to expand, whilst our twin 6-dimensional universe contracted in a volatile manor, and shrank to infinitesimal size (2). In fact, we find that the Ekpyrotic Theory evidently goes hand-in-hand with this hypothesis. If hyperspace theory is correct, then it can explain that the current observable rapid expansion of the universe was a result of the cataclysm - thus, the death of our universe, which will most possibly be caused by rapid expansion (more on this in chapter four) causing the 'Big Chill', may in fact be caused by the cracking of multi-dimensional spacetime. It could also explain the Big Bang itself. Building a Universe The question to whether we could ever simulate or recreate another universe was even pondered by the legendaries of past times - and even today. With modern technology, and its ever-expanding spectrum of quantum knowledge, scientists are now contemplating on how to build a universe from scratch - in a lab. This may not be a distant theory, as i shall translate for you. Well renown professor of physics, at Birmingham University, John Nelson has been working with particle accelerators that accelerate gold atoms to a speed of 99.995% of 'c' - the speed of light, which is near enough 186,000 miles per second. Then these 'fast' Bradyons smash against each other in a burst of energy; but this collision will be nothing like the atom smasher of CERN, when it finally executes its first experiment in August 07. Prof. Nelson's project is run by a team of elite scientists, who perform these tasks in the (SLA) - the Stanford Linear Accelerator. It smashes Electrons and Positrons (antielectrons) together, at an equivalent temperature of about 600 million million degrees centigrade. Such projects transpire, so that scientists can replicate similar conditions within the first few 'instants' after the miracles, spontaneous appearance of spacetimematterenergy. The problematic equations are at play here; antimatter should have annihilated matter within the first few instants... However, his scientists have found a possible solution to reasoning this matter-antimatter paradox. They found an effect, later called the 'CP Violation' However, this theory is fraught with controversy, as it doesn't attain the answers for correct observations in the present types of matter within the universe... it is an estimated 10 billion times in error for universal reality. But, you see... this is where violations take hold on us. They usually quantum leap, so-to-say, into even more inexplicable assumptions. CP Violation is an effect which leads to breakdown in symmetry in fundamental interactions. It shows discrepancies in the 'supposed' identical natures of particles, such as the law of antimatter and matter distribution. Moving on, they have created a 'supercomputer,' that can simulate billions of 'test particles', hoping to find new theoretical assumptions on universal birth; because of the mysterious predictions of Dark Matter and Dark Energy - two powerful forces that is thought to play a major role in the functioning of the universe. You see, the 'dark' corresponds to the painfully obvious fact we know nothing of its origins, nor do we know anything of its nature or role within our vast universe. It may have even had a role in universal expansion - and even some pseudo theorists believe that Einstein’s equations on these forces might have been responsible for the original expansion of our universe. Particle accelerators and computer simulations aren't really enough - about, a quadrillion times less experimentals needed. Since we cannot generate power to this magnitude, we must therefore opt. for creating our universe - a universe, inside a universe... a weird, but potentially dangerous thing to do... we will get to these inconsistencies later. Dirac postulated that the electron that is, assuming it is the smallest object known, with the most basic fundamental negative electrical charge, there must be an equally basic unit of magnetism. This basic unit of magnetism is called a 'Magnetic Monopole.' Now, well-renown scientists in Japan, led by physicist and Professor Nobuyuki Sakai of Yamagata University believe that using 'Magnetic Monopoles' might make universe creation possible. (Magnetic Monopoles are subatomic objects that may contain enough 'false-vacuum-energy', to create a micro black hole. They are like tiny little magnets, but only possessing one magnetic pole. Earth for instance has two - north and south - these tiny objects have one, curling into itself). Magnetic Monopoles, being even smaller than the smallest particle, make them difficult to detect, and so far has proved fruitless. But Relativity and Quantum Mechanics predict such exotic phenomena. Prof. Sakai informs us, 'if one is ever detected, we might be able to release this false energy, and use it to create a universe in the lab.' But this is where the physics go a bit strange for the observer - in which case, it would be ourselves - the new universe that 'splits' off our own space and time, is but connected through a topological opening, caused by the gravitational stresses - but not of a Singularity, since Stephen Hawkings has learned how to mathematically remove them (but we will see how this might even turn out to be his greatest blunder*, as i will explain soon - bare with me). The Universe created, itself would look like a Black Hole, from our observational perspective... or more accurately, the baby universe will be entrapped inside a Black Hole Droplet. As we have already seen in this chapter, our universe too could be a Black Hole. * When Einstein developed his theory of gravity, he was convinced that the universe was static - but his gravitational calculations seemed to prove him wrong. He thus 'fiddled' around with his mathematical conclusions until he 'manipulated' his calculations to fit a static universe. But later findings in the measurement of 'Time-Warps,' using Hubble’s gravitational 'Red Shift' proved Einstein to be flawed, as he called it his ''biggest blunder''. We should have learned from this, as the moral is to trust our instincts. Hawkings first instinct was that the universe could potentially contain an infinite amount of Singularities, but now dismisses them as nothing but a clever error in mathematical calculation. In singularities, infinity takes hold of space and time, and they are exceptionally difficult to work with, if it wasn't for something called, 'Renormalization,' which states that an infinity can only ever be cancelled out by another infinity. Perhaps Hawkings should have trusted his instincts on 'Singular Behavior', since it is predicted by both Relativity and Quantum Mechanics, not to mention Cosmology itself. He hasn't had much success out of Singularities mind you, but he is now the founder of a new law called 'Quantum Cosmology,' the linking of Quantum Physics and Cosmology, to form the clever unification of a subatomic universe. Thus, in my opinion, he has the stronger argument, as Singularities don't need to be detained within the laws of Physics, however, i am torn between the fact Einstein too did a similar thing, and made a big mistake. Prof. Sakai say's, 'if we create a universe, we would see it, as though it where but a black hole. The Black Hole would be so small, that it would quickly evaporate through quantum effects. But the new universe would expand eternally. That might sound strange, but it is possible in strongly curved spacetime.' Some Ethics Raised, or Not Raised, as The Case is... Should we play God? Do we know enough about Quantum Physics to be messing around with nature - the primordial essence which all nature obeys? I say yes; but this is a reserved ''yes''. I argue that we still do not know enough about the early universe to be assuming everything will be ''A-OK''. For instance, we assume that by creating a universe (using the same forces that created our universe); everything would be fine, because these forces would be contained within the spacetime of the baby universe. Of course, Relativity presumes that everything that counts stays within the curved spacetime of our universe, but the equation cannot be taken for a certainty. I know it is highly improbable, but the forces - (those destructive big bang forces) might flow easily through one universe, and into another. Before we created a universe, we would need to be absolutely certain of the forces we are dealing with. And, if we can theoretically create universes, might that even indicate we might be living in a computer generated spacetime simulation - the universe inside a universe mystery - just as portrayed in the Matrix - see notes? Perhaps we are all experiencing some holographic, electrically-modified computer simulation, and God is a child playing it like a computer game console - or is scientist in another parallel universe? If this is true, we might be living in a universe in a universe to infinity... Black Hole inside Black Hole... And if this is true, then 'everything' no longer singularly applies to our universe. We asked, 'if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into?' Though the more accurate question might be, 'What are the simulated-replica universes progressing to?' Part Five Time What is time in the eyes of physics? Apart from the clocks on the wall and the watch around your wrist, time has a very interesting description by physicists. The strange thing about time, is that you cannot see it, touch it, or feel it. We can sense it to some degree - but there is a reason why we sense time; that is because it all exists inside of us. The clock of the universe, is simultaneously and paradoxically a mental clock; time is a product of our minds. When considering time, we ask questions like, 'what is time?' And other questions like, 'why can't we live forever?' And, 'can we make the hand of the clock move anti-clockwise?' Let's investigate these for a second. We often wonder why our skin ages. What causes my body to age...? Is it simply a process of time? Yes, and no. Obviously, it takes time to do it. However, scientists think they can locate the particle that causes ageing, the 'free radical' - a deteriate electron. However, there is no scientific technology as yet that can stop these free radicals from self-destructing. This is just a fact about nature. The whole world is governed by specific times, in a day or even in a year. The flower will close its petals over night, and re-open in the morning. The trees in autumn will shed its leaves, and sheep in springtime give birth to their lambs. Even humans, females that is, have an 'in-built' maternal clock. In fact, we have several clocks. One is our 'sleep clock.' It is around 24.5 hour sleep clock. Scientists have discovered the gene that causes this perception, and called it the 'Suprachiasmatic Nucleus.' Time is the 4th dimension of time, physicists call, 'the imaginary dimension of space.' Quantum physics points to a startling conclusion when regarding time - and that is that the human mind is somehow, the same thing as it! It makes us inextricably linked with space, matter and energy. Somehow, through the presence of time, everything is dependant on each other. It is our perceptions of time that interests scientists. Certain times of the day can go faster than other times. Even certain narcotics can play an influence on the human perception. So can we slow down the molecular process of ageing? Some scientists think that it is possible. The molecular structures of quantum systems can be tinkered with to alter their life spans. In the Buck Institute in Novato, California, they have been able to increase the lifespan of the Nematode Worm; This is by cataloging its individual genes, the thousands of them. A human being has about 80,000 genes. By locating certain genes inside of humans, we can alter disease, and, in the case of the Nematode - triple their life spans. Given that humans have a considerable amount more cells than the 959-cell nematode worm, we have around 50,000 billion cells, and a great deal more genes, about 60,100 more; can we alter human life expectancy in mapping and cataloging the human genetic makeup? Theories to how we age have varied in the past; like deteriate electrons called 'Free Radicals'. When these electrons collapse, tiny genetic mistakes occur in my skin - flaws in the cells - and are never quite as right as before. All these theories though are still accepted today. The truth is no one knows exactly how we age - but we know it is possible to explain how; we just need a clue as to what it is specifically. There is a tree is Bristlestone National Park, near Death Valley in Sunkist California that is 4785 years old! It was given the most appropriate name of the 'Methuselah,' named after the biblical character in Genesis, father of Lamech and oldest man to be recorded, as 969 years. Being as old as the pyramids themselves, older than Christ, It has lasted this long because it has an amazingly slow metabolism. Theoretically, a human can add an extra 5-10yrs onto their life spans by eating less (this ensures we don't use up too much energy - this is semi-starvation treatment, and they perform this on chimps), and exercise less (also to retain as much energy.) This of course happens because of a conservation of energy, by doing a lot less than the average human my metabolism will run much slower. Thus my cells use up less energy, then needing less energy. The speed of time can fluctuate and change as moments pass around large cosmological dense bodies (even the earth produces time warps), but it cannot simply disappear from the fabric of space, because it is a universal 'invariant'. There are many 'invariant' relationships in physics. Invariance is a constant that shall remain, therego, despite if something changes. A good example is a tree. It will bud in spring, bloom in summer, but will shed its leaves in autumn. Now in winter it is bare; the invariance here is the tree. So, it is no surprise that scientists are perplexed by the brains ability to warp time senselessly - and in some extreme cases, even makes time disappear - it defies all scientific understanding. For instance, the mind can experience time loss. Sometimes we can experience the speeding up of time and the slowing down of time whilst under the influence of drugs. Certain drugs, like cannabis have peculiar effects on the user, and he/she can sometimes experience a day go in the matter of hours and sometimes an hour can feel more like 'hours'. This interests scientists and they are now exploring into why this occurs. Maybe one day, we will detect the possibility of molecular alterations, and extend the lifespan of a human three times it is right now. Or perhaps we will master a machine that can create the possibility of 'global causality violation,' that is, a path that winds round through space and twists through the time dimension. If relativity is correct, then time is like a river, and the possibility to turn around on the stream of time is there. It might be possible round whopping gravitational superdense bodies, like 'black holes,' or 'neutron stars.' The distortions that such a body would cause space and time to curve heavily… and a bend in time means the possibility of slowing down time. Imagine that time is a river and we traveled downstream in the current. We are traveling with time. We travel much more in the time dimension than the space dimensions. We move with time without recourse at the speed of light. Now you can imagine that, to bend the rules, and break through the time barrier, i need to turn around against the current, and try and move through time. Though, because it has a strong force it is not so easy. Will we ever make a time machine? The problem with a time machine is that it would require such an enormous amount of energy to do what i want. Dr. Michio Kaku, a well renown physicist just completed a series on channel four TV. called ‘Time’, and he was asked to build a time machine. His idea was to have a gigantic atom collider, the size of the solar system to accelerate a beam of particles equal to amazing speeds, until it reaches a point called the 'Planck Energy' were space and time become unstable, and a rip can be caused in the fabric of space. This is because the particles focus an intense beam at a certain region in space and time, and the temperatures force the universe to link up with another place in that universe, or if theory is correct, to parallel universes. The wormhole gateway into another time and place would be very small. However, the presence of exotic matter could blow it up to a more reasonable size, fit for a human. Wormholes inside of black hole are threaded with this 'antigravity' substance called 'exotic matter.' physicists aren't able to make this in labs today, but, it is believed to be a main proponent in the rapid acceleration of our universe, as it is thought to pervade our universe. One mouth of the wormhole is then taken to a 'Neutron Star.' This is a 'superdense' remnant of a dead star. One spoonful of the material weighs as much as all the cars and vans in the world put together! It will create a high gravitational field - and it is here, time becomes distorted and slowed down. Thus, leaving one end of the wormhole at the neutron star, will slow the age of it. Let's say that he left it there until it was a year younger, than the other end. Then, entering very carefully one end of the wormhole, i can come out the other end a year back in the history of the universe. Though, i must stress, as grand as Dr. Michio's idea is, it is still science fiction, and he is aware of this. The amount of energy required is astronomical - in fact, the energy we can produce in colliders today is around a quadrillion time less than what would be required. Then, if we where able to travel freely in time, what about the paradox's that come with it all? Einstein gave us some examples of these paradox's and riddles, where a time traveler goes back in time and kills his father before he reaches puberty; but this is where the inconsistency arises. If he killed his father before he met his mother, then that would suggest that [he] was never born, hence the paradox. If he never existed, how could he go back in time to kill his father? Though, some physicists get around this problem with parallel universe theory. If one travels through the time barriers, according to theory, one travels into other universes. Einstien’s relativity, explains that time is not fixed. Time can be traveled through, just like space. With time not being absolute, must mean that our past time can be someone’s present or someone’s past... What is past? What is present? As simple as these questions might seem, their answers actually play a big role, both existing on two different sides of the barrier of present time. Present time is 'real time' - it is the only time that ever exists; no past or future exists - they are just descriptions of the human perception of time. Our consciousness tunes into a certain signal, and the result is reality - and the perception of real time. The past is really an imaginable realm. The past doesn't exist unless you consider that the past is in fact a record that makes up the present. Any past we sense or think about is purely created by the mind - the original present can never be replayed in history - the world of the present passes by us, and the past is created, and we can never experience that again. Forward and backwards through time traveling quantum waves carry information through time, making anything real. A forward time wave is represented in mathematics as the 'psi', and looks like the devils trident 'pitchfork' as thus presented (). A wave that moves forward in time is called an 'offer wave'. A backward through time wave is represented as a 'psi-star' (*) and is called an 'echo wave' (3). Together, they create a single quantum answer. It is believed that what we do now, defines what was past... somehow, whenever i make a measurement in the present, it makes that past event more real. Somehow, before we came about, the universe was not unique - but when we did come about, our observations started to make reality more and more real, scooping backwards in time, making a reasonable past for the universe. The present has no influence on the future. The future only effects the present in a statistical sense. In any case, we will not be able to physically time travel in the near future. We simply do not have the technology. Maybe one day, thousands of years later, we will know how to harvest exotic matter, and manage faster-then-light travel (this is not in violation of relativity - it is just another bizarre situation). There are already scientists investigating the possibility, as we will see in chapter four, part two. Perhaps we will jump into hyperspace, and we accomplish time travel. Imaginary Numbers We often associate Einstein with his general and special theories of relativity; therego, we hardly ever concern him with the Brownian Movement or Photoelectric theories. However, it might surprise you to know, not all of Einstein's work was a done as a 'secluded old man,' who did his work 'secretly and quietly'... actually, relativity papers, containing equations by physicist Henri Poincare' where published only a few weeks before Einstein released his papers... and some historians believe he was aware of this. Of course, their works seemed independent and crucially different in many ways. The energy equivalence with mass, published in 1905, as you may well know it, E=Mc^2 was in fact published first by Henri, in a slightly different form in 1900 as M=E/c^2. Even Einstein’s description of time as the fourth dimension was in fact first used by H. G. Wells in his 1895 book called 'The Time Machine.' Nevertheless, Einstien’s work has led our ways of thinking into new boundaries. It was he, after all that made the discovery, whether enlightened by H. G. Well’s book or not, that time was yet another dimension unto space's three coordinates. Einstein taught himself all about Euclid Spacetime out of a high school textbook; which would set him for the near future into explaining a universe that was not flat, but rather highly curved. It would inevitably help him understand how to envision time - and how to picture a bend in time as being the product of gravity. When we are told to envision time as another dimension to space, we mustn't relate the dimensions of space as being somehow the same thing... rather, in order for time to be used as a dimension, we must consider it as being an 'imaginary' dimension. We use imaginary concepts all of the time in physics, such as Schrödinger’s wave function. To do all of this, we must use 'complex numbers...' which aren't too difficult to grasp. Complex numbers deal with square roots. Now, you might remember square roots from high school. A number that is multiplied by itself produces the square root - thus, the square root of 4 is (2 x 2). The square root of 9 is (3 x 3). The square root of 16 is (4 x 4), ECT. Note however, that the square root of 1, is (1 x 1). complex numbers move into the negatives; thus, it helps mathematicians work out the improbable square root of -1, for instance, which is 'i' x 'i' = -1. The 'i' stands for ''impossible'', and it helps us in calculating numbers that are not in the real world. Another example is the square root of 4, which is (i2)^2 = -4. Quantum Physics and Relativity would be impossibility, without complex numbers. Part Six Ekpyrotic Cosmological Theory In physics, the multiverse theory is a difficult theory to accept - well, at least it is for me - the only way i could describe my contempt for it is the way Einstein rejected the path of Quantum Mechanics. The reason for this is simple. I do not believe the Universe can so easily split off into as many universe-possibilities as there are actualities, every time something comes to do anything - especially in the case of ourselves. Fair enough, the theory of Parallel Universes could answer many gaping questions - questions such as, 'why the wave function exits', and why and how our universe selected these 'dimensional conditions', of one time dimension and three spatial dimensions. Of course - it could also explain consciousness itself! Let me explain: The universes are all positioned upon each other like a ''fine mesh'', we call 'superpositioning'. A single object in space will extend into infinity through these universes - but occupies the exact same space. Thus, a single mind in this universe would extend onto infinity, also sharing the same space. Then consciousness is explained to arise out of the split - whenever our minds posit a question or experience, the universe must split out into as many possibilities that can exist through the wave function. Though - again, something for me resents this postulate. In this book, i have been attempting to bring back the importance of the observer in the universe - but 'her' role is being exploited here, and her importance fades into the infinity of universes! What if only two universes existed? This question was called an 'Oxymoron' - it seemed to present a contradiction in terms - two universes simply couldn't exist... Though our universe might be one of an infinite amount, i am amused however in something called the 'Ekpyrotic Cosmological Theory' (ECT): What if our universe has a siemese twin? This is what ECT states. Its perfectly identical, conjoined, yet separate twin is connected to our universe through a force that allows it to bounce off our own universe to such a distance away, it will finally pull back to collide with our own universe. When they do collide, it will trigger another Big Bang all over again, spilling all that potential consciousness, matter and energy through the wave function, no matter how vanishingly small their probabilities lye. This Big Bang will engulf both universes simultaneously - and that must mean the great sea of consciousness itself - creating everything all over again - but with a slight quantum difference; a decrease in the 'Cosmological Constant'. You might remember the Cosmological Constant. The Cosmological Constant was created by Albert Einstein in 1915, in an attempt to design a universe that was static. However, the discovery of the Hubble red shift, the measuring of distances between objects in space showed that the universe was in fact expanding. He thus cast the Cosmological Constant to the side, calling it his 'biggest blunder.' However, in the discovery of recent observations of an accelerating universe, astrophysicists where able to bring the Cosmological Constant back into play. The real problem with the Cosmological Constant today, is that it is around 10^20 times smaller than what should be predicted from Big Bang... However, if the Siamese twin theory is correct, then the value in the Cosmological Constant appears to be smaller because the collisions of the two universes have brought it gradually down - thus, one might imagine the Big Bang to have occurred many, many times. Right now, physicists are devising new theories on how to experimentally test this. In the writing of this book, Paul Steinhardt of Princeton University, and Neil Turok of the University of Cambridge believe that it might be possible to experimentally test this theory through the discovery of the so-far-unseen 'gravitational waves,' that are thought to ripple ever outwards throughout all of spacetime. However, though the big bang states that these gravitational waves are thought to pervade spacetime, the two scientists believe that they are rare, to say the least. 'Ekpyrotic' comes from the Greek word, 'conflagration.' It was coined by Steinhardt, Ovrut, Turok and Khoury in the DAMPT in Cambridge, England. The Ekpyrotic Theory is directly linked to String Theory - therefore, our universe and our twin will be classified as 'branes', instead of parallel universes though there is very little difference between the two expressions. Before our universe collided with our siemese twin, our universe was completely frozen. When the brane collided into our own universe it sent the gravitational waves rippling, exciting fluctuations in temperature and density - and above all, it gave rise to matter - a soup of quark gasses. This theory is being recognized as quite a serious theory by physicists, because it seems to be a better alternative to both the standard interpretation of the big bang coupled with cosmic inflation, (when the universe spurted out everything faster-than-light). The difference with the standard model of big bang and the big bang described by the Ekpyrotic Theory is that it wasn't a big bang at all - paradoxically enough. The cataclysm of big bang in this theory rather states that there was an event when the immense energy in the infant universe quite literally drove it to expansion. Paul Steinhardt, mentioned just previously say's, ‘'our universe begins in a static, featureless state, that persisted for eons.'' ''But how long are we talking about,'' One might ask. The truth is we cannot be sure. We could be talking numbers anything like trillions upon trillions of years. The Ekpyrotic Theory though, isn't too different to the usual parallel universe theory - as each universe exists in a superpositioning as myriad sheets all placed among each other. Accordingly, there was a collision; and this set everything in motion. As Ovrut explains, ' It's a beautiful idea because it says that all of the particles we see actually arise from one object... a string.'' Weird this isn't it? All these strings’ particles contained in the universe and all universes actually constitute one single mega-string! The only way to describe this is by analogously describing this single string as being like a normal string of cotton. Like any fabric weaved into one single string, it is made up itself of much smaller string, all finely interwoven into each, causing them to join into one single woven string. The strings that represent gravity in this universe can easily flow into another brane, and this is how they all couple to each other. . How Might We Detect Gravitational Waves? Finding their presence, whether they are frequent or rare, is going to be difficult. The 'Laser Interferometer Gravitational-Wave Observatory' (LIGO) in America, belonging to NASA scientists, are now searching for the waves - by the possible phenomena of Black Hole collisions. Black Holes themselves have so far been undetectable, but Relativity and Quantum Theory predicts their existences. They are exotic, perfectly spherical dark or glowing objects in space that contain so much mass that they can distort spacetime to such a degree, it practically drags it round with it at the speed of light. These distortions are so strong; they are even able to slow a photon, a particle of light right down to zero-speed. Thus, even the fastest known particle cannot escape its wrath. The collision of two Black Holes would shudder space and time - similar to the conditions of a quaking big bang, and the collision would send out ripples of gradational waves at the speed of light from the location of impact. Because of this, in order to find the illusive waves, we will have to keep our eyes to the stars.
And you keep your first drafts to your self, and everyone will be better off. Editors get paid to wade through stuff like that. We don't. You are abusing the forum setup here. Online self publishing of book manuscripts should be done on your own or designated webpage, and online publishing of first drafts should not be done.
Science Enthusiasts? Why not scientists, science undergraduates, science professors? Reiku, your intentions are noble but it all sounds like a regurgitation of every layman book I have read since I was about 15 years old. Namely those by John Gribbin, Michio Kaku, Brian Greene, and others. See my post in your thread "My Theory on Cosmological Acceleration". http://www.sciforums.com/showthread.php?t=72095&page=4
Ice... back off. Your just wanting to get personal. Bitch. Chris - yeh, i read your post. Not very nice was it? Basically, my imagination ran over common sense...
Reiku, study math, physics, and quantum theory with TEXTbooks. And you will be much more equipped to write a book on those subjects. You won't be successful through regurgitation and surely not with pure imagined "theories" for the universe. When one truly begins to "sense" the universe, he finds that there is nothing common about it.
I do study physics you ignorant prick. I went to college and studied it. Put that in your pipe and smoke it.
Ha Reiku, the only studying I see is that of Michio Kaku, John Gribbin, and Brian Greene. You've mixed all of their hard work into a disjointed conglomeration of your "own". But I have said what I need to say. Do with it what you will...
Well, quite right i will. You see, i wanted to write a book that was accurate with todays modern theories. To do this, i needed Brian Greenes postulations, (John Gribbin) was never anyone i would have classed to any of this documentation, unless you are of course implying the astrophysical work is of his... i'd like to differ somewhat. I have as you said Michio Kaku. I invited his work on a hypothetical time machine. It was between his idea, Prof. Frank J. Tiplers idea of a rapidly rotating cylinder. But his theory was much older, so i went with Kaku... Einstein as well. Cannot forget him and his contributions. Fred Hoyle, Fred Alan Wolf, Penrose, Ballantine, ect. ect. BUT the larger mass of the work is based upon my own stipulations and theories. I make this known when it is needed. Also, the literature is all mine. So... i don't see any problem with this?
Deciding on your posts and the lack of understanding of many concepts, I would say there is a contradiction there. I would say that it is generally not a very good idea to start creating your own theories and pass it off as reality, if you aren't completely up to date with all the modern theories and adequately understand them. I would expect that a degree in physics will be one of the lowest prerequisites for the ability to create any slightly viable theories in modern physics.
Reiku, I like your posts. There's a lot of information in there. The wonderful thing about free will is that anyone who reads your material has the ability to double-check its validity on their own. So forget what anyone else says. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
That's kind Shalayka. Sorry it's taken me a while to reply. I think though some of my credibility in this field has been enhanced since i have been here. I never wanted to come here and recieve the likes that I had in the beginning. Now i think i have earned the respect of some of the users.
Actually, the anthropic principle states that we observe the universe as it has to be in order for us to observe it. It was the scientifical way of saying, it doesn't matter that the laws are so finely tuned, since if they weren't we wouldn't be here to witness them. However, that the laws are so finely tuned in the first place still remains a mystery.
I qoute Fred Alan Wolf, Ph.D '' The Anthropic Principle states that from an infinite amount of possible set-up conditions, it chose this one so that WE COULD EXIST...'' So... i don't know who's confused.
Exactly, but it doesn't state that there has to be a infinite amount of set-up conditions. There may have been only one set-up condition which is the one we are experiancing. The thing is, that what we experiance of the universe, must be set so that we can exist, otherwise we couldn't experiance it. So if we look at the laws for the universe, it is self-evident (which is why it is a principle) that the laws has to be in a way as to allow us to exist, or at least life in general (and we as the extension). The mystery is why the laws are so finely tuned, so that if they differ from it's present value with only a bit life as we know it would be impossible, stars wouldn't form, the universe would be too hot or too cold, etc. I can give you a nice example; Water is special in that it is the only fluid that is heavier in liquid form, ice isn't as heavy as water, so ice floats on water, this is due to (I think) some reaction that happens in stars which happens to be in just the right way as to allow this to happen, if ice were heavier than water, then all ice would sink to the bottom of the oceans, and all the water would freeze from the bottom up, which probably wouldn't be a very nice condition if you like to have life on earth Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image! Wiki - Anthropic Principle
Hi I'm affraid it does mean that there was an infinite amount of possible conditions. (ALL) of physics are determined by thes equantum rules: The one which governs this hypothesis is called ''The Quantum Wave Function.'' Accordingly, the wave function says that if there is no observer, then ''things'' are not real, and thus are in what is called a state of superpositioning, which is a mathematical function governing the fact that one ''chosen condition,'' can have more than one outcome. In short, the wave function governed big bang, and it states that THIS universe chose 1+3 dimensions; not any of the others it could have chosen - and physics predicts this was an infinite amount. On the other hand, if you said what you said because you don't agree with the wave function or the laws of superpositioning, then i cannot advise you, because that is a personal choice my friend. All i can tell you is that these rules are very very real. Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!
In the framework of the Anthropic Principle it is not a necessary condition that there must be a infinite amount of universes (potential or real), but rather that the universe we are in has the laws that are required for us to exist. That the universe "chose" 1+3 dimensions is irrelevant in this case, also that this choice must have come from a infinite amount of universes. The amount of possible universes having different laws and different dimensions are infinite, simply because you can change numbers to the extreme in any law. Also change the number of dimensions to whatever you want. However, only a fraction of these universes would allow life to develop, and you to exist. So as you exist, the world around you should resemble one of the universes that would allow you to exist. The anthropic principle itself says nothing about the amount of universes required or that any amount of universes other than 1 is required for the anthropic principle to work. However, obviously, one of the theories to explain the fine-tuning of the laws, is that there is a infinite amount of universes, or if not infinite, a large amount. Also, as a reminder, we are discussing the anthropic principle now, not the wavefunction or the superpositioning. The anthropic principle is a principle which needs no other concepts in it (other than is within the scope of the principle itself). Also, the principle is not only about the cosmos. It can be applied in any field. If you have a net with large holes in it, you won't catch the fish smaller than the holes, so when you take the net out of the water it will be filled with the fish that were trapped because of it's size (or whatever condition that allowed them to be trapped), making this a "analogy" we would be the fish, and the holes would be the laws that allowed us to exist.
Yes, that is why I like principles so much, they are self-evident and when we have learned them they tend to stick, and can be used for many purpouses.
