Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions

[Nietsnie]

Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions...

Parallel Universes, 10 dimensions and more.

This is a theory (more like hypothetical situation really) I came up with the other day as I was thinking about the 10 (or 26) dimensions predicted by string theory as well as antimatter, thermodynamics and the Big Crunch. This may be a little unordered (in accordance with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics- sorry couldn’t resist it), so bear with me.

We know that string theory predicts the existence of 10 dimensions, viz. 3 spatial and one time dimension. Also it is predicted that the other six dimensions are curved up into a very small space, unlike the other four dimensions which flattened out (presumably sometime near the Big Bang). Now what if those six other dimensions, did not curl up?
Let’s suppose you get two kinds of dimensions: macro dimensions and micro dimensions. Now as the name implies, the macro dimensions would be larger than the micro dimensions. The macro dimensions would act as ‘container’ or ‘housing’ dimensions for the micro dimensions. Imagine a big bubble containing smaller bubbles, the big bubble would be the macro dimension and the smaller bubbles would be the micro dimensions.

Now suppose we have two macro dimensions, each containing three spatial and one time dimension, giving a total of ten dimensions. Consider the first macro dimension. This is the one in which we exist and which all laws of science were formulated. The second macro dimension would be the dimension containing most of the antiparticles and antimatter in the universe. I say most, because we have observed, in very minute quantities, antimatter in our macro dimension. This could account for the apparent lack of (observable) antimatter in the universe. Also in the antiparticle macro dimensions, the strings that make up the fundamental particles could be seen as vibrating in the opposite manner as those in our dimension. From wave theory we know that these waves would cancel each other out if they are superimposed. However I cannot account for the resultant release in energy which occurs (I’m still trying to figure that out).

Now imagine a couple of thousand million years into the future, the rate of expansion of the universe drops below the critical rate and the universe starts to contract. Now it might be said that this would not be in accordance to the 2nd law of thermodynamics. If you considered the macro dimension theory, it would be more feasible (notice how I don’t say possible – I’m already too far out on a limb to go further). As the universe contracts, the two macro dimensions would move closer together, resulting in a more ordered state and thus decreasing entropy. However, as the distance between the two macro dimensions decrease, more particle-antiparticle annihilation reactions would take place, giving off more and more energy. This increase entropy would be greater than the decrease caused by macro dimensions coming closer together. Eventually, a Big Crunch would result.

Consider this, black holes may be seen as gateways between the macro dimensions. Although, you’d probably never survive the trip and if you do, you’d most likely be annihilated by your antiparticle-self. As we can see, in both these cases the 2nd law of thermodynamics would also hold.

One question that jumped into my mind as I came up with this is: “If there are two macro dimensions, what’s to say there isn’t another super dimension, in which the macro dimensions are contained??”
Well, some scientists are working on the possibility that an 11th dimensions exists, which can be used as the super dimension.

I know this theory may be filled with gaps and/or errors. I haven’t even yet considered CPT-symmetry, although I’m quite sure it would not fit in here. The above theory may however be modified to allow for CPT-symmetry to hold (possibly).

One last thing before I get flamed to death. I’m only a second year student. So most of what I know of cosmology and string theory was learned from reading in my spare time.

Nietsnie
PS: I'm suppose to be studying for a physics test, so hopefully this wasn't a complete waste of time.

 

[Fredrick]

Two dimensions

Hi Nietsnie,

I wanted to respond to your email, not to clarify any of your questions, only to introduce you to another concept of dimensionality that may deliver an insight in the world you are living in. I think the word 'dimension' is not used properly in our common language. The three dimensions we know as length, width and height are - according to me - not dimensions but directions. What's the difference, you say? It may be a tiny different interpretation that appears to be semantics only, but the tiny difference of how we name reality, may lead to confusion (and thinking that 26 dimensions truly exist).

Next to the above mentioned use, the dictionary explains the word 'dimension' also as: Magnitude, Size, Scope, Aspect. As such dimensions are very concrete, while a single dimension (as in three dimensional) is not a concrete aspect by itself (have you ever seen anything with just a width?). Langauge is important and incorrect use may deliver us a false image.

I believe a dimension can only exists when it already has two directions, like a flat piece of paper with length and width on which a dimensional painting can be painted. Of course the painted reality is not real, only the painting (frame, paint, canvas) is. If you follow the different use of the word dimension that I propose, reality would then contain two dimensions (which still contains those three directions). One dimension would show reality, but is actually fake. Two dimensions are reality. The directions are real too.

To see depth I only use two eyes. Two dimensions deliver the depth of the three directional world we live in. Duality is sufficient to deliver a complex world in which sometimes single dimensions get an important place as well which reflect reality but the reflections aren't real themselves (paintings, movies, computer games, but to take this in another direction: ideas can be one dimensional as well).

To see depth, one eye kind of is not enough. Of course, by moving your head, you can get a second position for a single eye, and the variation of positioning yourself does provide depth. Pigeons, for instance, bob their heads all the time to get more information of depth on what is in front of them - the small difference that exists between both their eyes is therefore significantly augmented by the bobbing of the head.

The second eye (or the second position) delivers depth. But we already see with just one eye, and ignore depth if need be.

The aspect of time may further clarify the duality as I present it here: In time there are only two dimensions: future and past. The present in our experience of time is like the depth in our directional world. The flow from one dimension to the other delivers us our present. Our present is all we have; the same can be said of depth, because as soon as we open two eyes (or have two positions) we undeniably see depth - cannot even avoid depth. Just like depth, the present is there. By closing one eye, the experience of depth diminishes; by closing our minds to the present we can bring our memories back alive or spend hours thinking on what we are going to do tomorrow. This way, we flatten our perception: an imaginative painting gets created.

By making it unnecessarily more complex than need be, we can get lost in multiple dimensions (10 or 26), but what we are doing in reality is closing one eye, loose depth, and sit in our heads thinking about how it all can be. We create a painting inside our heads that appears to accurately reflect reality. I would encourage you to investigate the many ideas on dimensions, but I would also encourage you to not loose track on reality (whether that is explained by two dimensions or three, or ten or twenty-six). Sometimes the ideas people present are nothing but paintings, and on paintings reality may appear correctly, but it isn't.

The ten dimensions, the eleventh or the 26, are all beautiful Eschers. Reality works fine with 3 dimensions (or like I think with only two) in which paintings have their place, but they are nothing but reflections on reality.

 

[Fredrik]

Nietsnie, I don't mean to be rude, but you seem to have completely misunderstood the meaning of the word "dimension". It makes no sense at all to say that we live in the first dimension. Also, the small dimensions wouldn't be located in the large ones. If the small dimensions exist, they are directions that are independent of the ones we're used to. They're called "small" because if you would travel a distance less than the diameter of an atom in one of those directions, you would have traveled around the universe and returned to your starting point. And while you're doing that, you're not moving at all in the first three dimensions. Is this making any sense to you?

By the way, just in case you didn't notice...I'm Fredrik, not Fredrick. You got replies from two guys with similar names.

 

[juju]

Hi,

It may be that the only spatial dimensions that have have any meaning are those that imply direction. The others may just be artifacts of the model and the mathematics that describe the model, They are not necessarily real.

juju

 

[Fredrik]

What others? A dimension is by definition a direction.

 

[4newton]

hello to all:

There is no reason or evidence that the number of dimensions is limited.

In math we are able to work with any number of dimensions and find nothing unusual when we go past three-dimensions.

In the spatial dimension we find that we can only go one direction at a time and the maximum rate of transition is the speed of light. There is however no preferential direction.

We recognize the spatial dimension as having three limited independent dimensions. Any object may be described using three dimensions X, Y, and Z. Any action however is limited to one dimension at a time and you are only able to have three actions that are independent. This can be demonstrated with moving electrons. Moving electrons produce a magnetic field and only electrons that are moving that are perpendicular to each other will be independent and have no influence on each other.

In the spatial dimension it is only possible to have three perpendicular directions. Thus we recognize three-dimensional space. We may therefore think of a spatial dimension with three sub-dimensions.

Let us consider the time dimension to be like the spatial dimension. If we then consider the time dimension in relation to the spatial dimension we find that the transition in the spatial dimension is not influenced by our transition in the time dimension.

The first thing we note is that the time dimension is perpendicular to the spatial dimension. This is stated in the relation of velocity. Time is always plotted perpendicular to distance. V = d/s. this relationship is always the same in all directions.

The transition in the time dimension does not sum vectors with transition in the spatial dimension. You may move in two directions at the same time in unlimited dimensions. The time dimension and the spatial dimension are unlimited dimensions. The time dimension also has sub-dimensions just as the spatial dimension.

 

[selfAdjoint]

hello to all:

There is no reason or evidence that the number of dimensions is limited.

In math we are able to work with any number of dimensions and find nothing unusual when we go past three-dimensions.

In the spatial dimension we find that we can only go one direction at a time and the maximum rate of transition is the speed of light. There is however no preferential direction.

We recognize the spatial dimension as having three limited independent dimensions. Any object may be described using three dimensions X, Y, and Z. Any action however is limited to one dimension at a time and you are only able to have three actions that are independent. This can be demonstrated with moving electrons. Moving electrons produce a magnetic field and only electrons that are moving that are perpendicular to each other will be independent and have no influence on each other.

In the spatial dimension it is only possible to have three perpendicular directions. Thus we recognize three-dimensional space. We may therefore think of a spatial dimension with three sub-dimensions.

Let us consider the time dimension to be like the spatial dimension. If we then consider the time dimension in relation to the spatial dimension we find that the transition in the spatial dimension is not influenced by our transition in the time dimension.

The first thing we note is that the time dimension is perpendicular to the spatial dimension. This is stated in the relation of velocity. Time is always plotted perpendicular to distance. V = d/s. this relationship is always the same in all directions.

The transition in the time dimension does not sum vectors with transition in the spatial dimension. You may move in two directions at the same time in unlimited dimensions. The time dimension and the spatial dimension are unlimited dimensions. The time dimension also has sub-dimensions just as the spatial dimension.

I just have a couple of comments on this generally correct post:
1) Although it is true that in math you can have any number of dimensions, even if you are careful an infinite number, physics is another story. The four dimensions of relativity or the eleven of M-theory are not arbitrary but dictated by the physics.
2) Your last paragraph is not true in relativity. You can't in fact move in space indpendently of time because you are restricted to a finite speed. So to get anywhere in space requires the passagfe of some time.

I think what this paragraph was intending to say was that the time dimension is orthogonal to all the space dimensions - at right angles - so that distances on the time dimension don't entail distances on the space dimensions, and vice versa. But putting this fact in terms of movement obscures the truth and suggests a falsehood.

 

[juju]

What others? A dimension is by definition a direction.

Not really. In mathematics any unit vector orthogonal to all the other unit vectors representing independent dimensions is considered itself to be an independent dimension. It need not represent a real direction in space/time.

juju

 

[4newton]

SelfAdjoint Thanks for your comments.

1) Although it is true that in math you can have any number of dimensions, even if you are careful an infinite number, physics is another story. The four dimensions of relativity or the eleven of M-theory are not arbitrary but dictated by the physics.

I agree however: The idea of an unlimited number of dimensions is not opposed by any observation. In fact the concept of additional dimensions is required to explain the observed forces, gravity and charge.

You may simplify the concept of force and unify gravity and charge if you consider that gravity and charge is the result of the same type of action. The forces are only seen as independent and different because the action is in different independent dimensions, or sub-dimensions of time.

Action in any dimension is limited to transition, change of position. The action that produces the forces must be limited and oscillatory because the sources of the forces are able to be stationary in the spatial dimension. If this action is circular it would than agree with the intrinsic spin. Intrinsic spin or force action when viewed on edge or one dimension removed would result in the math of string theory.

In my opinion this is the extent of the reality of string theory and M-theory

The idea of additional dimensions is not in conflict with relativity. This is a simple extension of relativity. I can find nowhere that relativity precludes more then four-dimensions.

2) Your last paragraph is not true in relativity. You can't in fact move in space independently of time because you are restricted to a finite speed. So to get anywhere in space requires the passage of some time.

Our transition in the time dimension is limited by the same transition limit of the spatial dimension, the speed of light.

Our transition in the time dimension is at a rate equal to the speed of light. Note that this is not a velocity that is in reference to itself. This transition is our time base. A transition in the spatial dimension is not only limited by the natural limit of transition, the speed of light, but spatial transitions also run out of time reference at that velocity. This is why we see clocks approach zero as we approach the speed of light.

In dealing with space-time we convert the time dimension into distance when we multiply time by the speed of light. The success of this conversion tells us that our transition in the time dimension is the same as any transition in any dimension. By multiplying by ( C ) it also tells us that our transition in the time dimension is equal to the speed of light.

We state our position in space-time by:

X,Y,Z,TC

And our change of position by:

X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 +T^2*C^2

The passage of time is not a requirement of motion in space. Time passes at the same rate whether we are in motion or not. Only physical activity affected by spatial transition is affected, clocks, mass, length, etc. not time itself.

Time is our distance outward from the Big Bang. Our transition in any spatial direction does not change this distance.

I think what this paragraph was intending to say was that the time dimension is orthogonal to all the space dimensions - at right angles - so that distances on the time dimension don't entail distances on the space dimensions, and vice versa. But putting this fact in terms of movement obscures the truth and suggests a falsehood.

I would suggest that instead of obscuring the truth and suggesting a falsehood the concepts opens the door to truth. If these concepts are false all it takes is one observation to prove them wrong. I of course post here to ask for criticism. I am only looking for the truth as I think we all are.

 

[selfAdjoint]

We state our position in space-time by:

X,Y,Z,TC

And our change of position by:

X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 +T^2*C^2

I think you'll find the position four-vector is X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - C^2*T^2 in your notation. Or you can have the space terms negative and the time term positive, but they have to be of opposite sign. C is both a genuine velocity (of light) and a coefficient that puts space and time into the same units.

 

[4newton]

SelfAdjoint:

I think you'll find the position four-vector is X^2 + Y^2 + Z^2 - C^2*T^2 in your notation. Or you can have the space terms negative and the time term positive, but they have to be of opposite sign. C is both a genuine velocity (of light) and a coefficient that puts space and time into the same units.

You are right, the normal expression is a negative term. The term is negative when space-time is viewed from within the moving frame. If your view is outside the moving frame then you have all positive terms with all spatial objects in constant transition in the time dimension.

 

[selfAdjoint]

This is not so. Minkowsi spacetime is a pseudo manifold with a signature; the sign difference is characteristic of it whether you are within it or looking at it from outside. Its metric is not positive definite, meaning there exist null distances between points that are not identical. This is something you can't just wipe out with a viewpoint.

I am afraid your ideas are verging on private theory, and that they betray a lack of understanding of the physics and geometry needed to discuss these matters. You can't make up this stuff to suit yourself, there is a bunch of already known facts - mathematical and physical, that come into play.

 

[4newton]

SelfAdjoint:
I give you a definition and the mechanism of time that is based on observation and math.

I show you the relationship of gravity and charge that has no conflict with any current observation.

Nowhere else has anyone provided a reasonable theory for either time or force unification and then you insult me. True these ideas are simple. Would it help if I tried to make them more complicated.

Only a more general view of dimensions is required for understanding. This change of view is the same as trying to accept that the Earth was not flat or that the Earth was going around the sun and not the sun going around the earth. It is now time to again expand our view point.

I am however always ready to learn. If you could tell me how you view the physical significance of the negative term in space-time I would appreciate it.

I hope this helps.

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia.
The space-time intervals on a manifold define a pseudo-metric called the Lorentz metric. This metric is very similar to distance in Euclidean space. However, note that whereas distances are always positive, intervals may be positive, zero, or negative.

If [ ct ] produces a result of distance then as stated “distances are always positive”. My understanding is that intervals include SR and only apply when SR has an effect on observation.

As you stated before math is one thing and physics is another story. I think you are saying that math does not always represent reality. I still agree with you.

 

[selfAdjoint]

SR always "has an effect on observation". It is the local version of the world we live in, and even relative speeds as slow as one inch per hour have relativistic adjustments, but of course the adjustments are very small.

You say your theory is based on observation and math. But controlled observation (experiment) always supports SR. The euclidean metric just doesn't work. You should study SR, particularly the notion of worldline, proper time, relativity of simultaneity, and how the Lorentz transformations work - that is, the first six weeks or so of a semester course in SR.

 

[Fredrick]

A different direction

It is the framework that is all important, not the contents. Imagine you are standing on a non-spinning planet without any features, and you walk into a direction. Do you know in which direction you just walked? There is no North, no South, East or West on this non-spinning planet. With each step you take no further clarity is achieved. We can use the stars to create a framework, we can use the spin of a planet as the framework, but the two-directional way on the flat (curved) surface itself delivers no distinct information.

Now jump up a foot or two (or half a meter). Though gravity will prevent you from going into this direction forever, you just went into a whole new direction. This direction is different in that it does not care about spin. It exists despite the spin. It also depends, however, on its framework: the gravitational planet.

The direction of a jumping person at the equator can be the exact same direction as that of a person walking one or two feet/meters on the North or South pole. The direction is identical, while one occurred despite the spin, and one occurred thanks to the spin. Nobody will have any problems understanding what I just said because I used a clear framework we are all familiar with. But without the framework, we could not have made the distinction of these two people's direction and could have argued for close to forever about the nature (spin or gravity) of the direction. If we talk about directions without the frameworks, it gets quite confusing because data is missing. To mention that there are only three directions — and that's it — is not the whole truth. The truth can never be known about a direction unless we mention the framework at the same time.

And yes, I do prefer real frameworks.

 

[juju]

Hi,

To equate the minkowski metric to a euclidian form, the time dimension must be on an imaginary axis orthogonal to the spatial axes. Then the time coordinate is (ict), which when squared gives you the minus sign.

juju

 

[4newton]

Hello to All:
Let me with my limited education try and describe the reality of the negative term in space-time.

If you are on a moving train and you are only able to see the things that you have passed and nothing can move faster than you then all things and actions are described with negative distance from your point of view. If you now move outside and above the train you will now note that the train is always moving with a positive transition as is everything else.

This is exactly what is taking place in space-time.

As a part of space-time and moving at the maximum rate for all things you are only able to view the past. With this view all actions have a negative dimension from your point of view.

As above if you are able to take a viewpoint outside of the time frame you see the universe making a positive transition in the time dimension outward from the Big Bang at a rate equal to the speed of light.

Your position in space-time is in reality never negative. Your position and all things in the universe have a positive dimension from the Big Bang. Transition from the Big Bang is the same as transition in the time dimension.

This does not conflict with SR or any space-time view. When you are a part of the time frame only the SR, Lorentz transformations, or Minkowsi space-time present a view of what is taking place. You must be able to free yourself from this limited thought if you wish to go beyond the place that everyone is stuck in.

 

[Nietsnie]

In the first week, no replies, i check back a few days later and BAM. And that's only on the part dealing with dimensions. My understanding of dimensions, just became very much clearer.

 

[juju]

Hi,

Of course the time coordinate is always positive. It is only when combined with the space coordinates in a definition of space/time that a negative appears and this only when the time coordinate is squared. Thus, it must be thought of as being on the imaginary axis with a positive value.

juju

 

[RingoKid]

pardon my ignorance Nietsnie...

...but are you imagining bubbles inside of bubbles as ripples in a spherical pond ?

 

[Grace]

Are religion and faith unrelated?

 

[juju]

Are religion and faith unrelated?

Faith in religion is usually faith in something unseen and unknown.

Faith in science is usually faith in something at least patially seen and partially known.

Faith is in general based on both observables and non-observables. It arises from belief, which is totally subjective and subject to change.

juju

 

[Xare]

Macro Dimensions

In our everyday life we are most aware of "our" three macro dimensions. An everyday citizen has to think about time as a dimension but most science savy people would say its so. As a dimension only has to define a direction, and its certain that time has just that...

Now when I think about the extra dimensions that string / M theory demands I like to think about the 3 other macro Dimensions like this... Imagine a filled water baloon. The water emulates "our" 3 macro dimensions and the rubber that surrounds it is a 3 dimensional Brane. It streatches out around the water in 2 directions / dimensions as a flat surface, then the rubber's width is another dimension, making up 3. Its very thin but it still is a dimension. So our universe where our 3 macro's exist is surrounded by a 3 dimensional membrane / Brane. A macro brane, guess its better then a micro brane ;p (joke) Then there are also the 3 small curled up dimensions and these for me are harder to explain but iam starting to accept them ;p This is a total of Ten dimensions.

It wouldn't surprise me at all if there are more ;p

 

[DaVinci]

Hello to All:
Let me with my limited education try and describe the reality of the negative term in space-time.

If you are on a moving train and you are only able to see the things that you have passed and nothing can move faster than you then all things and actions are described with negative distance from your point of view. If you now move outside and above the train you will now note that the train is always moving with a positive transition as is everything else.

Would this not then say that anything that is negative from your point of view is beyond your horizon? As if you are moving and nothing can move faster, then you will never see any of these object. And the things you pass will then quickly enter your horizon.

Maybe I am just confusing everything since I just read about an accelerated reference point just outside of the horizon of a black hole (Book: Three Roads to Quantum Gravity - Lee Smolin).

 

[Rybo]

It is the framework that is all important, not the contents. Imagine you are standing on a non-spinning planet without any features, and you walk into a direction. This direction is different in that it does not care about spin. It exists despite the spin. It also depends, however, on its framework: the gravitational planet.
If we talk about directions without the frameworks, it gets quite confusing because data is missing. To mention that there are only three directions — and that's it — is not the whole truth. The truth can never be known about a direction unless we mention the framework at the same time.
And yes, I do prefer real frameworks.

1) I think all planetoidal celestial objects are spinning relaitve to at least one other celestial object.

2) spin -- and aspect of phyiscs --is relevant to all other aspects of phyiscs.

3) any specified framework-- other than the finite Universe as a whole --has physical relationships to other framworks

4) X Y and Z are and reprsent the most generalized "angular relationships" of space

5) in out and around are and reparsent the most generalized "directions" within a specified space.

Rybo

 

[Fredrick]

What is the center dimension?

How about this image?

In the New York Times Science section of today (3-29-05) I read about the collision of gold nuclei in the Brookhaven National Laboratory. Here is a picture of the result:
http://www.physicscentral.com/pictures/images/pictures-00-4s.jpg
and the abstract can be read at http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0501068

This is powerful imagery that seems to support what I am saying (in other threads) about an empty center at the emergence of the universe. Dr. Horatiu Nastase describes in the NY Times article that "(t)he collision of gold nuclei produce matter as it existed shortly after the Big Bang."

How would you describe the center of this image in the words of dimensions? Clearly it is part and parcel of our universe - it exist in time/space.

 

[selfAdjoint]

Well "matter" as such is not thought to have existed when the universe first emerged. Protons and neutrons did not form until afterward. So however striking the image, I think Dr. Nastase's comment was off base.

 

[Fredrick]

Part, but also parcel

Well "matter" as such is not thought to have existed when the universe first emerged. Protons and neutrons did not form until afterward. So however striking the image, I think Dr. Nastase's comment was off base.

If the image is a finished image of emergence (which can be debated of course) then the center in which nothing takes place is part and parcel of that dimensional universe.

 

[selfAdjoint]

If the image is a finished image of emergence (which can be debated of course) then the center in which nothing takes place is part and parcel of that dimensional universe.

I just can't make any sense out of this at all. Sorry.

 

[Fredrick]

No problem

Hi SelfAdjoint,

No problem. As soon as someone wants to insert nothing within the whole picture it gets confusing; but it gets confusing only depending on your own point of view.

Let's put nothing on the timeline of materialization. According to me that timeline starts out with nothing happening for a certain amount of time before anything becomes visible/gets materialized.

This is different from the timeline where the beginning starts out with the materialization itself.

The difference between both timelines is that one claims nothing is intrinsic to materialization, while the other does not give any specific attention to nothing.

The first is a outward moving materializing sphere that includes a center where visually nothing is happening, while the second shows visual materialization right from the center outward. These two pictures are different, and the difference is only based on the significance - or not - of nothing.

I do not mind if you want to ignore nothing, because after all it isn't much. But if someone wants to describe everything, nothing needs to be included. I often use ordinary examples, like an empty wallet that can be quite significant. In some cases an empty wallet can easily be ignored as important when you can walk up to the ATM and get more money. Yet if your wallet is all that you own then an empty wallet is significant. So in the personal whole picture nothing can be ignored, but in the total picture of all wallets in the world nothing must be mentioned as well.

 

[juju]

Hi,

I once read a conversation between Hawking and Penrose where the big bang was described as the instant of transition from nothingness to somethingness.

juju

 

[Fredrick]

everythingness

Hi Juju,

That is the prevalent theory of the moment. I don't see it that way — or at least I would not describe it in those words. I think the action went from not-materialized to materialized, where both are the same in energy and mass, but where the difference between both is the sudden incorporation of the phenomenon of nothing.

To say this differently, before the BB there was singularity, after the BB there is no singularity on the materialized side of our universe. The working of nothing is that it is the separator between matter. This theory states therefore that a unified theory is impossible — no matter how close we may get to seeing it that way — because the phenomenon of nothing creates at the minimum two ultimate parts that are not unifiable.

As far as the word nothingness is concerned: I have never used it (except of course like here to denounce it).

 

[Fredrick]

Momentary nothing

I read it again in the New York Times science section this last week, that during the collision at BNL of two gold nuclei a momentary nothing - a fraction of a second in which nothing occurred - was detected before materialization of the new plasma became visible. I find this highly telling.

 

[jdlech]

Define the phrase "nothing occurred" within the context of the experiment. Do you mean that the detectors saw nothing? Just because the detectors see nothing, does not mean that nothing was there.

And I suppose it's possible that a moment of relative quantom vacuum was created in the center of the collision. The collision, after all, would have something in common with a conventional explosion. A sudden ouburst of energy pushing matter away from the center. A moment of equilibrium between the relatively negative pressure at the center exactly matching the pressure of the outward motion. Then, of course it would quickly be filled with a miniature implosion. Perhaps this is so on the quantom scale as well.

But I would suspect a clearly defined and well formed picture such as that. Even though it comes from a well known (and therefore assumably competent and ethical) team of scientists, does not mean that it is a direct image. It may be a construct of the data, and therefore subject to someone's interpretation of that data.

Indeed, the abstract indicates they suspect it is really a tiny singularity. Singularities are far from nothing.

 

[Fredrick]

Theories

Define the phrase "nothing occurred" within the context of the experiment. -- Indeed, the abstract indicates they suspect it is really a tiny singularity. Singularities are far from nothing.

Apologies for my word use. For a fraction of time, nothing appeared to have happened. In the article it is argued that the fireball observed at RHIC is (the analog of) a dual black hole. An animation of it can be seen at: http://www.bnl.gov/bnlweb/pubaf/pr/1999/animation.html

I argue that the only state of singularity is the non-materialization that existed before our universe came into existence. While the gold ion collision could have pushed matter towards this state, it could not be captured because I argue that the prior state does not exist anymore. The current black hole theory that states that black holes exist at the centers of galaxies have so far been based on theory-based-upon-theories and not too much direct evidence.

The gold-ion collision only created a momentary nothing (imitation of singularity if you wish but since I argue that this state can never be captured no matter the total amount of force, this state can not be described by me other than nothing), and subsequently the delivery of the explosion as you describe so well.