Existence of Different Worlds In Different Dimensions

[HIGHLYTOXIC]

How many times you have read fiction strories which talks of two different worlds in different dimensions in the universe?
But wait a minute, they arent different in all sense but in the time dimension. Everything is the same, but time.

I have read hundreds of such stories and even a handful of science programs which talks of the same topic that "there may be another Earth in this universe which is same in all aspects but the time there either lags behind of ours or they are in the future."

Can this be possible or how it is actually explained?

 

[mathman]

Possible - yes. Likely - no, except in the minds of science fiction writers.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Many worlds interpretation vrs. many times interpretation

I believe you will find an interesting google search of "Many worlds interpretation" .

'Many worlds' seems to me to rely on the idea of an infinite universe, which is so large that every possible combination must occur, must even occur again and again in every possible variation.
Your exact double and triple exist in multitudes in an infinite universe. Probability demands it. That is one of the embarrassing infinities that pop up all over in string theory. Interestingly enough, it seems that string theory was originally developed to deal with one such infinity...that of infinite energies.

So there would be a universe just behind ours and another just ahead of ours, in an infinite universe. If you find this an awful lot of stuff to assume, you are not alone. In the main stream, physicists seem to me to shelve the many worlds idea alongside dark matter, wormholes, and events within the black hole or before the big bang. Anyway there is no evidence to accept or refute, so is it physics?

The Many Times Interpretation, MTI, developed on the "other board" last spring and summer, has to do with a spatially limited (finite) universe, in which the "extra" dimensions are expressed in time, rather than being tiny curled up spaces. The other times depart in a 4d vector space to regions beyond our light cone, but in the instant before they depart they leave us a legacy in gravitational influence.

MTI does not refute the findings of Many Worlds, but suggests a view in which directions in time are paired to directions in space, and the infinities which seem so unlikely in our universe (infinite local energy, ftl, EPR paradox) are seen to be dislocated from our observables in the time exponent. You do not have to imagine that there are an infinite number of Earths, somewhere, but only that there are a fairly managable number of times that pass through any Earth, a branching structure that exists in timespaces beyond our reach. MTI does not refute the findings of relativity or of the standard model, as far as I know, although I suppose someone may find conflicts of which I am not currently aware. Newtonian results are shown to be a generalization of fundamental theory.

MTI does give a mechanism to explore the meanings of measured dimensions in particle masses from a quantum perspective. Rather than examine the values, MTI suggests an upward evolution approach, and is exploratory in topics of four dimensional and higher geometries.

Higher geometries are usually shunned by physics people, because what is the sense of a theory that you can neither falsify nor verify? But I believe there is a way to represent higher dimensional events in a simple three-dimensional model. Consider, a number of two dimensional plans, as an architechtural or mechanical drawing, can suffice to show all the parts of a three dimensional structure, machine, or object. Why not use a number of three dimensional models to represent events in a four or higher dimensional system?

I will post this on the theory development board, if I can figure out how to do that. Otherwise, Chroot, how about a hand off?

Thanks,

Richard T. Harbaugh
index higher geometries, MTI, Many Times Interpretation

 

[Netme]

I see time as something viewed differently by different forms of life. For example the way we see our solor system expand or our planet form is just our view of time. Think if you were to record the complete formation of our planet and play it in fast faward where you could see the entire process in a matter of minutes. This view in fast faward would be another time where our people are viewed much like atoms are to us. So atoms too have their own time. And we may be viewed as a universe of sorts to atoms that make up our body. I believe there is a set view of time that all forms are allowed to function in. So the way we view our own kind is the way atoms may view their own kind the only difference being in the rate we may view other kinds. Because of these different time views which to our viewpoint seems to be decreasing in speed with the formation of our universe, we are unable to see the geometrical formations that the universe is going through. Reasons as to why we see the devolpment of our universe at a slower pace is because our minds were not meant to process information quick enough or slow engouh to see the geometrical formations of other time zones. Our existence here in this time is merely to provide the mechanics that will allow for the continuation of future formation just like atoms have done for us. So you see,spacial time may actually be a set "clock" which can be measured by how any form views their own kind and the different dimensions of time being dependant on which time view one functions in. Pertaining to the string theory i can see many dimensions here that would elude the ridiculous idea of physical paralleled ones.

 

[rtharbaugh1]

Why orthagonal basis sets?

Yes I agree that parallel is a poorly chosen word, but it has had its day in the press and is understood in a handwaving sort of way. They are not parallel, even if there be such a thing as parallel (just try to prove it without taking the fifth of Euclid)

Anyway i have been spending my morning reading Lethe's thread, intro to differential forms, and wondering about a non-orthagonal basis set tangent to Kepler spheres in a three dimensional model of a higher dimensional system. Why do we prefer to stick to the orthagonal basis sets? Is it because it makes it easier to do Lorenz transforms (dislocations) in our "normal" 3 space 1 time conceptual manifold?

Just riffing to some good blue piano jazz on local radio. Any sparks?

Thanks,

Richard