Can Unified Physical Theories Predict Interdimensional Travel in a Multiverse?

[Rorkster2]

I'm wondering if their are any unified physical theories that predict our universe to be a part of a multiverse in our own dimension? I'm looking for anything along the lines of stating that our universe is a star in a 'galaxy' of other universes that we can theoretically travel to if we could exceed the speed of light.

 

[alexg]

No. All ideas about a multiverse are strictly hypothetical.

 

[Rorkster2]

No. All ideas about a multiverse are strictly hypothetical.

Theories are in themsleves hypothetical. I'm quite aware that we only observe one universe, your missing my question.

 

[alexg]

Theories are in themsleves hypothetical. I'm quite aware that we only observe one universe, your missing my question.

No, theories, as the word is used in science are not hypothesis. Theories are hypothesis which have been verified by observation and experiment.

And I answered your question.

 

[Rorkster2]

Darwins Theory of evolution was published in the 1800's, and he did not experiment before publishing his paper. How could he of? A theory is a set of ideas intended to explain something. Some theories have experiments that helped form them, not all. And if no was your answere then fine, but you said no...followed by a redundant statement that is of no help to my question which makes me believe your answer was directed to weather or not a multiverse is scientific fact, not about if their are theories about my question

 

[ZapperZ]

Darwins Theory of evolution was published in the 1800's, and he did not experiment before publishing his paper.

This is patently false and shows that you've never read his book. The first 9 chapters of that book has nothing on a theory of evolution. Instead, it is all about his observations, i.e. DATA, the same as doing an experiment.

A theory is a set of ideas intended to explain something. Some theories have experiments that helped form them, not all. And if no was your answere then fine, but you said no...followed by a redundant statement that is of no help to my question which makes me believe your answer was directed to weather or not a multiverse is scientific fact, not about if their are theories about my question

Theories in physics have to be stronger than hypothesis. It must either be derived at logically from First Principles, or is a phenomenological model based on existing empirical result.

I will once again urge attention to our Rules that everyone had agreed to, especially our policy on speculative posts.

Zz.

 

[Rorkster2]

This is patently false and shows that you've never read his book. The first 9 chapters of that book has nothing on a theory of evolution. Instead, it is all about his observations, i.e. DATA, the same as doing an experiment.



Theories in physics have to be stronger than hypothesis. It must either be derived at logically from First Principles, or is a phenomenological model based on existing empirical result.

I will once again urge attention to our Rules that everyone had agreed to, especially our policy on speculative posts.

Zz.

Stop splitting hairs with me please. I am asking a specific question and this has nothing to do with it. I'm asking for a theory with a specific criteria, not a lesson on reading your forum rules. If you think that somehow I have crossed a line in asking about a multiverse in the category 'Beyond the standard model' then maybe it is you who needs to go back and read your policy.

 

[ZapperZ]

Stop splitting hairs with me please. I am asking a specific question and this has nothing to do with it.

Then you shouldn't have brought up Darwin's theory to shore up your argument, especially when it was based on a faulty understanding.

I'm asking for a theory with a specific criteria, not a lesson on reading your forum rules. If you think that somehow I have crossed a line in asking about a multiverse in the category 'Beyond the standard model' then maybe it is you who needs to go back and read your policy.

Which part of our policy are you claiming that I do not understand?

Note that if you have crossed that line, this thread would have been gone already! I only wanted to remind you, and everyone who intends to participate in this thread that the discussion HAS to stay within the Rules of this forum. Previous threads on similar topics have had tragic ending.

Zz.

 

[bdavlin]

It would seem that this site could use some speculative posts. Zappers should remember that the understanding of physics was completely changed via the discoveries of the early 20th century. It is speculative thinking that paves the way of discovery in this field.

 

[yoda jedi]

models that predict our universe to be a part of a multiverse in our own dimension?

Andrei Linde

eternal inflation.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Eternal86.pdf
Physics Letters B 175 (4): 395–400.

------

Anthony Aguirre

null boundary proposal
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0301042v2.pdf

 

[ZapperZ]

It would seem that this site could use some speculative posts. Zappers should remember that the understanding of physics was completely changed via the discoveries of the early 20th century. It is speculative thinking that paves the way of discovery in this field.

Speculative work done by physicists in journals is completely different than the speculative posts done on public forum. Or are you not able to distinguish between the two?

Please scour through the Feedback forum just so you know that everything you've said here, I've tackled several times before. So tell me something I don't know.

Zz.

 

[marc2012]

Andrei Linde

eternal inflation.
http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/Eternal86.pdf
Physics Letters B 175 (4): 395–400.

------

Anthony Aguirre

null boundary proposal
http://arxiv.org/pdf/gr-qc/0301042v2.pdf

Thank you.