Is Travel to Parallel Universes Just a Myth or a Real Possibility?

earamsey
Messages
39
Reaction score
1
I was watching a show called "http://www.history.com/shows.do?action=detail&episodeId=373152" " on History Channel. It is claimed that someday it may be possible to travel to parallel universes. Does this not violate law of conservation of energy, mass and information? Would this action essentially be subtracting mass, destroying, from this universe and, adding, creating mass, in another? Also, once information left this universe, there would be no way to reconstruct it -- Information is Lost. I know how hard "Mr. Leonard Susskind Ph.D." argued against such phenomena with "Mr. Stephen Hawking Ph.D." on this.

Is it a case of overly simplifying the subjecvt to the point that it doesn't make any sense; as per usual on History, Discovery and Discovery Science Channels? Or am I in error and there is no conservation issue related to traveling to parallel universes (and say the traveller died there and did not return?)

Would the conversation be shared between the universes? Should Conversation be extended to parallel universes?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Physics news on Phys.org
earamsey said:
Is it a case of overly simplifying to point that it doesn't make any sense; as per usual on History, Discovery and Discovery Science Channels?
It's more a case of wild speculation.

The laws of conservation really only apply to the universe as we understand it. Speculate beyond that and you'll be writing new rules as you go.
 
earamsey said:
It is claimed that someday it may be possible to travel to parallel universes. Does this not violate law of conservation of energy, mass and information?
I like the FAQ http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html" . It does a good job of treating a very complicated subject at a fairly basic level.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
DaveC426913 said:
It's more a case of wild speculation.

The laws of conservation really only apply to the universe as we understand it. Speculate beyond that and you'll be writing new rules as you go.
So, are you saying that travel to Parallel Universes may be highly unlikely because they violate conservation laws? I would feel better if this is the case else they appear to rewriting the rules.

Should I complain about this show because i feel it is presenting incredulous information. There was no attempt to explain complications of conversavation laws. I once thought the scientists in this series were high knowledgeable but now I don't know. Or perhaps they feel they can get away with fairy tales because they feel the general public is dumb. I wish a bunch of ppl would write them about this I like to watch science documentaries but this was more sci fi. I truly loved "The Elegant Universe" series on nova they explained the gotchas and talked to viewers as if they had at least a moist green pea for a brain. :(
 
Last edited:
earamsey said:
So, are you saying that travel to Parallel Universes may be highly unlikely because they violate conservation laws?
No, I'm saying that travel to Parallel Universes may be highly unlikely because they don't currently exist; they are purely hypothetical - a matter of complete speculation.

earamsey said:
I would feel better if this is the case else they appear to rewriting the rules. Should I complain about this show because i feel it is spreading information as without regards to basics and renders the entire episode and perhaps even the physicists in it incredulous :(
That's pop TV for ya. Welcome to the 21st century. I weep for the future.

P.S. you mean 'incredible'. 'Incredulous' is a human reaction.
 
I asked a question here, probably over 15 years ago on entanglement and I appreciated the thoughtful answers I received back then. The intervening years haven't made me any more knowledgeable in physics, so forgive my naïveté ! If a have a piece of paper in an area of high gravity, lets say near a black hole, and I draw a triangle on this paper and 'measure' the angles of the triangle, will they add to 180 degrees? How about if I'm looking at this paper outside of the (reasonable)...
From $$0 = \delta(g^{\alpha\mu}g_{\mu\nu}) = g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} + g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu}$$ we have $$g^{\alpha\mu} \delta g_{\mu\nu} = -g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \,\, . $$ Multiply both sides by ##g_{\alpha\beta}## to get $$\delta g_{\beta\nu} = -g_{\alpha\beta} g_{\mu\nu} \delta g^{\alpha\mu} \qquad(*)$$ (This is Dirac's eq. (26.9) in "GTR".) On the other hand, the variation ##\delta g^{\alpha\mu} = \bar{g}^{\alpha\mu} - g^{\alpha\mu}## should be a tensor...

Similar threads

Back
Top