Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions

  • Thread starter Nietsnie
  • Start date
  • #26
106
0
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.
 
  • #27
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
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.
 
  • #28
106
0
Part, but also parcel

selfAdjoint said:
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.
 
  • #29
selfAdjoint
Staff Emeritus
Gold Member
Dearly Missed
6,786
7
Fredrick said:
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.
 
  • #30
106
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #31
292
0
Hi,

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

juju
 
  • #32
106
0
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).
 
  • #33
106
0
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.
 
  • #34
26
0
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.
 
Last edited:
  • #35
106
0
Theories

jdlech said:
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.
 
  • #36
26
0
Singularities in the classical (macroscopic) sense are well established and a couple has even been found (or so we think). However, their presence in the quantom sense are not so well investigated. I still tend towards believing their presence, but until furter evidence comes in, I'll remain open to your idea.
Actually, the intuitively logical nature of your idea is actually a mark against it. Too much in quantom mechanics behave in a uniquely counterintuitive way.
 
  • #37
106
0
Agree (but in quantum leap that means disagreement)

jdlech said:
Singularities in the classical (macroscopic) sense are well established and a couple has even been found (or so we think). However, their presence in the quantom sense are not so well investigated. I still tend towards believing their presence, but until furter evidence comes in, I'll remain open to your idea.
Actually, the intuitively logical nature of your idea is actually a mark against it. Too much in quantom mechanics behave in a uniquely counterintuitive way.
Well established as in well believed. I agree. While there is not much doubt, I still doubt (or am confident it is not so). The black holes - as suggested to exist at the center of galaxies and being places of singularities - are according to me theoretical gravitational errors. I see the calculations as ghost calculations that mention how strong the gravitational entity is that exists at the center of a hurricane. Everybody knows there is no entity in the eye of the storm, but if one calculated that entity based on the storm's strength and size then a super-entity exists but one that cannot be seen with the naked eye. [By the way, I do believe something exists at the middle of a galaxy, but not a gravitational superpower.]

I believe the gravitational model for galaxies is basically different from the gravitational models for solar systems in that the latter have a center of gravity in the middle, while the galaxies only consist of many of those centers, it does not have a gravitational center correlating to the galaxy as a whole itself. In other words, the center of gravity in a galaxy is according to me spread out, based on cohesion, and if a spot needs to be mentioned I would go for 1/3rd out from the center, 2/3rds in from the rim.

Where solar systems started to exist out of segments and together form the galaxy, the galaxy itself was too big to become based on such a model. A quick comparison would be a dictatorship (solar system) and a full representation democracy (galaxy), where the former has all the star attraction, but the latter has multiple parties vying for coalitions, not full control (so I don't mean the restricted democracy as it, for instance, exists in the United States with its two party system). Parties themselves are still formed on their own merits and rules, like dictatorships, but they all agreed or were forced by the people to function on a larger democratic platform. Sure, the constitution would be a very important document to help understand democracy and it is something desperately needed to have democracy run smoothly, but the document is not one of the players, where in dictatorships the dictator is the constitution.

If the center of a galaxy truly had a strong gravitational center in the middle I would have expected the galaxies to be more volatile, shaped much rounder, not like the rather flat orderly entities as we see in our universe.
 

Related Threads on Parallel Universe, 10 dimensions

Replies
8
Views
10K
  • Last Post
Replies
11
Views
8K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
15
Views
4K
Replies
2
Views
722
Replies
12
Views
9K
Replies
2
Views
781
Top