Home « Forum « Author Hangout

Forum: Author Hangout

Possible alternate universes

aubie56

Current physics theory postulates four possible forms of alternate universes. This is my interpretation of the theories:

Type 1

An infinite number of sub-universes exist inside one giant multiverse (multiple universe). The only reason we have not seen the others is because they are so far away that the light has not had time to reach us, yet. All of the universes duplicate each other, and what happens in one universe happens in all of the universes of the multiverse.

Type 2

An infinite number of sub-universes exist within a giant multiverse, called the block, and these sub-universes are like soap bubbles floating at random through the air. There is no similarity among the sub-universes. All possible combinations of things exist in one sub-universe or another. Humans exist in one of the sub-universes, but might not exist in any of the others, or some sub-universes might contain humans and others might not. A new universe is created every time two of the sub-universe "soap bubbles" touch each other, but the old sub-universes are not destroyed in the process. Thus, the number of sub-universes continues to grow, but the block holding the sub-universes is infinite in size, so it will never be filled.

Type 3

An infinite number of sub-universes exist within a giant multiverse, called the block, and these sub-universes are like parallel planes. They never interact in the physical sense. A new universe is created every time there is a choice offered. The old sub-universe continues to exist with one phase of the choice and a new sub-universe is created to accommodate the other possibility. As an example, suppose someone drops a coin onto a flat surface from a sufficient distance so that the coin lands on edge. In one sub-universe, the coin comes to rest on edge and never falls over. Two other sub-universes are created, one in which the coin falls heads up, and another in which the coin falls tails up. This is going on all of the time, so every time you decide whether or not to eat that next cookie, a new sub-universe is created. The possibilities here are mind boggling.

Type 4

The type 4 universe is harder to describe. There is an infinite number of sub-universes in the block, all existing at the same time and occupying almost the same space. They are separated by one or more of the seven dimensions that we cannot detect. The Type 4 multiverse has 11 dimensions: the X, Y, and Z, plus time directions that we perceive, and seven more which describe the way the sub-universes can exist all at the same time. There is a series of experiments going on trying to detect one of these other dimensions, concentrating on a particle called the graviton, the smallest unit of gravity.

The above is not fiction! It is the simplest explanation for the mathematical equations which describe space and time. One day, humans may know which of the four is the correct form of the solution. Of course, there may be a fifth form which nobody has thought of, yet.

I have posted this at the suggestion of "Jake," a reader of my stories. If any author wants to use any of it, please do so. All I ask is that you drop me a note so that I can see how it came out.

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@aubie56

It depends, are you discussing a 'universe' as starting from this moment in a person's life and splitting into multiple directions, or in physics terms.

If it's physics based, then a more realistic form is the 'black hole' model, where each time a black hole forms, the center creates an entirely new universe, and populates it with all the matter it sucks into it. Those two universes are entirely unrelated, as nothing (besides energy) is transferred between the universes.

I suspect what you're discussing is a 'string theory' model, where string theory defines how many potential dimensions, or universes, can exist at once. However, that model isn't supported by other physics based models of the universe.

aubie56
Updated:

CW-I don't intend to get into an argument over the "rightness" or "trueness" of these descriptions. Yes, you are correct in that these paragraphs are based on string theory, the math of which I have not grasped nor the desire to do so. On the other hand, these are the possibilities presented by the experts on string theory as best I could grasp them.

If you dispute string theory, of course, they are meaningless, but where would you come up with the information to be able to do that?

By the way, I never heard of your black hole concept. Furthermore, what other physics are you referring to that disputes the validity of string theory? Don't hand me Einstein, because he refused to consider anything that disputed his results. He refused to acknowledge any validity to quantum physics.

In any case, these universes can be used to write some very powerful science fiction stories, and you cannot argue with their use in that regard.

Dominion's Son

@aubie56

Furthermore, what other physics are you referring to that disputes the validity of string theory?


Are there any actual experimental results that support string theory?

Replies:   Grant
Grant
Updated:

@Dominion's Son


Are there any actual experimental results that support string theory?


Apparently it's been successful at predicting the behaviour of atoms & subatomic particles.

The problem has & continues to be to find a unifying theory that ties Einstienian General Relativity and Quantum theory together.

General Relativity itself is just a theory, but one that has the backing of predictions made based on it, and that have been confirmed through various experiments, and have been repeatedly confirmed- not just one offs.

String Theory (as it presently stands) has also had success, but with a very limited number of verifiable predictions; many others haven't been verified (many can't be verified at our present level of scientific knowledge).

As it is there are several different variants of string theory, and each has it's strengths and weaknesses.

Just as past theories that were proven empirically at the time came and then went as other phenomena that they couldn't explain were discovered, and new theories that explained the newly discovered phenomena as well as existing studies, there's a good chance string theory as it presently stands could change drastically or even be replaced by something else- and that something else would not only replace string theory but General Relativity as well as it would describe things at both the large & quantum levels.

IMHO.

http://whystringtheory.com/prospects/experiments/

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/science-nature/string-theory-about-unravel-180953637/

Crumbly Writer

@aubie56

If you dispute string theory, of course, they are meaningless, but where would you come up with the information to be able to do that?

Sorry, Aubie, I didn't mean to cast aspersions on what you were doing, I was just pointing out that physicists argue about which model fits reality the best, thus string theory isn't universally accepted. It's seen as answering many questions, while leaving others unanswered (is it a wave, a particle or a string?), so it's seen more as a 'model' of the universe, rather than as a 'true description'. My comments weren't meant as an attack.

By the way, it's string theory vs. M theory vs. quantum theory, each are separate models which describe different unexplained phenomenon well, while missing others. But, don't quote me. I just report what I read on the subject. Go ask a string/M/guantum theorist.

As for my 'black hole' theory, I know it's not called that. But I've read that theory several times, I just can't remember where, and don't actually know enough to steer you in the right direction (though I'd start with "string theory vs. quantum theory").

My point was that you should pick whichever model best fits your story (as you were asking). I was just suggesting that there are more options than the ones you listed.

By the way, I'm not a real physicist, I just play one in my fiction. 'D

richardshagrin

Does General Relativity outrank General Motors?

Grant

@richardshagrin

Does General Relativity outrank General Motors?

I thought everybody outranked General Motors these days. Even VW after all the cheating.

Dominion's Son

@richardshagrin

Does General Relativity outrank General Motors?


After the bailout the company was renamed Government Motors.

Ernest Bywater

@richardshagrin

Does General Relativity outrank General Motors?


Yes, because R comes AFTER M in the alphabet!

Replies:   richardshagrin
richardshagrin
Updated:

@Ernest Bywater

Does this count as a general discussion?

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@richardshagrin

Does this count as a general discussion?

Don't force me to sing the "Sergeant Major General" song. I recently saw the stage production of "The Pirates of Penzance", so I can [almost] do it!

Replies:   Capt Zapp
Capt Zapp

@Crumbly Writer

I thought it was 'Modern Major General'

Replies:   Crumbly Writer
Crumbly Writer

@Capt Zapp

I thought it was 'Modern Major General'

Oops! So much for me knowing it, which I wasn't serious about anyway.

Back to Top