the multiverse

Post Reply New Topic

the 0th dimension is the seed from which the next three are developed from.
a point is not in any dimension because it is to the power of zero, but without points, the universe could not be constructed

so d9.
at a single instant of time (which is a "point" of "duration" with no length), the entire universal volume is in existence.

so there is infinity of spatial actuality compressed into a singularity of time.

and that is the case forever, so the "time" point becomes an infinitely long line of continuous existence of everything.

but that is only the existence of everything on this narrow road of "cause and effect" owing to the world as we see it.

in a "line" of time, everything happens after the thing that caused it to happen, and before the thing it causes to happen.

it is a linear cause and effect trace through a singular thread of existence.

but in a plane of time, it is possible to see all simultaneously likely outcomes of the current circumstance in a universally developed and also universally historic way.

but what about the reality of all possible occurrences in all possible points of time in all possible areas of locality happening and being perceived within the boundaries of an instant?

that would be a "point" of consciousness which is the only place you can go when you leave time and space.
whatever.
i am probably wrong

None of that impinged on my consciousness at all. Connecting words together at random may sound poetic, but it does not impart any meaning to them.

The words I think you are misusing are: dimension seed point power zero universe instant time duration length entire universal volume existence infinity spatial actuality compressed singularity forever line continuous everything cause effect world see happens after before linear trace thread plane all simultaneously likely outcomes historic reality possible occurrences areas locality perceived boundaries instant place go when leave space.

The rest was OK.

And that is the right question.

You're right, everything is made of just different wavelengths of energy. However, energy is not nothingness. Even so, "nothingness" exists as "something". If you had a box full of nothingness (no air, no microbes, just nothing) you can say there is nothing in the box. However, the "nothingness" in the box still exists as empty space. Therefore, "nothingness" is "something".

Right answer please

Particularly to the question 'How did the Big Bang START to happen?'

And yes, that's a 'right question' too

I meant that everything is 'really nothing' in as much as even basic qualities, such as space and energy, have no proven inner essences that makes them what they are. They simply appear, without an 'ontological' foundation or definition that's obvious to us.

From what I understand, science defines such elements, like everything else, in terms of their properties rather than 'essences'. In other words, it describes various ways in which 'things' interact with other 'things', but not the character of the things themselves. Non-scientists are, I feel, often happy to accept that the inanimate world is empty in that way, and can get the impression that scientists are easily 'spooked out' by dead objects / vacuums and such. In your example, the vacuum in the box can only be said to exist as a pool of spatial relationships.

Yes it is a right question, however I could not possibly give you a right answer.

If my memory serves (and I'm not misinterpreting), quantum mechanics inadvertently allows for "other" universes to exist (it does deal a lot with sub-atomic particles). Who knows? Maybe dark matter and dark energy may someday help answer the question for other universes...whatever they may be.

Uncomment about multiuniverse. But if dark matter/dark energy :: antimatter would in fact answer the question, the question would no longer exist since antimatter violently cancels matter. *might* imply parallel universe - ok, that's 2. Or at least a Chiral universe. And that is plausible.
We seemingly exist in the extraneous root Xverse of the eternal quadratic equation. Since you asked.

Before I lost television, I saw a 'popular' physics TV show (Discovery, Science, or some channel like that), postulate that the extra dimensions were subatomic in size. Also, that possibly gravity was seen as a weak force because it was leaking from another dimension.

But I never took physics myself...terrible at math... On with the discussion.

The interesting idea involving a multiverse is one of time and determination. If, by observing a moving particle and destroying the myriad of possibilities for it's location by your observation you cause that myriad of possibilities to be manifested in a corrosponding number of myriad universes, your observation in your universe in some way deterministically affects the position of the particle in the multiverse. Carrying this idea to its logical conclusion, events in your universe may be deterministically decided by events [on the sub-atomic scale] in the multiverse.

Here's an idea:

Where does singularity meet singularity? Let us look at the aspect of the infinite density of a singularity. The universe itself was once a singularity of infinite density, so perhaps this may explain dark matter, through the slow onset of universal creation via the many black holes in This universe.

i'm sceptical of that theory because there is no evidence for it

the reason they made this theory up is to explain why the laws of physics are specifically tailored to make life possible

it's kind of eery how they are and it makes me think there could be a higher power

I've been writing/formulating but chemistry stuff. Then what I just wrote/found is very applicable to this topic. I cannot really put in my drawings (well I could but it's a pain). Math isn't formatted for here either (again, I could but it's a pain). So....from what I wrote:

Symmetry of molecules, such as atoms of molecules, by 'point group,' since all symmetry elements in a given molecule intersect which is not shifted be any symmetry operations. Operators may have translational motion.

E1 = (t=1) > no symmetry. E2 = (t=2) > mirror plane. And E3 = (t=3) > just an inversion center

<insert my drawings of isomer of diclorofluroethane here; use your imagination>

Elements underlined (in formula drawings, above) exist in another plane. Then E4 = (h=2) = X ^ n > cyclical point group

H atoms exist outside of plane where C3 (drawing) is point group.

C sub n & N sub theta (h=2n) where theta sub v contains C sub n (as opposed to theta sub n which is normal to C sub n). For n there are n/2 theta sub v & n/2 prime theta sub v with theta sub v having the most atoms & theta sub v's having the least atoms:

<insert my drawing of in 3 planar space about axis showing chiral theta sub v's....it's awesome, again use imagination>

Or a dihedral mirrored plane, where theta prime sub v & theta sub d's bisect theta sub v's & the designation is of more frequency in point groups.

<my drawing here. Shows planes with molecule>

Then 2 theta sub v's where theta (xz) & theta (yz) mirror planes theta sub d's bisect the theta (xz) & theta (yz) planes.

<next drawing, looks like 2 linked benzene rings, each on different plane of axis, chirality shown>

Inversion center, from C2 * theta sub n = i

Since S sub n odd is redudant with C sub nh because (S sub n) ^ r = theta sub n for n odd. Consider S3 point (from drawing) point group. S3 is generator for S3, S3 ^2.......then C3's and theta sub n are the distinguishing elements of the C3h point group!

C sub n & n perpendicular (in space) to C2 (h=2n)

<insert lots more drawings, am I losing you all here? >

in identifying molecules belonging to this point group.....if Cn exists & a perpendicular (in space) to C2 exist & identified, then (n-1) perpendicular (in space) to C2s given by rotation about Cn.



Ok....lots more drawings.....but basically: let dimension = l, operator = R, order = h, projection operator = p ^ i

then p ^ i = (l/n) SIGMA [X^i *R]*R

Then I wrote the Huckel determinant matrix; Dn (x) = <insert my matrix here> where x = [ (theta -E) / B ]

Laplace transform to get D2 (x) = <matrix with, from upper L going clockwise: x, 1, x, 1 > = [(x ^2) -1]


Umm, not sure that quite translated. But I am showing (I did use some Heme group formula drawings for metal-ligands, which is my special interest) that chirality *might* be the Xverse. In Latin the word 'chiral' means hand, where your L hand is CHIRAL to your R hand, by mirroring. Many molecules have their chiral components but although these are the 'same' molecule, by miror, their physical properties can be markedly different! This is fascinating to me, that the chirality, that is the location in space, actually determines the physical attributes of properties of certain molecules (matter)!

This does show a relation of space to matter, but also that the stoichiometry & physicality are a factor too.

ecky: I think so, in that you're referring to the Heisenberg's Uncertainty Principle. Interesting you wrote that, then wrote 'on the sub-atomic scale.'
moronGettingBetter: I don't know...singularity meeting singularity? Might begin to explain dark matter since this is how matter cancels (+) (-)

Is the sub-atomic scale 'immune' or extraneous to that which is deterministically decided? I didn't even put in Entropy (the arrow of time) but I think I've run out of white rectangle to write. Plus it's way past my bedtime.

Merry Christmas Wrong Planet (still Christmas in Alaska, evening). Whichever universe Wrong Planet exists in!

'Night pakled (don't stay up late watching the Discovery Channel)
'Night Alien8ed
'Night Xelebes
'Night undefinable
'Night history_of_psychiatry (your avatar is cool but makes me feel seizure-ishy)
'Night lau

^ Just always wanted to do that!

Love from the Lab Pet

How about you write it on paper and just scan that?

I think I can help out here by posting some of LabPet's pictures as POVray code.