BBC Focus Magazine

[M Paul Lloyd]

That sounds an awful lot like a description of the 'multi-verse' theory I suggested earlier mind?

[dj howden]

That sounds an awful lot like a description of the 'multi-verse' theory I suggested earlier mind?

yes exactly and all I was trying to say was that instead of the universes being all possibilities of universes in other dimensions that we cant observe maybe we do individually observe a lifetimes worth of dimensions. at present the maths show they must be there but because we think of time as linear and our universe is always the same universe we assume that the other universes are invisible to us. But what if they are not and we are constantly moving through the dimensions with the universe. If all the universes are present at the same time and are the past and future from our current point in "Time" (which is changing as the Universe moves through its dimensions but is always now), then maybe all the gravity is also there acting on the atom with a force = 1 instead of 6 to the power of -39 (dont know how to write the notation lol)

Another conundrum was the universe is not heavy enough to account for all the stuff and so scientists came up with dark matter to account for the missing mass and therefore missing gravity but we cant observe it. and it got me thinking

[Shadowwolf]

But what if they are not and we are constantly moving through the dimensions with the universe. If all the universes are present at the same time and are the past and future from our current point in "Time"...

To be honest I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think you need to clearly define what it is you mean by 'universe', 'dimension' etc and then specify what your hypotheses is and what makes it different to any other existing. Without an idea of what means what, consistency and clear communication you can end up with lines such as, "but because we think of time as linear and our universe is always the same universe we assume that the other universes are invisible to us." The final statement simply does not follow from the preceding ones and no one I am aware of thinks that way.

At the moment your latest appears to be a version of describing times arrow through a frame by frame analogy which has been employed amongst others by Mr Greene in his book on String Theory. These are not actually other universe or other dimensions, that's our one. When things like multiverses, branes and dimensions come up, in those theories they actually are completely separate places or beyond our ability to see. Simply saying that each moment of time or slice is a universe in and of itself does not make these other multiverse spaces, dimensions or branes suddenly materialise as just another slice.

then maybe all the gravity is also there acting on the atom with a force = 1 instead of 6 to the power of -39 (dont know how to write the notation lol

From what I can tell by looking elsewhere, were you to bring it down to one the force of gravity acting on the atomic scale would go from negligible to practically zip.

[dj howden]

But what if they are not and we are constantly moving through the dimensions with the universe. If all the universes are present at the same time and are the past and future from our current point in "Time"...

To be honest I'm not sure what you're trying to say. I think you need to clearly define what it is you mean by 'universe', 'dimension' etc and then specify what your hypotheses is and what makes it different to any other existing. Without an idea of what means what, consistency and clear communication you can end up with lines such as, "but because we think of time as linear and our universe is always the same universe we assume that the other universes are invisible to us." The final statement simply does not follow from the preceding ones and no one I am aware of thinks that way.

At the moment your latest appears to be a version of describing times arrow through a frame by frame analogy which has been employed amongst others by Mr Greene in his book on String Theory. These are not actually other universe or other dimensions, that's our one. When things like multiverses, branes and dimensions come up, in those theories they actually are completely separate places or beyond our ability to see. Simply saying that each moment of time or slice is a universe in and of itself does not make these other multiverse spaces, dimensions or branes suddenly materialise as just another slice.

then maybe all the gravity is also there acting on the atom with a force = 1 instead of 6 to the power of -39 (dont know how to write the notation lol

From what I can tell by looking elsewhere, were you to bring it down to one the force of gravity acting on the atomic scale would go from negligible to practically zip.

Sorry you are struggling to get it and I'm trying my best

I'm just glad I didnt try and explain that this is all happening at the speed of light (in my thought experiment)

A photon leaves the sun and heads towards earth and takes 9 mins or whatever it is. Our perception is that the photon travelled the 93 million miles and it's journey had a beginning, an end and everywhere in between and we can calculate where that photon will be after 1 min, 2 mins etc until it arrives after 9 mins and that we will call time passing and the photon has actually travelled and when it gets here it is no longer at the sun. Now, imagine (and this is where I ask your indulgence) that the Photon is actually everywhere along the path all at the same time but in different different states or dimensions or Universes or pages in the book I described. As the Photon flicks through its states, we observe it moving but not because it has travelled but because we are also moving through states and we have memory with which we recall a previous state and we say 9 mins earlier that Photon was just leaving the sun but in truth it is still at the sun and everywhere in between in different states or Universes at the same time. But we have moved on with the Universe and we are witnessing the state where it arrives and we think that Time has passed because we have the memory of it leaving the Sun. We have witnessed not the passing of Time but the passing of states or Universes where that photon exists all at the same time.

Not sure if that will help but keep asking or imagine it's a golf ball travelling so as to not get mixed up with a photon being a wave and a particle at the same time and it detracting from what I'm trying to explain

[dj howden]

I think its hard to understand because it is not intuitive because we have a preconceived idea how its working according to Quantum Theory which even though we don't know it we can imagine the model that the scientists describe we have an instinct or gut impression of how it works. So to help you imagine it here is yet another bad description

Imagine a particle and that can be everywhere at the same time but we don't know because it is unobserved and it's weight is 1. And another particle also weighing 1 appears beside it and they observe each other and intertwine to become a proton. each particle had been observed at a point out of the many points each has but is now in a state according to observing each other. In other words, there states could be anywhere any Time but because they have interacted with each other and have become specialised so their state is now a state which is a result of their interaction but the weight they have is not 2 as you would expect it is in fact .0001 (I'm making the numbers up to keep it simple) and the reason it is like that is because Gravity is still in the other possible states but is only measurable at the point of interaction of the two particles or where they interact out of the many possible.

When light which is white hits a surface, instead of reflecting white light it only reflects a narrower band of light, say blue, and not all the light. Gravity exhibits the same property in that it only "reflects" the gravity from the state of our new proton which in this example is .0001 and to another observer it weighs a lot less than it should because we know it should weigh two.

But if we didn't know this, we have a mystery. How come it's not as heavy as it should be? and it's gravity is not enough to hold it together.

Now that it's state is set it will persist through all it's states (and therefore Time) as a proton until it gets caught up in a sun or black hole but until then, in the new state it will interact with other particles to become Atoms and Atoms will interact with one another according to their states to become molecules and so on till we have everything. So, on the surface we have Atoms that are not heavy enough for the Maths and I am asking could it be that they do have all the Gravity and we can't feel it because we are only witnessing the gravity that is "emitted" from a state between the particles. But in a black hole say the particles get removed from their states with each other and start to emit more gravity because they are now back in their original state and their weight is 1

And remember I am not saying this is how it is, I'm thinking it.

[Shadowwolf]

Now, imagine that the Photon is actually everywhere along the path all at the same time...

Okay, I may be wrong myself here, but is that not exactly what is thought to happen due to the photon being at ftl and from it's perspective if it had one? As such it's not really anything new. However, it is not in other dimensions or universes it's in the same one we are, the past, however small you slice it is not some other dimension or alternate verse.

I'm afraid that your second post is largely a sequence of assertions without any basis.

Imagine a particle and that can be everywhere at the same time but we don't know because it is unobserved and it's weight is 1. And another particle also weighing 1 appears beside it and they observe each other and intertwine to become a proton.

Why 1? By what manner do they observe each other, intertwine for no appreciable reason and then equally implausibly turn into a proton? Btw if you're making numbers up then you probably don't need them in the first place.

...there states could be anywhere any Time but because they have interacted with each other and have become specialised so their state is now a state which is a result of their interaction...

Pretty sure that's circular reasoning, sure looks like it.

Gravity exhibits the same property in that it only "reflects" the gravity from the state of our new proton which in this example is .0001 and to another observer it weighs a lot less than it should because we know it should weigh two.

Where did reflecting gravity come from? As for the numbers, you made them up and then asserted that the weight would be less but for no good reason, why would we ever know that it should weigh two other than that you are merely asserting it to be so? Your following mystery exists only because you have conjured it into existence, in reality there is no mystery as the premises that create it are arbitrary inventions.

...in the new state it will interact with other particles to become Atoms and Atoms will interact with one another according to their states to become molecules and so on till we have everything.

and / or

But in a black hole say the particles get removed from their states with each other and start to emit more gravity because they are now back in their original state and their weight is 1

Why, other than you are just asserting it as so?

I mean in all honesty this last post of yours is just a sequence of unconnected assertions that does not result in anything meaningful. Nothing is being proposed here and that's why I think you need to have a close look at what you're coming up with, and ask yourself is it a soundly supported idea or merely the result of a series of random inventions.

[dj howden]

Now, imagine that the Photon is actually everywhere along the path all at the same time...

Okay, I may be wrong myself here, but is that not exactly what is thought to happen due to the photon being at ftl and from it's perspective if it had one? As such it's not really anything new. However, it is not in other dimensions or universes it's in the same one we are, the past, however small you slice it is not some other dimension or alternate verse.

I did say try not to think of what light is and imagine a golfball instead

I'm afraid that your second post is largely a sequence of assertions without any basis.

Thats right, always was without assertions. It's a thought experiment

Imagine a particle and that can be everywhere at the same time but we don't know because it is unobserved and it's weight is 1. And another particle also weighing 1 appears beside it and they observe each other and intertwine to become a proton.

Why 1? By what manner do they observe each other, intertwine for no appreciable reason and then equally implausibly turn into a proton? Btw if you're making numbers up then you probably don't need them in the first place.

1 is the strength of the nuclear strong force in the equations they use and I'm pondering if Gravity could in fact be 1 and not the tiny tiny force we know it as i.e. 6 to the power of -39

...there states could be anywhere any Time but because they have interacted with each other and have become specialised so their state is now a state which is a result of their interaction...

Pretty sure that's circular reasoning, sure looks like it.

well all things must resolve on both sides of the equation and a circle might do it I am alluding to a string being able to be any particle. Like stem cells can be any cell until they become specialised.

Gravity exhibits the same property in that it only "reflects" the gravity from the state of our new proton which in this example is .0001 and to another observer it weighs a lot less than it should because we know it should weigh two.

Where did reflecting gravity come from? As for the numbers, you made them up and then asserted that the weight would be less but for no good reason, why would we ever know that it should weigh two other than that you are merely asserting it to be so? Your following mystery exists only because you have conjured it into existence, in reality there is no mystery as the premises that create it are arbitrary inventions.

This is my way to try and describe how I see it, and as i said before it's not me trying to describe what is common theory.

...in the new state it will interact with other particles to become Atoms and Atoms will interact with one another according to their states to become molecules and so on till we have everything.

and / or

But in a black hole say the particles get removed from their states with each other and start to emit more gravity because they are now back in their original state and their weight is 1

Why, other than you are just asserting it as so?

Because that is how it resolves itself when I imagine it. Remember I'm trying to share a thought experiment and not teach quantum mechanics

I mean in all honesty this last post of yours is just a sequence of unconnected assertions that does not result in anything meaningful. Nothing is being proposed here and that's why I think you need to have a close look at what you're coming up with, and ask yourself is it a soundly supported idea or merely the result of a series of random inventions.

Quantum mechanics as it is today is also a series of random inventions

[Shadowwolf]

Quantum mechanics as it is today is also a series of random inventions

It's not but even if we were to accept that it were, that's not an excuse.

Also, you don't need to quote an entire post including the quotes taken from yours for a one sentence response. Just pick out the relevant excerpts or if directly following you might not even need to quote, but as is it creates very long pieces of repeated text and pages to be scrolled through which whilst not terrible is a bit irksome.

[dj howden]

ye I replied in-line to your comments but it never separated new comments from the original. And remember that the nuclear strong force was an invention as were the 11 dimensions which is why it is still doubted in many quarters of the science community as are the elusive particles that need to be found.

[M Paul Lloyd]

I wonder if Lateralman has any thoughts on this?

[Lateralman]

It is all too complex for me Mr Lloyd. I would think that there is no past, no future, and no such thing as time. There is only now.

So how can you have other dimensions if there is only now? All you have are memories.

[dj howden]

It is all too complex for me Mr Lloyd. I would think that there is no past, no future, and no such thing as time. There is only now.

So how can you have other dimensions if there is only now? All you have are memories.

the past is there in previous dimensions and the future is there in future dimensions. What I'm trying to say is that we can only experience the dimension which is now. So the dimension where I typed the last full stop was the now but it's now in the past but it is still there, it's just that we can not experience it again.

And please lets avoid whether or not we can visit these dimensions

[Lateralman]

Yes. I think I get your drift, but what is a ‘dimension’ other than a label that we have made up, as previously suggested?

If your 'full stop' is in a past dimension, then what future dimension is the 'full stop' you have not yet made in?

‘Right here, right NOW.’ Is the only thing that counts funk soul brother.

I am getting a feeling of déjà vous here, if memory serves me well.

[dj howden]

Yes. I think I get your drift, but what is a ‘dimension’ other than a label that we have made up, as previously suggested?

If your 'full stop' is in a past dimension, then what future dimension is the 'full stop' you have not yet made in?

‘Right here, right NOW.’ Is the only thing that counts funk soul brother.

I am getting a feeling of déjà vous here, if memory serves me well.

I like your thinking if my memory serves me right. We have witnessed the passing of Universes, dimensions or states. And here comes another full stop . There it goes into the past

and still with it's gravity

[Shadowwolf]

And remember that the nuclear strong force was an invention as were the 11 dimensions which is why it is still doubted in many quarters of the science community as are the elusive particles that need to be found.

But these were not random inventions. They were the results of building upon previous work that suggested things like the additional dimensions or other particles should the theory being advanced be correct. No one sat down and thought it would be neat if there were say..., 11 dimensions, they had a reason for doing so. And saying they are no better is still no excuse. By saying that someone else is no better you are tacitly admitting that your own position is actually incorrect and all you have recourse to is tarring them with the same brush instead of answering the problems with your position. That post I mentioned honestly appears to have been stitched from whole cloth and thus far you have not supplied any reason to think there is anything beyond a jumble of meaningless jargon there. I'm not saying that to be mean, I'm saying it because that's exactly what it looks like from my perspective.

ye I replied in-line to your comments but it never separated new comments from the original.

I find copy and paste with the in post quote function to make it much easier and useful than clicking on the quote button in the post you wish to quote from.

[dj howden]

What are the chance that you are sitting next to a mathematician/physicist at a completely unrelated meeting? well it happened to me and the long and short of it is that shaddow is right in that tho there are assumptions made in string theory they are proved. Well some of them.

After he described the quantum world I began to realise I was being a bit Newtonian but that was part of the thought experiment, to go back before whatever mistake was made that causes the maths to not work.

Anyway question is answered and it's no. Or is it?..... in another of the muliverses it may be yes.

Thanks