Search FQXi


If you are aware of an interesting new academic paper (that has been published in a peer-reviewed journal or has appeared on the arXiv), a conference talk (at an official professional scientific meeting), an external blog post (by a professional scientist) or a news item (in the mainstream news media), which you think might make an interesting topic for an FQXi blog post, then please contact us at forums@fqxi.org with a link to the original source and a sentence about why you think that the work is worthy of discussion. Please note that we receive many such suggestions and while we endeavour to respond to them, we may not be able to reply to all suggestions.

Please also note that we do not accept unsolicited posts and we cannot review, or open new threads for, unsolicited articles or papers. Requests to review or post such materials will not be answered. If you have your own novel physics theory or model, which you would like to post for further discussion among then FQXi community, then please add them directly to the "Alternative Models of Reality" thread, or to the "Alternative Models of Cosmology" thread. Thank you.

Forum Home
Introduction
Terms of Use

Order posts by:
 chronological order
 most recent first

Display:
 all posts
 member posts highlighted
 member posts only

By using the FQXi Forum, you acknowledge reading and agree to abide by the Terms of Use

 RSS feed | RSS help
RECENT POSTS IN THIS TOPIC

Bob Foster: on 11/10/17 at 15:27pm UTC, wrote Holy crap there's an SMBC comic in his office in the background at 6:37 !...

Marshall Barnes, R&D Eng: on 9/21/17 at 15:31pm UTC, wrote Farzad: Thanks for that helpful breakout of the documentary...

Ben Fox: on 8/3/17 at 10:48am UTC, wrote Thank you so much! Very useful and important information. What a fantastic...

Steve Dufourny: on 6/1/17 at 11:13am UTC, wrote Hello, Of course it becomes very complex when we take the works of...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/31/17 at 8:31am UTC, wrote If we consider the spherical volumes and their motions,we can rank the...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/30/17 at 17:16pm UTC, wrote Returning at your questions, relevant Mr Nekoogar, Here are my answers ...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/30/17 at 9:53am UTC, wrote It is even very intriguing and troubling when we consider this matter not...

Steve Dufourny: on 5/30/17 at 9:39am UTC, wrote If we consider that the main quantum of E is a finite serie, a fractal.And...



FQXi FORUM
November 23, 2017

CATEGORY: Ultimate Reality [back]
TOPIC: The Multiverse - Part 2 Documentary [refresh]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Member Farzad Nekoogar wrote on May. 28, 2017 @ 20:19 GMT
Part 2 of the Multiverse documentary is now released on the YouTube:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xj6tUW-zNQg

The following topics/questions are covered:

1. Does string theory predict the Multiverse?

2. Can the Multiverse theory be tested using CMB?

3. Are we looking for any signatures of a past collision between our universe and another bubble universe?

4. Why was entropy so low at the Big Bang?

5. What is the relationship between cosmological constant/Dark energy and the Multiverse?

6. Does Loop Quantum Gravity predict a Multiverse?

7. What is the relationship between magnetic Monopoles and the Multiverse?

8. Are there any differences between inflation theory and string theory in predicting the Multiverse?

9. What is the relationship between the geometry of space-time and the Multiverse?

10. Appendix: Cosmological Constant

report post as inappropriate


Georgina Woodward wrote on May. 28, 2017 @ 21:52 GMT
Nice, well done. Clear explanations of the ideas by all of the speakers. I found it educational and so, for me, worth watching. Good sound quality. Nice quality illustrations. Non intrusive background music.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 29, 2017 @ 13:12 GMT
Hello ,

Hello Mr Nekoogar

very relevant.

How can we analyse these multispheres for me.How can we consider our constants like G c or h ...?

what are the different so gravitational aethers? wowww :)

what are also the central BHs, their proporties and their volumes probably proportional with their universal sphères a,d the volumes.

In fact that becomes veryu relevant considering the principle of uniqueness and the singularity , the real cosmological singularity.

In logic we return alsways at this center where all turns around.The multispheres,multivers so are also Inside a main sphere,it becomes an incredible puzzle where all physical laws are different ,like our constants, the aethers,.....The quantum gravitation, the dark matter, the dark energy, our constants....all this can be mathematically superimposed in respecting our cartesion system and its rationalities and proportions.

In this reasoning we have a main primoridal ather form the main cosmological singularity.That said we have also an ocean of gravitational aethers in fact due to all these central BHs of each universal sphere but we have also due to the series of BHs Inside each universes also a superimposing of gravitational aethers.My équations permit to have the proportions with the linear velocities and the spherical volumes for the particles of gravitation.

All the best

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 30, 2017 @ 08:01 GMT
A SPHERE and its sphères.....multispheres and sphere.

We can converge with maths.What I find relevant is that we can understand our universal gravitation in fact.

The fact that the aether ,primordial is gravitational and that the photons are not the main quantum of energy but the particles of gravitation playing with cold and heat in logic yes.

Imagine that at the zero instant before the physicality we have a main prilmoridal fractal of sphères from a main central sphere. We have a serir for the quantum of energy and so a photon is just a particfle coded by this gravitation if I can say.The fact that the matter baryonic and not baryonic play with this simple logic , universal explain many things.

If we analyse these particles in the same way that our electromagntic effect and my équations E=m(b)c²+m(nb)l² and mlosV=cst so we can try to analyse the duality waves particles in the same way that eisntein has made with hv and our proportions, at the difference that our particles of gravitation them are not relativistic.

What a big puzzle.

After we can play with each universal sphères and the universal SPHERE .Where are these central sphères,our cosmological singularities,how interact these sphères between them in a pure gravitational way also.....

PS Prof Tegmark ...it is revolutionary if we find this quantum gravitation, it is linked with all this reasoning in logic.......the cold in logic for this matter not baryonic.I ask me how we could check or test these particles, in a kind of bose Einstein condensate ,there is a bridge for these particles....If the cold is not the answer, so it is an other force permitting the equilibriums...but in logic this zero absolute is the answer....

Best

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 30, 2017 @ 08:40 GMT
Let's try to formalise all this in detailing the method about the waves and particles.

Let's begin by the choice of the formel system ,here the 3D sphères, the spherical volumes. Let's try to find the serie ,primordial,this main primordial fractal.We must of course consider finite series,and the primes perhaps could help.The reccursive method universal exist in nfact.I try the same logic for the creation of the universal spherical geometrical algebras.

The aim being simply to utilise the axioms and postulates correctly in inserting this matter not baryonic and in crrelating with the waves particles dualityb also.

To modelise this universal spherical logic is not easy considering the fact that we are far of our singularities simply and that we must accept our step of evolution, that said we can see the road and by reccursive concrete methos, postulatesz and axioms, we can do it and we can so check it also this quantum weakest force.

The results shall appear considering the main primordial object the 3D sphere.Let's insert the good domains,the good series finite,the associativity and commutativity, this and that...this universal puzzle can be partioned correctly respecting a kind of universal postulate.

The method about the waves particles duality by eisntein and others was revolutionary, we can make the bridge for this gravitation,we just go farer towards our singularities simply.Our stanbdard model needs to insert this matter not baryonic.It seems evident at my humble opinion.

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 30, 2017 @ 09:39 GMT
If we consider that the main quantum of E is a finite serie, a fractal.And that we have an equilibrium between the cold and heat,so it becomes relevant when we consider a bridge where our special relativity is not broken but simply exceed by others waves and particles.That is why the cold in fact simply permits the proportions with thermo and the velocities.

Now let's utilise the same logic than with the mass, the wave lenght, the motions.p=mv and h/p for the wave lenght.If we correlate now with the works of Schrödinger and the wave function we have the same logic for the particles of gravitation not baryonic.In my intuitive reasoning I consider that l is not constant due to the serie of BHs and the proportions with the spherical volumes and the linear velocities.That is why the main central sphere implies th egravitational aether, the speedest particles.

That becomes relevant if the professor Tegmark is right about the multispheres, because the real cosmological singularity implies a sphere tending to infinity like the gravitation.

That is why we have a superimposing of ngravitatioanl aethers.

Now of course all this is very complex considering several universes.But the same logic can be utilised respecting our postulates and axioms.The gravitation is the real chief orchestra.

We can make the probabilistic links if the good series are found considering the main primordial fractal.In logic this fractal is for all serie of uniquenss, even perhaps Prof Tegmark for the multispheres ....and the sphere.This serie of BHs is between 1 and x simply,....

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 30, 2017 @ 09:53 GMT
It is even very intriguing and troubling when we consider this matter not baryonic, like if it existed a gravitational light not relativistic in fact.The photons are sphrerons coded simply.If the thermodynamical and gravitational stability exist, there are reasons.

a spheron can become a photon in decreasing and synchronizing, but a photon cannot become a spheron and we do not break our special relativity.It is important this subtil difference considering even the evolutive point of vue.

If these waves not relativistic exist, these particles,so a kind of gravitational light exists not relativistic,now how can we check these waves and particles ??? they are speeder and we do not see them ,them do not interact even with our standard model and baryonic matter even ??? wowww this cold ,this zero absolute intrigues me a lot ....

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on May. 30, 2017 @ 17:16 GMT
Returning at your questions, relevant Mr Nekoogar,

Here are my answers

1. Does string theory predict the Multiverse?

probably that strings indeed can converge for these multiverse, for the quantumgravitation also and my humble theory of spherisation with 3D soheres.

2. Can the Multiverse theory be tested using CMB?

there ,it is very important because indeed we...

view entire post


report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 31, 2017 @ 08:31 GMT
If we consider the spherical volumes and their motions,we can rank the gravitational interactions.....

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on Jun. 1, 2017 @ 11:13 GMT
Hello,

Of course it becomes very complex when we take the works of Everett,linde and Tegmark,how can we really find this serie of uniquenss in fact.

It is the real question if we consider multiverse.If the gravitation possesses a finite serie in its primordial meaning if I can say, so probably that we have a number finite also of universes, 3D sphères for me.In logic a finite number is for all finite series, primordial in its pure meaning.

Now taking our superimposings, mathematical and the resulst of our quantum measurements ,that becomes intriguing indeed like the cat of Schrödinger.

The fact to consider a finite serie for all finite gravitational serie seems foundamental when when return at this uniquenss like at our singularities.

The fact to insert this matter not baryonic solves many of our problem because we can find this serie of uniquenss in finding the good universal fractal, the good reccursive method.It seems that all possesses this serie of uniquenss ,finite. The real question for our quantum gravitation like our multispheres,is what is this serie between 1 and x? Even a photon possesses this serie in logic.There is like an universal link between numbers and 3D sphères and their motions. Perhaps the padics numbers, these primes could be the secret...but what is the distribution in fact ? how these 0 organises these primes ,fourier and Riemann help us lol ,what is the link between this gravity and these primes, what is the real correct serie , the universal distribution of encodings even....

Regards

report post as inappropriate


Ben Fox wrote on Aug. 3, 2017 @ 10:48 GMT
Thank you so much! Very useful and important information. What a fantastic material to talk about.

report post as inappropriate


Marshall Barnes, R&D Eng wrote on Sep. 21, 2017 @ 15:31 GMT
Farzad:

Thanks for that helpful breakout of the documentary...

report post as inappropriate


Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Please enter your e-mail address:
Note: Joining the FQXi mailing list does not give you a login account or constitute membership in the organization.