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

Posts by the author are highlighted in orange; posts by FQXi Members are highlighted in blue.

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

Anonymous: on 11/9/13 at 18:32pm UTC, wrote Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search...

JOE BLOGS: on 8/11/11 at 12:04pm UTC, wrote Please reply to my post Moldinows book Page 160. "this is because...

JOE BLOGS: on 8/11/11 at 12:00pm UTC, wrote Conver a 12 dimensional circular space time orbit into 3 dimensions plus...

JOE BLOGS: on 7/29/11 at 9:49am UTC, wrote (STEPHEN A JEFFREY)Lets chat. ...

wilton.alano@gmail.com: on 3/17/11 at 23:58pm UTC, wrote The author of the initial post wrote about "size" of the multiverse. We all...

Peter Mastro: on 2/23/11 at 15:04pm UTC, wrote I wish that scientists would stop making everything more and more...

JOE BLOGS: on 1/17/11 at 16:30pm UTC, wrote I can't do the math above someone do the math for me.

Steev Dufourny: on 12/12/10 at 10:42am UTC, wrote It's true Florin?, thus before this papper you shouldn't think about it...



FQXi FORUM
July 23, 2017

ARTICLE: The Patchwork Multiverse [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Bee wrote on Dec. 3, 2010 @ 08:35 GMT
That's very interesting indeed. Just that it's hardly a "prediction" since we've known the value of the CC for some while now.

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 7, 2010 @ 12:26 GMT
Retrodiction is just as valuable.

report post as inappropriate


Steve Dufourny wrote on Dec. 6, 2010 @ 14:20 GMT
If the strings are rational.It's a little if Of course we assume that Mickey Mouse will be the future president of USA.

The Multiverses are a jokes of falses maths and falses physical interpretations.

The space time is logic thus please what are these ironical things of pseudos sciences.

The only thing I find interesting is the oscillations but there also my rotating spinning spheres answer rationally.

IT IS THE END, BEAUTIFUL STRING, THE END......

IT S THE END OF IRONY ABOUT OUR PHYSICAL SCIENCES.

Fortunally The Royal society exists and the sorting between irrationalities and rationalities must be inserted with the biggest rationality.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Florin Moldoveanu wrote on Dec. 6, 2010 @ 19:08 GMT
Thank you for including the archive reference. This paper makes me again a believer in string theory.

report post as inappropriate

Steev Dufourny replied on Dec. 12, 2010 @ 10:42 GMT
It's true Florin?, thus before this papper you shouldn't think about it hihihhi

Really Florin, forget these strings.you are more intelligent than these stupidities.

Cheers

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 7, 2010 @ 00:37 GMT
This is related to string theory, at least in the problem of fluxes through compactified branes. The arguments here are rather interesting. I must confess my prejudice is to ignore the observer, or any consideration of observers and consciousness. This argument does make a case for the value of the CC for an observer which comes about after T = 10^{61.5} Planck times, or in distance about 10^{10.5} ly = 12.3e^{9}ly requires a cosmological constant of λ = (10^{-61.5})^2L_p^{-2} ~ 1. This is about the value observed, and the time converted to distance is about where the z = 1 galaxies are observed. This is the boundary or the cosmological horizon. The actual time is 13.7bly. So this amounts to another weak anthropic type of argument.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate


T H Ray wrote on Dec. 7, 2010 @ 12:25 GMT
If the universe really is a patchwork of spacetimes, it really is classical. That is, physical processes that happen at different rates can be described by a continuous function, such as a random walk around an equilibrium point. Problem is, the equilibrium point may change position between measurements. And the shorter the time interval between measurement, the more radical the observed change, even though the state of the universe appears stable on the large scale in the aggregate of time. Therefore, we should be able to derive quantum statistics from a classical model.

We already know this is true of communication networks (research by Braha--Bar-Yam, NECSI), where "dynamic centrality" shows sometimes radical shifts in the position of the communication hub at short intervals while the system shows little overall change in the aggregate of time.

So models driven by information theory (e.g., Jacobson-Verlinde, 't Hooft, Bekenstein-Mayo) should dovetail smoothly into the string landscape. This is the outcome I predict.

Tom

report post as inappropriate


Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on Dec. 8, 2010 @ 17:54 GMT
Information theory with gravitation is funny, particularly with black holes. Quantum fields near the singularity of a black hole will be highly coupled in nonlinear ways. This holds for fields near the horizon of a quantum black hole as well. So a linear digital approach to information is tough to understand. The best prospect is if the fields exhibit nonlocal entanglements which remove our standard concepts of what it means for an event to occur at a locality in spacetime. The holographic principle does this in part, for a string on the stretched horizon is found to be annihilated by field emerging from the black hole, which contain the same quantum information. So the quantum bits are both outside the black hole on the stretched horizon and interior.

Cheers LC

report post as inappropriate

T H Ray replied on Dec. 9, 2010 @ 17:36 GMT
Well, maybe digital doesn't necessarily imply linear in the general sense. Input-output functions for a field can be locally linear and globally nonlinear (which satisfies nonlocality) -- the point I was making earlier about the dynamic exchange of hub centers of activity. At the event horizon, events that take place at varying rates, determined by particle mass and velocity, become ordered on the one dimensional "singularity" of the black hole interior. This in fact may be Nature's way of clothing the naked singularity.

Tom

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell replied on Dec. 10, 2010 @ 21:50 GMT
On the horizon according to a stationary distant observer everything occurs at a very slow rate, in fact it is stopped or frozen. The UV spectrum of the string becomes red shifted into the IR domain of observation. However, those frozen states are cancelled by Hawking radiation much later on, and these far distant future states are dual to those on the horizon. The difference is they are no longer entangled with the black hole, but with the exterior universe. In a black hole in an AdS spacetime these are correlations between states on the stretched horizon and on the boundary of the AdS spacetime.

LC

report post as inappropriate


Peter Mastro wrote on Feb. 23, 2011 @ 15:04 GMT
I wish that scientists would stop making everything more and more complicated and giving an ever increasing fragmentation of names to things.

There is one universe we occupy. Period.

What is being referred to as multiverses is the fractalization of the whole univere into real 3 dimensional areas that exist in discreet 4D time manifolds.

The gravitational constant between any two manifolds, given one contains an observer, is always equal to plus and minus pi/2.

The only constant in the universe is time. It takes one unit of time to span a time manifold. If the time manifold is large, and encompasses a balanced system, it will always take some multiple of 6 time units to get from the inner edge to the outer edge.

The speed of light is not a constant and cannot be used to measure space or age unless it is used in conjunction with an understanding of how many fractal layers and enveloping time manifolds are contained in what is being measured.

Science needs to either get on track or risk being viewed as complete idiots.

report post as inappropriate


wilton.alano@gmail.com wrote on Mar. 17, 2011 @ 23:58 GMT
The author of the initial post wrote about "size" of the multiverse. We all still need that the "universe" have a size. It's because we all get something mad with the idea of a infinite Cosmos(a better word for multiverse).

Let's remember the old proberb: "Ex nihilo, nihil fit". Cosmos has no start and no end. It is necessarily infinite in time. Being infinite in time - I dare to affirm - it's infinite in space as well.

It's structure is infuriately fractal, with infinite 'class of dimensions', infinitely nested (exactly like the sample we can afford).

So, to easy things: COSMOS IS TOTALLY INFINITE! (despite this idea be not so 'Cartesian')

Cheers

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Jul. 29, 2011 @ 09:49 GMT
(STEPHEN A JEFFREY)Lets chat.

https://www.sendthisfile.com/Dsi1UcAS1T4nqej4a0zxk1TB

My
clock converts a circular earth orbit into an eliptical one.

And the result is six minutes difference from sidereal time per year.

Approx we take this figure to 10,000 digits of pi accuracy as the formula uses Pi.

A cicular orbit can be in as many as 11 dimensions but these are unstable when an orbit is converted to an elipse it becomes stable in three dimensions plus one of time.

Thus you can reverse the equation to convert Einsteins 4D space time to 11 dimensions.

So you can convert String theory to Einsteins thoery and EInsteins theory back into string theory.

Some scientists believe Einsteins thoery cannot be expressed in 10 dimensions.

Others believe EInsteins thoery can be expressed in as many dimensions as you want to use...................

What do you believe can my thoery work to unify Einsteins thoery and string theory.

And is my clock time more accurate or just an error of six minutes per year rather than a more accurate measurement of time..........................................

Please help me with this problem.

Steve..................

Iam not answering the question myself what I have provided is background to the problem.

The central question is whether Einsteins 4D space/time can be converted to ten dimensions or not.

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Aug. 11, 2011 @ 12:00 GMT
Conver a 12 dimensional circular space time orbit into 3 dimensions plus one of time.

WIth the formula 360/60= 6 minutes/year difference from sidereal time.

Convert E=MC^2 for an eliptical orbit of earth where C^2 is the space time interval.

To a circular orbit in 12 dimensions including two of time.

Man seeks to control what he does not understand if time is understood maybe he can control it.

But I doubt it 12 is right for time according to Jesus so 12 dimensions should not lead to any time machines they are out of the question.But it is not out of the question to have a thoery of everything that includes time.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


JOE BLOGS wrote on Aug. 11, 2011 @ 12:04 GMT
Please reply to my post Moldinows book Page 160.

"this is because according to the laws of gravity it is only in three dimensions that stable eliptical orbits are possible.Circular orbits are possible in other dimensions but those as Newton feared are unstable I any but three dimesions even a small disturbance.

I invite phsyics teachers to comment on my thoery of everthing for time.

And time is only one variable of the thoery..............

You can include space as well.

Steve

report post as inappropriate


Anonymous wrote on Nov. 9, 2013 @ 18:32 GMT
Baggott[Farewell to Reality: How Fairy-Tale Physics Has Betrayed The Search For Scientific Truth] and even more spot-on Unzicker-Jones[Bankrupting Physics: How Top Scientists Are Gambling Away Their Credibility] critiques shame physics’ shameless rock-star media-hype P.R. spin-doctoring veracity-abandoning touting sci-fi “show-biz” trending viral exacerbated by online social networks...

view entire post


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.