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 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
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

January 21, 2018

ARTICLE: Classic Article: The Universe's Odyssey? [back to article]
Bookmark and Share
Login or create account to post reply or comment.

Anonymous wrote on May. 10, 2010 @ 13:56 GMT
"Certainly, the workings of antiparticles no longer flummox him. Quite the opposite, in fact, as Sarangi believes that "anti-universes" and their interplay with regular universes could help tackle one of the prickliest problems in physics: why our universe is the way it is."

So if I drop a 3-Dimensional particle such as a Proton,into another "Univere" Landscape, one that is other than 3-Dimensional, say 7-Dimensional, what are the consequences, do Protons still exist as..well uh 3-Dimensional Protons?

Where have all the anti-protons gone!

"(Because there are hundreds of different parameters in the theory that can change, the landscape is actually a hyper-dimensional terrain, with valleys representing the most energetically stable values for each parameter.)"

Surely if the dimension is stable, then the particles that reside therein are trhemselves stable, thus the Proton is the most stable particle?

Lets face it, if there was 10^500 dimensions, whats the chance of a stable particle such as the Proton choosing the correct 3-D landscape?

String theory tends to want things both wasy, probably right, and definetly maybe wrong!

report post as inappropriate

paul valletta wrote on May. 10, 2010 @ 13:57 GMT
That anon was definatly maybe me!

best p.v

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 10, 2010 @ 16:24 GMT
Hello dear Paul,

I don't understand really why people wants extradimensions, that has no sense , really , it's not our foundamental referential in 3D all that.

Never we have found extradimensions, always our datas and experiments are in 3D , always the observations and all correct correlations are in 3D .

How can we have the good models if we don't respect these foundamentals laws, constants,'s the best road to be rational in my humble opinion.

We can't confound our topology,the universal rotating dynamic of spheres needs this referential to be in synchro with the evolution, the gravitation and the relativity of the space time.

With these kinds of ideas, it's a landscape of consfusions simply .



report post as inappropriate

Roy Johnstone wrote on May. 10, 2010 @ 15:23 GMT
I don't see how a universe-anti universe process can be a "direct analogue" of the particle pair creation tunneling process? Wouldn't the universe-anti universe pair by definition be causally disconnected from the inflating universe, unlike the electron which interacts directly in spacetime with virtual particles?

It seems like it would then require *two* tunneling processes, one through the causal boundary (domain wall?) of the inflating universe followed by the energy barrier tunneling.

report post as inappropriate

Lawrence B. Crowell wrote on May. 10, 2010 @ 17:03 GMT
The Born-Infeld action is a sort of “square root” of the standard action term. This has a number of features which places gauge field actions on a same polynomial or linear footing with Dirac fields. This is then used to study Hawking-Moss tunneling physics.

Tunneling usually involves how a quantum particle may traverse a tunneling region with a potential energy larger than the...

view entire post

report post as inappropriate

gordobo wrote on May. 25, 2010 @ 11:26 GMT
I stopped after reading the third paragraph “It’s fashionable these days…” and I fail to understand (enlighten me…grasshopper) why it is that we run to the multiverse (making/allowing more of them) when we hardly can understand the one we do have. Unless of course…the anthropic principle just has to be put to death. And lo-and-behold that’s what is mentioned in that article in the paragraphs that follow. WHY? All anyone seems to be doing is moving the goal posts out of reach from whateve4r the truth is. It smacks me of someone who does not know how to play the game of checkers so rather than learning the rules—for one must play if they draw air into lungs (regardless of how unsavory the rules – of ‘life’ - might be) they just add more and more squares to the board—an infinity of squares.

I can see dimensions as a possibility (we have three that we are happy in and then one –time- which just upsets us…as if it is a broken dimension). Isn’t life more into abstracts (as values) that materialism (ya ain’t taking anything with ya when you pop through life through death and ‘perhaps’ come out the other side…and not affected any longer…by time). Science does it’s testing within the materialistic world (five senses) but there is much more out there that science cannot seem to grasp onto…be it dark matter, or integrity, gravity (can see it) or love. Why does science (and scientists) tie their hands and then expect to discover new concepts? Let’s get outside the box: be it materialistic, religious, Anthropic or philosophic…I do not care how unsavory the truth is…I just want the truth…any scientists out there want something other than the truth?

report post as inappropriate

Steve Dufourny replied on May. 26, 2010 @ 09:33 GMT

Yes indeed we want the truth......the spheres and the sphere.....



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.