Different laws of physics??

[Shrykull]

Would it be possible to have a universe with different laws of physics, and are most of them just common sense and logic really, like conservation of energy- what goes in must come out, and that something can't come from nothing. What about if you had several universes connected, and sometimes the energy could disappear- go into another universe, and it seemingly looks like it vanished.

[Howedar]

If you start off by saying that all the laws we know do not apply, then ask whether we'd have to have our laws apply, you get a nice case of circular logic.

[kojikun]

shrykull, energy cannot leave The Universe, but it can leave a universe. the difference being a universe, lowercase, is a restricted portion of all that exists, seperated by its own fabric of space from other universes; where as The Universe, capitalised, is everything that exists everywhere.

[Kuroneko]

shrykull, energy cannot leave The Universe, but it can leave a universe. the difference being a universe, lowercase, is a restricted portion of all that exists, seperated by its own fabric of space from other universes; where as The Universe, capitalised, is everything that exists everywhere.

Can it? What mechanism would enable it to do so? If it's a wormhole, for example, then the two "universes" are not really separate from each other, and therefore are actually a single universe.

[SirNitram]

shrykull, energy cannot leave The Universe, but it can leave a universe. the difference being a universe, lowercase, is a restricted portion of all that exists, seperated by its own fabric of space from other universes; where as The Universe, capitalised, is everything that exists everywhere.

Lovely how you've never proved this assumption yet always trot it out....

Dude, if you want to rewrite physics for a story, go ahead, just keep it internally consistant.

[BoredShirtless]

shrykull, energy cannot leave The Universe, but it can leave a universe. the difference being a universe, lowercase, is a restricted portion of all that exists, seperated by its own fabric of space from other universes; where as The Universe, capitalised, is everything that exists everywhere.

Kojikun, there's a word which describes "universe, lower case, is a restricted portion of all that exists". It's galaxy.

[kojikun]

Nitram, shu~ut up already. Read what I said and try arguing the definition, ok? Thank you. Christ.

Its a matter of definition of theoretical things. Stop acting like im arguing that one or the other exists, and start reading what im saying for once you stupid clod.

Kojikun, there's a word which describes "universe, lower case, is a restricted portion of all that exists". It's galaxy.

Uh, no. See, a galaxy, shirtless, is a collection of stars, generally a few billion, orbiting a commn center of gravity. Incase you didnt know, which you clearly didn't, there are things called clusters, which are MULTIPLE galaxies that all tend to be in the same general area doing the same stuff, then there are SUPERclusters which are clusters of clusters. But, see, you didn't READ WHAT I WROTE.

a restricted portion of all that exists, seperated by its own fabric of space from other universes

See where i said "seperated by its own fabric of space"? That means that if you were plopped down in that universe, lets assume its 3-dimensional, you could go off in any direction and never leave the universe, just like a person walking about the earth will never find himself on another planet because its going in the wrong direction.

[BoredShirtless]

See where i said "seperated by its own fabric of space"? That means that if you were plopped down in that universe, lets assume its 3-dimensional, you could go off in any direction and never leave the universe, just like a person walking about the earth will never find himself on another planet because its going in the wrong direction.

I wouldn't mind having a look at this theory of yours. Please submit it here for review.

[kojikun]

oh an nitram, if you want to argue the definition of universe, i suggest you LEARN the definition, as well as the history of the word. allow me to quote wikipedia, yes?

In the first half of the 20th century, the word Universe was used to mean the whole spacetime continuum in which we find ourselves, together with all the matter and energy within it. Attempts to understand the Universe in this sense, on the largest scales possible, are made in cosmology, a science that has grown from astronomy and physics. During the second half of the 20th century, the development of observational cosmology, also called physical cosmology, led to a split in the meaning of the word Universe between observational cosmologists and theoretical cosmologists, where the former (usually) abandon the hope of observing the whole spacetime continuum, while the latter retain this hope, trying to find the most reasonable speculations for modelling the whole of spacetime, despite the extreme difficulty in imagining any empirical constraints on these speculations and the risk of sliding into metaphysics.

now, part and parscel of this dichotomy is anything that exists in dimensions higher then our three. I mean, how can we observe something if its 4-dimensional? we'd never have evidence of it, only theory. but thats the kicker aint it? cause if, say, our space-time continuum is looped, closed off from others, like a wormhole that goes back on itself and seperates, then were a seperate lower-case-universe. and that stuff, the idea of wormholes and pockets in space and mini universes being spawned off of already existing ones is all part of modern theories about how the universe works.

[Andrew J.]

If there are an infinite number of universes within the multiverse, and there is a way to connect them, one could theoretically have access to infinite amounts of matter and energy.

[kojikun]

If there are an infinite number of universes within the multiverse, and there is a way to connect them, one could theoretically have access to infinite amounts of matter and energy.

you can connect them, sure. wormholes and blackholes are theorised to actually connect some universes to other universes. but how would we have infinite energy? theres two problems here:

• One universe might now have the same laws of physics as ours, so interaction between matter might be impossible. Or, when you move from one universe to the other, your physical properties might change and youll explode.

• How would extracting energy from another universe be any different from extracting energy from ours? Using fusion power this universe will last us an eternity.

[BoredShirtless]

now, part and parscel of this dichotomy is anything that exists in dimensions higher then our three. I mean, how can we observe something if its 4-dimensional? we'd never have evidence of it, only theory. but thats the kicker aint it? cause if, say, our space-time continuum is looped, closed off from others, like a wormhole that goes back on itself and seperates, then were a seperate lower-case-universe.

Please explain why you made the assumption that space-time (which is 4 dimensions, 3 spatial plus time) is closed from other theoretical dimensions.

and that stuff, the idea of wormholes and pockets in space and mini universes being spawned off of already existing ones is all part of modern theories about how the universe works.

I've read articles on wormholes. But never mini universes being spawned off of already existing ones. Reference?

[kojikun]

Please explain why you made the assumption that space-time (which is 4 dimensions, 3 spatial plus time) is closed from other theoretical dimensions.

We're not closed off from higher spatial dimensions (time is not the fourth spatial dimensional, its the temporal dimension, which supercedes all "dimensions"). We're cute off from higher spatial dimensions because we're not in them. You can't see off into the 4th dimension unless you can move into it, but humans cant move into it.

I've read articles on wormholes. But never mini universes being spawned off of already existing ones. Reference?

Michio Kaku's hyperspace has some references I think.

[phongn]

If there are an infinite number of universes within the multiverse, and there is a way to connect them, one could theoretically have access to infinite amounts of matter and energy.

There was an article in SciAm a few months ago that postulated that there was a very large, but finite, number of universes.

[BoredShirtless]

Please explain why you made the assumption that space-time (which is 4 dimensions, 3 spatial plus time) is closed from other theoretical dimensions.

We're not closed off from higher spatial dimensions

Which isn't what you said earlier. Am I nitpicking a careless mistake, or did you just revise your theory?

(time is not the fourth spatial dimensional,

Who said it was? Not me.

We're cute off from higher spatial dimensions because we're not in them.

You can't be in a dimension anymore then you can be in Planks constant. Dimensions are attributes used to describe things in our universe. Example, a laptop can be described in space via its height, width and length.

If scientists discover a 4th spatial dimension tomorrow, our universe will gain another attribute. We will all be described by this new dimension. I hope I'm being clear here, I've just downed my fourth beer and am a little woozy

You can't see off into the 4th dimension unless you can move into it, but humans cant move into it.

Ah this I understand. Moving within not only our 3 known dimensions but a potential 4th. Yes, humans can't move in a manner which requires a 4th dimension attribute, cause we don't know if that 4th dimension actually exists!

I've read articles on wormholes. But never mini universes being spawned off of already existing ones. Reference?

Michio Kaku's hyperspace has some references I think.

Is Michio a website? Got a link, don't matter if you don't I can google.

[Wicked Pilot]

Would it be possible to have a universe with different laws of physics, and are most of them just common sense and logic really, like conservation of energy- what goes in must come out, and that something can't come from nothing.

Possibly, but the most basic assumption about the world is that it does not contradict itself.

[kojikun]

Which isn't what you said earlier. Am I nitpicking a careless mistake, or did you just revise your theory?

You're nitpicking something that isn't a mistake. People generally talk about dimensions as being spatial. It's a misinterpretation of theory to make space into the 4th dimensional.

Who said it was? Not me.

Good.

You can't be in a dimension anymore then you can be in Planks constant. Dimensions are attributes used to describe things in our universe. Example, a laptop can be described in space via its height, width and length.

Yes, and a laptop has no projections ana or kata, thus it has no 4th dimension. but you CAN rotate a laptop into the fourth dimension, so that the volume it exists it is perpendicular to ours and intersects only on a single plane.

If scientists discover a 4th spatial dimension tomorrow, our universe will gain another attribute. We will all be described by this new dimension. I hope I'm being clear here, I've just downed my fourth beer and am a little woozy

You mean THE Universe will gain another attribute. We exist in a 3-Dimensional volume-surface of a 4-dimensional object we call the fabric of space. Or so the theories say. But that 4-dimensional object has only that one 3-dimensional volume-surface, and that doesnt exclude other 4-D objects with their own 3D VSurfaces.

Ah this I understand. Moving within not only our 3 known dimensions but a potential 4th. Yes, humans can't move in a manner which requires a 4th dimension attribute, cause we don't know if that 4th dimension actually exists!

And we'll never be able to see it, because in order to do so, we'd have to be 4-dimensional ourselves. But if we were 4-dimensional, we would have body parts that work on 4-dimensional principles not 3-dimensional ones.

Is Michio a website? Got a link, don't matter if you don't I can google.

Michio Kaku. Hes a theoretical physicist. He is the Einstein of our time. Go buy Hyperspace.

[SirNitram]

Nitram, shu~ut up already. Read what I said and try arguing the definition, ok? Thank you. Christ.

This from the dumbass whose redefined the word universe for his completely unproven pet theory. It's called Burden Of Proof, Koji. You have to prove energy can leave a universe.

[kojikun]

This from the dumbass whose redefined the word universe for his completely unproven pet theory. It's called Burden Of Proof, Koji. You have to prove energy can leave a universe.

Funny, then, that I got the definition from an encyclopedia.

There are two definitions of a universe, Nitram. Always have been. And its not my pet theory, tho it is unproven. Its also unproven like all theoretical physics, but its also consistant with modern theories.

[SirNitram]

This from the dumbass whose redefined the word universe for his completely unproven pet theory. It's called Burden Of Proof, Koji. You have to prove energy can leave a universe.

Funny, then, that I got the definition from an encyclopedia.

There are two definitions of a universe, Nitram. Always have been. And its not my pet theory, tho it is unproven. Its also unproven like all theoretical physics, but its also consistant with modern theories.

Oh please; at least theoretical physics has the math backing it up, you haven't even demonstrated that. If you want a debate on this, I suggest you actually post an argument for it, instead of playing the burden of proof fallacy. CoE has never differentiated between 'everything that is' and the lower-case universe you demand must be right.

[kojikun]

Oh please; at least theoretical physics has the math backing it up, you haven't even demonstrated that. If you want a debate on this, I suggest you actually post an argument for it, instead of playing the burden of proof fallacy. CoE has never differentiated between 'everything that is' and the lower-case universe you demand must be right.

I don't intend of debating anything. You're confusing my definitions. The lowercase universe doesnt violate CoE because it doesnt assume that the universe being referenced to means all that exists. You're right to say that energy cannot vanish, because it doesn't, it changes locations. In the case of lower case "universe" it means that the energy can transit from one 3-D space-time continuum to another, while still remaining in the same 4-D space. Its not vanishing, its just moving in a different DIRECTION, one perpendicular to the three we're familiar with.

[SirNitram]

Oh please; at least theoretical physics has the math backing it up, you haven't even demonstrated that. If you want a debate on this, I suggest you actually post an argument for it, instead of playing the burden of proof fallacy. CoE has never differentiated between 'everything that is' and the lower-case universe you demand must be right.

I don't intend of debating anything. You're confusing my definitions. The lowercase universe doesnt violate CoE because it doesnt assume that the universe being referenced to means all that exists. You're right to say that energy cannot vanish, because it doesn't, it changes locations. In the case of lower case "universe" it means that the energy can transit from one 3-D space-time continuum to another, while still remaining in the same 4-D space. Its not vanishing, its just moving in a different DIRECTION, one perpendicular to the three we're familiar with.

You know, Koji, I'm frankly amazed someone whose been on this board this long can be so fucking stupid. That is what I am asking you to back up; your claim that energy can move between 4D universes(Or weren't you aware that the world we live in is 4D?). Back it up or shut the fuck up, it's not a hard concept.

BTW, avoiding the fact I'm demanding you back up your claims and focusing on the minor comment about you playing with the definition of universe is what's called a Red Herring. It's a fallacy.

[Zoink]

I have read of other definitions for "universe".

There are theories for an infinite space where different regions underwent different rates of inflation, some having never inflated, with some possibly having different values for physical constants. Each "bubble" has been called a seperate "universe" because each has different properties for the strengths of gravity, more or less forces, etc, and I believe they are essentially closed to other regions.... so don't know whether its possible to transfer energy between "regions".

I believe this is the founding theory for the anthropic principle, which Stephen Hawkings is a strong supporter of.

I believe Stephen Hawkings has another theory were our universe is connected to an infinite number of other universes via micro wormholes that pop in and out of existence. He uses this theory to explain some value for the vacuum or something.

[kojikun]

That is what I am asking you to back up; your claim that energy can move between 4D universes(Or weren't you aware that the world we live in is 4D?). Back it up or shut the fuck up, it's not a hard concept.

If two universes were to come in contact with one another, the gravity of one should be able to cross into the other universe, assuming that gravity is, as theories claim, a distortion of space into the fuorth dimension.

Also, if a wormhole connects two universes, theyre not longer seperate universes, so energy can freely move from one side fo the wormhole to the other. when the wormhole closes, the energy of THE UNIVERSE (meaning all that exists) remains the same. The location changes, but theres no change in energy.

And a while back when they were discussing whether gravity moves at the speed of light whether it could move faster because it moved through the fourth dimension it was assumed by the physicists that energy could move in more then 3 dimensions (and why shouldnt it be able to? its just gotta be pointed there).

BTW, avoiding the fact I'm demanding you back up your claims and focusing on the minor comment about you playing with the definition of universe is what's called a Red Herring. It's a fallacy.

I thought we were debating the definition of universe and then you changed to energy moving between them.

[Mad]

This from the dumbass whose redefined the word universe for his completely unproven pet theory. It's called Burden Of Proof, Koji. You have to prove energy can leave a universe.

What's your definition of "universe"? What states that energy cannot leave a universe and enter another (assuming your definition allows for two or more universes to exist).

Certainly not Conservation of Energy. Unless I'm missing something major, CoE states that energy in a closed system must stay constant. It doesn't state anything about the energy of a "universe." Our universe, as we know it, is a closed system. However, if our universe were to connect somehow to a parallel universe, then it would no longer be a closed system, and thus energy could enter or leave it.