Different laws of physics??

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 08:09pm

adam warlock wrote:ahh the good old days. still lingering on it are you?

No, you just reminded me of it by persisting in your brain-damaged ways. Perhaps if you had contributed something to the thread's basic philosophical question rather than blathering uselessly about irrelevant trivia, I might not have been forced to conclude that you have not managed to advance at all in your thinking.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 08:24pm

No, you just reminded me of it by persisting in your brain-damaged ways. Perhaps if you had contributed something to the thread's basic philosophical question rather than blathering uselessly about irrelevant trivia, I might not have been forced to conclude that you have not managed to advance at all in your thinking.

sigh.

the thread starter said:

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

to which i replied with a question, addressing what he meant by laws of physics.

What do you mean by different laws of physics?
obtusely different ones in place of the ones long established, or new physics that are (yet to be discovered) extensions of the physics we currently understand.

after which i made a basic summary of research being carried out on searching the search "new physics"

and ending with

Different "universes" as you put it may well contain different physics.
but they wouldnt neccessarily be that much different since certain physics would have to be same in order for that universe to exist (as in to interact and produce observable signatures) in the first place. The difference could be in terms of energy scales of the fundamental particles contained in that universe, and perhaps their behaviour

as for conservation of energy, whatever physics, or universe we can theorise, energy conservation is always part and parcel of how we can observe them.

to address the origin posters comment on conservation of energy below

like conservation of energy- what goes in must come out, and that something can't come from nothing.

though i didnt address his query on connections between mulitply universes as i cant comment on it.

there you go. proof that i contribute an answer to the posters curiosity.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-09 08:24pm

Darth Wong wrote:Einstein's theory is valid because it is necessary in order to explain observed time dilation, orbital irregularities, etc. The unobserved ramifications of the theory are considered valid theoretical predictions because the theory IS necessary in order to explain what we already know.

Yes! This is what I was referring to! ::big kiss::

Tell me more of these orbital irregularities, I havent heard of orbits not fitting their Keplerian paths due to relativity.

Consider the analogy of a man whose DNA was found in a dead rape victim found 100km away from his house, in the woods. The forensics and DNA evidence call for the theory that he must have raped and then killed her. Based on this theory, you can conclude that he must have also driven her body to the woods, even if you can't find the car in order to examine it for DNA evidence. That's an unobserved theoretical prediction relating to a theory which is necessitated by evidence.

Thats my entire point kinda.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 08:28pm

adam warlock wrote:to which i replied with a question, addressing what he meant by laws of physics.

Which did not answer his question at all and only addressed something obvious to most observers.

after which i made a basic summary of research being carried out on searching the search "new physics"

Which was utterly irrelevant, since the question specifically asked about these new laws of physics existing in some sort of parallel universe, not recent physics research in our locality.

to address the origin posters comment on conservation of energy below

Which was also not relevant to the point.

there you go. proof that i contribute an answer to the posters curiosity.

Proof that you waste time trying to puff up your chest and quote information that actually has nothing to do with the question, as usual. Some things never change, and your thick skull is one of them.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 08:44pm

Which did not answer his question at all and only addressed something obvious to most observers.

good grief..of course "asking" for what he meant by "new physics" doesnt answer the question..

Which was utterly irrelevant, since the question specifically asked about these new laws of physics existing in some sort of parallel universe, not recent physics research in our locality.

it provided some insight on the "new physics" i meant, and the research being carried out. in case of posters curiousity.

Which was also not relevant to the point.

read the posters initial comment/question again. "would it possible to have a universe with different laws of physics".

to which i gave a basic answer based on my viewpoint and insights

Proof that you waste time trying to puff up your chest and quote information that actually has nothing to do with the question, as usual. Some things never change, and your thick skull is one of them.

actually youre the one whos puffing your chest and then trying to pass of a lie that i didnt address some of the posters curiosity.

yes i can be dishonest. but surely not you mr wong

regards

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 08:49pm

adam warlock wrote:it provided some insight on the "new physics" i meant, and the research being carried out. in case of posters curiousity.

Yes, you provided detail on your irrelevant tangent, rather than addressing the question. Congratulations.

read the posters initial comment/question again. "would it possible to have a universe with different laws of physics".

to which i gave a basic answer based on my viewpoint and insights

That is a question of basic scientific philosophy, in which current scientific research is basically irrelevant. Your "insights" served no purpose.

actually youre the one whos puffing your chest and then trying to pass of a lie that i didnt address some of the posters curiosity.

No one expressed curiosity about what you were peddling.

yes i can be dishonest. but surely not you mr wong

Anyone can be dishonest, but in your case, you have been shown to be dishonest.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 09:04pm

Yes, you provided detail on your irrelevant tangent, rather than addressing the question. Congratulations.

sigh
no i provided detail one what can be meant by the term "new physics". as in physics of particles, and what governs their behaviour, which could be different in a different universe as i pointed out.

That is a question of basic scientific philosophy, in which current scientific research is basically irrelevant. Your "insights" served no purpose.

scientific theories and insights can stem from philosophy.
and whos to say this question is anymore philosophic, than scientific?
and philosophical questions on science can be answered scientifically (though maybe not in a quantitive way). There is a lot of scientific research being carried on at the moment on this philosophical subject of new physics and universes. There are also books (such as michio kakus) and papers dedicated to such matters.

No one expressed curiosity about what you were peddling.

maybe not.

Anyone can be dishonest, but in your case, you have been shown to be dishonest.

i take that as a yes then

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 09:09pm

If you think you can honestly convince anyone that your post directly addressed the original question, then by all means, go ahead and continue deluding yourself.

sigh

Here's a hint: saying "sigh" before every single attempt at a rebuttal does not actually make it any stronger, nor does it make you seem any smarter, although I know you try very hard. Maybe you'd be happy if I gave you a lollipop for effort?

no i provided detail one what can be meant by the term "new physics". as in physics of particles, and what governs their behaviour, which could be different in a different universe as i pointed out.

Which, for the umpteenth time, does not answer the question of whether it is possible to have parallel universes whose laws of physics differ from ours.

scientific theories and insights can stem from philosophy.
and whos to say this question is anymore philosophic, than scientific?

The fact that the question did not ask for a single insight about existing scientific laws or research, dumb-ass.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 09:38pm

If you think you can honestly convince anyone that your post directly addressed the original question, then by all means, go ahead and continue deluding yourself.

The fact that i addressed the original question o with my insights of what is meant by "new physics" and what they could be like in a different universe.

lets look the original post again

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....

again i repeat
I asked what he meant by "new physics".
I give my take on what is meant by "new physics"
I provided a basic answer for what the physics would be in a different universe, if it existed, based on my insights. meaning yes it would be theoretically possible to have a different universe with different physics, its just in my opinion the physics wouldnt be that much different in order to allow the universe to exist in the first place.

Here's a hint: saying "sigh" before every single attempt at a rebuttal does not actually make it any stronger, nor does it make you seem any smarter, although I know you try very hard. Maybe you'd be happy if I gave you a lollipop for effort?

sigh.. ones typing behaviour is not indicative of one trying be seem stronger. more like one being fed up with the other ones whinging.

Which, for the umpteenth time, does not answer the question of whether it is possible to have parallel universes whose laws of physics differ from ours.

see above.

The fact that the question did not ask for a single insight about existing scientific laws or research, dumb-ass.

lol.
the fact that the question had "new physics" which can have differnt meanings required an answer that provided insight on one of them. And honestly someone asking if it would be possible to have a different universe with "different" physical laws deserves a little more than the mentioning of newtonian, general and special relativity, as these arent exactly "new physics".

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2003-08-09 09:42pm

adam warlock wrote:lets look the original post again
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....
again i repeat
I asked what he meant by "new physics".
I give my take on what is meant by "new physics"

No, you spew about irrelevant trivia. Since anything is possible once you disregard what is known to be true in this universe (even the nature of space, time, matter and energy need not be the same in some other universe), your regurgitation of the usual "let's look at recent research stuff I found on the web" nonsense as some kind of prediction of alternate-universe physics is a complete waste of time.

He only asked if an alternate universe would have what we consider common-sensical laws; he did not ask for irrelevant trivia about recent physics research.

sigh.. ones typing behaviour is not indicative of one trying be seem stronger. more like one being fed up with the other ones whinging.

Fine, whatever. It's clear that you will go on defending your irrelevant bullshit until the cows come home. You go right on telling yourself that you're completely in the right. Pat yourself on the back and rock yourself to sleep while saying that if it makes you feel better about yourself.

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 09:44pm

ih(dY/dt) = -(h²d²Y/2mdx²) + V(x)Y(x,t) = HY(x,t)

ah the time dependent schroedinger equation...seems like an old friend

adam warlock · Post by **adam warlock** » 2003-08-09 09:46pm

Fine, whatever. It's clear that you will go on defending your irrelevant bullshit until the cows come home. You go right on telling yourself that you're completely in the right. Pat yourself on the back and rock yourself to sleep while saying that if it makes you feel better about yourself.

he let me off!!.

hey mike lets make hot love :X

Howedar · Post by **Howedar** » 2003-08-10 01:15am

Fun as it is to watch flames fly back and forth, can we move back to kojikun's pending support of his claim?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-10 01:16am

Howedar wrote:Fun as it is to watch flames fly back and forth, can we move back to kojikun's pending support of his claim?

Except the point was conceeded and you're beating a dead horse, thank you.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-08-11 11:03am

SirNitram wrote: Ten? Why? What are the other six that describe this area of bubbles? Why do you need six? If we're inventing dimensions, I can do it with five dimensional space, not ten. Does he offer any explanation for ten, or does it come from the depths of his ass?),

They need ten for simplicity. The simplist thoery is yielded with ten dimensions. I don't know the specifics, but the solution for ten dimensions is so simple that it would be foolish to ignore it. For fewer dimensions the solutions become much more complex. The goal of Hawkings and crew are to come up with the simplist possible theory. A theory using 4 dimensions is extremely complicated, complete with multiple assumptions and formula for approximating reality. They aren't creating extra dimension for no reason.

The same is true for the "bubble universe" theory. With this theory there is no need to specify innitial conditions for the universe (forces, dimensions, etc) because with an infinity of bubbles, there will be random variations and we are simply one of these variations.

The idea is that a computer algorithm for all natural numbers is extermely simple and small, yet any one number can be extremely complex. So if you were creating a thoery that explained the relationship between 4, 3409849, 79, and 999999999.... the algorithm is the simplist "theory" even though it postulates the existance of numbers you don't know exist (outside the given set). So you should give credence to that theory, and look for the other numbers to see if the theory is true... they aren't just pulling stuff out of their "ass".

Its the same reason they are searching for "unknown" quarks, bosons, etc. The simplist thoery was yielded if they assumed certain particles existed. So they came up with details of this theory, created experiments to prove the theory and proceded from there. To say there was no reason to put credence in the existence of a quark, simply because we haven't seen it, is a misuse of Occam's Razor.

This was the jist of the explanation given by Max Tegmark, as to why physicists bother with such thoeries that postulate the existence of other universes, despite suggestions Occam's Razor seemingly makes such theories needlessly complex.

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-11 11:06am

Zoink wrote:
SirNitram wrote: Ten? Why? What are the other six that describe this area of bubbles? Why do you need six? If we're inventing dimensions, I can do it with five dimensional space, not ten. Does he offer any explanation for ten, or does it come from the depths of his ass?),
They need ten for simplicity. The simplist thoery is yielded with ten dimensions. I don't know the specifics, but the solution for ten dimensions is so simple that it would be foolish to ignore it. For fewer dimensions the solutions become much more complex. The goal of Hawkings and crew are to come up with the simplist possible theory. A theory using 4 dimensions is extremely complicated, complete with multiple assumptions and formula for approximating reality. They aren't creating extra dimension for no reason.

You're discussing M-Theory, I think, where the equations don't add up right unless the number of dimensions in the Big Bang is 10 or higher(I think 11 is the current best number). But that's not what I asked, as his quote claims that the little dimension-sets from each Big Bang are, themselves, contained in something larger that is 10 dimensional. I think. It was so heavily BSing it can be hard to tell.

Zoink · Post by **Zoink** » 2003-08-11 11:11am

SirNitram wrote:You're discussing M-Theory, I think,

Well I'm trying at least

I don't claim to be an expert in this field or anything, just repeating what I've read in a few books.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-11 11:34am

I think it's just plain old string theory that has (atleast at first had) 10/11 dimensions, unless the Mother-of-all-Theories is another name for string theory..

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-11 12:01pm

kojikun wrote:I think it's just plain old string theory that has (atleast at first had) 10/11 dimensions, unless the Mother-of-all-Theories is another name for string theory..

It got renamed years ago.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-11 12:06pm

SirNitram wrote:It got renamed years ago.

Did it? Huh. Was it M-Theory first or was it renamed M-Theory?

SirNitram · Post by **SirNitram** » 2003-08-11 12:09pm

kojikun wrote:
SirNitram wrote:It got renamed years ago.
Did it? Huh. Was it M-Theory first or was it renamed M-Theory?

First String, then M-.

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-11 12:26pm

Bah. Those tossers. Well it's string theory for me. Bastards.

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2003-08-12 05:39am

kojikun wrote: cause if, say, our space-time continuum is looped, closed off from others, like a wormhole that goes back on itself

I think that you are confusing the horizon problem (observable universe != the whole of the universe - referred to in the definition you posted) with Hawking's little universes connected by wormholes (Universe/universes). They are very different concepts. The definition you posted is connected to the first, but not the second.

kojikun wrote: Because I have no interest in wasting my time searching for something you won't understand, prove to me you WILL understand it, and that you're not being a dickhead looking to waste my time by identifying these two equations which are vital in our current model of the universe. If you can do that, then I will attempt to find the very long page filling equations you seek. Ok? Good.

They've been somewhat mangled by this character set. The first equation is the non-relativistic Schrodinger equation, and the second set of equations are the gravitational field equations in general relativity. Will you now post these pages?

kojikun · Post by **kojikun** » 2003-08-12 12:25pm

Clay, stop beating a dead horse.

ClaysGhost · Post by **ClaysGhost** » 2003-08-12 01:11pm

kojikun wrote:Clay, stop beating a dead horse.

I'm just making sure it's really dead! Anyway, the horizon problem is an interesting one anyway, higher dimensions or no.