Is Our Universe Alone?

[zep73]

18 hours ago, Not A Rockstar said:

In my model of it, if they come close enough the interaction can result in a new universe coming to be.

That is close to M-theory or membrane theory. But in that theory universes are born when wavy membranes (who are not universes themselves) touch each other.

[StarMountainKid]

There  is a model in which there is only one of each elementary particle, but each of these these particles are in many places at once. 

In this sense, there may be only one universe, but in many places or dimensions at the same time. I haven't seen this speculation anywhere. 

[zep73]

37 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

There  is a model in which there is only one of each elementary particle, but each of these these particles are in many places at once. 

In this sense, there may be only one universe, but in many places or dimensions at the same time. I haven't seen this speculation anywhere. 

It sounds an awful lot like the quantum multiverse, which is based on wave/particle duality.
It basically says that the wave function is in all the universes, but the particle switches between them.

But okay, you say there is only one single (very busy) particle? That is a new theory to me.

[StarMountainKid]

45 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

It sounds an awful lot like the quantum multiverse, which is based on wave/particle duality.
It basically says that the wave function is in all the universes, but the particle switches between them.

But okay, you say there is only one single (very busy) particle? That is a new theory to me.

I've read in several books on particle physics the idea. For instance, a proton can be in several places at once, so why not only one proton in every position possible? After all, every proton is exactly alike. 

I don't know where to look this up, though. 

I'm not sure how to relate this to multiple universes. Perhaps you can think of something.

[zep73]

3 minutes ago, StarMountainKid said:

I've read in several books on particle physics the idea. For instance, a proton can be in several places at once, so why not only one proton in every position possible? After all, every proton is exactly alike. 

I don't know where to look this up, though. 

I'm not sure how to relate this to multiple universes. Perhaps you can think of something.

I think by position it's meant as spin direction. A particle that is in a superposition has two spin directions.
It's better know as Schrödingers Cat. It is both alive and dead, until the box is opened (measurement).

A universe like ours, where all elementary particle types have the exact same charge, resembles a matrix more than a multiverse, if you ask me.

[StarMountainKid]

9 minutes ago, sci-nerd said:

I think by position it's meant as spin direction. A particle that is in a superposition has two spin directions.
It's better know as Schrödingers Cat. It is both alive and dead, until the box is opened (measurement).

A universe like ours, where all elementary particle types have the exact same charge, resembles a matrix more than a multiverse, if you ask me.

Definition of matrix 

 

1 : something within or from which something else originates, develops, or takes form

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/matrix

 

Our universe is particles and forces, but we sense it as something different, as our physical environment that our brain creates on our macro scale. 

 

This may be a different topic, but it's an odd phenomenon, even unexpected.

 

I would think, as all elementary particles are exactly the same individually, it makes no difference whether there are many individuals or are all the same individual. 

 

[zep73]

@StarMountainKid

I should stop ever using the word "matrix". Every time I do, people get technical and time is wasted 

I meant a virtual reality.

Regarding "one very busy particle": You know when you see the blades on a helicopter, they are blurred. They are moving so fast that they each become less distinctive. That is how the world would look if just one particle was changing position all the time. Nothing would be clear. It's a funny idea, but it's too far out to be taken serious.

Edited December 9, 2018 by sci-nerd

[StarMountainKid]

"The physicist John Wheeler set forth the idea that all electrons may actually be the same electron. That is to say there may be only one electron in the entire universe.

He based his idea on an experiment by Richard Feynman. Feynman's interpretation was that a positron is an electron which is going backward in time.

John Wheeler built on this interpretation and suggested that all electrons and positrons are the same particle, moving back and forth in time."

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20091221070835AAPqkEf

 

[lightly]

On December 9, 2018 at 11:00 AM, StarMountainKid said:

There  is a model in which there is only one of each elementary particle, but each of these these particles are in many places at once. 

In this sense, there may be only one universe, but in many places or dimensions at the same time. I haven't seen this speculation anywhere. 

Bingo !    I've been wondering for a long time if the elementary sources all of the matter in the universe Blinks in and out of existence at high rates ...perhaps thousands or millions of time per second. ?   I wonder if that constant Re- Creation of the universe is what gives it stability,and what makes it possible to stay in existence.  ?    Also if ,sort of echoes of the physicality of all these blinking universes is why it reads as More matter than possible from One universe.

so....not a multiverse....but , a multiplication of This Universe.   See what I'm getting at ?

   Also .... I think time is nothing more than a measurement of motion/movement.  That's just how it seems to me.

[zep73]

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Bingo !    I've been wondering for a long time if the elementary sources all of the matter in the universe Blinks in and out of existence at high rates ...perhaps thousands or millions of time per second. ?   I wonder if that constant Re- Creation of the universe is what gives it stability,and what makes it possible to stay in existence.  ?    Also if ,sort of echoes of the physicality of all these blinking universes is why it reads as More matter than possible from One universe.

so....not a multiverse....but , a multiplication of This Universe.   See what I'm getting at ?

It would be nice if your assumptions were based on some sort of evidence, or else it's pure unprovable speculation.

1 hour ago, lightly said:

Also .... I think time is nothing more than a measurement of motion/movement.  That's just how it seems to me.

That is exactly what time is. Changes in entropy, with Planck time as the shortest unit.

1 second contains 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 Planck time units, so you see your millions per second is not much and would be easy to detect.

 

Edited December 12, 2018 by sci-nerd

[StarMountainKid]

7 hours ago, lightly said:

Bingo !    I've been wondering for a long time if the elementary sources all of the matter in the universe Blinks in and out of existence at high rates ...perhaps thousands or millions of time per second. ?   I wonder if that constant Re- Creation of the universe is what gives it stability,and what makes it possible to stay in existence.  ?    Also if ,sort of echoes of the physicality of all these blinking universes is why it reads as More matter than possible from One universe.

so....not a multiverse....but , a multiplication of This Universe.   See what I'm getting at ?

   Also .... I think time is nothing more than a measurement of motion/movement.  That's just how it seems to me.

Planck time is the time required for light to travel one Planck distance, or 10x^-44 seconds. I wonder if this would be the "Blink" interval you suggest. 

[lightly]

That's a thought Star.   I sure dunno,   as sci-nerd said,. my idea is just baseless speculation...at it's purest ! :0 )

but...it's an interesting idea ....I think.   A universe which Re-created itself at very high Frequencies would make for a very fluid and dynamic one...sort of conducive to motion within it ?    Like a film...instead of a snapshot.

A light blinking on & off ...fast enough...will eventually appear to Stay On.  And if you based your measurement of the light/lumens... As being On ALL  the time, you would get a sum that appeared to be more light than was actually present.

......anyway.... Fascinating .    Power shortage setting in...gotta scoot.