Comprehensive coverage

parallel universes

The existence of other universes is not just the bread and butter of science fiction; Cosmological observations point in their direction
by Max Tegmark

Landmarks in the expansion of the universe. From Wikipedia
Landmarks in the expansion of the universe. From Wikipedia

Is there a copy somewhere for you, who is reading this article right now? Someone who is not you, yet he lives on a planet called Earth, with misty mountains, verdant fields and sprawling cities, in a solar system that has eight other planets? This man's life has been the same as yours up until now in every respect, but now, he may be putting the article down without finishing reading it, while you continue reading.
The thought of the existence of such a second self seems strange and unthinkable, but it turns out that we will just have to put up with it, because it enjoys the support of astronomical observations. The simplest and most common cosmological model today predicts that you have a twin in a galaxy that is 10 times the distance from you28meters. This distance is so great that it cannot even be called "astronomical", but it does not in the least detract from the reality of that double of you. The distance estimate is based on simple probability, and does not even need speculative assumptions from modern physics, apart from the fact that the space is infinite in size (or at least large enough) and that the matter is distributed in it almost uniformly, as indeed the observations show. In infinite space, even the most improbable events must occur somewhere. The number of inhabited planets is infinite, and among them there is not just one, but an infinite number of planets where a resident looks like you, bears your name and remembers your memories, residents who fulfill during their lives every possible combination of the choices that stood before you during your life.

It is assumed that we will never get to see one of our doubles. The greatest distance we can achieve in our observations is the distance that light has had to travel in the 14 billion years that have passed since the expansion of the Big Bang began. The most distant bodies we can see today are about 1026 ´ 4 meters from us - this distance defines the observable universe, which some call our Hubble volume, the volume of our horizon, or simply our universe. Like our universe, the universes of our doubles are equal-sized spheres around their worlds. This is the simplest and clearest example of parallel universes. Each universe is but a small part of a much larger "multiverse".

From this very definition of "universe", one could expect that the concept of the multiverse would forever remain in the realm of metaphysics. But the dividing line between physics and metaphysics is defined according to the question, whether a theory can be tested experimentally, and not according to the question whether the theory seems strange, or deals with entities that there is no way to observe them. The frontiers of physics are constantly expanding, embracing increasingly abstract concepts (once considered metaphysical), such as a spherical earth, invisible electromagnetic fields, high-speed time slowing, quantum superpositions, curved space, and black holes. In recent years, the multiverse concept has joined this list. It is anchored in tried and tested theories such as relativity and quantum mechanics, and it meets the two basic standards of empirical science: it produces predictions, and it can be disproved. Scientists discuss four distinct types, no less, of parallel universes. The key question is not about the existence of a multiverse, but about its number of levels.

First rank: beyond our cosmic horizon

The parallel universes in which our counterparts reside form a first degree multiverse. This kind of multiverse is hardly controversial. It is accepted by all of us that there are things that we are unable to see, but we could see them if we moved to another vantage point or simply waited, as people wait for ships coming over the horizon. This is the status of the bodies beyond the cosmic horizon. The observable universe is expanding at a rate of one light year every year, since the addition of time allows light from a more distant source to reach us. There is a complete infinity around us, and it is gradually revealed to our eyes. Reason suggests that we will all die before our doubles are revealed to our eyes, but in principle, and provided that the expansion of the universe cooperates, our descendants will be able to observe them with telescopes as powerful as necessary.

On the face of it, a first-order multiverse seems self-evident, almost trivial. How can the space Not be infinite? Is there somewhere a sign that says, "This is where the space ends - please be careful on the next step"? And if so, what lies beyond it? In fact, Einstein's theory of gravitation calls this intuition into question. A space can be finite if it has convex curvature, or unusual topology (ie, interconnectedness). A universe shaped like a ball, donut or "pretzel" will have a finite volume, but without edges. The cosmic microwave background radiation allows for sensitive tests of such scenarios (see: "Is space finite?" JF Luminette, JD Strackman and JR Weeks, Scientific American April 1999). But so far, the evidence is against them. An infinite space fits the data, and strong constraints were placed on the alternatives.

Another possibility is that space is indeed infinite, but matter is limited to a finite area around us - this is the "island universe" model, which was accepted in the past. In one of the variations of this model, the material gets depleted on a large scale, in a fractal format. In both cases, almost all universes in the first degree multiverse would be empty and dead. But recent observations, both of the three-dimensional distribution of the galaxies and of the background radiation in microwaves, have shown that the organization of matter is giving way to a boring uniformity on large scales, without distinct structures whose size exceeds 1024 About a meter. Assuming this pattern continues, it seems that the space beyond our observable universe is full and overflowing with galaxies, stars and planets.

Observers living in first degree parallel universes are subject to the same laws of physics that operate on us, but their initial conditions were different. According to contemporary theories, processes that operated at the beginning of the Big Bang scattered the matter around with a certain randomness, and created all possible forms of organization whose probability is different from zero. Cosmologists assume that our universe, with its nearly uniform distribution of matter and deviations in initial densities that did not exceed one part in 100,000, is fairly typical (at least among those in which there are observers). This assumption is at the basis of the estimate quoted above, according to which our nearest twins are at a distance of 10 to the power of 1028 a meter from us. At a distance of 10 to the power of 1092 A meter should be a sphere with a radius of 100 light years that does not differ in any detail from the one we are in the center of, so that all the things we are going to see in the next hundred years will be the same as those our counterparts there will see. At a distance of 10 to the power of 10118 A meter from us should be a whole mourning volume that is the same as ours.

These are extremely conservative estimates, derived simply from counting all the possible quantum states that the Hubble volume can have, if its temperature does not exceed 108 Kelvin degrees. One of the ways to calculate this is to pose the question of how many protons can accumulate in the Hubble volume at this temperature. The answer is 10118 protons. In practice, each of these particles may or may not be found, so there are 2 to the 10th power118 Different possibilities for organizing the protons in such a Hubble volume. A box containing this number of Hubble volumes would exhaust all possibilities. If you round the numbers, the width of such a box is approximately 10 to the power of 10118 meter. Beyond this box, the universes - including our universe - must repeat themselves. A roughly similar number is obtained from estimates of the total information content of the universe, derived from thermodynamics or quantum gravity theory.

Our closest doppelgangers are likely to be much closer than these numbers suggest, as the processes of planet formation and biological evolution may tip the scales in our favor. Astronomers estimate that there are at least 10 in our Hubble volume20 inhabited planets; Some of them may very well look like Earth.

The first-order multiverse framework is used as a routine way of evaluating theories in modern cosmology, although cosmologists do not usually state this explicitly. For example, see how they use the microwave background radiation to negate finite spherical geometry. Hot and cold foci in the background radiation maps have a characteristic size that depends on the curvature of space, and the foci detected in the observations appear too small to be consistent with a spherical shape. But it is important to pay attention to statistical precision here. The size of an average focal point varies randomly from one Hubble volume to another, and hence the possibility that our universe is deceiving us - perhaps it is spherical, but it just happens to have abnormally small focal points. When cosmologists say they rule out the spherical model with 99.9 percent confidence, what they really mean is that if that model were true, then small foci like the ones we see would be found in less than one in 1,000 Hubble volumes.

The lesson is that we can put the multiverse theory to the test and disprove it, even if we can't see the other universes. The key lies in predicting the essence of an ensemble of parallel universes and determining a probability distribution, what mathematicians call a "measure", for this ensemble. Our universe should turn out to be one of the highest probability. If this is not so - if the multiverse theory predicts that we live in an improbable universe - then the theory is problematic. As I will clarify later, this problem of size turns out to be a real challenge.

Second degree: other bubbles in the inflated space

Those who had trouble digesting a first-order multiverse will now have to deal with the thought of an infinite set of first-order multiverses, some of which may have different space-time dimensions and other physical constants. Those other multiverses - forming the second degree multiverse - derive from the currently accepted theory of eternal chaotic inflation.

Inflation is an extension of the big bang theory, and it has the power to settle many of the questions arising from this theory, for example why the universe is so big, so uniform and so flat. A rapid expansion of space at a very early date can excuse all these difficulties, and more, with one wave of the hand. [See: "The Inflating Universe" by Alan J. Guth and Paul J. Steinhardt, Scientific American 1984, and "The Inflating Universe That Replicates Itself" by Andrei Lind, November 1994]. This stretching is predicted by a large class of theories from the field of elementary particles, and all the evidence we have supports it. The pair of words "eternal chaos" refers to what happens on the largest scales. The entire space continues to expand, and will continue to do so forever, but some areas of the space stop expanding and form distinct bubbles, like the gas pockets that form in a bread square during inflation. The number of bubbles that can appear in this way is infinite. Each one is a seed of a first-order multiverse: infinite in size and filled with matter left behind by the energy field that drove the swelling.

The distance of these bubbles from the earth exceeds infinity, in the sense that we can never reach them, even if we travel forever at the speed of light. The reason is that the space between our bubble and its neighbors is expanding faster than we can cross it. Our descendants will never see their doubles in other parts of a second-order multiverse. For the same reason, by the way, if indeed the expansion of the universe is accelerating as the most recent observations teach, they may not get to see even their doubles from the first degree.

A second degree multiverse is much more diverse than a first degree multiverse. The difference between the bubbles is expressed not only in their initial conditions, but also in some fundamental aspects of nature. The prevailing view in physics today holds that the dimensions of space-time, the properties of the elementary particles and many of the quantities called "physical constants" are not part of the laws of physics, but arise from processes called "symmetry breaking". For example, theorists believe that space in our universe once had nine dimensions, all of which had equal status. At the beginning of the history of the cosmos, three of them participated in the expansion of the universe, and became the three dimensions we know from our experiences today. The remaining six are not observable now, either because they remain microscopic, in a worm-like topology, or because all matter is limited to a three-dimensional "surface" or a three-dimensional "membrane" (3D membrane or "brane" for short) in a nine-dimensional space.

Here it is, the symmetry that initially prevailed between the dimensions was broken. The quantum fluctuations that drive the chaotic swelling may cause different symmetry breaks in different bubbles. Some may be made four-dimensional, others may contain two generations of quarks rather than three, and there will also be those in which the cosmological constant is stronger than it is in our universe.

Another way to obtain a second degree multiverse is the possibility of the existence of cycles of the birth of universes and their destruction. In the scientific context, this idea was first introduced in the 2002s by the physicist Richard K. Tolman, and more recently by Paul J. Steinhardt of Princeton University and Neil Turok of Cambridge University. Steinhard and Torok's proposal and the models close to it deal with another three-dimensional membrane, parallel to ours, but in a higher dimension. [See "Already Been, Already Done" by George Masser, Panorama, Scientific American, March XNUMX].

This parallel universe is not a separate universe in the full sense of the word, because it is interconnected with our universe. But the totality of universes - past, present and future - that create these "membranes" may constitute a multiverse, and there are legs to the claim that the versatility of this is weighed against the versatility created by the chaotic swelling. An idea proposed by physicist Lee Smolin from the Perimeter Institute in Waterloo, Ontario deals with another multiverse, similar in its versatility to a second degree multiverse, but it undergoes mutations and grows new universes through black holes and not through "membrane physics".

Although we cannot interact with other second-order parallel universes, cosmologists can assert their existence indirectly, because their presence may explain coincidences in our own universe that have no other explanation. By way of analogy, suppose a person enters a hotel, gets a room with the number 1967 and notices that this is exactly the year of his birth. What a strange case, he says to himself. But after a moment of reflection, the man will come to the conclusion that there is nothing surprising here. There are hundreds of rooms in the hotel, and the man would not have wondered about things in the first place if he had received a room with a different number, which meant nothing to him. The lesson is that even those who know nothing and a half about hotels will be able to deduce the existence of other hotel rooms, as an explanation for the coincidence.

As a more practical example, consider the mass of the Sun. The mass of a star dictates the intensity of its illumination, and from calculations of simple physics we can calculate and determine that life on earth, as we know it, is only possible if the mass of the Sun is found in the narrow interval between 1030 ´ 1.6 and 1030 ´ 2.4 kg. If not, Earth's climate would be colder than it is on Mars today, or hotter than it is on Venus today. The measured value of the sun's mass is 2.0 ´ 1030Kg. At first glance, this apparent match between the life-sustaining mass and the observed mass appears to be an extremely discounted case. In general, the stellar masses range from 1029 And 1032 kg, therefore, if the sun received its mass at random, there would be little chance that it would be exactly in the interval that allows life. But similar to the hotel room example, this apparently miraculous coincidence can be explained by assuming the existence of a complex (in this case, several planetary systems) and a selection process (the fact that we inevitably live on a planet suitable for life). Selection of this kind, which is based on the observer, is called "anthropic", and even if this is considered an almost rude word, and in any case arouses controversy, it is agreed upon by most physicists that they must not ignore such effects of selection when they come to test basic theories.

What is said in hotel rooms and planetary systems is also said in parallel universes. Most, if not all, of the properties created upon symmetry breaking seem to be calibrated with great precision. Changing their values, even to a small extent, would result in the creation of a universe of a different nature, in which we would obviously not be able to exist. If the mass of protons was greater than 0.2%, they would decay into neutrons, and the atoms would lose their stability. If the electromagnetic force were 4% weaker than it is, hydrogen would not exist and there would be no stars as we know them. If the weak interaction were much weaker, then the hydrogen would not exist either; Whereas it was much more powerful, the supernovae would not have distributed heavy elements in the vastness of space. If the cosmological constant were much larger, the universe would have dispersed completely before the galaxies had time to form.

The degree of accuracy of this "calibration" is still disputed, but these examples hint at the possibility of the existence of parallel universes that have other values ​​for the physical constants [see: "Exploring Our Universe and Other Universes" by Martin Rees, Scientific American, December 1999]. The second-order multiverse theory predicts that physicists will never be able to calculate the values ​​of these constants from a first rational. They will only be able to calculate the probability distributions for whatever they expect to find, given the selection mechanisms. The result will be generic, and at the same time will be consistent with our very existence.

Third degree: quantum multiworlds

First and second degree multiverses include parallel worlds very far away from us, even beyond the reach of astronomers. But the next-level multiverse is right around us. It stems from the famously controversial many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics: the idea that random quantum processes cause the universe to branch into multiple copies: one for each possible outcome.

At the beginning of the twentieth century, quantum theory revolutionized physics by deciphering the rules of behavior in the atomic realm, where the classical rules of Newtonian mechanics do not apply. Despite the apparent successes of the theory, the intense controversy over its true meaning still continues. The theory presents the state of the universe not in classical terms, such as the locations and speeds of all the particles, but in the terms of a mathematical concept called "wave function". According to the Schrödinger equation, this situation develops over time in a way called "unitary" by mathematicians: the wave function rotates in an abstract space with infinite dimensions, the so-called Hilbert space. Many tend to describe quantum mechanics as essentially random and uncertain, but the wave function evolves deterministically. There is nothing random or uncertain about it.

The problem arises when we come to relate this wave function to what we see in our observations. Many legitimate wave functions correspond to counterintuitive states, such as that cat being dead and alive at the same time, in what is called a superposition of states. In the XNUMXs, physicists circumvented this strangeness by stating that the wave function "collapses" into some distinct classical result whenever an observation is made (collapse). The virtue of this addition was in providing an explanation for the observations, but it turned an elegant and unitary theory into a cumbersome and non-unitary one. The essential randomness that many attribute to quantum mechanics stems from this assumption.

Over the years, many physicists abandoned this view in favor of the idea developed in 1957 by Hugh Ebert III, while he was a research student at Princeton. Ebert showed that the collapse assumption is unnecessary. Pure quantum theory does not, in practice, pose any contradictions. Although it predicts that one classical reality gradually splits into superpositions of many such realities, observers experience this splitting, subjectively, only as mild randomness, whose probabilities exactly match those of the old collapse assumption. This superposition of classical worlds is the third-order multiverse.

Ebert's many-worlds interpretation seemed unacceptable to many, in physics and beyond, for more than forty years. But it is easier to deal with it when we distinguish between two ways of looking at a physical theory: the external view of the physicist who consults its mathematical equations, as one who surveys the landscape from a bird's eye view, and the internal view of one who lives in the world that the equations describe, the point of view of the frog living in the landscape that the bird is watching.

From a bird's eye view, a third degree multiverse is quite simple. There is only one wave function. It develops over time in a smooth sequence and deterministically without any bifurcation or parallelism. The abstract quantum world described by this evolving wave function contains a huge number of parallel classical story lines, constantly diverging and merging, as well as some quantum phenomena that have no classical description. The observers, from their frog-like point of view, perceive only a tiny part of this full reality. They can observe their first-order universe, but a process called decoherence—which mimics the collapse of the wave function, but preserves unitarity—prevents them from seeing their third-order counterparts.

Whenever one of these observers asks a question, makes a snap decision, and gives an answer, quantum results in his mind lead to a superposition of results, such as "keep reading this article" or "put the pamphlet down." From a bird's eye view, making the decision causes that person to split into several copies: for example, the one who continues reading and the one who stops. But from their frog's point of view, all those doubles of equal status are not aware of each other and they feel the branching only as a slight randomness: a certain probability of continuing the reading or stopping it.

As strange as it sounds, the exact same situation occurs even in a first degree multiverse. Obviously, you decided to continue reading this article, but one of your doubles in a galaxy far, far away put the pamphlet down after reading the first paragraph. The only difference between the first degree and the third degree concerns the place of residence of that duplicate. In the first degree he lives elsewhere in the same old and familiar three-dimensional space. In the third degree it lives in another quantum branching in the infinite-dimensional Hilbert space.

The existence of a multiverse of the third degree depends on one and only crucial assumption: the unitarity of the evolution of the wave function over time. The experiments conducted so far have not encountered any deviation from unitarity. In the last decades, unitarity has been verified in increasingly large systems, among them the molecules of 60 carbon atoms called "buckyballs" and optical fibers whose length is measured in kilometers. From the theoretical side, the argument in favor of unitarity was strengthened with the discovery of decoherence. [See: “One Hundred Years of Quantum Mystery” by Max Tagmark and John Archibald Wheeler, Scientific American, February 2001]. Some theorists dealing with quantum gravity question unitarity; One of the concerns is that the evaporation of black holes could destroy information, and this would be a non-unitary process. But a recent breakthrough in string theory called the AdS/CFT fit suggests that even quantum gravity is unitary. So, black holes do not destroy information, but only transfer it to another place.

If physics is unitary, then the standard picture of how quantum fluctuations work at the beginning of the big bang must change. These fluctuations did not destroy the initial conditions at random. Instead, they created a quantum superposition of all possible initial conditions that existed together at the same time. Decoherence then caused these initial conditions to behave classically in separate quantum branchings. And this is the crucial point: the distribution of results in different quantum branches of a given Hubble volume (third degree) is the same as the distribution of results in different Hubble volumes within a single quantum extension (first degree). This property of quantum fluctuations is called "ergodicity" in statistical mechanics.

And the same is true in parallel universes of the second degree. The process of breaking the symmetry did not produce a single result, but a superposition of all the results, which immediately went their separate ways. Therefore, if the physical constants, the dimensionality of space-time, etc., are able to change between parallel quantum branchings of the third degree, it is assumed that they will also change between parallel universes of the second degree.

In other words, the third degree multiverse does not add any innovation to the first and second degrees, but only more identical copies of the same universes themselves - the same story lines repeat and develop again and again in other quantum ramifications. The heated debate surrounding Ebert's theory therefore ends, apparently, with a weak answer, with the discovery of the multiverses that are not so controversial (first and second order), and are equally large.

Needless to say, the implications are far-reaching, and physicists are just beginning to test them. For example, consider the implications of the answer to an old question: Does the number of universes increase exponentially over time? The surprising answer is no. From a bird's eye view, there is of course only one quantum universe. From the point of view of the frog, the important thing is the number of universes that can be distinguished between them at a given moment - that is, the number of volumes of grief that are distinctly different from each other. Imagine moving planets randomly to new places, imagine marrying someone else, and so on. At the quantum level, there is 10 to the power of 10118 Universes whose temperature is below 108 Kelvin degrees. This is a huge number, but finite.

From the frog's point of view, the development of the wave function corresponds to a continuous gliding, from one world to the 10th power of 10118 Don't change it. You are now in universe #1, the one where you are reading this sentence. The next moment you are in universe #2, the one where you are reading the current sentence, the next one after the previous one. Put differently, Universe #2 has the same observer as Universe #1, except that he has another brief moment of memories. All possible states exist at any moment, so the passage of time is perhaps only a subjective matter - an idea explored by Greg Egan in his science fiction book The city of combinations (1994), and developed separately by Oxford University physicist David Deutsch, physicist Julian Barbour and others. It is therefore possible that the multiverse framework will prove to be essential for understanding the essence of time.

Fourth grade: other mathematical structures

There may be a difference in the initial conditions and physical constants in the first, second and third degree multiverses, but the fundamental laws that govern nature remain the same at these three levels. Why stop here? Why don't we let the laws themselves change? How about a universe that obeys the laws of Newtonian physics, without quantum consequences? How about time that comes in discrete portions, like on a computer, instead of being continuous? What do you think about a universe that is nothing but a dodecahedron, a body with 12 pentagonal faces, empty? In a fourth degree multiverse, all of these alternate realities exist.

A hint that such a multiverse is not just speculation over a mug of beer is found in the close correspondence between the worlds of abstract thought and observed reality. The equations of mathematics, and more generally mathematical structures such as numbers, vectors and geometric shapes, describe the world in a miraculous correspondence to the observable. In a famous lecture he gave in 1959, the physicist Eugene P. Wigner claimed that "the enormous benefit that mathematics brings to the natural sciences borders on the mysterious" from the other direction, mathematical structures give us a chilling sense of realism. They provide a central standard for objective existence: they are always the same, regardless of who is looking at them. The truth of a geometric theorem does not depend on whether a person, a computer or an intelligent dolphin proved it. Putative alien civilizations will find the same mathematical structures that we have found. This is the reason why mathematicians usually say that they discover mathematical structures and do not invent them.

There are two well-established, but diametrically opposed, approaches to the discussion of this compatibility between mathematics and physics - a dichotomy that, one might say, dates back to the days of Plato and Aristotle. According to Aristotle's approach, physical reality is fundamental, while mathematical language is nothing more than a useful approximation. According to the Platonic approach, the mathematical structure is the true reality, the one that the observers perceive imperfectly. In other words, the two approaches differ on the question of which is the more basic point of view on the laws of physics, the bird's eye view or the frog's view. Aristotle's approach prefers the frog's point of view, while Plato's approach prefers the bird's eye view.

In our childhood, long before we start hearing about mathematics, we are educated on the knees of Aristotle's approach. The Plato approach is acquired later. The theoretical physicists of our time are Platonist for the most part, as they suspect that mathematics is so good at describing the universe because the universe is fundamentally mathematical. If so, then all of physics is ultimately a problem in mathematics: a mathematician gifted with unlimited intelligence and inexhaustible resources could, in principle, calculate the frog's point of view - that is, he could calculate which self-aware observers the universe contains, what they perceive and what languages ​​they invent Each in each other's ears to describe their perceptions.

A mathematical structure is an abstract entity that is not subject to change, that exists outside of space and time. If we liken history to a motion picture, then the structure refers not to its isolated image, but to the entire film. See for example a world made of point particles running around in XNUMXD space. In four-dimensional space-time - from a bird's eye view - these particle trajectories look like a bowl of spaghetti. If the frog sees a particle moving at a constant speed, here the bird sees a straight string of uncooked spaghetti. If the frog sees two particles circling each other, here the bird sees two strands of spaghetti intertwined like a double helix. To a frog, the world is described by Newton's laws of motion and gravity. For the bird, it is described by the geometry of the pasta which is a mathematical structure. The frog itself is nothing more than a thick bundle of pasta, the very complex tangles of which are suitable for collections of particles that store and process information. Our universe is much more complicated than this example, and scientists do not yet know what mathematical structure it fits, if any.

The Platonic approach raises the question of why the universe is the way it is. To Aristotelians, this is a pointless question: the universe simply changed. But a Platonist cannot help but wonder why the universe could not have been different. If the universe is essentially mathematical, why is it that only one structure among many mathematical structures is chosen to describe the universe? There seems to be a fundamental asymmetry at the heart of reality.

As a way out of this tangle I came up with the idea that full mathematical symmetry actually holds in the universe: all mathematical structures also have a realistic physical existence. Each mathematical structure corresponds to one of the parallel universes. The components of this multiverse do not reside in the same space, but exist outside of space and time. Certainly most of them lack observers from everything. This hypothesis can be seen as an extreme version of Plato's approach, which states that the mathematical structures in the Platonic realm of ideas, or in what is called "the landscape of the mind" by Rudy Recker, the mathematician from San Jose University, exist in the physical sense. This is similar to what is called by John D. Barrow, the cosmologist from the University of Cambridge, called "Equations in Aspemia"; The late Robert Nozick, who was a philosopher at Harvard University, gave the name "Principle of Abundance"; And the late David K. Lewis, who was a philosopher at Princeton, preferred "modal realism". The fourth degree seals the degree of the multiverse, because every basic physical theory that has self-restraint can be formulated as one mathematical structure or another.

The fourth degree multiverse hypothesis produces testable predictions. Similar to the second-order multiverse hypothesis, it deals with an ensemble (in this case, the full range of mathematical structures) and selection processes. The more the mathematicians add to the catalog of mathematical structures, the more they will find, according to the prediction, that the structure that describes our world is the most generic of those that are consistent with our observations. Similarly, our future observations should be the most generic of those consistent with our past observations, while our past observations should be the most generic of those consistent with our existence.

It is very difficult to give a quantitative expression to the word "generic", and this investigation is still in its infancy. But one of the most impressive and encouraging signs of mathematical structures is that the properties of symmetry and invariance responsible for the simplicity and order of our universe are for the most part generic, as a rule rather than an exception. Mathematical structures are usually built into them by default, and it is necessary to add complicated axioms to get rid of them.

What does Ockham say?

The scientific theories about parallel universes thus create a four-level hierarchy, in which the universes become gradually, more and more different from ours. They have different initial conditions (first order); physical constants and various particles (second degree); or different physical laws (third degree). The irony is that the third tier is the one that has attracted most of the criticism in the last decades, because it is the only one that does not add any new universes that are qualitatively different.

In the next ten years, the cosmological observations of the microwave background radiation and the distribution of matter on a large scale, which will be infinitely more sophisticated than their predecessors, will either support the first-order multiverse hypothesis or disprove it, after they better clarify the curvature and topology of space. The same measurements themselves will also deal with the second-order multiverse, because they will put the theory of eternal chaotic inflation to the test. The progress in astrophysics and high energy physics should also clarify the degree of accuracy in the measurement of the physical constants, and this will strengthen or weaken the argument for the right of a second degree multiverse.

If the efforts to build quantum computers go well, they will provide further evidence in favor of a third-order multiverse, because they will, in principle, exploit the parallelism of this multiverse for the purpose of performing parallel computing. The experimenters are also engaged in the search for evidence of the violation of unitarity, which has the power to rule out the existence of a third degree multiverse. And finally, success or failure in the magnificent challenge facing modern physics these days - the unification of general relativity and quantum field theory - will affect the treatment of the multiverse of the fourth degree. One of two: we are going to find a mathematical structure that precisely fits our universe, or we will encounter a barrier, at the limit of the unreasonable power of mathematics as a tool for describing the universe, which will oblige us to abandon the hypothesis of such a multiverse.

Well, should you believe in parallel universes? The main arguments against them are that these universes are too wasteful and weird. The first argument holds that multiverse theories are vulnerable to Ockham's razor because they assume the existence of other worlds that we can never observe. Why does nature have to be so wasteful, pampering itself with luxuries like an infinite number of different worlds? But this argument can be turned on its head, so that it speaks Thanks to him of the multiverse. What exactly is nature wasting here? Certainly not space, mass, or atoms - the undisputed multiverse, a first-order multiverse, already contains an infinite amount of all three, so who cares if nature wastes a little more? The real question here is the apparent decrease in simplicity. What really worries the skeptics is the amount of information needed to detail all these invisible worlds.

But we often find that a whole is simply much more than one of its components. A more formal formulation of this idea is based on the concept of algorithmic information content. The algorithmic information content of a number is, roughly, the length of the shortest computer program that will produce that number as output. For example, see the set of all integers. What is simpler, the whole group or one of its members? The naive will say that the single number is simpler, but the whole group can be generated with an almost trivial computer program, while the program for a single number can be huge. Hence the full set is the simpler one.

Similarly, the set of all solutions to Einstein's field equations is simpler than any individual solution. The former is described by means of few equations, while the latter requires detailing a huge amount of initial data in some multidimensional surface. The lesson is that complexity increases when we focus on one particular member of a whole, and in the process lose the symmetry and simplicity found in the whole of the members when examining it as one piece.

In this sense, the higher level multiverses are simpler. The transition from our universe to a first degree multiverse eliminates the need to detail initial conditions, the rise to the second degree eliminates the need to detail physical constants, and the fourth degree multiverse eliminates the need to detail anything. The abundant complexity is found entirely in the subjective perceptions of the observers - in the frog's point of view. From a bird's eye view, it's hard to say how the multiverse could be simpler than it is.

The complaint concerning the strangeness of the idea is a matter of aesthetics and not of science, and has real meaning only from Aristotle's worldview. But what did we expect to find? If we present a deep question about the nature of reality, are we allowed to expect that the answer will not be as strange as this? Evolution gave us an intuition towards the physics of everyday life, which proved its survival value to our ancestors; But whenever we step outside the everyday world, we should expect things to look different.

All four levels of the multiverse have an important common denominator: the simplest, and arguably the most elegant, theory contains parallel universes by default. Those who seek to deny the existence of these universes have to introduce complications into the theory, such as processes that have no experimental support or arbitrary assumptions: finite space, wave function collapse, and ontological asymmetry. The decision therefore depends on the question of what seems more wasteful and less elegant to us: multiple worlds or multiple words? Hopefully we will gradually get used to the strange ways of our cosmos and discover that its strangeness is part of its grace.

Post to Twitter Post to Facebook Facebook

136 תגובות

  1. An article incomprehensible to the reasonable person. It would have been appropriate to summarize the claims in simple and understandable language and only then to lay out complex and endlessly long scientific explanations. As my statistics teacher at the university used to say at the end of every explanation: that's the explanation. Those who are interested in learning the proofs (absolutely not in the study material and at a more advanced academic level) will listen. And those who don't - may engage in anything else.

  2. Those who will argue with you about your argument are only the squeamish.
    They will also thank you for the explanation.
    Do yourself a favor, and instead of throwing words in the air, at least,
    Learn from the mistakes of others - read Eran's/skeptic's comments again (and try again to understand why they are wrong).

  3. Well let's continue in the same direction
    Who will argue with me on the following argument-
    "Tomorrow morning I will meet my double"
    How do I know that the universe is infinite and…. and so I have
    Infinite duplicates and at least an infinite number of them have the technology to reach me whenever they want
    And out of infinity, at least one will surely knock on my door tomorrow
    In short, we really do not have the ability to fully grasp the concept of infinity
    Therefore, it should be used carefully to prevent paradoxes

    Regarding the multiplicity of worlds
    It is somewhat reminiscent of the creationist theory
    That God created the world thousands of years ago but created it to look like this
    Formed billions of seconds ago
    After all, this corresponds to reality and the theory of relativity

    The idea of ​​multiple worlds is a theoretical solution to unsolved questions
    So it probably fits the existing theories

    I don't think the article is well-founded
    Jumps to conclusions and presents controversial points as consensus

    I would appreciate responses from those who know the issues more deeply
    Because I'm just an ordinary person who feels that physicists are becoming MDB writers recently

  4. Spirit, Effie, whatever you want to be called, stop cursing the members of this honorable forum, to which you obviously do not belong, we kindly asked you to leave. Just enough! to you!

  5. Eran, you are stupid.
    I read Roch's comments and there is no doubt that he understands better than you. Maybe just thank him for giving you a heads up and shut up?

  6. Regarding time travel, the theory of relativity allows and even predicts that under certain conditions it is possible to go back in time, how does this fit with Mr. Roach's claims? I really don't care. To be honest, it probably isn't.

  7. It is sad that after so many proofs from different sources, Mr. R. H. Refai.m. is not ready to recognize the multiplicity of strengths, and the multiplicity of infinitesimals.
    This is similar in a fascinating storybook about shapes in dimensions, where a shape from an imaginary fourth dimension, visits the first dimension, and sees the point. The dot does not know any other shape than it and therefore believes that it is the only one that exists, even though it is a fiction.

  8. In the name of God, isn't the article difficult enough to understand, that you still use meters (10 to the power of 118 meters) or kilograms? Why not in light years and tons ?????????

    P.S. Where are all the comments? Why don't they appear?

  9. Israel,

    If I understood correctly "the claim is general: any speed that is the same for every measurer is the greatest possible speed", then this is not acceptable to me. So I probably didn't understand.

    All the information necessary to solve the Shatanz cars puzzle, and to solve any puzzle in general, is contained in twenty-three letters of the alphabet (and the strict will say twenty-seven).

    The conundrum: My mess claim is that what is true in one area is not relevant or even not true in another area. Maybe, if you bring the solution in BA (and I, despite my difficulty in understanding, will also understand it), I will withdraw from the charge of the mess.

    Israel trusts in Hashem, and please don't be disappointed by Yoda Yoda Yoda or me Mani Mani Mani or any other mortal. You only live once, and if dangerous sugars and starches challenge you, then go for it.

  10. I will thank you and not be ashamed:
    Because of Israel's very long letters, I don't always have the patience to read his words to the end.
    Please explain to me briefly here what the experiment was.
    please! in short ! Don't send me to read encyclopedias or textbooks. It is something that takes a lot of time and is not at all sure that it belongs to the matter.

  11. B, look please
    If you have followed my statements on this site, you may have already realized that I am difficult to understand.
    In the example of the series you gave, although the average is the same, another measure (the standard deviation, for example) is different.

    To your response from: August 16, 2012 at 20:54:
    It seems to me that you are not familiar with the experiment that Israel is talking about. The logical conclusions you bring are correct and are also the starting point of the experimenters. Even so, the results of the experiment are not understandable and even surprising. It appears from them that the inspection of an event at one point in the universe affects another event at another point that is very far from it (Israel likes to talk about the Andromeda galaxy and distances of the order of millions of light years) and one way to explain this is that the information about the inspection travels any distance in zero time or even in a negative time.

    Very likely because I didn't understand again. Please, mercifully

  12. For Jubilee:
    In the example I gave:
    The weight of the balls is accurate. They are all the same weight.
    The scales are not accurate, so measurement results are obtained that are not the true weight of the ball.
    The measurement results are distributed around the average.
    The real weight is not distributed around the average. The true weight of each and every ball is exact and the same as the weight of the other balls.
    An average of these measurement results will give the true and accurate weight of the ball.

    From the average data alone, it is not possible to say whether each of the balls weighs exactly the average weight or if each ball has a slightly different weight than the average.

    The average of the series of numbers 7,8,9 is the number 8.
    But also the average of the series of numbers 8,8,8 is the number 8.
    If we only know the average, we cannot say whether it is the first or the second series.

  13. jubilee

    c is not related to the matter. The claim is general: any speed that is the same for every measurer is the greatest possible speed. That's why field gerbils, whose speed is very small and yet is the maximum possible speed, and this of course on the condition that it is the same for every surveyor.

    The delayed choice experiment is a thought experiment. True, I think there is an alternative explanation, but it is not mainstream.

    All the necessary information was included in the Shatanz car puzzle. According to the data in which each car had a certain and defined speed at each stage of the race. Susita was behind at the beginning, but she tried her waist and won big. The term "Shatanz cars" was invented to give the creation of the Israeli automobile industry - Susita Kobia - to win the race. Therefore, a rocket engine had to be installed in it, hence the Shatanz.

    If it seems to you that there could have been other results for the race - let's say if the suspension of the cars had been different or the gear or the zebra - point where.

    The same for the weaving puzzle. If there is some "mess" here, some "sex that is not ours" as you say or other insults - show it and we will fix it. If you want, I will solve the riddle now. God's salvation in the blink of an eye.

    I will admit that I am disappointed and disappointed. It disappeared completely, and you smelled delicious lokum loaded with dangerous sugars and starches.

  14. Israel,

    I accepted your claim and dropped from XNUMX.

    My argument about c is that it has never been measured in short distance ranges, and certainly not in the order of particles. It may or may not be calculable as a derivative, but the possibility of speaking of it as such exists, as of now, only in theory.

    The experiments you bring, from which it is possible to conclude that a future event preceded in time a Hebrew event, have so far only been carried out in the micro. The projection from small to large has never been confirmed experimentally. I have no objection in principle to going back in time and preventing my parents from giving birth to me (and then there will be no one to interfere with them and they will give birth to me and God forbid) because I am not afraid of endless loops. But it doesn't seem to me that salvation will come precisely from quantum mechanics. On the other hand, the fact that information can move faster than the speed of light strengthens my hypothesis that the known speed of light is only an average size. And again, to remind you, the saying "infinite is always", whether true or not, pertains to experiments at the micro level.

    Instead of asking today where Yoda is, you could just drop by Herzleitha when you visited Israel. You may not be a coffee lover, but you obviously like to complicate things.

    And to your riddles: in the Shatanz race you presented complete data and told us that information was hidden in them. You were able to specify instead of implying. Even in the non-locality puzzle, you mix gender with non-gender, and I have already elaborated on that. If Yuval HaAbel does not understand what exactly you are asking, you have several options and one of them is to go down to the level of the above and ask him until he understands.

  15. jubilee.

    It seems to me that we are returning to the normal routine.

    At first you get angry and curse, and after you understand, you admit that the mistake is actually yours and my riddles are beautiful (i.e. the Maxwell model and Shatanz cars).

    Yigal Alon: Not relevant. According to Wikipedia:

    At every stage of the war we had more soldiers than Arabs. It is of course possible that the information there is incorrect, but those who quote and believe what is written there are not liars, as you and Vigil are not liars if you believe the opposite.

    Scottish Greyhounds:

    The example you gave is of average speed. We are talking about instantaneous, derivative speed. The speed of light according to convention is always constant and not averaged.

    The speed of information transfer between intertwined particles:

    always infinite. It has nothing to do with the average.

    Back in time.

    Described in Wheeler's delayed choice experiment. If I remember correctly, Feynman diagrams discuss them. Here we are talking about something similar, but not the same: the introduction of the surrounding to the cause.

    And you are welcome to show me exactly where I like to complicate, or even complicate unnecessarily. here and everywhere.

    And if you don't want to delve into the riddle of island locality, let me know and I'll solve it for you right away (if there's no objection from other commenters). I don't have the strength to enter a Turkish movie again (where is Yoda, by the way?).

  16. R. H.,

    In general, movement backwards in time entails paradoxes, and therefore the claim of its existence is false. The imagination, on the other hand, is ready to eat anything (except one's own hat), and this can be seen, for example, among the New Age debaters and the Mahbatites, with whom the site of knowledge is flooded at the beginning of Adar and throughout the year. Even our common favorite among the Blaganists, but you can dance for him because you also have to admit that he writes beautifully.

    And to your puzzle: reality is limited, imagination is unlimited and lies are circular. Please be careful about the hint (Ahair). Thanks

  17. ב

    2. In the example of the balls you are talking about hidden variables. This is the approach Einstein took, and this is what Bell's Inequality Theorem and Aspect experiments disproved. For an exhaustive explanation of the subject showing that there is no escaping the conclusion that the photon's polarization information passes instantaneously, see:

    3. According to Newton, every body in free fall (or not) in a constant environment is subject to a gravitational force whose rate is F=Mg. According to Einstein no force acts on a body in a gravitational field. The point is that neither of them is a liar, although technically one of them is not telling the truth.

    4. "In physics and mathematics, things are examined in depth {"Barchel your little daughter"}". Rachel, your little daughter, is the desire of the soul of all Israel and Israel, since the time of the patriarchs. (not your daughter, B, of Ben's). I believe my descriptions are accurate enough. If asked, I will provide clarifications.

    5. Friendly advice (really): Reduce the amount of exclamation marks. It's pathetic. We are all adults here, there is no need to emphasize the obvious.

  18. Israel, I noticed a long time ago that you like to make things complicated. Sometimes I agree to mess with you and then get angry and curse myself.

    Let's go to the sources, if there are any (Wikipedia is not acceptable to me). Yigal Alon's claim is that in every battle in which the Israeli soldiers had a numerical advantage, they won - and vice versa. It does spoil the myth of the few against the many, but it has no reference to the total number of soldiers on both sides, but to each and every battle separately.

    The Scottish woodchucks report from the area:
    "We went on a journey this morning. The length of the route was determined to be 16.778 miles. We started the journey at 8.37:9.37 (and twenty-two seconds) and finished it at 27:27 (we forgot to record the seconds). Translated into frog, we did XNUMX kilometers in one hour. During the journey we rested several times, at other times we ran and sometimes we also flew and changed our speed. In the end, we met the task set for us by the Israeli Air Force, XNUMX kilometers per hour, and I am very proud of that. It's a big day for us, the Scottish woodchucks [pictured: the same in the national costume in their full gear]".

    and to the puzzle:
    We believe that photons and the like have the possibility of moving at a speed greater than the speed of light, but we do not know of the possibility of moving backwards in time. Because of this, the claim presented in the riddle is empty, if at all.

    Sometimes the spin information passes from electron to electron faster than light and sometimes slower than light.

    On the "cunning" of quantum mechanics: measure the time that passes from the moment the information is sent to the moment it is received. Do this many times, preferably on the order of a trillion. Calculate the average. Divide the distance between the starting point and the destination point by the average you calculated. Didn't get a record? Try at the next Olympics.

  19. For Jubilee:
    Get correction:
    Every average size in quantum theory is nothing more than an average of the measurement results.
    This does not mean that the measured size itself is not constant and that it is distributed around the average.
    The average is an average of the measurement only.
    The measured size can certainly be constant.
    Therefore, it is absolutely possible that the speed of light is constant even in the order of the size of particles.

    Suppose a group of balls that are all the same weight.
    Let's assume that the scales we have are not accurate enough and we get scattered measurement results.
    If we measure a large number of balls and refer to the average result of the actual measurement, we will get an average result that is very close to the real weight of the balls.
    The average result does not say anything about the actual weight of the balls.
    It is certainly impossible to claim that the weight of the balls is distributed around the average.
    What is distributed is only the measurement results!

  20. jubilee
    really. After so many explanations..
    If this has not been clarified yet, then perhaps, the following riddle, will further illustrate the principles of logic:

    Go back in time - you can only use your imagination. (You can also jump forward in time)
    On the other hand, in the reality we live in, there are facts. And the facts indicate that it is impossible to go back in time.
    If so, a situation is created, where reality and facts are the truth. The imagination is also true, to a certain extent, and from the mixing of imagination and reality the lie is born. which is also of course real, a little skeptical, and full of contradictions torn from reality.
    Can you answer, referring to reality, imagination and falsehood, whose infinity of the three is the greatest?
    (hint: H. Bayer).

  21. To Israel:
    1) The reference is of course to quantum entanglement.
    2) The real thing is an equation or at least a verbal description of the occurrence.
    3) The force that causes a body to accelerate is the force acting on the body.
    4) In physics and mathematics, things are examined in depth {"Barchel, your little daughter"}. Give a description as accurate as possible otherwise what happens is "garbage in - garbage out".
    5) Question marks are also allowed!!! They are usually my favorite signs!!!!

  22. Quantum mechanics is built on statistics.
    To understand anything you need to understand the statistics well.
    Information does not travel faster than the speed of light.

    Consider the following example:
    Two sacks are far apart.
    Each bag has one ball.
    One of the balls is white and the other is black.
    Both balls change their place from one bag to another at the same time.
    For this purpose, of course, they move from one farm to another at a certain speed.

    In the experiment we find that the ball in bag A is white.
    What color is the ball in bag B?
    Of course the color of the ball in bag B will be black.
    Do the balls have to go from bag to bag for this at a speed higher than the speed of light?
    The answer is of course negative.
    The conclusion regarding the color of the ball in bag B follows immediately from the data on the color of the ball in bag A.
    The conclusion is immediate, but there is no need for a high movement speed of the balls in order to reach a conclusion!

  23. The point is that even though there is only one answer to the question of which side had more soldiers, you are not a liar even if you are not telling the truth. As long as you believe what you say, you are at best wrong. That's what an argument is for.

    relativity. Half way to solving the mystery of entangled photons:

    It has nothing to do with the question of the nature and abilities of the light. It can be logically proven that any speed identical to any measurer regardless of the speed of the measurer is the highest speed. If the speed of Scottish forest gerbils (27 km/h) was the same for all of us, no matter what our speed is relative to them - then it would be the highest speed that is unsurpassed.

    So let's go back to the riddle, and please pay attention to the exact terminology:

    If a person (or an animal, or a machine, please) at point A can send some information to a person at point B at a speed that exceeds the speed of light (or the speed of zebras if you live in Scotland) - you can go back in time and catch a ball even before you threw it up ( reason and spin).

    The spin information passes from electron to electron faster than light (in 0 time actually).

    Anu - Anna, are we coming?

    And there is no end to the cunning and foxiness of quantum mechanics.

  24. Until you are there in the city of angels, wake up from your sweet dreams:
    The speed of light at distances on the order of particles is not constant. The speed of light we know, c, is an average magnitude. In quantum mechanics, where events occurring at distances of small orders of magnitude are measured in every experiment, c has no meaning, and the basic terms of relativity are not valid there.

  25. Israel,

    The writers of the Wikipedia entry sinned against Legal Alon (or another historian - maybe Meir Kaif?) and brought no redemption to the world. He said that in every battle in the communist war, what decided the balance was the quantitative ratio between the fighters of the sides. Hence, although the Arab countries had more soldiers, the IDF commanders knew how to mobilize forces.

    EPR and micro versus macro: the speed of light is calculated based on the distance between two points that are some distance from each other and the measurement of the time that passes between the sending of the light beam and its reception. As the distance between the points decreases, the standard deviation between the readings of the clock that counts the time increases. Can you guess the continuation of my claim and by the way solve your puzzle without attributing a human character to quantum mechanics?

  26. ב

    Physics does not deal with the concept of infinity, not because there is no mathematical possibility to compare different infinity values.
    The problem is different. Physics should only deal with processes that can be examined with empirical tools (processes that require the measurement of quantities by instruments). Since nowadays measurement of sizes by instruments can only be done if the sizes are "finite" - then any claim comparing two "infinite" sizes is not a valid physical claim.

    Will it be possible in the very distant future to measure and compare infinite sizes? Unlikely but cannot be dismissed outright.

    Beyond that, the whole article seems to me to be on the somnolent fringes of physics: an article that is of interest to philosophers but without consequences for the advancement of physics (for the purpose of advancing physics, "crazy" ideas will be floated anyway even without confusing philosophizing).

  27. ב
    What is local interlacing?

    What is the real thing?

    What force acts on a body in free fall according to Newton?

    What doesn't go well with what I said?

    Where are the exclamation points?

  28. To Israel:
    Please avoid phrases like "local interweaving" otherwise the discussion becomes pointless.
    If you want to discuss something bring the real thing and not the nickname.


    Newton did not claim that gravity acts on a body in free fall. He claimed that the force acting on a body is equal to the mass of the body times its acceleration. In the case of free fall on the earth's surface the force is the earth's gravity.
    I am not aware that Einstein made the opposite claim.
    Einstein never said the opposite of Newton, he only corrected him.

  29. In order to avoid pointless arguments, let's look at the definitions:
    Infinity is not a number. The terms "greater than" or "less than" refer only to numbers. When there is an order relation between two numbers. The order relation is not valid for infinity because infinity is not a number.

    Together with this we can talk about the "power" of infinity.

  30. jubilee
    Not necessarily both are telling the truth. But that doesn't mean they are lying. If you answered that the Arabs had more soldiers than the Jews in the War of Liberation, then this is the truth from your point of view and from the point of view of the majority of the country's residents. This is the myth we grew up with: few against many. Wikipedia maintains that at every stage of the war we had more soldiers. Therefore, even though you are not telling the truth, it does not make you a liar, because you do believe in your words.

    relativity. The original EPR paper stated that if the spin information travels faster than the speed of light, it contradicts relativity. This has nothing to do with big or small. It can be proven that if you could send information at a speed that exceeds that of light, there is a contradiction to the law of cause and effect

    Riddle: If so, why isn't non-locality contradicting relativity? After all, there is no doubt that information - that of the spin - travels faster than light. So how is it that there is no contradiction here?
    The answer indicates the inclusive nature of quantum mechanics.

  31. Israel

    Both speak the truth. The apparent contradiction between them is in the interpretation you gave. It is correct to say that Newton said and Einstein expanded.

    Non-locality in quantum entanglement does not contradict the theory of relativity, it simply means that both do not touch the same field. For the sake of listening: you will deal with the macro and the HC in the micro. And if EPR really explicitly said that non-locality is not possible because it contradicts Tahiti, then they probably did not go beyond the distinction I made.

  32. Thank you

    And the answer to the riddle of logic: of course, neither Newton nor Einstein are liars, although technically at least one of them is not telling the truth. Knowingly malicious intent is missing here.

    The question remains: if 2 parties in the discussion believe in the rightness of their claims, and both understand that it is impossible for both of them to be right, how will they be able to find out which of them is right? (Right in terms of the opposite is wrong).

    We remember the constant arguments between Einstein and Bohr about the validity of quantum mechanics. Ostensibly, the EPR paradox was supposed to knock out quantum mechanics. After all, the mind does not grasp that an action on an electron or a photon will affect its interwoven brother at the edge of the universe, and in zero time, right?

    Socrates proposed the Socratic method of questions and answers as a way to seek truth. If Einstein had been alive when Bell's Inequality Theorem was presented confirming the unthinkable - non-locality - I believe he would have taken one of two options: humbly accepting the inevitable, or presenting new questions or a new theory that would contradict what he did not believe in. He certainly would not have attacked the people of Copenhagen and doubted their honesty and competence.

    And this is what I would suggest we do here as well: Do you disagree with a certain opinion? Submit questions to the knowledgeable person. Do you believe the earth is flat? necrosis. Answer why we see the mast of the ship approaching the shore before we see its body.

    If you avoid answering answers or start attacking personally, it's probably a sign that you don't know exactly what you're talking about, (even though it's clear as day that your truth is the only one and there's nothing wrong with it), or that the piss has gone to your head.

    Well, Khalas Philsaf. The intention is clear, I believe. Here is a question that will illustrate my point:

    In the War of Independence, which side had more soldiers, the Jews or the Arabs?

    And back to the discussion: Eran, you write: "In my opinion, the universe in general is finite." Do you mean our universe, or the space as a whole, Reverend Rabbi Yakum, the one that contains our universe?

  33. I see you already thought of it yourself. 🙂 It's a bit annoying in the age of "I want a response now" (I'm sure you're also forced to be a kindergartener and even more so when you're sick instead of dealing with science - what's interesting and important) but at least the quality of the site won't deteriorate. Well done. Hopefully the trolls will eventually run away and we can mostly concentrate

  34. To Israel Shapira, your response to the article is the most striking, out of an infinite number of possible responses of course.

  35. ravine

    The solution you propose (to force identification) will reduce to almost zero the number of registered commenters, all of them will be non-identified commenters. Therefore this is not a solution.

    The riot in yesterday's debate has an address, the address is the troll surfer "A.H. ghosts". He insults and curses almost everyone. Everyone else just responded to his provocations. That's what always happens with him.

    If "A.H. "Ghosts" will not effectively block the forum here, there is no revival for the forum. Fact: Following his outbursts yesterday, the number of respondents today dropped to almost zero. People react to enjoy, not to suffer.


  36. I do not completely agree with the "expanding universe" theory - I am thinking about the possibility of cyclic universes - if there are many universes around us, then with the expansion of our universe, and the expansion of the neighboring universes, they will all eventually collide (all matter with all matter) and the universes will collapse back inward, to the starting point, and from there probably to the next big bang

  37. From "The Law of the Second Law of Thermodynamics"

    "This is exactly the difference between us and physics," the professor pointed his nose at Al. "Mathematics is perfect to infinity, as the Almighty is perfect to infinity, while physics is nothing more than a collection of approximations. No wonder you yourself, the father of the progenitors of the mess, was chosen as the basic law and the most representative of physics, as if to confirm the thesis that there is an upper limit to the scientific truth that can be achieved by physics.

    "And there is also an upper limit to the amount of nonsense that the ear is able to digest in a given period of time..." the law muttered.

    "Did you mumble something?" hissed the professor.

    "Nothing, nothing," the law smiled flatteringly. "All of us here delight in the pearls of your tongue, Professor Leibnovitz." He pointed to the line of numbers the professor had drawn on the blackboard. "Tell me, please: how many special and perfect numbers are there between minus infinity and infinity?"

    "infinite!" replied the professor firmly.

    "And how many numbers are without any uniqueness?"

    "Also infinite" answered the professor in a weak voice.

    "And which infinity is greater?"

    "What kind of nonsense are you spouting, Law" intervened the prosecutor. "What does a greater infinity mean? Infinity is infinity, isn't it Professor?”

    The audience applauded, but the professor buried his face in the ground.

    "The prosecutor expects an answer from you" scolded the law.

    The professor raised his flushed face and muttered "The infinity of meaningless numbers is greater.."

    "Thank you for opening your heart. How much bigger?”


  38. OK…
    It was quite shocking. (the discussion, not the article).

    I think a good solution is to give an option of a registered user, with a real name and a separate comment thread for registered users, with discussion rules and hiding from the open thread.

    There could actually be an interesting discussion on the subject.

  39. Just don't mention the name "Eran" anymore, okay? I don't want to hear from you or you anymore.

  40. What do you want from me? I thought you were already asleep. I didn't know you were here..

  41. I don't know who you mean anymore, if it's me then leave me, I'm not interested in anything to do with you.

  42. Do not talk to me!
    Disturbing, I'm freaking out in front of your imagination, Dai.
    Do the ip tests already and close the comments so that Mr. Roach will disappear from my face already!

  43. It is also interesting where all the "vigilantes" and "Mr" have gone. want to be"…. Well, apparently they "became passive again" and suddenly are not able to answer either. You have to change the IP all the time... not pleasant..

  44. for an impostor

    The answer to your logic puzzle is:

    Your Mother.
    She likes to fly in the wind…..tall tall and feels like a butterfly…

    And you probably don't know who you're dealing with. A surprise awaits you.. 😉

  45. And that's how it should be.

    The zeros evaporated.

    And the winners stayed and continue to write.

    (There are even logic puzzles. There are! It's not clear who but)

  46. Avi Blizovsky

    Thanks. (It is true that my response is awaiting approval, but I see that you have deleted the impostor's response and I hope that you have also blocked him).

  47. A logic puzzle:

    Newton said that a force (gravitational force) acts on a body in free fall.

    Einstein says no.

    They can't both be telling the truth.

    Can you dear readers tell the forum which of the two - Newton or Einstein - is a liar?

    And another riddle:

    Einstein argued in the original EPR paper that nonlocality in quantum entanglement contradicts relativity, because the electron's spin information travels faster than the speed of light.

    The vast majority of physicists believe that such a contradiction does not exist.

    Is it conceivable, dear readers, that the scientific community understands relativity better than Einstein?

  48. Avi Blizovsky

    Stop- means stop responding to liars and let them mess up the minds of other readers.
    I'm sure you don't want that to be on your site.
    I don't prevent anyone from commenting, so it's only clear that if I don't respond to their nonsense, it's doubtful whether the other readers will respond (although there was the commenter "Shimi" that I remember from the last time and maybe two more whose names I forgot who did a good job in other articles. But still It's not at the level that you'll shut them up.)
    I doubt that, it is a fact that no one except Emanuel and Moshe (who explained, and also caught their wits and quickly left the discussion when they realized who B is and the other commenters who are similar to commenter B) did not respond to their nonsense.

  49. Dear Mr. Blizovsky, I suggest you compare my IP with the IP of whoever the spirit wants.
    I try to stop the conversation and he keeps mentioning my name.
    I would also recommend that you implement a message confirmation system in some form, alternatively, you can set up an external forum where I think all the inappropriate actions that happen here will be concentrated.

  50. Skeptic

    "The lousy comments that don't get deleted by the site administrators."

    But it "got" out of your head that your poor comment was deleted, didn't it? 😉
    (You'll probably write some kind of lie now too)

  51. Note

    There is no connection between the commenter whose nickname is "skeptic" and my nickname SAFKAN.

    However, my opinion is similar to his regarding the nonsense of the commenter "AH Rafaim" and regarding his psychological motives.

    My opinion on the message that is currently delayed is that A.H. Rafaim needs to be fired immediately, not because of his "wisdom" but because he is a t-r-w-l who bullies all the commenters who don't like him.

    A T-R-W-L like him causes damage to this site because commenters with good will do not want to comment because of his annoying behavior.

  52. Avi Blizovsky
    This fight is like your fights against religious people. Only here they are in the guise of "physicists" and mathematicians".
    Even in a fight with the religious you would behave like this? Would you ask both sides to stop fighting as if both are both wrong and right?

  53. Abi, you are right and it is time that a confession was received from the site manager.
    A few years ago I saw this site as an authoritative site for scientific information and today it is clear to me that it is far from that.
    It is very sad that a person who is interested in science, who wants an interest in some truth, enters a website that looks serious and is unaware that his thinking is distorted (whether on purpose or not)
    This can be seen by all kinds of trending articles that do not have the required scientific spirit and by the poor comments that are not deleted by the site administrators.
    To sum up, this site is an example of the general human wretchedness of dealing with meaningless Rickan things.
    Friends, wake up and get out of your hate bubbles and stop dealing with nonsense!
    Goodbye and Goodbye

  54. Eran
    Again? haven't you studied yet? For there to be a logical contradiction there must first be logic.
    You lack logic. That's why you are all full of contradictions and probably also slaps (from school. When you were little).

  55. Listen ghosts, your psychological defenses won't help you, accept the fact that you don't even know what you're talking about and stop spreading all kinds of nonsense, you're polluting the web.

  56. my father
    I wonder what will happen if you block the commenter Eran, for example. Will the 'skeptical' commenter also suddenly stop commenting? Just out of curiosity.. 🙂

  57. "skeptic" or "Eran" or "MR wonnaB" or b?? Or whatever your name is, you still smell bad.
    You seem like an impostor to me.
    And you have nothing to worry about for others, you won't be able to stand it anyway.
    It's enough that you don't believe what I write, and I'll be calm.

  58. For there to be a logical contradiction, we need some kind of axioms that can be referred to.
    For the sake of discussion, relativity predicts infinities of sorts so you cannot claim that relativity is completely reliable and that there is no infinity.
    Seriously now, nobody wants you here, so why do you keep going? You're embarrassing yourself mostly.

  59. Ghosts, I don't have anything personal against you, but you really are an idiot, don't insult me, but this is the truth.. Take yourself in your hands and keep the nonsense that comes out of your mouth to yourself, someone else might read your comments and believe them..

  60. Avi Blizovsky

    I see that the New Age influx attacking your site from some commenters doesn't bother you?
    It bothers me so I attack them back.
    I would really appreciate it if you block them, or do something against these slurs from commenters such as "skeptic" and other blasphemers.

  61. Moses

    We are not talking about infinity here.

    We are talking about logic here.

    Logically there is nothing more than infinity.

    This is the very thing about the concept of "infinite". And you, as someone who understands something in mathematics, should know the problematic nature of the concept starting from the logical (even philosophical) level.

  62. Ugh
    Good thing you didn't interpret the seven layers of the Babushka Taliban (well, remember that religious woman from the news?)

  63. A ghost has an infinity that is greater than infinity is a basic thing that is studied in infi in every faculty of mathematics
    I don't understand why you are arguing at all

  64. God will have mercy,
    How much slander and slander are spoken here from a ghost who is the incarnation of some erring soul that needs correction.
    Regarding parallel universes according to Judaism or Kabbalah to be more precise:
    The Holy Ari gives an amazing answer: He begins by describing the formation of the black hole and the formation of the infinite worlds in it, one inside the other as in a bush. Each such Babushka is divided into ten exponential annular layers and each layer is divided into ten sublayers and so on ad infinitum. Within each Babushka and between each Babushka there is a great movement. For example, the three higher energetic layers are connected to the seven lower energetic layers of the babushka that envelops the inner babushka, and so on ad infinitum. This whole structure is not really a structure, but a movement in an eternal (timeless) infinite space, whose parts merge and separate and return, God forbid, one inside the other in an infinite movement and we are a part of it and it is a part of us.

  65. Eran
    The fact that you managed to read some Wikipedia entry while also babbling nonsense here….. so it won't really make you a physicist or a mathematician. You also need to understand what you are reading.

    Stupid and arrogant like you are a deadly combination. Your behavior and that of him you are pretending to be, is similar to the behavior of religious people here on the site. And the kind of arguments you make are similar to the kind of arguments they make.

    Of course, in physics there are not many here who understand. That's why you and your ilk have more freedom to talk nonsense about physics and mathematics here on the site

  66. I'm sorry, but you are in no position to teach anyone physics.
    You failed to refute my theory, because you simply do not know the term "power".
    There are several infinities, differing in their properties.
    But leave this site too small for your wisdom, to be honest this country, actually I'm just a stinking scumbag, this cosmos is too small for your wisdom. If you can move to a parallel universe, so that at least you can meet your double, and be impressed by your wisdom, which is infinite and is of course more powerful than any infinity that humans could imagine.

  67. "Eran"
    Definately not!
    I don't think you understood anything at all.
    And read the comments of "Mr. want to be". He didn't understand yet that he didn't understand..

  68. Mister lives in illusions

    didn't you study??

    So how did you correct yourself from a sentence like "greater than infinity" after I put you in your place?

    Didn't you correct it to: "Different sizes for the infinity groups"?

    Even here you are not clear about what you wrote.

    And what was your only purpose in all this if not for me to teach you physics?

  69. Mr. Roach, I think that the extent of your greatness in physics, mathematics, art, rhetoric, life sciences and philosophy has already been made clear to all of us. Maybe you'll go lecture about it somewhere else?

  70. Hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha last comment (make me really a liar because I said the first is the last)

    "There is no point in continuing to teach you physics because it will never end."
    why continue Hahahahaha when did you start?!?... Well, the teacher on Rafaim St., sorry to disappoint you....

  71. skeptic
    I see that you have returned the fay... 😉
    I don't need to talk much about you, we've already seen what you're capable of.
    Just be careful not to freak out with jealousy.

  72. Rafaim St.,
    I explained to you that I am not Eran. snap out of it!

    In any case, I'm tired of arguing, I had one goal, and time will tell if it was successful or not...

    I go back to being passive until another troll really bullies me…

    Good luck to everyone!

  73. "Mr. want to be"

    You're just an asshole.
    and a liar
    Leave the fact that you are dyslexic, you are more of an idiot than that.

    There is no point in continuing to teach you physics because it will never end.

    I leave you to other people like Moshe or Emmanuel, they at least understand much more than you.

  74. Eran

    So you admit that you are impersonating “Mr. Want to be a bee"?

    Are you aware that the editor can block you for violating the site rules? You probably didn't know that either.

    "Your question has several sizes of infinity" - well.... And where did you see that I asked you something like that?
    I couldn't ask you because you don't know the material.

    What you did write for sure is this:

    "greater than infinity"

    In case it faded from your memory, then you wrote it here:

  75. You have to apologize again, I both want to be Deborah and I also want to be B and I also want to be and the initials of Michal Rot**l wonna be...

    Anyway, I'm not lying. I understood that I was actually referring to the same response that you quoted, only a different part:

    "And will you explain to Hawking what exactly is "greater than infinity"!? Or is it understandable only to those with alien logic like yours?

    You're just an asshole.
    And a liar."

    Mmm... I understood it as if you think there is no such thing as "bigger than infinity"... you asked him to explain it to Hawking...

    I think the rest understood it the same way. But you may have had a wording problem (I read a lot)
    But if you now understand that there are different sizes for the infinity groups then there is no argument, because this is exactly what I think...

    And stop calling me a liar for no reason... what's the idea?

    And stop calling me a liar!

  76. I have the faintest idea, Mr. Deborah doesn't have the faintest idea, are you now no longer differentiating between us?
    Even if Mr. Deborah doesn't have the faintest idea, that's more than you have.
    Your question has several dimensions of infinity, you therefore choose not to accept it because we seem threatening to you.
    Again the thinking of a 4-year-old child. Maybe you put your hands over your eyes and we'll just disappear and that's it, and yes I wrote that there are several sizes of infinity, that's not a mistake.
    By the way, I didn't understand how a person could lie due to being innocent. I don't think you know what a "liar" is either, Tom.

  77. Sorry, again.
    I didn't notice that you "want to be a bee", and by mistake I wrote "want B". Sorry.

  78. Mr. want B

    It seems that it is not the dyslexia that prevents you from thinking straight.

    I also think you are lying out of innocence. Maybe you didn't study enough.


    In your next sentence:
    "So I explained to you that there are different sizes of the infinity groups (something you said was complete nonsense and you decided that the person who said it was a liar)"

    He lied not out of innocence. He is intentional (you probably lied so that you would have something to attack.) You are of course attacking your own lie.

    Read what I wrote again:

    You write: "None of those present here presented any contradiction" - really?
    You didn't write: "...greater than infinity..."?
    "You didn't write" it here, by any chance? "

    And you continue to talk about things that you have no "faint attitude" about.

    such as the concept of infinity.

  79. Breeze,

    Regarding my mistakes in Hebrew - I'm sorry. (There is nothing to feel bad about, 10% of the population is dyslexic...)

    I don't think I understand more than the author of the article. I didn't write that anywhere. Nor did I write anything or even half about physics anywhere.

    At first I commented to you about the general attitude of your comments. I think it was worthwhile as you moderated a bit.

    So I explained to you that there are different sizes of the infinity groups (something you said was complete nonsense and you decided that the person who said it was a liar) - I still don't understand how you continue to argue about this issue. This is proof. It's not even advanced math. This is the basis…

    Your claims have already been refuted.
    The fact that you do not accept this fact is a problem in your particular case.

    Good Day.

    Mr. wants to be a bee…

  80. Eran
    First of all, I received many mitzvahs in my life, and some of them were also as a result of stopping completely and giving the right of way to every pedestrian even if he has three or four legs. and even more! Even a tail. (and a half-eaten ear)

    I didn't laugh at his disability. I forgot he mentioned her. I apologize for that. But in any case, the logic of my response and the meaning of the content of my words do not change even if the manner of speaking becomes more pleasant.

    And once again: your claims have already been refuted.
    The fact that you do not accept this fact is a problem in your particular case.

  81. Tell me what do you think? Are you kidding dyslexics? He writes with spelling errors because of a disability.
    The kind of people who would prey on a disabled person because he can't run and run away.
    I understand that you think you are really smart and much smarter than us, but do me a favor, keep those thoughts to yourself. Really Israeli bravado.
    Instead of contradicting my claims, you simply try to come down on me, mature, and most importantly contribute to the discussion.

  82. Mr. want to be a sophomore

    "agree. I have almost no knowledge of physics. Regarding mathematics - I actually have a weak temperament"

    It turns out that you also lack knowledge in grammar.

    And if so, then why do you keep talking about things you don't understand? And brazenly think you understand better than the author of the article? Or from someone else?


    From Wikipedia:

    "In the 60s, the children's television program hosted by the comedian Sophie Sayles was popular in the United States. The program, which consisted of skits and jokes, caused a great uproar on January 1, 1965."

    Do you agree with me?

  83. "Let's start with the fact that you agree with me that you do not understand physics and mathematics at such a level that would allow you to talk at all about such topics?"

    agree. I have almost no knowledge of physics.
    Regarding mathematics - I actually have a weak temperament. And group theory is my favorite subject.
    Indeed, there are groups of infinity which are greater than other infinite groups (see value: a thousand [like the letter] is greater than a thousand zeros).

    And, I don't write nonsense. But I forgive (there's really nothing to do but so be it). Only with your forgiveness will you slightly change your wording. Only if there is no choice - attack... (of course you don't have to listen to me, again this is just friendly advice)

  84. From Wikipedia:
    "It is not true that all infinite groups have the same power: Cantor's theorem states that the power of the power group of A is greater than the power of A, and in particular, every group has a group with greater power. The "set" of all sets is so large that in the axiomatic set theory it is not considered a set but a class (and therefore has no power)."

  85. All of you are liars and idiots, I'm ready for Abby to check if my IP is the same as wonna's (sorry for calling you by your first name Abby, I just don't remember the last name).
    As you can see our way of speaking is completely different.
    Your lack of education in mathematics is not a legitimate explanation and does not constitute a contradiction to my claims.
    You are a little boy, maybe not in your age but in the way you behave you eat demons, grow up.

  86. Listen, sir, you're writing nonsense.
    Let's start with the fact that you agree with me that you do not understand physics and mathematics at such a level that would allow you to talk at all about such topics?

  87. "First of all, you forgot to switch back to "Eran". (!)" Our brother's mistake... I'm sorry I don't have a split personality for you to be right at least about this...

    "What are sapphires?" It means the group of natural numbers, didn't you understand that? Or do you play it without understanding in order to find a mistake in me? I hope this is the first part.

    I also posted links for you to help you start learning about it. But the message is awaiting confirmation (from Wikipedia)

    And my problem is that I don't want to hear curses and insults in the scientist's comments - but I understand that I really have no choice...
    At least I tried..

  88. "MR wonnaB"

    First of all, you forgot to switch back to "Eran". (!)

    And secondly,
    I cannot agree with you that,

    "Natural numbers are infinite"

    Because it doesn't make sense to me.

    What are sapphires?

    First of all learn to speak clearly.
    Then they might take you seriously.

    Instead of trying to prove something to me, and leaving the whole process informed, write your problem here and maybe someone will be willing to take care of you.

  89. Breeze,
    Let me explain to you and the Koenig..

    Agree with me that a set of natural numbers is infinite...
    Now you will agree with me that the set of all numbers R (including fractions and irrationals) is bigger...

  90. Emanuel
    As you can see, your argument with B is about New Age and not related to physics.

    You write: "None of those present here presented any contradiction" - really?
    You didn't write: "...greater than infinity..."?
    "You didn't write" it here, by any chance?

    Maybe explain to Hawking what exactly is "larger than infinity"!? Or is it understandable only to those with alien logic like yours?

    You're just an asshole.
    and a liar

  91. To Moses:
    Maxwell's equations describe the behavior of electromagnetic fields.
    Among other things, they also describe the spread of electromagnetic radiation.

    The solution does not "assume" anything. A solution is a solution and nothing else. Under certain conditions, a certain solution of a mathematical equation describes a physical reality. There are cases where a mathematical solution to an equation does not describe physical reality.
    Just as Emmanuel gave the example of the movement of a thrown stone. Starting from a certain point in time the movement of the stone is indeed described by the parabola. Before this point in time the parabola does not describe the movement of the stone.
    In fact there is also another point in time that Emmanuel ignored. This is the point in time when the stone hits the ground.
    Even from this point on, the parabola does not describe the movement of the stone.
    That is, the solution to the movement of the stone is that between the time point of the start of the measurement and the time point of the end of the measurement the stone moves in a way that can be described by a parabola.
    It does not give anything about the movement of the stone before the start of the measurement nor about the movement of the stone after the measurement is finished. In the period of time before the measurement and in the period of time after the measurement the stone moved in a different way than described in the parabola. Actually we have no information about the movement of the stone before and after the measurement.

    This also happens in the solutions of Maxwell's equations. Some of the solutions are accepted and some are not accepted as a physical description of reality.

  92. Spirit, what's the point of arguing with everyone? You don't contribute to the discussion, you didn't offer anything but you just insult everyone.
    No one wants you here, you really bring the discussion down to the level of kindergarten.
    No one present here presented any contradiction including Mr. Ghost and his friend the Tooth Fairy, to my claims.

  93. Moses
    In addition, (although I don't understand the sentence that "time can warp")
    It should also be remembered that time is a philosophical concept invented by man to describe a process.
    and subsequently, defined mathematically.

  94. heart

    The Maccaswell equations explain the propagation of electromagnetic radiation using the fact that the magnetic field is perpendicular to the electric field when talking about propagating radiation
    Radiation spreads in time and space (what to do)
    I recommend you study Maxwell's equations and their solutions (one of the solutions was found with a simulated exponent and this solution was rejected because it assumes a rotation before a factor)

    Time does flow
    Time can warp
    Time is just another dimension like all dimensions

  95. Clarification, if it wasn't clear then "of course you must do so..." should be:

    "Of course you don't have to do that"

  96. Breeze,
    I'm not a liar, I just don't see properly:
    I thought that "at the end of the writing (quite scrawled)" you actually wrote "at the end of the article (quite scrawled)". Only from a second reading did I notice that I had escaped.

    It's been less than a year, still your attitude is very violent.
    True, you don't owe me anything and you have the right to inflate your ego at the expense of others...
    But I, although I don't owe you anything, give you a piece of advice (which will also help me indirectly) - try to be less violent (unless there is no choice)... that way it will be nicer for all of us... see that the ego can also be inflated by explaining to people where they went wrong ( And then they'll give you back a "thank you" certificate... of course you're obligated to do so...

    Maybe my response didn't help anything, maybe this one won't help either, but it does try to help... to help you and so does the discussion. (You will agree with me that your first comment in this article did not try to contribute to the discussion 😉 )

    I'm telling you this as a bystander, it's not that I'm smarter than you - simply things that you see from here, you don't see from there... Read your first comment again and then the second, don't you notice unpleasant bluntness without a valid reason?

    Sorry I didn't listen to your advice: "It was good enough here even without your reaction. And it's good that you are silent most of the time. That's the only way you'll learn." simple:
    1. I don't think that those who are silent will probably learn less (agree/disagree... of course agree)...
    2. I don't think I'm stupid - and in general I think that to diagnose something as stupid only after one of his comments - is not a very smart thing...
    3. I don't think only those who can teach should respond (see the value of your response, if it was less blunt it would be completely legitimate in my opinion)
    4. Your attitude in this sentence is so deserving that it makes you want to do the exact opposite...
    5. The truth is that there are many more reasons.

    Have a good life, ghost…

  97. Moshe:
    It is not clear what you added by repeating your words.
    yes right, not right, yes right, not right……

    The claim regarding my knowledge is also not clear.
    A child's knowledge in first grade is definitely enough.

    Time has only one direction. It does not "flow" like water that can be tilted so that it flows in the opposite direction.
    Maxwell's equations do not talk about the "flow" of time. Maxwell's equations are equations that describe the behavior of electromagnetic fields. This behavior may be time dependent. This does not mean that time "flows" and it certainly does not mean that time "reverses the direction of flow".

  98. The whole issue of extraterrestrial intelligent life is a controversial one. I have read and heard endless theories and articles that come to contradict or on the other hand strengthen the claim that intelligent life exists far away from us somewhere and maybe they are even much more advanced than we are as we see in science fiction movies.
    The enormous size of the universe requires the existence of planets that are similar in their conditions to the ancient earth and enable the development of life - if it happened on earth why wouldn't it happen on one of them?
    In any case, in my opinion, intelligent life that is on a mental level similar to ours but developed hundreds of millions of years earlier on the assumption that their planet is closer to the point from which the material began to disperse in the big bang would have already managed to get here despite the enormous and seemingly impossible distances from our point of view.

  99. heart

    Emanuel is right about time flow in the McCaswell equations
    And Emanuel is right about a black hole inside a black hole there are many equilibrium points
    I suggest you be a little more modest
    It seems to me that your knowledge is that of a high school student

  100. "MR wonnaB"
    First of all, you are wrong.
    There is no such thing as "Michael Roschild" - it's just a myth.. 😉

    You write: "If you have something meaningful to say" - well, I said. You probably just didn't understand the meaning.

    You also wrote: "Cursing other people's comments as well as the article" - where did you see that I cursed the article?
    You're just a liar.
    That's why you have no problem saying that "I cursed the article". When in fact, I didn't mention the article at all.
    You just don't know the facts. If you knew, you would also speak differently.

    And once again I will explain to you:
    1: I have the right to add a comment here.
    2: It was good enough here even without your comment. And it's good that you are silent most of the time. That's the only way you'll learn.
    3: I don't have to respect you. Even though I do respect you as a person and do not hurt you, but only answer you and others like you with the same attitude that comes to people who lie.
    4: I also don't need to answer you so that you will be educated. what am i your teacher What do I care you're stupid? That's your problem.

    Your claims contradict themselves. I didn't even have to try.
    Please keep entertaining us

  101. Moshe, thanks for the explanation
    I think you are very knowledgeable in this area
    Also thanks for explaining to me about black hole and Maxwell's equations

    Good Day

  102. Emanuel:
    I suggest you study Maxwell's equations well. It is not about "flow of time" there.
    A black hole is an area in space where gravity is so strong that light cannot escape and therefore the area appears black.

  103. Ghost, it would be wise for you to make like a ghost and disappear. As long as you don't contradict my claims, you're just a ghost.

  104. There is a fifth degree rabbi of the universe: different logic (that is, a different inference system than our usual one). It's interesting that I was just thinking about this topic yesterday on a short walk to my father's house. I came up with this hierarchy: 1 Different starting conditions. 2 different parameters 3. Different degrees of freedom 4. All the previous degrees assume that the universe can be described using differential equations and more generally using the mathematical structure (according to the definition of "structure" in mathematical logic) of dynamic systems which leads to the fourth degree different mathematical structures (which are described using different formal languages) but all of these are still studied within the framework of the classical inference system (for example the one described in Enderton's logic book which is a type of Hilbert's inference systems) and those equivalent to it which leads to the fifth degree: 5. Different inference circles - that is, different logics

  105. Emmanuel is not wrong but does not know if he is right
    A black hole can definitely exist and gravity is a function of acceleration and position

  106. heart
    You still have a lot to learn, get out of the box you're trapped in and let your imagination flow
    It is true that a human cannot exist there
    But awareness can exist
    Not everything needs to be tested but everything needs to be understood without blinding contradiction
    If there are stupid contradictions, then there is no point in checking at all,,,,,ֿ

    Our senses and our logic have only followed us until today

    The world is flat
    Earth in the center
    The sun revolves around the earth
    The stone flies and until it gets tired it falls
    God does not play with dice
    And many more examples
    You have the right to believe what you want
    But to write in one breath that I'm wrong without even trying to get to the bottom of my opinion or bring proof that I'm wrong is really irrelevant

    Every theory is true until proven otherwise

    Inside a black hole there is definitely a whole world possible because the space there is so distorted and right in the center of the black hole the force of gravity is equal to zero

    Regarding the quadratic equation
    You are used to every result having a reason
    And I tell you that the mathematical equations sometimes say that a cause has an effect
    One of the solutions of Maxwell's equations states that there is a backward flow of time
    And we in our logic rejected the solution
    Just as in the logic eight hundred years ago they decided that the earth is the center because the sun revolves around it

  107. To Emanuel:
    You are simply wrong:
    1) A black guy wields a tremendous gravitational force. No man can exist there. Not just a person. Even stars cannot exist there. Therefore a black hole is not a parallel universe.
    2) The senses and logic do not interfere. On the contrary, good senses and good reasoning contribute to understanding.
    3) There is no flow of time backwards. Solving a quadratic equation has nothing to do with the flow of time backwards. Solving the equation gives a trajectory. The beginning of the movement can be at any point throughout this route. This does not mean that time can reverse direction. It only means that if this movement described by this track had started at an earlier time it would have started somewhere else on the track. "Irrational" means that the stone did not start its movement at an earlier time and therefore the entire previous track to the time of the start of the movement does not describe the actual movement of the stone.
    Note that when you throw a stone it starts from zero speed and gets an acceleration and then is released at some speed. The time of the beginning of the movement in the equation you mention here is the time when the stone was released from the hand and began to move under the influence of gravity alone. The movement of the stone can be described from the moment the hand starts exerting force on it until the moment it stops. But then it wouldn't have ended in the quadratic equation you mention here.
    4) In physics everything has to pass the test of experience. It's good to have a theory. Mathematics is the language of theory.
    But the theory must be tested. Without an experiment and without a result it is not the science of physics. It's just speculation.
    5) The theory of relativity is not mathematics, it uses mathematics as a language to describe physics. Many attempts have been made to test if the theory is correct. So is quantum theory.
    6) "Maybe" is a hypothesis. You can say maybe about many things. It doesn't mean it's true until it's been tested.
    A hypothesis can lead to the construction of a theory. But to accept the theory you have to try and see if it is true and not just a hypothesis.
    7) The atom certainly does not become a new universe. For the simple reason: tremendous gravity prevails there. There are no stars there.

  108. R.H. Rafai.M,
    No words…

    Says that both the article and the commenters are all scrambled...

    No offense, but Michael Roschild you are not, and apparently you never will be... stop trying to sound like him...

    If you have something meaningful to say, only then respond. Right now it seems that you are reacting to inflate your ego (cursing other people's comments as well as the article), which makes you a kind of troll.

    Please stop going down on people, there are ways to tell them they are wrong and your response is not one of them.

    post Scriptum.
    This Michael you are trying so hard to imitate would never have killed like that at the beginning comments. He would first explain, and only if they continued to argue with him without any basis, only then would he be more violent...

    I'm only commenting because you've reached a point where you've reached your heart's content... almost every response of yours is venomous and you never substantiate your venomousness, you almost never contribute (just the opposite). Please change the attitude please and maintain some culture of discussion, I don't want this site that I love so much to be emptied because a ghost is alienating all readers with his stinking attitude…

    The unresponsive reader (unless there is an emergency)

  109. If you lived in the center of a black hole the world according to the laws of our physics would be infinite the frog in the center of the hole would never be able to break the horizon where the light beam stops and returns

    There is no doubt that mathematics is the ultimate tool for understanding the environment
    Our senses and our logic only hinder us from understanding the real structure

    They did not talk here about the flow of time backwards and the cause and effect of a phenomenon that is seen in the solution of a quadratic equation of throwing a stone
    A phenomenon that our physics teacher said doesn't make sense,,,,,,

    You don't have to do things physically to understand their essence
    Galileo for example proved that a heavy object and a light object fall at the same speed using simple mathematics and logic
    He never conducted an experiment
    The theory of relativity is mathematics and the quantum theory came to us from a logical storm

    Try to think logically what happens to a small atom sucked into a black hole,,,,

    What happens at the point that this atom reaches the speed of light?
    His mass, his time, his space
    Perhaps this atom during its infinite fall actually turns into a new universe?
    Because its mass is increasing

    Thanks for this article
    Personally, I believe in parallel universes because the math says so!!!

  110. No words…

    First Eran declares that he knows better and immediately proceeds to write nonsense.
    After him came B, who also declared that he knew better and he also went to publish his nonsense.

    At the end of the (rather scribbled) writing, they both came to the conclusion that each of them was right, but also to the conclusion that the other was wrong.

    Do yourself a favor, wipe the milk off your lips and study 'a little' physics and math.

    The nonsense you wrote, and the most I laughed to infinity: "In such a situation, it could be that the infinity describing the size of all possible structures will be greater than the infinity describing the size of the number of bubbles in the universe. "

    Oh no..

  111. We pretty much know that relativity isn't perfect, unless you get infinite distortions of space-time inside black holes, and even if space is infinite, that still doesn't mean the mass density is the same throughout the universe.
    By the way, the fact that space is infinite does not mean that the amount of matter is infinite,
    In general, I think that since quantum mechanics and its conclusions, I am sure that this theory deserves some correction, remind you, dark energy and dark matter are not exactly an elegant explanation, since we have never observed them, and the proof of their existence is actually that the equations are screwed up. I think this is not a legitimate explanation, it is more likely that we simply did not reach the necessary approximation.
    To remind you, the meaning of the word A-Tom is indivisible.

  112. If the space is finite then it is possible to find its center and this contradicts the theory of relativity!

  113. Mathematics deals with the fact that there are several sizes of infinity.
    Assume that there are infinitely many isolated bubbles, since we assume that the density of the universe is equal and the universe is infinite.
    I claim that it is not necessarily possible to prove that there is a finite number of contents inside a bubble. That is, even if two states of the same bubble will be very close, it can still be different, perhaps to a certain degree, but to a degree that can have an effect (as follows from the butterfly effect).
    In such a situation, it may be that the infinity describing the size of all possible structures will be greater than the infinity describing the size of the number of bubbles in the universe.
    I don't like to use the term size because it is problematic to talk about infinity with this concept.
    I don't like running to infinity at all, especially in physics, as we have never encountered an infinite phenomenon. In my opinion, the universe in general is finite, in one way or another.

  114. to Eran:
    I read your comment and did not understand it.
    Can you elaborate in simple and clear language?

  115. Another orphaned question: Is the number of "isolated" universe structures even finite? We don't know that.
    Even if it is infinite, according to group theory it could be that the strength of the group of infinity equal to that of isolated regions in the universe is smaller than the strength of the group that blocks all possible "isolated" structures of the universe.
    Even if you manage to prove this, you will have to deal with the problem that quantum mechanics seems to contradict the theory of relativity, the effect of one experiment on another must be blocked by the same speed, according to the results this is not the case. As a matter of fact, a situation is possible where our entire universe communicates with itself to some extent, in such a situation, the universe would contain states that were potentially possible.
    I suppose there are inaccuracies in my response, because after all it is a relatively high level, but I suppose it does not sin too much from reality.

  116. Error:

    1) If someone claims that according to statistics the existence of parallel universes is possible, he must understand that according to statistics there is at least one parallel universe that is within a range of only one meter from our universe.

    2) According to the theory of relativity, the universe does not have one central point. It is therefore impossible to speak of the universe as a bubble with a center. Nor can we talk about additional bubbles with a center. It is also not possible to talk about a distance between the bubbles if it is impossible to define what this distance is.

    In mathematics, when you reach a contradiction, you try to find a solution!

    Unfortunately, some people seem to lose the ability to think logically when they enter the field of modern physics. There are too many unclear things and there is too much reliance on "authorities" who said one way or another. without understanding the meaning at all.

  117. Very interesting and well thought out article. It is evident that she did not go under the surgeon's scalpel of Muhammad Ali (google translate). Keep it up!

  118. I've seen these theories before.
    But they are very problematic, because first of all, how does a world behave without any laws?
    You are also obligated to assume at least in the first instance that the laws of physics are universally fixed no matter where you are.
    We have no real evidence that describes cosmic bubbles as the second degree suggests, hypothetically this could be true, but since we already know that we do not have a theory that is one hundred percent correct you cannot necessarily determine the existence of bubbles of this type.
    Regarding the third degree, well we also don't exactly know what quantum mechanics signifies, according to scientific history at least, it is likely that it represents a concept in our understanding of the universe, so it is too early in my opinion at least to draw far-reaching conclusions from it, such as infinite universes.
    The fourth degree is also an interesting thing, and it may be true, its existence cannot contradict anything, but that's the end of it. There seems no reason for nature to prefer to create an existence with a variety of universes that differ from each other in such a fundamental way.
    The biggest problem with the fourth degree is that we simply have no evidence to support this view over the opposing view.
    The question arises, is modern physics not too weak to deal with the existence of the world.
    At the end of the day, modern physics cannot describe the world on Earth perfectly, therefore it is a problem to transfer it to such a large scale.

Leave a Reply

Email will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismat to prevent spam messages. Click here to learn how your response data is processed.