TED Conversations

Andrew Magdy Kamal

Founder & CEO, AndSocialREW

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

The Multiverse Theory

If 4D hyperspace does exist, isn't that a logical proof for the multiverse theory, and couldn't that be the same if existence of P-Branes exist?

0
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb
    Jul 17 2013: For your question to be examined or answered we need to assume that you are asking this within the ambit of model dependent realism, or else we are lost in the quagmire of realism-anti realism or subjective-objective reality dualism.
    In model dependent realism words like 'proof' and 'existence' take on slightly different meaning compared to common notions of them. Proof will mean consistent explanation and existence will mean almost nothing.
    Mulitiverse theory is the consistent explanation of the assumption that the origin of the universe was a quantum event and applying Feynman's sum over histories in a top down approach of cosmology. This is counter-intuitive to thinking a definite single history of our universe. It so happens that M-theory has laws that allow for different universes with different apparent laws depending on how the internal space is curled (in a manifold of 11 space time dimensions). The maths work out as to show that there can be as many as 10EXP500 internal spaces possible, so 10EXP500 different universes too. M-theory can contain vibrating strings, point particles, two dimensional membranes, three dimensional blobs and other objects generally summed up as p-branes (in absence of any better name) where p =0 to 9.
    This is highly logically consistent model of reality, perhaps the only that seems to work most generally, but far removed from common reality and one must be extremely careful to use language, which has not evolved to contextually describe that model of reality.
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2013: PM

      Here I was about to comment that Andrew's conversation is a little beyond too many of the TED community to engage in cohesive responses and conversations. My excuse was that as to myself, I am a student of cosmology, a very elementary student at that. But, you got right up there a stood toe to toe.
      I tried to engage this subject matter and found it daunting.,
      However, never at a loss for words.... What I am seeing is that most of our knowledge of our universe has been gained by looking back and doing the math. the quantum "sciences" confuse the process even more.
      But, where this is going is into more of the philosophical areas of this science....
      So, can we talk about intelligent design?
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2013: Sorry for a late response. I do not believe ID.
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: I'll admit, my knowledge of cosmology is: gravity sucks and gamma flares blow...

          I know ID is not popular because it has been preempted by creationist...but, and
          Michelangelo's Sistine Chapel paintings aside.... there is such order in the chaos of the universe, it's just hard for me to think all this... just happened..
      • thumb
        Jul 24 2013: I know it is difficult to think. But look at this, we eat this daily. It's a fractal and this mind blowing order just happens from millions of simple reiterations from almost nothing. This is all by chance.
        I am sure you know about cauliflowers :)
        http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cauliflower_Fractal_AVM.JPG
        • thumb
          Jul 24 2013: Pureed with cream and butter, or simply steamed... cauliflower is another of those gifts.....

          Fractals are reiterations of simple beginnings and there is a mathematical order.
          But, you dismiss my point with... "This is all by chance" And that is what bothers me so much... cauliflower fractals and when you consider all the fractals and all the combinations in an universe we can only begin to know 25% thereof and you can calmly say... this is all by chance?... Next you'll be telling me the moon is just a chip off the old block.
      • thumb
        Jul 25 2013: Mike, some people are predisposed towards awe and seeing God or intelligent design in everything so vastly and wonderfully complex. I am predisposed towards awe and seeing nothing but chance in everything so vast and wonderfully complex. Some do not know how everything came to be and find peace in believing in a creator. I do not know how everything came to be and find peace in believing it all....just happened!
        Just matter of preference :)
        By the way, moon is not a chip off the old block. I think it is old block.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2013: Technically, you can theoretically prove the concept of multiverse by re-evaluating the concept of time. Seeing as how time is not linear--contrary to the belief of most people--it follows that at any given moment there would by an infinite number of fluctuations; therefore, different variations of our known universe. This is further supported by the fact that we do not have a complete grasp of the concept of time. Unlike mass and density, time isn't based on a concrete concept. A kilogram is a comparison of an object's mass in relation to an established physical object. Time; however, cannot be measured this way. Therefore, it follows that it does not behave linearly--in an overly generalized simplistic sense, at least
  • Jul 30 2013: 4D hyperspace?
    I think it's 11 dimensional Hyperspace. Our Universe is thought to be built upon a framework of 9 spatial dimensions and 1 dimension of time; as per String Theory. If we expand our ideas to a large space like Universe, we soon realise that String Theory is a part of something big, it's called M-THEORY. M-theory predicts that ours is not the only Universe but there may be many more. These Universes are floating in the 11th dimensional hyperspace.
  • thumb
    Jul 24 2013: Andrew, could you explain to us your thinking about this?
  • Jul 17 2013: Logically, I don't see how the multiverse theory can't be correct. In the double slit experiment, it was found that single electrons did not exist in one state, rather, they existed in all of their probable states in the given conditions. Because quantum phenomenon do not occur at the macroscopic level, we can then conclude that the probable states for macroscopic objects split off into alternate realities.
  • thumb
    Jul 16 2013: Actually, are you not THE Andrew Kamal PhD in Multi-verse theory? I'd be intrigued in learning more about this topic.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2013: There's a PHD on TED right now??

      Let's hear what he has to say!
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2013: There are numerous PhDs on TED. I hope we want to hear what everyone has to say.
    • thumb
      Jul 16 2013: I don't want to seem as an ignorant fool, but everything online about this guy is extremely sketchy.
      • thumb
        Jul 16 2013: Our questioner is a sixteen year old young man who is interested in engaging with others here about multiverse theory.

        Please let's focus on the topic at hand rather than on personal matters.