This conversation is closed.

## 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?

This conversation is closed.

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?

## Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

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.

## Mike Colera

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?

## Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

## Mike Colera

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..

## Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

I am sure you know about cauliflowers :)

http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/File:Cauliflower_Fractal_AVM.JPG

## Mike Colera

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.

## Pabitra Mukhopadhyay

Just matter of preference :)

By the way, moon is not a chip off the old block. I think it is old block.

## Kareem Garriga

## Sarthak Hajirnis

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.

## Fritzie -

## Kevin Jacobson

## Kareem Garriga

## James Zhang

Let's hear what he has to say!

## Fritzie -

## James Zhang

## Michael Huang

## Fritzie -

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