Living in the multiverse?

Question

u r imaginations

Answer 1

We usually mark advances in the history of science by what we learn about

nature, but at certain critical moments the most important thing is what

we discover about science itself.These discoveries lead to changes in how

we score our work, in what we consider to be an acceptable theory.

For an example, look back to a discovery made just one hundred years

ago.Before 1905 there had been numerous unsuccessful efforts to detect

changes in the speed of light, due to the motion of the Earth through the

ether.A ttempts were made by Fitzgerald, Lorentz and others to construct

a mathematical model of the electron (which was then conceived to be the

chief constituent of all matter) that would explain how rulers contract when

moving through the ether in just the right way to keep the apparent speed of

light unchanged.Einstein instead offered a symmetry principle, which stated

that not just the speed of light, but all the laws of nature are unaffected by a

transformation to a frame of reference in uniform motion.Loren tz grumbled

that Einstein was simply assuming what he and others had been trying to

prove.But history was on Einstein’s side.The 1905 Special Theory of

Relativity was the beginning of a general acceptance of symmetry principles

as a valid basis for physical theories.

This was how Special Relativity made a change in science itself.F rom one

point of view, Special Relativity was no big thing – it just amounted to the

replacement of one 10-parameter spacetime symmetry group, the Galileo

group, with another 10-parameter group, the Lorentz group.But never

before had a symmetry principle been taken as a legitimate hypothesis on

which to base a physical theory.

As usually happens with this sort of revolution, Einstein’s advance came

with a retreat in another direction: the effort to construct a classical model

of the electron was permanently abandoned.Instead, symmetry principles

increasingly became the dominant foundation for physical theories.This tendency

was accelerated after the advent of quantum mechanics in the 1920s,

because the survival of symmetry principles in quantum theories imposes

highly restrictive consistency conditions (existence of antiparticles, connection

between spin and statistics, cancellation of infinities and anomalies) on

physically acceptable theories.Our present Standard Model of elementary

particle interactions can be regarded as simply the consequence of certain

gauge symmetries and the associated quantum mechanical consistency conditions.

The development of the Standard Model did not involve any changes in our

conception of what was acceptable as a basis for physical theories.Indeed,

the Standard Model can be regarded as just quantum electrodynamics writ

large.Similarly , when the effort to extend the Standard Model to include

gravity led to widespread interest in string theory, we expected to score

the success or failure of this theory in the same way as for the Standard

Model: string theory would be a success if its symmetry principles and

consistency conditions led to a successful prediction of the free parameters

of the Standard Model.

Now we may be at a new turning point, a radical change in what we accept

as a legitimate foundation for a physical theory.The current excitement is,

of course, a consequence of the discovery of a vast number of solutions of

string theory, beginning in 2000 with the work of Bousso and Polchinski

[1].1 The compactified six dimensions in Type II string theories typically

have a large number (tens or hundreds) of topological fixtures (3-cycles),

each of which can be threaded by a variety of fluxes.The logarithm of

the number of allowed sets of values of these fluxes is proportional to the

number of topological fixtures.F urther, for each set of fluxes one obtains a

different effective field theory for the modular parameters that describe the

compactified 6-manifold, and for each effective field theory the number of

local minima of the potential for these parameters is again proportional to this world.

Good question-my research topic

Answer 2

This question belongs in the philosophy section.

Answer 3

wow are you living in the multiverse because i'm not living there

Answer 4

Multiverse is a collection of many universes, maybe we are in one of them. So space is more complex than we ever will imagine.

Answer 5

Multiverse?

Who would physicist sell books if they run out of topics?

Just another invented term to explain the most unexplained theory in the world "String theory" confusing, unexplainable and does not explain anything on its own.

Multiverse doesn't exist, its just sci-fi, movie stuff, people gone nuts in stuff that doesn't make any sense to them.

Answer 6

but but but... it doesn't make any sense?

what do you mean?