Clearing The Fog Of Ignorance, Maybe.
For several years now, I have been taking certain words or phrases and going to the different search engines on the web and seeing what results those words produce. One of the first words I used for search was Magnetohydrodynamics (It is the study of Magnetic fields under unusual conditions). Magnetohydrodynamics showed me the poor quality of Encarta(No results on search). Anyway, the papers on Parallel Universes gave me another set of words to do searches on, one of them being "universe invariant". I've done searches for these words for two reasons; one was to see if the searches find the papers I've posted, the other is to see if other people are thinking along the same lines as I have. Well last night (3/17/07) I did another search using "universe invariant" and I came up with several good hits. By the way, "universe invariant" seems to be a term used in Java programming, so you get lots of hits for that. The rest of this post will be about only one of the good hits from last night.
This hit comes from Sciforms.com and the name of the post is "Constante in a univers"(Their spelling not mine). The time frame of the posts is from 4/13/03 to 4/28/03 and there are 13 posts in all. I've done several searches for "universe invariant" between then and last night, I have no idea why it was finally found last night. The words in blue are my comments.
First Post by user TeX:
Hello,
Ive read an article on sciam.com on multiverses and had some questions remaining. Constantes exist (for example pi), but can they be different in other universes? If so there should be a general rule for constantes. There are general rules but it is mathematical.
Thnks!
Justin Zijlstra
Second Post by user Crisp:
Hi Justin,
In principle the important constants such as h (Planck's constant), e (electron charge) or Pi could be different in other universes. For example, in highly curved spacetime, the circumfere of a sphere divided by its diameter might deviate from the value of Pi we know A value greater then 3.14159, a spacetime less curved then ours would have a value of Pi less then 3.14159 (the reason why we find 3.1415... is because our spacetime is Euclidian locally, which is the context within the number pi is defined This is wrong! Euclidian spacetime is a condition of the flatness of spacetime and is in no way connected to the value of Pi. If it was then Euclid himself would have proved the value of Pi from his Elements.).
However, there are certain combinations of numbers that cannot give rise to life, because the universe would collapse too fast (e.g. gravitational constant is too large), or because hydrogen or helium could not form (related to the values of h and e), ... This narrows down the possible values for "good" universes to very small barriers. For some reason he has now gotten off the subject and is now talking about the "Standard Model" of physics where you change ony one of the constants in it just a little and the whole universe no longer exists
Considering the article in scientific american; we will probably never be able to find out whether there truelly is such a thing as multiverses, Ye of little imagination so it remains highly speculative, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the idea of multiverses is received a bit sceptically by scientists (simply because claims can be made that are not verifiable). Assuming that there is such a thing, then these "other universes" will probably be much like ours, simply because a slight variation of physical constants (and hence physical laws) would not give rise to a "stable" universe.
Bye!
Crisp
Third Post by user lethe:
Crisp, i m not so sure that i agree that π could have a different value in a different universe. i see what you re saying about different geometries, but the way π is defined these days is independent of geometry. the constant arises all the time in analysis, for example. i think that even if we lived in a particularly pathological spacetime, where every circle had a different ratio, we would still have come across π as a constant, and it would have to have the same value. He seems to think you can't change the value of Pi because you would then have to change all the other applications of Pi also. Yes, you would have to change all the other applications of Pi.
plancks constant, the fundamental charge, speed of light, etc, you can do whatever you want with, however, as far as i m concerned. just not π
Fourth Post by user blobrana:
I agree with Crisp.
If a universe was formed with a different value of pi , then the universe would be totally different to ours ( no life, or quickly collapsing after the big-bang, etc...). What about universes were the difference in their value of Pi is very very very small you know like having the same value for the first billion digits of it's expansion, but different from then on?
However there maybe (difficult to prove ) other universes with different constants... Or maybe not!
Fifth Post by user Crisp:
Hi lethe,
I agree, and I forgot to include it in my original message (it was supposed to come after mentioning the Euclidian space thingy ). No complaint from me.
Bye!
Crisp
Sixth Post by user ryans:
pi is probably universe invariant (is that how we describe this concept) but e is definately multiversal, and I do not mean electronic charge. Here the e I refer to is 2.718281828, the exponential or the base of the natural logarithm. That is probably the only constant I can think of that would ce multiversal. But this is a mathematical constant, not necessarily physical. Two points; first one, I'm not sure what he means by "universe invariant" and "multiversal". Let's assume that when he says "universe invariant" he is refering to something that changes from universe to parallel universe and that when he says "multiversal" he is refering to something that stays the same in all the different universes. This leads to my second point, there is a famous equation that brings is above reasoning into question, the equation is this e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0. Is he saying that that equaiton is only valid in this universe only? I'm afraid that if you change Pi you also change e and i for the matter.
Seventh Post by user ProCop:
If infinity can be clasified as a constant, it will be the same in all universes. For me, the jury is still out as to whether infinity is the same in all universes. I am leaning towards not the same in the parallel universes. The only number I am sure is the same in all univeres is zero.
Eighth Post by user Redrover:
Wouldn't Pi be like e (Once again the natural base, not the electron charge), a mathematically defined constant that would remain constant whatever universe we would be in? For me there are two different ways to interpret this statement: the first being, he is saying that mathematically defined constants are the same in all parallel universes which I don't agree with, the second being, he is saying that mathematically defined constants are defined for each individual universe and change from universe to universe which I do agree with.
Nineth Post by user ryans:
the value of pi was initially derived from geometry, in particular the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter in a flat region of space. This works on earth when we consider locally flat areas, but say without the hindsight to know the earth is round, we would get different values of pi. Sorry, we only get one value of Pi in this universe, it doesn't change from place to place or the size of the space you are measuring. You have to get into Noneuclidian geometry to get other values of Pi in this universe, but those values in no way influence the value of Pi on your calculator. The highly curved spacetime of a Black Hole still has the same value of Pi as your calculator. So I suppose that pi would be constant in all universes, but the intelligence of the "things" defining pi would determine if they saw it as a universal constant, local constant, or found some relationship between circle circumference and gravity?
Tenth Post by user Crisp:
Hi ryans,
In that respect you could define two values of "pi": denote pi1 the ratio of the circumfere of a circle to its diameter, and pi2 the constant that for example arises when you take infinite series (zeta-functions or something similar). What about the value you find on your calculator?
For locally euclidian spacetimes, pi1 = pi2. For some extraordinary spacetime this might not be true. (Even though I am not entirely convinced of that myself, but then again, I cannot think of a proof why it would surely be true ). For math to exist in any state of understanding then pi1 = pi2 is always true in all universes but pi1a = pi1b would be false where pi1a is the value of Pi in universe a and pi1b is the value of Pi in universe b.
Bye!
Crisp
Eleventh post by user Dinosaur:
Please do not confuse mathematical constants with physical constants. Even in a universe with some weird curved space, mathematicians would develop plane geometry ala Euclid and claim that our familiar Pi was the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle. They might have to use a different constant or a complicated algorithm for geometry in their curved space, but they would know of Pi for flat spaces. Of course, Pi also shows up in other mathematical contexts not directly related to circles. Another person who is confused about the connection between Euclidian geometry and Pi. I'll state it again, Euclidian geometry defines the flatness of space not Pi. When a spacetime is flat all Euclidian postulates will be true and this can happen in any value of Pi.
When scientists speculate about other universes having different constants, they are referring to constants like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the mass of various elementary particles, et cetera. He hadn't read the Sciam.com article, if he had he would retract this statement, because the last of the four different types of Parallel Universes the article refers about is Parallel Universes different due the mathematical properties, what those properties are the article doesn't exactly say.
It is interesting to speculate about what goes on in other universes, but I see not reason to believe that the constants of physics would be different. The acceleration due to gravity changes in this universe from planet to planet, on the earth it is one value on the moon it is a completely different value.
There is a difference between such speculations and betting on the values of physical constants. I suspect that many of the speculators would bet on the constants being the same in other universes if they had to put up a large sum of money and were told that next week some experiment would give them a definitive answer.
I always remember a wise man who said the following.
“
The race is not always won by the swiftest runner and the fight is not always won by the strongest fiercest warrior, but that is the way the smart money always bets. Which explains the odds of the race.
”
Even when considering life forms, why believe in far out SciFi creatures? All the large animals evolved on Earth have 4 limbs. I do not expect to find Centaurs or worse yet, 8-limbed creatures some where. There are known reasons why huge SciFi insects cannot exist. Similarly, there are probably good reasons why 4-limbs are a sound design for large animals, with no evolutionary pressure for more limbs. Why believe in silicon based life instead of carbon based, which is obviously so successful? Note the existence of various carbon based organic compounds in space. I find irony in this statement. He calls himself Dinosaur and yet I wonder if any large animals of the dinosaur period had more then eight legs. Right now I'm thinking star fish with 24 legs(check out flickr) and a period, I'm thinking the Crusteaous, were the life forms were much more varied then they are today.
We have a lot of evidence for the constants we know locally. Why believe in different physical constants else where without any evidence supporting such a belief? Because the "standard model" of physics requires 17(might wrong on the number) different constants to describe events in this universe with any accuracy and if you change those constants just a little bit either by accident or on purpose you don't get the conditions in this universe at all. This leads to the question why is the universe so dependent on the exact values of these constants. Nobody has the answer to that question.
Twelveth Post by user everneo:
Is π expressed in 1D, if so is it a constant.?
an interesting link Here I removed the link.
Thirteenth post by user On Radioactive Waves:
as far as i know pi is dimensionless. If you start changing the value if Pi for different universes then Pi does have a dimension to it. I haven't figured out what that is yet, but I thinking along the lines of action, strongly related to the dimension of h(planck's constant). That sentence ought to blow some people away, but only those who know what h is. They should be screaming "crank" right about now.
ratio of s/d (arc length / diameter) , distance over distance. the dimensions cancel.
how many dimensions would pi apples be? wether its 3.14 or 5 apples, i dont think we can apply the coeffient to dimensions in that case.
I hope I cleared up some of the fog.
This hit comes from Sciforms.com and the name of the post is "Constante in a univers"(Their spelling not mine). The time frame of the posts is from 4/13/03 to 4/28/03 and there are 13 posts in all. I've done several searches for "universe invariant" between then and last night, I have no idea why it was finally found last night. The words in blue are my comments.
First Post by user TeX:
Hello,
Ive read an article on sciam.com on multiverses and had some questions remaining. Constantes exist (for example pi), but can they be different in other universes? If so there should be a general rule for constantes. There are general rules but it is mathematical.
Thnks!
Justin Zijlstra
Second Post by user Crisp:
Hi Justin,
In principle the important constants such as h (Planck's constant), e (electron charge) or Pi could be different in other universes. For example, in highly curved spacetime, the circumfere of a sphere divided by its diameter might deviate from the value of Pi we know A value greater then 3.14159, a spacetime less curved then ours would have a value of Pi less then 3.14159 (the reason why we find 3.1415... is because our spacetime is Euclidian locally, which is the context within the number pi is defined This is wrong! Euclidian spacetime is a condition of the flatness of spacetime and is in no way connected to the value of Pi. If it was then Euclid himself would have proved the value of Pi from his Elements.).
However, there are certain combinations of numbers that cannot give rise to life, because the universe would collapse too fast (e.g. gravitational constant is too large), or because hydrogen or helium could not form (related to the values of h and e), ... This narrows down the possible values for "good" universes to very small barriers. For some reason he has now gotten off the subject and is now talking about the "Standard Model" of physics where you change ony one of the constants in it just a little and the whole universe no longer exists
Considering the article in scientific american; we will probably never be able to find out whether there truelly is such a thing as multiverses, Ye of little imagination so it remains highly speculative, and it shouldn't come as a surprise that the idea of multiverses is received a bit sceptically by scientists (simply because claims can be made that are not verifiable). Assuming that there is such a thing, then these "other universes" will probably be much like ours, simply because a slight variation of physical constants (and hence physical laws) would not give rise to a "stable" universe.
Bye!
Crisp
Third Post by user lethe:
Crisp, i m not so sure that i agree that π could have a different value in a different universe. i see what you re saying about different geometries, but the way π is defined these days is independent of geometry. the constant arises all the time in analysis, for example. i think that even if we lived in a particularly pathological spacetime, where every circle had a different ratio, we would still have come across π as a constant, and it would have to have the same value. He seems to think you can't change the value of Pi because you would then have to change all the other applications of Pi also. Yes, you would have to change all the other applications of Pi.
plancks constant, the fundamental charge, speed of light, etc, you can do whatever you want with, however, as far as i m concerned. just not π
Fourth Post by user blobrana:
I agree with Crisp.
If a universe was formed with a different value of pi , then the universe would be totally different to ours ( no life, or quickly collapsing after the big-bang, etc...). What about universes were the difference in their value of Pi is very very very small you know like having the same value for the first billion digits of it's expansion, but different from then on?
However there maybe (difficult to prove ) other universes with different constants... Or maybe not!
Fifth Post by user Crisp:
Hi lethe,
I agree, and I forgot to include it in my original message (it was supposed to come after mentioning the Euclidian space thingy ). No complaint from me.
Bye!
Crisp
Sixth Post by user ryans:
pi is probably universe invariant (is that how we describe this concept) but e is definately multiversal, and I do not mean electronic charge. Here the e I refer to is 2.718281828, the exponential or the base of the natural logarithm. That is probably the only constant I can think of that would ce multiversal. But this is a mathematical constant, not necessarily physical. Two points; first one, I'm not sure what he means by "universe invariant" and "multiversal". Let's assume that when he says "universe invariant" he is refering to something that changes from universe to parallel universe and that when he says "multiversal" he is refering to something that stays the same in all the different universes. This leads to my second point, there is a famous equation that brings is above reasoning into question, the equation is this e^(i*Pi) + 1 = 0. Is he saying that that equaiton is only valid in this universe only? I'm afraid that if you change Pi you also change e and i for the matter.
Seventh Post by user ProCop:
If infinity can be clasified as a constant, it will be the same in all universes. For me, the jury is still out as to whether infinity is the same in all universes. I am leaning towards not the same in the parallel universes. The only number I am sure is the same in all univeres is zero.
Eighth Post by user Redrover:
Wouldn't Pi be like e (Once again the natural base, not the electron charge), a mathematically defined constant that would remain constant whatever universe we would be in? For me there are two different ways to interpret this statement: the first being, he is saying that mathematically defined constants are the same in all parallel universes which I don't agree with, the second being, he is saying that mathematically defined constants are defined for each individual universe and change from universe to universe which I do agree with.
Nineth Post by user ryans:
the value of pi was initially derived from geometry, in particular the ratio of the circumference of a circle to its diameter in a flat region of space. This works on earth when we consider locally flat areas, but say without the hindsight to know the earth is round, we would get different values of pi. Sorry, we only get one value of Pi in this universe, it doesn't change from place to place or the size of the space you are measuring. You have to get into Noneuclidian geometry to get other values of Pi in this universe, but those values in no way influence the value of Pi on your calculator. The highly curved spacetime of a Black Hole still has the same value of Pi as your calculator. So I suppose that pi would be constant in all universes, but the intelligence of the "things" defining pi would determine if they saw it as a universal constant, local constant, or found some relationship between circle circumference and gravity?
Tenth Post by user Crisp:
Hi ryans,
In that respect you could define two values of "pi": denote pi1 the ratio of the circumfere of a circle to its diameter, and pi2 the constant that for example arises when you take infinite series (zeta-functions or something similar). What about the value you find on your calculator?
For locally euclidian spacetimes, pi1 = pi2. For some extraordinary spacetime this might not be true. (Even though I am not entirely convinced of that myself, but then again, I cannot think of a proof why it would surely be true ). For math to exist in any state of understanding then pi1 = pi2 is always true in all universes but pi1a = pi1b would be false where pi1a is the value of Pi in universe a and pi1b is the value of Pi in universe b.
Bye!
Crisp
Eleventh post by user Dinosaur:
Please do not confuse mathematical constants with physical constants. Even in a universe with some weird curved space, mathematicians would develop plane geometry ala Euclid and claim that our familiar Pi was the ratio between the circumference and the diameter of a circle. They might have to use a different constant or a complicated algorithm for geometry in their curved space, but they would know of Pi for flat spaces. Of course, Pi also shows up in other mathematical contexts not directly related to circles. Another person who is confused about the connection between Euclidian geometry and Pi. I'll state it again, Euclidian geometry defines the flatness of space not Pi. When a spacetime is flat all Euclidian postulates will be true and this can happen in any value of Pi.
When scientists speculate about other universes having different constants, they are referring to constants like the speed of light, the gravitational constant, the mass of various elementary particles, et cetera. He hadn't read the Sciam.com article, if he had he would retract this statement, because the last of the four different types of Parallel Universes the article refers about is Parallel Universes different due the mathematical properties, what those properties are the article doesn't exactly say.
It is interesting to speculate about what goes on in other universes, but I see not reason to believe that the constants of physics would be different. The acceleration due to gravity changes in this universe from planet to planet, on the earth it is one value on the moon it is a completely different value.
There is a difference between such speculations and betting on the values of physical constants. I suspect that many of the speculators would bet on the constants being the same in other universes if they had to put up a large sum of money and were told that next week some experiment would give them a definitive answer.
I always remember a wise man who said the following.
“
The race is not always won by the swiftest runner and the fight is not always won by the strongest fiercest warrior, but that is the way the smart money always bets. Which explains the odds of the race.
”
Even when considering life forms, why believe in far out SciFi creatures? All the large animals evolved on Earth have 4 limbs. I do not expect to find Centaurs or worse yet, 8-limbed creatures some where. There are known reasons why huge SciFi insects cannot exist. Similarly, there are probably good reasons why 4-limbs are a sound design for large animals, with no evolutionary pressure for more limbs. Why believe in silicon based life instead of carbon based, which is obviously so successful? Note the existence of various carbon based organic compounds in space. I find irony in this statement. He calls himself Dinosaur and yet I wonder if any large animals of the dinosaur period had more then eight legs. Right now I'm thinking star fish with 24 legs(check out flickr) and a period, I'm thinking the Crusteaous, were the life forms were much more varied then they are today.
We have a lot of evidence for the constants we know locally. Why believe in different physical constants else where without any evidence supporting such a belief? Because the "standard model" of physics requires 17(might wrong on the number) different constants to describe events in this universe with any accuracy and if you change those constants just a little bit either by accident or on purpose you don't get the conditions in this universe at all. This leads to the question why is the universe so dependent on the exact values of these constants. Nobody has the answer to that question.
Twelveth Post by user everneo:
Is π expressed in 1D, if so is it a constant.?
an interesting link Here I removed the link.
Thirteenth post by user On Radioactive Waves:
as far as i know pi is dimensionless. If you start changing the value if Pi for different universes then Pi does have a dimension to it. I haven't figured out what that is yet, but I thinking along the lines of action, strongly related to the dimension of h(planck's constant). That sentence ought to blow some people away, but only those who know what h is. They should be screaming "crank" right about now.
ratio of s/d (arc length / diameter) , distance over distance. the dimensions cancel.
how many dimensions would pi apples be? wether its 3.14 or 5 apples, i dont think we can apply the coeffient to dimensions in that case.
I hope I cleared up some of the fog.
posted by picrosser at 12:47 PM
1 comments
