Black holes, aliens, multiverse & Mars: Space TED talks you need to watch

Well, this article has a number of very interesting videos to watch. I enjoyed this video on the multiverse, 21:47 minutes long. 'Is our universe the only universe?: Brian Greene, professor of mathematics and physics, Columbia University'

That is quite a video here :)

Some points I note after watching all 21:47 minutes. String theory plays a critical role. There could be today some 10^500 different universes with dark energy value very different in each, other universe could collapse into nothing too. What caused the BB event? The answer provided was inflation which then continues to expand into the multiverse. How to test and confirm the existence of the multiverse? Apparently other tiny variations in the CMBR should be able to confirm the existence of the multivese and each universe within the multiverse has many different dimensions (more than space-time, 4 dimensions).

The CMBR forms 1.198 x 10^13 seconds (380,000 years) after BB event and today the universe is 4.352 x 10^17 seconds old (13.8 billion years). Between the origin of the CMBR and age of the universe today, time expands by some 10^4 magnitude with enormous evolutionary transformation from where it was when the CMBR first appeared and the universe we see today. Going back before the origin of the CMBR, inflation may start the clock 10^-36 second after BB (Alan Guth) but if inflation caused the BB event, that is something else perhaps. Time here expands by some 10^49 magnitude between inflation and origin of CMBR so plenty of wiggle room to create whatever :)

In the video a number was presented with an enormous number of zeros following the decimal point. This was either dark energy or more likely the cosmological constant in Einstein GR that causes so much headache in expanding universe calculations for cosmology. Indeed, a very interesting 21:47 video to watch.

My observation. Without the multiverse, all the different constants that make our universe a place we can live in today as well as explain How The Universe Works :) is very difficult to account for using time, chance, and random events everywhere.
It may not surprise anyone here on the forum, but I disagree with Brian Greene concerning infinite dimensionality existing no matter how someone thinks they can divide the indivisible Multiverse into an infinity of finite universes. An infinity of fractal self-similar multiverses, yes, that I can see, but to tear apart a build up of dimensional complexity into a infinite number of pieces of that singularity, including pieces where complexity just keeps on piling on complexity to an infinity of dimensional complexity, from exactly the same base, that I cannot see whatsoever.

As an amateur complexity theorist, of which 'Chaos Theory' is a subsidiary of 'Complexity Science', I'm thoroughly tied to the realization that complexity, including multi-dimensionality which is simply a build up of complexity, collapses in on itself, or flattens out, at some finite point nowhere even close to infinity. So all of those bubble universes in his program would largely be "fractal self-similar", or as Will Durant said concerning history's physics, "history always repeats itself in large aspect, though rarely, if ever, in its fine detail."

All of the dimensionality of Multiverse will be recursive (repetitive) throughout an infinity of finite bubble universes (infinitizing multiverse self-similarity), but rarely, if ever, exactly duplicating in its fine grain detail (in other words, Multiverse -- as large aspect-- is not a constituent -- fine detail -- multiverse element of the set Multiverse). All of them will have zone dimensions of lifelessness on the way to zone dimensions of life capability and zone dimensions of life capability on the way to zone dimensions of lifelessness. That they can and will intermingle in lumpy mixes should be a given, as Stephen Hawking foresaw when he wrote of life possibly migrating always to stay in life zones.

Multiverse multi-dimensional possibility was also put on display in a Star Trek segment when the crew is all members of a totalitarian state and some of the crew accidentally cross-switch rails and trains (so to speak) between paralleling universes. Now that is Multiverse multi-dimensionality on full display.... Large aspect repetition to infinity, difference in fine detail to infinity, localized fractal self-similarity (but not quite exact duplication (for reasons given long ago exact duplication of detail does occur in an infinity but would never be realized to actually exist as such because exact duplicates overlay and inlay to exactitude; to just one and the same)).

Brian Greene, to me (as an amateur complexity theorist), blew it at that point. He wants a numbers game to infinity regarding infinite Universe, try this base2 binary (('1') and/or ('-1') / ('1') and/or ('0')). Those infinities of [divided] finite bubble universes are infinities (plural) for the simple reason that energy is conserved thereby in the finitude. The infinite Universe needs no conservation since it has no energy (one might say of its own) to it and, therefore, no time (of its own) to it. Relativity breaks down. Complexity collapses. Entropy is inexorable. Building dimensionality on dimensionality, on dimensionality; or shoveling dimensionality into dimensionality, into dimensionality; will burn it out, blur it out, deforming and doing away with the very existence of dimensionality as such (thus a dimensionless point, an infinity of point infinitesimals, an infinitely flat-smooth surface Universe (an infinite Big Crunch Vortex (Big Hole Vacuum) (Big Mirror Mirroring ('1') ('-1').... Multiverse).

It seems I need to at least partially explain my whole model every time simply to fulfill explanation of the why and how of disagreement with how such things as multi-dimensionality is visualized. Even with the premise of the thing being visualized. Brian Greene essentially said that a string is a superpositioned singularity: Or more likely pairs of them pairing to spring strings, which is then their transformation and endings. He didn't say it outright, but I think it is what he said without saying it. Now that part I would heartily agree with (even though he didn't say it outright), since I've already modeled such a possible transformative relationship myself.
Last edited:

Latest posts