The Universe as We Understand It May Be Impossible: A new conjecture in physics [tr]

The Atlantic ^ | August 13, 2018 | Natalie Wolchover

[C19fan]

On June 25, Timm Wrase awoke in Vienna and groggily scrolled through an online repository of newly posted physics papers. One title startled him into full consciousness.

The paper, by the prominent string theorist Cumrun Vafa of Harvard University and collaborators, conjectured a simple formula dictating which kinds of universes are allowed to exist and which are forbidden, according to string theory. The leading candidate for a “theory of everything” weaving the force of gravity together with quantum physics, string theory defines all matter and forces as vibrations of tiny strands of energy. The theory permits some 10,500 different solutions: a vast, varied “landscape” of possible universes. String theorists like Wrase and Vafa have strived for years to place our particular universe somewhere in this landscape of possibilities.

[mdmathis6]

Time for a particular object slows down relative to an object that is stationary(like a timer on a fast moving airplane relative to a timer on the ground previously synchronized together before the airplane and the plane’s timer left the ground). It’s not about time slowing down in space it’s about time slowing down for a particular object the faster it gets to the speed of light. A ship may go near the speed of light to Alpha Centauri and back in over 8 years our time. Yet for the travelers on the ship, they will have experienced only several months flight time. One’s spouse who is 2 years older than the other goes on such a trip but when the spouse come back, one is 6 years older than his or her spouse. That is how time works at supra relativistic speeds. The Earth in it’s orbit about the sun experiences it’s own time distortions relative to the rest of the universe and the sun itself is in motion carrying it’s planets with it. We can only speak of time as we experience it here on Earth but we do know that time is not a fixed constant relative to other objects in motion. Gravity is said to affect time as well as the rate of motion and the mass of an object. We have to make synchronal time adjustments for example when we attempt to program on going space probes for maneuvers as their on board clocks may slow down relative to us(not that their clocks are actually slowing down, just that their faster velocities relative to us cause experiential time to slow incrementally over time relative to Earth bound observers).

[A Navy Vet]

"The dark matter you can't see or feel but holds the universe together (at least in theory)."

That's always the problem with current physics theorists. It's all math and their own minds. These brilliant minds actually believe they can figure out the Universe. The main question they can't figure out is how did that super-heated mass the size of a basketball come into existence? Yes, I know they've done the expansion math backwards, so they are probably right about the Big Bang. Did if just poof into existence?

I have NO math background and could be entirely wrong, but my senses tell me certain physics are correct and others are just theories. Why cannot the best minds on Earth explain what gravity is?

[treetopsandroofs]

Logic is a little tweeting bird chirping in a meadow.

Logic is a wreath of pretty flowers which smell BAD.

[A Navy Vet]

Heard it since my childhood sci-fi readings and still not buying it. Time is a human construct - it's in our minds.

I also don't believe that the Event Horizon of a Black Hole can alter time. A black hole is simply an imploded star with so much gravity it won't allow photons to escape. There is not a person on this rock that knows otherwise. They can do their math all day long and still won't know how the "singularity" basketball appeared out of nowhere to cause the Big Bang.

I believe other than some proven physics, mankind does not have the mental capacity to understand the cause and effect of the Universe. It could be some kid playing with his toys like Men In Black...or a supreme being. Yeah, and then where did it come from and how and when? We'll never know. Have a beer and enjoy life.

[Seruzawa]

Lol. Physics becomes indistinguishable from Theology.

[A Navy Vet]

Logic is the sound of a falling tree that no one hears.

Logic is that bears poop only in the woods.

Logic is sorely missed these days. I remember when...or is that my psyche telling me I was logical? Hmm. let me ponder that for awhile. I'll let you know my conclusion.

[mdmathis6]

They do have to make the time corrections whether you buy it or not. It may be some little known force and not “dimensional” the way kookie sci fi movies BS things but the clocks on our satellites do get out of sync and they adjust for them. It was as predicted by Einstein and the effects are measurable. Still, there is still nothing that says we can’t also follow your sage advice...”have a beer and enjoy life!”

Bottoms up and cheers!(see ya when I get back from A Centauri prime...LOL!)

[A Navy Vet]

"There are theories expressed in mathematical terms which work to predict observed results. That's called "physics.""

Thanks for proving my point. There is a difference between theoretical physics and applied physics. Some theories work out, some don't. Copernicus was correct about the planets orbiting the Sun, but was wrong about it being the center of the Universe and motionless. Newton's theories proved correct. Maybe you should look up the definition of theory. If you don't want to google websters or oxford, I'd be happy to do it for you.

I do have an open mind, I've just seen so many theories proven wrong in my 68 years just on our own rock. Ever hear of the Ice Age theory of the 70's? How about the over-population that would kill much the world's population? What ever happened to the disappearing ozone layer that would devastate all life on Earth? The unproven Alcar scare that hurt the apple farmers for a couple years.

Then there is the moronic theory (Nature vs Nurture) that said both genders are the same unless given a Barbie or a Toy soldier. Except for the few it was proven wrong even by the sociologists who first claimed it and that any parent could see. I clearly remember the experiments that show boy toddlers trying reach over a short barrier to Mom, and the girl toddlers sitting and crying. All theories. Need I go on?

>So what's the latest theories on dark matter? On dark energy? On gravity? On the singularity? Expansion or contraction of the Universe? Don't give me math, explain to me in layman's terms. BTW, is String Theory still around? Seriously.

[A Navy Vet]

"They do have to make the time corrections whether you buy it or not. It may be some little known force and not “dimensional” the way kookie sci fi movies BS..."

Okay, I'll take your word that's a fact. Think I'll look into it. However, as you imply, they don't know the cause. Personally, I think gravity is the prevailing force in our known universe. No one knows what it is, why it exists, how it was created, nor why the strength varies. Yet it is the main component to bring matter together. If we ever figure gravity out, we may be on our way.

Thanks for the beer. Kudos for the A (Alpha) in front of Centauri. I learned that was the closest star to us in grammar school. Doubt many college students know that.

[who_would_fardels_bear]

Scientists and philosophers need to stop looking for the Prime Directive, and instead start searching for the Primary Key. Then everything will sort out nicely and be readily searchable. ;-)

[elbook]

Isnt it an oxymoron to say that ‘scientists’ “UNDERSTAND” anything ?

The can only say what they can see, and then make guesses about what they cannot.

[Boogieman]

“which are forbidden, according to string theory”

Meh, string theory isn’t science, so who cares?

[Boogieman]

“everyone recognizes that string theory is currently untestable and un-falsifiable and then they get upset when this untestable, un-falsifiable theory claims that we are living in a universe that can’t exist”

Isn’t that, in a way, a falsification? If your theory can describe a multitude of universes, but not the one we actually live in, then your theory is falsified as a description of the only universe that matters to us, no?

[Boogieman]

“BTW, what are the “extra” dimensions? Can you tell me in layman terms?”

An extra dimension is just a direction something has freedom of movement in, that is 90 degrees away from the next lowest direction it has freedom of movement in. You start with being able to move back and forth on a line, then if you can turn 90 degrees from that line and move side to side, you have a 2nd dimension, and can move around a plane. If you can turn 90 degrees from that plane and move up and down, you have a 3rd dimension. We can speculate mathematically on how things work to any number of dimensions, our brains just can’t visually conceive of more than 3. Our brains tell us there is no other direction we can turn to get to the 4th dimension, but math doesn’t care about that. If we plug in the numbers as if there was a 4th dimension, our equations still work.

For example, in computer programming, we have “arrays” which are just sets of numbers, with a dimension that determines the type of array it is, and a size telling us how many numbers fit in it. So you can have a 1 dimensional array of size 3, which would hold 3 numbers. You could think of this like a line of numbers: (1,2,3)

Then you could have a 2 dimensional array of size 3, which would hold 9 numbers. This is like a box of numbers:
(1,2,3,
4,5,6,
7,8,9)

It wouldn’t be easy to type out here, but I’m sure you could also imagine a 3 dimensional array of size 3, that would be like a cube of numbers, and hold 27 numbers. Now, we can’t visualize a 4 dimensional or 5 dimensional or 6 dimensional array, but we can program a computer to store them and do mathematical operations on them just like all the other kinds. The computer isn’t trying to visualize anything so it just applies the math. It has no idea that “4 dimensional” is not supposed to exist.

So that’s how you get to the point where we can speculate about how different theories work if we had higher dimensions. Even before computers we could work out the mathematics of higher dimensions to a degree, but with computers doing the grunt work it gets a lot easier.

[editor-surveyor]

.
Time is the 4th dimension.

[samtheman]

Good point. I wish I would have thought of that.

[Phlyer]

"There are theories expressed in mathematical terms which work to predict observed results. That's called "physics.""

Don't give me math, explain to me in layman's terms.

It's the math that makes it real. It's the math that make is compelling. Without the math, you have arm waving and emotion, and if someone 'still doesn't believe' then nothing can change it.

Time: Einstein's equations predict that time will vary for different observers - and a prediction of how much can be made using a formula (math) he developed. It works. As an example, time passes differently for those deep in a gravity well than for those in lesser gravity. As a result, they have to periodically reset clocks on satellites to match those on the ground - and by the precise amount (math) predicted by Einstein's formula. If you reject the data (math) then it doesn't matter if the data are predictable by more math. But the reason that time is treated as a dimension in Einstein's formula is that the formula provides predictions that are confirmed by observational measurements (math). It works.

Dark matter: The motions of stars in galaxies do not comply with either Newton's (which - by the way - was not proved correct; thus Einstein's formula) or Einstein's method of calculating (math) their paths. This is also true for the paths of light around galaxy clusters, etc. Since whatever is causing it acts like matter (has an effect which warps space-time just like matter does) and can't be seen, it was labeled "dark matter." The math/measurements are clear that something is going on. Matter we can't observe ("dark matter") is the simplest - and therefore preferred - explanation, even though we have not discovered the specific "matter" that would have the observed properties. Call it "purple unicorn farts" if it makes you feel better, but the effect is observed gravitational effects (math) greater than all the observed matter can generate.

Dark energy: Measurements (math) of the expansion of the universe show that the number is higher today (for the last several million year) than it was several billion years ago. For matter to move faster takes energy. We can't see the source of the energy, so it is "dark energy." Where is comes from is still being investigated, but the observational data (math) are real.

Rejecting the math - and explanations based on math - is rejecting physics. Rejecting a math-based explanation because one cannot follow the math, or directly observe the "whatever" is causing an effect, is analogous to someone who is blind denying that there is such a thing as light. Just because one can't perceive it directly does not mean it doesn't exist.

String theory was a mathematical construct that attempted to link the standard model of physics that works well for the very small (by the way, I doubt you have ever seen an atom - do you think they exist?) with Einstein's formula which works well for the very large. There is a belief on the part of most scientists that our universe is regular enough that there is some way to express both the nature of the very large and the very small in a compact, cohesive, set of mathematical expressions. So far, no one has done that in a compelling way.

On some of the other points (coming ice age, etc.) one has to look at the math to determine what is correct. Are global temperatures climbing beyond the level of uncertainty in the measurements (uncertainty is another mathematical topic), or falling? One thing to watch for - which does not apply to the current existence of what has been called dark matter or dark energy - is extrapolation beyond our current data set. A good theory makes testable predictions. Most of the topics you raised that are 'theories proven wrong' are dominated by people with an agenda - people who don't want to be given the math.

[huldah1776]

I never was good at the time/distance/speed thing. Must be a mental block. If I am getting it, the spouse that is on earth is now older than the one that was in space? How does that time effect aging? For me, time isn’t real. Its’ just a mathematical measurement. It’s not a force.

So, would you know how fast our little galaxy is moving in unison? Is there any drag? Or would that be gravity. Is the centrifugal force taken into account? (I always thought that is how the flying saucers got around) Now you got me wondering about all this stuff. I loved reading about physics but not the math. LOL Took physics long after I lost the algebra skills.

No need to reply. I’ll do some research if I’m not distracted.

[A Navy Vet]

I should have never replied to this thread since I barely got through Algebra 101. With your long explanation that I have little brain power to comprehend, I still key in on your quote, "Einstein's equations predict that time will vary for different observers - and a prediction of how much can be made using a formula (math) he developed."

"Observer" supports my idea of time being a human mind construct to establish our linear lives in an acceptable order for our fragile grasp on the Universe.

Again, mathematics have been proven wrong time and again. Didn't Stephen Hawking disprove or given serious consideration of some Einstein theory? I could have that wrong. Also, hasn't one or two of Hawking's theories been considered questionable by current mathematicians?

My main point was no matter how correct the math works, it still doesn't explain gravity nor the singularity before the big bang. Other than the math equation for gravity according to size and locality, is their an equation that explains what gravity is? Is there an empirical way to prove such an equation?

Thank you for your reply to someone who has no understanding of advanced math or physics. Sorry to waste your time. However, I always go back to the big picture - the singularity and the fact that math and understanding of physics has changed through out my life of 68 years.

BTW, as much as I would like after reading sci-fi novels and watching movies, I don't believe in time travel. However, if there is such a thing as parallel universes, it could explain much of the unexplainable on our planet as in legitimate UFO sightings by reputable people. Sorry, another topic.

[Mr. K]

I am not sure why you said “mathematics have been proven wrong time and again”

Quite the opposite is true.