STRING THEORY AND INNERVERSE

[BOB D.O.L.E]

since nobody is asking : an explanation of "innerverse" :

Our universe expands from the tiniest particle known, the string, up to the infinity of space. We can call our universe infinitely big, as we know no limit to it. Indeed, no matter how big something gets, you can allways make it bigger by miltiplying it by 10. The laws of physics in our universe are well known and universally valid (as long as we don't get into extreme situations such as inside a black hole). On quantum-levels however, things begin to break down and strange things happen which cannot be fully explained yet. Vibrating strings are supposed to be the very basis of our universe, indeed they make up the 10-dimentional universe in M-space itself. These vibrating strings manifest themselves in 3-dimentional space as quarks, the building blocks of all matter. Strings are round, and are very small indeed (1.16x10(-35) m).
From a GUT point of view, it is perfectly possible to create another universe which is located inside the vibrating string circle, going to infinite 0. Why 'infinite' 0 ? because no matter how small you make something, you can allways make it smaller by dividing it by 10, without ever getting to the "edge". This is called the "innerverse", with the string itself being the boundary between the innerverse (inside the string) and the universe (outside the string).
Now it's getting wearder : you can apply all the known laws of physics in both universes. Things get "bigger" the further you move away from the string boundary. In the innerverse this means that things get bigger the closer you get to 0, to get infinitely big at infinite 0, just like in the universe. From an observer's point of view, it would be impossible to tell if he is sitting in the innerverse or in the universe, as all known tests and observations would give him the same result in both verses. As such, it is impossible to say if the world we know around us is situated inside or outside the boundaries of the vibrating string space, it might well be that we all live in the innerverse, which is stretching out to infinite 0.

how about that ! Does space ever ends - both ways ?

 

[BOB D.O.L.E]

And the universal laws of physics have some difficult to understand surprises if taken to their extremes. One such thing is the holy triad of speed, time and distance. Every object in this universe uses a fixed amount of energy at any given moment, partially used for moving around in space, with the remainder converted into time. Hence, the more energy you put into movement, the less will be converted into time. Known as Einstein's law of relativity : the faster you move the slower your clock ticks.

It's allways easier to explain things with an example. Say that you want to go shopping to Proxima Centaury, our nearest star neighbouring at some 4 lightyears away. You would go to the space train in the morning, sit down and you would start to read your newspaper while the space train accellerates to 99,99% the speed of light. After reading a few lines, you would see the space train entering the station at proxima. A quick glance on your watch tells you that only 30 seconds have passed since you left earth. You get out and carry on shopping, and by noon you make it back to the space train to earth, where you arrive some 30 seconds later, time for lunch. True or False ? True - travelling at 99,99 % of the speed of light, time is slowed down so much that it takes only 30 seconds to travel that distance. You would be back by noon - 8 years later, but you would only be a few hours older.

Now, at what speed did you travel ? Inside the ship it took only 30 seconds to travel 4 lightyears, so your speed would have been 4x2x60 lightyears/hour, would it not ? True. As everybody knows that the speed of light is 300.000 km/sec, you surely travelled faster than the speed of light, right ? No, wrong. The speed of light is absolute ! Speed is a measurement of distance travelled over time. If you change one of it's components, than you must compensate the other component to obtain the same speed. If you slow down time by half, then you must double the distance which would give you 600.000 km/sec. We now have 3 different calculations for the speed of light ! Which one is correct ? Well, they all are, but only in the environment where the speed measurement was taken, otherwise you're comparing apples to oranges to lemons. All 3 speeds are the same, but measured from other relative points in the universe : the first one travelling at 99.99 % the speed of light, the second one on earth, the third one calculated at a point where time is half that as here on earth.

Extrapollating this, it means that the more you slow down time, the greater distances you can travel, whilest keeping your speed constant.

Now, let's go to the edge of the universe. You just need to accelerate yourself to the speed of light, to be able to travel infinite distances instantly. If we measure the age of a photon which strikes earth, coming from the center of the universe from 10 million lightyears away, how old would this photon be ? 0 seconds to be exactly : travelling at the speed of light, it took that photon 0 seconds to get here, as there is no more energy to be converted into time at these speeds. It crashed into earth the moment it was released into space. Incidently, that's also why you can't travel faster than light : there simply isn't any more energy left to go any faster !

As usual, there's a snag. Once you reach the edge of the universe, you would stay on this edge forever, as the universe itself is also expanding with the speed of light. And as time is halted, you wouldn't even be aware that you have reached the edge - you would remain frozen in time for eternity.

I've disregared some "minor" technical obstacles such as instant accelleration, instant deaccelleration, and the fact that you need an infinite amout of energy to accellerate any matter to the speed of light.

Bottom line is : you cannot rely on speed measurements as it is relative to your current speed. Changing your speed will change all your measurements as speed itself affects the components by which speed is measured. That's relativity for you !

 

[Trazor]

I've disregared some "minor" technical obstacles such as instant accelleration, instant deaccelleration, and the fact that you need an infinite amout of energy to accellerate any matter to the speed of light.

Which in turn, invalidates every thing you have written................

 

[tim west]

Size is relative.

 

[Blasphemous]

Yeah, a few of my relatives are a hell of a size!

 

[Donkmeister]

As usual, there's a snag. Once you reach the edge of the universe, you would stay on this edge forever, as the universe itself is also expanding with the speed of light.

So, the universe is expanding at c
You are travelling at <c

I don't think you'll encounter this snag

Time dilation is a very cool effect.

 

[Donkmeister]

Now, let's go to the edge of the universe. You just need to accelerate yourself to the speed of light, to be able to travel infinite distances instantly.

That's not quite how it works... Whilst you might be travelling at a speed that, in your frame of reference, is apparently greater than c (i.e. you cover 4 lightyears in 30 seconds), that's not what is actually happening.

It's purely down to time dilation: it's not your velocity increasing beyond c, it's your clock running slower, so what seems like 30 seconds to you is 4 years to someone in a stationary frame of reference. In the rest frame, you covered 4 light years in just over 4 years, so your speed never actually exceeded 99.9% of the speed of light.

The basis of all forms of relativity is "how does person A's frame of reference relate to person B's frame of reference".

 

[tim west]

What if A & B are travelling on a conveyor?

 

[Space cat]

What if A & B are travelling on a conveyor?

They'd look down and ask "Why are all those rollers going past us underneath the floor? "

 

[tim west]

They'd look down and ask "Why are all those rollers going past us underneath the floor? "

Bay City?

 

[Mw Roofline]

Wow, didn't know you were a physicist, Bob

 

[Donkmeister]

What if A & B are travelling on a conveyor?

Well, if they were on a conveyor travelling near light-speed, they'd know they weren't at Heathrow Terminal 5. *groan*

Their "relative" motion would be zero, as they'd be travelling along together on the conveyor. So, they'd see no time dilation between them (i.e. if A waves at B, B sees it at normal speed).

Although spaceships are more usual in these analogies

Apparent speeds greater than c are observed, for instance current observations put that age of the Universe at 14 billion years, but the best estimate for the radius of the Universe is 39 billion light years... Which appears to make the average speed of expansion 3x the speed of light.

 

[noseall]

3xc would indicate parts of the fabric of the universe travelling backwards in time.

impossible.

 

[Donkmeister]

3xc would indicate parts of the fabric of the universe travelling backwards in time.

impossible.

Apparent speeds greater than c are observed

It's a strange phenomenon. Basically space itself expands... so the distance between things increases without the things actually moving.

And the whole faster-than-light=time travel thing is just because of one solution to a Lorentz transformation, where you make v greater than c. It's purely a man-made construct.

 

[tim west]

Only the very small can travel very fast