Dr. Gilad Perez from the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics showed that the existence of parallel universes in which physical conditions may be different - but not too different - from the conditions prevailing in the universe we know, is possible at least from the theoretical aspect.
By Dr. Gilad Perez
"What would have happened if", is one of the questions that is always before our eyes. What would have happened if Germany had won World War II? What would have happened if Haim Weizmann had concluded a lasting peace agreement with King Abdullah and the Arab world in the XNUMXs? What would happen if we met, in space, intelligent beings from another world? What would have happened if the "Beatles" had not broken up the band?
Unfortunately, we have no real ability to answer this question. There is one reality, and we must adapt to it. Science fiction writers have chosen to circumvent this obstacle in stories about parallel universes where everything is exactly the same as our universe, except for one detail (for example, in the parallel universe, a certain pair of people neither meet nor marry). According to this idea, every decision becomes a junction from which two parallel universes diverge. It's an idea that may be of some comfort, sometimes, but nothing more. From this it should not be understood that the place of the idea of parallel universes will only be known to us in the eternal fantasy fields of science fiction. In fact, Dr. Gilad Perez from the Department of Particle Physics and Astrophysics showed that the existence of parallel universes in which different physical conditions may exist - but not too different - from the conditions prevailing in the universe we know, is possible at least from the theoretical aspect.
Dr. Perez's work resulted from two theoretical developments. One is related to a phenomenon that apparently took place in the early history of our universe, which manifested itself in a very rapid expansion of the universe, and is known as "inflation". Different models that include "inflation" lead to results, according to which a kind of "pockets" were formed in the inflationary universe that moved away from each other at an enormous speed to the point where they cannot communicate with each other. In other words, different universes were created that exist at the same time - parallel universes or multiverses.
The second starting point for Dr. Perez's research is the well-known physical fact, that the environment affects the physical properties. For example, the speed of sound varies according to the medium through which the sound travels. According to string theory, in different regions of the multiverse there may be different physical properties for the masses of the particles, the strength of the basic forces, and more.
The big "mistake".
Now we can return for a moment to the universe we know, in which we live. After getting used to the idea that the universe is constantly expanding, we were surprised to discover that, in fact, its rate of expansion is accelerating. Not many years ago it became clear, to the surprise of many, that the universe is expanding at an increasing speed. This phenomenon led to the assumption of the existence of a "cosmological constant" that acts, in fact, as an anti-gravitational force. The problem is that various measurements showed that the size of this constant is 10 times smaller to the power of 120 than the size attributed to it in theory. This is the biggest "mistake" of a theoretical prediction in the history of physics, and the conclusion that emerges from it is that the basic theory of particles and/or gravity works differently at very large distances.
why is it important? Because a positive and large cosmological constant will cause the matter in the universe to spread rapidly even before galaxies, suns and planets develop. In other words: he will cause no life to develop, and that "we will have nowhere to live". Conversely, a negative cosmological constant will cause the universe to collapse quickly, and galaxies, stars and planets will no longer develop, i.e. life will never develop again. Steven Weinberg, who won the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1979, proposed in 1987 (before the discovery of cosmological acceleration), that the very fact that we are here to ask this question shows that the cosmological constant is small.
During the "inflation" period, different structures, or different universes, were created, most of which contained large positive or negative cosmological constants. The case in which the universe we know developed - in which a small positive cosmological constant probably exists - is, according to this concept, a very rare case among trillions of attempts. Another factor that makes our universe unique, where life evolved, is the existence of a "strong" weak force. Four fundamental forces operate in nature. The strongest of them is the "color" power from which the "strong" power derives. The second is the electromagnetic force, the third is the "weak" force, and the fourth is gravity. In our universe, the "weak" force is thousands of times stronger than the force next in line after it, gravity. Why, in fact, are these forces unequal in their weakness? The weak force is involved in the energy production processes in the sun (nuclear fusion), and without it various heavy elements would not be formed and could not exist for long. Therefore, the popular view said that in a universe without a "strong" weak force, life would not exist.
other life
But Dr. Perez, Ronnie Hernick of Fermi Laboratories near Chicago, and Graham Cribbs of the University of Oregon, showed that in a universe that has no weak force at all (which may be one of a set of parallel universes), there may still be life and existence quite similar (physically) to our life, in the universe Seller. They built a model that starts the nuclear fusion process, through which the sun produces its energy, with deuterium ("our" sun produces energy through the fusion process of hydrogen nuclei). But how is it possible to supply the sun with deuterium in an amount sufficient to "burn" the sun? To this end, Dr. Perez proposes to change (in a model of a possible parallel universe) the quantitative ratio between protons and photons in the primordial universe, so that there will be fewer protons than existed in our known universe, and more photons. As a result, the amount of deuterium in the theoretical parallel universe will increase significantly. In fact, about ten percent of the matter in this universe will be deuterium. According to the model built by Dr. Perez and his research partners, a sun that begins the nuclear fusion process with 90% hydrogen and 10% deuterium will operate efficiently and provide energy to its environment for billions of years.
The same model also allows the existence of supernovae (exploding stars) of a certain type (Ia). Supernovae are the "distributing agents" of heavy materials in the universe, and are, in fact, the main suppliers of the essential material for the formation of conditions that enable the development of life.
This theoretical research allows scientists to better understand the north of the "strong" weak force that exists in our universe, and suggests that the large particle accelerator, LHC, which recently began operating at the European Laboratory for the Study of Particle Physics, Saran, near Geneva, will lead to an understanding of the reason for "Strengthened" through the discovery of new physics.
personal
Dr. Gilad Perez was born in Israel in 1970, received a bachelor's degree in physics and computer science from Bar-Ilan University (1996), and a master's degree (1999) and a master's degree (2003) in physics from the Weizmann Institute of Science (supervised by Prof. Yosef Nir). He then did post-doctoral research at the University of California, Berkeley, and headed a research group at New York University at Stony Brook. In 2008 he joined the Weizmann Institute of Science.
Dr. Perez lives at the Weizmann Institute of Science with his wife, Yasmin, and their daughter Rom, who was born in 2006. In his spare time, he likes to play the bass guitar in blues, jazz and progressive rock styles
On the same topic on the science website
63 תגובות
Continuation: parallel universes - a parable for a group of whales that swim across the oceans and in their bellies there are communities of people who do not communicate with the other communities in the bellies of the other whales, they do not know of their existence and do not have the ability to communicate with them either. How will they first guess that they are in the belly of the whale, how will they understand that there are more whales and that there are people inside them?
Continuation: And the problem of the precise definition is only the initial problem, after which the above-mentioned problems pile up and there is the problem of transition between universes. If you have passed and you are no longer you are but another as a result of a change that occurred during the transition, then you have not passed. A real transition should be in your integrity without physical and mental change without changes in memories And feelings because if there is any change, then you are no longer you and there is no transition. And the transition depends on which theory from the above theories or another one that is not written is the correct one. A transition like a revolving door with a huge number perhaps infinite or almost infinite of equilateral triangles without a base and all their vertices Connected at one central point is the pivot point - and you only have to enter one of the aforementioned triangular cells, turn around with it and emerge from the other side while turning the revolving door - and when you want to return, the chance that you will return to the same universe is small, one divided by the number of parallel universes
- Unless you find a dialing method like in the sci-fi movie Star Gate that allows you to dial a certain universe and reach it.
Not to mention that the big bang theory is still in the crosshairs and the plasmatic universe theory has emerged, so that we are still in the infancy of the search for the secret and reason for creation if it was created at all...
Continued: What actually defines a parallel universe? What separates him from us? Why is he a different universe? Why is it entitled to the definition as a parallel universe and the very definition is another universe and additional to the one we know? Why is it not simply a continuation of our universe and a part of it where other conditions differ to one degree or another? What are the limits of the universes? How do you know when one universe ends and another begins? The fact that you are at the pole and you are cold and at the same time someone is at the equator and he is hot still does not change the fact that they are both on the same planet.
The nomenclature parallel universe - confuses me - it does not sound scientific and precise - it can have different interpretations. Are these other universes similar to ours with minimal changes such as "a bunch of balloons with different colors" that are close to each other and you only need to identify them and find the possibility or examine them from the outside or move to them and then what happens? Does the transition destroy the universe we are moving into or change it? And the same about the universe we are leaving? Or it is a huge universe that contains clusters of universes like clusters of grapes, all the universes are actually quite similar like the grapes themselves - and again the questions from earlier about the possibility of distinguishing and moving to them. Or is it a series of similar universes like the cells in the beehive that resemble each other exactly? Or are we talking about universes far from each other at distances that we don't even understand above the astronomical numbers accepted today. And maybe there are universes within our universe that are right below us leading their lives right here and we don't see them or notice them because they are as if on a different "frequency"? And maybe there are universes so tiny right here that it is impossible to distinguish them? And there are many other "ors"... First: in order to even begin to solve the problem, it must be defined correctly in a scientific and precise way as is customary in science. A vague ethereal formulation like a parallel universe does not lead us to a solution - second: as long as we are inside our universe, in a physical and intellectual sense Without an external support - as Archimedes said - give me a point of support... and in this case give us an external point of support and then we can start trying to solve the problem here or there. Mathematics should initially think of an external mathematical fulcrum and from there try to reach the objective external view of the problem.
I don't understand what you gain by these arguments. really.
Not only did you not beat me, you embarrass yourself when you argue with someone who is not up to your level
(as you try to portray me).
Ghost:
Please don't say I can't do something I've already done.
Everyone who reads here has already told you that you are bullshitting.
It's clear to everyone (maybe except you) that you don't know what you're talking about.
That's why I beat you in an argument about you.
In general - in my opinion there is no place to argue about commenters but in your case there is nothing to do because apart from yourself you bring nothing to the discussion. Absolutely nothing.
You talk about things you don't understand in terms that people who do understand tell you that you are not using them correctly and you throw meaningless sentences into the air and simply waste our time.
Machel
You are also wrong in response 56.
Please answer the question:
Can you know something you don't understand?
If so, then you are talking nonsense.
To know 'something' you must first understand 'it'.
Hence if you 'don't understand' then you can't 'know' either.
When I say "I don't understand all the theory I'm currently working on"
This means that I don't know the whole theory (which I haven't finished building yet).
But, it does mean that I do know some, that is, I do understand some of the theory.
What I understand I try to explain to you too but you don't want to understand logic.
In other words
I do understand something in the theory I'm working on.
So it makes sense that I won't understand the whole theory while I'm still not done with it.
And it also makes sense for me to know at least the particular part I've already finished.
It turns out that you are not as logical as you seem.
Understand something
You can't win an argument where you and I argue about me.
Just like I can't win an argument where you and I argue about you.
Try to concentrate on the main thing and not on the secondary. Or don't involve me in your arguments with all kinds of slander.
Ghost:
Now I also understand why you do not understand what you are talking about: you simply do not read what you yourself write.
That's why you also don't remember that in response 43 you wrote "I don't understand the whole theory that I am 'currently working on'".
Machel
I understand what I'm talking about.
You don't want to "by force" and out of "self-convincing" understand what not only I tell you.
My words make sense.
You don't want to understand "force" the logic.
And your response 54 justifies my response 53.
Hence I watched how you would behave.
Nice, Spirit, then stop repeating yourself.
We are also tired of hearing how someone who himself says he does not understand what he is talking about repeats and repeats the same things he does not understand and expects others to understand them.
Adi Machal Noam
Read response 49 and refer to it (regardless of the names in the response)
I don't have the strength to repeat my words to someone who doesn't understand what he's talking about and can't understand anyone else
Because of this problem of his.
ghost moon,
Let's try to understand the situation together:
assumption:
A ghost does not understand physics and mathematics - there is no dispute about that, it is agreed and clear by all.
Here we come to the more complicated part: which of the following two sentences is the logical continuation of the first sentence:
1) Even though I do not understand physics and mathematics, I will continue to formulate and publicly publish complicated physical theories using words and terms that are completely incomprehensible to me
2) Since I do not understand physics and mathematics, it is pointless to try to develop theories in physics, while wasting my time and that of others.
Don't rush, take your time and think carefully before you answer. I'm waiting.
It reminds me of the man who is driving on the freeway and hears on the news that on that freeway there is some crazy person driving in the opposite lane. "One?", he asks himself, "Where do they live there on the radio?! All of them!!!)".
This man was, of course, killed in an accident, and today he is a ghost.
What will happen to you Rah?
Sarcasm is wasted on you (response 17), imagery is wasted on you (my response), not a brilliant happy wonder like yours who thinks such "brilliant" "theories". It's really a shame that you'll waste your time on me or Noam (for a fraction of a second detach yourself from the high umbrellas you're wrapped in and maybe you'll realize that mine and Noam's nonsense is meant to reflect your nonsense, and not beyond that), it's better that you come up with another "theory" at this time.
You can't blame me for not trying.
post Scriptum. As usual you didn't understand. I wasn't referring to your "theory". I referred to your ignorance in mathematics and physics. These are the building blocks without which your "theory" is equivalent to a gluteus maximus. See a detailed explanation in my previous response. See and you won't understand as usual.
Adi
First of all: "connect the power cable to the water faucet."
That's your thought.
I don't think such things.
The difference between us is that you, like many others, talk nonsense. Nonsense that I can easily refute
And a lot of people understand that, and I'm not going to waste my time on you either.
However,
Can you base your claims on what?
What in my theory seems incorrect or impossible to you and why?
Can you elaborate and explain please?
ghost moon,
Your approach to developing physical theories, while you don't understand much about physics, as you testify yourself, is worthless.
I don't understand much about aeronautics. Imagine if I approached building an aircraft with my voice, what would happen?
I know you need turbines, oh and you also need hydraulics, GPS, wings. But I argue that a tail is not needed, instead it is better to use an additional jet engine at the back for better stabilization. I also claim that wings of different length will give my plane better performance in turns. I argue that it is better to use airbags instead of wheels, which will save on folding mechanical elements.
Most likely after I put it all together my plane won't start. And if it starts then it will explode on the spot. And if it doesn't explode then it won't move, and if it moves then it won't take off, and if it takes off then it will crash immediately.
The reason for this is that the field is very, very complicated, that I do not have enough knowledge in the field, and that my claims are not based on anything. As a result, in addition to the essential defects I introduced (wings of different length, lack of tail), I made countless mistakes in wiring, connecting the load-carrying parts, connecting the hydraulics, etc.
You are trying to build something much more complicated with a pretension of unclear origin. From the little I read of your "theories" I was impressed in two cases that you lack a basic understanding of the concepts you use - in mathematics and physics. If you were building the imaginary plane in my place, you would connect the power cable to the water faucet.
Basic approaches
You're right.
I think the 'tendency' is an 'egocentric' trait that exists in man.
Apparently there are some commenters on this site who are educated but also egocentric.
The existence of parallel universes in which there may be different physical conditions - but not too different - from the conditions that prevail in the universe known to us, is possible, at least from the theoretical aspect, with a high degree of probability; The difficulty in understanding this lies in the fact that we have a tendency to appropriate almost everything for ourselves; One of the prominent examples; The belief that took root before Copernicus that the earth is the center of the world.
Noam:
It seems to me that the demon theory is well formulated 🙂
Ghost:
One of the things I got paid for in the past was "teaching people to think".
It happened when I gave private lessons to high school students and college students.
One of the pieces of advice I used to give them and I'm giving you here for free is the following advice:
You don't think with your mouth and you don't think with your fingers. think with the brain.
If you still do not understand your theory, there is no reason for you to waste our time on your misunderstanding. Think about it until you understand (and if you think seriously you will probably realize that it is nonsense) and if you come to the conclusion that you understand, you are welcome to ask for our opinion (but even that - only if you are man enough to hear it without starting to insult).
ghost moon,
Your grandmother Afranfo - I now understand where your stories come from..
See, a little more seriously, a story no matter how beautiful it is, does not become a scientific theory, just because words such as photon, annihilation, antimatter and antiphoton (which has not yet been discovered) are embedded in it.
There are many stories that cannot be considered using scientific criteria.
There is a story about mysterious pressures in the universe that "definitely exist", that since they "definitely exist", they "must be stressing the galaxies", and since they "must be stressing the galaxies" they must make the need for dark mass unnecessary, etc.
They also solve the riddle of the expansion of the universe in vain, and many more stories.
There is also a story (my own) about mysterious and invisible demons in the universe and they are the ones who create the appearance of gravity.
In fact, they are the ones that pull and rotate the galaxies in the right directions, to the exact right degree, and the shape of the galaxies, as well as the falling of an apple, are unequivocal proof of their existence (Michael - I would be very grateful if you could help me formulate my demon theory precisely).
Ghosts, they tried to gently explain to you that on a scientific website they are not so interested in stories, but in scientific theories (and I will not repeat the differences between them again), but you probably belong to the people who, until they are knocked on the head with a 10 kg hammer, they simply do not understand .
Try your luck on the Sabdarmish website - you will surely succeed there.
The truth is, I didn't want to answer, I thought it was over at response 40.
But I see that I am still being treated so I will not remain indifferent.
Machel
You remind me of a joke:
"Two psychologists meet, one says to the other:
- How are you? How am I?"
I don't understand the whole theory I'm 'currently working on'.
It also makes sense, you cannot come to me demanding that I present you with something complete, if the 'whole' is still, it is not 'whole'.
I'm learning along the way, I thought that you as a mathematician would be able to better understand and articulate what I proposed,
But you don't understand, and like you a lot, so there's no point in continuing these discussions.
By the way, I wanted to remind you once again who you look like
http://www.ynet.co.il/PicServer2/02012008/1407438/IMG_4864_wa.jpg
Go invent patents and leave me alone.
You have no 'value' in this theory and this theory has no 'value'
For you, because you don't understand the theory, therefore it makes sense.
Bye
Noam
If you are interested I can offer you the phone number
of my grandmother talk to her,
She has many interesting stories to tell
And I have no doubt that she will be happy to hear your stories as well.
Continue a successful life.
ghost moon:
Right.
There are no people here who understand your theories.
Since you are also here - this is exactly in line with what I told you a long time ago - you also do not understand them.
There's no way we'll come crying to you later.
We've been crying to you for a long time now and you don't let up, so besides the fact that it's clear to us that these theories have no value, it's also clear to us that crying doesn't affect you.
ghost moon,
This is a scientific site, and on a scientific site they try to be close to the scientific principles.
What you presented is not a scientific theory but a story - imaginative and inspiring as it may be - but not a scientific theory.
You want to propose a scientific theory, please adhere to the scientific principles, formulate it mathematically, as Ehud gently explained to you, but you chose to ignore it.
I admit, I have no idea how to understand and analyze a highly imaginative story, on the basis of a scientific theory - I hope you understand that these are two completely different things.
(And by the way, if you want - I myself have many fascinating stories, which I would be happy to share, although certainly not on this website).
Yes, Noam, you are probably right about one thing, this is not the place, there are no people here who will understand my theory.
Too bad. But don't come to me later to cry.
Noam
You are probably right about one thing, this is not the place, there is no one here who understands my theory.
I will stop the 'harassment'.
ghost moon,
You claimed that you do not understand much in physics, and indeed, your stories in which you flood the site recently, strengthen and support this claim.
It is not so clear therefore, what are your expectations from the science site - do you expect criticism of your literary talent?
About the quality of your stories?
You may have missed the fact that the science site is a scientific site, not a story telling site, not "Hyde Park", and not a page for literature and art, whose honor of course rests in its place.
Please double check if you made a mistake in choosing the place to publish your works.
Sorry, I wrote "for the photon baryon particle"
It should have been written "La Futon"
The 'string' as I mention, refers to the 'strings' that exist in string theory.
In my opinion, the same 'string' that I mentioned can 'behave' similarly to a 'string' from string theory.
The path in which the anti-particle (or anti-photon) travels is on the same 'string'.
The 'behavior' of the string itself during the 'anti-particle transition' can perhaps be explained through a formulation
more correct and turning it into a mathematical theorem that will help with 'quantum harmonic oscillator' equations or coherent states
quantum. and through new formulations of the momentum of the photon. and adding new constant(s) to mathematics
To be able to use numbers beyond the astronomical, to be able to calculate
the distances between the universes and the velocities of the anti-photon and high-energy particles
new. (as I believe will be the results of the experiments being carried out at the LHC)
When I talk about an annihilation 'moment' of the anti-photon I am talking about a situation where the anti-particle is
'charges' energy from a certain source and passes a certain part of it on to the photon baryonic particle,
that the photon further transfers the energy to what is called its medium during its movement.
And the anti-particle - because of its high energy which is higher than the speed of light in a vacuum, and because it is
does not perform any interaction other than gravitationally and between universes, then it can 'continue' towards the parallel universe
at a speed beyond the 'speed of light'.
There was an interesting article on this site
https://www.hayadan.org.il/parrallel-universes-and-probability-2309070/
As I understand it, if we just assume the existence of the 'parallel universes' it can solve some problems from the field of probability
that exist, in the field of quantum physics.
as an extension to 24
The law of conservation of momentum can therefore exist (as it is) both in our universe, and in parallel universes
(but different in 'time' in each direction) .
But the law of conservation of momentum does not hold between the universes, that is, during the transition of the antiparticle.
In my opinion the law of conservation of momentum does not hold between the transitions in the universes because the physics between the universes is different
from the existing physics, because it collides with the physics of different dimensions to which laws do not apply
our physics.
incidentally,
If there is anyone here who even understands what I'm talking about, I'd love to hear it.
If not then I will definitely stop these 'harassments'.
The skeptic
You remind me of a cartoon where they showed two 'clowns' who sat in the front row during a play in the theater
Watched the show and enjoyed it, as did everyone else in the hall, except the king.
The king was not satisfied with the show and when the two clowns saw that the king was not satisfied, they immediately changed their minds to 'not satisfied',
And so did all the others following them.
So you remind me of one of those two clowns.
No matter which, you choose.
Ghost, now I understand what you're saying, sorry for disrespecting you earlier...
In my opinion, if you check all the data again, you can conclude the following equation:
F = MA
או
future = matrix enigma
And now seriously, if you believe your theory, search the internet for an email of any physicist and tell him everything that's in your heart... good luck
This idea can also form the basis (when technologically possible) for building a time machine. which will enable the step
The first to move back in time, a short distance, to change the past, thus causing a change in the future (ie a new future). And an 'additional state' will be created to existing states, which is a 'future universe'.
As a second step, with the return of the time machine to the same time when it started the process, plus the differences in time as a result of staying in the 'past', a situation will be created that has been 'discovered' (in addition to the original universe that exists and the 'past' universe
where the time machine visited) another universe - 'future'.
As a third step, the time machine will be able to move towards the newly created universe - 'future', even for a short distance, until at the end
You will return back to the starting point from which you left (to the 'past' universe and in the same process back as I explained earlier) with a new universe that has been 'discovered'. Only the universe is long 'past'.
In this way the machine will allow the creation of increasing gaps between the 'times' of the 'journey' both to the 'past' and
For the 'future' and through changes of the 'matter' that will occur as a result of the machine's 'visit', the creation of a universe will be possible
New 'past' and 'future'.
It could also explain the claim that we are alone in the universe.
But we can move between universes and different 'time' states.
So that in fact 'being' exists forever. And we never 'die'.
As an extension of what was said in 25
Particle B colliding with particle A creates particle C and particle D.
Particle C remains as a baryonic particle in universe X.
The D particle is an antiparticle which can only move between universes (similar to the properties of the new soliton
which was discovered in the equations on which there was an article on this website), bearing on it part (not all) of the information of
of a C particle.
That is, particle D moves between universe X and universe Y when in universe Y the particle D is transformed through annihilation
to the particle E and F. where the particle E is a baryonic particle. and F is an antiparticle. or a new type of lepton.
And so on, when the antiparticle travels only in an interuniverse trajectory (non-static. While the photon is limited
only to the framework of his universe), and the universes are long 'past' or 'future', depending on the direction of the antiparticle's trajectory.
Chen T
My name is not important to others, the main thing is that they understand what I am saying.
Don't look at the jug... refer to the 'content'.
Michael, a ghost is like a dark substance (transparent, to your lexicon), until it transforms itself into familiar variables (full name) it will be difficult to attribute much meaning to his heavy answers.
Michael,
I thank you for your clear and thorough answer, which, like the article, deals with the philosophy of physics.
A refreshing ancient Chinese sage may once have said that what differentiates a researcher from a scientist is the difference between systematicity and creativity
When an antiparticle from our universe is 'launched' into a parallel universe, it collides at the same point in space
of the parallel universe and in a particle that is an 'anti-particle' of the anti-particle from our universe, i.e. an ordinary particle
(and not an anti-particle).
When the two particles meet and collide, resulting in annihilation, the antiparticle from our universe is transformed
Back to a particle of light but with a slight change. (i.e. if the anti-photon from our universe returns in time to the 'past universe',
So the change in the newly created photon in our parallel universe will be minimal in such a way that the photon will appear as it is
has already appeared in our universe in the past, that is: 'now' appears at a point parallel to the point where it is 'already'
Appeared).
The ordinary particle (A) that was in the parallel universe before the 'collision' of our antiparticle (B),
During the collision, as a result of annihilation that turned the antiparticle (B) into a particle (C) gram
for a particle (A) to become an antiparticle (D) which is 'launched' into the universe parallel to its universe, with changes which
correspond to the universe into which the particle is launched.
That is, if it is a 'past universe' then the particle will also 'wear' (during the transition between universes) properties that are relative
'For past time' in the universe from which it was launched, and will be 'present time' in the new universe.
In the definition of a photon in Wikipedia it is written about 'the energy and momentum of a photon', among other things:
"To illustrate the importance of these formulas, it should be noted that when a particle and its antiparticle are ionized, at least two photons must be produced. In the frame of reference relative to the center of mass of the colliding particles, they have no total momentum, while a single photon always has momentum (since it depends, as mentioned, on the frequency or the wavelength only, and they are not zero). Therefore, the law of conservation of momentum requires that at least two photons be created, and their total momentum in the system be the same as that of the particles, i.e. zero. The frequency and energy of the two particles can be determined using the law of conservation of four momentum [6] Another interpretation holds that the photon can be considered as its own antiparticle. The opposite process to the one described above, pair creation, is one of the mechanisms that cause high-energy photons, such as gamma rays, to lose energy as they pass through matter."
http://he.wikipedia.org/wiki/%D7%A4%D7%95%D7%98%D7%95%D7%9F#.D7.94.D7.90.D7.A0.D7.A8.D7.92.D7.99.D7.94_.D7.95.D7.94.D7.AA.D7.A0.D7.A2_.D7.A9.D7.9C_.D7.A4.D7.95.D7.98.D7.95.D7.9F
What I claim is that more should be invested in researching the subject of the light particle. and especially his momentum.
The issue of the light particle needs to be better understood and explained better.
What I claim in my hypothesis is that when according to the equations 2 photons should be created but only 1 is created
has a momentum different from zero (when there should be 2 photons with a total momentum of zero) then created at the same time
Exactly the antiparticle of the photon, i.e. not "the photon can be considered as its own antiparticle" but
The photon is a particle with a certain energy that moves at a certain speed and can be 'swallowed' in matter.
while its anti-particle, the anti-photon, splits at the time of the photon's creation and does not interact
With the material therefore its energy potential is above the maximum energy of the light particle.
In other words, the light particle is able to reach a speed of up to 'the speed of light in a vacuum',
When the particle passes through the material, it is 'swallowed' in the material, meaning it interacts and loses its energy.
The anti-photon has a very high energy potential, so in my opinion it would be reasonable if part of its energy
will also move to a photon, and the energy of the photon when it is reduced it can be considered as types of energy
Others like all types of 'color' and all types of 'radiation'.
The anti-particle does not exist in the material universe but exists in it for a very short period of time.
The time period in which the anti-particle exists, if we attribute it to science fiction, is a time period of
'Creating a hole in space-time', meaning the anti-particle appears temporarily in our universe as a result of an interaction
any between certain particles which in their reactions produce a photon and an anti-photon, where the anti-photon
appears only for a very short period of time in our space,
and then 'launched' into another space or dimension where it collides again with a particle identical to it at the same point
Exactly in the 'twin' space.
Noam,
I've written this many times before, I'm surprised you're still confused and you can be worked on
even without meaning to. Apparently you never learn.
good day.
ghost moon,
You wrote: "I'm not that good at physics"
what are you saying ????
Listen, you managed to work on us...
I would suggest that they find a way (perhaps through changing concepts of time in mathematics or adding to them all kinds of constants
new) to better study the light-carrying particle. I claim that this particle has an antiparticle.
In my opinion, the antiparticle of the photon 'splits' during the creation of the photon itself, in the form of an antiparticle (a new antiparticle that has not yet been discovered and I do not know if the technology allows the discovery of such a particle).
which consists of an energy that is higher than the energy of the light particle.
I read an article on the Internet that read: "Some claim that these positrons (the "antimatter") are actually electrons moving backwards on the timeline."
http://www.epochtimes.co.il/news/content/view/10184/88
According to the claim above and according to what I think, and also according to what I wrote at the beginning, then in my opinion a situation would be possible
where the anti-photon will consist of a new type of particle that is like a positron but has enormous energy that causes
For a particle to move back in time.
As far as I know there is no photon antiparticle, but I don't know what the claim is that this particle doesn't have one
anti particle I'm pretty sure there's an explanation and I just don't know because I'm not that well versed in physics.
So I would appreciate it if someone could explain.
Noam
What you wrote is nonsense that is easy to refute.
I won't waste your time.
Chen T:
Thanks for the vote of confidence (I hope Ghost isn't hurt by you asking me and not him) but I'm afraid I don't have much to say here other than to point out that the title and introduction don't fit the discovery described in the end.
The title and the introduction say that it was discovered that a universe in which conditions are slightly different from those prevailing here is possible, but if you delve into the text you see that they never thought that such a universe was impossible and they didn't even think that a universe in which the conditions were much different was impossible.
What Dr. Perez discovered is not that universes that are slightly different from ours are possible, but that life is also possible in universes that are slightly different from ours.
In general, as Ehud pointed out, this somewhat weakens the argument of the anthropic principle (anthropic, as I have already explained, is written with T from the word anthropos = person. Entropy in T is something completely different and related to the term entropy. The translation to T and not to T derives It is also customary to translate the combination th to th) because it turns out that the answer to some of the questions is like "Why is the world like this and such?" She can no longer answer with the answer "because otherwise there would be no one to ask the question".
But it should be understood that this is not a fundamental change because with a different resolution - the question can still be answered in the same way (when with a different resolution it is meant that the question is not about the collection of existing physical constants but about a wider collection of the combinations of physical constants that allow life).
Philosophically, it should be noted that this takes the sting out of the religious claim that the world was created in a certain way specifically to enable us. Not that this claim was serious before but now it seems even less serious.
In any case, the article is all about speculation that no one knows today if and how it can be tested.
Michael, your learned response is requested...
ghost moon,
I would like your permission to introduce some corrections in your theory.
The connection between the different universes is not made through strings but through irrigation pipes. The strong electronuclear force (a force expected according to my revised theory) drags the anti-antiprotons along with it through the irrigation pipes, and midway there is a return in time towards the future, which disrupts the balance between the material universe and the third universe from the left. This explains the inequality between weak gravity (see my previous comment) and virtual gravitational gravity.
From this it is clear that I was able to prove that a combination of cosmic pressures with the annihilation of the forces of darkness explain well the existing physics constants.
Of course, all these processes happen at a plank distance from each other
I would love to hear your opinion.
For "ghost moon":
I didn't claim that you were "Ron", I claimed that you were simply a more developed stage of him,
Probably the Tukbekist equivalent of the reptilian stage of evolution. Get back to us later
A few million comments when you reach the Ape stage…
When will you realize that in your comments that say nothing, nothing should be written?
In my response 2 it was written "...that in our universe there was more matter than antimatter" it should be
Write "that our universe was more antimatter".
to love
This is known to me
In the article I wrote here on the science website "Evolution of Theories". I already discussed this question from a slightly different point and showed an interesting connection between the entropic principle, biological evolution that causes the development of a super-thinking production capable of thinking about theories (man) and between the development of a super-theory of theories in a known universe.
Anyone who wishes is welcome to review the article here on the science website.
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
joe,
And because someone who doesn't know decided to write an entry on the subject of the four fundamental forces?
Yehuda
It is not about moving to a parallel universe, but about an attempt to answer the question of why our universe is the way it is - that is, why the constants that determine the characteristic strength of the forces (strong, weak, AM and gravitation) are the way they are. One of the attempts to answer this question is called the principle The entropy and the claim is that the question can be asked why the force constants are the way they are only in those universes that allow life from the beginning. The claim that was tested in the work described in the article is how strong the constraint of a universe that allows life is. In the past it was claimed that if the constants (strengths of the forces) were only different At 2% of their current value, this would lead to the fact that life could not be produced in that universe. As far as I understand, the work described in the article shows that this is not the case.
I also think that if this is true and parallel universes exist then the distance to our twin universe is at least
There should be a distance not astronomical, but beyond astronomical, meaning numbers that do not yet exist in mathematics.
Scarecrow
I'm not Ron.
Noam
If you understand what I'm saying, as far as I'm concerned, you've gained, if there's something you don't understand, feel free to ask,
I'm not writing this to make fun of someone, I'm writing what I think, it's an idea I have
In my mind I would like to check in this forum if the idea at least makes sense or not.
http://cafe.themarker.com/view.php?t=1487494
Please do not take Wikipedia seriously.
Ami Bachar,
According to Wikipedia..: the weak force, ten times stronger to the 25th power than gravity.
And I wouldn't be surprised if "Ghost Moon" is the next step in evolution
of the infamous troll called "Ron", which evolved from sending bundles of links
The delusions to YouTube (ie, the ideas and opinions of others) to launch bundles of
Self-delusional ideas and opinions are the fruit of his fevered mind. Who knows, maybe it's not many years from now
Will develop into a true philosopher or scientist...
ghost moon,
Your stories are amazing…
Now tell us where you buried your hidden camera to laugh at us later for taking you seriously
It seems to me that the transition to a parallel universe, which is in fashion now, shows a failure of all existing conventional explanations for difficult physical problems
Apparently we will soon witness a drastic change in scientific thinking
Good Day
Sabdarmish Yehuda
"Dr. Perez proposes to change for this purpose (in a model of a possible parallel universe) the quantitative ratio between protons and photons in the primordial universe, so that there will be fewer protons than existed in our familiar universe, and more photons. As a result, the amount of deuterium in the theoretical parallel universe will increase significantly."
This proves what I claim in my hypothesis.
Now I'll correct myself a bit and say that our universe had more matter than antimatter (not sure at the moment
for the case of 'now') and in a parallel universe there was more matter, so that the situation allows the interaction of particles
which in one universe are 'filled' up to 100% in volume and in a parallel universe down to the smallest singular point
(smaller than the Planck length - which does not yet exist and I am unable to invent one).
Such a situation allows, in my opinion, for the anti-photon to pass through the orbit (through the string) to a parallel universe, and through annihilation will turn back into a photon but with a minimal change. And the parallel universe can be either past or future.
Is the weak force thousands of times stronger than gravity?
I was sure the weak force was only ten times stronger than gravity.
This is new to me. Nice to learn something new.