Big Bang & Multiverses (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Tuesday, February 08, 2011, 21:56 (5016 days ago) @ David Turell

Our universe is flat; but that very important fact that we have no actual constant of PI as well that the Pythagorean Theorem does not hold--means that something is amiss...
> 
> Reference to a flat universe and possibly Euclidean:
> 
> http://abyss.uoregon.edu/~js/21st_century_science/lectures/lec21.html
... -The Euclidean space you're talking about is only about curvature--not the shape or superstructure of the universe itself. We have a flat curve to our universe, but if you read further down in that same article, it discusses several topologies that actually discuss the shape of our universe. As you can see, there are several shapes that would be undetectable to us, and judging by certain inaccuracies, (many of which more to do with quantum mechanics) has helped cause nearly all theoretical physicists to spurn the Standard Model for Strings. (Something like 9/10 of theoretical physics grads are string theorists.) I view this as a 200 year travesty. (It'll be that long before we move off of Strings, I think.) -> Does PI refer to circle and diameter, or what?-I'm picking on PI because you're probably familiar with it. It is a constant that is a relationship of diameter and circumference, and it does have an exact mathematical value--but only in an R3 universe. In our universe, both this (and many other "constants" are only approximations that work on very local and very small scales. Because of things such as the curvature of the earth, or the curvature of space-time around objects, these constants break down and fail to explain reality. I also used the pythagorean theorem, because it is another formula that suffers from goldilocks: it doesn't work on spheres, and Special Relativity guarantees that all objects with mass exert a curve.-So what this suggests is that our universe on a grander scale contains more than the 3d of traditional Euclidean mathematics. The LHC will help us divine a few tantalisingly small clues, but the most significant will be negative evidence of the particles predicted by super-symmetry.

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"