Hypersphere

[jmatt]

I came across the term in completely unrelated web surfing, thought it would be interesting to AA fans.

I like the concept because it would explain why, if there was a Big Bang, our universe is so homogeneous. One would think that if our entire universe burst from a singular point, it would be obvious that we could trace back the motions of our galaxies to see where that singularity originated.

Cue Chiclo.

[Chiclo]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

[lorddunlow]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

Magnets?

[Paradigm38]

Hologram, actually.

[hunter_peterson]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

I read it as a star in the quantum bulk collapsing into a 4D black hole that made a 3D singularity, which our universe is the event horizon of- a bubble in the quantum superstructure. So it's trying to unify a universally origin theory with bulk/brane theory in offering a possible explanation for the origin of our universe/brane.

The main logical fault I find in it is that it makes assumptions that the structure of the bulk is at all similar to the structure of our universal brane. I don't think it can be assumed that there is a similar cosmology to it at all. And throwing around concepts like 4D suns that are beyond human comprehension is kind of not that helpful.

But still cool!

[jmatt]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

Magnets?

Dude, you crack me up.

Chiclo, what I think they're saying is that our universe is a three dimensional projection in a four dimensional universe, a membrane blown off by the four dimensional equivalent of a black hole.

As always, my hero Carl Sagan to the rescue. Watch.

Now imagine that his apple is four dimensional and his 2-universe is our 3-d universe.

He even talks about a... tesseract! A hypercube (analogous to a hypersphere).

[Chiclo]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

Magnets?

Dude, you crack me up.

Chiclo, what I think they're saying is that our universe is a three dimensional projection in a four dimensional universe, a membrane blown off by the four dimensional equivalent of a black hole.

As always, my hero Carl Sagan to the rescue. Watch.

Now imagine that his apple is four dimensional and his 2-universe is our 3-d universe.

He even talks about a... tesseract! A hypercube (analogous to a hypersphere).

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

[Elveen]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

Magnets?

Dude, you crack me up.

Chiclo, what I think they're saying is that our universe is a three dimensional projection in a four dimensional universe, a membrane blown off by the four dimensional equivalent of a black hole.

As always, my hero Carl Sagan to the rescue. Watch.

Now imagine that his apple is four dimensional and his 2-universe is our 3-d universe.

He even talks about a... tesseract! A hypercube (analogous to a hypersphere).

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

So the Justin Beiber of theories?

[Chiclo]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

I read it as a star in the quantum bulk collapsing into a 4D black hole that made a 3D singularity, which our universe is the event horizon of- a bubble in the quantum superstructure. So it's trying to unify a universally origin theory with bulk/brane theory in offering a possible explanation for the origin of our universe/brane.

The main logical fault I find in it is that it makes assumptions that the structure of the bulk is at all similar to the structure of our universal brane. I don't think it can be assumed that there is a similar cosmology to it at all. And throwing around concepts like 4D suns that are beyond human comprehension is kind of not that helpful.

But still cool!

The math is easier to wrap your mind around than it is to speculate what four spatial dimensions would actually look like. Gravity, for example, would go from having an inverse square relationship with distance to having an inverse cube relationship with distance. Presumably Coulomb would as well. Several well-established equations with a distance-squared factor would become distance-cubed.

That math would involve a lot of matrix algebra. Very messy.

[Chiclo]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

Magnets?

Dude, you crack me up.

Chiclo, what I think they're saying is that our universe is a three dimensional projection in a four dimensional universe, a membrane blown off by the four dimensional equivalent of a black hole.

As always, my hero Carl Sagan to the rescue. Watch.

Now imagine that his apple is four dimensional and his 2-universe is our 3-d universe.

He even talks about a... tesseract! A hypercube (analogous to a hypersphere).

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

So the Justin Beiber of theories?

I would agree in principle but Justin Beiber has had more staying power than I would have thought at first and what I expect this newest supposition about the origins of the universe will show.

[greg]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

Magnets?

Dude, you crack me up.

Chiclo, what I think they're saying is that our universe is a three dimensional projection in a four dimensional universe, a membrane blown off by the four dimensional equivalent of a black hole.

As always, my hero Carl Sagan to the rescue. Watch.

Now imagine that his apple is four dimensional and his 2-universe is our 3-d universe.

He even talks about a... tesseract! A hypercube (analogous to a hypersphere).

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

So the Justin Beiber of theories?

I would agree in principle but Justin Beiber has had more staying power than I would have thought at first and what I expect this newest supposition about the origins of the universe will show.

Bieber is fully-controlled by a Dalek.
A girl Dalek.

[hunter_peterson]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

I read it as a star in the quantum bulk collapsing into a 4D black hole that made a 3D singularity, which our universe is the event horizon of- a bubble in the quantum superstructure. So it's trying to unify a universally origin theory with bulk/brane theory in offering a possible explanation for the origin of our universe/brane.

The main logical fault I find in it is that it makes assumptions that the structure of the bulk is at all similar to the structure of our universal brane. I don't think it can be assumed that there is a similar cosmology to it at all. And throwing around concepts like 4D suns that are beyond human comprehension is kind of not that helpful.

But still cool!

The math is easier to wrap your mind around than it is to speculate what four spatial dimensions would actually look like. Gravity, for example, would go from having an inverse square relationship with distance to having an inverse cube relationship with distance. Presumably Coulomb would as well. Several well-established equations with a distance-squared factor would become distance-cubed.

That math would involve a lot of matrix algebra. Very messy.

I love it when you talk nerdy.

[lorddunlow]

Awfully speculative and would still basically be a big bang. I don't really see where they are explaining how this star collapsing in this universe with four spatial dimensions would break a chunk off of its own universe and set ours adrift within the quantum foam?

I read it as a star in the quantum bulk collapsing into a 4D black hole that made a 3D singularity, which our universe is the event horizon of- a bubble in the quantum superstructure. So it's trying to unify a universally origin theory with bulk/brane theory in offering a possible explanation for the origin of our universe/brane.

The main logical fault I find in it is that it makes assumptions that the structure of the bulk is at all similar to the structure of our universal brane. I don't think it can be assumed that there is a similar cosmology to it at all. And throwing around concepts like 4D suns that are beyond human comprehension is kind of not that helpful.

But still cool!

The math is easier to wrap your mind around than it is to speculate what four spatial dimensions would actually look like. Gravity, for example, would go from having an inverse square relationship with distance to having an inverse cube relationship with distance. Presumably Coulomb would as well. Several well-established equations with a distance-squared factor would become distance-cubed.

That math would involve a lot of matrix algebra. Very messy.

In high school, I had a friend that could just do matrices in his head. Actually, he would just do multiple simultaneous equations in his head, but he said he made them matrices in his head first. It always amazed me.

[KXXX]

[lorddunlow]

[jmatt]

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

Yes, well, I agree that all of this kinds of hypotheses are ultimately unprovable. But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

[BugsySig]

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

Yes, well, I agree that all of this kinds of hypotheses are ultimately unprovable. But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Jebus, will you two just make out already

[lorddunlow]

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

Yes, well, I agree that all of this kinds of hypotheses are ultimately unprovable. But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Jebus, will you two just make out already

I thought they just did?!

[greg]

But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Strictly speaking, cosmologists don't care about the moon... it's too fresh.

[jmatt]

But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Strictly speaking, cosmologists don't care about the moon... it's too fresh.

Yes, that's why they howl at it. It's blocking their view of older stuff.

[jmatt]

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

Yes, well, I agree that all of this kinds of hypotheses are ultimately unprovable. But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Jebus, will you two just make out already

I thought they just did?!

We're going steady. Chiclo just agreed to wear my slide-rule so the other physicists know he's spoken for.

[Chiclo]

Oh no, I get where they are trying to say our universe is a 3-D projection of a 4-D universe and trying to tie that in to cosmological holography. I am skeptical about the entire concept. Ideas like this come by every few years and rarely are still considered viable theories a few years later.

Yes, well, I agree that all of this kinds of hypotheses are ultimately unprovable. But cosmologists will continue to howl at the moon.

Jebus, will you two just make out already

I thought they just did?!

We're going steady. Chiclo just agreed to wear my slide-rule so the other physicists know he's spoken for.

*SQUEE*. That functional slide-rule tie clip is mine.

I showed a physics professor how to use a slide rule while I was a freshman in college.

[jmatt]

I showed a physics professor how to use a slide rule while I was a freshman in college.

And then he showed you how to use an HP-11C?

[apainter]

Man, after reading all of the above, I think the latest Harbinger must have affected me more than I thought. I mean, I recognize most of those words as English, yet I have no idea what they mean.

Art

[lorddunlow]

Man, after reading all of the above, I think the latest Harbinger must have affected me more than I thought. I mean, I recognize most of those words as English, yet I have no idea what they mean.

Art

That's okay. Most physicists don't understand it either, but the math works out and that's all they care about.

In their defense, if the math works out, the underlying theory often holds up. For example, some guy played around with permutations of Planck's constant resulting in a mathematical proof that matter had a wavelength which was obviously utter nonsense. Well, unfortunately years later he was proven right when it was proven experimentally that electrons have a wavelength that can be observed and measured.

They've gone wild with math ever since.