Re: virus: Real World?
Mon, 6 Jan 97 10:27:35 GMT

Alex Williams wrote:

> wrote:
> > Surely, though, there has to be the transmission of *all* the information in
> > the Universe from where it was originally to the this new universe, up to
> > the point at which the quantum event that caused this split occurred. This
> > would require time (see: a lot of... ;), and mean that the new universe would
> > be a number of millenia behind our own on linear time.
> You're looking at it from the wrong PoV. A seperate universe is not
> /constructed/, it simply comes into being. Where there was one, there
> is now two, with all the same quantum states within as the lineal
> antecedent /except/ for the quantum collapse that caused the split.
> There's no transmission. Its as though you saw someone step away from
> where they were standing, leaving a ghost image behind. Except the
> ghost is just as real and there is no step.

AAARGH, brain overload!!!!

This is a really difficult idea to grasp. How does the new universe know
what to look like? I can see no other option other than the transmission
or infomation (perhaps through this 'froth' that you spoke of). Perhaps there
is a dimension through which information can travel which runs through the
centres of all the universes, and the 'distance' between those points in
minimal. Like this:

-----------|----------- Universe 1
-----------|----------- Universe 2
-----------|----------- Universe 3
dimension N
etc etc...

> Its just this sort of logical (or illogical) statement of fact that gets
> the MWH model looked at as the product of a whacko looney-tunes nutcase.
> I'm tempted to agree. :)

I think I'm with you there.

> > How is it decided whereabouts outside our universe the new one is to form?
> > I'm imagnining our universe as being like a balloon, and the "nothingness"
> > outside it as being a /very/ large hall, or somesuch. Do other universes
> > (according to this theory) just appear as such a model, or are they maybe
> > put back to back, each changing shape to accommodate the other. And if this
> > is the case, can there be travel between universes? If not, why not?
> Think of it more like the branching diagram I pointed out earlier.
> There is no space to `branch out into' because there is nothing
> /between/ universi. Its simply where there was one, now there's a
> multiplicity.

does that mean that the current universe is getting smaller WRT to the
space available, although to us there is no percieved change. Is there,
do you think, some space allocated for universi, and that space is always
filled, or is new space created, or made available when new universi require

> Technically, the theory doesn't allow for travel between universi
> because they differ on history not state. There's no way you can change
> your quantum history so that you `experience' the events of the other
> universi. Technically, there's a copy of you already there that /did/,
> you see.

What is stopping you though, if they are "next to" eachother. This assumes
that they are next to eachother.

> > I am only aware of 4 !!! I know there are theories about there being as
> > many as 30+ dimensions. Does anyone know what they are?
> One theory that was in vogue postulated 32 seperate dimensions, most of
> which were `tightly curled up' alongside the other four. You'd be best
> served checking out books on superstring and superloop theory for the
> dirty details.

I don't like the sound of that. I'll see if I can find it on the net later.

> We're all falling down the time-well, as it were, but if I put
> significant energy into going reallyreally fast and approach light
> speed, my /personal/ travel through time becomes skewed. From my frame
> of reference, time outside seems to slow.

And it's been proved using atomic clocks and fast aircraft.

> (Of course, from outside,
> /my/ time seems to slow. Don't think about it too hard.)

Too late, I've been thinking about it for years. It's quite interesting
really, and the equations are surprisingly simple.

> > > Actually, energy /can/ be borrowed from the sub-quantum `froth'
> > > according to the latest theories.
> >
> > OOh, that's new, tell me more ....
> More superloop theory.


> > > The shorter the amount of time its
> > > borrowed, the more you can have.
> >
> > I suppose that could make sense :)
> So for infinitely smll periods of time I can have infinitely large
> amounts of energy. From nowhere.

But that doesn't matter, becuase in an infinetly small time, it would be
completely useless. Unless matter is going to exist semi-permanently,
there is no reason to "summon" it.

Richard Jones "We are the New Breed We are the Future."