On 5/7/2012 8:30 AM, Richard Ruquist wrote:
The combination of MWI and string physics may suggest a reason why quantum physics must exist and it has to do with the string landscape plus the acceptance on your part of some of the (outrageous) claims of string theory. I say that the most outrageous claim of string theory is that the compactified dimensions, (the so-called Calabi-Yau Manifolds (CYMs), which are discrete ball-like particles a thousand Planck lengths in diameter) possess the constants and laws of physics. So assuming that every CYM is identical in our universe, then the number of possible different universes depends on the number of distinct versions of the CYMs, which is the so-called String Landscape.


Now according to Yau in his book "The Shape of Inner Space" each CYM particle has 500 topological holes, more or less I presume. And a constraining higher-order electromagnetic flux winds through these holes. Now if the CYMs contain the laws of quantum physics, it is reasonable, but perhaps not necessary, that that quantum physics applies to this flux and that it may exist in any number of quantum states. To determine the string landscape, string theorists have assumed the nice round number of 10 for the number of quantum states the flux may possess. If so then the number of possible different configurations of a CYM is 10^500. (For comparison the number of Planck volumes in our universe is at least 10^175 or the number of CYMs is about 10^165).

So in a MWI context, even if each universe in the multiverse required a distinct CYM, there seems to be more than enough to go around. Even if the number of flux quantum states were say equal to the CYM dimensionality (6), the number of distinct CYMs at 10^390 seems to provide ample MWI universes, even for a Omniverse. But if the CYMs were like a classical computer rather than a quantum computer, the number of distinct CYMs at 2^500= 10^150 seems insufficient for MWI.

I don't see how you're connecting MWI to different string physics? MWI is about different observations in *the same* physical universe. It has nothing to do with different effective quantum fields or different symmetry breaking.

Brent



Therefore if all these assumptions are acceptable to you, quantum physics must apply to the CYMs for there to be enough distinct CYMs to support MWI. That is a reason why we have quantum physics (Perhaps a LoL rather than a QED is appropriate here)
Richard

On Mon, May 7, 2012 at 9:42 AM, Pierz <pier...@gmail.com 
<mailto:pier...@gmail.com>> wrote:

    The question, "Why is there anything at all?" used to do my head in when I 
was a
    kid. I can still sometimes get into kind of head-exploding moment sometimes 
thinking
    about it. Russell's answer to me remains the most satisfying, even though 
in a sense
    it is a non-answer, a simple ackowledgement that there is no logical reason 
why
    there has to be a cause of 'everything' even though everything may have a 
cause.
    Krauss's argument - I admit I haven't read the book (yet), so I am speaking 
of what
    I understand rhe hist of his argument to be - may be interesting 
physics/cosmology,
    but I agree with the critics that it doesn't really get to the bottom of the
    proverbial 'turtle stack', and it shouldn't claim to, because such a bottom 
turtle
    is in principle impossible.

    John Clarke claims that a 'nothing' that contains the laws of quantum 
mechanics and
    the potential to produce time, space and matter is a very pitiful something 
if it is
    a something at all. But I think it sneaks a lot more into its pitiful 
somethingness
    than at first meets the eye. Not only the laws of quantum mechanics, but 
the laws of
    logic and mathematics without which quantum mechanics could not be 
formulated or
    expressed - as Bruno woukd be quick to point out. I really must read the 
book to
    understand how this vacuum can be unstable in the absence of time - doesn't
    stability or instability depend on time by implying the possibility or 
otherwise of
    change? But even accepting this it seems to me that in order to reason 
about the
    properties of this vacuum (e.g., its instability or otherwise) means that 
the vacuum
    must exist. Getting what seems like extremely close to non-existence is 
still a
    million miles (actually an infinite distance) from actual non-existence, 
because
    what defines the distinction between non-existence and existence is not 
anything to
    do with being extremely minimal. An extremely small number, say 10 to the 
-100000,
    is extremely minimal, but still not zero, and still an infinite distance, 
in a
    sense, from zero.

    Krauss's argument may satisfy the cosmologist's desire to see the cause of 
the
    universe reduced to something extremely simple, but it does not satisfy the
    wondering child or philosopher who is thunderstruck by the strangeness of 
there
    being any existence at all, however simple or rudimentary its origins. It's 
wrong to
    say such a child or philosopher is caught in a pointless mind loop trying 
asking how
    something that does not even have the potential to produce anything can,
    nevertheless, produce something. Of course that is absurd. The question in 
my mind
    as a wondering child was never 'How did the nothing that must have come 
before the
    universe produce the universe?' It was my mind chasing the chain of 
causation of
    things and realizing that, whatever that chain looked like, I could never 
trace it
    all the way back to absolute nothing - so why this mysterious beingness? 
The fact is
    it's beyond reason. Call it a gift or a miracle and you're as close to it as
    anything. God is no answer, mind you - he's just another spurious bottom 
turtle.
    God, laws of quantum mechanics: it's just different attempts to stop the 
rot of
    infinite regress, hammer in a wedge somewhere and say "Because".  Why do 
the law of
    quantum physics exist? Because. Why does God, the UD, the Buddhist void 
exist? Because.

    As for the remark about nothingness having only one way of being and there 
being a
    lot more ways of existing, it's cute, but it's sophistry. Non-being is not a
    countable way of being. It's the absence of being - obviously - so can't be
    presented as one among a myriad of possible configurations of the universe.



    --
    You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
    "Everything List" group.
    To view this discussion on the web visit
    https://groups.google.com/d/msg/everything-list/-/tR1AUqzjQyUJ.
    To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list@googlegroups.com>.
    To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
    everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
    <mailto:everything-list%2bunsubscr...@googlegroups.com>.
    For more options, visit this group at
    http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

No virus found in this message.
Checked by AVG - www.avg.com <http://www.avg.com>
Version: 2012.0.1913 / Virus Database: 2425/4982 - Release Date: 05/06/12


--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"Everything List" group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-list@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en.

Reply via email to