Comments on: Can’t Really Blame Them

By: Mike

Mike — Mon, 09 May 2011 21:43:51 +0000

The idea of the “multiverse” and its possibilities makes more than a lot of sense.

For instance all of what we experience including the way matter expresses itself on the atomic scale, the technologies we have developed, and how efficiently we can physically traverse vast galactic distances are directly related to the spatial dimensions of the 3.1416 universe that we occupy.

Our 3.1416 Universe reminds me of a clock that’s been sprung and needs to be repaired.

So…what would conditions be like in a say a 2.8000 universe?

Matter re-expressed on the atomic scale while still keeping its macroscopic appearance? And with this new technologies?

And in the process of migrating, (wormhole) If a time compression occurred, then there’s a possibility that a spaceship traveling at a slower velocity (here) would appear to be moving many more times the speed of light (there) depending on the compression ratio.

By: Bob

Bob — Sat, 07 May 2011 01:59:49 +0000

Dr. C — at the beginning of your book, you ask rhetorically, (paraphrasing here), “How can we measure the speed of time? Can we say it’s 60 minutes per hour?” I’m wondering why you didn’t give the answer of Special Relativity that V(t) = C. Maybe it’s a dumb question after reading the book (which was great, BTW), but were you thinking that we should consider the velocity only in terms of entropy?

Also, does string theory predict that 10 dimensions must be spacial and only 1 can be temporal, or is there room for more than 1 dimension of time? I’m wondering if an additional dimension of time can account for reversibility.

By: Sean

Sean — Fri, 06 May 2011 19:05:45 +0000

Farhad, thanks. I think the question is catching on among cosmologists, actually, even if a bit belatedly. The holographic principle might be very important, but we don’t understand it well enough yet to use it to construct appropriate dynamical models for real-world cosmology.

By: Farhad Keyvan

Farhad Keyvan — Fri, 06 May 2011 15:29:37 +0000

Thanks Sean for the talk. Never miss any of your talks and books. Why do you think the fundamental questions of why there is an arrow of time, and why entropy was so low at the beginning of our universe is not being addressed more by cosmologists? Also, are there insights into these questions from the point of view of the Holographic Principle?

By: Matthew Saunders

Matthew Saunders — Thu, 05 May 2011 18:08:43 +0000

Sean,

I hope universe is substantially appreciative at your being Her Spokescritter

By: Julie Marton

Julie Marton — Thu, 05 May 2011 16:00:50 +0000

Hah! They had to use the Hubble picture instead of yours because TED couldn’t figure out how to laminate their home page. : )

By: Teresa

Teresa — Thu, 05 May 2011 15:53:25 +0000

Enjoyed the Ted talk, and yes, they are VERY popular so brace yourself!