Starship Asterisk*

If the Big Bang initiated a Calabi–Yau space which later expanded to our known cosmology could it still be reflected in our smallest known dimensions? Talk about a remnant from the Big Bang. That idea will probably will fall flat but it would be cool if we retained a symmetry from that moment which we could trace into some known geometry of our universe.

In my usual jargon - tall order short on proof but I long to imagine the small and the large. I can't help trying to puzzle out the universe; hope the questions aren't too … though I'm sure some fit the bill but I certainly don't know the answer to the question - we began with.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
If the Big Bang initiated a Calabi–Yau space which later expanded to our known cosmology could it still be reflected in our smallest known dimensions?

• That's the theory.

(It is also reflected in the values for our fundamental physical constants.)

neufer wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
If the Big Bang initiated a Calabi–Yau space which later expanded to our known cosmology could it still be reflected in our smallest known dimensions?

• That's the theory.

(It is also reflected in the values for our fundamental physical constants.)

The problem is that there are about 10^500 different possible ways how Ron's idea might work, each leading to a different set of fundamental constants (for comparison, my back-of-the-envelope calculations estimates the number of atoms in the observable universe to be "only" about 10^79). And no one has found a way to select the correct Calami-Yau space.

Markus Schwarz wrote:

neufer wrote:

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
If the Big Bang initiated a Calabi–Yau space which later expanded to our known cosmology could it still be reflected in our smallest known dimensions?

• That's the theory.

(It is also reflected in the values for our fundamental physical constants.)

The problem is that there are about 10^500 different possible ways how Ron's idea might work, each leading to a different set of fundamental constants (for comparison, my back-of-the-envelope calculations estimates the number of atoms in the observable universe to be "only" about 10^79). And no one has found a way to select the correct Calami-Yau space.

The universe is a puzzling place. What if we used puzzles to explain it?

It would be a challenge but one could come up with a Rubik's Cube version based on the Standard Model of Particle Physics.

One side would represent fermions with the colors of the matter, force, and dimension side of red, green, and blue while the anti-colors Cyan, Magenta, and Yellow are on the anti-matter, super symmetry, and energy sides. (There needs to be a fourth generation family of quarks and leptons though. We haven't found them yet because they're dark matter)
The integer spin bosons would be on an opposing face photons, gluons, Z bosons, and W bosons with their supersymmetric partners' (photinos, gluinos, zinos, and winos being the opposite face)
The last two faces should be our universe's geometry represented by lines, planes, cubes, and spheres opposed with energy, momentum, pressure, and Dark Energy.
Hmmm. Wonder what mixing up the cubes would get you? From a Big Bang starting at its center surely a strange mix of particles, forces, and dimensions that yielded 10^50 different choices would need a scale - time? Guess we may need a few more boxes Markus - Rubik's HYPER cube ??

Though probably not perfect (yet) - see how much fun solving the universe's puzzles can be. And even more strange – if the universe works this way at our time consciousness may be playing the game remotely.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:
Hmmm. Wonder what mixing up the cubes would get you? A Big Bang? Surely a strange mix of particles, forces, and dimensions with about 10^50 different possible choices.

Guess we may need a few more boxes Markus - Rubik's HYPER cube ??

• Sticking to just 3 dimensions:

One would need a (12×12×12) V-Cube 12 with 2.06 x 10⁵¹⁴ states.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xqnJEwcNDuM

neufer wrote:

Click to play embedded YouTube video.

Say, that's pretty good! Now.... let's see if she can put it back to the way it was when she started.

Beyond wrote:
Say, that's pretty good! Now.... let's see if she can put it back to the way it was when she started.

Maybe God is some 3 year old girl with a (12×12×12) V-Cube 12

neufer wrote:

Beyond wrote:
Say, that's pretty good! Now.... let's see if she can put it back to the way it was when she started.

Maybe God is some 3 year old girl with a (12×12×12) V-Cube 12

Sorry; no way unless her fingers under went expansion unknown to our universe. Though odd she's been known to mysterically askew cubes?

It's sort of like square root day today (2x8 = 16) but actually more like a rectangular cuboid. That's it – it's "Rubink Honeycomb Day" just because .. .. I noticed it and my name starts with "R". and I think "cubink"

What kind of a group have I gotten mixed up in? I don't have a theory for that but it is a very cool set.

I like sharing as much as the next person. It would be nice to know what we're sharing, when I'm going to understand it, and who dreamt it all up.

I always thought it would be really mean to take apart the cube then put it together with one corner turned, then mix it up and hand it to a genius quick solver, sit back, and enjoy

BMAONE23 wrote:I always thought it would be really mean to take apart the cube then put it together with one corner turned, then mix it up and hand it to a genius quick solver, sit back, and enjoy

As many really smart people as our world has produced - it makes one think "God" beat us to the punch.

Ron-Astro Pharmacist wrote:

BMAONE23 wrote:I always thought it would be really mean to take apart the cube then put it together with one corner turned, then mix it up and hand it to a genius quick solver, sit back, and enjoy

As many really smart people as our world has produced - it makes one think "God" beat us to the punch.

Besides God – others have too.

http://meetings.aps.org/Meeting/APR08/Event/83408

http://us.rubiks.com/forum/viewtopic.php?f=14&t=6607


Parallel with particle physics


"A parallel between Rubik's Cube and particle physics was noted by mathematician Solomon W. Golomb, and then extended (and modified) by Anthony E. Durham. Essentially, clockwise and counterclockwise "twists" of corner cubies may be compared to the internal linkelectric charges of internal linkquarks (+2/3 and -1/3) and antiquarks (-2/3 and +1/3). Feasible combinations of cubie twists are paralleled by allowable combinations of quarks and antiquarks—both cubie twist and the quark/antiquark charge must total to an integer. Combinations of two or three twisted corners may be compared to various hadrons"