作者Minilogo ()
看板Translation
標題[英中] 多重宇宙背後的真實科學(2)
時間Mon May 13 01:29:04 2013
So let's cut to the chase:
in physics, the word "Multiverse" normally refers to one of three
distinct and largely unrelated proposed physical models for the
universe - none of which has been tested or confirmed by experiment,
by the way. The three "multiverse" models are: Type 1) Bubble
universes or baby black hole universes. This is the most straightforwrad
kind of multiverse: the basic idea is that perhaps there are other
parts of the universe which are so far away that we will never see
them(or are inside black holes so similarly we will never see them).
This kid of model was created as an attempt to explain why our universe
is so good at making stars and galaxies and black holes and life -- as the
argument goes, if each of these separate mutually un-seeable "bubbles"
in the universe had slightly different laws of physics, then by definition
we could only exist in one that had the right physical laws to allow us
to exist. Like, we have to exist in the universe where the earth can form,
because if the earth couldn't be formed, then we couldn't be here
If you're not convinced by this logic, don't worry to much: there's not
yet any experimental evidence for this multiverse.
那麼直接進入重點: 物理學上"多重宇宙"這個字一般指涉的是三種截然不同，有關
宇宙的物理模型--順便一提，沒有一種經過驗證。三種模型分別為: 第一種，泡泡宇宙
或稱嬰兒黑洞宇宙。這是多重宇宙中最直觀的一種: 基本想法是也許存在其他的宇宙，
但它們離我們太遠了(或者它們在黑洞裡)，導致我們根本看不到。這種說法是為了解釋
為什麼我們的宇宙這麼擅於創造天體、銀河、黑洞還有生命。隨著參數不同，如果每個
互不可見的"泡泡"，它們的物理定律都略有差異，依照定義，我們只在適合我們物理定律
的泡泡裡才能生存。像是我們必須存在於地球可形成的宇宙裡，因為如果不能的話，我們
就不會在這裡了。如果你不相信這個邏輯的話，別太擔心，這個理論還沒有任何實驗證據
呢。
(請問 "as the argument goes" 這句應該是跟前面還是後面那句接在一起。還有雖然
"there are other parts of the universe" 是 "還有宇宙的其他部分"，但我發現
(1)"un-seeable "bubbles" in the universe" 和 (2)"we have to exist in the
universe where the earth can form" 接不起來。直接翻(還有宇宙的其他部分)的話是--
一個宇宙，裡面有許多泡泡；但 (2) 說的明顯是--許多宇宙，每個宇宙是一個泡泡，這也
跟我找到的資料相符，所以我還是決定這樣翻。
資料是
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse 還有
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bxWavzy6-6o#t=13m00s)
Multiverse type 2) Membranes and extra dimensions. Inspired in part by the
inability of the mathematics of string theory to predict the right number
of dimensions for the universe in which we live, string theorists proposed
the idea that perhaps what we think of as our universe is actually just
a three-dimensional surface embedded within a larger super-universe with
9 spatial dimensions. Kind of like how each page of a newspaper is its
own two-dimensional surface embedded within our three-dimensional world.
And of course, if space had 9 dimensions rather than three, there'd be
plenty of space for other three-dimensional surfaces that appeared, like
ours, to be universes in their own right, but, like the pages of a newspaper,
were actually part of a bigger whole. These kinds of surfaces are called
"membranes" or "branes" for short. And as a reminder, there is not yet
any experimental evidence for this kind of multiverse.
第二種，膜宇宙和額外的維度。部分靈感來自於弦論在數學上沒辦法預測我們所處
宇宙的維度。弦論學家提出也許我們所認知的宇宙，其實是嵌在九維空間的超集宇宙
裡的三維表面。有點像是我們的三維世界涵蓋了報紙的每一頁，而每頁又處於自身的
二維表面。當然若空間有九個維度的話，那在其中應該有很多三維表面的空間，看起
來就像我們的宇宙一樣。但就像報紙的每一頁，我們的空間實際上是更大整體的一部份。
這種表面稱做膜。提醒一下，這種多重宇宙也還未有任何實驗證據。
(這篇文章我覺得很難翻，錯誤可能很多，請大家多指教!!)
--
※ 發信站: 批踢踢實業坊(ptt.cc)
◆ From: 118.165.127.95
1F：→ dunchee:(看樣子還是得對照原影片，不然光看文字我（之前那篇）我 05/13 22:13
3F：→ dunchee:(等等) -- bubble 外的也是"universe(的一部份)"。換句話 05/13 22:14
4F：→ dunchee:說，他是用同一個字(universe)，但是有兩種意義（如果要按 05/13 22:14
5F：→ dunchee:照你的邏輯來說/來分的話）: 05/13 22:14
6F：→ dunchee:1. "整個的"universe(就想像是整個照片範圍都是) 05/13 22:14
7F：→ dunchee:2. 個別bubble裡頭(or black hole裡頭)的個別universe 05/13 22:14
9F：→ dunchee:因為"bubble"的界線代表的是我們無法"觀察到"的界線. "觀 05/13 22:15
10F：→ dunchee:察"的一個意義是用我們所處的這個宇宙裡頭的各種基本物理 05/13 22:15
11F：→ dunchee:上的粒子/作用力/波..."光"...來觀察的話，那些"基本粒子/ 05/13 22:17
12F：→ dunchee:..."也無法到達的界線 -- 換句話說，這範圍之外的"地方"有 05/13 22:17
13F：→ dunchee:可能有其它不同的粒子/作用力...(因為無法靠我們這宇宙裡 05/13 22:18
14F：→ dunchee:頭的基本粒子/作用力/波.."光".."觀察到"，所以無從得知， 05/13 22:18
15F：→ dunchee:也因為無從得知所以才說"有可能") 05/13 22:18
16F：推 l10nel:回原po: as the argument goes 前的短 hyphen (-) 應該改為 05/14 04:44
17F：→ l10nel:em dash，作用在帶起新的擴大說明或釋義用的句子，改成冒號 05/14 04:46
18F：→ l10nel:(:)功能一樣，所以as the argument goes修飾逗號後的if句， 05/14 04:47
19F：→ l10nel:大意：這個「Bubble Universes模型」的論點是這樣的：如果 05/14 04:50
20F：→ l10nel:每個獨立、互不可見的泡泡…… 05/14 04:50
21F：推 l10nel:打字時若無法打出一個em dash,用兩個連續hyphen(--)代替之 05/14 04:58
22F：→ Minilogo:謝謝dunchee你的圖和解說~我一直糾結在宇宙的範圍，看來 05/14 14:03
23F：→ Minilogo:是你說的那樣。我中文還是用一種邏輯講再保留英文對照。 05/14 14:05
24F：→ Minilogo:謝謝l10nel提醒 我馬上修正!(應該是L1OneL1吧= =好像...) 05/14 14:08
※ 編輯: Minilogo 來自: 1.171.48.104 (05/14 14:14)