On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:42:05 AM UTC-7, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > > On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 5:10:53 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell wrote: >> >> >> >> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 6:05:54 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 4:54:03 AM UTC-7, Lawrence Crowell >>> wrote: >>>> >>>> On Wednesday, February 5, 2020 at 2:29:44 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote: >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> On Monday, February 3, 2020 at 3:48:00 PM UTC-7, John Clark wrote: >>>>>> >>>>>> This video was just uploaded today: >>>>>> >>>>>> Are there Infinite Versions of You? >>>>>> <https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qT110-Q8PJI> >>>>>> >>>>>> John K Clark >>>>>> >>>>> >>>>> *The answer is NO, if at least one parameter of the universe can >>>>> continuously vary, even along a finite interval or dimension. In this >>>>> case, >>>>> the number of possible universes is UNCOUNTABLE, and IIUC, under this >>>>> condition Poincare Recurrence doesn't apply. AG * >>>>> >>>> >>>> The Poincare recurrence of 10^{100} particles, approximately how many >>>> particles are out to the limit of observation, is around 10^{10^{100}} >>>> time >>>> units. Those time units would be Planck units of time, but the disparity >>>> of >>>> numbers means that we can consider this to be years with little error, >>>> Using the idea of space = time this would mean in spatial distance there >>>> is >>>> also a sort of recurrence. So out to that distance there exists some >>>> repeated form of what exists here. The quantum recurrence time is >>>> approximately 10^{10^{10^{100}}} time units or the exponent of this. >>>> So further out in space would imply not only a copy of things here, but >>>> also the same quantum phase. This is something within just the level 1 >>>> multiverse. >>>> >>>> Now this distance is utterly enormous and not just beyond the >>>> cosmological horizon, but beyond a distance where a Planck unit is >>>> redshifted to the horizon scale. This distance is around 2 trillion light >>>> years, which is a mere trifle by comparison to maybe 10^{10^{100}} >>>> light years or so. This length is the absolute limit of any >>>> observation. This then means the universe has some N genus manifold >>>> covering, or equivalently some polytope, covering space to reflect this >>>> multiplicity. For the polytope with N facets the horizon scale is a nearly >>>> infinitesimal bubble in the center. >>>> >>>> There is then of course in addition the level 2 multiverse which is the >>>> generation of pocket worlds within an inflationary de Sitter manifold. >>>> These may then have different renormalization group flows for gauge >>>> coupling values and physical vacua. Another level 3, or level 2.2, is the >>>> generation of dS inflationary manifolds from AdS/CFT physics. >>>> >>>> LC >>>> >>> >>> *Do you agree that if any parameter of our universe logically allows >>> some continuum of values, PR fails? Or if our universe is finite in spatial >>> extent, PR fails? AG* >>> >> >> No >> >> LC >> > > > > https://physics.stackexchange.com/questions/94122/is-poincare-recurrence-relevant-to-our-universe > > The Poincaré recurrence theorem will hold for the universe only if the > following assumptions are true: > > 1. 1) All the particles in the universe are bound to a finite volume. > 2. 2) The universe has a finite number of possible states. > > If any of these assumptions is false, the Poincaré recurrence theorem will > break down. >
*The number of possible states of the H atom is countably infinite. Thus, condition 2 fails for our universe, and so does PR. AG * -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e3275a85-ffa7-466a-a82d-fe05154c0ec4%40googlegroups.com.
