On Fri, Sep 20, 2024 at 6:37 PM Alan Grayson <[email protected]> wrote:
*>> This entire business started by you asking what would happen at T=0 if > the universe started running backwards and obviously, regardless of if > space is finite or infinite, space would have to expand infinitely fast > because at T=0 it would have a zero amount of time to expand from nothing > to something.* > > > *> Not exactly. I figured that since the universe is expanding, we could > run to clock backward and imagine enclosing it in a sphere,* > *If you're assuming that at T=0 the ENTIRE universe could be contained in a sphere of finite size then you're assuming that space is finite, the very thing you're trying to prove. * > *> say, establishing that it is finite, hence NOT flat, since flat implies > infinite in spatial extent.* > *Not necessarily. In the "3-torus model" space is flat, and space is finite, and space has no boundary, BUT it also has no edges; a 2-D analogy of this would be a video game where if you go too far to the extreme right you disappear and then instantly reappear on the extreme left. However nobody knows what the large scale topology of the universe is, not even you. * *Before the discovery of Dark Energy and the acceleration of the universe, people thought if you knew the large scale topology of the universe then you could figure out if it was infinite or finite; if it was flat then it was infinite, if it was positively curved then it was finite, and if it was negatively curved then it was infinite. But now things are not that simple and there is not a clear cut relationship between shape and the finite versus infinite question. **Even a positively curved universe could be open and expand forever if the universe is accelerating. And flat doesn't necessarily mean infinite.* *> we can prove the universe is NOT flat using a purely logical argument. > No need to do any measurements.* > *That's what the ancient Greeks thought, experiments are unnecessary, and that attitude is why physics didn't advance one inch in over 1500 years. I don't care how beautiful a philosophical argument is, if measurement says an idea is wrong then it's wrong. * *> I sent this analysis to a professor emeritus whose main interest is in > cosmology who is associated with Case Western University. He replied that > my analysis dealt only with the observable universe and that the universe > could be infinite in spatial extent, presumably when one considers the > unobservable part.* > *And that is why, as I said before, when Alan Guth wrote that long ago the universe was just the size of a proton he meant the OBSERVABLE universe. * *> I then realized that the unobservable part was very likely caused by > Inflation, and therefore the entire universe would remain finite provided > we ran the clock backward, prior to Inflation. * > *And as I said before, IF the universe was finite before inflation then it was finite after it, and IF the universe was infinite before inflation it was infinite after inflation. So inflation is irrelevant in a finite versus infinite discussion, as should've been obvious to you because during inflation although the universe grew by an astronomically large amount that amount was FINITE.* * > the concept of a created universe, one which comes into being, which is > infinite in spatial extent, assumes a type of singularity which I believe > is non-physical and can't be realized;* > *1)A belief is not a proof. * *2) Apparently you believe a nothing to something singularity, where things change INFINITELY (not just astronomically) fast is possible, so why is infinite space so unbelievable?* *3) Modern physics says a singularity occurred at T =0, but NOBODY believes that is the last word on the subject! Everybody believes we're missing something, but nobody knows what. * > *> So, the professor apparently doesn't realize that his critique of my > original analysis implies that his claim that the universe might be > infinite in spatial extent, contains an implicit denial it had a beginning, > called the Big Bang.* > *Alan, did it ever occur to you that a physics professor at Case Western University who spent his life studying this subject MIGHT know more about it than you do? * *> I haven't written him again to relieve him of his apparent > misconception, though I might.* *Crackpots always believe they know more about a subject than the experts do, and to be fair sometimes they actually do and calling them a crackpot is a libel, but for every Galileo there are 6.02*10^23 crackpots. * *> I did write Alan Guth about a week ago, asking if he assumed the entire > universe, or just the observable part existed, when Inflation began, at > around 10^-35 seconds after the Big Bang, when the universe was around the > size of a proton, or possibly smaller. So far he hasn't replied. * > *Gee I wonder why. * John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> wyg > *And yes that is a singularity however in physics, unlike pure > mathematics, when you run into a singularity what that is really telling > you is that there is some unknown physics going on that you don't > understand, or don't understand well enough. Everybody knows something is > wrong but nobody knows what. * > > *By the way when people, like me, say that because of AI we're heading > towards a Singularity they are using poetic license, things in general and > society in particular won't really be changing infinitely fast, just faster > than the human meat brain can comprehend. * > > > > -- 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/CAJPayv3WqhvWT1see70YW0cY4opQDo7FRM%2BxEqBC1eSdCdBhHQ%40mail.gmail.com.
