Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 6:30:00 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 3:36:28 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 2:26:58 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 9:10:19 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:

 On Friday, April 10, 2020 at 8:45:22 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 12:03:10 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Sunday, March 29, 2020 at 1:57:12 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 5:38:33 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
>>> wrote:

 On Saturday, March 28, 2020 at 5:27:51 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 4:25:43 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell 
> wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 2:17:39 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
>> wrote:
>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 9:57:44 AM UTC-6, Lawrence 
>>> Crowell wrote:

 On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 10:24:30 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson 
 wrote:
>
>
>
> On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 2:58:45 AM UTC-6, Lawrence 
> Crowell wrote:
>>
>> On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:28:21 AM UTC-5, Alan 
>> Grayson wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:21:50 PM UTC-6, Lawrence 
>>> Crowell wrote:

 On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:19:41 PM UTC-5, Alan 
 Grayson wrote:
>
>
>
> On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, Lawrence 
> Crowell wrote:
>>
>> Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum 
>> fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this 
>> had a duration of 
>> 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 
>> 10^{48}m^{-2}. 
>> If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 
>> 10^{32}s^{-2} and 
>> we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region 
>> expanded by a factor 
>> of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 
>> 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise 
>> calculation of 60 
>> e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that 
>> matches inflation 
>> with the observed universe.
>>
>> How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon 
>> whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might 
>> emerge and have 
>> an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be 
>> inflated to the CMB 
>> scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the 
>> result is the 
>> furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light 
>> years, which 
>> would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an 
>> imprint or 
>> signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know 
>> what 
>> percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 
>> 0 it is an 
>> infinitesimal part.
>>
>> LC
>>
>
> For k=0, a flat universe, we know the answer since, as 
> you've acknowledged, it's infinite in spatial extent.  
> Consequently, since 
> the observable universe is finite in spatial extent, the 
> unobserved 
> universe must be infinite in extent (for a flat universe). 
> Can you estimate 
> the size of the unobservable universe for a positively curved 
> universe? AG
>

 The cosmological constant is a Ricci curvature with Λ = 
 R_{tt} for the flat k = 0 case. for k = 1 there is a spatial 
 Ricci 
 curvature R_{rr}. This contributes to the occurrence of 
 the cosmological constant, but it is tiny. So R_{rr} 
 = δR_{tt} for δ a rather small number. The spatial sphere has 
 a radius R = 
 1/√(R_{rr}} ≈ 1/√(δΛ). This is then for Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2} 
 R ≈ δ^{-1/2} 10^{26}m, or about the distance to the 
 cosmological 

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

['Brent Meeker' via Everything List]

On 4/12/2020 2:48 PM, Alan Grayson wrote:



On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:44:56 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:33 PM Alan Grayson > wrote:

/> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster
away from us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a
geometric effect as previously explained, and eventually wink
out. Conversely, if we play the movie backward in time, all
those galaxies which previously winked out, should come into
view./


Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.


*Then our interpretation of Hubble's constant is wrong. AG *

/> your hypothesis makes no geometric sense. Mustn't we assume
that if our universe is expanding,/


We don't need to assume anything, we have plenty of observational
evidence that the universe is expanding.


*If you weren't so inclined to parsing my statement, you'd see I 
wasn't questioning the expansion. AG *



/> the expansion applies to the UN-observable region?/


It applies to all of the universe, it's all expanding and
observability has nothing to do with it.


*Yes, it's all expanding and that's why galaxies wink out. If you play 
the movie backward to the BB, they should all come in view, which 
contradicts infinite in spatial extent. AG

*


Only if you play it back to zero scale factor.  Almost theories of 
cosmogony require a small but finite, Planck scale start.


Brent


**

 John K Clark

--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com 
.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee0578a7-b768-48b2-ad37-ff60b148e5c1%40googlegroups.com 
.


--
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8f4abc05-706f-aa43-5f93-04eab77d5cd3%40verizon.net.

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 5:49 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*>>> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from
>>> us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as
>>> previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the
>>> movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out,
>>> should come into view.*
>>>
>>
>> >> Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.
>>
>
> *> Then our interpretation of Hubble's constant is wrong. AG *
>

Nope, the Hubble constant has nothing to do with it. And by the way, with
the discovery of Dark Energy we now know that the Hubble "constant" is not
constant.

*> it's all expanding and that's why galaxies wink out. If you play the
> movie backward to the BB, they should all come in view, which contradicts
> infinite in spatial extent. AG *
>

No! If the universe started out being infinite then if you play the movie
backwards everything won't come back into view because everything was NEVER
in view. So for all we know the universe could be spatially flat or
positively curved or negatively curved.

John K Clark






>
>>  John K Clark
>>
> --
> 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To view this discussion on the web visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee0578a7-b768-48b2-ad37-ff60b148e5c1%40googlegroups.com
> 
> .
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1cj4rStza7YQtcXNjmN64fN_-j%3D_h3GPLbn9C3xR5kyg%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:44:56 PM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:33 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from 
>> us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as 
>> previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the 
>> movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out, 
>> should come into view.*
>>
>
> Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.
>

*Then our interpretation of Hubble's constant is wrong. AG *

>  
>
>> *> your hypothesis makes no geometric sense. Mustn't we assume that if 
>> our universe is expanding,*
>>
>
> We don't need to assume anything, we have plenty of observational 
> evidence that the universe is expanding.
>

*If you weren't so inclined to parsing my statement, you'd see I wasn't 
questioning the expansion. AG *

>
> *> the expansion applies to the UN-observable region?*
>>
>
> It applies to all of the universe, it's all expanding and observability 
> has nothing to do with it. 
>

*Yes, it's all expanding and that's why galaxies wink out. If you play the 
movie backward to the BB, they should all come in view, which contradicts 
infinite in spatial extent. AG *

>
>  John K Clark
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee0578a7-b768-48b2-ad37-ff60b148e5c1%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

[John Clark]

On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:33 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from us
> as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as
> previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the
> movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out,
> should come into view.*
>

Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.


> *> your hypothesis makes no geometric sense. Mustn't we assume that if our
> universe is expanding,*
>

We don't need to assume anything, we have plenty of observational
evidence that the universe is expanding.

*> the expansion applies to the UN-observable region?*
>

It applies to all of the universe, it's all expanding and observability has
nothing to do with it.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv2S5DPXhrr0Aec1PHTD3VddUCK-UBez_KCWWQqatBMFug%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

[Alan Grayson]

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 6:12:54 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:
>
> On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 3:27 PM Alan Grayson  > wrote:
>
> *> Hyperbolic can be ruled out for the same reason flat can be ruled out. 
>> Both are infinite in spatial extent, and since the universe has a finite 
>> age and expanding at less than an infinite rate throughout its lifetime 
>> (although the rate can be changing in different epochs and possibly faster 
>> than light speed in some epochs such as inflation), it cannot be infinite 
>> in spatial extent. I've made this argument several times, which is clear 
>> and straightforward, but never got anyone to agree. I find that baffling. *
>
>
> That's because the universe could have been infinitely large from the very 
> first instant of its existence even before inflation started, I'm not 
> saying that it did I'm just saying there is no evidence that rules out that 
> possibility. And if it did start out that way then now the universe's 
> spatial curvature could be absolutely flat or even hyperbolic. And before 
> the discovery of Dark Energy people said that if the universe was 
> spherically curved then it couldn't expand forever, but with a new force 
> entering the equation that is no longer true. We now know it takes more 
> than just knowledge of the geometry of space to know the universe's 
> ultimate fate.
>
>  John K Clark
>

As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from us as 
described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as previously 
explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the movie 
backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out, should 
come into view. Consequently, the hypothesis that the universe began as 
infinite seems to imply a peculiar inconsistency. This is not to say that 
the entity from which *our* universe emerged is necessarily finite -- it 
could be infinite in spatial extent and past time -- but at least for me, 
your hypothesis makes no geometric sense. Mustn't we assume that if our 
universe is expanding, the expansion applies to the UN-observable region? 
And if it does, wouldn't that region come into view if the movie is played 
backward? If it does, or must come into view, then the unobservable region 
cannot be infinite in spatial extent. 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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/901d5942-e8be-408f-8b26-9af031b7d04f%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computers and Anyons

[Philip Thrift]

On Sunday, April 12, 2020 at 2:06:00 PM UTC-5, Lawrence Crowell wrote:
>
>
>> Nonabelian anyons have a braid group structure.
>
> LC
>  
>
>> Anyons in topological QM:

Topological Quantum: Lecture Notes
http://www-thphys.physics.ox.ac.uk/people/SteveSimon/topological2016/TopoBook.pdf
 

@philipthrift

> -
>>
>>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/e87d2d44-4bd8-4e67-b4de-728f9d680bc9%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Quantum Computers and Anyons

[Lawrence Crowell]

On Saturday, April 11, 2020 at 2:15:48 PM UTC-5, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
>
> On 11 Apr 2020, at 19:24, John Clark > 
> wrote:
>
> In the April 10 2020 issue of the Journal Science the best evidence yet 
> for the existence of a quasiparticle called a "Anyon" is presented. Anyon's 
> are important because when 2 Anyon's loop around each other their quantum 
> state is altered and so that brading can be used to encode information. 
> Such brading would be far less susceptible to quantum decoherence than 
> other ways of encoding information, and decoherence is the only reason we 
> don't have practical and scalable Quantum Computers right now.
>
>
>
> I agree. I guess you mean braiding, like the space time description of two 
> particles going around each other, or around a third one, leading to a 
> braid (in 3d space). 
>
>
Nonabelian anyons have a braid group structure.

LC
 

> It is why I except braiding from the projections obtained in arithmetic 
> from the quantization. Braids and links, and knots are simple topological 
> structure, but provides semantic for quantum logics, quantum computations, 
> but also the computations as “seen from inside arithmetic” by universal 
> machine/number/words/finite)-beings.
>
> The the fractional Hall effect, the “quantum field” of the condensed 
> matter, are “shortcut” to Deutsch's quantum Turing universality. 
>
> There are also extraordinary relations between Artin’s group of braids (a 
> generalisation of the permutation group), Temperly-Lieb Algebra (and 
> decoupling theory) and self-distributive algebra, related to the theory of 
> high cardinal in Zermelo-Fraenkel set theory. A left-self-distibutive 
> algebra is a set D with a a law * such that or all x, y, z:
>
> x*(y*z) = (x*y)*(x*z)
>
> For example, if G is a multiplicative group, the law x * y = xyx^(-1), 
> conjugacy, makes (G, *) into a left-self-distributive algebra. Another 
> typical exemple is a Ring, (or a Module) with a mean law: (x * y) = 
> (x+y)/2, as you can easily verify, or more generally (x*y) = (1 - r)x + ry, 
> with r in R.  Such structure plays a transversal role from the “logic of 
> space” to the logic of some models of “powerful" Turing machine.
>
> I recall that among the five (actually eight) mains variant of provability 
> imposed by incompleteness, 
>
> P
> []p
> []p & p
> []p & <>t
> []p & <>t & p
>
>
> on p partially computable (provable when true, sigma_1, obeying p -> []p), 
> the observable is given by the three last one, which are five, as the two 
> last one splits along G and G* (which I hope you all have an idea go the 
> importance in self-reference, but ask if you have missed this).
>
> Now, they are all graded, by the fact that you have variant brought by 
> replacing []p by [][]p,or []…[]p, with n boxes, written []^n p? 
> <>^m t can replace <>t, and from those numbers comes the braiding, and 
> normally the “illusion” of space, in self-introspecting universal machine. 
> But here, that is not yet proven, and relies on conjecture in mathematical 
> logic, set theory, etc. Anyon are cool, anyway! (Not easy mathematics 
> though)
>
> Bruno
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Fractional statistics in anyon collisions 
> 
>
> John K Clark
>
> -- 
> 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 everyth...@googlegroups.com .
> To view this discussion on the web visit 
> https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1zZ-hmtiDkCMe3noR%3DFYC%3DavhGxgr28%2BCj1iP-g6W75g%40mail.gmail.com
>  
> 
> .
>
>
>

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/7677e37c-6643-41b0-a87b-f4455230a13b%40googlegroups.com.

Re: Inflation and the total size of the universe

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 3:27 PM Alan Grayson  wrote:

*> Hyperbolic can be ruled out for the same reason flat can be ruled out.
> Both are infinite in spatial extent, and since the universe has a finite
> age and expanding at less than an infinite rate throughout its lifetime
> (although the rate can be changing in different epochs and possibly faster
> than light speed in some epochs such as inflation), it cannot be infinite
> in spatial extent. I've made this argument several times, which is clear
> and straightforward, but never got anyone to agree. I find that baffling. *


That's because the universe could have been infinitely large from the very
first instant of its existence even before inflation started, I'm not
saying that it did I'm just saying there is no evidence that rules out that
possibility. And if it did start out that way then now the universe's
spatial curvature could be absolutely flat or even hyperbolic. And before
the discovery of Dark Energy people said that if the universe was
spherically curved then it couldn't expand forever, but with a new force
entering the equation that is no longer true. We now know it takes more
than just knowledge of the geometry of space to know the universe's
ultimate fate.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv1jcGLq7B8M%2BdQB4pQOnhVH8s66JhJz3_w-XdEhzpEL7w%40mail.gmail.com.

Re: Reductionism?

[John Clark]

On Sat, Apr 11, 2020 at 5:42 PM Lawrence Crowell <
goldenfieldquaterni...@gmail.com> wrote:


> >> Although they have confirmed many theoretical predictions, particle
>> accelerators haven't discovered anything surprising since 1962 when it was
>> found that Muon Neutrinos were not the same as Electron Neutrinos, but
>> telescopes have provided plenty of fundamental physical surprises in recent
>> years; for example, Neutron Stars, Black Holes, Dark Matter, Dark Energy
>> and the acceleration of the universe, Neutrino Oscillation and the
>> resulting mass they must have, the predominance of matter over antimatter,
>> and Ultra-high-energy cosmic rays which I don't think can be explained
>> without fundamental new physics of some sort.
>> John K Clark
>>
>
> > Tons of stuff has been found by particle accelerators since 1962. The
> whole QCD system of quarks and gluons was worked out from the mid-60s to
> the late 70s based on hadron scattering.
>

I'm not saying particle accelerators were not useful just that they didn't
discover anything surprising, in this case they just confirmed what Murray
Gell-Mann had already predicted.

> Then of course with the tevatron, LEP and then LHC the standard model was
> worked out.
>

And in this case accelerators confirmed what Glashow, Salam, and Weinberg
predicted. But no theoretician predicted Dark Matter or Dark Energy and the
acceleration of the universe, and they still can't figure those things out.
Those surprising discoveries needed telescopes not particle colliders.

 John K Clark

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/CAJPayv0HfoyW5J9YvpBgb9i1VB6AnVrmuj2BEA5yFQAHSiKt7w%40mail.gmail.com.

The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place

[Philip Thrift]

*The universe's expansion rate may vary from place to place*
https://www.space.com/universe-expansion-rate-may-vary.html


*Probing cosmic isotropy with a new X-ray galaxy cluster sample through the 
LX−T scaling relation*
https://arxiv.org/abs/2004.03305


@philipthrift

-- 
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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5b22590c-26a7-4557-a606-62a2c8afbc0e%40googlegroups.com.