On 22 Dec 2013, at 00:42, Edgar Owen wrote:
Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the
first Google Group I'm on.
First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take
quite a while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the
moderator(s).
I haven't noticed any particular delay between posting and the post
appearing on the forum. Even posts about backwards causality come up in a
timely fashion.
Mind you I consider myself very moderate...
--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
"Everything List
On Sat, Dec 21, 2013 at 03:42:23PM -0800, Edgar Owen wrote:
> Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the first
> Google Group I'm on.
>
> First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take quite a
> while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are
Hi, I just joined the group and have a few questions since it's the first
Google Group I'm on.
First I assume the group must be moderated since it seems to take quite a
while for my posts to show up. Is this so and who is/are the moderator(s).
Second I thought I set my settings to get all posts
Getting back to the original question: Are ALL quantum variations explored?
So let me ask some more basic questions:
How many distinct choices of new state does a particle, say an electron,
have at each time quanta?
Let's call that number X.
In an admittedly over-simplified universe of two part
I do not know that the ekpyrotic and cyclic models reprodce the
observations better than the BB+inflation.
Yes, no one knows what the inflation field is, but no one has observed
a gluon or single quark either.
I do not know what Penrose's argument is.Without the observable
Universe being in caus
Ronald,
the "ad hoc" is because of the introduction of the inflatons which do
nothing but, um, inflate...
Stephen said:
b) some sound explanation where given as
> to how an in principle unknowable phenomenon - the BB singularity itself -
> is any different from a Creative Deity, sans only the
o Reality, brought up a very clear case
> that inflation does not solve the horizon problem when we consider causaly
> disjoint regions; has any one countered his arguement?
>
> Kindest regards,
>
> Stephen
>
> - Original Message -
> From: "ronaldheld"
&g
?
Kindest regards,
Stephen
- Original Message -
From: "ronaldheld"
To: "Everything List"
Sent: Tuesday, January 20, 2009 7:22 AM
Subject: Re: Newbie Questions
I do not see the Inflation paradigm as ad-hoc, for it explains the
flatness, Horizon problem and lack of e
I do not see the Inflation paradigm as ad-hoc, for it explains the
flatness, Horizon problem and lack of early universe relics better
than any other to date. Now the Big Bang may be replaced by
oscillating solutions from LQG or other theories, but AFAIK they still
need an Inflation period.
Hi,
> Naive question: do physicists reconcile a "really flat" universe and
> the big bang theory? I don't see how.
you mean this problem?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang#Flatness.2Foldness_problem
Inflationary theories give a solution, but it is a bit ad hoc.
I am not a big fan of Big B
My understanding is that the set of possible histories and future at any
point are made up of eigenstates - and that the way a system splits into
eigenstates is dependent upon the question you ask it. For example, it may
split into momentum/position eigenstates, or along some other conjugal
framewo
Le 18-janv.-09, à 16:23, A. Wolf a écrit :
>
>> So you are saying the mass of the universe is infinite.
>
> I mean the number of particles is infinite (mass is a characteristic
> of some
> particles). It is still possible it could be finite but unbounded,
> and just
> extremely extremely larg
On 17 Jan 2009, at 04:10, fragamus (Michael Gough) wrote:
>
> I would like to ask the board:
>
> Are ALL possible quantum histories realized in the multiverse?
I would say yes. Even as the superposition states of the vacuum.
Note that all computational histories are in Arithmetic, or are
obs
> So you are saying the mass of the universe is infinite.
I mean the number of particles is infinite (mass is a characteristic of some
particles). It is still possible it could be finite but unbounded, and just
extremely extremely large, but unless there's a logical reason it would
appear per
So you are saying the mass of the universe is infinite.
On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, A. Wolf wrote:
>
> > Yes, but space may be simply the coordinate system in which matter and
> > energy move. Even if the coordinate system is infinite, it doesn't matter
> > because the particles' occupy a f
> Yes, but space may be simply the coordinate system in which matter and
> energy move. Even if the coordinate system is infinite, it doesn't matter
> because the particles' occupy a finite (but growing) part of it.
I don't think your conceptualization of an expanding universe is correct.
No cur
Thank you.
However, I don't understand your objection to an infinite number of states.
> The universe in which we live appears by current measurements to be
> infinite
> in size (because it is geometrically flat), and will last forever (because
> its expansion is hastening).
Yes, but space may b
>I understand. I was trying ask about whether or not, if there were say
> 10^10^10 slits, would the electron go through all of them. Do we know for
> sure?
You can perform the experiment with a thin grid instead of slits and get
similar patterns. But 10^10^10 in the traditional top-down way is
I understand. I was trying ask about whether or not, if there were say
10^10^10 slits, would the electron go through all of them. Do we know for
sure?
Also, I want the inside of time answer. Right now, in the multiverse, it
seems like the number of differentiated states may be a very large number,
Fragamus,
That depends on definitions! What counts as a history, and "when" do
we count them? In order for the number of histories to be "merely a
fantastically large and growing number", we need to be inside of time
when we count the number of histories-- otherwise it could not be
growing. Perso
Fragamus,
That depends on definitions! What counts as a history, and "when" do
we count them? In order for the number of histories to be "merely a
fantastically large and growing number", we need to be inside of time
when we count the number of histories-- otherwise it could not be
growing. Perso
I would like to ask the board:
Are ALL possible quantum histories realized in the multiverse?
Is the number of possible histories infinite, or merely a
fantastically large and growing number?
I don't like infinity so I'm hoping you say no.
THANKS!
--~--~-~--~~~---~-
23 matches
Mail list logo
