Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-21 Thread John Mikes
Hi, Stephen (after along time!),
it is about THE after Big Bang inflation .

I am a 'noninflationary' guy: IMO inflation was deemed necessary to cope
with the mathematical problems connected the Big Bang idea and applying the
present (here and now) system's math to it - at a system ENTIRELY different
from conditions we experience as the basis of such math.

In my 'narrative' ( don't call it theory) about a big bang origin (which I
accept in spite of my scond thoughts of the validity of the expansion) -
I assign the starting conditions and the applicability of early-universe
math
to the transition no-space to space from the a-spatial proto-Big Bang into
our space-time system. The transition from nonexisting (=zero) space into
space is indeed an (infinite?) inflationary change.
*
Same thing with 'time', wich would explain the marvels of the (infinitesimal
small fractions of the FIRST second): the transition of NO TIME into a
'time-system' - expressed in terms of physical quantization applied to the
Big Bang conditions.

I don't want to start an argument on this, I am not ready - it is a
narrative.

Have a good 2009

John Mikes
On Wed, Jan 21, 2009 at 12:11 AM, Stephen Paul King
stephe...@charter.netwrote:


 Hi Ronald,

Some people, myself included, would be a lot more comfortable with the
 whole inflation idea if a) there where some experimental evidence of the
 scalar fields that are required and 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 anthropomorphisms.
R. Penrose, in his book Road to 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 ronaldh...@gmail.com
 To: Everything List everything-l...@googlegroups.com
 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 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.
  Ronald



 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-21 Thread Günther Greindl

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 anthropomorphisms.

ACK!


It seems that Steinhardt's model also attempts to solve the problem, at 
least according to wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Alternatives_to_inflation

BQuote
The ekpyrotic and cyclic models are also considered competitors to 
inflation. These models solve the horizon problem through an expanding 
epoch well before the Big Bang, and then generate the required spectrum 
of primordial density perturbations during a contracting phase leading 
to a Big Crunch. The universe passes through the Big Crunch and emerges 
in a hot Big Bang phase. In this sense they are reminiscent of the 
oscillatory universe proposed by Richard Chace Tolman: however in 
Tolman's model the total age of the universe is necessarily finite, 
while in these models this is not necessarily so. Whether the correct 
spectrum of density fluctuations can be produced, and whether the 
universe can successfully navigate the Big Bang/Big Crunch transition, 
remains a topic of controversy and current research.
EQuote

But, as I've said, I haven't read any of the papers, so I dunno.

Also, I'm not quite sure what to think of this whole Big Bang when 
adopting COMP - have to think about it yet...

Cheers,
Günther

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-21 Thread ronaldheld

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 causal contact, it could not exhibit the smoothness
that we observe.
 Ronald

On Jan 21, 11:56 am, Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com
wrote:
 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 anthropomorphisms.

 ACK!

 It seems that Steinhardt's model also attempts to solve the problem, at
 least according to wikipedia:

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_inflation#Alternatives_to_inflation

 BQuote
 The ekpyrotic and cyclic models are also considered competitors to
 inflation. These models solve the horizon problem through an expanding
 epoch well before the Big Bang, and then generate the required spectrum
 of primordial density perturbations during a contracting phase leading
 to a Big Crunch. The universe passes through the Big Crunch and emerges
 in a hot Big Bang phase. In this sense they are reminiscent of the
 oscillatory universe proposed by Richard Chace Tolman: however in
 Tolman's model the total age of the universe is necessarily finite,
 while in these models this is not necessarily so. Whether the correct
 spectrum of density fluctuations can be produced, and whether the
 universe can successfully navigate the Big Bang/Big Crunch transition,
 remains a topic of controversy and current research.
 EQuote

 But, as I've said, I haven't read any of the papers, so I dunno.

 Also, I'm not quite sure what to think of this whole Big Bang when
 adopting COMP - have to think about it yet...

 Cheers,
 Günther
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-21 Thread Michael Gough
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 particles, the number of
new universe states at the next time quanta is X^2, right?

In a universe with Y particles, the number of new states that arise from a
given previous state at each time quanta is X^Y, right?

And due to quantum interference, certain states are less common, and other
states are more common.

I realize that these are very elementary questions. I'm just trying to get
my bearings here.

The thing that is simply inconceivable to me is that this bizarre explosive
growth is an explosion of *information.* The multiverse seems to have an
unlimited capacity to generate and store these new universe states, and also
an unlimited capacity to compare all of these universe states to each other
in order to produce the quantum interference we observe.

The thing I like about the theory is that it certainly takes the dice out of
God's hands. Since all states are exhaustively explored, there is no
randomness at all. We just happen to exist in some portions of the immense
tree of states, and not in other portions.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-20 Thread ronaldheld

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.
  Ronald

On Jan 19, 2:30 pm, Günther Greindl guenther.grei...@gmail.com
wrote:
 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 Bang - I like Paul Steinhardt's (not Eric
 Steinhart) cyclic universe, but I have not read enough about that model
 to know if it fares better explaining cosmological observations (but it
 is _compatible_ with current observations).

 But those reflections are from before my MWI times ;-)
 MWI explains fine-tuning (but not flatness) due to the anthropic principle.

 Cheers,
 Günther
--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-20 Thread Stephen Paul King

Hi Ronald,

Some people, myself included, would be a lot more comfortable with the 
whole inflation idea if a) there where some experimental evidence of the 
scalar fields that are required and 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 anthropomorphisms.
R. Penrose, in his book Road to 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 ronaldh...@gmail.com
To: Everything List everything-l...@googlegroups.com
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 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.
  Ronald



--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-19 Thread Bruno Marchal


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 large, but unless there's a logical reason it would
 appear perfectly flat this seems unlikely.  So right now the consensus 
 in
 the scientific community is probably infinite.

Naive question: do physicists reconcile a really flat universe and 
the big bang theory? I don't see how.
Any idea or references?

Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-19 Thread Michael Rosefield
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
framework. Essentially, we can only extract a certain amount of information
from a system, and what that information is depends upon what we ask.

To me, this implies that we are only capable of seeing an abstracted layer
of another system - that something about the mechanism of consciousness
forces this perspective. And this presents two possiblities according to
whether we are 'above' or 'below' that system. If we are above it, then it's
like thermodynamics - we are asking macrostate questions about a system of
microstates. If we are below, then we are inflicting a discretisation upon a
continuous system. Either consciousness combines, or it splits. Maybe.


--
- Did you ever hear of The Seattle Seven?
- Mmm.
- That was me... and six other guys.


2009/1/17 fragamus innovative.engin...@gmail.com


 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!
 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-19 Thread Günther Greindl

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 Bang - I like Paul Steinhardt's (not Eric 
Steinhart) cyclic universe, but I have not read enough about that model 
to know if it fares better explaining cosmological observations (but it 
is _compatible_ with current observations).

But those reflections are from before my MWI times ;-)
MWI explains fine-tuning (but not flatness) due to the anthropic principle.

Cheers,
Günther

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-18 Thread A. Wolf

 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 perfectly flat this seems unlikely.  So right now the consensus in 
the scientific community is probably infinite.

Anna


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-18 Thread Bruno Marchal


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  
observed from inside Arithmetic.



 Is the number of possible histories infinite, or merely a
 fantastically large and growing number?

Assuming mechanism, I could argue for the cardinal of the continuum.

 From observation, we can say nothing today, because the number  
depends on the way we will combine General Relativity and Quantum  
Mechanics. With superstring theories, (from what I understand of  
course) I would say again the power of the continuum. But with the  
competitor loop gravity a case can be made for finite (but rather  
big) numbers (loop gravity quantized the whole space time, so  
physical reality is discrete indeed).



 I don't like infinity so I'm hoping you say no.


Finite things are confronted to the infinity of possible finite  
things, and when trying to grasp them, grasp also some infinite things  
in the process, and it is hard for finite entities to separate finite  
and infinite.
With Mechanism, we assume our finiteness, but this really makes the  
infinities unavoidable, like in mathematics. At least the infinities  
are pure mind construct: ontologically, by assuming mechanism, we  
don't need more than the finite numberS (note the s), and addition  
and multiplication (which are already not entirely finitely  
describable, except relatively to a universal machine).


Bruno
http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/




--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread Abram Demski

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. Personally I would prefer to count the *eventual* number of
histories, rather than the number of histories at any given moment.
This number will be infinite, but *which* infinity? The answer gives
us some information. (I don't know if you are familiar with the
different infinities, but there *are* smaller and larger infinities.)
For example, if all universes end in finite time the number of
histories may be smaller than if there are some that go on forever.

-Abram

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM, fragamus
innovative.engin...@gmail.com wrote:

 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!
 




-- 
Abram Demski
Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com
Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski
Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread Abram Demski

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. Personally I would prefer to count the *eventual* number of
histories, rather than the number of histories at any given moment.
This number will be infinite, but *which* infinity? The answer gives
us some information. (I don't know if you are familiar with the
different infinities, but there *are* smaller and larger infinities.)
For example, if all universes end in finite time the number of
histories may be smaller than if there are some that go on forever.

-Abram

On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM, fragamus
innovative.engin...@gmail.com wrote:

 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!
 




-- 
Abram Demski
Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com
Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski
Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread Michael Gough
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,
but is it infinite? I expect the answer to be no, but I'm no expert.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 11:10 AM, Abram Demski abramdem...@gmail.comwrote:


 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. Personally I would prefer to count the *eventual* number of
 histories, rather than the number of histories at any given moment.
 This number will be infinite, but *which* infinity? The answer gives
 us some information. (I don't know if you are familiar with the
 different infinities, but there *are* smaller and larger infinities.)
 For example, if all universes end in finite time the number of
 histories may be smaller than if there are some that go on forever.

 -Abram

 On Fri, Jan 16, 2009 at 10:10 PM, fragamus
 innovative.engin...@gmail.com wrote:
 
  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!
  
 



 --
 Abram Demski
 Public address: abram-dem...@googlegroups.com
 Public archive: http://groups.google.com/group/abram-demski
 Private address: abramdem...@gmail.com

 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread A. Wolf

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 a googol, 
which is more than we can measure.  I mean, if you're asking can we measure 
unbelievably large numbers directly, then no, of course we can't.  But 
theories would be pointlessly complicated if we restricted things that have 
no apparent limit to some arbitrary finite number.

 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,
 but is it infinite? I expect the answer to be no, but I'm no expert.

The answer would not be infinite iff spacetime and mass were both quantized. 
This would restrict the possible number of states of a particle to a finite 
number.  Most theories of spacetime (with the exception of general 
relativity) quantize spacetime entirely, and in doing so quantize velocity 
(independent of relativistic movement), but the theory is inconsistent with 
relativity.  Mass is not known to be quantum, and we may never prove it one 
way or the other.  It is possible, though.

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).  Trying to eliminate infinite numbers from math 
is like trying to keep the sun moving around the earth in physics.  It 
complicates prediction, and has no benefit.

I don't agree with the prevailing belief on this list that one can only 
define probability mass over an discrete domain, just in case that's part of 
your objection.

Anna


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread Michael Gough
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 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.

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread A. Wolf

 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 currently accepted model of the universe consists of a bunch of 
centrally-located matter with empty space surrounding it, and it's easy to 
see why: we can see the big bang (or at least, the moment when light 
decoupled from matter) from every direction in the sky.  This means that 
there is no center to the universe.  Matter is fairly uniformly distributed 
throughout the universe, and the universe is either finite but unbounded, or 
(as measurement of the CBR supports) infinite in both size /and/ content.

So there is no center to the universe from which things are expanding into 
empty space.  Rather, everything is moving away from everything else. 
Evidence suggests there's an infinite amount of stuff out there, either way, 
because careful measurements of the visible universe show zero curvature as 
far back as is possible to see.

Anna


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---



Re: Newbie Questions

2009-01-17 Thread Michael Gough
So you are saying the mass of the universe is infinite.

On Sat, Jan 17, 2009 at 4:40 PM, A. Wolf a.lup...@gmail.com 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 finite (but growing) part of it.

 I don't think your conceptualization of an expanding universe is correct.
 No currently accepted model of the universe consists of a bunch of
 centrally-located matter with empty space surrounding it, and it's easy
 to
 see why: we can see the big bang (or at least, the moment when light
 decoupled from matter) from every direction in the sky.  This means that
 there is no center to the universe.  Matter is fairly uniformly distributed
 throughout the universe, and the universe is either finite but unbounded,
 or
 (as measurement of the CBR supports) infinite in both size /and/ content.

 So there is no center to the universe from which things are expanding
 into
 empty space.  Rather, everything is moving away from everything else.
 Evidence suggests there's an infinite amount of stuff out there, either
 way,
 because careful measurements of the visible universe show zero curvature as
 far back as is possible to see.

 Anna


 


--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
Everything List group.
To post to this group, send email to everything-l...@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/everything-list?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---