### Re: Newbie Questions

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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 -~--~~~~--~~--~--~---