An infinite universe

Page 2 of 3 [ 44 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

12 Apr 2009, 10:52 pm

Why yes, the universe is infinite, and you do have a twin out there in some parallel universe; BUT, you have to realize that life is never the exact same way as it is elsewhere, for all is random, and unfortunately your twin has a peach-fuzz mustache, constantly wears wife beaters, and likes country. Sorry.

Awesomelyglorious
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 17 Dec 2005
Gender: Male
Posts: 13,157
Location: Omnipresent

13 Apr 2009, 12:24 am

Averick wrote:

WAIT!! ! I'M THE TWIN!! !! !

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2009, 12:49 am

alba wrote:

String and M theory postulate parallel universes.

They are both still unconfirmed speculations.

philosopher
Raven
Raven

Joined: 26 Jul 2007
Age: 57
Gender: Male
Posts: 103

13 Apr 2009, 12:56 am

Averick wrote:

Cool

Signs654
Snowy Owl

Joined: 4 Oct 2008
Age: 33
Gender: Male
Posts: 150

13 Apr 2009, 7:50 am

Is there a universe out there where I'm a basketball player?

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2009, 7:53 am

Signs654 wrote:

Is there a universe out there where I'm a basketball player?

Naah. Looks like you'll have to settle for being a frog.

Averick
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 5 Mar 2007
Age: 44
Gender: Male
Posts: 2,709
Location: My tower upon the crag. Yes, mwahahaha!

13 Apr 2009, 8:36 am

Awesomelyglorious wrote:

Averick wrote:

WAIT!! ! I'M THE TWIN!! !! !

We can only speculate, AG. It's not like you've ever posted anything personal about yourself.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

13 Apr 2009, 9:46 am

if everything emanated from a singularity (which i think it did (from my own ideas and not education)) , and that singularity was a super symmetry where all energy was bound in perfect order, then it is interesting that the mechanics of the collapse of that bound singular entity was flawed in a way that facilitated perfect evolution into form.

at the point where all energy in the universe was compressed into the zero dimension (a point with no length or width or height, (therefore non existent in the physical universe)), it could not have contained any form of separation of it's constituents.
there can be no division of any kind in a zero volume. a point contains no evolution or division.

so when the singularity "exploded" into an emanation of universal energy, why was that energy radiated in a non perfect way? what were the fundamental flaws in the supposedly perfectly symmetrical "singularity" that resulted in formations that are derived from imperfection?

if the energy from the original universal point was radiated with perfect symmetry, no "matter" would have formed at all.
the energy would have followed an infinite outward spoke routine and never collided with any other energy.

what was the nature of the flaw in the perfection of the super symmetry inside the pre exploded singularity that was to become the big bang, that resulted in the "clash bang jangle" of ejected energies that have since, as a result of the flaw, convoluted themselves via coalescence of probability, into "mass" and other forms of what we perceive as existence?
that is what is to learn for me.

i think "space " is in pre-reality, so it is not bound by finitude.
space is infinite, because there is always somewhere further out than "the end".

i do not confuse space with gravity. gravity can compress "space", but to me it is not compressing space, but it is compressing possibility for location in space.

mass can compress the possibility of objects being in a space near by, but mass does not govern the availability of space in the universe.
nothing does. space is nothing. nothing is infinite.

i believe space (possible locations) is infinite. i believe energy is finite.
energy gets convoluted by gravity into bound systems that get tighter and tighter and become matter.

matter is bound energy, and because energy is not infinite, neither is matter obviously.
if there were any manifestation of reality that was infinite, it would clog and squeeze into the universe entirely, and make the universe into a greater dimensional singularity of infinite density.

i mean a singularity could be the size of the whole (finite) universe if an infinite amount of energy was squeezed into it.

"infinite" is "infinite", and no matter how large a container you try to squeeze it into, it will always be just the same as a singularity. the compression ratio of everything (if things were infinite) compressed into a volume of x would equal infinite compression which is what the "no volume big bang" singularity had.

i have no real idea of why the universe came to be. i can not imagine an inconceivably large (but finite) amount of energy (the "big bang" package) just hanging around benignly forever (the amount of time before the big bang), and then one day (big bang day) losing it's cool and blowing the universe forth.

please i do not want to be roped into philosophy with people.
i just said a tiny bit of what i think.

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2009, 9:53 am

b9 wrote:

if everything emanated from a singularity (which i think it did (not from external persuasion)), and that singularity was a super symmetry where all energy was bound in perfect order, then it is interesting that the mechanics of the collapse of that bound singular entity was flawed in a way that facilitated perfect evolution into form.

at the point where all energy in the universe was compressed into the zero dimension (a point with no length or width or height, (therefore non existent in the physical universe)), it could not have contained any form of separation of it's constituents.
there can be no division of any kind in a zero volume. a point contains no evolution or division.

so when the singularity "exploded" into an emanation of universal energy, why was that energy radiated in a non perfect way? what were the fundamental flaws in the supposedly perfectly symmetrical "singularity" that resulted in formations that are derived from imperfection?

if the energy from the original universal point was radiated with perfect symmetry, no "matter" would have formed at all.
the energy would have followed an infinite outward spoke routine and never collided with any other energy.

what was the nature of the flaw in the perfection of the super symmetry inside the pre exploded singularity that was to become the big bang, that resulted in the "clash bang jangle" of ejected energies that have since, as a result of the flaw, convoluted themselves via coalescence of probability, into "mass" and other forms of what we perceive as existence?
that is what is to learn for me.

i think "space " is in pre-reality, so it is not bound by finitude.
space is infinite, because there is always somewhere further out than "the end".

i do not confuse space with gravity. gravity can compress "space", but to me it is not compressing space, but it is compressing possibility for location in space.

mass can compress the possibility of objects being in a space near by, but mass does not govern the availability of space in the universe.
nothing does. space is nothing. nothing is infinite.

i believe space (possible locations) is infinite. i believe energy is finite.
energy gets convoluted by gravity into bound systems that get tighter and tighter and become matter.

matter is bound energy, and because energy is not infinite, neither is matter obviously.
if there were any manifestation of reality that was infinite, it would clog and squeeze into the universe entirely, and make the universe into a greater dimensional singularity of infinite density.

i mean a singularity could be the size of the whole (finite) universe if an infinite amount of energy was squeezed into it.

"infinite" is "infinite", and no matter how large a container you try to squeeze it into, it will always be just the same as a singularity. the compression ratio of everything (if things were infinite) compressed into a volume of x would equal infinite compression which is what the "no volume big bang" singularity had.

i have no real idea of why the universe came to be. i can not imagine an inconceivably large (but finite) amount of energy (the "big bang" package) just hanging around benignly forever (the amount of time before the big bang), and then one day (big bang day) losing it's cool and blowing the universe forth.

please i do not want to be roped into philosophy with people.
i just said a tiny bit of what i think.

I am not clear as to what you want to express but I get the impression you understand that the universe exploded into space. It did not. The universe is space. Before the original event there was neither space nor time. The universe is creating both space and time as it expands.

b9
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 14 Aug 2008
Age: 52
Gender: Male
Posts: 12,003
Location: australia

13 Apr 2009, 11:27 am

Sand wrote:

[
I am not clear as to what you want to express but I get the impression you understand that the universe exploded into space. It did not. The universe is space. Before the original event there was neither space nor time. The universe is creating both space and time as it expands.

"space" is "possibility". "possibility" is the potential for position.
i said the singularity was in dimension 0 which means it was in no space.

"space" is emptiness, and emptiness if full of potential positions.

you may think of space as some manifestation, but space is not a manifestation, and therefore is outside the realms of hypothesis.

whatever, i said i do not want to talk about it . (until i am finished thinking about it which will be in some years time).

Sand
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 15 Sep 2007
Age: 98
Gender: Male
Posts: 11,484
Location: Finland

13 Apr 2009, 11:43 am

b9 wrote:

Sand wrote:

I'm getting old fast. You better hurry up.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

20 Apr 2009, 11:52 pm

Sand wrote:

philosopher wrote:

What about what guys cat ok it was a thought experiment and the double slit experiment suggest that things can be in the two places at the same time and the measurement problem shows that things are different when observed evidence perhaps not but it should be considered as a possibility if not probability

The Schrödinger cat problem indicated that it would be impossible to determine whether the cat was alive or dead until the box was opened. I am not familiar with the mathematics but I don't think it implied parallel universes. The double slit experiment indicated that what had been assumed to be a discrete particle was actual possible to see as a wave which can pass through two slits simultaneously.

Schrodinger's Cat, as usually phrased, is closely related to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum theory. The Many Worlds interpretation is very similar to what's called decoherence, which is not an interpretation but a simple fact (a fact which, if I understand correctly, pretty much demolishes much of the Copenhagen interpretation by removing wave function collapse); anyway, the idea is that instead of the cat becoming either alive upon observation, the uncertainty "leaks" out, so instead of me having seen just one and the uncertainty magically disappearing, there's a superposition of me having seen a dead cat with me having seen an alive cat. If I remember correctly, the essence of the MWI (or something like it) has to do with supposing there is some kind of universal wave function in which the many possible worlds exist superposed just as the two copies of me are superposed in the decoherence approach to schrodinger's cat. At least, this is what I am given to understand, and I must admit to not having much experience with quantum mechanics beyond the very very basic stuff.

Anyway, the MWI is considered a mainstream interpretation now, and has the distinct advantage over the Copenhagen Interpretation of *not involving magic*.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Dussel
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Age: 60
Gender: Male
Posts: 1,788
Location: London (UK)

21 Apr 2009, 12:19 am

twoshots wrote:

Sand wrote:

philosopher wrote:

The uncertainty leaks out via the gravitation. Any change in the state of cat would change the gravitation, which can't be insulated.

twoshots
Veteran
Veteran

Joined: 26 Nov 2007
Age: 38
Gender: Male
Posts: 3,731
Location: Boötes void

21 Apr 2009, 12:23 am

Dussel wrote:

twoshots wrote:

Sand wrote:

philosopher wrote:

The uncertainty leaks out via the gravitation. Any change in the state of cat would change the gravitation, which can't be insulated.

Right, the case of the cat is physically implausible, but the point of the original thought experiment was to extend the Copenhagen Interpretation's stance on wave function collapse to a macro scale.

_________________
* here for the nachos.

Page 2 of 3 [ 44 posts ] Go to page Previous 1, 2, 3 Next

Jump to:

An infinite universe Post Reply New Topic

An infinite universe