On Monday, September 23, 2024 at 6:46:08 AM UTC-6 Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, September 23, 2024 at 5:35:54 AM UTC-6 John Clark wrote: On Sun, Sep 22, 2024 at 10:32 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote: *>> I love any idea that fits the observational facts, and I don't care if it's spooky or not. * *> What observational facts are you referring to?* *The observational fact that Bell's Inequality is violated. I find that spooky, and as Niels Bohr said "anybody who is not shocked by quantum mechanics does not understand it". * *Yes, we agree. It's truly spooky and tends to support Bohr's claim that measurement causes the properties being measured; they're not pre-existing as Einstein thought. Simply huge and IMO beyond human comprehension. AG * *> I posit that instantaneous expansion to infinity is a type of singularity. * *If the entire universe became infinite at the same instant the transformation from nothingness to somethingness occurred then the universe wouldn't need to expand at all to remain infinite.* *You're positing an instantaneous transition from Nothing to Infinite Something. More plausible IMO, and much simpler, is an eternally infinite universe. AG* * > if the universe is infinite, it never started and the BB never happened. Another way of saying this is that an infinite universe is uncreated or eternal. It never began! * *The universe could be temporally finite but spatially infinite, or spatially finite but temporally infinite, or both could be infinite, or neither could be infinite. Nobody knows, not even you. * *Something cannot become infinite through finite processes, and I see time evolving as space evolves, so your hypothesis seems hugely improbable, that time and space can evolve separately. AG * *> This is where the learned physicist from Case Western got it wrong. * *And where you, Professor Grayson, **got it right? Alan, you need to have a little humility and consider the grim possibility that maybe, just maybe, some people know more about some things than you do.* *Sure; some do and some don't. I was just pointing out that the professor thinks the universe might be infinite, but apparently doesn't realize that that would preclude a theory he likely endorses; namely, a universe beginning at a T=0. Nothing to do with my alleged vanity, but I used a sarcastic term (learned) because so many physicists are, indeed, vain, and their inability to see themselves is limited. AG* *>> Nobody will ever prove that the universe is absolutely flat because there is always some measurement error, but the Planck satellite discovered that the cosmological scale curvature of space is 0.0007 ± 0.0019, and that is consistent with zero, AKA perfect flatness. If the universe is curved but it's too small for the Planck satellite to observe then it would have to be at least 9.3 TRILLION light years in diameter. Please understand that is just the lower bound, the upper bound is an infinite number of light years. * *> It could be that large. Did you pull that number out of a hat?* *No. For the deviation to be unobservable by the Planck satellite, deviation from perfect flatness would have to be smaller than about 0.1%. If R is the radius of the observable universe and Rc is the minimum radius of the entire universe then (R/Rc)^2 < 0.001. Solving this inequality gives us Rc > 32R approximately. Since this is just a back of the envelope estimate and there are many uncertainties I used a factor of 100 to be conservative. Volume is proportional to the cube of that so there must be AT LEAST one million BLYtimes more stuff in the entire universe than what we can see, or will ever be able to see. And there could be infinitely more stuff. * *FYI; Given that the diameter of the observable universe is 92 BLY, or .092 Trillion LY, the lower bound for the unobservable universe is slightly in excess of 100 times larger in diameter, the radius being 50 Trillion LY, so the minimum volume of the unobserved universe is 125,000 times larger than the observable universe. AG* *>> If both the transition between non-existence and existence AND the finite process called "inflation" started at T=0 and stopped at some unknown time later then: * *1) The entire universe is finite if and only if it was finite at T=0 * *2) The entire universe is infinite if and only if it was infinite at T=0 * * > I disagree that T=0 is a beginning time for an infinite universe, which IMO has no beginning.* *I could be wrong but I tend to agree that the universe, the entire universe, probably had no beginning. I say that because I think the Many Worlds theory is probably true, and because I think not just inflation but the particular type of inflation called Eternal Inflation <https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation> is probably true. However it was you, not me who first introduced the term "T=0", and by definition that means time started then. And if you just decree that there couldn't be a T=0 if the universe is spatially infinite then, as I said before, you're assuming what you're trying to prove. * *I didn't claim the universe is infinite. I just asserted that IF is, it had no beginning; that is, it would be UNCREATED. Moreover, IF our bubble is finite, which I tend to believe, since it can be enclosed by a sphere of finite radius, I concluded it can't be flat, since that implies infinite in spatial extent. But I didn't include the unobservable part, which presumably was the professor's objection. But if we believe the unobservable part came into existence during Inflation, it must also be finite. Of course, Inflation didn't directly cause the unobservable part to be unobservable, since that requires expansion faster than c, but I strongly tend to think that it was created in the very early universe, likely during Inflation. In sum, I really don't see why you think I am assuming something I'm trying to prove. AG* John K Clark See what's on my new list at Extropolis <https://groups.google.com/g/extropolis> atp -- 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/b8f41edc-6c09-4894-96d0-b9040c6e9f73n%40googlegroups.com.
