Infinate universes

[achilles12604]

I am totally helpless in this area so I'm looking for some assistance. What supports or debunks this idea? Is there enough to post this thread in science or should I have placed it in the philosophy arena?

Could there be an infinate regression of universes? What of the entropy of the universe and the laws of thermodynamics? Could anything re-organize heat energy into something usefull without losing even more energy in the process?

[achilles12604]

Ok. Go beyond string theory to multiverse theory for landscapes. M theory makes no dimensions per se. It instead focuses on the Landscape.

I am trying to find a site online that can put your questions into laymens terms. Like I said, Brian Greene and Leonard Susskind are 2 authors with excellent laymen terms books out. But they are books.

Sites:

http://pancake.uchicago.edu/~carroll/encyc/


http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/phys.html

http://super.colorado.edu/~michaele/Lambda/why.html

http://dhushara.freehosting.net/book/up ... 1/cos4.htm

Hopefully these can clarify it better. I can't think of any other way to explain it. But the cosmological constant represents the extra gravitational repulsion, a kind of antigravity that would instantly destroy the universe if it was not astonishingly small. It essential counters the effect of graviational attraction.

http://relativity.livingreviews.org/ope ... ode21.html

And once again, it isn't so much the old model string theory.

But keep in mind, we are into theoretical/cosmological/quantum mechanics physics now, not the standard model physics.

Ok I think I am able to wrap my mind around the cosmological constant however the cause for this constant and the resulting physical reprocussions of it are still unclear. Perhaps I can think of it in terms of a gravitational force and its relation to masses.

I also am unclear how it relates to string theory, but I will read further when my eyes are not about to fall out of my skull.

Not string theory. Megaverse or multiverse theory.

Ok now I am getting confused again.

This is from one of your sources which I read today.

Understanding the smallness of the cosmological constant is a primary goal of string theory and other approaches to quantum gravity.

[QED]

Not string theory. Megaverse or multiverse theory.

Ok now I am getting confused again.

This is from one of your sources which I read today.

Understanding the smallness of the cosmological constant is a primary goal of string theory and other approaches to quantum gravity.

I've kind of lost the plot here too. The existence of a Cosmological Constant has pretty well been established through the convergence of three independent measurements (as show by the diagram below)



Source Argelander Institut für Astronomie

The physical consequence is for eternal expansion. I think it's interesting to consider the way this plays out: our universe becomes an ever growing void, possibly even heading exponentially into a Big Rip. In a way it seems rather plausible that big-bangs could be set off when spacetimes become sufficiently dilute.

[achilles12604]

Not string theory. Megaverse or multiverse theory.

Ok now I am getting confused again.

This is from one of your sources which I read today.

Understanding the smallness of the cosmological constant is a primary goal of string theory and other approaches to quantum gravity.

I've kind of lost the plot here too. The existence of a Cosmological Constant has pretty well been established through the convergence of three independent measurements (as show by the diagram below)



Source Argelander Institut für Astronomie

The physical consequence is for eternal expansion. I think it's interesting to consider the way this plays out: our universe becomes an ever growing void, possibly even heading exponentially into a Big Rip. In a way it seems rather plausible that big-bangs could be set off when spacetimes become sufficiently dilute.

Thanks to last night I can say I think I understand the above graph. I also feel it could be plausible for additional big bangs to fill void's left by a severly diluted universe.

The universe as it is is filled with tons of energy and matter. If a big bang occured in the middle of a void of nothing what would the new universe consist of?

Also what would cause the new universe's big bang to occur in the first place since there was nothing there to go boom?

[QED]

Thanks to last night I can say I think I understand the above graph. I also feel it could be plausible for additional big bangs to fill void's left by a severly diluted universe.

The universe as it is is filled with tons of energy and matter. If a big bang occured in the middle of a void of nothing what would the new universe consist of?

Also what would cause the new universe's big bang to occur in the first place since there was nothing there to go boom?

Well, here you'll have to forgive me for quoting Stephen Hawking on page 129 of "A Brief History Of Time"

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

So despite all the rather obvious "stuff" in the universe there is still, in a sense, nothing when everything is taken into account. Paul Davies considers this ultimate example of "creative accounting" on pages 31 and 32 of his book "God and the New Physics."

The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all.

Some might find this a deeply satisfying observation. Others might not, although I guess it could still be seen as the ultimate example of efficiency when it comes to creativity. Either way it's highly suggestive of an infinitely repeatable process that is able to draw down from infinite resources. So rather than our universe being some one-off tour de force of heavy lifting, it could easily be a massively parallel product of an infinitely light touch which would go a very long way to explaining why it has all the particularly unlikely properties that have led to its observation from within.

[achilles12604]

Thanks to last night I can say I think I understand the above graph. I also feel it could be plausible for additional big bangs to fill void's left by a severely diluted universe.

The universe as it is filled with tons of energy and matter. If a big bang occurred in the middle of a void of nothing what would the new universe consist of?

Also what would cause the new universe's big bang to occur in the first place since there was nothing there to go boom?

Well, here you'll have to forgive me for quoting Stephen Hawking on page 129 of "A Brief History Of Time"

There are something like ten million million million million million million million million million million million million million million (1 with eighty [five] zeroes after it) particles in the region of the universe that we can observe. Where did they all come from? The answer is that, in quantum theory, particles can be created out of energy in the form of particle/antiparticle pairs. But that just raises the question of where the energy came from. The answer is that the total energy of the universe is exactly zero. The matter in the universe is made out of positive energy. However, the matter is all attracting itself by gravity. Two pieces of matter that are close to each other have less energy than the same two pieces a long way apart, because you have to expend energy to separate them against the gravitational force that is pulling them together. Thus, in a sense, the gravitational field has negative energy. In the case of a universe that is approximately uniform in space, one can show that this negative gravitational energy exactly cancels the positive energy represented by the matter. So the total energy of the universe is zero.

So despite all the rather obvious "stuff" in the universe there is still, in a sense, nothing when everything is taken into account. Paul Davies considers this ultimate example of "creative accounting" on pages 31 and 32 of his book "God and the New Physics."

The question then arises, did the primeval bang possess energy, or is the entire universe a state of zero energy, with the energy of all the material offset by negative energy of gravitational attraction?

It is possible to settle the issue by a simple calculation. Astronomers can measure the masses of galaxies, their average separation, and their speeds of recession. Putting these numbers into a formula yields a quantity which some physicists have interpreted as the total energy of the universe. The answer does indeed come out to be zero within the observational accuracy. The reason for this distinctive result has long been a source of puzzlement to cosmologists. Some have suggested that there is a deep cosmic principle at work which requires the universe to have exactly zero energy. If that is so the cosmos can follow the path of least resistance, coming into existence without requiring any input of matter or energy at all.

Some might find this a deeply satisfying observation. Others might not, although I guess it could still be seen as the ultimate example of efficiency when it comes to creativity. Either way it's highly suggestive of an infinitely repeatable process that is able to draw down from infinite resources. So rather than our universe being some one-off tour de force of heavy lifting, it could easily be a massively parallel product of an infinitely light touch which would go a very long way to explaining why it has all the particularly unlikely properties that have led to its observation from within.

I have run into this explanation before and found it fascinating. I can even accept it as true. We are all ultimately nothing physical at all. Of course there is a difference between nothing and something and even if the something could ultimately be really nothing, something must have occurred for there to be something rather than our nothing.

That is a hard sentence to read. I'm sorry but I'm not sure how to re-phrase it. Let me know if it doesn't make sense.

I still have questions about this however and I am glad you are here.

Ok I have read up on the conversion of mass and energy a little bit. Here is what I found.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0724a.html
The Question
(Submitted July 24, 1997)

Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?

The Answer
It happens all the time. Particle accelerators convert energy into subatomic particles, for example by colliding electrons and positrons. Some of the kinetic energy in the collision goes into creating new particles.

It's not possible, however, to collect these newly created particles and assemble them into atoms, molecules and bigger (less microscopic) structures that we associate with 'matter' in our daily life. This is partly because in a technical sense, you cannot just create matter out of energy: there are various 'conservation laws' of electric charges, the number of leptons (electron-like particles) etc., which means that you can only create matter / anti-matter pairs out of energy. Anti-matter, however, has the unfortunate tendency to combine with matter and turn itself back into energy. Even though physicists have managed to safely trap a small amount of anti-matter using magnetic fields, this is not easy to do.

Also, Einstein's equation, Energy = Mass x the square of the velocity of light, tells you that it takes a huge amount of energy to create matter in this way. The big accelerator at Fermilab can be a significant drain on the electricity grid in and around the city of Chicago, and it has produced very little matter.

Koji Mukai, with David Palmer, Andy Ptak and Paul Butterworth
for the Ask an Astrophysicist

Ok as said in the source it takes an enormous amount of energy to convert energy into even things as small as sub-atomic particles.

Now I have a couple questions.

Lets say this universe was once nothing. Absolutely nothing at all as described by the megaverse idea. With this in mind, how could the negative and positive energy be separated and kept apart long enough to mass enough positive energy to first begin the process of creating mass and then fuel that conversion?

We would need enough energy for the fuel to become mass and then to put into the system to create something. Not to beat a dead horse, but the principle of entropy comes through in flying colors here. Disorder is much easier to create and maintain than order. Nothingness or the total and complete unification of energy and negative energy would be even easier to create and maintain than disorder.

So question two - Wouldn't the path of least resistance actually have been for nothing to remain nothing rather than to spontaneously separate into positive and negative energy and then to further complicate itself by creating mass out of the positive energy?

[Bart007]

Infinite in what sense? There are many senses in which we might talk of infinite universes. Our own observable universe may be infinite in extent while being finite in age. There is no reason to suppose that our universe is the only one to have big-banged into existence either.

Cosmologists have shown how random quantum fluctuations in a pure vacuum (absolute nothingness) would lead to a false vacuum. Such a curved region of space would need only to contain the rest energy of 20 micrograms of matter (a permissible violation of energy conservation courtesy of the Heisenberg uncertainty principle). From here inflation takes over causing an exponential expansion to what we see today (see Victor J. Stenger, "The Universe: The Ultimate Free Lunch," European Journal of Physics 11 (1990): 236-243.).

Furthermore, the "chaotic inflationary process" described fro us by Andre linde gives rise to the constant production of new universes from within the expansion of each "parent" region. No limits are envisaged to this web of spacetime creation which might be visualized as a foam of different bubble universes fractally tiling an infinite map.

When scientists talk about an infinite universe, they man it in the same sense that the Earth is infinite. No matter what direction you go in, you can still go another step, another mile. They do not mean infinite in size or time.

Quantum effects require time. Time is a function of matter and energy. No matter and energy, no time, no quantum effects.

Speculation on the existence of another universe besides our own is just that. There is not one iota of evidence that another universe ever existed. Assumptions should never be confused with facts, nor mistaken for science.

[QED]

I still have questions about this however and I am glad you are here.

No pressure then I'm compelled to point out that this discussion lies at the very limits of what Bart007 would accept as science. There's no doubt in my mind that we're suffering from a distinct lack of context for understanding our own experiences. Even the simplest notions about what is solid and what is fluid are dependent on our scale. Eukaryotic flagella propel cells through the medium of fluids like we might struggle through a dense crowd at a sporting event. Similarly notions about what is material and what is not suffer from the same sort of physical experiences we associate with them. The atomic nucleus is surrounded by a relatively cavernous empty space that, in the absence of electrical forces, would permit us to pass through solid walls as easily as a dozen people milling about on a football pitch. Add to this the fact that the nucleus itself is a statistical entity that has only a probabilistic existence outside of any actual interaction with other entities and the whole concept of what's big/small/heavy/light etc. becomes very clearly a function of our own particular take on something in which these terms have no real meaning.

Ok I have read up on the conversion of mass and energy a little bit. Here is what I found.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0724a.html
The Question
(Submitted July 24, 1997)

Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?...

Ok as said in the source it takes an enormous amount of energy to convert energy into even things as small as sub-atomic particles.

Lots of energy, tiny particles -- meaningless concepts without the full context of existence if we want to get mystical about it. Unfortunately being mystical is about the best we can do outside of experimental physics.

Now I have a couple questions.

Lets say this universe was once nothing. Absolutely nothing at all as described by the megaverse idea. With this in mind, how could the negative and positive energy be separated and kept apart long enough to mass enough positive energy to first begin the process of creating mass and then fuel that conversion?

We would need enough energy for the fuel to become mass and then to put into the system to create something. Not to beat a dead horse, but the principle of entropy comes through in flying colors here. Disorder is much easier to create and maintain than order. Nothingness or the total and complete unification of energy and negative energy would be even easier to create and maintain than disorder.

So question two - Wouldn't the path of least resistance actually have been for nothing to remain nothing rather than to spontaneously separate into positive and negative energy and then to further complicate itself by creating mass out of the positive energy?

This assumes that quantum laws still pertain outside the domain in which they have been determined, but with sufficient energy in place to form an event horizon, and with this energy unable to dissipate back through the event horizon, the creation of expanding space would represents a condition of maximum entropy due to the gravitational potential energy -- although I would check-up on this as I am battling with a monster headache today

[QED]

When scientists talk about an infinite universe, they man it in the same sense that the Earth is infinite. No matter what direction you go in, you can still go another step, another mile. They do not mean infinite in size or time.

Granted here are many models which refer to things being "finite but unbounded" but there are also many expressions of actual infinities. What you are suggesting is that all scientists refer exclusively to the former and that simply isn't the case. One has to wonder why such an exclusive supposition should be imposed when it isn't at all warranted?

Quantum effects require time. Time is a function of matter and energy. No matter and energy, no time, no quantum effects.

I'm not clear on what your point is here. There are actually two Schrodinger equations: one is time-dependent and the other time-independent.

Speculation on the existence of another universe besides our own is just that. There is not one iota of evidence that another universe ever existed.

I think that's a very difficult position to defend. Take the big-bang for example: it looks like a process with a beginning and whatever your tastes, it's a process that has been launched from some prior circumstances -- be they a gesture of a mindful creator or an event in a different kind of state-space. Paradoxically, there might be a far stronger case for this being the only universe if Hubble had not found that Galaxies were receding in all directions. A static, infinite universe of the variety envisaged by Einstein would not hint so directly towards local causes. If theology gets a boost from a scientifically observed event that looks like "an act of creation" then it must also bear the responsibility of distinguishing it from the myriad of other potential prior conditions.

I would suggest that an uncaused, eternal, multiverse is practically indistinguishable from an uncaused, eternal creator God. The Standard Cosmological model (inflation) actually predicts localised regions of curved spacetime that any observer within them might well term them to be their "universe". Being a part of the standard model affords this particular interpretation a considerable boost as it is fully consistent with the most up-to-date data coming from CBR and other Astronomical observations.

Purely in terms of a working hypothesis it has many other advantages over the competing concept of a willful creator-God in that everything from Einstein's relativity to the observation of a light-speed induced horizon points to a parochial nature for our own context.

Assumptions should never be confused with facts, nor mistaken for science.

Sure, which is why we transform our assumptions into facts by forcing them to endure the rigors of the scientific method. Not all assumptions are vulnerable in this way and cannot therefore be accepted as a reliable foundation for our explanations. But even if the multiverse theory could not in principle be subject to falsification (which is not the case) it would still stand on-par with all other unfalsifiable contenders and, in the absence of a satisfactory explanation for our providence by empirical methods, retain a clear theoretical advantage through its compatibility with the both standard models of Physics and Cosmology.

I personally find that, as a principle, the substitution of a sufficiently large probabilistic state-space for an inexplicable intelligence is sufficient to warrant the prediction of some kind of multiverse on Anthropic grounds alone. This same reasoning led Hoyle to accurately predict the resonance of carbon-12 at around 7.7MeV and I see no difference here.

[Confused]

Not string theory. Megaverse or multiverse theory.

Ok now I am getting confused again.

This is from one of your sources which I read today.

Understanding the smallness of the cosmological constant is a primary goal of string theory and other approaches to quantum gravity.

I've kind of lost the plot here too. The existence of a Cosmological Constant has pretty well been established through the convergence of three independent measurements (as show by the diagram below)



Source Argelander Institut für Astronomie

The physical consequence is for eternal expansion. I think it's interesting to consider the way this plays out: our universe becomes an ever growing void, possibly even heading exponentially into a Big Rip. In a way it seems rather plausible that big-bangs could be set off when spacetimes become sufficiently dilute.

I don't dispute your graph, here is my question. If the constant was zero, as was orignially assumed, could we hypothesize the megaverse theory. Do we not need it to be slightly off from zero (not by much least we implode) in order to lead to the megaverse theory.

[achilles12604]

Ok I have read up on the conversion of mass and energy a little bit. Here is what I found.

http://imagine.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/ask_a ... 0724a.html
The Question
(Submitted July 24, 1997)

Why is it impossible, at this point in time, to convert energy into matter?...

Ok as said in the source it takes an enormous amount of energy to convert energy into even things as small as sub-atomic particles.

Lots of energy, tiny particles -- meaningless concepts without the full context of existence if we want to get mystical about it. Unfortunately being mystical is about the best we can do outside of experimental physics.

Ok honest question, no strings attached. . .

If the level of physics we are discussing falls into the mystical realm, doesn't this put them on similar footing to a "god" hypothesis?

Now I have a couple questions.

Lets say this universe was once nothing. Absolutely nothing at all as described by the megaverse idea. With this in mind, how could the negative and positive energy be separated and kept apart long enough to mass enough positive energy to first begin the process of creating mass and then fuel that conversion?

We would need enough energy for the fuel to become mass and then to put into the system to create something. Not to beat a dead horse, but the principle of entropy comes through in flying colors here. Disorder is much easier to create and maintain than order. Nothingness or the total and complete unification of energy and negative energy would be even easier to create and maintain than disorder.

So question two - Wouldn't the path of least resistance actually have been for nothing to remain nothing rather than to spontaneously separate into positive and negative energy and then to further complicate itself by creating mass out of the positive energy?

This assumes that quantum laws still pertain outside the domain in which they have been determined, but with sufficient energy in place to form an event horizon, and with this energy unable to dissipate back through the event horizon, the creation of expanding space would represents a condition of maximum entropy due to the gravitational potential energy -- although I would check-up on this as I am battling with a monster headache today

This assumes that quantum laws still pertain outside the domain in which they have been determined,

As I have pointed out, the FC for the universe ultimately must not be subject to the laws of this universe, specifically the LCE.

but with sufficient energy in place to form an event horizon, and with this energy unable to dissipate back through the event horizon

I am unsure about this part of the explaination. Event horizons (like those formed around black holes) are the result of tremendous gravitational pulls, not a compilation of energy. Gravity is an anomoly linked solely to mass, so now we have the problem of the chicken or the egg.

http://www.astronomical.org/astbook/blkhole.html

Which came first, the energy (formed already into extreamly dense mass) or the egg, (the event horizon).

The event horizon couldn't have come before the energy was already formed into complex masses (much less split into energy from nothing). But you say that the event horizon was instrumental in energy formation.

I guess I'm still totally lost. If the universe is in fact nothing because the positive energy is cancelled by the negative potential energy of gravity, what originally happened to seperate nothing into these two factors?

Another pressing question is why did only X amount of energy seperate? Space is filled with "nothing". What caused the FC to stop seperating nothing into energy and "gravity"? Why isn't the universe one gigantic ball of mass with unlimited and continually re-creating energy?

the creation of expanding space would represents a condition of maximum entropy due to the gravitational potential energy

I'm still fuzzy on how the event horizon "pushed out" or spread space when the event horizon is actually an area where nothing including light can escape.