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?

[Confused]

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.

I think I will have to agree with QED's earlier post. I can only assume, based on this post, that you don't consider Theoretical Physicists to be scientists, but if such is the case, tell me, where do you think Experimental Physicists get most of their theories from to actually test?

Speculations of the megaverse (multiverse) theory has about as much evidence as does Christianity (IMHO). I would even state that it has even greater validity (once again, IMHO). I say this simply because there is the hope that with future technology advancements, the megaverse theory can actually hope to be tested. I think that 1000 years into the future, Christianity still won't be any more testable by man than it is now (of course, God may still decide to take an interest in man by then, rendering this assumption null in one point, but still valid in that man still wouldn't have been the one to test this theory ).

[QED]

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?

Well, I think that there would be few Scientists who would describe unknowns as being mystical in any sense other than them being a mystery -- something as yet unexplained. I don't know what wider significance we can draw from that. But I certainly agree that there are many hypotheses that deserve to be put on the same footing as the "God Hypothesis". A great many indeed.

Now I have a couple questions.

Lets say this universe was once nothing. Absolutely nothing at all as described by the megaverse idea...

Let's be clear about this idea. Being nothing isn't anything special, it is as though we are describing the state of something prior to a particular transformation. That in itself employs something that is to be transformed. But for the sake of the multiverse argument we are only concerned with the appearances following the transformation. Are you happy with that?

[achilles12604]

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?

Well, I think that there would be few Scientists who would describe unknowns as being mystical in any sense other than them being a mystery -- something as yet unexplained. I don't know what wider significance we can draw from that. But I certainly agree that there are many hypotheses that deserve to be put on the same footing as the "God Hypothesis". A great many indeed.

Nice to be assured I'm not reading my own pre-conceptions into my conclusions about these theories.

Now I have a couple questions.

Lets say this universe was once nothing. Absolutely nothing at all as described by the megaverse idea...

Let's be clear about this idea. Being nothing isn't anything special, it is as though we are describing the state of something prior to a particular transformation. That in itself employs something that is to be transformed. But for the sake of the multiverse argument we are only concerned with the appearances following the transformation. Are you happy with that?

I took nothing to be just that - nothing. No materials, energy, or anything else within a certain "area". Of course area means nothing when there is nothing. Our discussions do hurt my head. . .

Since we can not really see or examine "nothing" I am content examining what appeared after the transformation. Lets move on for now.

[Confused]

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?

Well, I think that there would be few Scientists who would describe unknowns as being mystical in any sense other than them being a mystery -- something as yet unexplained. I don't know what wider significance we can draw from that. But I certainly agree that there are many hypotheses that deserve to be put on the same footing as the "God Hypothesis". A great many indeed.

Nice to be assured I'm not reading my own pre-conceptions into my conclusions about these theories.

Now I have a couple questions.

Lets say this universe was once nothing. Absolutely nothing at all as described by the megaverse idea...

Let's be clear about this idea. Being nothing isn't anything special, it is as though we are describing the state of something prior to a particular transformation. That in itself employs something that is to be transformed. But for the sake of the multiverse argument we are only concerned with the appearances following the transformation. Are you happy with that?

I took nothing to be just that - nothing. No materials, energy, or anything else within a certain "area". Of course area means nothing when there is nothing. Our discussions do hurt my head. . .

Since we can not really see or examine "nothing" I am content examining what appeared after the transformation. Lets move on for now.

I have to add something here, you can torture me about it later. Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing? Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing. The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc... It give equal credence to each possiblity. It places no special or unique rights of superiority to one over the other.

[achilles12604]

I have to add something here, you can torture me about it later. Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing? Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing. The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc... It give equal credence to each possiblity. It places no special or unique rights of superiority to one over the other.

Bear with me for a sec because I have to be VERY careful how to word my response so as to avoid misunderstandings.

Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing?

In general, without an outside influence, nothing always stays nothing. This is a standard of science and is mirrored in countless laws and experiments. One that comes readily to mind is Newton's laws of motion.

Now I do not totally assume that something can not come from nothing. I believe what I mean is (and each word is very important to consider), that for something to come from nothing, there must be a cause. Or how I worded it originally was Everything which begins must have a cause.

Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing.

True. However if god existed then there was SOMETHING which affected the nothing. If nothing affected the nothing, then nothing would have happened.

The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc...

Ok. I am simply pointing out that we would need to discover the origins of those first particles. If they were in fact eternal, then they would in essence be "god" as they were the first cause and the author of all life.

No matter how we twist the FC around, ultimately it must have the same characteristics as those attributed to God.

[Confused]

I have to add something here, you can torture me about it later. Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing? Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing. The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc... It give equal credence to each possiblity. It places no special or unique rights of superiority to one over the other.

Bear with me for a sec because I have to be VERY careful how to word my response so as to avoid misunderstandings.

Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing?

In general, without an outside influence, nothing always stays nothing. This is a standard of science and is mirrored in countless laws and experiments. One that comes readily to mind is Newton's laws of motion.

Now I do not totally assume that something can not come from nothing. I believe what I mean is (and each word is very important to consider), that for something to come from nothing, there must be a cause. Or how I worded it originally was Everything which begins must have a cause.

Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing.

True. However if god existed then there was SOMETHING which affected the nothing. If nothing affected the nothing, then nothing would have happened.

The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc...

Ok. I am simply pointing out that we would need to discover the origins of those first particles. If they were in fact eternal, then they would in essence be "god" as they were the first cause and the author of all life.

No matter how we twist the FC around, ultimately it must have the same characteristics as those attributed to God.

But we have a first cause for the universe without defaulting to supernaturalism. The Big Bang comes to mind.

[achilles12604]

I have to add something here, you can torture me about it later. Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing? Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing. The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc... It give equal credence to each possiblity. It places no special or unique rights of superiority to one over the other.

Bear with me for a sec because I have to be VERY careful how to word my response so as to avoid misunderstandings.

Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing?

In general, without an outside influence, nothing always stays nothing. This is a standard of science and is mirrored in countless laws and experiments. One that comes readily to mind is Newton's laws of motion.

Now I do not totally assume that something can not come from nothing. I believe what I mean is (and each word is very important to consider), that for something to come from nothing, there must be a cause. Or how I worded it originally was Everything which begins must have a cause.

Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing.

True. However if god existed then there was SOMETHING which affected the nothing. If nothing affected the nothing, then nothing would have happened.

The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc...

Ok. I am simply pointing out that we would need to discover the origins of those first particles. If they were in fact eternal, then they would in essence be "god" as they were the first cause and the author of all life.

No matter how we twist the FC around, ultimately it must have the same characteristics as those attributed to God.

But we have a first cause for the universe without defaulting to supernaturalism. The Big Bang comes to mind.

Ok so what caused the big bang to occur if in fact this is what happened? The big bang was an effect. What was its cause?

[Confused]

I have to add something here, you can torture me about it later. Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing? Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing. The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc... It give equal credence to each possiblity. It places no special or unique rights of superiority to one over the other.

Bear with me for a sec because I have to be VERY careful how to word my response so as to avoid misunderstandings.

Why do you assume something cannot come from nothing?

In general, without an outside influence, nothing always stays nothing. This is a standard of science and is mirrored in countless laws and experiments. One that comes readily to mind is Newton's laws of motion.

Now I do not totally assume that something can not come from nothing. I believe what I mean is (and each word is very important to consider), that for something to come from nothing, there must be a cause. Or how I worded it originally was Everything which begins must have a cause.

Based on Christianity, God created the universe from nothing.

True. However if god existed then there was SOMETHING which affected the nothing. If nothing affected the nothing, then nothing would have happened.

The megaverse theory assumes nothing less. In fact, it doesn't even assume that much. It doesn't attempt to explain something from nothing. Something was already in existence, regardless of how small the elementary particles were, regardless of what the constants are, etc...

Ok. I am simply pointing out that we would need to discover the origins of those first particles. If they were in fact eternal, then they would in essence be "god" as they were the first cause and the author of all life.

No matter how we twist the FC around, ultimately it must have the same characteristics as those attributed to God.

But we have a first cause for the universe without defaulting to supernaturalism. The Big Bang comes to mind.

Ok so what caused the big bang to occur if in fact this is what happened? The big bang was an effect. What was its cause?

Now you have stepped outside the realms of the megaverse theory.

[Cathar1950]

I think there was never nothing.
God hammered out the cosmos from chaos.
Or as the stories go, God beat the crap out of the sea (or sea beast like Lotan) that ever tries to drowned us.
I say if we are going to believe in myths we should get them right.

[Confused]

I think there was never nothing.
God hammered out the cosmos from chaos.
Or as the stories go, God beat the crap out of the sea (or sea beast like Lotan) that ever tries to drowned us.
I say if we are going to believe in myths we should get them right.

Oh yes, God didn't require a first cause, so He has always been around. We mere humans just cannot find Him. Dang this blindness .