> According to some cosmologists, Krauss?, the duration of inflation is about 10^-35 seconds, which is presumably the duration necessary to create isotropy and homogeneity in a universe of age 13.8 BY. If these assumptions are correct, can we use them to compute the fraction of the universe which is now UN-observable? TIA, AG
> Krauss, for example, says the universe was "a billionth of a billionth the size of a proton" before inflation began.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/8294428a-b5b6-40b0-bc77-baf59f72ced7%40googlegroups.com.
Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this had a duration of 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 10^{48}m^{-2}. If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 10^{32}s^{-2} and we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region expanded by a factor of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise calculation of 60 e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that matches inflation with the observed universe.How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might emerge and have an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be inflated to the CMB scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the result is the furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light years, which would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an imprint or signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know what percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 0 it is an infinitesimal part.LC
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this had a duration of 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 10^{48}m^{-2}. If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 10^{32}s^{-2} and we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region expanded by a factor of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise calculation of 60 e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that matches inflation with the observed universe.How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might emerge and have an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be inflated to the CMB scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the result is the furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light years, which would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an imprint or signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know what percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 0 it is an infinitesimal part.LCFor k=0, a flat universe, we know the answer since, as you've acknowledged, it's infinite in spatial extent. Consequently, since the observable universe is finite in spatial extent, the unobserved universe must be infinite in extent (for a flat universe). Can you estimate the size of the unobservable universe for a positively curved universe? AG
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:19:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this had a duration of 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 10^{48}m^{-2}. If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 10^{32}s^{-2} and we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region expanded by a factor of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise calculation of 60 e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that matches inflation with the observed universe.How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might emerge and have an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be inflated to the CMB scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the result is the furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light years, which would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an imprint or signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know what percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 0 it is an infinitesimal part.LCFor k=0, a flat universe, we know the answer since, as you've acknowledged, it's infinite in spatial extent. Consequently, since the observable universe is finite in spatial extent, the unobserved universe must be infinite in extent (for a flat universe). Can you estimate the size of the unobservable universe for a positively curved universe? AGThe cosmological constant is a Ricci curvature with Λ = R_{tt} for the flat k = 0 case. for k = 1 there is a spatial Ricci curvature R_{rr}. This contributes to the occurrence of the cosmological constant, but it is tiny. So R_{rr} = δR_{tt} for δ a rather small number. The spatial sphere has a radius R = 1/√(R_{rr}} ≈ 1/√(δΛ). This is then for Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2} R ≈ δ^{-1/2} 10^{26}m, or about the distance to the cosmological horizon multiplied by the reciprocal of a small number.The problem is that we really do not what that small number is. For various reasons I think it is δ < 5×10^{-5}This gives a radius where a Planck frequency is redshifted to a CMB scale. If it is smaller then there are regions of the universe completely inaccessible to us even as Planck modes redshifted to the cosmic horizon scale.LC
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:21:50 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:19:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this had a duration of 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 10^{48}m^{-2}. If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 10^{32}s^{-2} and we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region expanded by a factor of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise calculation of 60 e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that matches inflation with the observed universe.How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might emerge and have an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be inflated to the CMB scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the result is the furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light years, which would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an imprint or signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know what percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 0 it is an infinitesimal part.LCFor k=0, a flat universe, we know the answer since, as you've acknowledged, it's infinite in spatial extent. Consequently, since the observable universe is finite in spatial extent, the unobserved universe must be infinite in extent (for a flat universe). Can you estimate the size of the unobservable universe for a positively curved universe? AGThe cosmological constant is a Ricci curvature with Λ = R_{tt} for the flat k = 0 case. for k = 1 there is a spatial Ricci curvature R_{rr}. This contributes to the occurrence of the cosmological constant, but it is tiny. So R_{rr} = δR_{tt} for δ a rather small number. The spatial sphere has a radius R = 1/√(R_{rr}} ≈ 1/√(δΛ). This is then for Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2} R ≈ δ^{-1/2} 10^{26}m, or about the distance to the cosmological horizon multiplied by the reciprocal of a small number.The problem is that we really do not what that small number is. For various reasons I think it is δ < 5×10^{-5}This gives a radius where a Planck frequency is redshifted to a CMB scale. If it is smaller then there are regions of the universe completely inaccessible to us even as Planck modes redshifted to the cosmic horizon scale.LCFWIW, another reason I think our universe has a positive curvature is that if it were flat, with zero curvature, and we made many measurements, we'd get a distribution of measured values above and below zero due to unavoidable measurement errors. But I think we invariably get a small positive number. Is this what we actually get; values always positive but close to zero, but no negative values? TIA,AG
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:28:21 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:21:50 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:19:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this had a duration of 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 10^{48}m^{-2}. If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 10^{32}s^{-2} and we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region expanded by a factor of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise calculation of 60 e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that matches inflation with the observed universe.How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might emerge and have an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be inflated to the CMB scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the result is the furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light years, which would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an imprint or signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know what percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 0 it is an infinitesimal part.LCFor k=0, a flat universe, we know the answer since, as you've acknowledged, it's infinite in spatial extent. Consequently, since the observable universe is finite in spatial extent, the unobserved universe must be infinite in extent (for a flat universe). Can you estimate the size of the unobservable universe for a positively curved universe? AGThe cosmological constant is a Ricci curvature with Λ = R_{tt} for the flat k = 0 case. for k = 1 there is a spatial Ricci curvature R_{rr}. This contributes to the occurrence of the cosmological constant, but it is tiny. So R_{rr} = δR_{tt} for δ a rather small number. The spatial sphere has a radius R = 1/√(R_{rr}} ≈ 1/√(δΛ). This is then for Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2} R ≈ δ^{-1/2} 10^{26}m, or about the distance to the cosmological horizon multiplied by the reciprocal of a small number.The problem is that we really do not what that small number is. For various reasons I think it is δ < 5×10^{-5}This gives a radius where a Planck frequency is redshifted to a CMB scale. If it is smaller then there are regions of the universe completely inaccessible to us even as Planck modes redshifted to the cosmic horizon scale.LCFWIW, another reason I think our universe has a positive curvature is that if it were flat, with zero curvature, and we made many measurements, we'd get a distribution of measured values above and below zero due to unavoidable measurement errors. But I think we invariably get a small positive number. Is this what we actually get; values always positive but close to zero, but no negative values? TIA,AGAs yet attempt to find optical results due to spatial curvature have not found anything. The curvature of spacetime is mostly due to how space is embedded in spacetime.LC
On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 2:58:45 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Wednesday, March 25, 2020 at 1:28:21 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:21:50 PM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:On Tuesday, March 24, 2020 at 6:19:41 PM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Monday, March 23, 2020 at 9:35:48 AM UTC-6, Lawrence Crowell wrote:Inflation was initiate 10^{-35}sec after the quantum fluctuation appearance of the observable cosmos, and this had a duration of 10^{-30}sec. The cosmological constant averaged around Λ = 10^{48}m^{-2}. If I divide by the speed of light squared this comes to 10^{32}s^{-2} and we get √(Λ)T = 10^{2}. This means any spatial region expanded by a factor of 10^{√(Λ)T} which is large. The natural log of this is 230 and this is not too far off from the more precise calculation of 60 e-folds. The 60 e-folds is a phenomenological fit that matches inflation with the observed universe.How much of the universe is unavailable depends upon whether k = -1, 0 or 1. The furthest out some quantum might emerge and have an influence is for a Planck scale quantum to now be inflated to the CMB scale. I know I have gone through this here before, but the result is the furthest we can detect anything is around 1800 billion light years, which would be a graviton or quantum black hole that leaves an imprint or signature on the CMB. It is not possible from theory to know what percentage this is of the entire shebang, and for k = -1 or 0 it is an infinitesimal part.LCFor k=0, a flat universe, we know the answer since, as you've acknowledged, it's infinite in spatial extent. Consequently, since the observable universe is finite in spatial extent, the unobserved universe must be infinite in extent (for a flat universe). Can you estimate the size of the unobservable universe for a positively curved universe? AGThe cosmological constant is a Ricci curvature with Λ = R_{tt} for the flat k = 0 case. for k = 1 there is a spatial Ricci curvature R_{rr}. This contributes to the occurrence of the cosmological constant, but it is tiny. So R_{rr} = δR_{tt} for δ a rather small number. The spatial sphere has a radius R = 1/√(R_{rr}} ≈ 1/√(δΛ). This is then for Λ = 10^{-52}m^{-2} R ≈ δ^{-1/2} 10^{26}m, or about the distance to the cosmological horizon multiplied by the reciprocal of a small number.The problem is that we really do not what that small number is. For various reasons I think it is δ < 5×10^{-5}This gives a radius where a Planck frequency is redshifted to a CMB scale. If it is smaller then there are regions of the universe completely inaccessible to us even as Planck modes redshifted to the cosmic horizon scale.LCFWIW, another reason I think our universe has a positive curvature is that if it were flat, with zero curvature, and we made many measurements, we'd get a distribution of measured values above and below zero due to unavoidable measurement errors. But I think we invariably get a small positive number. Is this what we actually get; values always positive but close to zero, but no negative values? TIA,AGAs yet attempt to find optical results due to spatial curvature have not found anything. The curvature of spacetime is mostly due to how space is embedded in spacetime.LCBut you haven't directly addressed my hypothesis regarding the measurements. AG
> Hyperbolic can be ruled out for the same reason flat can be ruled out. Both are infinite in spatial extent, and since the universe has a finite age and expanding at less than an infinite rate throughout its lifetime (although the rate can be changing in different epochs and possibly faster than light speed in some epochs such as inflation), it cannot be infinite in spatial extent. I've made this argument several times, which is clear and straightforward, but never got anyone to agree. I find that baffling.
> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out, should come into view.
> your hypothesis makes no geometric sense. Mustn't we assume that if our universe is expanding,
> the expansion applies to the UN-observable region?
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 4:33 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out, should come into view.Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.
> your hypothesis makes no geometric sense. Mustn't we assume that if our universe is expanding,We don't need to assume anything, we have plenty of observational evidence that the universe is expanding.
> the expansion applies to the UN-observable region?It applies to all of the universe, it's all expanding and observability has nothing to do with it.
John K Clark
>>> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out, should come into view.>> Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.> Then our interpretation of Hubble's constant is wrong. AG
> it's all expanding and that's why galaxies wink out. If you play the movie backward to the BB, they should all come in view, which contradicts infinite in spatial extent. AG
John K Clark
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/ee0578a7-b768-48b2-ad37-ff60b148e5c1%40googlegroups.com.
On Sun, Apr 12, 2020 at 5:49 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:>>> As the universe expands, galaxies move progressively faster away from us as described by Hubble's constant, which is a geometric effect as previously explained, and eventually wink out. Conversely, if we play the movie backward in time, all those galaxies which previously winked out, should come into view.>> Not if the universe started out as being infinite they don't.> Then our interpretation of Hubble's constant is wrong. AGNope, the Hubble constant has nothing to do with it. And by the way, with the discovery of Dark Energy we now know that the Hubble "constant" is not constant.> it's all expanding and that's why galaxies wink out. If you play the movie backward to the BB, they should all come in view, which contradicts infinite in spatial extent. AGNo! If the universe started out being infinite then if you play the movie backwards everything won't come back into view because everything was NEVER in view. So for all we know the universe could be spatially flat or positively curved or negatively curved.John K Clark
--John K Clark
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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
> You're imagining a "start" of our universe with it being infinite in spatial extent.
> So, in zero time duration, at its "creation", it expanded infinitely
On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 4:37 AM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> You're imagining a "start" of our universe with it being infinite in spatial extent.It's a possibility.> So, in zero time duration, at its "creation", it expanded infinitelyNo, I'm saying at zero time the universe may have already been spatially infinite, there is nothing we know of that would rule out the possibility.
>If it had already been spatially infinite, how long had that situation been the case?
> if it had already been spatially infinite, how long had that situation been the case? AG
> My assumption is that it takes finite time to create anything, finite or infinite.
> if you accept the measured age, it can't be finite or infinite in spatial extent when it began
>>> if you accept the measured age, it can't be finite or infinite in spatial extent when it began>> If something isn't finite or infinite what is the third alternative?
> It doesn't exist;
> that is, your hypothesis that that when the universe began it was already infinite, or possibly finite, is false.
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12ac7c1a-9c59-4529-84e0-85acc76f81f1%40googlegroups.com.
Le mar. 14 avr. 2020 à 16:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 7:54:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 5:28:07 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:11 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:>>> if you accept the measured age, it can't be finite or infinite in spatial extent when it began>> If something isn't finite or infinite what is the third alternative?> It doesn't exist;OK, but then what is "it"?> that is, your hypothesis that that when the universe began it was already infinite, or possibly finite, is false.So I ask again, if the universe isn't finite and it isn't infinite what is your third alternative? And why would creating a finite amount of something from nothing be easier than creating a infinite amount of something from nothing? In my previous post I gave reasons for thinking the infinite case might actually be simpler. And if creation was not involved because a finite universe always existed then why couldn't a infinite universe just as easily always have existed too?John K ClarkThis is getting tedious. If the universe began at some instant (having zero time duration), and assuming physical processes require time, there was insufficient time to create anything, finite or infinite, at that instant. It's like a volcano erupting, and you're claiming that when the eruption began, the cone was existing at that point in time. AGYou want to claim the universe began, presumably at some instant, and also claim it was infinite in extent at that point in time. But if physical processes require time, your claim makes no sense. AGYou want to claim the universe began, presumably at some instant, and also claim it was finite in extent at that point in time. But if physical processes require time, your claim makes no sense
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12ac7c1a-9c59-4529-84e0-85acc76f81f1%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
Le mar. 14 avr. 2020 à 16:20, Quentin Anciaux <allc...@gmail.com> a écrit :Le mar. 14 avr. 2020 à 16:14, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 7:54:19 AM UTC-6, Alan Grayson wrote:
On Tuesday, April 14, 2020 at 5:28:07 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Mon, Apr 13, 2020 at 5:11 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:>>> if you accept the measured age, it can't be finite or infinite in spatial extent when it began>> If something isn't finite or infinite what is the third alternative?> It doesn't exist;OK, but then what is "it"?> that is, your hypothesis that that when the universe began it was already infinite, or possibly finite, is false.So I ask again, if the universe isn't finite and it isn't infinite what is your third alternative? And why would creating a finite amount of something from nothing be easier than creating a infinite amount of something from nothing? In my previous post I gave reasons for thinking the infinite case might actually be simpler. And if creation was not involved because a finite universe always existed then why couldn't a infinite universe just as easily always have existed too?John K ClarkThis is getting tedious. If the universe began at some instant (having zero time duration), and assuming physical processes require time, there was insufficient time to create anything, finite or infinite, at that instant. It's like a volcano erupting, and you're claiming that when the eruption began, the cone was existing at that point in time. AGYou want to claim the universe began, presumably at some instant, and also claim it was infinite in extent at that point in time. But if physical processes require time, your claim makes no sense. AGYou want to claim the universe began, presumably at some instant, and also claim it was finite in extent at that point in time. But if physical processes require time, your claim makes no senseIOW nothing to finite, nothing to infinite... same fight.
--
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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/12ac7c1a-9c59-4529-84e0-85acc76f81f1%40googlegroups.com.
--All those moments will be lost in time, like tears in rain. (Roy Batty/Rutger Hauer)
> If you solve Schroedinger's equation for the wf, you get a solution for all space and time. If it's physical, or shall we say ontological, how can it propagate infinitely?
On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> If you solve Schroedinger's equation for the wf, you get a solution for all space and time. If it's physical, or shall we say ontological, how can it propagate infinitely?If it started out infinite
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:25:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> If you solve Schroedinger's equation for the wf, you get a solution for all space and time. If it's physical, or shall we say ontological, how can it propagate infinitely?If it started out infiniteI don't think you understand the implication of your supposition. It MEANS spatially infinite space came about at some INSTANT!
Your unstated inference is that it took a time duration of ZERO for that to happen. Do you really think any physical processes can occur in a time duration of zero? But let's suppose it happened in finite time, or possibly with an infinite past. If so, the age of the universe could be much larger than 13.8 BLY, depending on how long it took to create that infinite spatial extent. It can't be spontaneously generated in a time duration of zero. However, if it occurred, it would have existed BEFORE the creation INSTANT of OUR universe. If so, it's not really part of OUR universe, but part of the "substratum" from which the BB arose. AGthe universe wouldn't have to propagate at all to be infinite. And finite or infinite it makes no difference, Schrodinger's equation breaks down at Big Bang time zero and so does every other known equation. That situation won't change until somebody finds a quantum theory for gravity.John K Clark
--
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-li...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5324235a-3751-4463-b7fd-4c9d5f29da5d%40googlegroups.com.
Le jeu. 16 avr. 2020 à 03:43, Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> a écrit :
On Wednesday, April 15, 2020 at 7:25:50 AM UTC-6, John Clark wrote:On Tue, Apr 14, 2020 at 4:27 PM Alan Grayson <agrays...@gmail.com> wrote:> If you solve Schroedinger's equation for the wf, you get a solution for all space and time. If it's physical, or shall we say ontological, how can it propagate infinitely?If it started out infiniteI don't think you understand the implication of your supposition. It MEANS spatially infinite space came about at some INSTANT!But going *from nothing* to *anything* is problematic, there is *absolutely* no known *physical process* that creates anything out of pure absolute nothing... so creating "something" or "everything" from nothing is as much non physical and impossible, and so talking about physical process to constrain finite or infinite is dubious at best.
--Your unstated inference is that it took a time duration of ZERO for that to happen. Do you really think any physical processes can occur in a time duration of zero? But let's suppose it happened in finite time, or possibly with an infinite past. If so, the age of the universe could be much larger than 13.8 BLY, depending on how long it took to create that infinite spatial extent. It can't be spontaneously generated in a time duration of zero. However, if it occurred, it would have existed BEFORE the creation INSTANT of OUR universe. If so, it's not really part of OUR universe, but part of the "substratum" from which the BB arose. AGthe universe wouldn't have to propagate at all to be infinite. And finite or infinite it makes no difference, Schrodinger's equation breaks down at Big Bang time zero and so does every other known equation. That situation won't change until somebody finds a quantum theory for gravity.John K Clark
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 everyth...@googlegroups.com.
To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/5324235a-3751-4463-b7fd-4c9d5f29da5d%40googlegroups.com.
>It surely does have a basis in experience. We've never seen any process that can occur in zero time duration! AG