http://www.physorg.com/news65200818.html
Science then supports the notion that the multiverse is ,thus ,eternal.It is One Big Bounce after another.This is revolutionary. I would like to learn more about the Bounce .
Irrespective of the integrity of input from GR, SR, QM, QCD, LQC and other domains of modelling, I find the hypothesis presented in this particular article to be consummate in its artifice of theoretical abstraction. The proposed model of mutually inflating / deflating "universes" posits an attributionally-parametrically interconnected binary domain. In the first place the plural term "universes" is a classical misnomer and conceptual trap into which even many scientists fall: "Universum," the Greek semantic root, conveys "The Single All" - its translation literally being "the all turned into one" from uni = single, and vertere = to turn, blend, mix. More correct would be to speak about universal, or cosmic subdomains, which may be mutually isolated in certain force and field-actions but not in others, or for that matter "subverses" as sub-continua of the SINGLE UNIVERSE. The term "multiverse" maintains the plural ambiguity and is conceptually misleading.
Secondly, if this model bases itself upon the theoretical inspiration of binary subdomains maintaining a sort of mutuality in trans-temporal continuity, then why not a trinary, quaternary or n-ary model - a chain of cosmic subdomain bubbles where the "last" one reinflates the "first" like a string of sausages? If one wants to artifice such a revolutionary cosmogonic model, then please let's not forget the fundamental and very pragmatic concept of the unitariness of the cosmic whole, the ultimate, integrated universe, including its sub-continua, however attributionally these may be mutually inter-influential or inter-isolated. It seems clear that the researchers concerned here have perhaps already missed that point of heuristic origin.
FV
Secondly, if this model bases itself upon the theoretical inspiration of binary subdomains maintaining a sort of mutuality in trans-temporal continuity, then why not a trinary, quaternary or n-ary model - a chain of cosmic subdomain bubbles where the "last" one reinflates the "first" like a string of sausages? If one wants to artifice such a revolutionary cosmogonic model, then please let's not forget the fundamental and very pragmatic concept of the unitariness of the cosmic whole, the ultimate, integrated universe, including its sub-continua, however attributionally these may be mutually inter-influential or inter-isolated. It seems clear that the researchers concerned here have perhaps already missed that point of heuristic origin.
FV
Tachyon,
your just making semantic points not adding anything of value to the conversation.
your just making semantic points not adding anything of value to the conversation.
Tachyon, there's no need to hide your ideas behind convoluted phrasing and vocabulary. None of your points were particularly technical; all of them could have been made just as precisely using plain English. And then when one goes to the trouble of untangling your linguistic mess, one is left with uninteresting semantic nitpicking. (You don't work for the Dr. Bronner soap company, do you...? ;-)
And it's clear from the article that the researchers have not forgotten the "unitariness of the cosmic whole" -- I mean, the quantum bridge unifies the two branches, connecting them not just physically but also causally, by way of fully determinate equations. That was the whole point of the article.
And it's clear from the article that the researchers have not forgotten the "unitariness of the cosmic whole" -- I mean, the quantum bridge unifies the two branches, connecting them not just physically but also causally, by way of fully determinate equations. That was the whole point of the article.
But what about these theories of bounces and expansions in peluccid lanquge?[clear]Do they not show eternity of matter/energy?
The un-named reporter falsely states:
"Ashtekar and his colleagues use Einstein’s quantum equations from Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), an approach to the unification of general relativity and quantum physics. LQG does not presuppose the existence of a space-time continuum."
Ashtekar does not claim to "use Einstein's quantum equations from loop quantum gravity", because loop quantum gravity did not exist in Einstein's time. Ashtekar was the first to propose loop quantum gravity in 1986.
The reporter goes on to state: "LQG does not presuppose the existence of a space-time continuum."
Obviously Einstein DID "presuppose the existence of a space-time continuum.", since Einstein characterized gravity as curvature of spacetime.
It's important to keep the 'original Einstein' separate when trying to understand modern physics. Einstein's unparalleled track record is largely due to assumptions he DIDN'T make. Each theory makes different assumptions, which is the best way to keep them straight. One theory works and another doesn't BECAUSE they make different assumptions. Einstein's genius wasn't plowing through math -- Einstein's genius was in sttategically choosing which assumptions he was or wasn't willing to make. Einstein didn't just make an assumption because everybody else was making it -- Einstein wouldn't even accept that space and time were absolute, wouldn't even accept that matter was different from energy. Einstein's way of thinking was VERY different from 'horse race consensus reporting' of which theory seems to be 'in the lead' based on how many people like it.
The 'holy grail' of quantum gravity rests on two pillars -- quantum mechanics and relativity -- BOTH of which were considered totally insane when they first came out, because they were outside the theoretical frameworks of the day, and went directly to the experimental evidence. If the speed of light couldn't be constant in Newtonian physics, then Newtonian physics was wrong, period. If the electromagnetic theory of light didn't explain light with discrete energies, then electromagnetic theory was incomplete -- period. Einstein didn't argue about why it was so -- he ran the experiment published on the photoelectric effect, and got a Nobel prize for something that simple -- and strategic. Einstein published his first relativity paper without any citations -- not bothering to show consistency with 'accepted' thinking. When asked if the scientific community would accept it that way, Einstein replied "they'll have no choice but to accept it." Einstein had that confidence because he'd chosen his assumptions strategically and tied them to experiment. Mathematics can describe an infinity of possible universes, but Einstein tied his to THIS universe, through experiment and through AWARENESS of hard data in many fields. Einstein didn't JUST look at what electrons do -- he looked at what the expanding universe does, and what heat does. It's hard for us to imagine today that when Einstein began his work, there wasn't even proof that atoms existed. Einstein helped prove atoms existed, by noticing oddities in the way heat flowed. Einstein wondered about other simple questions, such as why a stove pipe radiates 16 times more heat when you double the absolute temperature. That led to key insights about the quantum mechanics of electrons trapped in a solid. Einstein wondered why an astronomer's photographic plate can eventually form an image of even the faintest star, if exposed long enough. Why wouldn't the faint energy of the starlight be too weak to affect a single silver halide molecule. That put Einstein on the track that light had to be quantized, so no matter how weak the light was, it arrived in discrete packets sufficient to affect a molecule.
These are all the kinds of questions that a student might ask and forget about. Einstein was greatly annoyed when he found out that the constancy of the speed of light had already been experimentally proven in 1886, while he was still a boy. Nobody had bothered to translate the Michelson-Morley experiment into German, because it didn't fit with accepted theory -- in fact many key experiments hadn't been translated, because they didn't fit accepted theory. This is documented in Ronald Clarke's book _Winstein, the Life and Times_.
Einstein didn't discover what he did because he was the world's greatest mathematician. When he realized that space and time couldn't be absolute, Einstein got a friend to help him learn the math he'd need. Einstein didn't just get enamored with a certain kind of math, and try to 'explain' the universe in terms of it. Einstein was a much more strategic thinker.
Science reporters need to understand that, need to understand that a theory isn't good just because it's "based on Einstein". Quantum mechanics comes from a very different place Einstein wasn't comfortable with. Einstein accepted quantum mechanics, as he accepted everything else that didn't fit. Einstein even made critical discoveries in quantum mechanics. Yet quantum mechanics makes very different kinds of assumptions about the universe than relativity does. Einstein's methodology -- HOW he discovered -- is more important than WHAT he discovered. His track record rests on HOW he approached a problem. If Einstein were alive today, he'd categorize theories by which assumptions they make, and he'd go looking for experimental tests 'too simple' for others to bother with == perhaps experiments already done and forgotten.
Einstein made one other key observation -- he said that if one understands a subject, one can explain the gist of it in plain language. That's what we're not hearing in science reporting for the public. Many researchers can and do explain their results in plain English, but sloppy science reporters don't bother to ask them, instead making vague noises about theories "based on Einstein's equations" that he didn't even write. If someone makes an assumption fundamentally different from Einstein -- and gets interesting results from it -- the departure is news -- much meatier news than making vaguely Einstinean noises laced with paid ads for "quantum consciousness". Einstein challenged science to do better -- he gave good interview, he showed the power of NOT just following the derivations -- but of asking what FUNDAMENTALLY is going on. That's where readers' curiosity lies, and readers want substance -- at least the readers who come here hoping for substance.
"You can't solve a problem using the same kind of thinking that created it", Einstein wrote. If ever a rule could be applied recursively, that one can -- and has. Some of Einstein's poorer students said they learned a lot from him -- because it wasn't just math he was teaching. Einstein's approach was the anthisthesis of plodding -- he not only grabbed the bull by the horns, he couldn't conceive of any other way of doing it -- probably because there isn't any.
"Ashtekar and his colleagues use Einstein’s quantum equations from Loop Quantum Gravity (LQG), an approach to the unification of general relativity and quantum physics. LQG does not presuppose the existence of a space-time continuum."
Ashtekar does not claim to "use Einstein's quantum equations from loop quantum gravity", because loop quantum gravity did not exist in Einstein's time. Ashtekar was the first to propose loop quantum gravity in 1986.
The reporter goes on to state: "LQG does not presuppose the existence of a space-time continuum."
Obviously Einstein DID "presuppose the existence of a space-time continuum.", since Einstein characterized gravity as curvature of spacetime.
It's important to keep the 'original Einstein' separate when trying to understand modern physics. Einstein's unparalleled track record is largely due to assumptions he DIDN'T make. Each theory makes different assumptions, which is the best way to keep them straight. One theory works and another doesn't BECAUSE they make different assumptions. Einstein's genius wasn't plowing through math -- Einstein's genius was in sttategically choosing which assumptions he was or wasn't willing to make. Einstein didn't just make an assumption because everybody else was making it -- Einstein wouldn't even accept that space and time were absolute, wouldn't even accept that matter was different from energy. Einstein's way of thinking was VERY different from 'horse race consensus reporting' of which theory seems to be 'in the lead' based on how many people like it.
The 'holy grail' of quantum gravity rests on two pillars -- quantum mechanics and relativity -- BOTH of which were considered totally insane when they first came out, because they were outside the theoretical frameworks of the day, and went directly to the experimental evidence. If the speed of light couldn't be constant in Newtonian physics, then Newtonian physics was wrong, period. If the electromagnetic theory of light didn't explain light with discrete energies, then electromagnetic theory was incomplete -- period. Einstein didn't argue about why it was so -- he ran the experiment published on the photoelectric effect, and got a Nobel prize for something that simple -- and strategic. Einstein published his first relativity paper without any citations -- not bothering to show consistency with 'accepted' thinking. When asked if the scientific community would accept it that way, Einstein replied "they'll have no choice but to accept it." Einstein had that confidence because he'd chosen his assumptions strategically and tied them to experiment. Mathematics can describe an infinity of possible universes, but Einstein tied his to THIS universe, through experiment and through AWARENESS of hard data in many fields. Einstein didn't JUST look at what electrons do -- he looked at what the expanding universe does, and what heat does. It's hard for us to imagine today that when Einstein began his work, there wasn't even proof that atoms existed. Einstein helped prove atoms existed, by noticing oddities in the way heat flowed. Einstein wondered about other simple questions, such as why a stove pipe radiates 16 times more heat when you double the absolute temperature. That led to key insights about the quantum mechanics of electrons trapped in a solid. Einstein wondered why an astronomer's photographic plate can eventually form an image of even the faintest star, if exposed long enough. Why wouldn't the faint energy of the starlight be too weak to affect a single silver halide molecule. That put Einstein on the track that light had to be quantized, so no matter how weak the light was, it arrived in discrete packets sufficient to affect a molecule.
These are all the kinds of questions that a student might ask and forget about. Einstein was greatly annoyed when he found out that the constancy of the speed of light had already been experimentally proven in 1886, while he was still a boy. Nobody had bothered to translate the Michelson-Morley experiment into German, because it didn't fit with accepted theory -- in fact many key experiments hadn't been translated, because they didn't fit accepted theory. This is documented in Ronald Clarke's book _Winstein, the Life and Times_.
Einstein didn't discover what he did because he was the world's greatest mathematician. When he realized that space and time couldn't be absolute, Einstein got a friend to help him learn the math he'd need. Einstein didn't just get enamored with a certain kind of math, and try to 'explain' the universe in terms of it. Einstein was a much more strategic thinker.
Science reporters need to understand that, need to understand that a theory isn't good just because it's "based on Einstein". Quantum mechanics comes from a very different place Einstein wasn't comfortable with. Einstein accepted quantum mechanics, as he accepted everything else that didn't fit. Einstein even made critical discoveries in quantum mechanics. Yet quantum mechanics makes very different kinds of assumptions about the universe than relativity does. Einstein's methodology -- HOW he discovered -- is more important than WHAT he discovered. His track record rests on HOW he approached a problem. If Einstein were alive today, he'd categorize theories by which assumptions they make, and he'd go looking for experimental tests 'too simple' for others to bother with == perhaps experiments already done and forgotten.
Einstein made one other key observation -- he said that if one understands a subject, one can explain the gist of it in plain language. That's what we're not hearing in science reporting for the public. Many researchers can and do explain their results in plain English, but sloppy science reporters don't bother to ask them, instead making vague noises about theories "based on Einstein's equations" that he didn't even write. If someone makes an assumption fundamentally different from Einstein -- and gets interesting results from it -- the departure is news -- much meatier news than making vaguely Einstinean noises laced with paid ads for "quantum consciousness". Einstein challenged science to do better -- he gave good interview, he showed the power of NOT just following the derivations -- but of asking what FUNDAMENTALLY is going on. That's where readers' curiosity lies, and readers want substance -- at least the readers who come here hoping for substance.
"You can't solve a problem using the same kind of thinking that created it", Einstein wrote. If ever a rule could be applied recursively, that one can -- and has. Some of Einstein's poorer students said they learned a lot from him -- because it wasn't just math he was teaching. Einstein's approach was the anthisthesis of plodding -- he not only grabbed the bull by the horns, he couldn't conceive of any other way of doing it -- probably because there isn't any.
Any bounce needs a crunch in the future. But they measure space expansion to be accelerating at an increasing rate. That looks like no bounce ahead or an infinite future for this one universe instead. If there is no crunch ahead how could there be a crunch of a prior universe?
There can't be. We are stuck with this one universe that has a beginning. All the meaning of a multiverse doesn't really belong outside this universe but resides in each one of us.
There can't be. We are stuck with this one universe that has a beginning. All the meaning of a multiverse doesn't really belong outside this universe but resides in each one of us.
What are the odds?
one out of infinity!
one out of infinity!
Perhaps rather than a bouncing universe, simply a mirror universe. Much in the way matter has a mirror in anti-matter, a universe perhaps composed of anti-matter that began at the same point of our universe, but expanded differently.
Theory stipulates that the same amount of anti-matter as matter should've been made at the start of the universe. Where did it all go? an anti-matter universe could explain it.
Hello i think your all wrong 
Thanks Griggs for posting this article. I wanted to comment earlier but couldn't find this thread later.
Sizes of dimensions are measured relative to each other. Whether or not an object is a foot in diameter doesn't matter except in comparison to other objects.
If you shrink spacial dimensions, then alternate angular components become more pronounced in their influence. (If the universe is a closed system then even linear motion could be equated to an angle - it's cyclic, a phase change relative to the circumference of the universe).
So if dimensional sizes are determined relative to each other, a change that shrinks one can make others appear larger. If you spread a lot of small bar magnets throughout space, their magnetic components have little interaction, so simply stating the spacial location of them and ignoring smaller scale properties would be a close approximation to what we'd observer, but if space was compressed so that the magnetic forces interacted in a more significant fashion then the effects of angular positions and velocities would become more pronounced than spacial positions and velocities.
An idea would be to equate all physical properties with observable angular components, then place them on the surface if a multidimensional sphere with a radius of 1. The maximum distance a property can travel is 2 pi units until it repeats. Anything that appeared linear would need to be broken down into multiple cyclic units though. For example, voltage isn't an angular value but discrete charges are, with negative and positive charges 180 deg out of phase. A neutral charge would either have an imaginary component or possibly a pair of them.
Sizes of dimensions are measured relative to each other. Whether or not an object is a foot in diameter doesn't matter except in comparison to other objects.
If you shrink spacial dimensions, then alternate angular components become more pronounced in their influence. (If the universe is a closed system then even linear motion could be equated to an angle - it's cyclic, a phase change relative to the circumference of the universe).
So if dimensional sizes are determined relative to each other, a change that shrinks one can make others appear larger. If you spread a lot of small bar magnets throughout space, their magnetic components have little interaction, so simply stating the spacial location of them and ignoring smaller scale properties would be a close approximation to what we'd observer, but if space was compressed so that the magnetic forces interacted in a more significant fashion then the effects of angular positions and velocities would become more pronounced than spacial positions and velocities.
An idea would be to equate all physical properties with observable angular components, then place them on the surface if a multidimensional sphere with a radius of 1. The maximum distance a property can travel is 2 pi units until it repeats. Anything that appeared linear would need to be broken down into multiple cyclic units though. For example, voltage isn't an angular value but discrete charges are, with negative and positive charges 180 deg out of phase. A neutral charge would either have an imaginary component or possibly a pair of them.
First of all, nice to see you joined the crusade carbonlife 
Secondly if there was a 'mirror universe' bouncing somewhere wouldn't that lead to all kind of implications. A proof of the actuality of the 'many worlds' theories f ex? Now what could constitute a experiment proving that. Could this be it?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html
"Einstein ridiculed the idea as "spooky action at a distance." Quantum mechanics must be wrong, the father of relativity contended, because that behavior requires some kind of "signal" passing between the two particles at a speed faster than light.
This is where going backward in time comes in. If the entanglement happens (and the experimental evidence, at this point, says it does), Cramer contends it implies retrocausality. Instead of cause and effect, the effect comes before the cause. The simplest, least paradoxical explanation for that, he says, is that some kind of signal or communication occurs between the two photons in reverse time. "
Let's presume that he's right, time is reversible. That spooky action at a distance is just time 'going backwards'. To my view that should lead to a 'many world's' scenario where everything splits as soon as you 'moves backward' in time. And if that would be true, then maybe while time 'goes forward' too? That kind of universe(s) would at least guarantee the concept of free will, as every action you would take would cause a reaction. (a split). And it would be on all levels, microscopically to macroscopic. And those generated universes would choose their own actions etc etc in infinitum.
On the other hand i think it would make the search for 'the holy grail' of unification meaningless.
Secondly if there was a 'mirror universe' bouncing somewhere wouldn't that lead to all kind of implications. A proof of the actuality of the 'many worlds' theories f ex? Now what could constitute a experiment proving that. Could this be it?
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/local/292378_timeguy15.html
"Einstein ridiculed the idea as "spooky action at a distance." Quantum mechanics must be wrong, the father of relativity contended, because that behavior requires some kind of "signal" passing between the two particles at a speed faster than light.
This is where going backward in time comes in. If the entanglement happens (and the experimental evidence, at this point, says it does), Cramer contends it implies retrocausality. Instead of cause and effect, the effect comes before the cause. The simplest, least paradoxical explanation for that, he says, is that some kind of signal or communication occurs between the two photons in reverse time. "
Let's presume that he's right, time is reversible. That spooky action at a distance is just time 'going backwards'. To my view that should lead to a 'many world's' scenario where everything splits as soon as you 'moves backward' in time. And if that would be true, then maybe while time 'goes forward' too? That kind of universe(s) would at least guarantee the concept of free will, as every action you would take would cause a reaction. (a split). And it would be on all levels, microscopically to macroscopic. And those generated universes would choose their own actions etc etc in infinitum.
On the other hand i think it would make the search for 'the holy grail' of unification meaningless.
Ahoy,
It's all a bunch of bouncing wavicles all integrated into a mean bounce fest'.
It's all a bunch of bouncing wavicles all integrated into a mean bounce fest'.
Sounds cool ;)