Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 181 guests, and 2 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 2 1 2
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
This is partly because of Bill S.' post on time in the multiverse, and mostly because I saw these posts from Ethan Siegel.
Why we think there’s a Multiverse, not just our Universe
Are Parallel Universes Real?

Ethan touches on a number of factors in the quest for the multiverse. Basically he takes an approach which ignores the many world hypothesis proposed by some scientists. He looks at the inflationary theory that produced the big bang for our universe. He says that what the universe looks like depends to a large extent how the inflation happened. He discusses how inflation works, and some variations that could have happened. And he points out that many of the different scenarios could have happened through time in different parts of the total universe. Let's, for this discussion call the totality of all that is or may be, a megaverse. That would mean that there could be many different universes in the megaverse that contains our local universe. Our universe then is one small part of the megaverse and there may be many (an infinite number?) of other universes. The primary difference between the different universes would depend on the exact scenario under which their inflationary periods occurred.

Ethan also includes some discussion of the possibility of infinity, so that should excite Bill S.

You better go ahead and read the links. They are a lot clearer than I am.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
It's funny that is essentially a repeat of the same discussion I was having with Bill S on the other thread. If you apply quantum theory you get a multiverse with locked times it is a prediction. You can't have a bit each way on the side and say I accept QM but I don't think the universes are locked they contain states and the states implies locked time under QM.

It is interesting he doesn't discuss anything about the other universes he tries to dodge the bullet so to speak.

I would also add that he does not discuss the big problem with the false vacuum state interpretation he has favoured. Quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state would have already occured leading to quantum suicide because any event that changes the number of observers in the universe will have fatal consequences on the universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_suicide_and_immortality

Last edited by Orac; 01/13/14 04:47 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I should add Brian Greene defines 9 types of possible universes

1.) Quilted
The quilted multiverse works only in an infinite universe. With an infinite amount of space, every possible event will occur an infinite number of times. However, the speed of light prevents us from being aware of these other identical areas.

2.) Inflationary
The inflationary multiverse is composed of various pockets where inflation fields collapse and form new universes.

3.)Brane
The brane multiverse follows from M-theory and states that each universe is a 3-dimensional brane that exists with many others. Particles are bound to their respective branes except for gravity.

4.) Cyclic
The cyclic multiverse has multiple branes (each a universe) that collided, causing Big Bangs. The universes bounce back and pass through time, until they are pulled back together and again collide, destroying the old contents and creating them anew.

5.) Landscape
The landscape multiverse relies on string theory's Calabi–Yau shapes. Quantum fluctuations drop the shapes to a lower energy level, creating a pocket with a different set of laws from the surrounding space. Laura Mersini-Houghton has developed this theory and made five predictions in 2006, four of which have since been observed: the CMB cold spot (2007, 2013); preferred direction associated with the quadrupole, octupole alignment (2013); CMB power suppression at low multipoles (2013); dark flow (2009); and, the deviation of the CMB amplitude (2010). [14] Her theory of the origins of the universe from the landscape multiverse is not phenomenological. The theory and its predictions are derived from fundamental physics and first principles by using quantum cosmology for the wavefunction of the universe on the landscape and calculating decoherence and quantum entanglement among various surviving branches. [15]

6.) Quantum
The quantum multiverse creates a new universe when a diversion in events occurs, as in the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.

7.) Holographic
The holographic multiverse is derived from the theory that the surface area of a space can simulate the volume of the region.

8.) Simulated
The simulated multiverse exists on complex computer systems that simulate entire universes.

9.) Ultimate
The ultimate multiverse contains every mathematically possible universe under different laws of physics.


If Bill S wants to hitch his wagon to anything outside number 6 he can have his unrelated times in his multiverse. Under all the other 8 suggestions QM is wrong and so unrelated multiverse times are fine. I think he is a quilted man smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/13/14 04:34 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: E.S.
So this basic concept, while it likely isn’t the entire story, is just simple quantum physics applied to our best working model of the Early Universe. And what we get out of it is a Universe that, in most regions of it, isn’t filled with matter-and-radiation at all, but that will continue to inflate for all eternity: our Multiverse.


Those who are familiar with my objections to finite things becoming infinite may expect me to do some hand waving here. Sorry to disappoint you; I have no problem with this.

However, so as not to disappoint completely, I must add that if this model is accurate, and I see no reason to doubt it, our Big Bang was not the beginning. If the multiverse is eternal, it has always been eternal. There was no beginning, and there will be no end.

The point of divergence between a standard interpretation of this, and my concept is that I find it very difficult to accept this apparent linear progression in eternity. Eternity is as it is, and is as unchanging as Barbour’s “Platonia”. The progression we perceive is a product of the 3+1 dimensions in which we live.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
It took inflation (let’s pick a concrete number) about 10^-35 seconds to create the spacetime that contains our observable Universe today, which has existed for about 4 × 10^17 seconds since. Now, inflation most likely happened for some time prior to that as well, but to create 10^(10^90)! regions like our own, it would have needed to go on for roughly 10^(10^90)! seconds before that.
That is a tremendous assumption! And for every additional second that the Universe exists, you can pretty much tack on another few powers of ten to the amount of time inflation would have had to have occurred. Inflation might have occurred for an arbitrarily long amount of time, but unless that number was truly infinite, the Universe will catch up to it quickly.

This is a potential problem only if you consider eternity to be an endless “period” of time. If eternity and time are two completely different things, there is no problem, and these vast calculations are relevant only in our concept of reality.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
Quantum tunnelling to a true vacuum state would have already occured leading to quantum suicide because any event that changes the number of observers in the universe will have fatal consequences on the universe.


Why does quantum tunnelling lead to a change in the number of observers, and why would that be fatal?


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Out of time now.

Is Bill S a quilted man?

All may be revealed in time. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Why does quantum tunnelling lead to a change in the number of observers, and why would that be fatal?


Simple answer the universe is not in its lowest energy configuration the moment one part snapped to the lowest energy configuration collapse would continue out as a bubble of destruction until it encompassed the whole universe.

It is covered in enough detail in

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/False_vacuum

=> Simply put, the false vacuum is a local minimum, but not the lowest energy state, even though it may remain stable for some time.
=> For decades, scientific models of our universe have included the possibility that it exists as a long-lived, but not completely stable, sector of space, which could potentially at some time be destroyed upon 'toppling' into a more stable vacuum state.
=> This catastrophic bubble of "true vacuum" (per quantum models) could theoretically occur at any time or place in the universe, which means (because the bubble of "true vacuum" will expand at the speed of light) the end of such a false vacuum could occur at any time.
=> If a more stable vacuum state were able to arise, then existing particles and forces would no longer arise as they presently do.


And so on and so.

The final answer is given in the implications section

Quote:
If measurements of these particles suggests that our universe lies within a false vacuum of this kind, then it would imply - more than likely in many billions of years that it could cease to exist as we know it, if a true vacuum happened to nucleate.


Under different ways to view QM the removal of an observer means that the quantum electrodynamics don't resolve because to resolve it must include EVERY PATH and so the inability to resolve means the waveform must collapse and that collapse rolls out through the universe. So it's the same result as viewed from the other way above.

Do you see my objection to Ethan's article now he has used QM to make an argument position but then only taken half the story because he doesn't like the other half.

Everett many worlds sidesteps quantum suicide in an interesting way but that is a whole other story.

Last edited by Orac; 01/15/14 12:52 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Thanks Orac. It was the bit about the number of observers that threw me, but I see that now. I think.

On reflection, I don't go for the quilted multiverse, for the following reasons:

Our only experience is of our own Universe. The only things we can measure, assess or evaluate are in our Universe. To say that there are regions of space that will exactly mimic our own region of space, is an assumption that can never be checked, much less falsified.

Even the statement “Space is infinite” is deceptive. Infinity is not a large number, nor is it a large space.

“…everything is unfolding exactly as it unfolds on Earth.” This is another unsupportable assertion. (It certainly cannot be supported unless you accept option 6 as part of this definition). If the multiverse is infinite, it is static. Time and change emerge from our perception of our Universe.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Even the statement “Space is infinite” is deceptive. Infinity is not a large number, nor is it a large space.


That as you know I totally agree with the universe is most definitely finite, the infinite bit comes about in science through time and trying to travel across it with the speed limitation.

There are definitely problems with the science infinite argument, first the time part assumes you know the history and the future. Even if you argue Big Bang/Inflation is known the future for the universe is clearly not known so infinite comes about due to lack of knowledge rather than an exact science calculation.

The space travel infinity again relies on many assumptions that I again agree with you it isn't safe to make that as a scientific statement.

Everyone including scientists have a bias to an answer and sometimes gloss over the problems. As much as I admire Ethan's science communication skills I find he does have a lot of bias in some answers, much more than I am comfortable with anyhow.

So I guess the deeper question you need to face is can a finite something come from nothing which is the real question when you peel off the infinity issue.

Last edited by Orac; 01/16/14 01:13 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
... can a finite something come from nothing which is the real question when you peel off the infinity issue.


Personal opinion: No. However, I have to admit that this is unscientific, and is, of necessity, based on information/observation that is entirely restricted to our Universe, and only to a relatively small segment of that. Obviously, extrapolation from small to large in the Universe is justified, as discussed in another thread, many scientists are not happy with the idea of extending this extrapolation to outside the Universe.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
...the universe is most definitely finite


Some time ago you explained why you believe that. Could you give us the explanation again, please. Save us ancient amnesiacs a lot of hunting. smile


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Returning to the 9 types of multiverse, let’s consider the inflationary multiverse.

This, taken as a multiverse filled with "bubble universes," of which our Universe is just one, seems to be a reasonable idea. If this multiverse is finite, it raises questions about what set it in motion and if and when it might end. If it is infinite, it must exist in a static state in which infinite universes simply “are”.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
Some time ago you explained why you believe that. Could you give us the explanation again, please. Save us ancient amnesiacs a lot of hunting. smile


Science now says QM was there at the start of the universe the quantum fluctuations show up in the CMBR and it explains why the universe wasn't completely uniform back near the start of BB etc etc.

So if QM is there at the start you have the same problem with Quantum Suicide problem above whichever way you want to look it all the states have to be able to sum, or all the observers have to be present and finite or else the QM waveforms collapse.

It is what we call the Totalitarian principle and it doesn't work with infinity because you can't sum the paths to get a probability amplitude.

Originally Posted By: Totalitarian principle

The statement is in reference to a surprising feature of particle interactions: that any interaction which is not forbidden by a small number of simple conservation laws is not only allowed, but must be included in the sum over all "paths" which contribute to the outcome of the interaction. Hence if it isn't forbidden, there is some probability amplitude for it to happen.


You can't use QM to explain something while breaking one of it's fundamental rules, QM doesn't work with infinity smile

So either there was a different version of QM back then or there was no infinity pick one smile

Last edited by Orac; 01/17/14 12:18 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quantum Suicide?

It is not just the measurement of the spin of a particle that causes the universe to split. It must split each time any choice arises. Everything that can happen must happen. There must be a whole set of universes, brought into existence by trillions of “decisions” in which the experimenter does and does not decide to undertake the experiment. There must be a similar set in which the experiment succeeds and does not succeed. The set in which the experiment succeeds must be divided into universes in which the experimenter survives the first round, and others in which he doesn’t.

Just as an initial impression, the Quantum Suicide idea looks as though it is valid only in the over simplified form of the thought experiment. Additionally, it looks as though it would work only if this particular interpretation of the many worlds idea happens to be the right one.

Surely no one is saying that QM would be invalidated if this form of the many worlds is wrong?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
You seem to have a very weird concept of multiverse you have to be careful with the concept of "split" the world can't and doesn't split like I think you infer.

So can I ask how you are defining "world split" because I think you really are actually dividing the universe which leads to all sorts of issues not least of that you break the conservation laws.

Lets take it all the way back to basics

Quantum mechanics merely describes the way in which particles are entangled with each other and can be in superposition states. To take it to the technical QM says if you sum the probabilities over all the possible outcomes they must equal 1 and this is confirmed by all it's mathematics and theories which is why you end up with the Totalitarian principle and why you can not have infinity observers.

If there really are infinity observers you can't sum the probabilities, schrodinger wave equation does not work and the whole of QM comes down around your head.

It's also clear you can't just split the universe in a conventional sense go back to the basic statement and read it again

Quantum mechanics merely describes the way in which particles are entangled with each other and can be in superposition states.

So lets go really radical and make the universe have a start and end time.

Okay now if we do that everything works for QM because the particles start with the universe all the superpositions can exist between the start and the end and at the end they all waveforms collapse together. See although you have universe splitting along that timeline all the core parts of QM are met.

So we need to be clear QM is not a theory that multiverse must exist, it is a theory that particles states exist in superposition, superposition requires a lock somehow between the states and the usual suspect is time because QM seems to be about time.

Some versions and I see many in science magazines are NOT OK WITH ACCEPTED QM they extend QM in really weird ways often by merging string theory with QM to make extensions.

So if you want under hard nosed QM there is no infinities, there is no real split of the universe the split must have a start and end so the probabilities and waveforms work.

There are some ways you can do that without getting all freaky and I will give you one of the simplest. The universe has certain key events, those key events are the same in all the multiverse, all the universes split between those key events and rejoin again. If you look the universe birth/death it is the ultimate version of that idea.

Everett studied these sorts of problems extensively and also what he called halting conditions, conditions in which the universe stalled which can happen under QM and his works are well worth reading.

So back to your question

Quote:
Surely no one is saying that QM would be invalidated if this form of the many worlds is wrong?


For all the reasons above you need to be careful in assuming stock standard hardcore QM is ok with some versions of multiverse, it isn't it is much more a extended QM theory behind some of these sorts of ideas.

If you want a technical background Sascha has a reasonably lower level one

http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_world_interpretation_splitting_wiener_sausage-80042

You will not the first image and statement is the same as my comments above

Originally Posted By: sascha
This is already wrong: Everett's is a relative state description, not necessarily a multiple worlds interpretation.

Last edited by Orac; 01/18/14 03:15 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
I am adding this in as a separate comment because it is about string theory specifically.

I think some of the multiverse misconception comes about because of string theory ideas.

Under string theory you don't need time as a start and end point because you have 10 dimensions some of which you can't see that act as the anchor points for the waveforms,probabilities etc.

This is very different to what we test in the lab under hard nosed QM where for example I create an entanglement situation do my experiment and then the entanglement dies.

See the key difference in my real world experiments I have a start and end time while some versions of multiverse under string theory take the start and end points out to extra dimensions so they really can have split universes not connected in any way except at the end points in the 10 dimensions.

Last edited by Orac; 01/18/14 03:56 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Orac,its 3.25am here. I shall save reading your last two posts until tomorrow.

Just one parting question, though.

Quote:
The quantum multiverse creates a new universe when a diversion in events occurs


What form does the creation of each new universe take?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Look at any entanglement experiment the moment you create the entanglement you have what you are asking the thing is in superposition of the two or more states simultaneously.

I don't know how to describe it beyond that I am sorry everyone struggles to describe it.

All I can really say is the states seem to exist at the same time and aware of each other even if you physically separate them.

However the key thing probably for you is I create the start point of the superposition and if I am not careful the physical macro world conspires to kill it. See the point this goes against the whole idea of the universe really splitting because once I create the entanglement under a true split scenario the entanglement should go on forever because it is now in it's own little universe.

See now a true multiverse zealot would say that is exactly what happens the entanglement is still running in some multiverse that split off and didn't collapse back. My problem with that is I have no evidence or observation of that ever happening in my universe so the more logical answer is entanglement always collapses back and that has implications for universes splitting.

It's a bit of a layman stretch of QM but I think it works at some level without the technical detail to show the problem.

Last edited by Orac; 01/18/14 05:05 AM.

I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
You seem to have a very weird concept of multiverse you have to be careful with the concept of "split" the world can't and doesn't split like I think you infer.


I intensely dislike the idea of the universe splitting; but who am I to argue with the experts? :P

Quote:
In this interpretation, every time a "random" event takes place, the universe splits between the various options available. Each separate version of the universe contains a different outcome of that event. Instead of one continuous timeline, the universe under the many worlds interpretation looks more like a series of branches splitting off of a tree limb.


http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/manyworldsinterpretation.htm


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Orac
So can I ask how you are defining "world split" because I think you really are actually dividing the universe which leads to all sorts of issues not least of that you break the conservation laws.


Originally Posted By: Bill S
I intensely dislike the idea of the universe splitting; but who am I to argue with the experts?


http://physics.about.com/od/quantumphysics/f/manyworldsinterpretation.htm

“In this interpretation, every time a "random" event takes place, the universe splits between the various options available. Each separate version of the universe contains a different outcome of that event. Instead of one continuous timeline, the universe under the many worlds interpretation looks more like a series of branches splitting off of a tree limb.”

Does the fact that I was trying to make sense of someone else’s claim that “the universe splits between the various options”, rather than actually claiming that I think it does that, bring the discussion to an end?


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Yep you cleaned all that up


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Quote:
Yep you cleaned all that up


Great; but it certainly does not dispose of the problems attached to this version of the multiverse idea.

Based on this idea of the universe “dividing”, DeWitt estimated that there must, by now, (fairly recent estimate, I believe) be some 10^100 universes. I suspect this may be a conservative estimate, but that’s not the point.

My point is that if new universes are coming into existence in such a way as to accommodate different outcomes of a given experiment, then these universes are being created “fully formed”. The new universe must be formed with information distributed in the way in which it is in the initial universe. Would this not involve the spread of information faster than light? For example, how would a part of the universe 10^14 light years away "know" about your experiment here on Earth?

I suspect it might be possible to get round the FTL bit by saying that the new universe comes into being with the information already distributed. This still leaves a lot of questions, though.


There never was nothing.
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
O
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
O
Joined: May 2011
Posts: 2,819
Entanglement experiments already show that the entangled particles are interacting faster than the speed of light

The current number is a minimum of 10,000 times the speed of light

http://www.livescience.com/27920-quantum-action-faster-than-light.html

http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

Does that answer your question or is there something deeper, I am missing?


I believe in "Evil, Bad, Ungodly fantasy science and maths", so I am undoubtedly wrong to you.
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
B
Bill Offline OP
Megastar
OP Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Dec 2010
Posts: 1,858
Originally Posted By: Bill S.
My point is that if new universes are coming into existence in such a way as to accommodate different outcomes of a given experiment, then these universes are being created “fully formed”. The new universe must be formed with information distributed in the way in which it is in the initial universe. Would this not involve the spread of information faster than light? For example, how would a part of the universe 10^14 light years away "know" about your experiment here on Earth?

As Orac said, entanglement ignores the speed of light, and it seems to me that when the new universe comes into being that it is probably highly entangled, so there I don't see a problem there. There are other problems though. One is that the universe is full of (consists of?) a big lot of energy. After the new universe comes into existence it has the same "big lot" of energy. That kind of boggles the mind, to have that much energy just appear from apparently no where. And that is just for one split. For all the splits that are happening all the time it really gets hard to swallow.

Bill Gill


C is not the speed of light in a vacuum.
C is the universal speed limit.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
http://www.gizmag.com/quantum-entanglement-speed-10000-faster-light/26587/

“Notice that this result does not eliminate the possibility that the influence of entanglement actually is instantaneous – it merely sets a limit saying how close the influence must be to infinitely fast. Another possibility that is gaining credence is that entanglement dynamics may operate external to time, or at least may ignore time as it ignores distance.”

That I like. "instantaneous" and "..may operate external to time" both fit neatly into the way I am thinking.

Thanks for that one Orac.


There never was nothing.
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
B
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
B
Joined: Aug 2010
Posts: 3,570
Originally Posted By: Bill
As Orac said, entanglement ignores the speed of light, and it seems to me that when the new universe comes into being that it is probably highly entangled, so there I don't see a problem there. There are other problems though. One is that the universe is full of (consists of?) a big lot of energy. After the new universe comes into existence it has the same "big lot" of energy. That kind of boggles the mind, to have that much energy just appear from apparently no where. And that is just for one split. For all the splits that are happening all the time it really gets hard to swallow.



Entanglement, on the scale of the Universe? That was the sort of thing I had in mind when I said: “I suspect it might be possible to get round the FTL bit by saying that the new universe comes into being with the information already distributed.”

I quite expected someone to object to that.

I agree that the seeming creation of all that energy (and matter) appears to be a major stumbling block. I have yet to find a convincing explanation of that. The best I have found is that it already exists – an infinite supply – and it is just changed, or redistributed. At least, that doesn’t clash with the concept of a finite universe existing in an infinite cosmos. Those of you who espouse the idea of the infinite sequence should like that as well. smile


There never was nothing.
Page 1 of 2 1 2

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5