Is the Past Infinite?

"Cosmic foam bubbles? Can they be measured, observed, investigated empirically in any way? What is the foam and where does it come from?"

-------------------------------

The Sloan Digital Sky Survey has mapped over half a million galaxies in 3D. Of course, there are more gaps than mapped regions. Our view is blocked by the disk of our own galaxy, and we can't see what lies beyond other galaxies. The task of mapping all the visible galaxies may take decades.

I haven't actually seen the map in stereo vision, but those who have describe it as a giant bubble bath with walls of galaxies surrounding the voids. A void is the interior of a bubble. They believe dark matter completes the fabric of the bubble walls. This is what I am calling the cosmic foam.

We are just beginning to get statistical measurements, and it appears that the median bubble size in the cosmic foam is roughly 10^24 meters across. That being the case, a median-size bubble occupies roughly one millionth of the volume of the visible universe. (I am saying that, by definition, half the volume of a region is contained in bubbles larger than the median size.)

-------------------------------

"This looks like another one of those "math creating reality" claims instead of math reflecting testable reality."

-------------------------------

I am no mathematician. Numbers are a weakness of my model---not a strength. I use very rough approximations to provide a starting point from which others may someday refine the model. There is no insubstantial mathematical space in my model. Everything consists of waves in a hard, massive medium; and that medium consists of particles which are made of waves in a finer medium, and so on ad infinitum. There are no finite empty spaces to be bridged by insubstantial mathematical forces.

-------------------------------

"How do you know the sub-universe is running backwards if all of your tests run forward, which they must?"

-------------------------------

We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests; if we could it would be part of our universe. We can only infer that it must run backwards because of the way the model explains the expansion of space. If a cubic meter is 10^105 median-size bubbles, and that number is constant, then the expansion of space means the number of bubbles in a region of space must be increasing. When a foam fizzes, bubbles are popping, which decreases the number of bubbles. A bubble wall pops, and two bubbles merge into one. For the number of bubbles to increase, they must be un-popping. New bubble walls must be appearing, dividing one bubble into two. The second law of thermodynamics prevents bubbles from un-popping in forward time. (Note: I am assuming the number of bubbles per cubic meter is constant. More generally, it makes sense that the number of bubbles increases as space expands. In keeping with Occam's razor, I choose constant as the simplest explanation until such time as it leads to a contradiction.)

What makes the bubbles pop is the expansion of space in the sub-universe. The cosmic-foam bubbles of the sub-universe are stretched to their breaking point by expansion of sub-universe space. So that is a forward time cause of popping bubbles, from a sub-universe perspective. From our perspective, those same bubbles are un-popping. The cause of the popping is expansion of sub-universe space, which occurred before the popping from a sub-universe perspective. From our perspective, the cause is after the bubble un-pops. So the effect precedes the cause from our perspective.

Also, a popping bubble generates pressure waves which radiate outward. From our perspective, those pressure waves converge to a point where they seem to cause a new bubble wall to appear. The pressure waves are dark energy, and they are converted to new space.

-------------------------------

"Don't forget common sense just because it's not fashionable in the non-scientific quasi-physics world."

-------------------------------

I'm sure Einstein's heard many similar admonitions from his contemporaries. "Common sense" is a euphemism for thinking well inside the box. Paint by the numbers; don't cross the lines. If we never think outside the box, we'll be condemned to add new patches to the same old flawed concepts for ever.

Oops! That post, above belongs on a different discussion. Too bad I can't delete it.

"We cannot subject the sub-universe to tests."

Therefore, not a scientific inquiry. Just gibberish disguised in pseudo-scientific terms.

Also, I knew Albert Einstein. Albert Einstein was a friend of mine.

Philip: You are no Albert Einstein.

It appears you also think he is still alive by your present tense claim involving the great scientist who thought creatively inside the box known as the universe. Nice cliche on your part, though, regarding your faulty understanding of common sense. It supports your nonsense claims that just can't be tested or observed, yet you go on and on about certain actions causing this or that to pop, but then they reverse themselves and run backwards and effects precede causes.

Lots of stuff going on that can't be observed or tested. A superb example of mythological fantasy "pseudo-physics."

Thanks for the ride, though. I actually enjoyed reading your dazzling illusions.

KII

Hi,

Once Nature has never made anything unique in gender(There no just ONE galaxy, ONE sun, ONE planet or sand grain, but large number of them)and can just mass-produce anything; and once we humans have been wrong every time we thought we had found "the entire"; very great chances are that we are also wrong thinking our local(backyard) universe is - this time - the entire stuff.

Great chances are too that we can never discover too much beyond our backyard-universe, due to our littleness.

Personally, I'm convinced that the Cosmos is structured with infinite 'classes of dimensions'(like our) infinitely and fractaly nested.

In other words, totally infinite, as much in time as in space; despite the horror the term "infinite" cause in large amount of scientists.

Cheers,

Wilton

Yes the past would haveto be infinite or else we wouldn't have an infinite future which we must since 1. we cannot prove its finite and 2. we are not philosophically predestined for anything other than to exist in the moment

Sorry, but your speculation is of the "not even wrong" type. A physical theory, to be taken seriously, need some equations, which have to be sufficient to explain the things we observe around us, and in a quite mathematical, quantitative way.

By the way, don't use popular introductions into string theory or other theories as an example what you have to do in fundamental physics. There are professional papers behind such popular introductions, full of mathematics, and if you want to develop a serious theory, you have to present similar professional papers. That's hard, but such is life.

By the way, using UPPERCASE in such postings is considered to be bad style ("crying").

What is Infinity?

Does Infinity have an Absolute Reference Frame?

Does an Infinity Absolute Reference Frame have physical parameters?

I think the Vacuum T=0K gives answer to this questions.

=.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus

Dear All,

who am I?

I am here and now, I is forever.

Love,

Sridattadev.

The Universe is all that exists and by definition it includes everything. It even include the laws of Nature. Assuming that the Universe has an origin is like assuming that it comes from nothing. The only solution is to assume that the Universe has always existed.

I suggest that the black holes are the Universal Banks of the Information in the cycling Universe. The english version of my article is quiet old, about 4 years; afterwards I've bettre expressed the same concepts but only in Italian language. If intereste contact me at the e-mail gr.olograficoflegreo@libero.it, thank you.Attachment #1: italias_black_holes.doc

Louis Brassard,

I hope you consider enterring the essay contest.

James

Hi James,

Yes I am considering to enter.

- Louiw

Louis

In which case you need to assume that you can never know where the "universe" came from or how long it has existed. Such considerations are irrelevant because they are metaphysical. We can only know about reality, as it is manifested to us (or all organisms). That is, there comes a 'boundary point', and that is not associated with practical issues about our ability to effect direct experience (we can hypothesise on the basis of such) but in respect of that which is never knowable (ie it is not of our existence/reality and therefore not even potentially experienceable). James had a phrase for this, something to the effect that 'one needs to allow for one miracle'.

So, all we can know is that there is a present, ie a physically existent state as at any given point in time, and that that ceases as it is superceded by another physically existent state, which occurs because there is some inherent property which is causing alteration in the existent state. The 'past' has no form of existence, except as represented in physically existent phenomena which organisms can sense.

Paul

Louis,

I hope you do. You have very interesting ideas along with the expertise to present them in a professional manner.

James

"... That is, there comes a 'boundary point', and that is not associated with practical issues about our ability to effect direct experience (we can hypothesise on the basis of such) but in respect of that which is never knowable (ie it is not of our existence/reality and therefore not even potentially experienceable). James had a phrase for this, something to the effect that 'one needs to allow for one miracle'. ..."

Paul has no understanding of what I say. My words have no connection to what he writes.

James

James

Given the way other exchanges have gone, I cannot be bothered to trace your original comment. Edwin responded and agreed, Georgina had problems. I agreed with it. The simple fact is that our knowledge (whether based on direct experience or hypothecated therefrom) must ultimately hit a 'brick wall'. We cannot know what it is existentially impossible for us to know, but, logically, may exist. There comes a point where we just have to accept a 'full stop', put the other way around 'a miracle'. We have a reality, as is, ultimately, how, why, etc is unknowable, we just have to accept it, as is, and explain it, as is.

Paul

Dear Anthony,

I am so glad that you left a message on this blog.I've only just come across it.

I am interested to hear about your work on a past eternal model.I read the abstract but probably would not understand the whole paper.I also think it very interesting that you followed the mathematics where it went.And that you think (?thought) philosophical thinking is quite important.

I hope my essay will be interesting to you. As I intend to talk about other ways of thinking and what comes from that. I also hope you will be reminded of what you wrote here.

PS thank you for FQXi.

Paul,

This is what you said:

"... That is, there comes a 'boundary point', and that is not associated with practical issues about our ability to effect direct experience (we can hypothesise on the basis of such) but in respect of that which is never knowable (ie it is not of our existence/reality and therefore not even potentially experienceable). James had a phrase for this, something to the effect that 'one needs to allow for one miracle'. ..."

I have never said this nor do I agree with it. My point was that there is at least one 'given' for anyone's explanation of the universe but that there should be no more than that one. No additonal free-bee add-hoc inventions of the mind that continue to pop up out of a necessity generated by both early and ongoing errors. That one first 'given' is experienced by us.

Also it was part of a message that included your repeated unscientific beliefs. I don't want Louis or anyone else to think that I might think that your ideas make sense. You are certainly as welcome as anyone to express your opinions, without my retorts, as long as you do not associate me or my name with them. I understand that this has probably been a waste of my time writing this message. I expect that you will feel compelled to teach me again by repeating your errors. That effort would be a waste of your time. Please teach others.

James

James

And what is the difference between "that there is at least one 'given' for anyone's explanation of the universe" and stating that 'we can only know so much' or 'we cannot know what is not of our existence' or any other such phrase?

If you 'don't want anyone else to think that my ideas make sense', they would probably be more inclined to accept this assertion if you backed it up with evidential argument. But, as is the case with our latest exchange, you never do. Or, at the minimum you put up some comments, to which I respond, then the exchange ceases.

Paul