PDA

View Full Version : Does the universe have a finite mass? How do we know?



luvkit
2006-Nov-05, 10:56 PM
My question is just as the subject inquires. On a previous post about CMB radiation, I made the assumption that the universe, though infinitely large, has a huge but finite amount of matter and energy. A reply to that post caught me off guard... the implication was made that the universe may contain infinite matter, as well as space. I emailed a previous professor of mine, but I received no reply as of yet... thus I appeal to you all.

So, does the universe have an unlimited supply of material? Or does it have a specific total mass, that is unimaginably large? And, how do we know this?

(Olber's Paradox only applies to a finite age, but not matter.)

Corgon
2006-Nov-05, 11:27 PM
I may be missing something, but I'd say it'd be pretty much the same as whether space itself is infinite, assuming that matter is distributed throughout space.

If space is infinite, but matter is not, then the density of the universe would be infinitely low;
If space is finite, but matter is infinite, the the density would be infinite.

The only way to have infinte space and finite matter would be for that matter to exist in a finite number of clumps throughout infinte space. Maybe there's some way for that to work, but I'm not seeing it.

As for "unimaginable large" mass, I'd say we pretty much have that even in the observable universe ;)

Cougar
2006-Nov-05, 11:42 PM
...the implication was made that the universe may contain infinite matter, as well as space.
I guess it's kind of an open question. :) I suggest reading theoretical cosmologist Janna Levin (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Janna_Levin)'s remarkable book How the Universe Got Its Spots. Her work predicts a finite universe and uses techniques from topology and fractals to demonstrate this. I didn't know she appeared as a guest on Stephen Colbert's Comedy Central show The Colbert Report on August 24, 2006!

[Edit to add book subtitle: Diary of a finite time in a finite space.]

Kaptain K
2006-Nov-12, 05:12 AM
If the universe is infinite, then the mass must be infinite, otherwise the density would be zero, which it is not.

If the universe is finite, then the mass must be finite, otherwise the density would would be infinite, which it is not.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-12, 07:37 AM
If the universe is infinite, then the mass must be infinite, otherwise
the density would be zero, which it is not.
There is no reason to think that the mass would be distributed
everywhere throughout an infinite Universe. It might be limited
to a sphere 100 billion light-years in diameter, for example.

However, that might represent just the matter generated in the
Big Bang. Other Bangs, both larger and smaller, could be taking
place all over an infinite Universe, and one would never detect
another unless they chanced to overlap.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Eroica
2006-Nov-12, 08:24 AM
Occam's Razor (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occam%27s_razor) says that we should assume the universe is finite until proven otherwise.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-12, 10:26 AM
Eroica,

I disagree. Occam's razor is at the smith being sharpened
for this question.

On even-numbered days, a finite Universe is philosophically
absurd, makes no sense, and is impossible, implying that the
Universe must be infinite.

On odd-numbered days, an infinite Universe is philosophically
absurd, makes no sense, and is impossible, implying that the
Universe must be finite.

I need to check my calendar...

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Eroica
2006-Nov-12, 12:38 PM
What has philosophy to do with science?

Occam's Razor says that unless there is some reason to believe that there is more to the universe than the finite bit we can observe, we should only assume that it is as big as we can observe.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-12, 04:16 PM
What has philosophy to do with science?
Science arose from philosophy. One of the most fundamental
reasons for having and using science is to support philosophy,
which is the effort to understand everything. Science is the
part of philosophy that deals with things which can be observed
and measured.



Occam's Razor says that unless there is some reason to believe
that there is more to the universe than the finite bit we can
observe, we should only assume that it is as big as we can observe.
We know that the Universe has to be bigger than we can observe.
It would be really strange if it just happened to end at our
horizon. You are saying that Occam's razor would have the
Universe change suddenly at the limit of our vision. I say that
that is contrary to the practical philosophy of Occam's razor.

The question is: How much bigger is the Universe than we can see?

We already know for sure that it is at the very minimum
incomprehensibly, absurdly, ridiculously, ludicrously big.
Is being infinite all that much worse?

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Eroica
2006-Nov-12, 05:46 PM
Science arose from philosophy. One of the most fundamental
reasons for having and using science is to support philosophy,
which is the effort to understand everything. Science is the
part of philosophy that deals with things which can be observed
and measured.
I disagree. Philosophy, or metaphysics, is about the world
as it actually is - reality.

Science is about appearances.

A scientist's job is to create mathematical models
that "save the appearances". No amount of observation
can ever demonstrate whether a scientific theory
is actually an accurate description of the world
as it really is in itself. But that's not important.
If the model saves the appearances better than
any rival models, it becomes mainstream science
- until someone comes along with a better model.



We know that the Universe has to be bigger than we can observe.We believe that the universe is bigger than
the finite bit we can observe - but we know no such thing.


It would be really strange if it just happened to end at our
horizon.Correct - which is why we believe it does not so end.
But science does not have the luxury of believing.
Scientific models must be founded upon observations,
and I don't think we have any observations that require
the universe to be bigger than we can presently observe.


You are saying that Occam's razor would have the
Universe change suddenly at the limit of our vision.No, the universe does not change;
it's the model (i.e. the scientific theory) which changes.



The question is: How much bigger is the Universe than we can see?

We already know for sure that it is at the very minimum
incomprehensibly, absurdly, ridiculously, ludicrously big.
Is being infinite all that much worse?I actually agree with you.
As a philosopher I believe in an infinite universe,
but as a scientist I have not seen anything yet
which requires the universe to be infinite.

dhd40
2006-Nov-12, 06:14 PM
and I don't think we have any observations that require
the universe to be bigger than we can presently observe.


except, that tomorrow someone will detect a galaxy with a new redshift-record.
But, maybe, because English is not my first language, I misundertand your wording "..that we can presently observe".

astromark
2006-Nov-12, 06:20 PM
You are playing with the words.. The philosopher thinks some thing. While the scientist proves it.
None of our pontificating changes the facts. Which in this case we do not know.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-13, 04:14 AM
We know that the Universe has to be bigger than we can observe.
We believe that the universe is bigger than
the finite bit we can observe - but we know no such thing.
You don't, but I do.




It would be really strange if it just happened to end at our
horizon.
Correct - which is why we believe it does not so end.
But science does not have the luxury of believing.
Scientific models must be founded upon observations,
and I don't think we have any observations that require
the universe to be bigger than we can presently observe.
Please tell me about a scientific model in which the Universe
is limited to what we can observe. I find no mention of such
a model in 'The Big Bang' (1989 edition) by Joseph Silk, nor
in 'A Brief History of Time' (1988) by Stephen Hawking, nor in
'The Universe in a Nutshell' (2001), also by Hawking, nor in
'The Key to the Universe' (1978) by Nigel Calder, nor in 'The
Origin of the Universe' (1994) by John D. Barrow. The only
such model I know of is the one in 'The Wall of Darkness'
(1949) by Arthur C. Clarke.

It must be a really freaky cosmological model! I'm anxious to
learn about it!




You are saying that Occam's razor would have the
Universe change suddenly at the limit of our vision.
No, the universe does not change;
it's the model (i.e. the scientific theory) which changes.
So the model is deliberately constructed to be inaccurate.
That must cause lots of problems with the math, and reduce its
predictive power.




The question is: How much bigger is the Universe than we can see?

We already know for sure that it is at the very minimum
incomprehensibly, absurdly, ridiculously, ludicrously big.
Is being infinite all that much worse?
I actually agree with you.
As a philosopher I believe in an infinite universe,
but as a scientist I have not seen anything yet
which requires the universe to be infinite.
My personal guess is that the Universe is infinite but that
the space, matter, and energy involved in the Big Bang and its
aftermath is finite. I don't have a belief about it one way
or another, though.

I want to point out something from your previous post:



What has philosophy to do with science?

Occam's Razor says that unless there is some reason to believe
that there is more to the universe than the finite bit we can
observe, we should only assume that it is as big as we can observe.
Occam's razor is a purely philosophical tool. It has no
scientific component. But it is used to do science.

One could say the same about all of mathematics and logic.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jens
2006-Nov-13, 05:20 AM
Occam's Razor says that unless there is some reason to believe that there is more to the universe than the finite bit we can observe, we should only assume that it is as big as we can observe.

I would think just the opposite, that Occam's Razor says that if I can see things going away as far as I can see, I should assume that it keeps going on forever unless there is some reason to believe that it is finite. The universe keeps going on and on in every directly that I can observe. I would naturally assume it just keeps on going.

Jens
2006-Nov-13, 05:27 AM
If the universe is infinite, then the mass must be infinite, otherwise the density would be zero, which it is not.


What about if the universe is infinite and the density approaches zero? The larger the scale, the smaller the density. In any case, I think that if the universe is infinite, this would have to be the case, because of Olber's paradox.

luvkit
2006-Nov-13, 08:34 AM
It seems to me that my assumption that the universe was materially finite was speculative, but without evidential support. From what I can gleam from posts so far, the observable evidence does not support anything clearly. Thus we are merely able to analyze the facts and propose our best ideas.

Still, to Ken G (and those that agree) I have some difficulties accepting an infinitely massive universe, because of some conflicting physical concepts I have learned and synthesized.

1) It seems that the argument that "because the universe is spatially infinite, it is materially infinite," is a "cum hoc ergo propter hoc" argument. Just because the universe has infinite space, does not mean that it has to have an infinite mass. The two are independent things. And just because the average density of a materially finite universe would approach zero does not mean that on a local level there aren't higher densities. Saturn's average density is lower than water, but close to the core... density would be a *****.


2) If the universe is infinitely massive, how could, after the Big Bang, the universe last much longer when gravitational forces over-powered the electro-magnetic forces. Basically, with an infinite mass the universe should have had an infinite gravitational pull upon itself, causing it to collapse back on itself fairly early in its existence. Could the universal 'escape velocity' really not be infinite?

3) If the universe was created from a singularity, a single dimensional point, then--at some point--matter must have accelerated at speeds far greater than the speed of light... a supposed impossibility. In fact, if the matter is infinite as well as space, but both had a singular positional origin, then to fill this infinite space with an infinite material, matter had move with a speed well above that of light. In fact, matter itself would have to be propelled at an infinite speed, and with an infinite acceleration. This alone would break all known physical laws and deduction.

These are ideas I've been kicking around, but they could have real facts to debunk them. Please, more input.

ozark1
2006-Nov-13, 12:09 PM
2) If the universe is infinitely massive, how could, after the Big Bang, the universe last much longer when gravitational forces over-powered the electro-magnetic forces. Basically, with an infinite mass the universe should have had an infinite gravitational pull upon itself, causing it to collapse back on itself fairly early in its existence. Could the universal 'escape velocity' really not be infinite?

At the Big Bang there was no differentiation between gravity, electro-weak or strong nuclear forces. Hence "over-power" is (a) meaningless and (b) wrong.

3) If the universe was created from a singularity, a single dimensional point, then--at some point--matter must have accelerated at speeds far greater than the speed of light... a supposed impossibility. In fact, if the matter is infinite as well as space, but both had a singular positional origin, then to fill this infinite space with an infinite material, matter had move with a speed well above that of light. In fact, matter itself would have to be propelled at an infinite speed, and with an infinite acceleration. This alone would break all known physical laws and deduction.


The visible universe (with a FINITE mass) was created from a singularity (or similar). We can see all the matter from this singularity (as it would have to move less than the speed of light). If there is more to the universe than we can see/ever see, it must have been created from an adjacent singularity, outside "Our Singularity". If the universe is infinite, there has to be an infinite number of these singularity regions at the big bang. An infinite number of infinitely small regions will (probably) have volume and size. In that case the size of the whole universe at the Big Bang was already infinite.

Ozzy
2006-Nov-13, 02:30 PM
On science's connection to philosophy


Natural philosophy in the early modern period is roughly what we today would call science. It was the study of nature in all its various dimensions. ...
www.library.usyd.edu.au/libraries/rare/modernity/natphil.html - 3k

Eroica
2006-Nov-13, 05:25 PM
Please tell me about a scientific model in which the Universe
is limited to what we can observe.
Well, that's not quite what I meant. Occam's Razor doesn't oblige us to assert that the universe is exactly as big as we can observe. It simply means that anything we say about parts of the universe that we can't observe is not science, but pure speculation.

After reading Jens' response to one of my comments, I am willing to concede that my claim that Occam's Razor requires us to postulate a finite universe rather than an infinite one is in fact incorrect. Since - as luvkit just mentioned - there are no observations that require a finite universe and none that require an infinite one, the correct application of Occam's Razor is to leave this particular question open and not make any assertions about it one way or the other.

Which leads us back to square one - in other words, Occam's Razor is not much use here. So forget I even mentioned it. :wall:



I find no mention of such a model ... It must be a really freaky cosmological model!Well, it would be if it asserted that the universe is precisely as big as we can observe. But that's not quite what I meant.



So the model is deliberately constructed to be inaccurate.No, of course not. The model is constructed to account as accurately as possible for those phenomena that we can presently observe. Future observations and advances in technology may mean that a time arises when the model is no longer able to "save the appearances", in which case it is time for an update. This is precisely what happended to the Theory of Gravitation when Einstein modified Newton's theory in the light of observations in the realm of electromagnetism that had not been available to Newton.



My personal guess is that the Universe is infinite but that
the space, matter, and energy involved in the Big Bang and its
aftermath is finite. I don't have a belief about it one way
or another, though.Yet you do claim to know that things exist which you cannot observe either directly or indirectly...

luvkit
2006-Nov-13, 09:42 PM
At the Big Bang there was no differentiation between gravity, electro-weak or strong nuclear forces. Hence "over-power" is (a) meaningless and (b) wrong.

Not precisely, though I can see what you mean. From my understanding of the the Big Bang the fundamental forces we know where only a single force for about one minute post creation. After this, the forces began to break down into the ones we recognize today... with the last break being the electro-weak. So gravity would begin acting as it does now, but with an infinite pull. So, no, that's not wrong, just a miscommunication to when I was referring.

Even if you take this to the time of decoupling (where all forces would have been completely set as they are now) you still should have a limited radius universe, with an infinite mass, and thus an infinite gravitational pull. Wouldn't that make the universal escape velocity infinity?

firstcontact
2006-Nov-14, 01:00 AM
I actually agree with you.
As a philosopher I believe in an infinite universe,
but as a scientist I have not seen anything yet
which requires the universe to be infinite.

Apparently you overlooked this observation then:
That everytime our technology advances in the way of telescopes we see ever farther. :)

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-14, 01:39 AM
Occam's Razor doesn't oblige us to assert that the universe is
exactly as big as we can observe. It simply means that anything
we say about parts of the universe that we can't observe is not
science, but pure speculation.
What is "pure" speculation? Is it speculation which has no
basis in observation? For example, I speculate that at 2 PM
Central Standard Time on December 16, a creature three times
the size of the Sun, looking something like a cross between a
dragon and a poodle, will eat Jupiter. I also speculate that
it will snow in Minneapolis sometime in December.

I cannot observe December from where I am now (mid-November).
So is it "pure" speculation to speculate about what will happen
in that part of the Universe? Or are some speculations more
firmly-grounded in observation and logic than others? Maybe
speculation is even an essential part of science.



Since - as luvkit just mentioned - there are no observations
that require a finite universe and none that require an infinite
one, the correct application of Occam's Razor is to leave this
particular question open and not make any assertions about it
one way or the other.
Yay! :D Agreement. :D



The model is constructed to account as accurately as possible
for those phenomena that we can presently observe.
And it is also constructed to try to account as accurately as
possible for phenomenae that we cannot presently observe.




My personal guess is that the Universe is infinite but that
the space, matter, and energy involved in the Big Bang and its
aftermath is finite. I don't have a belief about it one way
or another, though.
Yet you do claim to know that things exist which you cannot
observe either directly or indirectly...
Yes. Lots of things.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Van Rijn
2006-Nov-14, 01:48 AM
Apparently you overlooked this observation then:
That everytime our technology advances in the way of telescopes we see ever farther. :)

Actually, we haven't seen any further back since 1965 (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) though we certainly have seen things in more detail since then.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-14, 02:44 AM
At the Big Bang there was no differentiation between gravity,
electro-weak or strong nuclear forces. Hence "over-power" is
(a) meaningless and (b) wrong.
Not precisely, though I can see what you mean. From my
understanding of the the Big Bang the fundamental forces we
know where only a single force for about one minute post
creation. After this, the forces began to break down into
the ones we recognize today... with the last break being the
electro-weak. So gravity would begin acting as it does now,
but with an infinite pull. So, no, that's not wrong, just a
miscommunication to when I was referring.
The standard model predicts that all the forces were
differentiated by less than 1/100 second.

I understand the standard model as saying that the forces
were equal in strength, not that they were "one force".

I do not know what general relativity might have to say about
this. GR describes gravity as a distortion of spacetime rather
than as a force.

Personally, I doubt that there is any significance to the
"unification" at all.



Even if you take this to the time of decoupling (where all
forces would have been completely set as they are now) you
still should have a limited radius universe, with an infinite
mass, and thus an infinite gravitational pull. Wouldn't that
make the universal escape velocity infinity?
Whether the mass is infinite or not doesn't really make a
difference. We know that the mass is really, really huge.
So was the density, at the beginning. That means that the
effect you describe should have happened even if the Universe
is finite. In fact, if the mass and density were great enough
to stop the expansion, it should have prevented the expansion
from beginning in the first place.

So why did the Universe expand despite gravity far greater than
that inside a collapsing star? It doesn't seem possible that
gravity could have any effect on the rate of expansion. If it
did, it would have prevented the expansion at the start.

Yet it is thought that gravity slowed the expansion.

I'd like to see an explanation of that!

From your earlier post:


3) If the universe was created from a singularity, a single
dimensional point, then--at some point--matter must have
accelerated at speeds far greater than the speed of light...
a supposed impossibility. In fact, if the matter is infinite
as well as space, but both had a singular positional origin,
then to fill this infinite space with an infinite material,
matter had move with a speed well above that of light. In fact,
matter itself would have to be propelled at an infinite speed,
and with an infinite acceleration. This alone would break all
known physical laws and deduction.
The standard model does not assert that the Big Bang was a
singularity of space-- only a singularity of time. The Big
Bang supposedly happened "everywhere", which means more than
just a point. If the Universe is infinite, the Big Bang would
then have occurred throughout that infinite space. This seems
nonsense to me, since it appears to defy causality. Even a Big
Bang which began with a large volume of space rather than an
infinite volume defies causality. So I think this aspect of
the Big Bang needs some serious reworking. My speculation is
that the creation event was not instantaneous, but instead took
some finite time. Perhaps milliseconds or seconds.

In any case, there is no problem with space expanding faster
than the speed of light (whatever is meant by "expanding space").
The locally-measured speed of any theoretically-observable
particle in the expansion would always be less than c.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

ozark1
2006-Nov-14, 07:24 AM
What is "pure" speculation? Is it speculation which has no
basis in observation? For example, I speculate that at 2 PM
Central Standard Time on December 16, a creature three times
the size of the Sun, looking something like a cross between a
dragon and a poodle, will eat Jupiter. I also speculate that
it will snow in Minneapolis sometime in December.


Jeff

Those are two predictions. By 3 PM CST 16/12/06 we will know the accuracy of the first. The second is verging on a truism.

However we can never hope to see the elements of the universe beyond the current known edge of the visible universe. We might wait a billion years to see a billion ly further but it'll be the same stuff as now. The universe beyond has been receding from us at faster than the speed of light for the lifetime of the universe. Any statement on this universe beyond is pure speculation - it can never be tested

PS - String/Membrane theory is another untestable realm.

Eroica
2006-Nov-14, 08:43 AM
Apparently you overlooked this observation then:
That everytime our technology advances in the way of telescopes we see ever farther. :)
I don't see the relevance of that. Just because that happened in the past is no guarantee that it will continue to happen in the future. The ancients could have used a similar argument to claim that the Earth is of infinite dimensions: everytime explorers travel further afield they discover more of the Earth, ergo the Earth goes on forever....

Eroica
2006-Nov-14, 09:00 AM
Maybe speculation is even an essential part of science.
I agree. Speculation has a role to play in science, but until your speculations are testable they do not constitute a scientific theory. Isn't testability one of the hallmarks of a scientific theory?

At present we have no way of testing whether the universe is finite it infinite, so cosmological theories should not assert either.

Whether testability is tied in with Occam's Razor, though, is another question. Perhaps not... :think:


Yay! :D Agreement. :DThat's what we scientifically-minded people have in common with science - we're both capable of self-improvement! :)



And [scientific models are] also constructed to try to account as accurately as
possible for phenomena that we cannot presently observe.Now, just how would one go about constructing an accurate model of something that no one has ever seen? Are you talking about predictions? If you construct a model that saves the appearances, it may be possible to make predictions by extrapolating beyond the limits of the model - but that's quite different from modelling things that lie beyond the horizon of our current observations.

Van Rijn
2006-Nov-14, 09:03 AM
I don't see the relevance of that. Just because that happened in the past is no guarantee that it will continue to happen in the future. The ancients could have used a similar argument to claim that the Earth is of infinite dimensions: everytime explorers travel further afield they discover more of the Earth, ergo the Earth goes on forever....

Unless our cosmology is very wrong, we won't be seeing further back than the surface of last scattering (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990053sb.jpg) with any telescope or device based on electromagnetism. We "hit the wall" in 1965. Even the most distant galaxies we see are from a time more recent than that.

If we do someday find there is more universe (or a multiverse, or whatever name you want to give it) it would probably require new techniques to determine, not telescopes, however great.

jlhredshift
2006-Nov-14, 04:01 PM
Eddington thought that the Universe was finite, he said:

"I believe there are 15 747 724 136 275 002 577 605 653 961 181 555 468 044 717 914 527 116 709 366 231 425 076 185 631 031 296 protons in the universe and the same number of electrons."

Of course he did refine that number later and I think we will as well!

Click Ticker
2006-Nov-14, 05:57 PM
Unless our cosmology is very wrong, we won't be seeing further back than the surface of last scattering (http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/ContentMedia/990053sb.jpg) with any telescope or device based on electromagnetism. We "hit the wall" in 1965. Even the most distant galaxies we see are from a time more recent than that.

If we do someday find there is more universe (or a multiverse, or whatever name you want to give it) it would probably require new techniques to determine, not telescopes, however great.

Interesting point. Is this "wall" viewed at the same distance from the earth in every direction? If we were making the observation on a planet 13,000,000,000 light years from earth - would this "wall" be the same distance in all directions from that planet as well?

Based on what little I know - doesn't this "wall" simply tell us how old the universe is - but tell us nothing of how geographically large it is today?

Regardless - I suppose you are correct in that the answer will always be unknowable since any observation will just show was how things were billions and billions of years ago. We will never be able to observe the farthest reaches of the universe as they are today - regardless of the tools we use.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-14, 11:51 PM
I speculate that at 2 PM Central Standard Time on December 16,
a creature three times the size of the Sun, looking something
like a cross between a dragon and a poodle, will eat Jupiter.
I also speculate that it will snow in Minneapolis sometime in
December.
Those are two predictions.
Yes.



By 3 PM CST 16/12/06 we will know the accuracy of the first.
Probably. If the droodle eats us first, we cannot ever know.



The second is verging on a truism.
How can there be a truism about a time which isn't here yet?
It has never been December 2006, so we can have no information
about it. It is currently beyond our horizon. The prediction
is pure speculation.



However we can never hope to see the elements of the universe
beyond the current known edge of the visible universe. We might
wait a billion years to see a billion ly further but it'll be
the same stuff as now. The universe beyond has been receding
from us at faster than the speed of light for the lifetime of
the universe. Any statement on this universe beyond is pure
speculation
If any statement on this universe beyond is pure speculation,
then your assertion that "The universe beyond has been receding
from us at faster than the speed of light for the lifetime of
the universe" is pure speculation, totally without foundation
in observation. Right?



- it can never be tested.
How can you possibly know that?



PS - String/Membrane theory is another untestable realm.
What you mean is that you believe it is untestable.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-14, 11:57 PM
Speculation has a role to play in science, but until your
speculations are testable they do not constitute a scientific
theory. Isn't testability one of the hallmarks of a scientific
theory?
Yes.



At present we have no way of testing whether the universe is
finite or infinite, so cosmological theories should not assert
either.
Would something bad happen if they did? Theories make untestable
predictions all the time, as a matter of course. Theory predicts
that Jupiter has a rocky core. Theory predicts that the Big Bang
created equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter, but that
within a few seconds there was an excess of ordinary matter over
antimatter. Theory predicts that very distant galaxies are moving
away from us at faster than the speed of light, so that we can
never see them. There is nothing inherent in logic or mathematics
which prevents making such predictions.




And [scientific models are] also constructed to try to account as
accurately as possible for phenomena that we cannot presently observe.
Now, just how would one go about constructing an accurate model of
something that no one has ever seen? Are you talking about predictions?
Of course.


If you construct a model that saves the appearances, it may be
possible to make predictions by extrapolating beyond the limits
of the model - but that's quite different from modelling things
that lie beyond the horizon of our current observations.
How is it different? I say that you are imagining a difference
where none exists.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Ken G
2006-Nov-17, 02:13 AM
Theories make untestable
predictions all the time, as a matter of course.No, that just isn't the purpose of a theory at all. It is true that we might not get the opportunity to test all the predictions of a theory, but it has to be testable in principle. Something that is absolutely not testable in principle, like what is beyond our observable horizon, is not part of any scientific theory worth its salt. But it can be part of a scientific picture, like picturing that a universe obeying the cosmological principle within our observable horizon can be extrapolated to one that obeys it beyond our horizon. The difference between a theory and a picture is a point I seem to have to make over and over, as some people just never ever get it.

Theory predicts that the Big Bang
created equal amounts of ordinary matter and antimatter, but that
within a few seconds there was an excess of ordinary matter over
antimatter. This is a big problem with the theory that is constantly under scrutiny. Everyone would like to resolve the origin of matter, within a larger and more complete theory of physics. It is not a requirement of a theory that it be all things to all people, or explain everything, it only has to be useful in accomplishing what it is meant to accomplish. That is, it has a realm of applicability, which comes as part and parcel of the theory.


Theory predicts that very distant galaxies are moving
away from us at faster than the speed of light, so that we can
never see them. No theory predicts that something exists that we can never see, using the term "see" in the general sense of "detect" in principle (that is, without contradicting the body of physics that the theory is attempting to be placed within). However, it may seem like a natural extrapolation of some actual theory, left to the whim of the philosopher, to so extend the meaning and purpose of science.


There is nothing inherent in logic or mathematics
which prevents making such predictions.Not logic nor mathematics, no, but physics, yes. Eroica and ozark1 have something to teach you about what physics is, and what it isn't.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-17, 07:59 AM
Theories make untestable predictions all the time, as a
matter of course.
No, that just isn't the purpose of a theory at all.
Theories in general are of course not intended to make
untestable predictions-- but they do in fact make untestable
predictions, perhaps unintentionally, and it it is not at all
unusual for that to happen.



It is true that we might not get the opportunity to test all
the predictions of a theory,
And it could happen that nobody can think of any way to test a
particular prediction-- even an impractical way.



but it has to be testable in principle.
I don't see how that can be enforced. I don't see it being
enforced.



Something that is absolutely not testable in principle,
like what is beyond our observable horizon,
What if everything that is beyond our horizon starts coming
within our horizon? What if, before that happens, someone puts
forward a theory explaining exactly how and why it will happen?



is not part of any scientific theory worth its salt. But it can
be part of a scientific picture, like picturing that a universe
obeying the cosmological principle within our observable horizon
can be extrapolated to one that obeys it beyond our horizon.
So, when a theory makes a prediction, and then it is realized
that the prediction is of something which can (in theory) never
be observed, what happens? Is the theory rejected because it
produced an untestable prediction? Is the prediction ignored or
renamed to something else so that you can say it doesn't exist
or wasn't ever really a prediction? And then when someone later
discovers that the non-prediction can be tested after all,
does it get renamed back into being a prediction again?




Theory predicts that very distant galaxies are moving away from us
at faster than the speed of light, so that we can never see them.
No theory predicts that something exists that we can never see,
The standard Big Bang model does.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Thanatos
2006-Nov-17, 08:22 AM
Van Rijn got to the heart of the matter. The observable universe definitely appears to be finite in time [a big bang thing]. Any universe finite in time must also be spatially finite [a philosophy thing]. Also given there is more empty space than matter in our observable universe [by a sizeable amount], it follows there is a finite amount of matter in our observable univers. The possibility of other universes in this scenario is irrelevant - they are unobservable to us.

-Jove2-
2006-Nov-17, 11:06 AM
Philisophically speaking -
How can one apply something fintie (an event of creation),. to something infinate?
Also how can one apply the term 'empty space' to something that simply 'is'? Emptyness becomes an abstaction.

Imagine the universe spacialy is infinate,. (which if it isnt then what possibly lies beyond...?,.) and materialy finte., and with this you travel to the very edge,. being the edge of substance,. go a little futher, and turn around. What do you see? :)

I would then prostulate that Thantos is correct in saying the universe (or this universe) is measureable in time, but would go on to adopt the Big crunch theory and apply it as an ongoing process. And thus infinate.

So that leaves me having said,. materialy finate,. spacialy unknowable,. and timeless 'eventually',. lol.

Ken G
2006-Nov-17, 08:43 PM
Theories in general are of course not intended to make
untestable predictions-- but they do in fact make untestable
predictions, perhaps unintentionally, and it it is not at all
unusual for that to happen.
If you believe that, then perhaps you would like to cite an example of a prediction made by a theory that is untestable even in principle. I would argue that you do not have a prediction of a theory, you have a pointless extrapolation of a theory outside its domain of applicability.


And it could happen that nobody can think of any way to test a
particular prediction-- even an impractical way.Again, I await an example.



I don't see how that can be enforced. I don't see it being
enforced. It's enforced by the language itself-- science is a language of things that are testable in principle, even if the technology to do so is absurdly impractical. One must at least be able to imagine testing it, or the language is gobbledy-gook, and science must not use gobbledy-gook language. That's pretty much what separates it from non-science, in a nutshell.



What if everything that is beyond our horizon starts coming
within our horizon? What if, before that happens, someone puts
forward a theory explaining exactly how and why it will happen?
Every law of physics that we know could be wrong, and then all kinds of claims might be testable. That doesn't make them science. A literal interpretation of a religious text might one day become testable and prove completely correct, by your argument, does that make it science? Science tells us what we should expect to be testable and what we should not, and the fact that this may prove wrong is irrelevant to what science is all about.

The point is, science is not, and never has been, about what is right. Science is a process, a method for knowing. It has been right many times, and it has been wrong many times. Everything we think we know via science is probably wrong to some varying degree. What matters is the method by which the knowledge is acquired, because this leads to usefulness, not correctness. Or if you like, correctness is usefulness. Predictions about things that cannot be tested have no use, other than a kind of entertainment value. Nobody really cares if our guesses about what might be are right or not-- they will only care once they know the result of the test, because it is the result of the test that strengthens or weakens the usefulness of the theory.



So, when a theory makes a prediction, and then it is realized
that the prediction is of something which can (in theory) never
be observed, what happens? Nothing, what you are describing is not a prediction at all. Let's say you see everything out to your observable horizon and you see no edge. Do you predict that there is therefore no edge outside that horizon? Why would you do that? It's not a prediction, it's just a guess-- "I see no edge to a point, so I extrapolate that there's no edge beyond that point". Science doesn't predict that its laws will apply tomorrow, it assumes this, as part of what it means to be useful. The prediction is that if the assuption is correct, then what we should expect to see is ______. That's the difference between an assumption and a prediction-- if the laws don't change tomorrow, we don't say "ah yes, I predicted they wouldn't", we say "oh good, my assumption was correct, so let's look at some of my predictions based on that assumption".

Is the prediction ignored or
renamed to something else so that you can say it doesn't exist
or wasn't ever really a prediction? It doesn't have to be renamed, it really never was a prediction. If you want to offer some examples, I'll show you what I mean.



The standard Big Bang model does.

I await a single example of an untestable prediction by the standard Big Bang model, and note I already covered the cosmological principle-- which is not a prediction of the model, it is a requirement of the model.

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-19, 11:00 AM
Theories in general are of course not intended to make
untestable predictions-- but they do in fact make untestable
predictions, perhaps unintentionally, and it it is not at all
unusual for that to happen.
If you believe that, then perhaps you would like to cite an
example of a prediction made by a theory that is untestable
even in principle. I would argue that you do not have a
prediction of a theory, you have a pointless extrapolation
of a theory outside its domain of applicability.
Materials theory predicts that an ant 500 times the linear
dimensions of a typical ant would not be strong enough to lift
the weight of its own body off the ground.

Physiology theory predicts that such an ant would not be able
to get enough oxygen via respiration to support its metabolism.

Planetary science theory predicts that Jupiter has a rocky core
about 13 times the mass of Earth but only 20,000 km in diameter.

Classical electromagnetic theory predicted that Earth's motion
through the aether could be measured with an interferometer.

General relativity theory predicts that any object falling into
a non-rotating black hole will fall in a straight line toward
the singularity after crossing an outsider's event horizon, and
be spaghettified by gravitational differentials.

The standard model of quantum mechanics predicts gravitons,
analogous to photons, which carry the gravitational force.

As Nereid suggested, the Big Bang theory predicts that enormous
numbers of neutrinos were produced in the first few seconds.

Big Bang theory also predicts that in the first fraction of a
second, matter was mainly in the form of superheavy particles,
almost all of which annihilated each other.

Most models of the Big Bang theory-- essentially all those
incorporating Inflation-- predict that the majority of galaxies
are and will always be beyond our horizon.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Thanatos
2006-Nov-20, 07:03 AM
I would argue there are no galaxies beyond the surface of last scattering. Not in the absolute sense, but in the observable sense. Any objects beyond that horizon have no observable consequences in our universe - i.e., do not exist for all practical purposes.

pacificap@hotmail.com
2006-Nov-20, 08:19 AM
Scale of the Universe in Displacement and in Mass.

The Universe is both open in a dimensionality less by 1 AND closed in a dimensionality higher by 1. The universe can so be said to be Moebian connected or selfenfolded.

The dimensionalities are compactified or conifolded as either a 6D Calabi-Yau manifold around a 4D Riemann hypersphere in 10D C-Space OR a 7D Joyce manifold in 11D M-Space (Witten-Space).

A two-directional time symmetry then maps the 10D-C-Space AS 12D-F-Space (Vafa-Space).

The observable universe so is decribed either as a 4D volume of toroidal nature (2Pi^2.Rmax^3) OR as a 3D-surface of say KleinBottledness.

As the 11D 'membrane' space is also a mirror-space; the universe's boundary condition becomes a Event Horizon Rmax=c/Ho, where a 'Nodal' Hubble Constant Ho defines the Event Horizon of a Schwarzschild metric under string parameters, incorporating the Planck scale and c-invarianceobeying specific minmax conditions under MODULAR DUALITY (i.e. inversion properties).
In particular a dimensionless cycletime n=Tau=Ho.t for a measured linearised time t with lightpath x=ct and dn/dt=Ho as nodal Hubble constant.

So Rmax~1.60x10^26 metres gives the C-Space ASYMPTOTIC extent of the universe under limiting expansion factor (from general relativity) R(n)=Rmax(n/n+1).

The observable universe can so be unitised as Riemann hypersphere volume 2Pi^2.R(n)^3 for any cycletime n=Hot.

This however will give TWO values, one for the asymptotic lowerD (and open universe) expansion and one for the constant higherD (and closed universe) expansion.

The former is inertial, meaning, that the birth of the universe (under auspices of string vibrations/parameters) was definitive in allowing not only the transformation of superstring classes into one another, but also the metamorphosis of 'gravityational mass' into 'inetial mass' in the form of general relativitie's equivalence pinciple.

Then superstrings as BOSONIC vibration patterns could bifurcate into FERMIONIC vibration patterns and photonic mass-equivalent energy (E=hf) could become inertial in E=mc^2 via the kinetic entropy of Black Holed energy E=kT and the minimum Planck Oscillator (ZPE).

So a certain mass-seedling, derived from the string parameters Mo=Sqrt{E}.Mplanck.MBaseneutron/MBaselepton could establish the Velocity and Acceleration parameters for the curvature radius R(n) and their rationated (acceleration gradient) form to the so called de Broglie matter wave inflaton.

The latter leads directly to the Omega as the ratio of actual to critical density in the standard cosmology and being twice the deceleration parameter of general relativity as the ratio between Mo and the mass required for closure in the asymptotic M-Space.

So the finite universe is described as the information base for a infinite, yet nodally bounded universe in linearised time t=n/Ho.

The information base is a mapping of thermodynamic entropy in halfcycles each of so 16.9 billion years and so defining the nodes.

The model describes the universe's critical mass as that of a Black Hole in M-Space Mcritical=Rmax.c^2/2G, i.e. the basic Schwarzschild metric.

For a base seed of Mo~1.8x10^51 kg then the Mcritical~6.5x10^52 kg.

Those figures infer a neutron count maximised in so 7x10^79 and incorporate a certain supersymmetry between the gauge agents for the fundamental interactions, which are all massless but become 'Higgs Induced' via certain poststring transformations at the Fermi Energy of electroweak unification (~298 GeV or at so 4x10^15 Kelvin).

Then the 'inertial-energy-content' in the universe becomes subject to a evolution of extremal Black Hole boundary conditions.

A decisive subscale for the M-Space extent is the supercluster scale defining gravitational interaction before cosmic homogenuity applies.
This scale is at cosmological redshift 7.477 or at a Sarkar Diameter of so 473 Million Lightyears.

A Sarkar Black Hole so forms a local maximum with mass Mo (the string mass seedling).

It takes so 7.6 trillion years for such an extremal (boundary condition of NO Hawking radiation in C-Space, but evaporating in M-Space) Black Hole to 'shrink' to the metric limit (in general relativity and a transformation of the string class I as the Planck-Boson) of the heterotic string class HE(64) at the 'Weyl-Limit', also known as Ng VanDam Scale in (say) Penroses' Weyl-Tensor Nullification Hypothesis.

After a supercycle of 7.6 trillion years then, a Sarkar Black hole would be mssless in M-Space yet remain a Sarkar boundary Black hole i the observed C-Space.

The trillion year cycle also AVOIDS the standard projected 'heat death' for the universe, where all the stellar generations are said to have exhausted their nuclear fuel; as a kind of 'recharging' will reset the minmax condition between the Weyl-Wavelength and the Sarkar Supercluster Radius in the encompassing inertial mass evolution for the universe as nested Black hole hierarchies defined in string parameters.

In summary then; the universe's mass content is not fixed, but is based on primary parameters, such as the origin of the equivalence principle and the nature of displacement/spacetime from the c-invariance and the lightpath in Quantum Relativity and the demetricated (read background independent) superbrane scenarios.

Tony B.

Cougar
2006-Nov-20, 05:57 PM
Does the universe have a finite mass?

The dimensionalities are compactified or conifolded as either a 6D Calabi-Yau manifold around a 4D Riemann hypersphere in 10D C-Space OR a 7D Joyce manifold in 11D M-Space (Witten-Space)........
Was that a yes or a no?

transreality
2006-Nov-20, 10:21 PM
In the COBE image, aren't we seeing the whole universe in that snapshot?

The universe must be finite, and thus its mass. However, if we try to measure it from the inside it appears infinite due to curvature of space, etc.

Of course, as to the continuu outside the universe: who knows...

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-20, 10:35 PM
In the COBE image, aren't we seeing the whole universe in that snapshot?
No. The cosmic background radiation we see now came from a
thin shell, only about 100 parsecs thick, surrounding our current
position. We can see galaxies that formed from material which
was closer to us than that shell. We can't see galaxies that
formed from material which was farther from us than the shell.

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

Cougar
2006-Nov-20, 11:47 PM
We can't see galaxies that formed from material which was farther from us than the shell.
B-b-b-but all the galaxies formed from material that was "on the other side" of the "shell". We can't yet "see" past that surface of last scattering because we haven't quite perfected the neutrino telescope.....

Ken G
2006-Nov-21, 06:22 AM
Materials theory predicts that an ant 500 times the linear
dimensions of a typical ant would not be strong enough to lift
the weight of its own body off the ground.Testable-- build a robot with the same specifications you are using for your "theory". After all, your theory will not contain any other elements that are unique to ants.


Physiology theory predicts that such an ant would not be able
to get enough oxygen via respiration to support its metabolism.

Testable-- same way. Build one, it needn't have any attributes other than what you are putting in your "materials theory".



Planetary science theory predicts that Jupiter has a rocky core
about 13 times the mass of Earth but only 20,000 km in diameter.
Too easy to test to even mention. Remember, the tests need only be possible in principle-- funding agencies (and human resources) are another matter altogether.



Classical electromagnetic theory predicted that Earth's motion
through the aether could be measured with an interferometer.
Was tested. Duh.



General relativity theory predicts that any object falling into
a non-rotating black hole will fall in a straight line toward
the singularity after crossing an outsider's event horizon, and
be spaghettified by gravitational differentials.
Not a prediction-- merely an extrapolation of an equation. Equations can always be extrapolated beyond their domains of applicability, but it ain't a prediction unless it can be tested (so common a mistake made by people talking about black holes, I'll grant you this one as being borderline physics, on the grounds that it's debatable. But I still think we've been surprised so many times extrapolating physics that was testable, it is ludicrous to extrapolate beyond an event horizon.)



The standard model of quantum mechanics predicts gravitons,
analogous to photons, which carry the gravitational force.Testable, and being tested. How on Earth is that not testable in principle, or even in practice for that matter? One theory or another is going to be wrong there, and we will figure it out if we stay alive. That's what makes it science.



As Nereid suggested, the Big Bang theory predicts that enormous
numbers of neutrinos were produced in the first few seconds.
Very testable, in principle. Neutrinos are detectable, and have been detected, just not from that source. Again, a big funding problem.



Big Bang theory also predicts that in the first fraction of a
second, matter was mainly in the form of superheavy particles,
almost all of which annihilated each other.That is only a prediction in the sense that it is the intersection of particle physics and cosmology. All aspects of that are testable, it's just going to cost a lot. One may need to use indirect techniques, or wait for cosmic accelerators to do the job. Not all predictions are directly testable, one sometimes has to look for the byproducts or ramifications. When one gets beyond what one has information about, then how on Earth does the Big Bang make any predictions at all? It is merely a backward extrapolation of time, and when the physics gets murky, there ceases to be predictions any more.


Most models of the Big Bang theory-- essentially all those
incorporating Inflation-- predict that the majority of galaxies
are and will always be beyond our horizon.

Not a prediction. That's only the cosmological principle-- covered that already.

Hlafordlaes
2006-Dec-05, 02:15 AM
Scale of the Universe in Displacement and in Mass.

Afraid I'm just a noob who relies on Hawking's et al popular science writings for the little I understand, if indeed I understand anything. There were very few items in your post I could read without a slack jaw, so pls allow me to check my inklings of the matter.

(?)You are describing a boundary-less folded finite 4D spacetime with non-bounded extra dimensions up to 11D(?)

(?)"Our" singularity or observable universe is resting on / relying on / embedded in a more general substrate (membrane?) such that in knowing this, it becomes an information source (or case in point) for a probable multitude of other similar singularities(?)

Does this translate somewhat to a finite singularity "bubble" in an universe of many such, so that the universe is infinite? Or was there a limit you expressed that I could not read?

(BTW, need all other singularities ?nodes? have the same fundamental constants?)

Might we add the quantum sum over histories to make that infinite sets of infinite universes?

Merrily climbing on a many a limb for you to saw off,
-Hlafordlaes

pacificap@hotmail.com
2006-Dec-05, 08:22 AM
Afraid I'm just a noob who relies on Hawking's et al popular science writings for the little I understand, if indeed I understand anything. There were very few items in your post I could read without a slack jaw, so pls allow me to check my inklings of the matter.

(?)You are describing a boundary-less folded finite 4D spacetime with non-bounded extra dimensions up to 11D(?)



(?)"Our" singularity or observable universe is resting on / relying on / embedded in a more general substrate (membrane?) such that in knowing this, it becomes an information source (or case in point) for a probable multitude of other similar singularities(?)

Does this translate somewhat to a finite singularity "bubble" in an universe of many such, so that the universe is infinite? Or was there a limit you expressed that I could not read?

(BTW, need all other singularities ?nodes? have the same fundamental constants?)

Might we add the quantum sum over histories to make that infinite sets of infinite universes?

Merrily climbing on a many a limb for you to saw off,
-Hlafordlaes

Hi Hlafordlaes!

Thanks for your reply and I'll be pleased to answer your questions.


(?)You are describing a boundary-less folded finite 4D spacetime with non-bounded extra dimensions up to 11D(?)

Yes to the first part and no to the second.

Hawking's 'No Boundary' Universe is the one I also model and it is enfolded in itself as a Riemannian Hypersphere (Poincare's 3-Sphere).
This self-enfolding is a topological procedure, which combines two curvatures for an overall flatness.

Imagine yourself at the centre of a doughnut and you would look at a hyperbolic (-ve) curvature; but anywhere outside the maximal doughnut space (think of the torus inside a spherical bubble say), you would look at the bubble of (+ve) elliptical curvature.

This torus/doughnut shape is generated in a circular area (pi.r^2) following a circular lineintegral around the greater doughnut perimeter.
Mathematically it is 2Pi.r.(Pi.r^2)=2Pi^2.r^3; BUT only if the singularity of the centre of the doughnut actually is a point of intersection of the 'doughnut walls'.
If the 'walls' do not touch, then the formula for the torus volume is 2Pi.R.Pi.r^2 with R>r.

Ok, then the enfolding is the Torus-Volume within the Bubble, so blending the positive and negative curvatures.

The difference in volume is the upper bounded Chaos Constant or Feigenbaum Delta (4.669..) as 3Pi/2.

Now the higher dimensions are CONIFOLDMENTS, meaning one can extend the 2-Torus from above as a 8-Torus in adding a 6-D Calabi-Yau manifold to it topologically.

This would also add the 6D to the Riemann Hypersphere of volume 2Pi^2.R^3 with R here is the Hubble-Radius of so 17 Billion lightyears in say the Friedmann-Einstein Cosmology of General Relativity.

So the higher dimensions are both circumscribed and inscribed in the hypersphere; they are like a wrapping paper forming a CONTINUOUS doubled surface (this is the famous Moebius strip analogy, where a doublesided strip becomes onesidfed in a 180 degree twist of one of the end edges and so doubles its continuous surface area).

So the extra dimensions are bounded in the Hubble-radius, yet there is an unboundedness, if you now add the 12th dimensions (see F-Theory on wikipedia for more) which uses the mirror duality of M-Theory (off 11 membrane dimensions).
Then the bubble itself can expand in the 12th dimension, yet remain bounded in the 11th as the NODES for the 10th and below.



(?)"Our" singularity or observable universe is resting on / relying on / embedded in a more general substrate (membrane?) such that in knowing this, it becomes an information source (or case in point) for a probable multitude of other similar singularities(?)

Absolutely, but this does not necessarily translate into the socalled ekpyrotic membranes of Turok, Steinhardt, Albrecht and co.

A single thermodynamic Big Bang suffices to 'create' the Hubble-Bubble, with the 'Nodes' being the (11D) asymptotic boundary for the 10th (read 4D Minkowski spacetime) to expand into.
The setting up of this asymptotic boundary condition is known as inflation and was over after 3.33x10^-31 seconds.

But your universe topology as an information source is 100% and is modelled in the Holographic Universe of Maldacena, Susskind, Penrose, Bekenstein and Hawking.
The Black Hole entropy and the universe modelled as a Planck-Black Body radiator comes into this.

The information mapping is the mapping of the lower D onto the say inner surface of the 11D Witten-Mirror.

Then the outer surface can project this information in a twofold manner (like a monochromatic laser works in holography), namely reflecting the data back into the Riemann Hypersphere AND refracting it into a potential infinite spacetime expansion into the 12th.


(?)Does this translate somewhat to a finite singularity "bubble" in an universe of many such, so that the universe is infinite? Or was there a limit you expressed that I could not read?(?)

Yes indeed, the Hubble-Bubble just described is the Universal Seedling.
But now you can extend this in parallel OR in phaseshifts.

Consider the Hubble-Bubble = 11D-Membrane-Universe wrapped around the Riemann Hypersphere.
Now topologically transform this into a PROLATE ELLIPSOID in 3D/9D, meaning that a major axis rotation would keep the foci (or 2D ellipse definitions) invariant.
So rotating the 'wrapped' hypersphere around the major axis doesnt move the foci.

THIS IS THE UNIVERSAL SEEDLING or Base Universe or PROTOVERSE.

But any of the minor axis rotations would trace out a focal point circle, which is simply a 1-Torus.

So there are an infinite number of phaseshifts of angular displacements, which render ther prolate Base Universe as an Oblate Envelope OMNIVERSE.

This then describes a Many-Universe-Scenario NOT in translational parallelism, but in rotational phases.

Then a nesting of sorts resuls, with the Omniverse expanding under c-invariance, yet containing an infinite number of internal phaseshifts, each phaseshift selfrelative to the Protoverse.

So when Pythagoras said:

'Man know thyself, then will you know the Universe'; removed theological reference then this quote could mean, that the universe observed by science is the true identity of every 'manwoman' as the actual 'body' of the 'womanman'.

But I leave the philosophical and metaphysical interpretations of the Omniverse=GoddoG to the reader.


(?/)(BTW, need all other singularities ?nodes? have the same fundamental constants?)(?)

Well the beauty of the above is, that one only needs the one singularity, namely the centre of the 2-Torus touching itself (as the Finger of God say, again gnostically speaking).
Then the anthropic principle is unnneccessary, as the Protoverse is the central volume, which generates itself as the Quantum of Selfcreation.
One set of elementary constants then also becomes a 'toolbox' for this selfcreation.


(?)Might we add the quantum sum over histories to make that infinite sets of infinite universes?(?)

Very good point. The quantum sum of histories will be the set of protoverse generated multiverses within the omniverse however.

A multiverse is the interaction between a phaseshifted universe and THE protoverse of course.

And two phaseshifted universes as a COUPLE, would of course define a FAMILY of Multiverses as the Children of the Omniverse and describe a true Ontology for the physics and its historical development and the 'Raison D' Etre' for the existence of life and the sentience of it.

Thanking You Tony B.

Hlafordlaes
2006-Dec-05, 05:58 PM
Shucks, Tony. Thanks, but golly!

... Think my rationality is a bit more bounded than my previous estimates, no doubt inflated by a natural self-regard that has proven quite resistant to peer review. Perhaps this forum will aid me in introducing some corrections.
:doh:
-Hlafordlaes