There is an inconsistency between QM and Relativity. Relativity does not allow something to be in two places at once like QM does. Also QM allows "spooky action at a distance", Relativity does not.
Great going, Bill. I've been preparing myself to go after this very difference -- regarding my "traveler" yet again! -- and you beat me to it, briefly!
Well my lady wife of more than 55 years now is telling my meal is ready, so I've got to let go for the time being. It's always fun when you are around!
I've always taken the Universe to mean knowable Universe. It's okay by me if others wish to suppose other universes as long as we recognize only one can be determined.
Supposing other universes does help us better appreciate the one we have, I think. The dozens of fixed parameters and strength ratios, along with the few forces, has helped us appreciate how finely-tuned our universe is relative to other supposed universes that would be different, and many short-lived.
It's interesting how we can imagine stuff to help us better understand the real stuff.
Well firstly, I strongly believe we are not alone in our own Universe, I believe there are other beings out there in the cosmos trying as hard as us to find other living species.
If not, then there should be other livinng organisms somewhere out there. Even in our solar system, if we can explore Jupiters Europa, I believe we will find some living organism under the icey surface.
It's really difficult to believe that there are other universes, escpecially since we have not entirely observed and explored our own universe. So until we know how vast is our universe, then I dont belive there are other universes out there.
From where we stand I believe our universe is infinite, and there are no other universes...
If the visible Universe is 13.7 billion light years in radius, then it has a volume of 1e31 LY.
If there are a million times a million civilizations trying to contact us, that is one civilization per 1e19 cubic LY. The average distance to the nearest one is 2.2 million LY.
I believe there are plenty of civilizations out there, they are just too far away to contact.
If there are a million times a million civilizations trying to contact us, that is one civilization per 1e19 cubic LY. The average distance to the nearest one is 2.2 million LY.
I believe there are plenty of civilizations out there, they are just too far away to contact.
Agreed, it's just a matter of time before contact is established.
Hopefully it happens in our lifetime...
Hopefully it happens in our lifetime...
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Sorry, folks. My input (logical judgment) is that this question is just a semantic dalliance with conjecture. First, remember that infinite/infinity has no relation to reality - it is a mathematical abstraction - simply a term to express our ignorance. Simply meaning something bigger/smaller than we can understand. Do not mistake it for a number, or anything real.
No scientist worth the name would consider the term as anything but inadequate ability to quantify.
There is, by definition, only one Universe. There are billions of observable universes - because each entity (person/thing) has a totality of what he/she/it can observe limited by the speed of light. This includes beings with different senses.
Yet another example of semantic misunderstanding (IMHO)
Cat
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
If there is no possibility of interaction, how could we ever know?
And, what could it possibly matter?
What could be any point in such a question?
Cat
Quite an interesting "input/logic judgement", I actually like it... got me thinkingSorry, folks. My input (logical judgment) is that this question is just a semantic dalliance with conjecture. First, remember that infinite/infinity has no relation to reality - it is a mathematical abstraction - simply a term to express our ignorance. Simply meaning something bigger/smaller than we can understand. Do not mistake it for a number, or anything real.
No scientist worth the name would consider the term as anything but inadequate ability to quantify.
There is, by definition, only one Universe. There are billions of observable universes - because each entity (person/thing) has a totality of what he/she/it can observe limited by the speed of light. This includes beings with different senses.
Yet another example of semantic misunderstanding (IMHO)
Cat
Anyways, given the data gathered from the observable universe, I still believe the universe is at this point infinite/limitless and endeless especially given the recent discoveries of futherest and most distant galaxies.
So surely what we know is not limited, and there is still more to discover
Just as it took many years to find that first exoplanet and now we’ve detected over 5000 of them, one day we will discover that magic data point that indicates a living planet, then there may suddenly be many.
The reason to believe there are other horizon (h) universes (u) out there is because of a physic known as "discrete quanta." Also, another physics from Chaos Theory known as "fractal zoom universes" or more simply as "fractality." It is the local-relative "finite" and it will always be engaged . . . locally, relatively speaking that is.
Infinite, infinitesimal, infinities, will always be nonlocal "at a distance" (and when you remove local's "finite" from the picture of nonlocal's "infinity (infinities)" all of the differences without exception disappear). You have the (you ready for it?) Planck Big Bang (Black Hole) (collapsed cosmological constant) (T=0(1), t=0(1), fbb2 = (0 (null unity) || 1 (unity) . . . and Parity)) Horizon of all horizons and Horizon of the Infinite MULTIVERSE Universe. Whew! Ponderous! But I can't reduce it except to its parts and finally to "Horizon" and that isn't nearly descriptive enough usually to describe it as I see it to be.
Alternatively, there is pyramidical dimensionality. Pyramid base 1- and 2-dimensional base "Flatland" and the build [this way] to pyramid apex point (portal)! in dimensional complexity from the pyramidical base -- 'Flatland' -- dimensionality. Physicists' bell or cone shape that usually attempts to illustrate the universe is exactly the reverse of what I see a dimensional build to be. All of their dimensionality is on the wrong end of the bell / cone / pyramid and is reductionist to 'Flatland' in coming this way (making us, and everything else here / now everywhere here / now is, the 1-dimensional sticks in a 2-dimensionally 'flat' dimensionality).
Last edited:
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Cat, I've observed in my reading of the writings of several physicists that nothing really exists until it is observed by some observer, thus being information and thus informatively wordy.The words are not the reality.
Cat
Now, Cat, since TIME can be observed and measured, and SPACE can't even possibly be observed, thus really can't be measured, does that mean that SPACE does not in fact exist (regarding physicists) . . . as SPACE separate from TIME (regarding physicists)?! Thus, that spatially 'open systems' -- including spatially 'opening systems' -- of any kind whatsoever really do not in fact really exist since SPACE and thus SPATIAL can't possibly be observed and thus can't possibly be measured as such separate from TIME (regarding physicists, it being only TIME that is in fact being observed and measured -- as SPACE too -- in a space of TIME (space-Time), and SPACE thus being some kind of delusional illusion of the uninitiated)?!
You notice I'm dealing in an equal but opposite to that that many say doesn't in fact exist . . . TIME to be exact (a delusional illusion of the initiated).
Last edited:
Extending #41 a bit:
Variably soft SPACE.
Invariably hard TIME.
Pinned to the geometry, so-so SPACETIME.
Variably soft SPACE.
Invariably hard TIME.
Pinned to the geometry, so-so SPACETIME.
Space and time are the same thing.
Stay in one spot your whole life, doing no travel. and you experience 100 out of the 100 years you are alive. 100% coverage.
Fly around the universe at .99999c, travelling billions of miles, and when you return, you only experienced 100 out of the ten billion years you were alive, 1 millionth of a % coverage.
In each case you got a whole lot of one thing and a tiny bit of the other. In each case the total is the same.
Stay in one spot your whole life, doing no travel. and you experience 100 out of the 100 years you are alive. 100% coverage.
Fly around the universe at .99999c, travelling billions of miles, and when you return, you only experienced 100 out of the ten billion years you were alive, 1 millionth of a % coverage.
In each case you got a whole lot of one thing and a tiny bit of the other. In each case the total is the same.
With the above we are completely at odds, Bill. I read you as saying SPACE and TIME are both nothing but a single 1-dimensional linearity. That a being traveling the universe billions of miles will travel just one mile at a time until a billion miles is covered. As I see it, that is completely wrong. I see it that that being can quite possibly occupy all billion miles of SPACE all at once . . . all at the same TIME, just as that same being can occupy a billion billionths of a centimeter or a billion billionths of a kilometer or a mile, whatever, all at once, all at the same exact time, in TIME! A "billion miles" may be nothing at all to the traveler dealing in the principle of uncertainty as to its position and velocity, and therefore the SPACE it occupies all at once, all at the exactly the same TIME, in SPACE (like the particle in the box occupying the space of the box, all of it all at once).
Every observer "at any distance" would observe the particle, the traveler, to be a different somewhere, popping in and out of view like any particle, in a quadrant of SPACE but not everywhere in it all at once which is reserved to the particle -- to the traveler! It could cover a lot of territory any of the then Lilliputian observers (relatively speaking) would measure as it having exceeded the speed of light in totality of distance and never exceed the speed of light locally to it. Its clock, locally to it, like Hawking's universal clock in his "Grand Central Station" of the Universe, never varying a tick of time from the tick of time of the clock of any of the nonlocal observers "at any distance." SPACE is never the universal constant that TIME is. It is not the "invariable" hard measure an Earthly physicist might give it. But the measure of TIME regarding the universe, macro-verse and micro-verse, is "invariable."
And I am not talking about the SPACE cracked and quaked emissions (infinitely plural) of light . . . therefore of light times!
I am so surprised at you, Bill. I don't mean to disparage you, and I may have misread you completely but if "space and time are the same thing," you can't in fact be anything more than a geometry of 1-dimensional stick figure within nothing more than a geometry of 2-dimensional "Flatland universe"! Again, nothing at all more! Don't you ever wonder why Relativity physics can never be meshed with quantum physics? Well, that's why! That is what Relativity physics are without quantum physics, a 2-dimensional geometry of "Flatland" photographic universe only.
Every observer "at any distance" would observe the particle, the traveler, to be a different somewhere, popping in and out of view like any particle, in a quadrant of SPACE but not everywhere in it all at once which is reserved to the particle -- to the traveler! It could cover a lot of territory any of the then Lilliputian observers (relatively speaking) would measure as it having exceeded the speed of light in totality of distance and never exceed the speed of light locally to it. Its clock, locally to it, like Hawking's universal clock in his "Grand Central Station" of the Universe, never varying a tick of time from the tick of time of the clock of any of the nonlocal observers "at any distance." SPACE is never the universal constant that TIME is. It is not the "invariable" hard measure an Earthly physicist might give it. But the measure of TIME regarding the universe, macro-verse and micro-verse, is "invariable."
And I am not talking about the SPACE cracked and quaked emissions (infinitely plural) of light . . . therefore of light times!
I am so surprised at you, Bill. I don't mean to disparage you, and I may have misread you completely but if "space and time are the same thing," you can't in fact be anything more than a geometry of 1-dimensional stick figure within nothing more than a geometry of 2-dimensional "Flatland universe"! Again, nothing at all more! Don't you ever wonder why Relativity physics can never be meshed with quantum physics? Well, that's why! That is what Relativity physics are without quantum physics, a 2-dimensional geometry of "Flatland" photographic universe only.
Last edited:
Doesn't make sense, does it? Welcome to Relativity! When you add in Quantum Mechanics, we now have two fields of science don't make any sense.
When I say time and distance are the same thing, it is because when you take more of one, you get less of the other. It is like choosing food in a buffet line, take more of one and you won't have room on your plate for the other.
What it REALLY means is space and time are different, but made of an underlying third entity which we don't know what it is.
When I say time and distance are the same thing, it is because when you take more of one, you get less of the other. It is like choosing food in a buffet line, take more of one and you won't have room on your plate for the other.
What it REALLY means is space and time are different, but made of an underlying third entity which we don't know what it is.
Now that I can agree with! You used my own trojan against me and it doesn't bother me one little bit! Good going, Bill.
Catastrophe
"Science begets knowledge, opinion ignorance.
Our limited impression of "reality" is only what is filtered through our senses. This is self-evident, unless we accept "data" derived through extra-sensory perception - and how do you differentiate this (if it exists) from imagination? There is a semantic morass to be avoided here.
If there are data beyond our sensory mechanisms to access, then it is futile to even mention them, let alone attempt a discussion. I am very concerned, in this context, about "parallel universes".
In my book, there are no "parallel Universes", since there is only one Universe. The only exceptions are where "universe" is clearly referring to defined abstractions of the one Universe - as in "observable universes", referring to the personal abstractions of individuals.
If you agree with me, then you will probably agree, also, that there are many discussions taking place which are founded on false premises and/or assumptions, and that these "discussions" should simply not be happening.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that these comments are intended as totally general, and not intended in any way whatsoever as relating specifically to this forum, its threads or participannts. Before I worked out my opinions, I was doubtless as guilty as anyone in making such errors, and sincerely trust that I am not now letting odd occurrences slip through.
Cat
If there are data beyond our sensory mechanisms to access, then it is futile to even mention them, let alone attempt a discussion. I am very concerned, in this context, about "parallel universes".
In my book, there are no "parallel Universes", since there is only one Universe. The only exceptions are where "universe" is clearly referring to defined abstractions of the one Universe - as in "observable universes", referring to the personal abstractions of individuals.
If you agree with me, then you will probably agree, also, that there are many discussions taking place which are founded on false premises and/or assumptions, and that these "discussions" should simply not be happening.
I cannot emphasise strongly enough that these comments are intended as totally general, and not intended in any way whatsoever as relating specifically to this forum, its threads or participannts. Before I worked out my opinions, I was doubtless as guilty as anyone in making such errors, and sincerely trust that I am not now letting odd occurrences slip through.
Cat
Roll your own wormhole?
brobible.com
They do seem to come from seeming nowhere and go to nowhere, don't they?!
Scientists Believe A Wormhole May Have Appeared Over California UFO Hot Spot
Scientists on the History Channel believe a wormhole may have appeared at a UFO hot spot over Catalina Island in California. "Friday, July 16th, 2021.
brobible.com
They do seem to come from seeming nowhere and go to nowhere, don't they?!
The image with the cluster of gamma rays cannot be gamma rays as a camera lens will not focus them. The entire surface of the detector would get peppered, not one small area.
The radiation detector shown is not capable of measuring a 43 MeV particle. The detector mass is good for detection but cannot quantify the particle's energy unless the entire photon is absorbed. A Ge or scintillation detector this size is good for no more than about 10 MeV.
Someone is not telling the truth.
Also note the professors, in their sworn duty to pursue UFOs to the ends of the Earth, JUST HAPPENED to end up on Catalina for a week. I've been there. It's drop dead gorgeous, and swanky. I wouldn't mind hanging around Avalon Harbor for a week. On the way home we could check for UFOs at Disneyland.
The radiation detector shown is not capable of measuring a 43 MeV particle. The detector mass is good for detection but cannot quantify the particle's energy unless the entire photon is absorbed. A Ge or scintillation detector this size is good for no more than about 10 MeV.
Someone is not telling the truth.
Also note the professors, in their sworn duty to pursue UFOs to the ends of the Earth, JUST HAPPENED to end up on Catalina for a week. I've been there. It's drop dead gorgeous, and swanky. I wouldn't mind hanging around Avalon Harbor for a week. On the way home we could check for UFOs at Disneyland.
Similar threads
TRENDING THREADS
-
Basic Error: The accelerating Universe conclusion - reason- Started by Gibsense
- Replies: 188
-
-
Definition of Universe requires clarification, to enable discussion
- Started by Catastrophe
- Replies: 21
-
-
Just a couple of questions please about just how far back we can model.- Started by Starstruck
- Replies: 6
-
US Space Force 5 years later: What has it accomplished so far, and where does it go from here?- Started by Admin
- Replies: 4
Facebook
Twitter
Instagram