Breaking the infinite pigeon hole theory

[voidpotentialenergy]

You have probably heard of the pigeon hole theory?
If we have more than 1 universe we probably have an infinite number of them and if we do we have infinite numbers of exact universe copies (infinite me you)

An interesting math idea, and interesting to think that an infinite number of us all exist.
The only thing that seems to have instant communication properties in our universe is Gravity.
Reason we orbit the sun at it's true location and not it's C location and probably why spooky action works also.
If we take that as a fact and do have infinite universes they probably instant communicate with each other also.

If we start with the infinite as exact copies of every universe then the left/right/top/bottom of each are not exact gravity matches on the next universe.
Instant divergence no matter how you place them.
Even if we have an exact copy of our universe somewhere in the infinite it's unique location in infinity will assure it being unique.
Infinite randomness and just 1 of me and 1 of you.


Thoughts?

 

[Catastrophe]

"and if we do we have infinite numbers of exact universe copies (infinite me you)"

and then you must have enough alternate universes for each person (world population = ??? billion, and that is just Earth. And why not choices for rabbits and bacteria?) to have infinite choices.

Cat

 

[Jim DeMaio]

We are a thought in the Mind of the Creator or original Thought. “All in the All “ as Hermès put it.

 

[rod]

Well infinity is a big number Consider the universe size in the BB model, only 46.5 billion light years radius, How Big Is the Universe?, https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

Presently telescopes can only see out to about 13.5 billion light-years from Earth (z ~ 12) so that leaves 33 billion more light-years presently not observable. Now this discussion introduces an infinite number of universes.

How do you plan to observe those infinite number of universes from Earth?

 

[Catastrophe]

Rod

"How do you plan to observe those infinite number of universes from Earth?"

Who says that is possible?

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Well infinity is a big number Consider the universe size in the BB model, only 46.5 billion light years radius, How Big Is the Universe?, https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

Presently telescopes can only see out to about 13.5 billion light-years from Earth (z ~ 12) so that leaves 33 billion more light-years presently not observable. Now this discussion introduces an infinite number of universes.

How do you plan to observe those infinite number of universes from Earth?

Dark flow or the great attracter i think is pointing us directly to the next universe. Or just pointing directly to the next big bang mass in the endless quantum fluctuation universe we live in. JMO

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"and if we do we have infinite numbers of exact universe copies (infinite me you)"

and then you must have enough alternate universes for each person (world population = ??? billion, and that is just Earth. And why not choices for rabbits and bacteria?) to have infinite choices.

Cat

I think as a math problem it's a great one for thought but in reality the location and interference of each in it's unique location will never allow a duplicate.

Population 1

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

We are a thought in the Mind of the Creator or original Thought. “All in the All “ as Hermès put it.

Could be an even easier solution.
Void space had potential energy.
No reason just is a property of nothing.

 

[rod]

Well interesting discussion here and some questions. I use this definition of science.
Here are five points that science must meet according to a 1982 Fed court and judge ruling. The essential characteristics of science are: 1. It is guided by natural law; 2. It has to be explanatory by reference to natural law; 3. It is testable against the empirical world; 4. Its conclusions are tentative, i.e., are not necessarily the final word; 5. It is falsifiable.

Galileo's observations of the Galilean moons moving around Jupiter in the early 1600s that shocked the geocentric astronomy, meets these standards. Consider Cat post #5 and others here.

 

[KC Strom]

Well infinity is a big number Consider the universe size in the BB model, only 46.5 billion light years radius, How Big Is the Universe?, https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

Presently telescopes can only see out to about 13.5 billion light-years from Earth (z ~ 12) so that leaves 33 billion more light-years presently not observable. Now this discussion introduces an infinite number of universes.

How do you plan to observe those infinite number of universes from Earth?

Rod,

Question for you. How is it known that present telescopes can only see to about 13.5 billion light years from earth?

thanks.

 

[Atlan0001]

"Infinite numbers of exact copies." Not all that long ago I argued for it, that you could not have an infinite number of universes without an infinite number of exact copies included. Then, finally, I began to realize that exact copies crossed a line between exactly one entity [immortally] extant and those infinite numbers of exact copies. To put it another way, an infinite number of exact copies of any universe must exist as that infinity and yet, at exactly the same time, be exactly one and the same universe. Being the same they could never cross or meet, no particle of one could ever do anything that would ever qualify as difference. An infinite number of [you] as space travelers could never leave [your] infinite numbers of exact universe copies without [you] leaving all of them all at once (an exact mirroring effect) and arrive wherever you would arrive in an exact copy of universe at exactly the same time.

The immortality of an entity in space is then linked to an immortality of that entity in time. The infinity and immortality of possibilities and eventualities.

Then comes 'local' (relative) and 'non-local' (not relative). The division of the Universe (singular) into universes (plural). The local universe includes the relativity of the [known] universe which extends to no distance farther out than the arrival [to you] of a collapsed history, a collapsed horizon, or mural of universe. The collapse of cosmic Complexity and Chaos over time and space into a picture of order that has nothing -- may have nothing -- to do with what was, or what is, really there in the infinity of the 'non-local' (the not relative). To steal from another saying, how many universes are there on / in the head of a pin?

 

[rod]

KC Strom, #10 post question. Good question BB cosmology uses Hubble constant and redshift to convert into distance, e.g., https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html

I generally use Calculator I or II, use defaults and change redshift (z) to whatever like 12.0. The CMBR redshift is about 1100, thus light-time or look back time distance about 13.8 billion light years. Redshift is how the BB model interprets distance using look back time or light time. The only direct distance measurement is stellar parallax and that is very limited in distances from Earth. In the cosmology calculators, the object's z number converts to light-time distance from Earth but because space continues to expand, the comoving radial distance for the object (where it is now), very much farther away and not observable using telescopes on Earth, presently.

 

[KC Strom]

KC Strom, #10 post question. Good question BB cosmology uses Hubble constant and redshift to convert into distance, e.g., https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html



Thank you, Rod.

Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe I have read that there may be issues with the Hubble constant? Correct? If so, any thoughts about implications of such problems with respect to the Distance calculators?

 

[rod]

KC Strom, I have 13 reports in my home, MS ACCESS DB from Jun-20 thru Jan-21 showing different reports with different results for H0 or Hubble constant. CMBR does one set of numbers, other objects different numbers. They range from 66 km/s Mpc to 82 km/s Mpc. Using those calculators and changing the values for H0 provides different ages for the universe and distances to objects like an object with z=12.0. About 2 billion years and 2 billion light-years distance changes.

 

[KC Strom]

Thanks.

What's a couple of billion years among friends. So, given that variability, our current telescopes can see about 11.8 to 15. 8 billion light years away? True?

Can you give me a "quick and dirty" sense as to how sensitive these models are to redshift observations? I'm starting to understand there are two "types" of observable redshift. Expansion of space itself and the movement of a body within that space. Correct?

 

[rod]

KC Strom, ref post #15. From what I know, the cosmological constant is *super sensitive* and wrong value here using General Relativity, space expands so fast nothing is here The Cosmological Constant Is Physics’ Most Embarrassing Problem, https://www.scientificamerican.com/...onstant-is-physics-most-embarrassing-problem/

forums had discussion on this too, https://forums.space.com/threads/cosmological-constant.37076/

QM and vacuum energy density just makes things worse for expanding space, some say 10^120 or more magnitude error between assuming cc value allowing space expansion (but not too fast) and what happens with vacuum energy using QM (blows the universe out, we are not here). My chief concern is post #1. How can this be shown to be science, thus verifiable like Galileo observations at Jupiter? So far it seems, the infinite number of universes all around me are not observable thus fail to meet science standards in my opinion.

 

[KC Strom]

Agreed.

However, unless I'm mistaken, QM gives this idea a "non-zero" probability of being true.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

"Infinite numbers of exact copies." Not all that long ago I argued for it, that you could not have an infinite number of universes without an infinite number of exact copies included. Then, finally, I began to realize that exact copies crossed a line between exactly one entity [immortally] extant and those infinite numbers of exact copies. To put it another way, an infinite number of exact copies of any universe must exist as that infinity and yet, at exactly the same time, be exactly one and the same universe. Being the same they could never cross or meet, no particle of one could ever do anything that would ever qualify as difference. An infinite number of [you] as space travelers could never leave [your] infinite numbers of exact universe copies without [you] leaving all of them all at once (an exact mirroring effect) and arrive wherever you would arrive in an exact copy of universe at exactly the same time.

The immortality of an entity in space is then linked to an immortality of that entity in time. The infinity and immortality of possibilities and eventualities.

Then comes 'local' (relative) and 'non-local' (not relative). The division of the Universe (singular) into universes (plural). The local universe includes the relativity of the [known] universe which extends to no distance farther out than the arrival [to you] of a collapsed history, a collapsed horizon, or mural of universe. The collapse of cosmic Complexity and Chaos over time and space into a picture of order that has nothing -- may have nothing -- to do with what was, or what is, really there in the infinity of the 'non-local' (the not relative). To steal from another saying, how many universes are there on / in the head of a pin?

Tough to give any real proof if we are it the one and only universe and nothing else exists.
Or we are just 1 universe in a sea of infinite BB universes.
Or endless fluctuation is the universe and our BB is just 1 of an infinite number of them in it.
Dark flow/great attracter is pointing to something for sure and IMO is the answer or beginning of an answer

Time/location/interference tough to imagine an exact copy of anything in an endless bag of marbles that interact in a unique way with every marble in the bag in a different way.

 

[Catastrophe]

Just one point I would like to expand.

I mentioned, I think with some justification, that you should not restrict the variables based on human action when considering alternate 'universes' (pesky word). And why limit variation to animate matter? As well as rabbits and bacteria, why not consider the "music of all the spheres". And why stick at heavenly bodies (including asteroids and specks of space dust) - why not molecules and atoms - each separate particle having "its own" 'universe' to move in - and then a separate 'universe' for each degree of freedom of that particle?

The BIG QUESTION is where do you draw the line - and why? (OK 2 questions).

Cat

P.S. and don't forget ghosts and their particles.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Just one point I would like to expand.

I mentioned, I think with some justification, that you should not restrict the variables based on human action when considering alternate 'universes' (pesky word). And why limit variation to animate matter? As well as rabbits and bacteria, why not consider the "music of all the spheres". And why stick at heavenly bodies (including asteroids and specks of space dust) - why not molecules and atoms - each separate particle having "its own" 'universe' to move in - and then a separate 'universe' for each degree of freedom of that particle?

The BIG QUESTION is where do you draw the line - and why? (OK 2 questions).

Cat

P.S. and don't forget ghosts and their particles.

Infinite regression is possible.
Science right now thinks sub atomic is as small as it gets, But what we can't see we really can't judge if it's fact or not.
Pretty easy to imagine something smaller that is itself an entire universe etc etc forever.

Humans don't really need to interact to make any difference to the infinite.
We probably have some trivial gravitational influence on the infinite if indeed gravity communicates at infinite speed.

A very good reason you can't exist anywhere else in the universe or any universe is your personal gravity altering your near duplicates universe with you just being

 

[Helio]

Well infinity is a big number Consider the universe size in the BB model, only 46.5 billion light years radius, How Big Is the Universe?, https://www.livescience.com/how-big-universe.html

Presently telescopes can only see out to about 13.5 billion light-years from Earth (z ~ 12) so that leaves 33 billion more light-years presently not observable.

That can be confusing. One would assume that the 13.8 (~13.5) Glyrs. is the distance travelled by the first light from Recombination to us today, matching the travel time of 13.8 G years to arrive.

During that time the universe kept expanding, however, so its much larger now (I.e. ~ 46.5 Glyrs.). So too was the distance that light traveled.

The use of ”light travel distance” causes confusion since light had to travel farther to reach us than what’s implied.

I think this is correct.

[Added: I stand corrected.]

 

[KC Strom]

So, we think we see light that has traveled 46.5 Glyrs, but it did so in 13.5 Glyrs?

 

[David-J-Franks]

That can be confusing. One would assume that the 13.8 (~13.5) Glyrs. is the distance travelled by the first light from Recombination to us today, matching the travel time of 13.8 G years to arrive.

During that time the universe kept expanding, however, so its much larger now (I.e. ~ 46.5 Glyrs.). So too was the distance that light traveled.

The use of ”light travel distance” causes confusion since light had to travel farther to reach us than what’s implied.

I think this is correct.

When I first saw rods post I also thought of posting something similar to what you said. Then I thought how could rod possibly be wrong

The 13.5 Glyrs you refer to has already had the expansion of the universe taken into account it hasn't travelled further as you suggest. The recombination light is 13.5 billion years old and has also only travelled 13.5 billion light-years, as intuitively implied.

As an example;

The most distant galaxy I could find is GN-z11 which is about 13.3 billion years old meaning it was about 400 million years old when it emitted the light we see - not too long after the age of the CMB.

No one seems to be taking into account that the observable universe was only a radius of 42 million light-years at the time the CMB emitted the light we see from it today and a bit bigger when the light from GN-z11 was emitted. Meaning that the position of where our earth was to be formed must have been only a bit more than 42 million light-years from GN-z11. During the 13.3 billion years the light took to reach us (due to the fast expansion of space) that ~ 42 million light-years distance has expanded to 13.3 billion light-years. This 13.3 billion light-years is the total distance the light has travelled to us. The expansion of space has been included in that calculation and is not something to be added on again.

In the 13.3 billion years the light took to get to us, GN-z11 has been speeding off in the opposite direction, due to 'faster than light' expanding space, and is now approx 32 billion light-years away. With the CMB boundary closer to the 46.5 billion light year radius of the observable universe

 

[KC Strom]

Now my head officially hurts (and its not even Saturday or Sunday morning). Three questions:

1. All of these distance calculations are based upon observed redshift as the key variable in the equations?
2. If a photon left GN-z11 today it would take 32 billion light years to reach us? Does that 32 include the effect of expansion from the day it leaves (today) that occurs during its transit?
3. Current accepted science is that space is expanding 3 dimensionally at a rate well in excess of the speed of light.?

 

[rod]

Now my head officially hurts (and its not even Saturday or Sunday morning). Three questions:

1. All of these distance calculations are based upon observed redshift as the key variable in the equations?
2. If a photon left GN-z11 today it would take 32 billion light years to reach us? Does that 32 include the effect of expansion from the day it leaves (today) that occurs during its transit?
3. Current accepted science is that space is expanding 3 dimensionally at a rate well in excess of the speed of light.?

Question 1. My answer is no. Redshift is critical but other parameters are used too, see the cosmology calculators, https://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/help/cosmology_calc.html You need the Hubble constant too, H0 along with some others but z number and H0 play the major roles.

Question 2. GN-z11 has a redshift about 11 so z = 11.0. Plug that into the cosmology calculators, I commonly use 1 or 2. The light from this galaxy emitted when the universe was 0.419 Gyrs old. The light-time used for what we observe on Earth today for GN-z11 is 13.301 Gyr or 13.301 billion light-years away from Earth. The object if it still exists today because the universe is expanding faster than c, the comoving radial distance is 32.6 Gly away. Telescopes on Earth cannot see this light yet so we do not know anything about the current status of GN-z11 at its comoving radial distance now.

Question 3. yes, 3D space expanding faster than c. Inflation epoch, 3D space expands > 10^20 c velocity. The cosmological constant plays a big role in all of this too