How many times has the universe doubled since the big bang?

Page 3 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
The question is possibly (likely?) not a good question. You would have to reside outside of the universe to "start" your clock at the big bang. At least, that is what seems to be true, according to models consistent with the believed conditions of our universe.

To explain:

Our universe likely has a "boundless" condition. This applies to spacetime. Meaning, should you travel backwards in time, you would never, not ever, reach a "beginning".

Hawking struggled with this idea, until he finally (shortly before his death) formulated a mathematical explanation for this involving imaginary time.
Hi, nice to see new thinking here:). Have you read all of the posts in this thread? (only to stop myself repeating).

You - "The question is possibly (likely?) not a good question."

I'm not wholly convinced it's unanswerable yet. So far we can go back to 10^-43 seconds - pretty good, so if our understanding of physics improves with quantum gravity etc, and more evidence is gathered, then who knows, it may be possible to determine the initial size. There are already good estimates for the size of the observable universe. If you can then demonstrate the whole universe is expanding in proportion to the observable universe, then it's possible.

You - "You would have to reside outside of the universe to "start" your clock at the big bang."

No problem for me. If like me, you believe in infinite space with infinite other universes, then our universe can be treated as an object, and so has an outside to it.

You - "Our universe likely has a "boundless" condition. This applies to spacetime. Meaning, should you travel backwards in time, you would never, not ever, reach a "beginning".

Hawking struggled with this idea, until he finally (shortly before his death) formulated a mathematical explanation for this involving imaginary time."

IMO, when you say- "likely has a "boundless" condition", you've quoted a fringe universe theory, Wikipedia has it under a list of 'speculative hypotheses'. I find any theory, which assumes our universe is the be-all and end-all of everything shortsighted. Picture the initial contents of our big bang just sitting on its own in an infinite void, ridiculous to me!
In Hawking's case, (I might have misunderstood) its been sitting there an infinite time and then decided to explode 13.8 billion years ago, even more ridiculous (to me). :)

Much more about infinite numbers of universes and existence in my book on Amazon :)
Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang
 
  • Like
Reactions: voidpotentialenergy
Jan 13, 2020
64
31
1,560
As i once thought the infinity will have an infinity of me and you but even starting with identical universes that have identical matter/energy, big bang event, neighbors interference the chaotic nature of quantum fluctuation will diverge each one.
Quantum fluctuations still follow deterministic laws. Without these fluctuations, chaos will act/be identical for two identical states, producing the exact same result.

As for the quantum fluctuations: since you are counting an infinite number of universes, all possible fluctuations will occur. Due to the cardinality of a counting set (E. G., All positive Integers) being "less" than the cardinality of a continuous set (E.G., Real numbers), all the states will necessarily be repeated. And so will every possible fluctuation, and the deterministic histories that result.

So, mathematically, what you get are an infinite number of universes identical to ours and a infinite number of "yous".
 
Last edited:
Jan 13, 2020
64
31
1,560
IMO, when you say- "likely has a "boundless" condition", you've quoted a fringe universe theory,
Not so. The boundless condition of the universe is a very mainstream principle right at the forefront of modern cosmology.

It also, in no way, implies that our universe is "everything there is". It is just "everything we can ever observe". More accurately, it is anything that can have causal effects we could observe. You can never "see" objects within the event horizon of a black hole, if you are outside the event horizon. That doesn't mean those objects don't exist. (You can, however, observe the causal effect such an object has had on the spacetime near the black hole, via the gravitational effect of the black hole's mass.)

Picture the initial contents of our big bang just sitting on its own in an infinite void, ridiculous to me!
That's not the correct way of looking at it. The big bang did not expand into space; it IS space. The moment you fall into the mental trap of looking at it this wrong way, you will make error after error regarding the understanding of the expansion of the universe.

And words like "forever", regarding the state of the early universe, don't have meaning in Hawking's hypothesis. Time (our timeline) , essentially, "unfurls" from imaginary time. What happened "before" this is not something we can determine, as we exist in real time. So "before" has no meaning.

Also, you could not be outside the universe and "start your clock", or "time" the expansion. I forgot to add that this notion is also nonsensical.
 
Last edited:
Quantum fluctuations still follow deterministic laws. Without these fluctuations, chaos will act/be identical for two identical states, producing the exact same result.

As for the quantum fluctuations: since you are counting an infinite number of universes, all possible fluctuations will occur. Due to the cardinality of a counting set (E. G., All positive Integers) being "less" than the cardinality of a continuous set (E.G., Real numbers), all the states will necessarily be repeated. And so will every possible fluctuation, and the deterministic histories that result.

So, mathematically, what you get are an infinite number of universes identical to ours and a infinite number of "yous".
We have an infinite set in an infinite set.
Any random fluctuation will diverge, it's byproducts will further diverge.
Infinite divergence.

If fluctuations were non random then yes me and you would exist infinite times.
But the random properties of each universe over time will create an individual.
We can have infinite numbers of different ones.

The nature of each universe time bubble might create universes that have different space/time and for sure different start times and reasons for each start.
That in itself might be good enough to have infinite numbers no 2 the same.

Fun to think how infinite different is possible isn't it :)
 
ftl at the big bang all depends on what the big bang is.
If it is everything then ftl is infinite speed into infinity.
if it's ftl into quantum fluctuation then ?
Does quantum fluctuation simply catch up and slow it to L or does that speed bypass it and it never slows to the reality of the universe.
Or is this just the mechanism to start other black holes in other universes.

Black holes. i totally agree with just compression.
No activity no time so no infinite density or gravity.

It seems logical that wee see everything since we started in the same place as everything else.
As soon as our speed combination is faster than L things will start to disappear.
I think we are either very close to that point or might already be beyond it.
One side of the universe trying to look at the other might already be well beyond light catching up.
The ftl expansion a topic for best guess i think :)

Insane is a good term, thinking of nothing and infinity is sure to get you pretty close :)

I like to think about other universes to infinity.
Each one has the same rules and no 2 will be the same.
Even if you have infinite numbers of them the random chaos/time/start of bang/quantity of E will create different universes from identical start universes.

infinite universes with infinite diversity

Just 1 of me and 1 of you.
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.

You, VPE - "If it is everything then ftl is infinite speed into infinity.
if it's ftl into quantum fluctuation then ?"

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain, please?

You, VPE - "Does quantum fluctuation simply catch up and slow it to L or does that speed bypass it and it never slows to the reality of the universe.
Or is this just the mechanism to start other black holes in other universes."

That sounds complicated, I would like more details. If I think what you mean, then I would say all the quantum fields and matter fly out together, all one whole universe. I'm not sure, as I can't quite grasp what you're saying.

You VPE - "It seems logical that wee see everything since we started in the same place as everything else."

I'm under the impression we can only see to the edge of the 'observable universe'. Past this edge, the 'whole universe' (i.e. all of the contents of the big bang) is expanding faster than light speed, so its light will never reach us. Also However small things were at the start of the big bang we, I don't think you could say:
"we started in the same place as everything else."
because no 2 things can be in the same place.

You VPE - "I like to think about other universes to infinity.
Each one has the same rules and no 2 will be the same."

Absolutely agree, physicists assume our laws of physics are the same throughout our universe, so why not 'the infinite' as well (even if it's string theory).

You VPE- "Even if you have infinite numbers of them the random chaos/time/start of bang/quantity of E will create different universes from identical start universes."

I strongly agree, All the infinite number of universes WILL be different, but not for the reasons you've given. I'll expand on this, in another post later today. I think the reasons against this idea stem from the reasons behind the infinite monkey problem, the Boltzmann brain hypotheses and, as discussed in these posts, the infinite other 'yous' hypotheses. These, IMO, crazy ideas played on my mind years ago, so I developed my own reasoning with some simple maths to try and disprove them all. This appears in my book in the chapter 'Information and Order', which then allowed me to propose as you've done, that all universes are different. I'll put my reasons in my later post. Might be in a reply to Phaedrus as he's also on the case now.

You VPE - "infinite universes with infinite diversity"

Infinite diversity? not quite sure about that. As we both assume, laws are the same throughout 'the infinite', then yes, all different universes, but, in my book, I propose they will all be of the 'same type' of what's allowed. E.g. all will have stars and galaxies etc. Even if string theory applies - just 10^500 types!

You VPE - "Just 1 of me and 1 of you."

Very poetic :) :)

These threads have never been more exciting :):):)
 
Jan 13, 2020
64
31
1,560
We have an infinite set in an infinite set.
That's not enough information to make the determination you just made. You have to consider cardinality. Some infinite sets do, in fact, contain more elements than other infinite sets.

The randomness doesn't matter.

The nature of each universe time bubble might create universes that have different space/time and for sure different start times and reasons for each start.
That in itself might be good enough to have infinite numbers no 2 the same.
No, it might not. Universes are countable. The infinite set out counting numbers has a lesser cardinality than the set of all possible universe, given that quantum fluctuations occur across a continuous curve. In this scenario, there would be an infinite number of all possible universes. Not 2. Infinity.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
That's not enough information to make the determination you just made. You have to consider cardinality. Some infinite sets do, in fact, contain more elements than other infinite sets.

The randomness doesn't matter.


No, it might not. Universes are countable. The infinite set out counting numbers has a lesser cardinality than the set of all possible universe, given that quantum fluctuations occur across a continuous curve. In this scenario, there would be an infinite number of all possible universes. Not 2. Infinity.
You start with 10 dice and roll, each roll of a dice has a set on numbers.
On any roll one of the dice might give of a particle and effect another dice but in a chaotic way and damages dice #7.
Now all of it's rolls are chaotic.

With just 10 dice we have an infinite set of possible outcomes.
It seems that quantum fluctuation is very chaotic so 2 universes with 10 dice rolling will never follow the same pattern.

They contain exactly the same (e) or (m) but randomness at the quantum level alters what happens.

Totally agree universes might not be 1 off bubbles.
I have a feeling universe are born of neighbors expansion and collision of a universe size black hole.
For that to be duplicated we might need uncounted numbers of universe with start and stop times, neighbors in just the right place with just the right makeup with expansions and contractions duplicated.
Probably regional 1 of a kinds.
 
Sorry for the delay in responding to your post.

You, VPE - "If it is everything then ftl is infinite speed into infinity.
if it's ftl into quantum fluctuation then ?"

I don't understand what you mean, can you explain, please?

You, VPE - "Does quantum fluctuation simply catch up and slow it to L or does that speed bypass it and it never slows to the reality of the universe.
Or is this just the mechanism to start other black holes in other universes."

That sounds complicated, I would like more details. If I think what you mean, then I would say all the quantum fields and matter fly out together, all one whole universe. I'm not sure, as I can't quite grasp what you're saying.

You VPE - "It seems logical that wee see everything since we started in the same place as everything else."

I'm under the impression we can only see to the edge of the 'observable universe'. Past this edge, the 'whole universe' (i.e. all of the contents of the big bang) is expanding faster than light speed, so its light will never reach us. Also However small things were at the start of the big bang we, I don't think you could say:
"we started in the same place as everything else."
because no 2 things can be in the same place.

You VPE - "I like to think about other universes to infinity.
Each one has the same rules and no 2 will be the same."

Absolutely agree, physicists assume our laws of physics are the same throughout our universe, so why not 'the infinite' as well (even if it's string theory).

You VPE- "Even if you have infinite numbers of them the random chaos/time/start of bang/quantity of E will create different universes from identical start universes."

I strongly agree, All the infinite number of universes WILL be different, but not for the reasons you've given. I'll expand on this, in another post later today. I think the reasons against this idea stem from the reasons behind the infinite monkey problem, the Boltzmann brain hypotheses and, as discussed in these posts, the infinite other 'yous' hypotheses. These, IMO, crazy ideas played on my mind years ago, so I developed my own reasoning with some simple maths to try and disprove them all. This appears in my book in the chapter 'Information and Order', which then allowed me to propose as you've done, that all universes are different. I'll put my reasons in my later post. Might be in a reply to Phaedrus as he's also on the case now.

You VPE - "infinite universes with infinite diversity"

Infinite diversity? not quite sure about that. As we both assume, laws are the same throughout 'the infinite', then yes, all different universes, but, in my book, I propose they will all be of the 'same type' of what's allowed. E.g. all will have stars and galaxies etc. Even if string theory applies - just 10^500 types!

You VPE - "Just 1 of me and 1 of you."

Very poetic :) :)

These threads have never been more exciting :):):)
No worry every once in a while i have to run away and do something and come back and have to hunt posts also :)

If flt happened into nothing, then that is gone and no part of reality anymore.
For a better term infinite speed into infinite nothing.
Not sure it's a meaningful thing.

if ftl happened into quantum fluctuation (my feeling) of what happened.
It is slowed to L by the nature of quantum fluctuation.
We will never see it since it's already being past L return speed.
Everything else in the universe since it started in the same general location we will see until combined expansions are above L.

I totally agree infinite universes all similar with stars/galaxies etc.
All different and unique.
If it all started as a property of (nothing) then it makes total sense that everyone will have exactly the same rules and form in similar fashion.

Looking forward to your post Dave..
I agree it's lots of fun trying to bend a few minds :)
 
ftl at the big bang all depends on what the big bang is.
If it is everything then ftl is infinite speed into infinity.
if it's ftl into quantum fluctuation then ?
Does quantum fluctuation simply catch up and slow it to L or does that speed bypass it and it never slows to the reality of the universe.
Or is this just the mechanism to start other black holes in other universes.

Black holes. i totally agree with just compression.
No activity no time so no infinite density or gravity.

It seems logical that wee see everything since we started in the same place as everything else.
As soon as our speed combination is faster than L things will start to disappear.
I think we are either very close to that point or might already be beyond it.
One side of the universe trying to look at the other might already be well beyond light catching up.
The ftl expansion a topic for best guess i think :)

Insane is a good term, thinking of nothing and infinity is sure to get you pretty close :)

I like to think about other universes to infinity.
Each one has the same rules and no 2 will be the same.
Even if you have infinite numbers of them the random chaos/time/start of bang/quantity of E will create different universes from identical start universes.

infinite universes with infinite diversity

Just 1 of me and 1 of you.
Hi, It's another me again, from a different universe this time :)

Continued from my post No 55 to you........

Exert from my post No 55, in brackets below:

[You VPE- "Even if you have infinite numbers of them the random chaos/time/start of bang/quantity of E will create different universes from identical start universes."

I strongly agree, All the infinite number of universes WILL be different, but not for the reasons you've given. I'll expand on this, in another post later today. I think the reasons against this idea stem from the reasons behind the infinite monkey problem, the Boltzmann brain hypotheses and, as discussed in these posts, the infinite other 'yous' hypotheses. These, IMO, crazy ideas played on my mind years ago, so I developed my own reasoning with some simple maths to try and disprove them all. This appears in my book in the chapter 'Information and Order', which then allowed me to propose as you've done, that all universes are different. I'll put my reasons in my later post. Might be in a reply to Phaedrus as he's also on the case now.]

I said - "All the infinite number of universes WILL be different, but not for the reasons you've given." One of the reasons you gave was 'random chaos'. In my opinion, there's no such thing as random - there's only 'the unpredictable'. Due to cause and effect, the whole of 'the infinite' is deterministic. This means, every change has a cause, and so is not random. This should apply to all particles, force fields, quantum foam/ fluctuations/fields/energy and anything else you care to name, no matter how small. IMO, quantum uncertainty etc is also deterministic, the uncertainty only arises when we try to measure things.

I'll still be sending another post as said, to explain my reasons why, as we both think, that - "All the infinite number of universes WILL be different" :)
 
Not so. The boundless condition of the universe is a very mainstream principle right at the forefront of modern cosmology.

It also, in no way, implies that our universe is "everything there is". It is just "everything we can ever observe". More accurately, it is anything that can have causal effects we could observe. You can never "see" objects within the event horizon of a black hole, if you are outside the event horizon. That doesn't mean those objects don't exist. (You can, however, observe the causal effect such an object has had on the spacetime near the black hole, via the gravitational effect of the black hole's mass.)


That's not the correct way of looking at it. The big bang did not expand into space; it IS space. The moment you fall into the mental trap of looking at it this wrong way, you will make error after error regarding the understanding of the expansion of the universe.

And words like "forever", regarding the state of the early universe, don't have meaning in Hawking's hypothesis. Time (our timeline) , essentially, "unfurls" from imaginary time. What happened "before" this is not something we can determine, as we exist in real time. So "before" has no meaning.

Also, you could not be outside the universe and "start your clock", or "time" the expansion. I forgot to add that this notion is also nonsensical.
Hi Phaedrus :)

You, Phaedrus - "It also, in no way, implies that our universe is "everything there is"."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a scientist or mathematician.

As far as I can tell, Hawking's theory DOES imply that our universe is "everything there is". For a start, it's yet another beginning from nothing theory, that alone sounds like it implies it is 'everything there is'. It's also, is described as starting from a point in space and expanding with the shuttlecock shape, this, too, looks like it implies it is 'everything there is' to me.

You, Phaedrus - "That's not the correct way of looking at it. The big bang did not expand into space; it IS space. The moment you fall into the mental trap of looking at it this wrong way, you will make error after error regarding the understanding of the expansion of the universe."

There may be some confusion here. The dictionary definition of the universe means everything there is. This old fashioned definition doesn't allow for multiple universe theories, so in my book, I coined the phrase 'The Infinite' so this infinite space, with all its contents now becomes everything there is. Individual universes can now sit in this infinite space as individual objects.

So, in my theory, it IS the correct way of looking at it. I did not fall into the mental trap, I'm well aware that in our universe, it's considered that space is expanding, and not that, the objects are moving through space. So, yes, in my theory our universe is expanding along with its own space, but at the same time, the whole universe IS expanding into the space of 'the infinite'. Altogether simple I hope.

You, Phaedrus - "And words like "forever", regarding the state of the early universe, don't have meaning in Hawking's hypothesis. Time (our timeline) , essentially, "unfurls" from imaginary time. What happened "before" this is not something we can determine, as we exist in real time. So "before" has no meaning."

I don't believe there's such a thing as time, I believe there's only motion and periodic motion. So for me, your statement would read motion unfurls from imaginary motion!!!, and, we exist in real motion-(I'm ok with the latter) :)

My book on Amazon;:)
Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang
 
That's not enough information to make the determination you just made. You have to consider cardinality. Some infinite sets do, in fact, contain more elements than other infinite sets.

The randomness doesn't matter.


No, it might not. Universes are countable. The infinite set out counting numbers has a lesser cardinality than the set of all possible universe, given that quantum fluctuations occur across a continuous curve. In this scenario, there would be an infinite number of all possible universes. Not 2. Infinity.
Hi, I,m still working on a response to these posts, but in the meantime, I wonder if you'd be kind enough to clarify a few things for me.:)

If "The infinite set out counting numbers has a lesser cardinality than the set of all possible universe", how come that the bigger set will all fit into the smaller set?

Also, just because a certain universe is possible, does that also mean, it HAS to happen?

Don't forget to click the watch button for email updates, as I would very much like your opinion of my full response latter.:):)

Many thanks, David
 
Hi Phaedrus :)

You, Phaedrus - "It also, in no way, implies that our universe is "everything there is"."

Please correct me if I'm wrong, I'm not a scientist or mathematician.

As far as I can tell, Hawking's theory DOES imply that our universe is "everything there is". For a start, it's yet another beginning from nothing theory, that alone sounds like it implies it is 'everything there is'. It's also, is described as starting from a point in space and expanding with the shuttlecock shape, this, too, looks like it implies it is 'everything there is' to me.

You, Phaedrus - "That's not the correct way of looking at it. The big bang did not expand into space; it IS space. The moment you fall into the mental trap of looking at it this wrong way, you will make error after error regarding the understanding of the expansion of the universe."

There may be some confusion here. The dictionary definition of the universe means everything there is. This old fashioned definition doesn't allow for multiple universe theories, so in my book, I coined the phrase 'The Infinite' so this infinite space, with all its contents now becomes everything there is. Individual universes can now sit in this infinite space as individual objects.

So, in my theory, it IS the correct way of looking at it. I did not fall into the mental trap, I'm well aware that in our universe, it's considered that space is expanding, and not that, the objects are moving through space. So, yes, in my theory our universe is expanding along with its own space, but at the same time, the whole universe IS expanding into the space of 'the infinite'. Altogether simple I hope.

You, Phaedrus - "And words like "forever", regarding the state of the early universe, don't have meaning in Hawking's hypothesis. Time (our timeline) , essentially, "unfurls" from imaginary time. What happened "before" this is not something we can determine, as we exist in real time. So "before" has no meaning."

I don't believe there's such a thing as time, I believe there's only motion and periodic motion. So for me, your statement would read motion unfurls from imaginary motion!!!, and, we exist in real motion-(I'm ok with the latter) :)

My book on Amazon;:)
Steady State of The Infinite: Time Free will Randomness Cause and effect Information and order Black holes Big bang
Another good solution to infinite different universes is the fact that the infinite numbers of them cause infinite interference.
Gravity seems to be infinite speed so every universe will have interference from the infinite number of them causing each one to be unique.
If we have only 1 different universe in an infinite number of them then every universe will have a unique interference pattern.
That must be true since we are in big bang expansion phase caused from a collision.

Easy to make infinite sets in infinite sets and infinite sets because of infinite sets. :)
 
Last edited:
Lets look at the pigeon hole infinite set problem in this way.
If gravity is a true force and has some magic property for instant communication and we have other universe then gravity will be felt by every universe from ours to infinity in different intensities.
If gravity is simply a compression of Quantum fluctuation then same result.

I live and decide to go for a walk one day.
My personal gravity moving alters my universe in a trivial way and ever other universe in a slightly more trivial way.

Now we have every universe altered but each differently.
If infinity was just a set of numbers then we could have infinite numbers of me walking on infinite earths.
But location of each universe in infinity alters how each is effected by me walking.
Me going for a walk on another exact same copy is impossible since i already walked and effected all other universes differently in doing so.
 
Last edited:
Your walk affected no other universes.
No matter what you do with numbers the pigeon hole idea wont work.
Either we have an infinite number of universes all exactly the same or all different because of location and interference.
If they are all exactly the same the mechanism to start a big bang doesn't exist.
So universe interference seems very likely.

With quantum fluctuations randomness, interference, location and need for a start point to each universe it's showing how random it all is.

simply the fact that we are 1 universe in a unique position in forever is enough to break the pigeon hole.

All that and just 1 of me and 1 of you :)
 
Given infinite resources and time, it has to happen an infinite number of times.
Hi, Phaedrus, just to briefly recap (without the reasoning) my 'Steady State of The Infinite' theory, so everyone knows what I'm rambling on about.

1, I reasoned space is infinite and is composed of 'something' such as quantum fields/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever, and is not void.

2, Space contains an infinite number of universes. I call - all that there is - 'The Infinite', to avoid confusion with the dictionary definition of the universe. So I now treat universes as distinct objects floating in 'the infinite'.

3, There's a connectedness throughout the infinite due to space, and that, universes are free to move, mix, mingle or collide. Universes expand, until maybe all or most of their galaxies turn to black holes, and meet up with similar matter from neighbour universes. The black holes and debris, then coalesce, collapse under gravity, maybe first forming a giant black hole, and then explode or rebound to form a new universe. Recycling, with no beginning or end.

No duplication:

Assume 'the infinite' is all one system, with continuously smooth moving elements. Objects don't spontaneously appear, they're formed in a process, either a natural one or man-made. A duplicate object requires a duplicate forming process, which requires a duplicate planet, which requires a duplicate solar system, which requires a duplicate galaxy, which requires a duplicate universe. Also, I proposed in my theory that there is a connectedness throughout the infinite, there's no physical isolation between universe's, everything is free to mix, mingle and collide. So, in that case, you'd also need a duplicate of 'the infinite' which of course, cant be.

Every object has multiple linages of cause and effect behind its creation. In my theory, these linages go back infinitely, because there's no beginning or end of 'the infinite'. There are no initial conditions for the infinite. These linages have come through an infinite number of previous universe's. That's because my theory states that:

"Because you can't get something from nothing –

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's order, information and energy.”

For this topic, I need to change that to mean any big bang. This also is backed up by an assumed rock solid proposal from quantum mechanics which says information can't be destroyed. I've taken that to mean, also, when it goes into a black hole or into the contents for a new big bang. Also if information, (I call it order) could be destroyed, there'd be none left now.

It's like everything now, has multiple roots, of linages of cause and effect, going back indefinitely and with no initial conditions. So to have an exact duplicate of something would need all the infinitely long roots with it. So from the phrase, “anything that's possible will happen”, I would say duplicating is not possible to start with.

Were talking exact linages here, as the smallest of differences would be amplified.

The countable universes are still there, but the sets you refer to now contain continuously smooth moving elements. So a duplicate not only needs its elements duplicating but also their exact motion too. Does that make any difference?

So, regarding infinite other 'yous', I'd be interested to hear your thoughts on the above, (and of course, anyone else's). :) :)
 
I said:

And also those of voidpotentialenergy. :)
Hi David nice post.

It's near identical to my thoughts about forever.
The connected forever seems like it's real since getting a black hole to big bang without it seems impossible.

The FTL wave of another big bang hitting a universe size black hole seems like the ideal way.

I puzzled about the pigeon hole problem for a couple of years and came up with a couple of solutions to why it didn't work.

Classical math would say if you roll forever any set of dice will produce an identical copy.
So we can apply the same rule to universes.

A couple of ideas struck me about that math.
If we roll a set of random dice that create a next random roll in the product then we never get duplicates.

If the person rolling them is effected by infinite numbers of other people rolling them in different locations then we never get a duplicate roll.

Just the fact that i exist in this location rules out the fact that i can exist in a duplicate since it's in a different location.


My gut feeling about universes is they did have a start point at some point in time.
I think in the beginning we had an endless void and it's potential energy from just being nothing but occupying an area causes quantum fluctuation.

Quantum fluctuation as we see it now is probably a balanced force.
Before the balance those particle creations probably accumulated instead of self destroyed.

A simple start point and simple reason for everything.
 
And now for something completely different :)

If we have an infinity of universes that have been here for a better word (forever)
Won't they create a structure?
A galaxy of universes, and it be in a galaxy of galaxy universes, etc.
 
If it all started as a property of (nothing) then it makes total sense that everyone will have exactly the same rules and form in similar fashion.
The above is your statement from post 58 above.

Can you explain how It all started from nothing, and what do you mean by nothing?

My theory is based on - "Matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed". This implies there has ALWAYS been something, so my theory doesn't need a beginning or end.

Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, what was the cause of your start from nothing? Also, if ther was a start then it must have an age, so why one particular age and not another? :)
 
The above is your statement from post 58 above.

Can you explain how It all started from nothing, and what do you mean by nothing?

My theory is based on - "Matter-energy can neither be created nor destroyed". This implies there has ALWAYS been something, so my theory doesn't need a beginning or end.

Do you believe in cause and effect? If so, what was the cause of your start from nothing? Also, if ther was a start then it must have an age, so why one particular age and not another? :)
No real proof of it other than the fact that creating nothing is so difficult.
It's been done on tiny scales and the science of nothing is very odd to say the least.

I believe that (nothing) in the nature of it being nothing has potential energy.
Just for the fact that it takes up space in the beginning.
The product of that empty space is quantum fluctuation balancing out the potential energy of nothing.

When we start with that idea we can create lots of sub atomic particles until the balance point is reached for quantum fluctuation.
Right now we are in balanced quantum fluctuation that neither destroys or creates, when it tries to create 2 sub atomic particles from nothing they self destroy.
That could be just (e) balance.

Quite possible that's how it all started an infinity ago an infinity of number of times.

No reason it has to be that way other than it's a way to make everything from nothing.

Think of an endless void in the beginning that it's only property is to occupy space.

Nothing.
 
Last edited:
Another good solution to infinite different universes is the fact that the infinite numbers of them cause infinite interference.
Gravity seems to be infinite speed so every universe will have interference from the infinite number of them causing each one to be unique.
If we have only 1 different universe in an infinite number of them then every universe will have a unique interference pattern.
That must be true since we are in big bang expansion phase caused from a collision.

Easy to make infinite sets in infinite sets and infinite sets because of infinite sets. :)
Another good solution to infinite different universes is the fact that the infinite numbers of them cause infinite interference.
I mostly agree there's some sort of interconnectedness, but not with your reason. for me, it's mixing and mingling when universes expand and meet up, and also, maybe like you said, just by collisions.
Gravity seems to be infinite speed so every universe will have interference from the infinite number of them causing each one to be unique.
Gravity waves may well pass between universes, but I think only at the speed of light. As far as I know, gravity waves detected by LIGO, have been matched up with a visual observation of the source and so confirming the lightspeed,(you would have to check up on that).

Don't despair, there's a very very very long long long shot, that quantum entanglement might do what you want instead of gravity.
If entanglement is true then there MUST be a mechanism for it, such as in the quantum field/foam/fluctuations, vacuum energy/fluctuations etc. Also, its speed is already confirmed to be above 10,000 and maybe 100,000 x light speed, (I don't believe instantaneous though).
That must be true since we are in big bang expansion phase caused from a collision.
Maybe, but I don't think a collison is enough on its own. In my 'Steady State of The Infinite' theory, I think matter would then have to coalesce and collapse under gravity first, and then explode with a big bang.

Easy to make infinite sets in infinite sets and infinite sets because of infinite sets.
I only 80% sure what you mean, but it sure sounds clever though:).

I'm out of sync responding to posts, but I'm catching up:)
 
Trouble with setting a speed on gravity is the evidence points against it.
Even at 1000x L we have an offset of true location of orbital mechanics.
Our solar system becomes chaotic with internal differences of gravity locations.
We orbit the exact position of our sun with no offset.
Trying to tell us something about the nature of gravity.

I like to think of a universe size black hole as just compressed energy.
Maybe the only thing that can escape from that is something colliding faster than L to disturb the inactivity.
Only real way i can see to start one expanding.
Contracting a universe is far easier from the same process.

We probably are in a steady state expanding for the first time in an infinite set of expansions and contractions.
Each time it happens it's the first time.

Infinite sets are just sets of numbers that go on forever.
Starting with something like an apple in infinity we get another exact apple and an infinite number of times.
Only way to escape that is that the apple effects all of infinity and just that it exists rules out another duplicate apple (it's location will never be duplicated).
Or the rules to make an apple are random and each random action adds to the product (infinite divergence)

Either will work well to never have duplicates.

The pigeon hole idea as a math process is a good one but the reality makes it just a math idea.
 
David,

Sorry missed this part.....

Maybe, but I don't think a collison is enough on its own. In my 'Steady State of The Infinite' theory, I think matter would then have to coalesce and collapse under gravity first, and then explode with a big bang.
.....

A good place for that first collapse is the creation of particles from nothing.
First time no outward expansion so everything created ends up in 1 place.
Happening all over infinity so sure to be a messy process of cannibals.
If we get two universes that simply have more (e) than allowed together we have the first big bang.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY

TRENDING THREADS