How many Universes do we have?

[THoR]

You mean it always existed?

Time is nothing more nor less than change. Change is a function of existence; hence TIME is a function of existence - existence is NOT a function of time.

 

Not only has the Universe always existed, it ain't gonna pop out of existence in the future. Stranger still - though the state of being changes, everything which exists has always existed.

[THoR]

That doesn't look like a deffinition of 'exist'.

Exist: to have physical presence in the Universe.

[Klaynos]

Exist: to have physical presence in the Universe.

 

And how do you define a physical presence?

 

Do photons have a physical presence, how about neutrinos, or gravitons, or gluons?

 

I'm not even going to comment on your other comments untill you answer this fundemental question.

[aguy2]

In general I would agree that time/space can be considered a 'thing'. I would even go so far as to say that time/space may be seen as a conserved system. Would you be interested in seeing why I think it can be shown that time/space might be considered a 'conserved system'?

 

ThoR et al,

 

In order to see time/space as a possible conserved system, we would have to assume an oscillating/cyclic model with an inflationary epoch in its early history.

 

If we make this assumption, then at the beginning of the inflationary epoch what is becoming the visible universe would be quite small. In a conserved system if we assign a value of, say, .0001 to the space of the pre-inflationary universe, this would mean that the universe would have 99.99% of the time it has left to exspand. As the universe exspands the amount of time left to the universe would be contracting, and when the exspansion reaches its maximum the universe would have effectively run out of time. At the 'end of time' its arrow would reverse and the universe would begin its 'death ride' back to the pre-inflationary state.

 

Of course this conjecture would only make sense within the context of a single oscillation/cycle. Keeping in mind the question, "How many Universes do we have?", if we consider the possiblility of multiple cycles we would have to use a term like "times" when speaking of them, and reserve the term "time" for a single oscillation/cycle.

aguy2

[Moonquake]

Exist: to have physical presence in the Universe.

Hmm, there's not much point to any of this then really.

[THoR]

And how do you define a physical presence?

Define physical presence? Seems like a no-brainer, but it would mean to occupy a volume within the Universe.

Do photons have a physical presence, how about neutrinos, or gravitons, or gluons?

Do bosons mate? Can a sparticle spin in BOTH directions at the same time? Do they all stay in the same dimension?

Quantum physics would be a LOT more believable if particle physicists didn't come up with 'theoretical components' on the fly in order to bolster the sagging credibility of their standard model.

If you're going to believe the rantings a scientific icon with lots of letters after his name, try Einstein - whose general relativity seems to throw a 'curve' at the 'Standard Model'.

Indeed, what qp's discern as distinct particles may in fact be facets of the same entity.

I'm not even going to comment on your other comments untill you answer this fundemental question.

OK, what is your question.

[THoR]

ThoR et al' date='

 

In order to see time/space as a possible conserved system, we would have to assume an oscillating/cyclic model with an inflationary epoch in its early history.

 

If we make this assumption, then at the beginning of the inflationary epoch what is becoming the visible universe would be quite small. In a conserved system if we assign a value of, say, .0001 to the space of the pre-inflationary universe, this would mean that the universe would have 99.99% of the time it has left to exspand. As the universe exspands the amount of time left to the universe would be contracting, and when the exspansion reaches its maximum the universe would have effectively run out of time. At the 'end of time' its arrow would reverse and the universe would begin its 'death ride' back to the pre-inflationary state.

 

Of course this conjecture would only make sense within the context of a single oscillation/cycle. Keeping in mind the question, "How many Universes do we have?", if we consider the possiblility of multiple cycles we would have to use a term like "times" when speaking of them, and reserve the term "time" for a single oscillation/cycle.

aguy2[/quote']

Into what is the 'universe' expanding? It can't expand into 'nothing' (that which doesn't exist), cuz 'nothing' - in that sense - doesn't exist. You seem to limit the definition of universe to that which has the property of mass - i.e. material...or does the universe 'create' space on the fly?

[Klaynos]

Define physical presence? Seems like a no-brainer' date=' but it would mean to occupy a volume within the Universe. Do bosons mate? Can a sparticle spin in BOTH directions at the same time? Do they all stay in the same dimension?

Quantum physics would be a LOT more believable if particle physicists didn't come up with 'theoretical components' on the fly in order to bolster the sagging credibility of their standard model.

If you're going to believe the rantings a scientific icon with lots of letters after his name, try Einstein - whose general relativity seems to throw a 'curve' at the 'Standard Model'.

Indeed, what qp's discern as distinct particles may in fact be facets of the same entity.

OK, what is your question.[/quote']

 

The question was how do you define a physical presence.

 

Now then some other points I'd like like to make:

 

Time is nothing more nor less than change. Change is a function of existence; hence TIME is a function of existence - existence is NOT a function of time.

Functions can be inversed and applied to the other side of the equation...

Not only has the Universe always existed' date=' it ain't gonna pop out of existence in the future. Stranger still - though the state of being changes, everything which exists has always existed.[/quote']

The universe is expanding, if it's always existed where's it expanding from?

 

"Everything that exists has always existed" it can be EASILY shown that you can annihilate an electron and positron, which both (using your own deffinition of existance) exist, they will turn into a photon, or group of photons (very often a pair), a photon does not take up a physical volume, so does not exist. Therefore changing what exists in the universe, this process can also be 'revesed' to change a photon into a particle... This seems to break your logic path...

[THoR]

The question was how do you define a physical presence.

I presume the response answered that satisfactorily

Now then some other points I'd like like to make:

OK

Functions can be inversed and applied to the other side of the equation...

You can do ANYTHING you want with notation/encoding...even the impossible (eg. sqrt -1). In reality, you can have a changeless existence, but not an existenceless change.

The universe is expanding, if it's always existed where's it expanding from?

Given a finite number of moving particles (or galaxies) randomly vectored at random velocities within a finite volume, eventually all collisions which could occur WILL occur - within a finite period of time. Many of those collisions may occur outside of the original volume, but they will still take place within a finite period and within a finite distance. Once all collisions have occurred, all particles will eventually reach the boundary of the initial volume and be moving away from each other.

 

It is small wonder the bodies within the infinitesimal portion of the Universe we can detect with our technology seem to be moving away from each other. The default assumption seems to be this is due to a 'ballooning' of the Universe from a point of singularity, but the above scenario explains the phenomenon equally as well.

"Everything that exists has always existed" it can be EASILY shown that you can annihilate an electron and positron, which both (using your own definition of existance) exist, they will turn into a photon, or group of photons (very often a pair), a photon does not take up a physical volume, so does not exist. Therefore changing what exists in the universe, this process can also be 'reversed' to change a photon into a particle... This seems to break your logic path...

To annihilate is to cause something to cease to be, not just transform it. A photon has no measureable volume - that doesn't mean it has no volume. If a photon is an "existence" and has no volume, that means it and space (space is NOT 'nothing') both occupy the same location at the same time - two things CANNOT co-occupy the same location at the same time. Actually a photon may be an effect - not an existence. This would allow it to have a location with no XYZ volume...much like the quasi-existence posed by the points of contact between two objects. There is a defined TWO DIMENSIONAL area (a subset of 3 dimensional reality) of contact in which one side of the area has the properties of one object, the other side has the proerties of the other object and there is NO DISTANCE BETWEEN THE TWO SIDES. I find the prospect fascinating metaphysically

[Severian]

Define physical presence? Seems like a no-brainer, but it would mean to occupy a volume within the Universe.

 

So point-like particles like the electron aren't physical?

[Severian]

If you're going to believe the rantings a scientific icon with lots of letters after his name' date=' try Einstein - whose general relativity seems to throw a 'curve' at the 'Standard Model'.

[/quote']

 

Considering that the Standard Model makes no statements at-all about gravity, I fail to see why GR would be in contradiction with it.

[aguy2]

Into what is the 'universe' expanding? It can't expand into 'nothing' (that which doesn't exist), cuz 'nothing' - in that sense - doesn't exist.

 

This problem is exactly why I have grown enamored with the term 'still/void'.

A 'still/void' might be seen to have the properties (or more accurately, lack of properties) of 'nothinglessness', while still being able to be seen as a precursor to 'time/space'.

 

You seem to limit the definition of universe to that which has the property of mass - i.e. material...or does the universe 'create' space on the fly?

 

I would tend to go for 'transforming' still/void into space on the fly, while keeping in mind the possibility that if the universe is oscillating there might be the possibility that our current visible universe might be expanding into a 'real space' created by earilier oscillations.

aguy2

 

Ps. I am following closely the line of reasoning you and Klaynos are pursuing; I am not sure of where it is going, but it seems quite interesting.

[THoR]

Considering that the Standard Model makes no statements at-all about gravity, I fail to see why GR would be in contradiction with it.

 

http://sifter.org/~aglisi/Physics/GSQFT.html

 

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000542E5-F21A-1422-AE7883414B7F0000

 

Too long to post here

[aguy2]

http://sifter.org/~aglisi/Physics/GSQFT.html

 

http://www.sciam.com/print_version.cfm?articleID=000542E5-F21A-1422-AE7883414B7F0000

 

Too long to post here

 

...and?

aguy2