Far out cosmology (Introduction)

by xeno6696 , Sonoran Desert, Wednesday, December 25, 2013, 19:44 (3768 days ago) @ David Turell


> > Matt: The only real philosophical mistake he made is in his dismissal of why questions. I don't disagree with him however, that how questions are imminently preferable. And even if a multiverse is inevitable, and may have had a beginning, it automatically means that chance is no longer a problem. Given that our universe is infinitely large, I still think you can make the argument that every possible configuration of matter in the universe has been created multiple times, purely by natural law. Chance is a false bugaboo, especially the more you play with the total amount of matter we estimate the universe holds, and you add in the nature of "virtual particles" which was the singlehandedly best description of quantum mechanics I have ever read.
> 
> The problem is that all you have presented is supposition. Yes, the univedse is large but we can see back to the first 300,000 years. So far we cannot see beyond the COBE but the results so far from Planck still support inflation, a flat universe, continual expansion until heat death, etc. The original reports that the Wilkinson was wrong have just been refuted by more careful analysis of the data. But we cannot see the universe you are supposing. When you show me a bubble universe different than ours I'll then accept your viewpoint. Please don't base your thinkng on String Theory. So far it has opened uop some intersting observations, but most of it is mental masterbation. A good person to follow is Matt Strassler and his blog. He has one of the clearest views of quantum mechanics I have found.-I'm not basing it on String Theory, I'm basing this on observed fact. -1. Our universe is an infinitely expanding universe. 
2. Our universe is therefore infinitely large.
3. If a probability space is infinite, and configurations of matter are finite, than every possible configuration of matter is guaranteed to occur. 
4. "Virtual Particles" aren't String-Theoretic. They are actually necessary for quantum theory to be correct in explaining observed phenomenon. (Basically, without them most quantum physical laws cease to work.) -I'm not a String Theory fan. I follow Krauss, not Brian Greene. An unanswered question by Krauss, if the universe as it is guarantees a multiverse, at what point does this begin? Can we conceivably be living in one now? Is it possible that our "Observable Universe" isn't precisely ONE of these? Krauss describes that in an infinitely expanding universe, the growing expanse of dark energy will create differentiated regions of space that can have different physical laws than what we've observed. This necessarily means, *multiverse.* And no, none of that is based on String Theory. Krauss treats ST in about half a page in his book, with some respect, but directly states that it makes no testable predictions without creating impractically huge experiments. (Although, as I posted before, it has provided techniques to explain some phenomenon that standard physics couldn't. So maybe... JUST maybe... insanity prevails somewhere in the universe...)

--
\"Why is it, Master, that ascetics fight with ascetics?\"

\"It is, brahmin, because of attachment to views, adherence to views, fixation on views, addiction to views, obsession with views, holding firmly to views that ascetics fight with ascetics.\"