Can Choices Create Parallel Universes in an Infinite Cosmos?

[Astro-Anouar]

The Universe divide in two parts The observable Universe which is everything we can see (93 Billion ly) and the whole Universe which is Infinity ! so the question is : if the universe is infinity so if we had repetitions they will be in this Universe because the universe haven't edge ,No?! Second How can be possible a parallel Universe to Be into a Black Hole ?! and Finally , I Read that each Time you had to choose or Make a decision You Create a parallel Universe ! How that can be Possible ?! That mean When I have to choose One Number Between 1 and 0 and I choose 1 , a Big Bang happen somewhere and 13.7 Billion years pass and me when I write This Thread I Write 0 ?! is This Logic ?!

 

[phinds]

Addressing just the first part of your question, it is not known that the universe is infinite. It MIGHT be, but no one knows.

The rest of your question has to do with the "many worlds interpretation" of quantum mechanics, which many of us consider nonsense, pretty much for the reasons you state.

 

[Mordred]

Gotta love pop media.

First off we don't know if the universe is infinite or finite. see FAQ sub forum.

yes the observable universe is only a portion of the total universe. The observable is finite.
that will also answer the edge question.

Parallel universes is at best a speculative possibility, there is no confirmed data supporting parallel universes. However the decision process in parallel universe theories usually involve alternate timelines with each decision. However that is only one alternate multiverse theory.

Thus far no evidence for any multiverse theory exists, they are derived mainly by supposition with mathematical model backing with little to no further substance.

edit: just noticed that Phinds replied his signature has a balloon analogy article you may want to read that as well.

 

[Astro-Anouar]

Gotta love pop media.

First off we don't know if the universe is infinite or finite. see FAQ sub forum.

yes the observable universe is only a portion of the total universe. The observable is finite.
that will also answer the edge question.

Parallel universes is at best a speculative possibility, there is no confirmed data supporting parallel universes. However the decision process in parallel universe theories usually involve alternate timelines with each decision. However that is only one alternate multiverse theory.

Thus far no evidence for any multiverse theory exists, they are derived mainly by supposition with mathematical model backing with little to no further substance.

edit: just noticed that Phinds replied his signature has a balloon analogy article you may want to read that as well.

Can You show me The Mathematical Model ?

 

[phinds]

edit: just noticed that Phinds replied his signature has a balloon analogy article you may want to read that as well.

Well, it did back when we HAD signatures

it's at

www.phinds.com/balloonanalogy

 

[Mordred]

Its primarily a QM concept here is a link to its origins

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation

http://plato.stanford.edu/entries/qm-manyworlds/

 

[Boy@n]

The Universe divide in two parts The observable Universe which is everything we can see (93 Billion ly) and the whole Universe which is Infinity !

It's more probable that whole Universe is infinite than that it isn't. If it isn't then it has an edge. But en edge to what? What can be behind/beyond Universe? Nothing at all maybe? If so, can you define nothing? Is that which is not matter/energy nothing? What about quantum fluctuations, are they to be considered nothing? We cannot observe virtual particles, so, do they exist? Sure not, but are they nothing? Quantum fluctuation can be logically defined to be "nothingness", but the funny part is, they can become something. (I wrote a bit more about it here.)

You can also read a nice book on this topic (ebook too), titled: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss (enter his name in YouTube.com and enjoy)

 

[Mordred]

It's more probable that whole Universe is infinite than that it isn't. If it isn't then it has an edge. But en edge to what? What can be behind/beyond Universe? Nothing at all maybe? If so, can you define nothing? Is that which is not matter/energy nothing? What about quantum fluctuations, are they to be considered nothing? We cannot observe virtual particles, so, do they exist? Sure not, but are they nothing? Quantum fluctuation can be logically defined to be "nothingness", but the funny part is, they can become something. (I wrote a bit more about it here.)

You can also read a nice book on this topic (ebook too), titled: A Universe from Nothing: Why There Is Something Rather than Nothing by Lawrence M. Krauss (you can also enter his name in YouTube.com and enjoy)

This has nothing to do with the many worlds interpretation however there are alternate multiverse models that do derive from Lawrence R Krauss everything from nothing scenario. Or rather other false vacuum derived models. This is due to the runaway inflation mechanism a key model example is bubble universes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

 

[Boy@n]

This has nothing to do with the many worlds interpretation however there are alternate multiverse models that do derive from Lawrence R Krauss everything from nothing scenario. Or rather other false vacuum derived models. This is due to the runaway inflation mechanism a key model example is bubble universes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eternal_inflation

If we remove everything from existence we are left with nothing, right? Now, if that nothing is not really nothing, but quantum fluctuations happening everywhere to infinity, then having many worlds or Universes is just "natural" ;)

Thanks for the link. (And previous ones too -- all saved for further reading.)

 

[Mordred]

Your missing the point, the many worlds interpretation has to to with waveforms, probabilities and Schodingers darn cat. Here is a related thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=687112

the "bubble universe" is derived in the manner you described, in eternal inflation and chaotic eternal inflation. the premise of the development of the multiverses are significantly different.

Its important to keep them separate for as the premise behind the two multiverse models are different

 

[Mordred]

this is more what your describing see attached although the quantum particles created via expansion ha nothin to do with Casimir effect. Its more accurately described by Parker radiation and false vacuum, which can be considered a form of Parker radiation. Or in other inflation models the inflaton field

 

[Boy@n]

Your missing the point, the many worlds interpretation has to to with waveforms, probabilities and Schodingers darn cat. Here is a related thread.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=687112

the "bubble universe" is derived in the manner you described, in eternal inflation and chaotic eternal inflation. the premise of the development of the multiverses are significantly different.

Its important to keep them separate for as the premise behind the two multiverse models are different

I didn't even try to compare the two models till now. But in the end, don't you end in the same repetitions of everything to infinity, no matter of the model used? (And I agree, the process is surely different, but the end result isn't. Everything possible happens, in both models.)

Let's say I am thinking what to write right now, either it is exactly what I am writting or something else, it doesn't matter, within infinity all possibilities shall happen, independent of the model you use to desribe our Universe/reality, right?

P.S. I appreciate your feedback, even if you might not mine ;)

 

[Boy@n]

this is more what your describing see attached although the quantum particles created via expansion ha nothin to do with Casimir effect. Its more accurately described by Parker radiation and false vacuum, which can be considered a form of Parker radiation. Or in other inflation models the inflaton field

Due to read, thank you!

 

[Mordred]

I didn't even try to compare the two models till now. But in the end, don't you end in the same repetitions of everything to infinity, no matter of the model used? (And I agree, the process is surely different, but the end result isn't. Everything possible happens, in both models.)

Let's say I am thinking what to write right now, either it is exactly what I am writting or something else, it doesn't matter, within infinity all possibilities shall happen, independent of the model you use to desribe our Universe/reality, right?

P.S. I appreciate your feedback, even if you might not mine ;)

Assuming VERY loosely that both scenarios do in fact create a multiverse scenario. Then both can lead to multiverses in their own manner. However the reasons and underlying mathematics is considerably different as such the importants of how you refer to them is vital. So the treatment of each is also different particularly when trying to hypothesize a particular property of said multiverse.

Keep in mind multiverse theories are just that lol. Its all theoretical and not part of standard cosmology which describes only the observable universe.

You might want to look at the link on Bubble universes and rethink your article that you postd in QM forum.

and I enjoy any and all feedback that's how we all learn lol so no worries

also keep in mind the many worlds interpretation is misrepresented as a multiverse scenario by pop media.
Its more a visualization tool that states in the example of the darn cat that in QM until examined the cat is both dead and alive. Hence until examined both answers are correct

 

[Boy@n]

Sure, I'll read as much as I manage ;)

Hence until examined both answers are correct

As for this test/scenario, I'd rather say, we just don't know, until we check ;)

 

[Mordred]

QM focusses on accurately describing all possible probabilities. The many worlds interpretation is a descriptive of that.

 

[phinds]

It's more probable that whole Universe is infinite than that it isn't. If it isn't then it has an edge.

Nonsense. If it is finite, it will surely be unbounded (no edge).

 

[Boy@n]

(to be deleted)

 

[phinds]

You seem to claim that with certainty? Please elaborate more on why saying that Universe is infinite is nonsense?

I saw comments from respected members of this forum saying that a finite Universe (whole of it, not just the observable "part") has to be infinite...

When you say "a finite universe has to be infinite" I assume that's a typo and you mean "a finite universe has to be ... WHAT ?" Bounded? Unbounded? Clearly something that is finite doesn't have to be infinite, although unbounded DOES mean infinite in one or more directions, because you keep passing your starting point, like going around and around the earth.

The problem with a bounded universe is that it would have an edge and there doesn't seem to be any way physics as we know it can handle an edge. It just wouldn't make any sense.

 

[Boy@n]

a finite Universe (whole of it, not just the observable "part") has to be infinite...

Yes, a typo, sorry. I meant to say: "Universe (whole of it, not just the observable "part") has to be infinite."

Observable Universe is finite though, and with an edge, or else we couldn't meassure its length, right?

 

[phinds]

Yes, a typo, sorry. I meant to say: "Universe (whole of it, not just the observable "part") has to be infinite."

Observable Universe is finite though, and with an edge, or else we couldn't meassure its length, right?

The observable universe is a sphere of about 50 billion light years radius centered on your left eyeball. It has no edge except in the sense that ANY sphere that is defined as being centered on your left eyeball and extending for n units of length has an "edge". Better to say it has a defined radius, or in the case of the OU, a measured radius. This is NOT the same as an edge.

 

[Astro-Anouar]

Nonsense. If it is finite, it will surely be unbounded (no edge).

I didn't Understand what you mean, Something finite must have an edge a limit this is the sense of finite , No ?

 

[phinds]

I didn't Understand what you mean, Something finite must have an edge a limit this is the sense of finite , No ?

No, absolutely not. Think of the surface of a sphere. JUST the surface. That is a 2D construct that is finite but unbounded.

We don't know the shape of the universe but it is believed to be either infinite or finite and unbounded --- unbounded in 3D in the same way that the surface of a sphere is unbounded in 2D.

 

[WannabeNewton]

The 3-sphere spatial sections are of course compact but they have empty manifold boundary, as phinds noted. Don't confuse compactness with non-empty manifold boundary. You are picturing $S^{2}$ in $\mathbb{R}^{3}$ and noting how it is bounded in the sense that it can be contained in an open ball but this is not equivalent to having a non-empty manifold boundary. If $S^{n}$ had a non-empty manifold boundary then it would have charts which mapped to open subsets of the upper half plane but all charts on $S^{n}$ map to open subsets of $\mathbb{R}^{n}$.

 

[Boy@n]

No, absolutely not. Think of the surface of a sphere. JUST the surface. That is a 2D construct that is finite but unbounded.

We don't know the shape of the universe but it is believed to be either infinite or finite and unbounded --- unbounded in 3D in the same way that the surface of a sphere is unbounded in 2D.

A circle too has no edge ('2D ant' walking on it can go on and on eternally) and thus can be considered to be infinite (even though I'd say a circle has finite number of points, each being a Planck length).

No matter how we see the circle or a sphere, both are a finite objects, and in this sense observable Universe is finite too, right?

I can see that observable Universe has no clear edge, but all of its mass is finite, true? And if mass is finite then that is what defines the 'object' (or let's say space-time curvatures with mass in them), so, observable Universe if a finite 'object' within https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=687860.

 

[Mordred]

How we define shapes in cosmology is a tricky subject. Mainly related to how one defines flat shape with no edge. In the case of infinite the question rarely comes up. However how do we define a finite flat shape with no edge.
That question relies on a good understanding of geometry.

Here is one example of a flat curvature with no edge (forget outside or inside) deal with the coordinate change of a triangle. Where each point is a coordinate. In the following example

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle

 

[Boy@n]

How we define shapes in cosmology is a tricky subject. Mainly related to how one defines flat shape with no edge. In the case of infinite the question rarely comes up. However how do we define a finite flat shape with no edge.
That question relies on a good understanding of geometry.

Here is one example of a flat curvature with no edge (forget outside or inside) deal with the coordinate change of a triangle. Where each point is a coordinate. In the following example

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle

OK, let's say we dump the word 'edge', aren't we left with finite object or structure in regard to observable Universe?

Klein bottle looks pretty interesting and finite... But again, isn't a circle enough to present the idea that the 'surface' can be considered to be infinite even when the object is finite... there is no starting or ending point, or differently put, every point on a circle can be both, an starting and an ending point. But that doesn't mean that the circle is infinite object (likewise observable Universe isn't).

 

[phinds]

OK, let's say we dump the word 'edge', aren't we left with finite object or structure in regard to observable Universe?

Klein bottle looks pretty interesting and finite... But again, isn't a circle enough to present the idea that the 'surface' can be considered to be infinite even when the object is finite... there is no starting or ending point, or differently put, every point on a circle can be both, an starting and an ending point. But that doesn't mean that the circle is infinite object (likewise observable Universe isn't).

I think part of your problem is that you keep conflating "finite" with "bounded" and "infinite" with "unbounded". They simply are not the same thing. Finite/infinite are one set of concepts and bounded/unbounded are another set of concepts. Something can be finite and be either bounded or unbounded.

No one here has been saying that something with finite VOLUME is infinite in VOLUME, what we have been saying is that something with finite volume can be either bounded or unbounded and you seem to confuse this with our saying that something with finite volume is infinite in volume.

Yes, I understand your point that an unbounded surface can have a finite number of Plank lengths in a given direction. That is of course correct but it is beside the point. It is STILL unbounded, not bounded and it can still therefore have no edge.

If you are going to argue what amounts to being points of terminology, it would serve you well to first learn what the terms MEAN.

 

[phinds]

OK, let's say we dump the word 'edge', aren't we left with finite object or structure in regard to observable Universe?

The observable universe is an artificial construct. It is a sphere, which for points of discussion we generally take to be a "perfect" sphere (even if that might be off by a tiny amount). It is identical in all characteristics other than size to ANY perfect sphere you define as having a center on your left eyeball and a radius of n units of length. Like any sphere, its "surface" (put in quotes in this case because it is imaginary) has a finite area and an infinite extent (it is unbounded). So YES it is "finite" and NO it is not "bounded" (on the surface).

ALL of the above is irrelevant as regards the whole universe since we don't know the extent or shape of the whole universe.

EDIT: I should also point out that the OU is based on a size dictated by the speed of light and the expansion of the universe, so my statement that it is an "artificial construct" is not quite right --- it is based on a measured radius, not a made up one --- but other than that it is artificial in that it has no physical existence.

 

[WannabeNewton]

Here is one example of a flat curvature with no edge (forget outside or inside) deal with the coordinate change of a triangle. Where each point is a coordinate. In the following example

http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Klein_bottle

Again, this is not the kind of "lack of edge" that is being talked about. The Klein bottle is an example of a non-orientable manifold i.e. there doesn't exist a choice of nowhere-vanishing continuous n-form (volume form) on the manifold. This is not the same thing as saying the 3-sphere spatial sections of the closed universe model have "no edge"; the latter is just the statement that the 3-sphere has empty manifold boundary. It is finite in the sense that it is compact (every open cover has a finite subcover). Obviously the 3-sphere is orientable so this notion is not what is being talked about.