ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe) Model - SciForums Update 2018

[quantum_wave]

My thanks to all the participants today, as I prepare to hit the hay

 

[river]

Yes, we are hypothesizing, and the model is the Infinite Spongy Universe model. It doesn't exactly fit the current model , doesn't have a beginning, has multiple big bangs across infinite space and time, and gravitational wave energy fills all space; that pretty much covers it.

What if these " bangs " are the formations of Galaxies ?

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yes, we are hypothesizing, and the model is the Infinite Spongy Universe model. It doesn't exactly fit the current model , doesn't have a beginning, has multiple big bangs across infinite space and time, and gravitational wave energy fills all space; that pretty much covers it.

Yes we can use GR to support that approach I expect. The good thing is we do not have to confront the actual big bang as a point of contention as we just do not know as I understand but it has been speculated that prior to we may have something called a quantum foam..so the question may be to what state will our current universe evolve and could that state be what we could expect as a pre condition to the big bang...so we may have to look forward before we look backward.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

Both extremes in temperature in this Universe have always existed .

The Universe recycles .

We have absolutely no evidence of that.

What if these " bangs " are the formations of Galaxies ?

Galaxies do not form directly from BB's. Galaxies form under the auspices of gravity, a couple of hundreds of millions of years, after the BB, in collapsing clouds of gas.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I thought of another possible complication. We really can only deal with our observable universe and perhaps a unknowable distance past that boundary but there is no exclusion upon the possibility that what we deal with is a mere bubble in a greater system that we can never know about and if so our speculation upon repeated big bangs may ignore that we are trying to deal with just our region whereas the reality may be more akin to a bubbling pot each bubble representing a universe coming and going within a greater cosmic soup...bubbling on gods stove no doubt...thinking it thru we must first determine the basic essence of information transfer..at some level this can be the only thing to consider...it does not really matter in the first instance what particle or particles transfer information but to u understand how such a net work can work ...I know but I won't spoil the ending so you guys can figure it out now that I have given you the hint.
What is energy..it must have some structure or physicality that can abide the necessary information transfer and delivery I suggest...fields, energy, spacetime must have a physical component which is "information" without this something we must enlist magic which of course in nonsense...what tells space to bend what is that information component ..speculation is ok we are just speculating..if our speculations are correct GR will support it..that's what gets me with cranks..their first step is to try and d3stroy all that works..my view is you speculate and then see if you can use what we know works in support..if you can't there is a great chance you need to think again. Let us assume GR works if only because it has been tested to such a degree there is really little left to test..I don't know of anything left to test..do you?

Alex

 

[Write4U]

Yes we can use GR to support that approach I expect. The good thing is we do not have to confront the actual big bang as a point of contention

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2] Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss or Alexander Vilenkin, call this state "a universe from nothingness" but, in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both a matter field with positive energy and a gravitational field with negative energy to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

I see no reason to dismiss the BB in lieu of a prior existing Dynamic Zero State Universe.

it has been speculated that prior to we may have something called a quantum foam

If this Quantum foam is a dynamic medium of infinite potential, why could it not experience a BB? After all it is proposed that the BB started as an energetic singularity.

Can we say the BB emerged from the quantum foam field in the form of an mega quantum event, perhaps similar to a supernova where the some of the Infinite Quantum Foam collapsed into itself until a energetic threshold was reached and a mega quantum event ensued?

Or, scenario 2, was the quantum foam created during the BB?

My main question is how did the Zero State acquire dynamic properties to begin with?
Inward gravitational collapse? That would explain the possibility of a BB, no?

 

[Write4U]

My thanks to all the participants today, as I prepare to hit the hay

Thanks for sharing.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

I see no reason to dismiss the BB in lieu of a prior existing Dynamic Zero State Universe.

Zero state???
I doubt it..sounds interesting but given what we believe to be going on zero is at least the furthest thing from my mind.

If this Quantum foam is a dynamic medium of infinite potential

You are qualifying it unreasonably ..why would it be so?

why could it not experience a BB

I think the suggestion is, rather the speculation is that it did.

After all it is proposed that the BB started as an energetic singularity.

A singularity is as I understand a place where the math does not work..let's back off to where it is clearly reliable..do you know where that may be?

Can we say the BB emerged from the quantum foam field in the form of an mega quantum event, perhaps similar to a supernova where the some of the Infinite Quantum Foam collapsed into itself until a energetic threshold was reached and a mega quantum event ensued?

When speculating you can say pretty much what you wish but perhaps you need to go further to explain why this makes sense to you.

Or, scenario 2, was the quantum foam created during the BB?

We don't know but if you ask that question perhaps share with us why you are thinking along those lines.

My main question is how did the Zero State acquire dynamic properties to begin with?

Well I can't answer that but I think the zero state idea is nonsense. Zero is nothing so perhaps show an observation or logic that shows nothing is possible or that by logic we can find it.

Inward gravitational collapse? That would explain the possibility of a BB, no?

You need to show me how as I don't see where you are coming from at all.

You assume gravity is a force it seems, you need to show why we should treat it so when GR sees no need..Personally I think it is a force but not a force of attraction. If you think it is a force of attraction you could show us how such a force works...no?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Ask why ocean waves rise and fall and what they do when they reach the shore ..do they attract the shore or bodies on it to the place from where they came? When a wave hits you when standing knee deep which way do you go?
Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

My thanks to all the participants today, as I prepare to hit the hay

I sent you a dream...did you watch it?

I think it is wonderful how you work so hard to extend our cosmology.

Do not be put off by those who would claim that we know it all as I will bet the house that we don't and your view is as good as anyone's.

You know the main problem with getting anyone to accept or even comptemlate your idea is that the proposition makes humans smaller than before...it has not sunk in for most just how insignificant we are in space and time but you now would extend the time to no beginning , where it should be in my view. In the beginning there was only the past. You should put that on a t shirt..that's is what you are saying if you think about it.

There is no doubt in my mind that the big bang theory is very satisfying to those who seek a creation point or to avoid thinking that the universe may be infinite....the start of time...yes this time around...and what is funny an infinite (eternal) god is ok but never an infinite (eternal) universe...and the folk in control when they feel uncomfortable assume that the masses will revolt if they even think of such a thing. So they give them their time and a second helping after the first time is over...now they are happy with that rebirth so a rebirth for the universe should go down well you could think.

We are gifted to think but only within the boundaries that suggest some humans are significant...the pity none are..oh they try but every king is only on a list, every great man is only on a list...just an interesting species appearing for a moment, well less than that...and each and ever human wants to be important...what a silly unrealistic desire..me I don't waste the time ..I internalize and enjoy my eternity ...available to all yet none take it, none appreciate that is our gift...I am eternal ..that is all I can comprehend..no start no finish..for me..those who weep when I go won't see it my way but what will I care?

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

infinite potential,

I have seen you say this often..there can be no infinite potential if you think it through...
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

I have seen you say this often..there can be no infinite potential if you think it through...
Alex

Explain what you mean by that. I sometimes qualify the universe by saying it is "potentially infinite", while I am comfortable with just saying it is infinite.

 

[Write4U]

Zero state???
I doubt it..sounds interesting but given what we believe to be going on zero is at least the furthest thing from my mind.

See post 146 .

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2] Some physicists, such as Lawrence Krauss or Alexander Vilenkin, call this state "a universe from nothingness" but, in fact, the zero-energy universe model requires both a matter field with positive energy and a gravitational field with negative energy to exist.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-energy_universe

I used zero state rather than zero energy, because I have a problem with zero energy in a dynamic medium. The term Zero state (balance) sounds more neutral to me. I may be wrong.

I have seen you say this often..there can be no infinite potential if you think it through...Alex

I don't see a limit of potential in the current model. If the Universe is fractal, its potential for complexity seems (near) infinite. But does it really matter? We can't see the end of the universe now, any dimension past our event horizon would make no difference to us.

But in consideration of this statement;

quantum_wave said: ↑ Yes, we are hypothesizing, and the model is the Infinite Spongy Universe model. It doesn't exactly fit the current model , doesn't have a beginning, has multiple big bangs across infinite space and time, and gravitational wave energy fills all space; that pretty much covers it.

If all properties of the Infinite Spongy universe model are infinite, it should have close to infinite potential, no?

Note: Potential = That which may become reality.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Explain what you mean by that.

You need to say please explain...,"please explain" has an almost sacred meaning to Australians.

Potentially infinite is one thing but infinite potential has implications that will not be seen
to
occur and perhaps should carry some qualification that potential, infinite or not ,must be tied to some fundamental physics that must contain potential to some outcomes whilst excluding others...does infinite potential allow the existence of anything supernatural ...the limit set by physics would suggest infinite potential is misleading.
Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

You need to say please explain...,"please explain" has an almost sacred meaning to Australians.

Potentially infinite is one thing but infinite potential has implications that will not be seen
to
occur and perhaps should carry some qualification that potential, infinite or not ,must be tied to some fundamental physics that must contain potential to some outcomes whilst excluding others...does infinite potential allow the existence of anything supernatural ...the limit set by physics would suggest infinite potential is misleading.
Alex

Well said; thank you.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

See post 146 .

You can point it out until the cows come home but I reject the notion as it has no merit.
It is nonsense...nonsense driven by the desire to somehow demonstrate that a "nothing" could have existed prior to the big bang ...just think about what you are asked to accept .... And the maths is not the problem but the application.
You are being sold a pup.

I may be wrong.

Take zero out of the picture...zero is a math term it does not creep into reality and its use outside it's area of application will get you into trouble.

I don't see a limit of potential in the current model.

Potential is limited by physics and therefore not infinite.

We can't see the end of the universe now, any dimension past our event horizon would make no difference to us.

It must make a difference to know..I would like to know at least.

If all properties of the Infinite Spongy universe model are infinite, it should have close to infinite potential, no?

No ..at some level the physics determines all possible outcomes which imposes a limit of outcomes and a limit takes infinite off the table...you have potential but it is not infinite.

Note: Potential = That which may become reality.

Mmmmm maybe when you use the word you should always add what you take it to mean at least so silly folk like me don't take it to mean anything becomes possible.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

Space-time, from no space and no time

From tiny things like atoms, to really big things like galaxies. Our best theory for describing such large-scale structures is general relativity, Albert Einstein's crowning achievement, which sets out how space, time and gravity work.

Is the emergence of this universe (and possibly others) a demonstration of Infinite potential?

Question; In physics, is the term Potential used as an unrealized mathematical value of undefined quality, and does not necessarily point to a specifc infinity or spatial size?
IOW, can "nothing" contain infinite potential to become "something"?

I found this example of "infinite potential" in a small box.....

Particle in a box

In quantum mechanics, the particle in a box model (also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well) describes a particle free to move in a small space surrounded by impenetrable barriers. ... Likewise, it can never have zero energy, meaning that the particle can never "sit still".

Some trajectories of a particle in a box according to Newton's laws of classical mechanics (A), and according to the Schrödinger equation of quantum mechanics (B–F). In (B–F), the horizontal axis is position, and the vertical axis is the real part (blue) and imaginary part (red) of the wavefunction. The states (B,C,D) are energy eigenstates, but (E,F) are not.

In quantum mechanics, the particle in a box model (also known as the infinite potential well or the infinite square well) describes a particle free to move in a small space surrounded by impenetrable barriers. The model is mainly used as a hypothetical example to illustrate the differences between classical and quantum systems.

In classical systems, for example, a particle trapped inside a large box can move at any speed within the box and it is no more likely to be found at one position than another. However, when the well becomes very narrow (on the scale of a few nanometers), quantum effects become important. The particle may only occupy certain positive energy levels. Likewise, it can never have zero energy, meaning that the particle can never "sit still". Additionally, it is more likely to be found at certain positions than at others, depending on its energy level. The particle may never be detected at certain positions, known as spatial nodes.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Particle_in_a_box

To me this is the great mystery. Was the Universe ever in a state of rest or can a Zero state balance exist between dynamical positive and negative values?

How did the universe come from nothing?

Quantum mechanics tells us that "nothing" is inherently unstable, so the initial leap from nothing to something may have been inevitable. Then the resulting tiny bubble of space-time could have burgeoned into a massive, busy universe, thanks to inflation.Nov 6, 2014

In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens

One thing they have found is that, when quantum theory is applied to space at the smallest possible scale, space itself becomes unstable. Rather than remaining perfectly smooth and continuous, space and time destabilize, churning and frothing into a foam of space-time bubbles.

In other words, little bubbles of space and time can form spontaneously. "If space and time are quantized, they can fluctuate," says Lawrence Krauss at Arizona State University in Tempe. "So you can create virtual space-times just as you can create virtual particles."

What's more, if it's possible for these bubbles to form, you can guarantee that they will. "In quantum physics, if something is not forbidden, it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability," says Alexander Vilenkin of Tufts University in Boston, Massachusetts.

http://www.bbc.com/earth/story/20141106-why-does-anything-exist-at-all

 

[paddoboy]

You can point it out until the cows come home but I reject the notion as it has no merit.
It is nonsense...nonsense driven by the desire to somehow demonstrate that a "nothing" could have existed prior to the big bang ...just think about what you are asked to accept .... And the maths is not the problem but the application.

Space-time, from no space and no time

How did the universe come from nothing?

The first thing that needs to be noted, is that the BB only applies to the observable universe.
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
And of course the term BB is a misnomer, and a derisive term applied by "Steady State" proponent Fred Hoyle.
The theory of the evolution of space and time [henceforth known as spacetime] that is derisively called the BB, is the evolution of space and time [as we know them] from an incredibly hot dense state.
Now that in my opinion supports an infinite flat universe more then it does a finite universe,[That should please Alex. [although I'm surprised to see him up so bloody early ] but the question of being finite and/or infinite remains unresolved due to the possibility of exotic geometries.

If by chance, the universe is finite and did have a start, the aspect of a universe from nothing is best resolved by possibly mankind wrongly defining nothing...nothing afterall is pretty hard to imagine, and perhaps the quantum foam [or that aspect of space and time before we knew them in their current form] is the nothing we have difficulty imagining. This is what Lawrence Krauss means in his book, "A Universe from Nothing"

 

[paddoboy]

You can point it out until the cows come home but I reject the notion as it has no merit.
It is nonsense...nonsense driven by the desire to somehow demonstrate that a "nothing" could have existed prior to the big bang ...just think about what you are asked to accept .... And the maths is not the problem but the application.

Bingo!!!

 

[Write4U]

W4U said: I don't see a limit of potential in the current model.

Potential is limited by physics and therefore not infinite.

I see Potential as limited only by Mathematical values.

W4U said; Note: Potential = That which may become reality.

Mmmmm maybe when you use the word you should always add what you take it to mean at least so silly folk like me don't take it to mean anything becomes possible.
Alex

I did clarify what I meant. The definition is in the dictionary. This is the term in it's most generic all inclusive abstract form. Including Physics.

Is Nothing infinite or is it limited in space and time?
Yet the Universe sprang from Nothing, as the story goes.
I would call that an expresssion of infinite potential as an abstract mathematical concept.

The Implication of Something becoming from Nothing is a drastic quantum even and Implies that everything is possible (Infinite Potential), given enough time and space.

Nothing = (Infinite time + Infinite space) = Infinite Potential = > 1 = BB ?

Nothing being infinitely permittive to be filled with Something.
Attraction of bipole constructs. Chirality.
The evolutionary law of Necessity and Sufficiency.
Given sufficient time and physical space, something is "bound" to happen. The mathematical law of Probability.
The proof lies in our knowledge of our current universe. At a very fundamental level, everything we know of about spacetime is a result of some mathematically ordered physical probability, the Implicate, an infinite reservoir of mathematically ordered possible futures.....