/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11985831
If being is infinite, all possible experiences exist in some reality. Somewhere out there is a reality where you’re making out with the Hulk, and he’s got the Magna Carta tattooed on his ass. Pretty gay bro (not that there’s anything wrong with it)

>>11986035
Not necessarily, that being possible is enough.

This is a revolution in science. Why is no one talking about this?

sub specie aeternitatis
einstein was right

>>11986068
if the universe is infinite all is both possible and real

>>11987231
My thinking on this is that it recurs exactly the same way every time. It's Nietzsche's eternal recurrence made scientific.

>>11987231
we're probably saying the same thing. It's not like it has to happen (as the guy meant) to make it real, being possible make it already real. Not happening, but possible = like it happened

>>11985831
There's no multiverse and there's no infinity. Neither of those are accepted by mainstream ppl in their fields. Multiverse is a terrible conclusion of some results and infinity is just an idea.

>>11987274
You don't understand. This new theory is attempting to to excise the multiverse.

>>11987278
How does infinity do that?

>>11987274
And by the way "mainstream people" only accept eternal inflation (implying a multiverse). There are no other viable contenders in the "mainstream".

>>11985831
I used to be part of actual infinity haters anonymous. But this series convinced me otherwise:

https://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLC25C694A288E5A03

Abraham Robinson's hyperreals are not only workable, but are far more free that Cauchy's limits. Give me liberty or give me death, that's how strongly I feel about this topic.

>>11987289
What implies it should be eternal? Causation becomes limited as time goes on

>>11987300

Time is a flat circle. The universe starts with a bang, ends with a cruch, which becomes another bang when everything has returned to point of origin. We are then created again. This is why we experience deja vu, because we HAVE already experienced this life.

And we will continue to experience it. Again and again. For all eternity.

>>11987317
The crunch was argued against after dark matter was shown not to have much force. What do you suppose would cause this, the big chill seems to follow more models, especially seems odd to contradict entropy at some point.

>>11987327

a universe filled with black holes, merging into supermassive black holes, engulfing all. Once every black hole merges into one, kaboom

>>11987343
Are you suggesting black holes literally hold material at the bottom of them? Also black holes are spreading farther away and most will never be able to interact unless you're arguing the universe is round

>>11987351
Black holes and the big bounce have one thing in common. There are NO singularities in either. Singularities don't exist.

>>11987360
Again I don't see a big bounce without a big crunch and you haven't proven a cosmological anti entropy.

>>11987351

Assuming they aren't worm holes into another universe, theyre just an infinitesimal corpse of a star with an unmatched gravitational pull. The more you put them together, the greater the gravitational pull and the more densely compressed the matter is.
The big bang wouldn't have shot in one direction but all directions possible. Everything in the universe is round.

>>11987381
If there is a bounce, there is no crunch. That's the whole point.

>>11987382
By round I mean spherelike in that if you follow one direction long enough it circles back around.

>>11987386
There's nothing which draws matter together necessarily.

>>11987231
If Infinity is "possible", then it's also "possible" that Goku destroyed the multiverse. Infinity is retarded.

>>11987390
There doesn't have to be. Actually read the article.

>>11987396

>>11987394
Classic misunderstanding of the notion of infinity. People don't believe in it because they have misguided notions of it, just like this.

>>11987401
>the universe has no beginning and no end
what about this phraseology insinuates non-infinity to you?
sub specie aeternitatis
einstein was right

>>11987403
Can you explain how infinity is at all represented in reality, and not potential infinity because it's useless.

>>11987388

Yes. Also, grats on the multiple doubles. /sci/ mods suck cock.

>>11987409
Read the article. I can't explain it better than they did.

>>11987408
First it says "In cyclical theory" so you might want to qualify that.
Secondly the quote says it needs contraction. You haven't offered anything which suggests contraction necessarily happens except black holes and I replied how that doesn't make sense without something that necessarily contracts black holes as they achieve entropic states.

>>11987415
You can't explain it at all, I don't get why you made this thread

>>11987419
Cyclical theory is NASCENT. I never claimed it's the prevailing theory. It's POTENTIALLY a theory that could one day supersede inflation. The point is, we were there when it happened. Most people would be excited about such a thing.

>>11987428
Oh it's potentially, well you seemed so sure of yourself I thought I'd pick your brain.

>>11987428
And there are precisely NO other viable to contenders to supersede inflation. Other than this. This is why this is so exciting.

>>11987432
If you hate the multiverse as much as everyone on this board seems to, you should love this new theory.

>>11987436
If you can't explain it then it just sounds like theory consumerism. None of what you said implies it and it doesn't even seem to hold up to a basic stress test.

>>11987441
I dislike infinity and multiverse for the same reason. It's just a vacuous jerk off with no analytic justification. I just don't see how a big bounce can happen without something that reverses entropy.

>>11987442
It would take almost as many words to explain it as were used in the article. You can just read the article, which was posted. Do you have trouble reading or what?

>>11987449
I don't have trouble explaining.

I hope the big bounce isn't the true answer - the fact that I'll have to be here eternally to experience pain again and again is enough to send the most sane man mad & raging.

>>11987444
read the article it's too complicated to explain in two sentences

>>11987455
But you wouldn't know

>>11987455
Think about it like this: if you commit suicide now, you will shorten your pain. And then you only have to experience half of it.

>>11987471
This is why Hugh Everett killed himself with his reckless lifestyle. He knew something most of us don't.

>>11987453
I can just copy and paste the article for your excellency, if this is what your excellency wishes.

>The standard story of the birth of the cosmos goes something like this: Nearly 14 billion years ago, a tremendous amount of energy materialized as if from nowhere.

>In a brief moment of rapid expansion, that burst of energy inflated the cosmos like a balloon. The expansion straightened out any large-scale curvature, leading to a geometry that we now describe as flat. Matter also thoroughly mixed together, so that now the cosmos appears largely (though not perfectly) featureless. Here and there, clumps of particles have created galaxies and stars, but these are just minuscule specks on an otherwise unblemished cosmic canvas.

>>11987456
They assume it's due to dark matter but nothing shows or implies dark matter can reverse. It's just a fantasy theory. Even that, why would it maintain the energy to continue this indefinitely. That contradicts the theory as well.

>That theory, which textbooks call inflation, matches all observations to date and is preferred by most cosmologists. But it has conceptual implications that some find disturbing. In most regions of space-time, the rapid expansion would never stop. As a consequence, inflation can’t help but produce a multiverse — a technicolor existence with an infinite variety of pocket universes, one of which we call home. To critics, inflation predicts everything, which means it ultimately predicts nothing. “Inflation doesn’t work as it was intended to work,” said Paul Steinhardt, an architect of inflation who has become one of its most prominent critics.

>>11987494
My highness just responded to your dumbass and I did it in a few sentences.

In recent years, Steinhardt and others have been developing a different story of how our universe came to be. They have revived the idea of a cyclical universe: one that periodically grows and contracts. They hope to replicate the universe that we see — flat and smooth — without the baggage that comes with a bang.

>In recent years, Steinhardt and others have been developing a different story of how our universe came to be. They have revived the idea of a cyclical universe: one that periodically grows and contracts. They hope to replicate the universe that we see — flat and smooth — without the baggage that comes with a bang.

>To that end, Steinhardt and his collaborators recently teamed up with researchers who specialize in computational models of gravity. They analyzed how a collapsing universe would change its own structure, and they ultimately discovered that contraction can beat inflation at its own game. No matter how bizarre and twisted the universe looked before it contracted, the collapse would efficiently erase a wide range of primordial wrinkles.

>“It’s very important, what they claim they’ve done,” said Leonardo Senatore, a cosmologist at Stanford University who has analyzed inflation using a similar approach. There are aspects of the work he hasn’t yet had a chance to investigate, he said, but at first glance “it looks like they’ve done it.”

>Over the last year and a half, a fresh view of the cyclic, or “ekpyrotic,” universe has emerged from a collaboration between Steinhardt, Anna Ijjas, a cosmologist at the Max Planck Institute for Gravitational Physics in Germany, and others — one that achieves renewal without collapse.

>>11987523
>>11987521
>>11987516
>>11987510
>>11987506
>>11987503
If you are hired at all it's because you're a dogmatic yes-man with zero capacity for language. I'd hire you

>When it comes to visualizing expansion and contraction, people often focus on a balloonlike universe whose change in size is described by a “scale factor.” But a second measure — the Hubble radius, which is the greatest distance we can see — gets short shrift. The equations of general relativity let them evolve independently, and, crucially, you can flatten the universe by changing either.

>Picture an ant on a balloon. Inflation is like blowing up the balloon. It puts the onus of smoothing and flattening primarily on the swelling cosmos. In the cyclic universe, however, the smoothing happens during a period of contraction. During this epoch, the balloon deflates modestly, but the real work is done by a drastically shrinking horizon. It’s as if the ant views everything through an increasingly powerful magnifying glass. The distance it can see shrinks, and thus its world grows more and more featureless.

>Steinhardt and company imagine a universe that expands for perhaps a trillion years, driven by the energy of an omnipresent (and hypothetical) field, whose behavior we currently attribute to dark energy. When this energy field eventually grows sparse, the cosmos starts to gently deflate. Over billions of years a contracting scale factor brings everything a bit closer, but not all the way down to a point. The dramatic change comes from the Hubble radius, which rushes in and eventually becomes microscopic. The universe’s contraction recharges the energy field, which heats up the cosmos and vaporizes its atoms. A bounce ensues, and the cycle starts anew.

>In the bounce model, the microscopic Hubble radius ensures smoothness and flatness. And whereas inflation blows up many initial imperfections into giant plots of multiverse real estate, slow contraction squeezes them essentially out of existence. We are left with a cosmos that has no beginning, no end, no singularity at the Big Bang, and no multiverse.

>One challenge for both inflation and bounce cosmologies is to show that their respective energy fields create the right universe no matter how they get started. “Our philosophy is that there should be no philosophy,” Ijjas said. “You know it works when you don’t have to ask under what condition it works.”

>She and Steinhardt criticize inflation for doing its job only in special cases, such as when its energy field forms without notable features and with little motion. Theorists have explored these situations most thoroughly, in part because they are the only examples tractable with chalkboard mathematics. In recent computer simulations, which Ijjas and Steinhardt describe in a pair of preprints posted online in June, the team stress-tested their slow-contraction model with a range of baby universes too wild for pen-and paper analysis.

>Adapting code developed by Frans Pretorius, a theoretical physicist at Princeton University who specializes in computational models of general relativity, the collaboration explored twisted and lumpy fields, fields moving in the wrong direction, even fields born with halves racing in opposing directions. In nearly every case, contraction swiftly produced a universe as boring as ours.

>“You let it go and — bam! In a few cosmic moments of slow contraction it looks as smooth as silk,” Steinhardt said.

>Katy Clough, a cosmologist at the University of Oxford who also specializes in numerical solutions of general relativity, called the new simulations “very comprehensive.” But she also noted that computational advances have only recently made this kind of analysis possible, so the full range of conditions that inflation can handle remains uncharted.

>“It’s been semi-covered, but it needs a lot more work,” she said.

>While interest in Ijjas and Steinhardt’s model varies, most cosmologists agree that inflation remains the paradigm to beat. “[Slow contraction] is not an equal contender at this point,” said Gregory Gabadadze, a cosmologist at New York University.

>The collaboration will next flesh out the bounce itself — a more complex stage that requires novel interactions to push everything apart again. Ijjas already has one bounce theory that upgrades general relativity with a new interaction between matter and space-time, and she suspects that other mechanisms exist too. She plans to put her model on the computer soon to understand its behavior in detail.

>The group hopes that after gluing the contraction and expansion stages together, they’ll identify unique features of a bouncing universe that astronomers might spot.

>The collaboration has not worked out every detail of a cyclic cosmos with no bang and no crunch, much less shown that we live in one. But Steinhardt now feels optimistic that the model will soon offer a viable alternative to the multiverse. “The roadblocks I was most worried about have been surpassed,” he said. “I’m not kept up at night anymore.”

there you fucking go you fucking lazy bastards

>>11987575
Finally just read this ig, news cycles need to make a little money. Stop sounding naive

>>11987394
>If Infinity is "possible", then it's also "possible" that Goku destroyed the multiverse. Infinity is retarded.

Not how infinities work. There are infinite numbers between zero and one (e.g. 0.1, 0.01, 0.001, etc.), none of them are the value two.

>>11988930
There aren't tho unless you assert the current number axioms. In reality those are simply just different numbers

>>11986035
>>11987231
>>11987394
you're the kind of people who think there's an answer to every possible question in the decimal expansion of Pi

>>11988930
Not the guy, but let me explain. It's already like that. If some series of events could lead to Goku existing that means he exists. That's how infinity works.

>>11989564
>. It's already like that. If some series of events could lead to Goku existing that means he exists.
this is a very bold claim and your whole argument is
>That's how infinity works.
I'm afraid you're gonna need more than that

>>11989652
Well, if you want me to link some studies...I can't at the moment, but let me try anyway. Let's say I stay at home today, starting from now till tomorrow. Tomorrow I think: what if I had gone out yesterday and smashed a window. Now, the fact it could have happened and all the possibilities from that event are already covered by the "Universe", I know that because it can't happen something causing ... a bug and being 'in progress' for us, but already happened for the universe, the "Universe" must already know all the possible outcomes. Meaning, if some series of events can lead to goku existing, Goku exists, despite the fact noone will probably see him. Infinity: no difference between something that can happen + all the consequences and something that happened. How I know that? Time. Where there's no time everything already happened.

>>11989688
>Infinity: no difference between something that can happen + all the consequences and something that happened.
What the fuck does infinity have to do with this?

Aren’t there an infinite number of differently sized infinities, each infinitely larger than the one before?
My favorite part of Philosophy of Logic was learning the proof that the infinity of rational numbers & real numbers were different sizes

>>11989766
I wrote a longer reply I'll keep for later...Well, If you mean it related to OP link, not much, the article, however, doesn't say infinity, just 'infinite variety of pocket universes' once, so I think we can say we're not talking about the article. Infinity as countless possibilities and combinations.

>>11989830
Yes anon just like there's an infinite amount of addition laws. Everything is infinite anon, I saw it on a youtube video before

>>11985831
The very concept of infinity is a blight upon Nature and a direct affront to GOD.

You GOD CURSED infinity loving SODOMITES shall surely perish and suffer finite DAMNATION within the DISCRETE flames of HELL!

Amen.

>>11989564
You are retarded.

>>11989564
>If some series of events could lead to Goku existing that means he exists. That's how infinity works.

Agreed, but unless the laws of physics change Goku will always be a fictitious being. Where does Goku get the energy for an energy blast?

>>11987231
The thing is we will probably never experience those other realities. We will experience the same reality over and over again.

>>11990549
thanks
>>11990558
Well, the first part of your reply seems serious, so I assume the second is too. Well, probably not in this universe or in a distant future where people somehow can do something we consider "magic" now. Who knows. Different law of physics lead to the existence of a multiverse, that personally I consider a very strong possibility, but it might not be like many represent it. So, here's the idea, it's not what I think, but... There's no beginning, so 'it' always existed. That mean, time doesn't exist there. What are we then? The difference between everything and nothing, basically there to justify our own existence (in a way). Considering time doesn't exist outside of our Universe, our universe already happened and there must be something containing all the possibilities, because the opposite would make less sense, having ruled out time. Our law of physics seem too specific to be a first/only attempt, so it makes sense it's part of a random infinite attempt. It worked here under some conditions, then you have a miriad of universes where this didn't happen.

>>11991520
>over and over again
in that scenario it won't be the same, a new one will start again, that's it.

>>11987231
Let's take the infinite series that can be generated by iteration. We take the string 01 and concatenate 001, so you add a zero to each concatenation.
01
01001
010010001
01001000100001

This is an infinite series that will never contain the number or item 2 or "your mom will die in her sleep tonight if you don't reply to this post", because it is governed by rules that make such a thing impossible. Infinity (which is a very abstract concept) doest imply that every possible combination of items can be achieved. The infinite set of natural numbers will never contain a root or a prime number, just for instance

>>11985831
Infinity is an abstraction there is literally NOTHING in reality that has been proven to be infinite except maybe God

Perhaps off topic but, the universe is expanding at an increasing rate due to anti-gravity. How does this not violate the cube squared law? How can something exert so much force over such vast distances?

>>11991759
>there is literally NOTHING in reality that has been proven to be infinite
Except OPs homosexuality.

>>11991759
>>11991759
>NOTHING in reality that has been proven to be infinite
What about energy?

>>11991752
>The infinite set of natural numbers will never contain a root or a prime number
What? Are we thinking of the same numbers?

>>11991908
There is no proof that an infinite amount of energy exists in the universe. Are you retarded by any chance?

>>11991854
>>11991854
>cube squared law
how would that violate it

>>11991942
yes, he's thinking of some schizo roman numeral numbers appearing in his head

>>11991752
>doest imply that every possible combination of items can be achieved
By your own rules, 2 is not a possible outcome. Even among 0s and 1s, your series is so rigidly defined that it will only contain very specific string segments of longer and longer series of 0s followed by a 1. What we do know, however is that it will contain all of them.

>>11991942
*of

>>11991974
>by your own rules 2 is not a possible outcome

The universe, if it is infinite is also governed by rules and is not said to contain every event possible. Infinity is not equal to the set of all possibilities, even, however this set is infinite

>>11991955
Inverse square law sorry

>>11987187
This has been a well known theory and common talking point for years, you're just not keeping up with cosmology as much as you think you are.

>>11985831
What I don't get is why they seem to think that the crunch period doesn't end in a singularity. Logically there's nothing really preventing that.
Still makes about 1000x more sense than "There was a singularity 5ever and one day the universe happened and then it'll tear itself to bits in a quadrillion years or whatever".