Infinate Possibilities You Are Everywhere Quantum Physics Time Reversal Symmetry & Super Positioning

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Does it explain how an infinite universe could expand? It's this kind of science that makes no sense to me.

It was explained to me by this analogy:

Take an infinite sequence of numbers, multiples of 2:

2, 4, 6, 8.....and so on to infinity

Now insert between each of those numbers the odd numbers,(kind of like adding space between the galaxies):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8......and so on to infinity

So both are infinite, but the second infinity has "expanded" to include twice as much in it. It's obviously not even intended to be a perfect analogy, just to illustrate a concept that infinities can get larger and include more stuff, like empty space in the case of the expanding universe.

Our brains didn't evolve to grapple with concepts like these so it's not easy.

If it makes you feel better, here's Michio Kaku's explanation. He says we are sort of like an ant that's walking along the surface of a giant hot air balloon which is round, but the ant is so small and the balloon is so large that the ant can't tell the surface he's walking on is curved...it looks "flat" to the ant. Likewise, the universe looks "flat" to us, but Kaku thinks that like the ant's perspective, our perspective only makes us think the universe is flat, but it may be just really big like the hot air balloon is to the ant. At least that way you don't have to deal with the concept of infinity, but if it's not infinite then you still have the question of "what is "outside" if there is such a thing, which there may not be and that too is mind boggling. So there probably isn't an explanation that's not mind boggling.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: joelr

According to the latest science, it suggest that the Universe is infinite.

Either infinite, or really big. If you think it has excluded the latter, you don't understand the latest science.

Yes very interesting, the work I've done on random numbers reminds me that nothing is random. Take a stream of numbers from one to one hundred, generated from a random number generator. On first glance, they look random but on the second glance, we find that 50% of any two numbers are composed of one odd and one even number.25% are composed of two odd numbers, and the other 25% are composed of two even numbers. Probabilities are fixed throughout the Universe.

originally posted by: Arbitrageur

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
Does it explain how an infinite universe could expand? It's this kind of science that makes no sense to me.

It was explained to me by this analogy:

Take an infinite sequence of numbers, multiples of 2:

2, 4, 6, 8.....and so on to infinity

Now insert between each of those numbers the odd numbers,(kind of like adding space between the galaxies):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8......and so on to infinity

So both are infinite, but the second infinity has "expanded" to include twice as much in it. It's obviously not even intended to be a perfect analogy, just to illustrate a concept that infinities can get larger and include more stuff, like empty space in the case of the expanding universe.

Our brains didn't evolve to grapple with concepts like these so it's not easy.

If it makes you feel better, here's Michio Kaku's explanation. He says we are sort of like an ant that's walking along the surface of a giant hot air balloon which is round, but the ant is so small and the balloon is so large that the ant can't tell the surface he's walking on is curved...it looks "flat" to the ant. Likewise, the universe looks "flat" to us, but Kaku thinks that like the ant's perspective, our perspective only makes us think the universe is flat, but it may be just really big like the hot air balloon is to the ant. At least that way you don't have to deal with the concept of infinity, but if it's not infinite then you still have the question of "what is "outside" if there is such a thing, which there may not be and that too is mind boggling. So there probably isn't an explanation that's not mind boggling.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: joelr

According to the latest science, it suggest that the Universe is infinite.

Either infinite, or really big. If you think it has excluded the latter, you don't understand the latest science.

Yes very interesting, the work I've done on random numbers reminds me that nothing is random. Take a stream of numbers from one to one hundred, generated from a random number generator. On first glance, they look random but on the second glance, we find that 50% of any two numbers are composed of one odd and one even number.25% are composed of two odd numbers, and the other 25% are composed of two even numbers. Probabilities are fixed throughout the Universe.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

It cant be really big, if it was it would be finite. How could the Universe just appear one day from nothing? Nothing appears from nothing .If it did their would have to something there in the first place, which makes a finite Universe paradoxical.

Mind you a universe with an infinite number of possibilities, could have appeared one day from nothing. Just as easily as if it had been there all the time. Only then is the statement a non paradox.

originally posted by: DenyObfuscation
a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Expansion of the infinite is the concept in question here.

In a Universe with an infinite number of possibilities, you could have an expanding Universe, as well as everything else. They are not true physical states but processed information.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: Arbitrageur

It cant be really big, if it was it would be finite. How could the Universe just appear one day from nothing? Nothing appears from nothing.

I don't pretend to know what caused the big bang. I've read some ideas on that but so far I don't think any are "proven". If quantum mechanics taught us one thing, it's that our logic which applied so well to the classical universe fails at the quantum level and thus we can't use logic to predict how the universe should or shouldn't be according to logic.

Besides you can do this yourself to prove your own statement "Nothing appears from nothing" to be false. Take your paycheck to a payday loan center when your bank account is at zero. They will give you 1000 rubles and you will owe them 1000 rubles. So you now have 1000 rubles in your bank account where you had nothing before. You also have a debt that cancels it out.

Some think the universe similarly is a collection of energies which add up to zero. I don't know if that's true, but if it is it would explain how you can apparently get something from nothing, which would be possible whether you're adding debits and credits of rubles or the various energies in the universe and coming up with zero total.

On the Zero-Energy Universe

We consider the energy of the Universe, from the pseudo-tensor point of view (Berman, M.Sc. thesis, 1981). We find zero values, when the calculations are well-done. The doubts concerning this subject are clarified, with the novel idea that the justification for the calculation lies in the association of the equivalence principle, with the nature of co-motional observers, as demanded in Cosmology. In Sect. 4, we give a novel calculation for the zero-total energy result.

a reply to: Arbitrageur

Something can appear from nothing in a Universe with infinite possibilities. But first their has to be a Universe of possibilities. Indeed you have money from nothing.

Think of it as infinate both outside and within, even within the atoms is infinate thus the universe is infinate.

Take the BIG BANG and put that in every atom and there you have an infinate universe ever expanding even within the atoms themselves as BIG BANGS. . . .

originally posted by: Arbitrageur


Take an infinite sequence of numbers, multiples of 2:

2, 4, 6, 8.....and so on to infinity

Now insert between each of those numbers the odd numbers,(kind of like adding space between the galaxies):

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8......and so on to infinity

So both are infinite, but the second infinity has "expanded" to include twice as much in it. It's obviously not even intended to be a perfect analogy, just to illustrate a concept that infinities can get larger and include more stuff, like empty space in the case of the expanding universe.

The analogy works fine but the size of infinities are not counted but "mapped" on a 1-to-1 basis. So both sets you used are part of the first infinity Aleph-null because they can be mapped together. You can't count them because infinity isn't a number. The second infinity, Aleph-1, contains infinities of infinities so they don't map onto the first infinity.
There is a simple proof of it on one of the mathworld videos on youtube. The math branch is Cantor's transfinite numbers, a part of set theory.

But yes, infinities can get larger and the analogy works.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord

Well consider that within every atom is a singularity and we may be in a singularity even now.

CERN has found black holes within atoms. . . .

It could be black holes within black holes ad infinitum.

Theres supposed to be a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy, we could be in it already and just not know it.

See this is the science mythology I'm talking about.
You should source your information first to see if you're just quoting BS.

What I found was this:

" Micro black holes,......are hypothetical tiny black holes," Wiki

"Still, conventional physics suggest it would take a quadrillion, or a million-billion, times more energy to form a microscopic black hole than the Large Hadron Collider is capable of, so even a third of that is beyond human reach. Scenarios based on extra dimensions could have black holes form at a lower energy, "but they make no concrete predictions on what it should be," Pretorius said."

This is all hypothetical stuff science websites make articles about to get readers. It's really important to understand that all media is mostly about making money. Even if the owners and authors are passionate about the subject they need cash to finance their business and they have to make money to survive. Every day science websites put articles in the physics section that practically say "Quantum Computers are Complete and will ship in 6 months!!"
But we are not that far at all on quantum computers.

Nothing in the hypothesis says mini black holes are inside atoms though??

But the macro black hole in galaxy centers is a real thing. I don't know why we would be inside it though?

originally posted by: joelr

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord



Well consider that within every atom is a singularity and we may be in a singularity even now.



CERN has found black holes within atoms. . . .



It could be black holes within black holes ad infinitum.



Theres supposed to be a supermassive black hole in the center of our galaxy, we could be in it already and just not know it.

See this is the science mythology I'm talking about.

You should source your information first to see if you're just quoting BS.



What I found was this:



" Micro black holes,......are hypothetical tiny black holes," Wiki



"Still, conventional physics suggest it would take a quadrillion, or a million-billion, times more energy to form a microscopic black hole than the Large Hadron Collider is capable of, so even a third of that is beyond human reach. Scenarios based on extra dimensions could have black holes form at a lower energy, "but they make no concrete predictions on what it should be," Pretorius said."



This is all hypothetical stuff science websites make articles about to get readers. It's really important to understand that all media is mostly about making money. Even if the owners and authors are passionate about the subject they need cash to finance their business and they have to make money to survive. Every day science websites put articles in the physics section that practically say "Quantum Computers are Complete and will ship in 6 months!!"

But we are not that far at all on quantum computers.



Nothing in the hypothesis says mini black holes are inside atoms though??



But the macro black hole in galaxy centers is a real thing. I don't know why we would be inside it though?

LOLz by crashing particles together they see the micro black holes appear for an instant. . . Why? Because they were there the whole time, this was found while they were looking for the Higs Boson.

Its just another aspect of a truly infinate universe.

As to superposition, just think of the BIG BANG/Singularity everywhere in everything at point in every time.

a reply to: joelr

The thought that I had with regards to that, considering the assumed age of the Universe, and the fact that their are so many black holes at the centre of these galaxies. Then shouldn't we all be inside black holes by now. Safely tucked up in a place outside of the real and violent cosmos, outside of time, so to speak.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: joelr



The thought that I had with regards to that, considering the assumed age of the Universe, and the fact that their are so many black holes at the centre of these galaxies. Then shouldn't we all be inside black holes by now. Safely tucked up in a place outside of the real and violent cosmos, outside of time, so to speak.

Well according to science time stops in black holes to the observer, so we would never even know we were in one, and would actually be displayed across the event horizon of the black hole from an outside perspective.

So we may already be in and out of the other end of a black hole in the center of our milky way galaxy because there is no time for black holes, time is only for us linear fools and our linear perspectives.

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

The observations of the physical Universe, require us to process the information in a spatial way, along with the dimensions to make any sense, time has to be in the equation . But when we consider our minds and the way they behave, we seem to be outside the constraining rules of the Cosmos. So the conclusion would be that when minds are free of the physical Universe, if this is the case then we are free of time and spatial considerations. Which seem to be the case, with regards to altered states.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



The observations of the physical Universe, require us to process the information in a spatial way, along with the dimensions to make any sense, time has to be in the equation . But when we consider our minds and the way they behave, we seem to be outside the constraining rules of the Cosmos. So the conclusion would be that when minds are free of the physical Universe, if this is the case then we are free of time and spatial considerations. Which seem to be the case, with regards to altered states.

Just an idea, if we are in a black hole and being displayed across the event horizon, wouldnt that be like us having parallel earths each experiencing a different version of existance. . . . .

Check out 36:00-40:00

a reply to: FormOfTheLord

Yes and if you consider dream states, they seem parallel but not quite the same as the linear experience. Then when the dream becomes lucid their is no difference in the feeling that you are on the cusp of the "Here and now" but the environment is different to the waking one. Which could be in fact a parallel reality. It seems that the mind can also experience the "day to day" from one of the altered states as well. Which makes me think that the "Day to day" is a lucid state, and is accepted as the main reality only because we require it to be so.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: FormOfTheLord



Yes and if you consider dream states, they seem parallel but not quite the same as the linear experience. Then when the dream becomes lucid their is no difference in the feeling that you are on the cusp of the "Here and now" but the environment is different to the waking one. Which could be in fact a parallel reality. It seems that the mind can also experience the "day to day" from one of the altered states as well. Which makes me think that the "Day to day" is a lucid state, and is accepted as the main reality only because we require it to be so.

Yes perhaps we exist equally in all potentialities across the event horizon, and all are actually one in the singularity in the center of the black hole.

Since we are in a black hole Cern is finding black holes in atoms, meaning its all black hole stuff, or BIG BANG stuff, depending on which side of the black hole your looking at.

Perhaps there is a way to gain control of the fabric of reality likened to Q in Star Trek and it may be our human destiny to come to this point eventually.

originally posted by: FormOfTheLord


LOLz by crashing particles together they see the micro black holes appear for an instant. . . Why? Because they were there the whole time, this was found while they were looking for the Higs Boson.

Its just another aspect of a truly infinate universe.

As to superposition, just think of the BIG BANG/Singularity everywhere in everything at point in every time.

No micro black holes have ever been seen, it's just a hypothetical subject that people write about to write exciting articles.
If you look for a site that posts students thesis for all types of physics degrees you can see that there are hundreds of wild and crazy theories put forth every year, complete with mathematical descriptions and such.
They are fine papers and good work and all but very few of those things will ever be found to be real.

No one looking for the Higgs boson found any black holes. Did you read that somewhere?

The big bang singularity probably did exist in many probable states, but at that time the universe was only a singularity so the singularity wasn't "everywhere"?
We don't know what that singularity emerged from so that's one problem. If it came from something like a quantum energy of probable singularities popping in and out of existence then it was just like any other particle, a cloud of probabilities. But only one emerges. Same as an electron, one electron emerges from a probable cloud but we don't say that the electron is "everywhere". Those probable electrons are gone and lost to us and so are any probable singularities.
Superposition isn't still taking place once the wave has collapsed.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: joelr

The thought that I had with regards to that, considering the assumed age of the Universe, and the fact that their are so many black holes at the centre of these galaxies. Then shouldn't we all be inside black holes by now. Safely tucked up in a place outside of the real and violent cosmos, outside of time, so to speak.

I think once we fall into a black hole we will not continue to exist in this physical way.

But besides that, there are 2 types of galaxies in this sense. Quasars, which are now known to be younger galaxies where there is still a lot of matter falling in the black hole and galaxies like ours where all of the remaining matter has fallen into stable orbits.

Things don't fall directly inside they rotate around until passing the event horizon, then get sucked in. But it's easy to fall into a stable orbit where the orbiting body does not move closer. Like Mercury and the Sun. Or like the space station and Earth. The space station is always falling but it's going fast enough forward (falling sideways) that it keeps reaching the curvature of Earth in time.

So eventually matter stops falling inside, all galaxies anywhere near ours has achieved that state.
Gravity gets weak pretty fast. Inverse square law. Move Earth 2x further, 2 x 2 = 4, gravity becomes 1/4.
Move away 5x gravity is 1/25.

a reply to: joelr

I get the inversely proportional square law. Its a bit of a coincidence that the solar systems planets have all settled into stable orbits. Their seems to be a lot of handy coincidences when you look at the system, where it should be chaos.

originally posted by: anonentity
a reply to: joelr

I get the inversely proportional square law. Its a bit of a coincidence that the solar systems planets have all settled into stable orbits. Their seems to be a lot of handy coincidences when you look at the system, where it should be chaos.

There are a lot of coincidences like that. Many, but the other side of that thought is the anthropic reasoning.
If there are huge amounts of other universes each with different constants, much less happy coincidences, and generally really bad for supporting some kind of life, then of course we would find ourselves in this universe where life has a chance to flourish. This is the one universe out of 10^100^100^100 where everything fell together just right.

Although why universes are even a thing in the first place is still a mystery