[Profpat]

GIVEN:

By extrapolating this expansion back in time, one approaches a gravitational singularity where everything in the universe was compressed into an infinitesimal point; an abstract mathematical concept that may or may not correspond to reality. This idea gave rise to the Big Bang Theory, the dominant model in cosmology today.

This expanded into our finite/infinite universe.

Wouldn't the logical conclusion be:

1) The universe really is an illusion. or

2) .999999999999999999999999999...9% is illusion, ( space ) with only .0000000000000000000000000....1% being real.

I believe in spatial expansion, but this borders on metaphysical.

Your thoughts please;

Pat

[mkirkpatrick]

Great Gazooks Pat,you are absolutely right,it is all an illusion,we move point-to point,only
to discover that which we call home,is really just a mirage,that stands "wavy-like" just long enough for you to "see" through it,then it just vanishes,as though it had never been??




regards michael.

[Profpat]

Hi Michael;

Very strange and wonderful this universe of ours.

Physicist tell us that most everthing is space. Protons, neutrons, atoms, ( our basic building block ) is for the most part space. In the universe a lot more space then stars and planets ( which are made up of atoms, which are largely space themselves )

It seams like the basic building block of matter is a theoritical string of Plank's length.

Wonders of wonders, all we need are an infinite number of Planck length strings, within a dimensionless point, to account for everything.

As I recall Georg Cantor proved that there are three infinities.

Aleph 0 The infinity of numbers. ( "bigger' if you will )
Aleph 1 The infinity of points. ( "biggest" and last )
Aleph 2 The infinity of curves.

So it seems conceptually at least, we could have an infinite number of curves within a point.

Or, if you will an infinite number of theoritical strings within our dimensionless point universe.

Needless to say if this is the case we are all still attached to that singularity point.

Best to all,

Pat

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat GIVEN: By extrapolating this expansion back in time, one approaches a gravitational singularity where everything in the universe was compressed into an infinitesimal point; an abstract mathematical concept that may or may not correspond to reality.

It is conjectured (well, it's more than a conjecture) that, in a working theory of quantum gravity, there will be no initial singularity. As you say, a singularity is a mathematical concept; it basically means that there are some infinities in the theory at that point which says that the theory is not valid there. Now, some infinities are easy to iron out (QED, for example), but it turns out that, when trying to couple gravity to quantum field theory, the infinities will just not go! So, we do not know how the gravitational force couples with the others.

This idea gave rise to the Big Bang Theory, the dominant model in cosmology today.

Now, we should be more precise, and say that the big bang theory only says the content of the universe was once much more dense than it is today. Cosmologists try and run the clock back as far as it'll go, but, using the standard model of cosmology (which is called Lambda CDM-- lambda indicating the need for a cosmological constant, or dark energy, and CDM standing for cold dark matter) we can only run the clock back to a fraction of a second after the big bang. This is due to the fact that, on small scales, quantum effects will greatly outweigh gravitational effects. However, since noone knows how to couple gravity and quantum field theory, we do not know how or when these quantum effects outweigh gravity.

The important point to notice is that the standard model of cosmology does not state that universe expanded from a single point.

[neutralino]

Originally Posted by Profpat As I recall Georg Cantor proved that there are three infinities. Aleph 0 The infinity of numbers. ( "bigger' if you will ) Aleph 1 The infinity of points. ( "biggest" and last ) Aleph 2 The infinity of curves.

There are infact, infinitely many infinities. But, these infinities are not the same; they were invented to describe cardinality of sets. Aleph-0 (pronounced aleph-null) is given to a set that is countably infinite. A countably infinite set is a set from which a bijection can be made with the natural numbers (i.e. one can construct a map that is one-to-one onto between the set and the natural numbers).

Aleph-1 is the defined as a larger "infinity"; the cardinality of the real numbers is aleph-1. You can then extend the idea up to aleph-n where n is an ordinal number (some weird number in set theory invented to deal with these infinities).

[Rufus]

ProfPat

Profoundly Correct. I give you full marks Prof.

The impossibility factor of nonreality would have to be absolute, not so with reality. Therefore the possibility is in favor of reality. (Namron Soar)

Perhaps not what you had in mind but in the same genre.

Rufe

[Profpat]

Originally Posted by Rufus ProfPat Profoundly Correct. I give you full marks Prof. The impossibility factor of nonreality would have to be absolute, not so with reality. Therefore the possibility is in favor of reality. (Namron Soar) Perhaps not what you had in mind but in the same genre. Rufe

Thank you Rufus for resurecting this thread. I forgot all about it , but need part of it for my Idea site.

You may be interested in it and can be accessed at:
( http://www.toequest.com/forum/your-t...03-idea-4.html ) you'll have to scroll down 8 posts to post # 40. I would be very interested in any questions or comments regarding it.

Best to you,

Pat

P.S. If you haven't looked at it yet.

[Rufus]

Pat

I have looked at your idea at least four times and I think you need to work it out so it's a bit more reader friendly. I'm not being mean here. Do the graphics over and over until they are right. If you have abandoned the idea then it does not deserve comment from me. I will continue to look at it the way it is but so far I can't really give you any kind of intelligent comment. Again, I hope you don't take this in a negative way.

Prof Soar

[Profpat]

Hi Rufus;

Thank you for your suggestions.

I've been told a number of times from different members to redo the graphics, and I should take it to a computer graphic designer. No I haven't abandoned or changed the essential Idea. As you suggested,however,I should make it more reader friendly.

Best,

Pat

[Rufus]

Pat

Funny you should mention it.. I'm a computer graphic designer.

I would like to see you give it another try and then I will polish it for you.

Check the wording and make sure it's all correct then send me one thing at a time and I'll return it for your approval.

Maybe you don't like my graphics though...so check them out first at

www.namronsoar.com and www.realrufus.com

no charge unless you happen to be rich.. lol

use the email on my site and we'll communicate directly

by the way I want to be able to use these on my site (all credit to you)

rufe