Space is big, really big
Discussion
i had the misfortune whilst off work yesterday to watch the Horizon programme about multi-verses...
jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
Not being completely up on the multiverse theory/ies does it demand an infinite number or does it just posit no upper bound on the number?
If the number is infinite then there are an infinite number of me typing this now. If it's a lack of upper bound then it's a finite but possibly growing number and there's probably only one me.
If the number is infinite then there are an infinite number of me typing this now. If it's a lack of upper bound then it's a finite but possibly growing number and there's probably only one me.
Nom de ploom said:
i had the misfortune whilst off work yesterday to watch the Horizon programme about multi-verses...
jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
They aren't exactly theories, more different interpretations of the existing evidence.jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
In some way I find it more satisfying than the notion of collapsing probabilities.IE that the interference in the two slit experiment is caused by the possibility of a particle going through the other slot. As far as I'm concerned the interference isn't probably or possible or potential, it exists. So whatever causes it, whatever strange thing is in the other slot, must exist by any sensible definition of the word.
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
I've always wanted to pace out, with props, the thousand yard solar system on a beach somewhere.
Dr Jekyll said:
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
I watched a very interesting program (I think Horizon) about big numbers (check out Graham's Number), where they discussed the concept of infinity and basically said that all infinities are not equal. Similar to your example, you can count odd numbers to infinity, but that must be half the size of counting all numbers to infinity. warp9 said:
I watched a very interesting program (I think Horizon) about big numbers (check out Graham's Number), where they discussed the concept of infinity and basically said that all infinities are not equal. Similar to your example, you can count odd numbers to infinity, but that must be half the size of counting all numbers to infinity.
I enjoyed that too.Here it is on the tube, I'm off to watch it now To Infinity and Beyond
The how big is the universe and how small is the universe are there too.
Good old BBC4
Another one.
In 2 to 3 trillion years there will be absolutely no evidence available from observation that the universe is expanding. Not CMBR or any other kind of evidence (ie receeding galaxies) will be available. To all intents and purposes any scientists around at that time will be more in the dark than we are now and it could actually return cosmology to the dark ages relatively speaking.
Taken from Lawrence Kaus book 'A Universe From Nothing'.
In 2 to 3 trillion years there will be absolutely no evidence available from observation that the universe is expanding. Not CMBR or any other kind of evidence (ie receeding galaxies) will be available. To all intents and purposes any scientists around at that time will be more in the dark than we are now and it could actually return cosmology to the dark ages relatively speaking.
Taken from Lawrence Kaus book 'A Universe From Nothing'.
Dr Jekyll said:
They aren't exactly theories, more different interpretations of the existing evidence.
In some way I find it more satisfying than the notion of collapsing probabilities.IE that the interference in the two slit experiment is caused by the possibility of a particle going through the other slot. As far as I'm concerned the interference isn't probably or possible or potential, it exists. So whatever causes it, whatever strange thing is in the other slot, must exist by any sensible definition of the word.
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
There must also be an infinite number of universes where you have not, and will not ever exist. So you're luckier than you think In some way I find it more satisfying than the notion of collapsing probabilities.IE that the interference in the two slit experiment is caused by the possibility of a particle going through the other slot. As far as I'm concerned the interference isn't probably or possible or potential, it exists. So whatever causes it, whatever strange thing is in the other slot, must exist by any sensible definition of the word.
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
Ps: if this infinite universe lark is true, why do we live in the boring one? The one without boob dragons?
warp9 said:
I've always wanted to pace out, with props, the thousand yard solar system on a beach somewhere.
But you could say that about counting the set of even numbers, i.e. half the complete set of numbers, to infinity, but the set of even numbers is obtained by multiplying every number in the complete set by two...Dr Jekyll said:
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
I watched a very interesting program (I think Horizon) about big numbers (check out Graham's Number), where they discussed the concept of infinity and basically said that all infinities are not equal. Similar to your example, you can count odd numbers to infinity, but that must be half the size of counting all numbers to infinity. 
Dr Jekyll said:
Nom de ploom said:
i had the misfortune whilst off work yesterday to watch the Horizon programme about multi-verses...
jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
They aren't exactly theories, more different interpretations of the existing evidence.jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
In some way I find it more satisfying than the notion of collapsing probabilities.IE that the interference in the two slit experiment is caused by the possibility of a particle going through the other slot. As far as I'm concerned the interference isn't probably or possible or potential, it exists. So whatever causes it, whatever strange thing is in the other slot, must exist by any sensible definition of the word.
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
plus the mathematician was VERY annoying..."suck it up Einstein"...GFY dweeb
Nom de ploom said:
Dr Jekyll said:
Nom de ploom said:
i had the misfortune whilst off work yesterday to watch the Horizon programme about multi-verses...
jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
They aren't exactly theories, more different interpretations of the existing evidence.jeez....
so many theories and yet none backed up by credible observation, might sound obvious but when someone says "there are an intinite number of univedrses out there and an infinite number of equivalent "yous".." I start to lose a bit of interest...
In some way I find it more satisfying than the notion of collapsing probabilities.IE that the interference in the two slit experiment is caused by the possibility of a particle going through the other slot. As far as I'm concerned the interference isn't probably or possible or potential, it exists. So whatever causes it, whatever strange thing is in the other slot, must exist by any sensible definition of the word.
The problem I have is that if there are an infinite number of copies of me. Not only is there one that won the lottery last week, there are an infinite number who won the lottery last week, just as there are an infinite number who didn't. But one infinite number is millions of times the size of the other.
plus the mathematician was VERY annoying..."suck it up Einstein"...GFY dweeb
The logic leads you to levels of splitting that are on the order of trillions of splits per billionth of a second as new universes are created and themselves subjected to the same logical splitting process.
It makes you doubt the whole theory although I admit that it's the best we currently have to get us out of some theoretical bottlenecks.
Joscott said:
Surely the problem (or not) with the above 'multiverse' scenario is that it extrapolates into not just being about us. So, the splits going on are not just due to merely 'each decision' made by humans. "Shall I go to the party or not" isn't where it ends. The Universe doesn't know of or care about humankind. Rather, it's every decision ever made by any creature anywhere in the Universe throughout the whole of time. What about instances of happenstance like when something could have gone either way ie a rock falls from a cliff and bounces right instead of left on hitting the ground etc.
The logic leads you to levels of splitting that are on the order of trillions of splits per billionth of a second as new universes are created and themselves subjected to the same logical splitting process.
It makes you doubt the whole theory although I admit that it's the best we currently have to get us out of some theoretical bottlenecks.
Multiple universes popping into existence is certainly a mind blowing concept, but then so is a single universe so I'm not sure it matters.The logic leads you to levels of splitting that are on the order of trillions of splits per billionth of a second as new universes are created and themselves subjected to the same logical splitting process.
It makes you doubt the whole theory although I admit that it's the best we currently have to get us out of some theoretical bottlenecks.
Also, I don't think it's decisions made by creatures that are supposed to split the universe. It's the fact that something could happen in either of two ways that does it. But so long as the particle in question doesn't affect anything else you can be in both universes quite happily. Once you interact with the particle then you split into the one that saw, for example, heads and the one that saw tails. That's why quantum computers are tricky, as soon as the outside world interferes you lose most of the possibilities.
Gassing Station | Science! | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff