Gentlemen start your Warp engines

[Gene Vincent]

You can see from this that in a bit less than 1/1000th of a nano-second (1 picosecond) the Cosmos grew from about the size of a football to 65bn lyrs across.

2,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the SoL.

or, as this is a car forum...

400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mph.

[Gene Vincent]

cymtriks said:

Why is this balance of energy so crucial, it seems to be a big factor in rendering FTL unworkable, why does the balance have to stay the same?

So let's try to answer this...

The Cosmos we see around us today is the result of there no longer being any heat in the Cosmos overall.

It is very likely that in previous attempts to form a Cosmos that as it cooled it collapsed, this repetitive imbalance went on for trillions of attempts.

The energy imbalance was probably the main cause of the continual collapses and failures.

You can see from the timeline post above that there was a point at which no more energy+eq was produced, this is a finite sum, it is all there is and all there ever will be in this Cosmos.

It can't go anywhere and we know it can't disappear, it can only do work.

So it is an accounting process, the Cosmos is itself an accounting process, it remains in place because the energy+eq account is always in balance, from moment to moment, perfect, unwavering balance.

The balance is so perfect that there isn't even a number of decimal places that can be specified, it's perfect, because it is a closed system.

Closed is the important word here, you can neither add nor take away from a closed system but travelling outside your given time slot and placing yourself elsewhere in the Cosmological timeline is taking you away from that days account, the result is that every 'constant' changes and every transfiguration cannot even out and is prolonged for a tiny moment beyond its alotted time and everything fails, the Cosmos goes into a 'free-fall' and a form of deflation occurs that will happen about as fast as the Inflation occurred.

Three-quarters of the Cosmos will disappear in a picosecond, the rest about a pico-second later and if our time traveller is dumb enough not to care about the future he has left and wants to go back to a 'golden age' he creates the same conditions when he arrives at this mythical golden age for exactly the same reasons.

But the Cosmos is a closed system as far as energy+eq is concerned and it thereby protects itself from its own destruction.

But... as this Cosmos cools further, in an unimaginable time far from here and now there may come a point when the Cosmos itself will 'let go' and sort of kill itself. A dreadful sort of Bose-Einteinian quantum collapse a sort of Cosmic Euthanasia to allow it all to start again.

This process of aeons of failed attempts to make a Cosmos then finally making one only to kill itself to do it all again may well have been going on for an infinite time in the past and go on infinitely, no start and no end.

For me that is the most satisfactory resolution of what this Cosmos really is, an enormous, slowly pulsating event capable of producing us, the stars, the beautiful night sky, all the creatures, sunsets bloody everything... stunning stunning stunning.

[davepoth]

Gene Vincent said:

You can see from this that in a bit less than 1/1000th of a nano-second (1 picosecond) the Cosmos grew from about the size of a football to 65bn lyrs across.

2,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the SoL.

or, as this is a car forum...

400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mph.

Hang on though - that speed was actually the SoL (even though there wasn't any light) at that point.

[Gene Vincent]

davepoth said:

Gene Vincent said:

You can see from this that in a bit less than 1/1000th of a nano-second (1 picosecond) the Cosmos grew from about the size of a football to 65bn lyrs across.

2,100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 times the SoL.

or, as this is a car forum...

400,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 mph.

Hang on though - that speed was actually the SoL (even though there wasn't any light) at that point.

No, it was simply a reasonable estimation of the inflationary velocity.

You could say that it was the apparent maximum velocity ever achieved in this Cosmos.

We are governed by a maximum speed and that happens to be the SoL, light has and as far as we can tell will always be CiV.

Light has never travelled faster or slower than it does now.

[Gene Vincent]

Guam said:

cymtriks said:

So the idea of a "warp" is effectively a scientific fantasy, unlikely ever to be practical.

Does the same apply to all the other ways that have been thought of to provide a short cut across vast distances? Is there any hope for something like the worm holes or hyperspace in science fiction for example?

Are there any remaining ways for FTL to work?

My Reading of What Gene was saying was not absolutely difinitevely impossible, but extremely improbable to near the point of impossibility.

Unless I misread you Gene?

I guess it would take another leap in knowledge beyond an eintstein momemt to get there?

I'd say that the number and magnitude of the problems mean it is actually impossible.

[Ali G]

Thanks GV - your posts are most thought provoking!

Wish I knew more about this stuff.

Presumably we are saying that mass+energy has to be a constant in the universe - since there is no where for it to escape to - although we know it is possible to convert mass to energy.

Gravity seems to be a curious beast though, since we seem to have no means to affect it, although if we were to be able to convert massive amounts of energy into mass, then maybe we could do. But then again, this is probably what a black hole does!

And before the 'big bang' there was presumably nothing at all - this makes my head spin just trying to imagine it.

Also, presumably no reason why our universe should be the only one. Wonder if universes could collide, or maybe they would be on such different planes of existence that they would be totally non-interacting! Not sure if the universe we inhabit is the only set of conditions which permit sustainability without collapse.

Could another universe spontaneously be created within our own?

And what ever happened to the Grand Universal Theorem - has this died the death?

As for Warp engines - make for great fantasy.

[Gene Vincent]

Ali G said:

Also, presumably no reason why our universe should be the only one. Wonder if universes could collide, or maybe they would be on such different planes of existence that they would be totally non-interacting! Not sure if the universe we inhabit is the only set of conditions which permit sustainability without collapse.

Could another universe spontaneously be created within our own?

And what ever happened to the Grand Universal Theorem - has this died the death?

As for Warp engines - make for great fantasy.

Multiverses are by their very nature something we can't know anything about, we only have conjecture.

There could be no new Cosmo' formed within this one, we don't have the conditions for such to happen.

It is being addressed, I am involved in that directly myself, most of my days (and nights) are spent attempting to unify the multiple geometries that is the 'best bet' for unification.

I agree, harmless fun.

Edited by Gene Vincent on Sunday 30th September 17:31

[Guvernator]

Ok mind blown by that explanation, thanks GV! I know this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent but it's fascinating stuff.

I still can't get my head around the fact that

A) The Universe as we know it (all 65b light years of it) was essentially created in picoseconds.

B) That this creation and destruction process may have been going on for ages until the right conditions where obtained which meant our Universe didn't just collapse in on itself again.

This leads me to a few other questions though.

As another poster has also asked, what are the theories as to what was going on before the big bang? Are we saying that we had the process of universe creation\destruction going on ad infinitum until this Universe got created?

Was it all random luck that this Universe got created and we are here? My thoughts are that it could be random luck, i.e. if the probability that our Universe exists was trillions to one, if as suggested it's been tried trillions of times then eventually you'll get the right conditions to create our Universe.

However I also think that the system is too perfect to be random, you talk of the accounting system of the universe, this just seems to be too finely balanced to be created by random luck in which case is it by design?

[Gene Vincent]

Guvernator said:

Ok mind blown by that explanation, thanks GV! I know this thread has gone off on a bit of a tangent but it's fascinating stuff.

I still can't get my head around the fact that

A) The Universe as we know it (all 65b light years of it) was essentially created in picoseconds.

B) That this creation and destruction process may have been going on for ages until the right conditions where obtained which meant our Universe didn't just collapse in on itself again.

This leads me to a few other questions though.

As another poster has also asked, what are the theories as to what was going on before the big bang? Are we saying that we had the process of universe creation\destruction going on ad infinitum until this Universe got created?

Was it all random luck that this Universe got created and we are here? My thoughts are that it could be random luck, i.e. if the probability that our Universe exists was trillions to one, if as suggested it's been tried trillions of times then eventually you'll get the right conditions to create our Universe.

However I also think that the system is too perfect to be random, you talk of the accounting system of the universe, this just seems to be too finely balanced to be created by random luck in which case is it by design?

The Cosmos is about 94bn lyrs across, so about 70% of it occurred in that picosecond, it took another 345,00 to 376,000 years to become the full 94bn... it was slowing rapidly to the SoL.

There are no theories, just a bit of guessing dressed up in its Sunday best to look presentable.

We're here, this is proof that eventually it all came together and stayed cohesive.

I don't think it's random, I think it's an inevitable consequence of endless attempts, eventually you're gonna get a stable Cosmos.

[cymtriks]

A couple of questions...

Gene Vincent said:

It is very likely that in previous attempts to form a Cosmos that as it cooled it collapsed, this repetitive imbalance went on for trillions of attempts.

How do we know that here were any previous attempts at all?

Gene Vincent said:

The energy imbalance was probably the main cause of the continual collapses and failures.

The balance is so perfect that there isn't even a number of decimal places that can be specified, it's perfect, because it is a closed system.

...everything fails, the Cosmos goes into a 'free-fall' and a form of deflation occurs that will happen about as fast as the Inflation occurred.

Three-quarters of the Cosmos will disappear in a picosecond, the rest about a pico-second later...

How do we know that this balance is perfect or crucial? There is simply so much energy and matter in the universe that it seems incredible that a few local disturbances would have any effect at all like the catastrophe you are describing!

It seems a bit like saying that removing a drop of water from the sea will immediately cause all the oceans to dry up.

Is it possible that a vast range of matter/energy levels are stable?

[Gene Vincent]

cymtriks said:

A couple of questions...

Gene Vincent said:

It is very likely that in previous attempts to form a Cosmos that as it cooled it collapsed, this repetitive imbalance went on for trillions of attempts.

How do we know that here were any previous attempts at all?

Gene Vincent said:

The energy imbalance was probably the main cause of the continual collapses and failures.

The balance is so perfect that there isn't even a number of decimal places that can be specified, it's perfect, because it is a closed system.

...everything fails, the Cosmos goes into a 'free-fall' and a form of deflation occurs that will happen about as fast as the Inflation occurred.

Three-quarters of the Cosmos will disappear in a picosecond, the rest about a pico-second later...

How do we know that this balance is perfect or crucial? There is simply so much energy and matter in the universe that it seems incredible that a few local disturbances would have any effect at all like the catastrophe you are describing!

It seems a bit like saying that removing a drop of water from the sea will immediately cause all the oceans to dry up.

Is it possible that a vast range of matter/energy levels are stable?

(1)We can't 'know' this but we do know that if there is too much matter or mass in the Cosmos it fails to sit within the accepted model, so the inactivity of both Dark Matter and Dark Energy seems to point to some form of disabling of that matter and energy, to effectively take it out of the active equations, this is seemingly most likely with failed attempts, you could see the DM and DE as a sort of failed attempts at firing up the Cosmos.

(2)We know because energy is simply accounting process. It is not a local disturbance if you somehow take energy out of the Cosmos or introduce more we know that every state has to be unique right across the Cosmos, if you change a state here, then somewhere in the Cosmos may be right the other side of it then a state will change to compensate, consider 'state' to be any things 'signature' and every part of this Cosmos has a singular signature, so the effect is near instantaneous.

It seems that way only because that isn't really a useful analogy.

The stability comes from a balanced account, the convolutions of use and work and transfiguration are all based on this precise accounting.

[cymtriks]

Gene,
What do you mean by "it's an accounting process"
Why is the mass and energy in the universe so absolutely critical that even a completely insignificant ammount would make the whole thing collapse?
Surely if the universe was teetering that close to the brink it would never have lasted so long or got so big?

[Gene Vincent]

cymtriks said:

Gene,
What do you mean by "it's an accounting process"
Why is the mass and energy in the universe so absolutely critical that even a completely insignificant ammount would make the whole thing collapse?
Surely if the universe was teetering that close to the brink it would never have lasted so long or got so big?

Energy+eq goes no where outside of this Cosmos, it also never depletes or increases.

The amount in this entire Cosmos has remained static.

The account is just how much there is but also the number of states it can hold, each quanta having its own unique state, there are not an infinite number of states just enough to ensure each quanta is unique, take your energy to another time and there will be no 'room' the duplicate states you carry, the Cosmos would collapse.

It is stable because this is a perfect equivalence... No. of states = No. of Quanta.

Es = qs

Because of this equivalence if you force a change of state on earth of a single quanta all the others throughout the Cosmos shuffle instantly to accommodate the change.

This can only happen (it does, tested extensively) if, and only if, Es = qs.

That is why it would collapse.

[rjben]

Gene Vincent said:

Energy+eq goes no where outside of this Cosmos, it also never depletes or increases.

The amount in this entire Cosmos has remained static.

The account is just how much there is but also the number of states it can hold, each quanta having its own unique state, there are not an infinite number of states just enough to ensure each quanta is unique, take your energy to another time and there will be no 'room' the duplicate states you carry, the Cosmos would collapse.

It is stable because this is a perfect equivalence... No. of states = No. of Quanta.

Es = qs

Because of this equivalence if you force a change of state on earth of a single quanta all the others throughout the Cosmos shuffle instantly to accommodate the change.

This can only happen (it does, tested extensively) if, and only if, Es = qs.

That is why it would collapse.

Gene,

If all quanta states accross the universe shuffle instantly, why isn't this evidence of greater than SoL information transfer?

[Gene Vincent]

It is not information. It is the relationship within the fields and as such there is no 'distance' travelled as all the fields are interlaced and overlaid.

[rjben]

Gene Vincent said:

It is not information. It is the relationship within the fields and as such there is no 'distance' travelled as all the fields are interlaced and overlaid.

Thanks. Forgive my ignorance but is it possible (theoretically) to detect the change in a specific area of space?

[cymtriks]

In previous posts you've referred to:
Energy+eq
states and quanta (and how each quanta has its own state)

Is there a layman's guide to those two terms?

Why is the result of a small change in mass/energy cosmic destruction?

I keep visualising a universe consisting of stable "stuff". Some of that stuff goes somewhere else. Both parts are still stable stuff, just scaled down a bit, i.e. the same constraints apply just to a smaller quantity. The gap left behind is filled by the remaining stuff shuffling over a bit. The missing stuff then returns and restores the original quantity of stuff, still with the original rules.

I suppose it comes back to an earlier question I asked, "How do we know that a range of values are not stable, as opposed to just one?" and if the answer to that is that they are then splitting the universe and recombining it would just result in two stable volumes that then rejoined.

All interesting stuff Gene, keep it up!

[EliseNick]

Gene Vincent said:

Energy+eq goes no where outside of this Cosmos, it also never depletes or increases.

The amount in this entire Cosmos has remained static.

The account is just how much there is but also the number of states it can hold, each quanta having its own unique state, there are not an infinite number of states just enough to ensure each quanta is unique, take your energy to another time and there will be no 'room' the duplicate states you carry, the Cosmos would collapse.

It is stable because this is a perfect equivalence... No. of states = No. of Quanta.

Es = qs

You seem very confused about quantum mechanics. Are you really trying to say that every available quantum state has an occupancy of precisely one?

Gene Vincent said:

Because of this equivalence if you force a change of state on earth of a single quanta all the others throughout the Cosmos shuffle instantly to accommodate the change.

This can only happen (it does, tested extensively) if, and only if, Es = qs.

That is why it would collapse.

Do you have a reference for this? (What you describe is definitely not entanglement.)

[Gene Vincent]

EliseNick said:

Gene Vincent said:

Energy+eq goes no where outside of this Cosmos, it also never depletes or increases.

The amount in this entire Cosmos has remained static.

The account is just how much there is but also the number of states it can hold, each quanta having its own unique state, there are not an infinite number of states just enough to ensure each quanta is unique, take your energy to another time and there will be no 'room' the duplicate states you carry, the Cosmos would collapse.

It is stable because this is a perfect equivalence... No. of states = No. of Quanta.

Es = qs

You seem very confused about quantum mechanics. Are you really trying to say that every available quantum state has an occupancy of precisely one?

Gene Vincent said:

Because of this equivalence if you force a change of state on earth of a single quanta all the others throughout the Cosmos shuffle instantly to accommodate the change.

This can only happen (it does, tested extensively) if, and only if, Es = qs.

That is why it would collapse.

Do you have a reference for this? (What you describe is definitely not entanglement.)

Until quite recently we were very limited in our appreciation of the extent of the effect of the Quantum fields on Quantum states, recently we have come to realise that each field itself conveys further elements to a state signature, so (probably) as you were taught that situation in your first reply would appear impossible, but the reality is that every state is unique, the tolerance in the system (that allows the spontaneous presentation of a particle that almost immediately 'disappears') is the manifestation of the across field state change, anything greater cannot be accommodated.

I'll hunt out some papers.

It is entanglement, but again a more developed model than (perhaps) you are aware of.

[Gene Vincent]

cymtriks said:

In previous posts you've referred to:
Energy+eq
states and quanta (and how each quanta has its own state)

Is there a layman's guide to those two terms?

Why is the result of a small change in mass/energy cosmic destruction?

I keep visualising a universe consisting of stable "stuff". Some of that stuff goes somewhere else. Both parts are still stable stuff, just scaled down a bit, i.e. the same constraints apply just to a smaller quantity. The gap left behind is filled by the remaining stuff shuffling over a bit. The missing stuff then returns and restores the original quantity of stuff, still with the original rules.

I suppose it comes back to an earlier question I asked, "How do we know that a range of values are not stable, as opposed to just one?" and if the answer to that is that they are then splitting the universe and recombining it would just result in two stable volumes that then rejoined.

All interesting stuff Gene, keep it up!

Energy+eq is basically everything.

A State today might be better considered as a 'signature' and identity.

Quanta is just a little gobbit of Energy+eq.

If you want to go beyond that then study is required.

In simple terms if you drag your set of signatures into a system that already has them then a paradox (a real one) occurs, the Cosmos is incapable of tolerating paradoxes, everything about its workings mitigates against them.

It is immensely stable because of the manner in which it came to be and has continued to this day and with each passing day it is further proof of this inherent stability.

We can't take our signatures out of our time and add them to another because the energy required is greater than that in the entire Cosmos!

If you read my post above in reply to EliseNick you will see the explanation of the very limited tolerance within the system, the across field spontaneity, this is very limited in its ability to sustain anything of substance, there are a number of hypos about this, some say that there are a few spare signatures around and these non-causal events take them up to ensure the sum totals adds up, I personally think it is more likely that there short lived and random presence is that as the signature of this new particle is begun it shows as a duplicate and it disappears instantly, much like our Cosmos would if we contrived to time travel... but on a bigger scale.