ISU (Infinite Spongy Universe) Model - SciForums Update 2018

[paddoboy]

Is Nothing infinite or is it limited in space and time? Yet the Universe sprang from Nothing, as the story goes.
.

Define nothing? The pre BB quantum foam seems pretty close to me. Imagine nothing...no space, no time, no quantum foam, nothing, zilch...can you?
As Lawrence Krauss proposes, perhaps the quantum foam is nothing.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

[although I'm surprised to see him up so bloody early

It was minus 1c in the van and I had to get something warm in me so I got up to make a hot cuppa but it was so cold the gas stove would not work too good as I could only get a flame about eigth of an inch high so boiling the kettle took ages ... so I came here to take my mind off how cold it was.
Alex

 

[Write4U]

As Lawrence Krauss proposes, perhaps the quantum foam is nothing.

"An infinite field of infinitely small possible values and infinitely large mathematical geometrics", the Quantum Field?

Are "quanta" physical objects or metaphysical values (foam) that tend to self-form into ever greater complex and dense patterns, as unfolded in this reality here and now?

 

[paddoboy]

"An infinite field of infinitely small possible values and infinitely large mathematical geometrics", the Quantum Field?

Are "quanta" physical objects or metaphysical values?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam

"Quantum foam or spacetime foam is the fluctuation of spacetime on very small scales due to quantum mechanics. The idea was devised by John Wheeler in 1955

With an incomplete theory of quantum gravity, it is impossible to be certain what spacetime would look like at small scales. However, there is no reason that spacetime needs to be fundamentally smooth. It is possible that instead, in a quantum theory of gravity, spacetime would consist of many small, ever-changing regions in which space and time are not definite, but fluctuate in a foam-like manner.[3]

Wheeler suggested that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle might imply that over sufficiently small distances and sufficiently brief intervals of time, the "very geometry of spacetime fluctuates".[4] These fluctuations could be large enough to cause significant departures from the smooth spacetime seen at macroscopic scales, giving spacetime a "foamy" character."

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Is Nothing infinite or is it limited in space and time? Yet the Universe sprang from Nothing, as the story goes.
I would call that an expresssion of infinite potential as an abstract mathematical concept.

You may call a horse a cow which would be ok as the horse exists even if called a cow.

However
I doubt very much that a condition of nothing can exist now or before BB. ..call it quantum foam and it becomes something.

Creationists believe there was nothing before creation but proving that nothing has ever existed is the same as proving a creator as in fact you need both to make that story work.

The story I presume you refer to is the Big Bang but it does not ever mention nothing being the condition from which the universe evolved ..it takes us back to a hot dense something which certainly is not nothing.

Why would you think the story says "nothing"...well because that is the propaganda repeated until we forget what the theory actually says...where does it mention nothing? It deals with the evolution of an early universe that we determine to be a hot dense something.

I have never liked the notion of a big bang primarily because of those who believe it gives them creation on a plate, but it is a leap of faith to convert the hot dense state into "nothing"... it really makes more sense to support QW's proposition that the hot dense something came from a pre existing universe than to inject an unsupported nothing.

Nothing can only appeal to creationists...which ironically they just done see..at least the fundies miss it..but not lost on others who demand sophistication for their religion. Suits Jews, Moslems, Christians and Catholics and the thinkers of those groups are most happy to get behind the BB and you can understand why.

The BB was based on the observations made that the universe was expanding and from there the assertion was that therefore it must have been all found in one spot at an earlier time.. applying GR can not extrapolate to nothing and frankly I really don't know that when dealing with a universe we can claim that GR can take us back to something "infinetly" small and be considered to dependably reflect reality...then we have what I see as dubious physics ...inflation... which I fail to see is useful or evidenced in any way and no more than a hasty band aid that covered a nasty sore and has never been changed...it remains presumably because no one can find a better solution but I suspect no one really bothers to look..it gets us back to something many can believe points to creation and let's face it if that was not the original motivation anything other would be not in keeping with the beliefs of the creator of the theory...and one may need to be reminded that the original critisms of the idea was based upon it offering support to a religious cosmology..for me I think such a critisms is valid particularly when most supporters of BB are happy to say it was something from nothing when the theory does not say that at all...one must ask why would anyone conclude that a "hot dense state" means "nothing"...

And then folk will say..but the maths, the maths you can't argue with the maths..of course you can't argue with the maths as far as what is actually "the maths"...do not forget the very same maths that presented a static universe is the very same math that gives us the big bang..maths is a tool it supports ideas it does not create them...as I often say you can build a good or bad house using the same geometry.


Alex

 

[Write4U]

I doubt very much that a condition of nothing can exist now or before BB. ..call it quantum foam and it becomes something.

It becomes a collection of "values" which interact in accordance to mathematical functions. A "fractal foam"......

p.s. see;

Simulated Large Hadron Collider CMS particle detector data depicting a Higgs boson produced by colliding protons decaying into hadron jets and electrons
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

 

[Write4U]

maths is a tool it supports ideas it does not create them...as I often say you can build a good or bad house using the same geometry.

Maths allow us to analyze and symbolize our understanding of how it works. The reason that works is that it is logical but not prejudicial. The Universe(s) is a collection of Mathematical patterns of physical values interacting in accordance with mathematical algebraic functions.

In mathematics, an algebraic function is a function that can be defined as the root of a polynomial equation. Quite often algebraic functions are algebraic expressions using a finite number of terms, involving only the algebraic operations addition, subtraction, multiplication, division, and raising to a fractional power. Examples of such functions are:
{\displaystyle f(x)=1/x}

{\displaystyle f(x)={\sqrt {x}}}

{\displaystyle f(x)={\frac {\sqrt {1+x^{3}}}{x^{3/7}-{\sqrt {7}}x^{1/3}}}}

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_function

This modern hypothesis has been well received by the scientific community.
Causal dynamical triangulation

Causal dynamical triangulation
(abbreviated as CDT) theorized by Renate Loll, Jan Ambjørn and Jerzy Jurkiewicz, and popularized by Fotini Markopoulou and Lee Smolin, is an approach to quantum gravity that like loop quantum gravity is background independent.

This means that it does not assume any pre-existing arena (dimensional space), but rather attempts to show how the spacetime fabric itself evolves.

At large scales, it re-creates the familiar 4-dimensional spacetime, but it shows spacetime to be 2-d near the Planck scale, and reveals a fractal structure on slices of constant time. These interesting results agree with the findings of Lauscher and Reuter, who use an approach called Quantum Einstein Gravity, and with other recent theoretical work.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

CDT is one of the potential polynominal equations that mathematically appear to fit the data.

https://www.123rf.com/photo_886341_fractal-sponge-in-blue-shades-tones.html

 

[Write4U]

The story I presume you refer to is the Big Bang but it does not ever mention nothing being the condition from which the universe evolved ..it takes us back to a hot dense something which certainly is not nothing

But how far back is that in a timeless nothing? That question is completely unknown.
Perhaps this "hot dense state" occurred an infinitely small quantum instant before the onset of the BB event.
It started with a singularity, no. A singularity undergoing a quantum change, releasing all universal potential in a single mega-quantum event, continuing to expand (enfolding) back into the infinite nothingness, like ghosts in the night.....

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Maths allow us to analyze and symbolize our understanding of how it works. The reason that works is that it is logical but not prejudicial. The Universe(s) is a collection of Mathematical patterns of physical values interacting in accordance with mathematical algebraic functions.


https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Algebraic_function

This modern hypothesis has been well received by the scientific community.
Causal dynamical triangulation
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_dynamical_triangulation

CDT is one of the potential polynominal equations that mathematically appear to fit the data.

https://www.123rf.com/photo_886341_fractal-sponge-in-blue-shades-tones.html

So you agree?
Alex

 

[Write4U]

So you agree?

Yep, but my perspective is that "something" is not "physical" at all levels and fundamentally could consist of sets of relative values which are arranged into polynominal mathematical patterns which interact in accordance to mathematical functions. This is the method we use to prove a hypothesis. And is a model in chemistry and the formation of bio-chemistry

The manifest Physical world are the unfolded self-forming patterns from, and eventually disappearing (enfolding) back into the Metaphysical world of "pure values". i.e. abstract mathematics.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

But how far back is that in a timeless nothing?

I can not entertain the concept of nothing so a qualification using time is of no consequence to me..I reject the proposition that there can be " nothing".

That question is completely unknown.

It need not be asked.

Perhaps this "hot dense state" occurred an infinitely small quantum instant before the onset of the BB event.

We are speculating but I think the theory does not give us more than all that it gives us.

It started with a singularity, no.

I may have it arse up but I thought the term singularity means simply that using this term acknowledges that those using the math agree that the math is not working here...does not singularity mean the maths has clearly stopped working? So no to your no in that we don't know.
It seems to me that it is popular opinion that defines a singularity to be something that it is not...but it does seem that if god was involved we could imagine this little spark evidencing him and him starting creation...what does singularity mean is the real question and if it means what I think then where does this other nonsense come from?
What does the word cosmology mean anyways?
Alex

A singularity undergoing a quantum change, releasing all universal potential in a single mega-quantum event, expanding back into nothingness......

An unknown condition undergoing an unknown event to reach a non existent state...yeh why not ..just so long as you don't leave god out of the picture I guess.
All we have for evidence really is CBR... so maybe we need not go past a point where the universe became transparent ... instead of extrapolating expansion back to a dot why not try and fit the theory to the last reliable observation... maybe that would not leave the door open for a creation speculation ...so that will never do.
Alex

Alex

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

Yep, but my perspective is that "something" is not "physical" at all levels and fundamentally could consist of sets of relative values which are arranged into polynominal mathematical patterns which interact in accordance to mathematical functions. This is the method we use to prove a hypothesis.
The manifest Physical world are the unfolded self-forming patterns from, and eventually disappearing (enfolding) back into the Metaphysical world of "pure values". i.e. abstract mathematics.

I have long understood your view re the significance of math.
I don't see the math as some rule upon which all things must follow in that it came before the things that follow...Although much more complex in an effort to communicate the way I see it...think of the universe as an ocean of particles, imagitons, with no quality of charge etc and all they do is move...their movement and interaction then determines what we see as math... think pool balls..they just bounce off each other but we can observe them and construct the math that will tell us when they bounce what they then must do...now I did not post that to open any discussion at all but my attempt to demonstrate that math observes reality but has no part in creating it...and certainly after observing enough balls bouncing around we can write down what happens..we can for example observe that if two balls join two other balls we have four balls or if we have four balls and three leave we have one ball ... I will leave it to you to apply this approach to the equations you posted earlier..maths is a follower not a leader..in my view.
Alex

 

[paddoboy]

I can not entertain the concept of nothing so a qualification using time is of no consequence to me..I reject the proposition that there can be " nothing".

Agreed, that's why I like the redefining of "nothing" being the quantum foam, as per Lawrence Krauss.

I may have it arse up but I thought the term singularity means simply that using this term acknowledges that those using the math agree that the math is not working here...does not singularity mean the maths has clearly stopped working?

There are two ways the singularity can be defined....The first is defined as where infinite spacetime curvature and density occur and now rejected by most physicists and cosmologists...the second, as you describe, where GR and our laws of physics break down. In other words at the quantum/Planck level.

 

[Write4U]

maths is a follower not a leader..in my view.
Alex

I see a mathematical "essence" (a latent potential) in the deterministic functional properties and behaviors of spacetime and the things in it.

On Earth, Self-referential Mathematical Patterns (chemistry), evolving into a Self-aware self-referential pattern, such as found in biology. A cellular pattern in the brain that produces an ability to associate new data with old data and make a "best guess" from the brain's POV. This ability is already present in brainless single celled organisms.

Interestingly, the Potential for life on earth (and elsewhere) was clearly present by the abundant confirmation of the mathematical nature and the near infinite variations on a theme in the earth's growth patterns of Flora in the the earth's biosphere.

Consider this; Phi in DNA structure
1.- Introduction

This article is devoted to the dimesions of the DNA molecule based on the research by Mark E. Curtis [1]. It is well known that each complete turn of the DNA double helix measures 21 amstrongs wide by 34 amgstrongs long. 34 and 21 are two consecutive numbers in the Fibonacci series. Therefore their ratio, 1.6190476 closely approximates the Golden Ratio φ=1.6180339...more

https://www.sacred-geometry.es/?q=en/content/phi-dna-structure

This preference for the Fibonacci sequence is no accident, it is mathematically the ideal balancing mechanism for "vertical growth and distribution" of branching patterns. The Fibonacci sequence is a perfect product of natural selection. The algorithm is mathematical algebraic constant.

It seems a reasonable assumption to assign a mathematical aspect to the Universe, based on the "discovered" mathematics of spacetime, and the refinement of our human symbolic mathematics in describing reality and the way things function. The simpler the pattern, the more fundamental the relative value.

The strange thing is that the Concept of a Spongy Mathematical Universe does not argue against any current accepted science. Mathematic are the tools that allow us to unlock the mysteries of the Universe. The spongy universe had to be a very simple and initially chaotic pattern right after the BB. Hence it's ability to expand at FTL into a totally permittive condition, until it cooled and relative values began to form into self-referential relative patterns and dynamic abilities.

 

[Xelasnave.1947]

This preference for the Fibonacci sequence is no accident, it is mathematically the ideal balancing mechanism for "vertical growth and distribution" of branching patterns. The Fibonacci sequence is a perfect product of natural selection. The algorithm is mathematical algebraic constant.

Only possible from balls bouncing all over.

It seems a reasonable assumption to assign a mathematical aspect to the Universe, based on the "discovered" mathematics of spacetime, which our human symbolic mathematics are constantly being refined in describing reality and the way things function.

We should assume that no assumption is reasonable unless it is truly ours alone.

Yes it is just so interesting suggestive of a higher intelligence which is a fact but the higher intelligence is that of humans who can translate whatever is happening into what we call maths.

I like that it is the universal human language. That says something but what I am not sure. Imagine however if we had German maths, and English maths and Italian maths and they were different to each other. I thank the Romans for making Aribic numerals so appealing.

Where is QW..he better turn up with new material to show he is not slacking.

Actually I saw something the other day which supported his view...must look.

Alex

 

[quantum_wave]

Only possible from balls bouncing all over.



We should assume that no assumption is reasonable unless it is truly ours alone.

Yes it is just so interesting suggestive of a higher intelligence which is a fact but the higher intelligence is that of humans who can translate whatever is happening into what we call maths.

I like that it is the universal human language. That says something but what I am not sure. Imagine however if we had German maths, and English maths and Italian maths and they were different to each other. I thank the Romans for making Aribic numerals so appealing.

Where is QW..he better turn up with new material to show he is not slacking.

Actually I saw something the other day which supported his view...must look.

Alex

Lol, following along, plenty of future material

 

[Write4U]

Yes it is just so interesting suggestive of a higher intelligence which is a fact but the higher intelligence is that of humans who can translate whatever is happening into what we call maths.

I absolutely agree. But there is no ratioal argument against a "Mathematical universe', where the fundamental causal mechanics rest on relative values and the mathematical processing functions ".
I don't think we are that far apart, but I am reasonably impressed with Tegmark's vision of 32 fundamental relative values and a dozen or so equations which if used correctly can theoretically explain and describe all Universal phenomena, including a theoretical understanding of it's origins, at least to some great detail short of chaos.

 

[Michael 345]

fundamental causal mechanics

The maths are what they are because of physics

If we had a base 60 instead of 10 or some other base, maths and formula would be totally different

Nothing fundamental about maths

Physics yes, maths no

 

[Write4U]

Yes it is just so interesting suggestive of a higher intelligence which is a fact but the higher intelligence is that of humans who can translate whatever is happening into what we call maths.

Exactly, that is my position also. Human are consciously intelligent patterns.
Universal mathematics are functionally descriptive of a mathematical Pseudo-intelligent essence to the spacetime fabric. No God, No Creator , no Consciousness, no motive, Just quasi intelligent functions driving the mathematical properties and behaviors of spacetime.

Most Human astronomers or Cosmologists admit to experiencing a feeling of discovery when some theoretical proposition proves to be exactly in accordance with the universal mathematics (constants), and the question is posed in the correct mathematical language.

We do not invent universal mathematics, we invent the symbols which describe them in human mathematical language. God is a human invented symbolic representation of the mathematical nature of the Universe, but is unnecessary as a replacement of a truly Mathematical Universe.

 

[Write4U]

If we had a base 60 instead of 10 or some other base, maths and formula would be totally different

Relatively, the maths would remain exactly the same . That's the definition of an "equation". Universal algebraic mathematics are polynominal in essence, but their values and functions are not dependent on human mathematics, but on its own essential natural values. The Universe gets by very well on its own mathematical equations and dynamically functional mechanics, without the need for a sentient observer or any living thing for that matter.