Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself



 Science > Physics > Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself

LINK TO THIS PAGE  


rating :  0   |  0


  Page 1 of 1

1

 
Topic: Science > Physics
User: "Jack Sarfatti"
Date: 01 Oct 2005 02:19:20 PM
Object: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself
Click on
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/SearchCatalog.aspx
enter Jack Sarfatti in author search field
also http://stardrive.org & http://amazon.com et-al
Begin forwarded message:
From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: October 1, 2005 12:12:53 PM PDT
To: Gary S Bekkum / SSR <garysbekkum@gmail.com>
Subject: The Whole Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself
Note the key result of Borde & Vilenken cited by Gott that pre-Big Bang
false vacuum cannot be infinite in duration either. That is meta-Steady
State fails as well. It's not only our Level 1 (Max Tegmark) Hubble
Bubble local universe that may involve Intelligent Design FROM the
future supplementing Darwinian nature selection, but the whole shebang!
On Oct 1, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:
bcc
Yes, I already had this idea in 1973 as Saul-Paul Sirag can attest. I
think it's even on the 1973 tape with me and Puthoff & Targ. I will put
that tape on the WEB when I get a chance. This is a major theme in all 3
of my books now on http://amazon.com Robert Dickson Crane related this
idea to Islamic "Tauhid" BTW.
On Oct 1, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:
Here is the paper by Gott & Li:
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344Can the Universe Create
Itself?Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li
Categories: astro-ph gr-qc
Comments: 48 pages, 8 figures
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 023501
The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists
alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang
explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises.
Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin
have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had
a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to
make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is
the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here.
Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of
physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because
spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity
allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus,
tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may
eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region
of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a
Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are
not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums
for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the
renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches
the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a
Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if
the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow
of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this
type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives
rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself.
Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own
mother.
garysbekkum@gmail.com
----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: caryn anscomb
Cc: Gary S Bekkum / SSR ; Dan Smith ; Katia ; S-P Sirag ; Colin Bennett
; Cynthia Tsai
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: NEW Tegmark - How did it all begin?
Thanks for reference.
Intelligent Design FROM the Future does not contradict Darwinian
Evolution. They work together.
This is all completely explained in my 3 books - it's a self consistent
loop in time. I already talked about this in 1973. Saul-Paul Sirag wrote
an opera about it in 1974. This is old stuff. No mystery here. Dan Smith
tries to mystify all this with Telos, Eschaton. Gott has a book on this
from Princeton Time Travel. I already had Gott's idea decades before him.
On Oct 1, 2005, at 7:24 AM, caryn anscomb wrote:
Tegmark: How Did It All Begin?
P6 of 6
‘Q: Where does the observed matter come from?
A: Inflation can produce it all from almost nothing.’
At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped, I think the fundamental
question in relation to intelligent design, posed to the physicist,
might be: What is the ‘almost nothing’ and what gave the ‘almost
nothing’ it’s marching orders in the very first instance?
(I say very first instance in consideration of the ‘self-replicating
inflationary universe theory’). It appears that all theories can be
reduced to what must be viewed as a first event, even when we consider
something like ‘backward causation’ plausible?
Caryn.
Gary S Bekkum / SSR <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI 6 page summary paper for your list members, they really need to
get up to speed :-)rom: Max Tegmark [view email] Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005
15:57:30 GMT (576kb) How did it all begin?
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429
Authors: Max Tegmark
Categories: astro-ph
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did it all begin? Although this question has undoubtedly lingered
for as long as humans have walked the Earth, the answer still eludes us.
Yet since my grandparents were born, scientists have been able to refine
this question to a degree I find truly remarkable. In this brief essay,
I describe some of my own past and ongoing work on this topic, centering
on cosmological inflation. I focus on
(1) observationally testing whether this picture is correct and
(2) working out implications for the nature of physical reality (e.g.,
the global structure of spacetime, dark energy and our cosmic future,
parallel universes and fundamental versus environmental physical laws).
(2) clearly requires (1) to determine whether to believe the
conclusions. I argue that (1) also requires (2), since it affects the
probability calculations for inflation's observational
predictions.Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats
garysbekkum@gmail.com
.

User: "Ross A. Finlayson"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 01 Oct 2005 06:08:59 PM
Is that Platonism?
It might be, in the null axiom theory: the universe as Ding-an-Sich,
Thing-in-Itself, Being and Nothing, dually minimal and maximal,
physical, mathematically concrete.
If there was MWI, then what about the parallel where there would be no
MWI? There is here and now, the origin is everywhere.
Regards,
Ross
--
Ross A. Finlayson
Finlayson Consulting / Apex Internet Software
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 01 Oct 2005 11:25:59 PM
The Universe has a causal horizon, that's known; it's at the distance
where the recessional (Hubble) velocity equals the speed of light (c).
Now what's past that? Probably more space; if we travelled to our
causal horizon we would merely see farther in that direction. So the
answer to the overall structure may very well be (one cannot ever say
"this is how it is", only "may very well be") an infinite General
Universe, and from every point within it one would see an isomorphic
structure to what we see ; a local Universe with a causal horizon. Or
maybe not. We'll never know until NASA gets the "Causal Horizon
Penetration and Video Sendback Mission" (CHPAVSM) to its target.
.


User: ""

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 02 Oct 2005 09:32:51 AM
Should you be fiddling around with warp drives? Either they don't work
in which case it is a waste of time - or they mean Armageddon.
.
User: "Autymn D. C."

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 18 Oct 2005 10:38:09 PM
There is no nothing, the multiverse creates /with/ itself, nothing
exists eternally, there is no eternity, the universe maps to itself,
the thermodunamic laws are arbitrary and subjective bunk, particles are
shaped like charge domes and mass rings and not tori, and the universe
is already a warp drive.
-Aut
.


User: "Henry Haapalainen"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 01 Oct 2005 05:58:22 PM
What is written below I would call "slow thinking".
Henry Haapalainen
"Jack Sarfatti" <sarfatti@pacbell.net> kirjoitti viestissä
news:YiB%e.4112$KQ5.1336@newssvr12.news.prodigy.com...

Click on
http://www.authorhouse.com/BookStore/SearchCatalog.aspx

enter Jack Sarfatti in author search field

also http://stardrive.org & http://amazon.com et-al

Begin forwarded message:

From: Jack Sarfatti <sarfatti@pacbell.net>
Date: October 1, 2005 12:12:53 PM PDT
To: Gary S Bekkum / SSR <garysbekkum@gmail.com>
Subject: The Whole Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself


Note the key result of Borde & Vilenken cited by Gott that pre-Big Bang
false vacuum cannot be infinite in duration either. That is meta-Steady
State fails as well. It's not only our Level 1 (Max Tegmark) Hubble
Bubble local universe that may involve Intelligent Design FROM the
future supplementing Darwinian nature selection, but the whole shebang!

On Oct 1, 2005, at 10:35 AM, Jack Sarfatti wrote:

bcc

Yes, I already had this idea in 1973 as Saul-Paul Sirag can attest. I
think it's even on the 1973 tape with me and Puthoff & Targ. I will put
that tape on the WEB when I get a chance. This is a major theme in all 3
of my books now on http://amazon.com Robert Dickson Crane related this
idea to Islamic "Tauhid" BTW.

On Oct 1, 2005, at 10:15 AM, Gary S Bekkum / SSR wrote:

Here is the paper by Gott & Li:

http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/9712344Can the Universe Create
Itself?Authors: J. Richard Gott, III, Li-Xin Li
Categories: astro-ph gr-qc
Comments: 48 pages, 8 figures
Journal-ref: Phys.Rev. D58 (1998) 023501
The question of first-cause has troubled philosophers and cosmologists
alike. Now that it is apparent that our universe began in a Big Bang
explosion, the question of what happened before the Big Bang arises.
Inflation seems like a very promising answer, but as Borde and Vilenkin
have shown, the inflationary state preceding the Big Bang must have had
a beginning also. Ultimately, the difficult question seems to be how to
make something out of nothing. This paper explores the idea that this is
the wrong question --- that that is not how the Universe got here.
Instead, we explore the idea of whether there is anything in the laws of
physics that would prevent the Universe from creating itself. Because
spacetimes can be curved and multiply connected, general relativity
allows for the possibility of closed timelike curves (CTCs). Thus,
tracing backwards in time through the original inflationary state we may
eventually encounter a region of CTCs giving no first-cause. This region
of CTCs, may well be over by now (being bounded toward the future by a
Cauchy horizon). We illustrate that such models --- with CTCs --- are
not necessarily inconsistent by demonstrating self-consistent vacuums
for Misner space and a multiply connected de Sitter space in which the
renormalized energy-momentum tensor does not diverge as one approaches
the Cauchy horizon and solves Einstein's equations. We show such a
Universe can be classically stable and self-consistent if and only if
the potentials are retarded, giving a natural explanation of the arrow
of time. Some specific scenarios (out of many possible ones) for this
type of model are described. For example: an inflationary universe gives
rise to baby universes, one of which turns out to be itself.
Interestingly, the laws of physics may allow the Universe to be its own
mother.


garysbekkum@gmail.com


----- Original Message -----
From: Jack Sarfatti
To: caryn anscomb
Cc: Gary S Bekkum / SSR ; Dan Smith ; Katia ; S-P Sirag ; Colin Bennett
; Cynthia Tsai
Sent: Saturday, October 01, 2005 10:52 AM
Subject: Re: NEW Tegmark - How did it all begin?

Thanks for reference.

Intelligent Design FROM the Future does not contradict Darwinian
Evolution. They work together.

This is all completely explained in my 3 books - it's a self consistent
loop in time. I already talked about this in 1973. Saul-Paul Sirag wrote
an opera about it in 1974. This is old stuff. No mystery here. Dan Smith
tries to mystify all this with Telos, Eschaton. Gott has a book on this
from Princeton Time Travel. I already had Gott's idea decades before him.


On Oct 1, 2005, at 7:24 AM, caryn anscomb wrote:

Tegmark: How Did It All Begin?
P6 of 6
‘Q: Where does the observed matter come from?
A: Inflation can produce it all from almost nothing.’
At the risk of getting my knuckles rapped, I think the fundamental
question in relation to intelligent design, posed to the physicist,
might be: What is the ‘almost nothing’ and what gave the ‘almost
nothing’ it’s marching orders in the very first instance?
(I say very first instance in consideration of the ‘self-replicating
inflationary universe theory’). It appears that all theories can be
reduced to what must be viewed as a first event, even when we consider
something like ‘backward causation’ plausible?
Caryn.

Gary S Bekkum / SSR <garysbekkum@gmail.com> wrote:
FYI 6 page summary paper for your list members, they really need to
get up to speed :-)rom: Max Tegmark [view email] Date: Sat, 20 Aug 2005
15:57:30 GMT (576kb) How did it all begin?
http://www.arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0508429

Authors: Max Tegmark
Categories: astro-ph
Comments: 6 pages, 6 figs, essay for 2005 Young Scholars Competition in
honor of Charles Townes; received Dishonorable Mention
How did it all begin? Although this question has undoubtedly lingered
for as long as humans have walked the Earth, the answer still eludes us.
Yet since my grandparents were born, scientists have been able to refine
this question to a degree I find truly remarkable. In this brief essay,
I describe some of my own past and ongoing work on this topic, centering
on cosmological inflation. I focus on
(1) observationally testing whether this picture is correct and
(2) working out implications for the nature of physical reality (e.g.,
the global structure of spacetime, dark energy and our cosmic future,
parallel universes and fundamental versus environmental physical laws).
(2) clearly requires (1) to determine whether to believe the
conclusions. I argue that (1) also requires (2), since it affects the
probability calculations for inflation's observational
predictions.Full-text: PostScript, PDF, or Other formats


garysbekkum@gmail.com







.
User: "Ian Parker"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 03 Oct 2005 06:10:12 AM
The main difficulty I have with the paper quoted. I HAVE read it, is
that it seems to be proposing baby universes with different physical
laws. The paper is not a Theory of Everything it only disdcusses
gravitation and the arror of time. The Universe creating itself is a
startling claim something which is indeed counterintuitive. This is
however not my real difficulty.
What it is also trying to do, more by implication than anything else,
as I said it is not TOE, is to propose a Darwininan evolutionary model
for the Universe. Now living organismshave genes which can chasnge from
generation to generation. The only "genes" here are gravitoinertial
ones. Genes associated with nuclear force are not present.
.
User: ""

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 03 Oct 2005 04:24:35 PM
Ian Parker wrote:


The main difficulty I have with the paper quoted. I HAVE read it, is
that it seems to be proposing baby universes with different physical
laws. The paper is not a Theory of Everything it only disdcusses
gravitation and the arror of time. The Universe creating itself is a
startling claim something which is indeed counterintuitive. This is
however not my real difficulty.

What it is also trying to do, more by implication than anything else,
as I said it is not TOE, is to propose a Darwininan evolutionary model
for the Universe. Now living organismshave genes which can chasnge from
generation to generation. The only "genes" here are gravitoinertial
ones. Genes associated with nuclear force are not present.

which suggests to me that baby universes _do_ have the same
fundamental laws as their parent, and the "genes" on whose
mutations inanimate natural selection operates are simply
characteristics of mass/energy distribution, such as scales
of rotation "fields" and of course, putting it crudely, its
lumpiness properties.
Presumably a multiverse of this nature must involve an
element of "gene" preservation and duplication, somehow
transforming chaotic underlying "background material"
into an ordered structure within a Universe-to-be, and
my Fractal String model explains in detail how this can
be done by "micro mass inflation" and impeccable ordering
of individual fermions inside a black hole.
See section 4 of:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d13ba2ca15039444/4bd9addbffae6745#4bd9addbffae6745
although I'd be the first to admit it's probably an
oversimplification, and doesn't address every question,
such as why do strings form their heirarchies at such
vastly different scales?
It did occur to me the other day though that the idea of
an acceleratingly-expanding parent Universe "releasing"
its mass-inflated toroidal singularity in a Big Bang
to form a new universe when the parent's causal horizon
shrinks below the black hole's event horizon might well
resemble in its effects the "colliding branes" model put
forward a couple of years ago, See:
http://www.sciencewatch.com/jan-feb2004/sw_jan-feb2004_page1.htm
This is discussed in detail in the first link above, the
idea being that the black hole would be very unlikely to
evaporate symmetrically, and as a result the singularity
torus would deform, possibly until opposide sides touched,
and release a fast-moving torrent of what I call (possibly
inappropriately) "group energy" as the parallelism of its
constituent strings was _slightly_ broken, corresponding
to the inflationary epoch of the Big Bang, before the
torus shattered entirely and its constituent strings
separated and shrank to stubby toroidal "droplets" as
the fermions comprising (mostly in stable combinations
such as protons) our Universe today.
No doubt some physicists scratch their heads at all this
"Multiverse" talk in relation to entropy - How does the
creation of new universes square with the Second Law of
Thermodynamics, which no one in their right mind would
dispute for a second?
I suggest that _only_ an infinitely recursive self-similar
model can account for it. The alternative, of a finite
number of scales and a lowest "layer of the onion" would,
when considered rightly, amount to no more than a giant
static diagram from Euclid, maybe with 2^10000 lines or
a number too large to print in the most compact notation
known to man if all the oceans were ink, but finite all
the same, and thus utterly preposterous!
(Aside from entropy being illusory in a "finitary"
creation like this, it would _have_ to have a divine
meta-creator and yet ultimately would have zero free
will, which contradicts most religious teachings, not
that that's a scientific argument or sways me one way or
the other, but is perhaps worth mentioning in passing.)
Finally, to avoid any accusations of plagiarism, I emailed
John Baez to enquire if he had ever mentioned fractal string
theory, or something comparable, in his wonderful "Finds in
Mathematical Physics" posts.
Two days is probably way too early to expect a reply; but on
the offchance the email went astray or, dare I say, he is an
"edu snob" (one of those academics who, believe it or not,
discard unread any emails not from a ".edu" sender) I'd like
to reproduce the email below, so at least it can be seen that
I have made an honest effort to establish precedence:

From : "John Ramsden" <blah_blah> <-- emails munged

To : baez@blah_blah
Subject : Fractal String Theory - Checking I haven't
inadvertantly pinched someone's idea!
Date : Sat, 1 Oct 2005 11:34:32 +0100 (BST)
John,
Having posted on sci.physics a speculative (but I'm pleased to think
basically coherent, even if vague in places) account of what might
be called "fractal string theory", and its application to black hole
singularities among other things, I had a sudden paranoid suspicion
that one aspect may have been dredged up from a subconscious
recollection of one of the weird and wonderful ideas described
in some past issue of your "Finds in Mathematical Physics".
To put my mind at rest or, if so, allow me to give the proper
attribution in a follow up and future versions, I wonder if
you'd consider skimming Section 4 of my post in the thread
Fractal String Theory and Black Hole Singularities", link:
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.physics/browse_frm/thread/d13ba2ca15039444/f9d9ff8db1db253c#f9d9ff8db1db253c
Reading the entire post would be perhaps too much to expect
a busy guy like yourself to undertake, and to a professional
physicist I imagine ploughing through an amateur's efforts
must be an unappealing task; but if you have few moments
spare, I'd naturally be very interested in your comments
on its basic theme of recursive string parallelism "driving"
physical processes, constrained only by uniformity of the
overall distribution of what I call "group waves".
[DUH! "group energy" is what I have actually been
calling it; but both terms are possibly equally
misleading - JR]
Very briefly, as there's no point in reiterating the post
here, Section 4 describes the detailed structure of a
singularity as a torus comprising constant-curvature
closed strings which are elongated "branes" themselves
comprising twisted strings the same ad infinitum, and
this section describes a plausible mechanism how a torus
shaped fermion approaching the singularity is deformed
and augmented by "micro mass inflation" to join with the
singularity as another pair of its constituent strings
congruent to the others.
(Perhaps it would be appropriate to call a singularity
made up like this a "torque", as its rope-like structure
vaguely resembles those gold Celtic neck torques which
archaeologists occasionally dig up in Europe!)
Right, I will send this _now_, before I think of more
things to add and run off the mouth ;-P
Cheers
John R Ramsden (jhnrmsdn@yahoo.com.uk)
^
remove m in com to reply
.
User: "Ian Parker"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 04 Oct 2005 06:42:57 AM

Presumably a multiverse of this nature must involve an
element of "gene" preservation and duplication, somehow
transforming chaotic underlying "background material"
into an ordered structure within a Universe-to-be, and
my Fractal String model explains in detail how this can
be done by "micro mass inflation" and impeccable ordering
of individual fermions inside a black hole.

M theory, or the string theory of elementary particles. Not indeed to
be confused with cosmic string, is a multidimensional theory of duality
and is a Theory of Everything. An M gene thus contains Nuclear Strong,
EM and weak forces.
Also Black holes are accessable with accelerators of reasonably energy
since we have 9 dimensions for Q gravitodynamics.
.

User: "John Baez"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 03 Oct 2005 06:28:34 PM
In article <1128374675.239584.63180@o13g2000cwo.googlegroups.com>,
<john_ramsden@sagitta-ps.com> wrote:

Finally, to avoid any accusations of plagiarism, I emailed
John Baez to enquire if he had ever mentioned fractal string
theory, or something comparable, in his wonderful "Finds in
Mathematical Physics" posts.

I haven't mentioned "fractal string theory". I'm not sure
what might count as "comparable".

Two days is probably way too early to expect a reply; but on
the offchance the email went astray or, dare I say, he is an
"edu snob" (one of those academics who, believe it or not,
discard unread any emails not from a ".edu" sender) I'd like
to reproduce the email below, so at least it can be seen that
I have made an honest effort to establish precedence [....]

I'm not an edu snob: there's lots of email even from .edu
addresses that I don't get around to replying to.
.




User: "Nick"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 01 Oct 2005 05:30:19 PM
Yeah right jack. You're just an atheist.
There is no "multiverse." There is one "universe."
The multiverse isn't space or time so you cant't "fit" our space into
it.
And by the way no "thing" creates itself.
.
User: "Robert J. Kolker"

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 01 Oct 2005 06:20:46 PM
Nick wrote:


And by the way no "thing" creates itself.

But a thing can exist eternally.
Bob Kolker


.

User: ""

Title: Re: Entire Super Cosmos Multiverse Creates Itself 03 Oct 2005 03:58:58 AM
Nick wrote:


Yeah right jack. You're just an atheist.
There is no "multiverse." There is one "universe."

The multiverse isn't space or time so you cant't "fit"
our space into it.

And by the way no "thing" creates itself.

As Bob Kolker implies, there are lots of unintuitive
properties of infinite sets. For example, they can
in effect contain themselves as proper subsets.
Your barstool epigrams, based on commonplace intuition,
really don't cut it.
.



  Page 1 of 1

1

 


Related Articles
 

NEWER

pg.1612     pg.1232     pg.940     pg.716     pg.544     pg.412     pg.311     pg.234     pg.175     pg.130     pg.96     pg.70     pg.50     pg.35     pg.24     pg.16     pg.10     pg.6     pg.3     pg.1

OLDER