calculating the number of universes

[bdw000]

Now some dudes at Stanford think they can calculate the number of universes (roll eyes a thousand times).

http://arxiv.org/abs/0910.1589

We argue that the total number of distinguishable locally Friedmann "universes" generated by eternal inflation is proportional to the exponent of the entropy of inflationary perturbations and is limited by $e^{e^{3 N}}$, where $N$ is the number of e-folds of slow-roll post-eternal inflation. For simplest models of chaotic inflation, $N$ is approximately equal to de Sitter entropy at the end of eternal inflation; it can be exponentially large. However, not all of these universes can be observed by a local observer. We show that in the presence of a cosmological constant $\Lambda$ an observable entropy of the cosmological perturbations, as well as the entropy of usual matter, is bounded by $|\Lambda|^{-3/4}$. In the context of the string theory landscape, the overall number of different universes is expected to be exponentially greater than the total number of vacua in the landscape. We discuss the possibility that the strongest constraint on the number of distinguishable universes may be related not to the properties of the multiverse but to the properties of observers.

The gem from the quote is: "However, not all of these universes can be observed by a local observer."


THANK GOD FOR THUNDERBOLTS AND COMPANY !!!!!!!

[david barclay]

I'm sure this makes sense to somebody, but if you consider every single unified field system of universe representing a different aspect of universe you are talking about a whole lot of universes, which exist with or without any specific observer being present.

And attempting to confine the number of universes to a specific number seems a bit less that rational.

[davesmith_au]

I see UniverseToday have also jumped on the bandwagon of giving this idea more legs, yet anyone who posts about EU is either hunted down and shot or simply labelled a "crackpot".

Cheers, Dave.

[Plasmatic]

Uni= one

[StevenJay]

Uni= one

Exactly! Uni verse; one song. When referring to more than one, the term "universes" is just plain oxy-MORONIC!

[jjohnson]

There is only the 'verse. --Serenity

Despite my disagreement about a lot of his interpretation, I think Terry Witt in his book, Our Undiscovered Universe got this right, in his initial involved logic lesson. That involves arguing that reality is one of the two possible existential states, existence and non-existence, and after that he gets into sets and unions and loses me, but I get it that there is just one reality - the universe - and nothing else exists.

"It's all good, mon. -All de time" --Bob Marley

[nick c]

Philip K. Dick, science fiction author, described reality as that which, when you stop believing in it, will not go away.
I suspect this "calculating the number of universes" thing will go away when everyone stops believing.

nick c

[junglelord]

Concerning Unity....
"Echoing Fuller's words, it seems obvious: "Unity is plural and at minimum two"."

For those with inquiring minds, the topology of Zero, which explains why Unity is plural and at minimum two.
http://treeincarnation.com/articles/Top ... f-Zero.htm

[david barclay]

There is only one universe, but it has many aspects to it which makes it so interesting.

There is no known way to count all the varied facets of universe no matter how many fingers you have to count on.

Yes the universe is electric, but can anyone explain where the electric comes from?

Is the electric factor a dynamic response to a hidden underlying force?

[StevenO]

There is only one universe, but it has many aspects to it which makes it so interesting.

There is no known way to count all the varied facets of universe no matter how many fingers you have to count on.

Yes the universe is electric, but can anyone explain where the electric comes from?

Is the electric factor a dynamic response to a hidden underlying force?

To talk about more than one Universe is a contradiction in terms. But that does'nt seem to bother physicists and mathematicians. It's the same nonsense as talking about transfinite numbers by Cantor. The infinite set already contains every number .period., otherwise it's not the infinite set. Nothing rises above that without creating a contradiction. It's the same with the Universe. It contains everything, including multiple universes if they exist.

I agree the Universe cannot be counted. Compare it to the infinite number line, where the number 0.9... with an infinite number of repeating 9's is equal to 1. (The problem is more in what the "," denotes. I would say: it makes the number multi-dimensional).

The electricity in the universe comes from the base photon field that is emitted by all matter.

[StevenJay]

Concerning Unity....
"Echoing Fuller's words, it seems obvious: "Unity is plural and at minimum two."

I wouldn't argue with that. But, as I perceive it, "unity" and "Oneness" aren't the same thing. The first refers to a bringing together of two or more discrete whatevers. The latter refers to a single whatever, which may or may not be composed of more than one aspect.

[Plasmatic]

"non-existence" is not a metaphysical alternative. It is a conceptual device referring to the absence of an existent in a given context. If I say "I have nothing in my pocket", this does not mean there is a existent in my pocket called "nothing".

[david barclay]

StevenO, the photon field?

I was hoping you might say the source was an underlying force of energy, like zero point or the aether etc.

The electrical effect is a dynamic response to the condition of field corresponding to a differential in energy.

This is where the sun comes in, as the energy differential existing between the earth and the sun is accelerating with the sun having the higher rate of energy acceleration.

This suggests the sun is actually growing rather than shrinking.

Meanwhile the electrical effect upon the earth is increasing due to the earth being increasingly more resistant to the energy of the sun.

This in turn will eventually lead to the earth shifting into an expanded orbit around the sun.

[StevenO]

StevenO, the photon field?

I was hoping you might say the source was an underlying force of energy, like zero point or the aether etc.

A field always needs a source. Electric fields are created as differentials wrt. to this base photon field emitted by matter. But we have to beware that the base photon field is already repulsive through the simple bombardment of surrounding matter by these photons. Not accounting for this has been a source of enigma's in physics history.

Good question is where the two unified forces originate from. Gravity can be assigned to an expansion of all matter, which in itself could be either a scalar motion or a higher dimensional motion. Photons could the basic building blocks of a 3D universe (as both Dewey Larson and Miles Mathis hold), a manifestation of the universal quantum.

The electrical effect is a dynamic response to the condition of field corresponding to a differential in energy.

This is where the sun comes in, as the energy differential existing between the earth and the sun is accelerating with the sun having the higher rate of energy acceleration.

This suggests the sun is actually growing rather than shrinking.

Meanwhile the electrical effect upon the earth is increasing due to the earth being increasingly more resistant to the energy of the sun.

This in turn will eventually lead to the earth shifting into an expanded orbit around the sun.

I would agree. The electrical effects are differentials in the photon field and the sun accretes more matter than it burns or ejects.

[david barclay]

StevenO, where can I read more about these photon fields as described by you?

I am thinking we may be talking about the same thing but using different terms, which can make things appear a bit hazzy.