What do those Nobel people know anyway?

[Sparko]

Ok, so you're willing to assume that the rules of physics that apply inside our universe apply to those sections that we will never be able to observe. And you're willing to consider that not a guess.

oh no, it is a guess, but one based on probability and observations. We have no reason to assume that the unseen parts of our universe are any different than the seen parts, but we are still guessing.

One of those rules may be inflation. And inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure (commonly called an inflationary fabric). But the existence of that, even if it's necessitated by observations in our universe, would be a guess in your view.

Is that a correct description of your position?

(That's not a rhetorical question - i'm really trying to understand your perspective, and i realize a lot of it depends on the semantics of your use of "guess".)

By guess I mean "hypothesis" - but it is one that we cannot prove, or even observe any evidence for. We have no similar data we can even guess on because we don't have any idea what the "outside" of a universe could be. To call it an "inflationary fabric" just describes that our universe has a boundary, it says nothing of what that fabric is, or what it is contained within. For all science can guess we are a soap bubble in some child's birthday party. Or we could be in a computer simulation with no "outside" at all to the universe since we are just data in someone's computer.

[seer]

One of those rules may be inflation. And inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure (commonly called an inflationary fabric). But the existence of that, even if it's necessitated by observations in our universe, would be a guess in your view.

In 1983, it was shown that inflation could be eternal, leading to a multiverse in which space is broken up into bubbles or patches whose properties differ from patch to patch spanning all physical possibilities.

Paul Steinhardt, who produced the first example of eternal inflation,[1] eventually became a strong and vocal opponent of the theory. He argued that the multiverse represented a breakdown of the inflationary theory, because, in a multiverse, any outcome is equally possible, so inflation makes no predictions and, hence, is untestable. Consequently, he argued, inflation fails a key condition for a scientific theory.[19][20]

Both Linde and Guth, however, continued to support the inflationary theory and the multiverse. Guth declared:

It's hard to build models of inflation that don't lead to a multiverse. It's not impossible, so I think there's still certainly research that needs to be done. But most models of inflation do lead to a multiverse, and evidence for inflation will be pushing us in the direction of taking the idea of a multiverse seriously.[21]

According to Linde, "It's possible to invent models of inflation that do not allow a multiverse, but it's difficult. Every experiment that brings better credence to inflationary theory brings us much closer to hints that the multiverse is real."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eterna...the_multiverse

[Jedidiah]

And inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure . . .

I'd like to step aside from the present discussion and ask if you can explain for me why inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure? I do not understand this matter.

[Sparko]

I'd like to step aside from the present discussion and ask if you can explain for me why inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure? I do not understand this matter.

I think he means it has to expand into something larger, but that is just our limited understanding based on our 3D view of the universe.

[TheLurch]

I'd like to step aside from the present discussion and ask if you can explain for me why inflation necessitates that our universe is part of a larger structure? I do not understand this matter.

Way above my pay grade (did i mention i'm just a biologist?), but i'll give it a shot.

Inflation is based on the idea that, pre big bang, the universe existed as a false vacuum, meaning the energy of its quantum fields were higher than the ground state. In the presence of an additional field, this would create a repulsive force, causing the false vacuum to expand. (We're currently trying to devise ways of testing for the presence of that additional field.) This is inflation.

Spontaneously, some areas of the false vacuum would decay to a ground state. This would end inflation, producing our universe in the process - what we view as the big bang are just the last few instants of inflation. But the physics are such that you wouldn't expect the false vacuum to decade everywhere simultaneously. And anywhere it doesn't decay will continue to inflate dramatically, producing ever more false vacuum.

The uncertainty Seer is focusing on is that there might be physics we're not aware of that does cause a phase change that ends the false vacuum everywhere at once.

And there's apparently some debate about whether we're presently in a vacuum ground state. The relative masses of the Higgs and top quark apparently suggest we're not. If that's the case, the universe could undergo an additional phase change, which will result in entirely new quantum fields, and thus new physics for the universe. Which would, incidentally, wipe out all its contents. More details here:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...s-not-so-good/

[Sparko]

Way above my pay grade (did i mention i'm just a biologist?), but i'll give it a shot.

Inflation is based on the idea that, pre big bang, the universe existed as a false vacuum, meaning the energy of its quantum fields were higher than the ground state. In the presence of an additional field, this would create a repulsive force, causing the false vacuum to expand. (We're currently trying to devise ways of testing for the presence of that additional field.) This is inflation.

Spontaneously, some areas of the false vacuum would decay to a ground state. This would end inflation, producing our universe in the process - what we view as the big bang are just the last few instants of inflation. But the physics are such that you wouldn't expect the false vacuum to decade everywhere simultaneously. And anywhere it doesn't decay will continue to inflate dramatically, producing ever more false vacuum.

The uncertainty Seer is focusing on is that there might be physics we're not aware of that does cause a phase change that ends the false vacuum everywhere at once.

And there's apparently some debate about whether we're presently in a vacuum ground state. The relative masses of the Higgs and top quark apparently suggest we're not. If that's the case, the universe could undergo an additional phase change, which will result in entirely new quantum fields, and thus new physics for the universe. Which would, incidentally, wipe out all its contents. More details here:
https://arstechnica.com/science/2013...s-not-so-good/

The end result of all that is them saying "We don't know right now but here are some mathematical guesses based on various parameters"

[TheLurch]

The end result of all that is them saying "We don't know right now but here are some mathematical guesses based on various parameters"

Yeah, it's exactly the same process that predicted the Higgs boson existed back in the 1960s.

[Sparko]

Yeah, it's exactly the same process that predicted the Higgs boson existed back in the 1960s.

Of course the bible does talk about God remaking Creation and the earth melting like wax, so...

[shunyadragon]

Shuny, how would anyone ever even test something like "universes bubbling out of nothing"? That is just pure theory without any evidence whatsoever. You might as well just posit "God did it" - or "magic" - it is the same thing.

What is being tested is the nature of the Quantum world. The Quantum nothing that our universe originates from is something, and not the absolute nothing of the philosophical view of 'exnhilo.'

Yes, the concept of them multiverse is not at present falsifiable, but that nature of the Quantum world and the origin of our universe from a singularity is more in the realms of testable science.

[seer]

What is being tested is the nature of the Quantum world. The Quantum nothing that our universe originates from is something, and not the absolute nothing of the philosophical view of 'exnhilo.'

Nonsense, there is no evidence that this Quantum nothing existed prior to this universe, or that it could exist apart from space. As Vilenkin and Ellis both suggested there was no prior space. As far as we know the quantum world only existed in space. But we realize Shuny, that you do have a religious agenda...

[Sparko]

What is being tested is the nature of the Quantum world. The Quantum nothing that our universe originates from is something, and not the absolute nothing of the philosophical view of 'exnhilo.'

Yes, the concept of them multiverse is not at present falsifiable, but that nature of the Quantum world and the origin of our universe from a singularity is more in the realms of testable science.

if it is no falsifiable then it is not even a theory, it is just a hypothesis, which is a fancy word for "guess"

Shuny I am not a physicist, but from reading your posts over the last few years, you have even less of an understanding of the topic than I do, but with a hefty dose of Dunning-Kruger's to keep you thinking you actually do know a lot about the topic.

[shunyadragon]

Nonsense, there is no evidence that this Quantum nothing existed prior to this universe, or that it could exist apart from space. As Vilenkin and Ellis both suggested there was no prior space. As far as we know the quantum world only existed in space. But we realize Shuny, that you do have a religious agenda...

Seer, you have zip, nada, negatory background in the science of physics and cosmology. Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is enough evidence to conclude that the origin of our universe came about through natural law, Quantum gravity from the nothing that is indeed something. Yet, you selectively cite Vilenkin to justify your agenda, and than consider 'there is no evidence. Well, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is evidence, and they are far more qualified than you to reach these conclusions than Sparko nor you.

[Sparko]

Seer, you have zip, nada, negatory background in the science of physics and cosmology. Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is enough evidence to conclude that the origin of our universe came about through natural law, Quantum gravity from the nothing that is indeed something. Yet, you selectively cite Vilenkin to justify your agenda, and than consider 'there is no evidence. Well, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is evidence, and they are far more qualified than you to reach these conclusions than Sparko nor you.

Ah the old "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. nice.

[seer]

Seer, you have zip, nada, negatory background in the science of physics and cosmology. Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is enough evidence to conclude that the origin of our universe came about through natural law, Quantum gravity from the nothing that is indeed something. Yet, you selectively cite Vilenkin to justify your agenda, and than consider 'there is no evidence. Well, Vilenkin, Guth, Krauss and Hawking believe there is evidence, and they are far more qualified than you to reach these conclusions than Sparko nor you.

You really are dense Shuny - and I and not selectively citing Vilenkin - you are lying again. His theory has the creation event happening in the absence of any prior space, matter and time. With only the laws of physics.

nothingthe absence of matter, space and time. That is as close to nothing as you can get, but what is still required here is the laws of physics. So the laws of physics should still be there, and they are definitely not nothing.

So how do you think the universe began?If the laws describe the creation of the universe, that suggests they existed prior to the universe. The question that nobody has any idea how to address is where these laws come from and why these laws in particular? So there are a lot of mysteries to keep us working.

http://now.tufts.edu/articles/beginning-was-beginning

[shunyadragon]

Ah the old "Appeal to Authority" fallacy. nice.

False, an appeal to scientific references to support an argument is not a fallacy.

Source: https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/appeal-to-authority

It's important to note that this fallacy should not be used to dismiss the claims of experts, or scientific consensus. Appeals to authority are not valid arguments, but nor is it reasonable to disregard the claims of experts who have a demonstrated depth of knowledge unless one has a similar level of understanding and/or access to empirical evidence. However it is, entirely possible that the opinion of a person or institution of authority is wrong; therefore the authority that such a person or institution holds does not have any intrinsic bearing upon whether their claims are true or not.

© Copyright Original Source