| | Dean:
That's right -- the 'goo' theory says that the 'goo' always existed.
But the 'goo' has the following characteristics: it is flat, and uninteresting. It is a balance of matter and anti-matter, of energy and anti-energy. It is 'flat' without significant gradient(unlike our current universe, which is jam packed with all kinds of gradient.)
The cosmic 'goo' theory, in that sense, is similar to the oscilating single universe theory, in that all that is always was, just in a different form-- no built in conservsational singularity, something from nothing. Just, since it is, that means, it always was, else a singularity is required. A paradox. A conundrum. An inconsistency.
What the cosmic goo theory posits is how to get an interesting universe full of dynamicism and gradients, apparently on its way from an intensely dense state to a dim 3 deg K cloud of sameness without resulting in a conservational paradox: by emitting two of them of opposite sense, one dominated by matter, the other by anti-matter.
Anti-matter isn't a theory. It is observed in our universe, just, rarely. As well, what can be constructed with matter can be constructed from anti-matter(like hydrogen atoms, etc.) But matter and anti-matter annihilate each other.
What 'causes' the dim, vibrating, goo to emit regions of statistically dominant matter or anti-matter?
What is to stop them? Remember, what is statistically rare is not the same thing as impossible. People win the lottery. The cosmos has all the time in the Universe to erupt. It may be an exceptionally rare event. (I am of course speaking totally hypothetically, and yet as we speak, NASA is looking for evidence of far off galaxies composed of anti-matter. They would be hard to detect directly. They could only be readily detected by boundary interactions with matter galaxies, and the immense energy released.)
Consder the following. In the rooms you and I are in, there is a random distribution of O2 molecules. We claim to know the % as somewhere around 20%, on average. But these are all just random O2 molecules jiggling about. There is nothing preventing them, say, from randomly arranging themselves in regions of net O2 dominance or deficit, randomly. It might be a statistical rarity. It might take billions of years for the dice to roll. But at some point, a significant maldistrubuted arrangment of O2 molecules in these rooms is not prohibied by the dice.
Someone wins the lottery.
Now, back to the goo/foam. For a universe to erupt, not just one rare event, but two rare events must align. An even bigger longshot.
Gazzillions of years go by, and nothing of interest erupts from the goo...so wait another gazzillion years. If not long enough, then wait another...and another...until finally, the battling infinities result in a finite result: two "interesting' universes for the price of none.
Soon enough, back to the dim 3 deg K goo...in the meantime, we all enjoy this rare ride.
Take a look sometime at the real phenemona of 'oscillons' in vibrating media (sand, brass beads--even colloidal suspensions). From bits of seemingly random vibrating bits of sand or beads will erupt, spontaneously(well, shake the box with a shaker at the right frequencies and amplitude) larger structures that exhibit the characteristics of particles; some repel, some attract, some combine to form larger structures. The identity of these larger structures -- 'oscillons' is not uniquely associated with individual bits of sand or brass beads-- the y 'move through' individual regions of vibrating sand/beads, and maintain their own identity and rules of interaction.
'Oscillons' are not a theory, they are an observation of what is possible.
Notice...there are piles...and there are holes...in an otherwise flat field...
Also notice, in the sample above(a timelapse)...all three are 'in phase'. (They are all either 'piles' or 'holes' at the same time.) That isn't a requirement, is just a characteristic of the three examples above. There can be 'oscillons' that are out of phase, that have different 'rules' of interaction than oscillons that are in phase...
Also notice, in the three 'hole' example... what is erupting in the middle, between the three 'holes'? Is that thegenesis of a new 'pile' out of phase with the other piles?
regards,
Fred
(Edited by Fred Bartlett on 10/22, 11:54am)
|
|
By definition, the universe is the totality of ALL that exists. It doesn’t define “part of what exists,” for this would be a contradiction against itself and require a new word to define ALL that exists, a useless undertaking, since there is already a word to define ALL that exists, namely “Universe”. It is, thus, an absolute which renders, in itself, those scientists that hold that there are many universes as ignorant of the definition of “Universe”. By definition, “God” is the totality of capacities, characteristics and existence in itself. It is omnicreative, omnipotent, all-knowing, etc. etc. It is not a partiality of what it is, but a totality of it. It is, thus, an absolute. Here we have two absolutes, which, thus, contradict each other. As philosopher Ayn Rand clearly stated, whenever there’s a contradiction, at least one of its premises is wrong. Above absolutes are the two premises of the contradiction, i.e. they are absolute oppositions. Hence, if “God” exists, then the universe doesn’t exist. On the other hand, if the universe exists, its existence renders the existence of “God” impossible. Therefore, since the universe demonstrably exists, “God” does not exist. This, in itself, solves the riddle.
