Dubbelosix

Yes... I don't actually equate the two - probability can be completely deterministic. In this case, above, I want us to think purely in cases, of ''what is the chance this and that will happen'' in terms of a probability of it happening.

exciting times

No because the universe evidently has a finite past. The idea is if this is true, then it would need to expand for eternity, to be truly infinite. But I have also argued, that in any moment of time, the universe will always be finite... why? Because infinities purport to unphysical situations. It's unfeasible to assume something can ''get to infinity.'' For instance, imagine you created a machine capable of counting to infinity, a ''countable infinity.'' But to do that, you need to sit next to the machine for an infinite amount of time! Why? It's because the machine spits out numbers and infinity is not a number, its a concept and poorly understood and abused one. sorry typos fixed (edit)

Ok, imagine you had an infinite deck of cards of random faces - one of those cards has a picture of you on it. The chances of course are absolutely ziltch of you ever picking out the right card - but suppose as a fluke, or miracle, you manage to pick the right card, we would say (?) the chances of you picking the right card was 1 in an infinity. Let's change the situation and the rules slightly. This time we have a second deck of cards as well as the first deck of cards. In the second deck of cards, you have an infinite amount of blank cards. In the first pack, still an infinite amount of faces. This time you are not looking for your face specifically, this time finding any face on a card will do. Picking a card, you get a face card: So... 1. you had an infinite amount of cards that you could have found a face on 2. You had an infinite amount of cards you couldn't have found a face on What are the chances you would have found a card with a face on it?

It's an old philosophical question... it's even hard enough to imagine trying to squeeze [math]3 \times 10^{80} [/math] particles into a point, let alone infinity. Let's be clear for a moment, for the universe to be infinite, it needs to have expanded for an infinite amount of time. Assuming the universe needs to expand for an infinite amount of time, the universe is never infinite in any moment of time. (this is of course assuming absence of cyclic or pre big bang phases.)

yes valid point.

Not that I am aware of, because Planck space seems to be the space in which physics makes sense. Below it, even for point like dynamics, the physics seems to be... nonsensical. If you want you could say it requires a new physics, but not the kind we associate to quantum effects as we know them.

No I am sorry, not that, I know what the uncertainty principle is and what it means. I mean this bit ''and IIRC, 'torsion' in Einstein-Cartan theory, and the Dirac equation in a gravitational field impose a finite size to particles such that they cannot be Black Holes.'' Ok... I thought this was related to torsion smearing particle size. I just needed to hear it from you because I wasn't sure. Torsion is interesting for this reason - and is appealing. Torsion is also capable of removing any initial singularities to the universe, which was one motivation for me studying Friedmann cosmology with torsion. I have at least once wrote in the past that torsion can remove pointlike dynamics for particles.

I don't believe there will ever be the kind of evidence we need to falsify questions about scenario's that does seem, unfortunately, beyond experimental means. I don't think we will ever show that a universe can come from nothing, unless we manage to make a universe in the lab. You could go one step further and say that cause and effect may break down at the big bang, so it doesn't make sense to talk about a before.

It's absolutely real, and is called the zeno effect. There is also an anti-zeno effect which can arise if you don't measure the atom accordingly, and has to be measured before it reaches its half-life. Basically this periodic act of observing keeps shuffling the energy states into stable ones. Ultimately, you are halting the evolution of the systems wave function.

Certainly it means there is no absolute past, no absolute present either. Even Julian Barbours concept of ''Now'' has to take into account that ''Now'' is not actually a universal, absolute measure of a present moment - in this work Julian says the cat that jumps off a table is not the same one that lands, and this rings similar to what the previous poster had envisioned, except Julians world exists because time does not exist. I just want to make clear, I once found Barbour's model interesting, but have since realised he has focused on the Wheeler de Witt equation, which is probably wrong any way.. at least, many physicists I have talked to, feel this way. Remember, the wheeler de witt equation is about a complete 3 geometry in absence of time. ''Barbour's Nows can be imagined as pages of a novel ripped from the book's spine and tossed randomly onto the floor. Each page is a separate entity existing without time, existing outside of time. Arranging the pages in some special order and moving through them in a step-by-step fashion makes a story unfold. Still, no matter how we arrange the sheets, each page is complete and independent. As Barbour says, "The cat that jumps is not the same cat that lands." The physics of reality for Barbour is the physics of these Nows taken together as a whole. There is no past moment that flows into a future moment. Instead all the different possible configurations of the universe, every possible location of every atom throughout all of creation, exist simultaneously. Barbour's Nows all exist at once in a vast Platonic realm that stands completely and absolutely without time."What really intrigues me," says Barbour, "is that the totality of all possible Nows has a very special structure. You can think of it as a landscape or country. Each point in this country is a Now and I call the country Platonia, because it is timeless and created by perfect mathematical rules." The question of "before" the Big Bang never arises for Barbour because his cosmology has no time. All that exists is a landscape of configurations, the landscape of Nows. "Platonia is the true arena of the universe," he says, "and its structure has a deep influence on whatever physics, classical or quantum, is played out in it." For Barbour, the Big Bang is not an explosion in the distant past. It's just a special place in Platonia, his terrain of independent Nows.'' https://www.popsci.com/science/article/2012-09/book-excerpt-there-no-such-thing-time

Maybe. My picture really is no more clear cut than other peoples. I think this struggle about the universe from nothing, is a common one.

Of course, this is related to the relativity of simultaneity. That comoving observers will not generally agree when things happen. It makes things like past, a relative thing. I found a paper relevant to the discussions https://link.springer.com/chapter/10.1007/978-3-642-13538-5_10 Time is never an easy subject and is riddled with problems. You could argue very easily and with much success, that all there exists is a present time - past and futures have their own present as well.

I'll certainly take a look,... I expect to find many differences with how other rotary models of the universe have been modelled compared to my own. For instance, I have never seen anyone other than one other scientist, speculate that dark flow could be rotation - I simply took it one step further and applied the Hoyle Narlikar model of a decaying rotation (which is rare) I have never seen anyone do this - I noticed early on if dark flow was a phenomenon linked to rotation property of a universe, then it would need to explain why rotation is slow. Think of how surprised I was to learn then, that an expanding universe naturally experiences a decay in the rotation and the natural answer was provided through such a model. I will look through it, as I said, I expect to find many differences within the theory. Though, a formal look through this I read ''In Fig. 2, some normalized 2nd-order perturbed quantities along the light path of the last scattered photons are plotted as a function of ra(η)Ω(r, η) with Ω(r, η) = Ωrota 3 (ηǫ)r 2/(r 2 ǫ a 3 (η)) and Ωrot ∼ 6 × 10−26 m. As expected, the perturbed quantities increase with the rotating speed. '' Which seems related to what we are talking about. Of course, I have recognised as a rotation speeds up a background axis would be detectable. Having a bound, is simply not good enough, you need to ask if you taking into consideration all the physics. First of all, does this bound appreciate the measure of dark flow, what is the bound of dark flow? Has anyone done that calculation? How does that bound differ from the bound given above? Since my model is very specific, these questions are actually important. Also, questions of coupling of background radiation are likely to be quelled by noticing that galaxies are supermassive and barely coupling to the rotation. The paper looks very convincing, just not sure it can answer for model in any sufficient way. I need a paper, and with it, scientists who have measured dark flow as if it were a rotational property and gather bounds from that. I want you to consider that the rotational property of the universe, is so vanishing, that we may consider it to be in its very last stages. It has to be, if dark flow really is evidence for rotational properties.

Yeah its interesting. It's also interesting how, (I think) it also shows, that philosophy is crucial in science - and sometimes, logic and philosophy are indistinguishable.

Yes, hydrodynamics was the very place my studies on cosmology actually began. I know of the virial theorem very well, as it was also part of my study. Not so much Jeans instability, but of course, I have heard of it.

I saw a popular writer once state, ''instead of thinking about nothingness before the big bang, maybe we should start thinking about everythingness.''

If it barely couples to the galaxies, what indication is there it should couple to radiation? I can understand a CMB axis when rotation was much more significant. Dark flow is so negligible, that the background temperatures have to be behaving as though there was no rotational properties. That's how slow it is. Only massive galaxies are the objects in the universe to couple to the slow rotation and as a theoretical statement, it is a reasonable one. Certainly, the way I am thinking about it, is that it actually makes sense to think, as a rotation decays, that galaxies would be the last objects in the universe to show signs of the coupling.

That was a terribly written sentence any way with a typo, earlier was an a pad using spellcheck, not fun. What the sentence meant was that when rotation decays significantly, the torsion that pulls systems like the galaxies in a common direction (is so slow), that this in itself is a statement about the weakness of the coupling of the rotation to the objects inside of it. Galaxies are massive, and they are barely coupling to the rotation. My argument is, that dark flow is so weak, that the CMB is behaving like there was no rotational property in the universe.

Then its not really nothing. Not as we understand it.

A geon for all intents and purposes, was a black hole. It is about waves being trapped by its own gravitational field - so yes, there are similarities with black hole theory and the concept of the geon. Secondly, can you clarify what you mean by the following: '''Heisenberg says a particle cannot be localized to one point, and IIRC, 'torsion' in Einstein-Cartan theory, and the Dirac equation in a gravitational field impose a finite size to particles such that they cannot be Black Holes.''

But our situations is completely new, you say ''you think scientists haven't thought about it like a coupling?'' Maybe they have but certainly not in the contexts we have explored - I just don't understand the objections of my claim in this instance - it seems more than obvious dark flow has to be something we attribute to a weak coupling on the galaxies - there is absolutely no indication it should even couple to a CMB - the fact dark flow is so slow, is evidence to that effect. This hasn't meant however that I didn't agree that at some point, there was an axis in the CMB. But that was when rotation and equally with it the coupling strength were many factors than what it is today. Sorry, I just don't understand the intentions of objections when I offer a perfectly good explanation. It also only makes sense to think only the largest objects in the universe, are the last objects to couple to the rotation.

Perhaps... not any conventional black hole. Mind you, Wheeler was convinced his Geon was a possibility. I have shown, it could be. Others have speculated on small, extremal black holes. Wheeler, went all out and said there was a Planck foam... but all these physics, requires more evidence. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extremal_black_hole https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_foam http://iopscience.iop.org/article/10.1088/1742-6596/222/1/012038/pdf

I don't know, you tell me, I am confused now, as I am sure other people will be.

No I made the same mistake, he isn't actually asking about the wave, he seems to be asking why its created.