Lorentz invariance and the multiverse, possible or not?

Quantum Quack said:
And of course it must as Einsteins theories require relative zeros in a universe that has only an absolute zero and the ramifications of inadvertantly accepting this lead to all sorts of fancy foot work in the quest to accommodate it.
If zero is maintained as absolute I think you will find that eternal inflation is most likely and very possible and how the universal constant of gravity can be maintained as constant regardless of inflation.
Click to expand...
Well, that was sort of the point of the paper, Is Eternal Inflation Eternal? She says no, and the paper developes her position, i.e. past incomplete inflation cannot be future eternal (continue reading her paper and read the footnoted papers as you go :)). She seems to be implying preconditions to the Initial Conditions of Lorentz boosts (big bangs), and mentions a steady state possibility within which the multiverse is perpetuated by the big bangs.
 
quantum_wave said:
Well, that was sort of the point of the paper, Is Eternal Inflation Eternal? She says no, and the paper developes her position, i.e. past incomplete inflation cannot be future eternal (continue reading her paper and read the footnoted papers as you go :)). She seems to be implying preconditions to the Initial Conditions of Lorentz boosts (big bangs), and mentions a steady state possibility within which the multiverse is perpetuated by the big bangs.
Click to expand...
Just to clarify:
QW am I right in saying she is saying "no" if one relies upon currently accepted Einstein theories? Thus either proving a problem with those theories, or eternal inflation is not eternal.
 
Quantum Quack said:
Just to clarify:
QW am I right is saying she is saying "no" if one relies upon currently accepted Einstein theories? Thus either proving a problem with those theories or eternal inflation is not eternal.
Click to expand...
Yes; Einstein's general relativity plays well with the singularity and the spacetime geometry. She points out that Eternal Inflation and the Arrow of Time Theory of bubble universes simply puts the "beginning" farther into the past, but still requires a beginning, something from nothing. She makes reference to the steady state and what I interpret from her paper is pointing to an eternal past of the steady state being required for an eternal future inflation where bubbles inflate within the steady state greater universe.

The reference to tilting at the initial conditions surface being negative and "cuts below the surface of the initial condeitions boundary of eternal inflation that separated inflating from contracting phases of the global De Sitter geometry" has me thinking "overlapping bubbles" :).
 
quantum_wave said:
Yes; Einstein's general relativity plays well with the singularity and the spacetime geometry. She points out that Eternal Inflation and the Arrow of Time Theory of bubble universes simply puts the "beginning" farther into the past, but still requires a beginning, something from nothing. She makes reference to the steady state and what I interpret from her paper is pointing to an eternal past of the steady state being required for an eternal future inflation where bubbles inflate within the steady state greater universe.

The reference to tilting at the initial conditions surface being negative and "cuts below the surface of the initial condeitions boundary of eternal inflation that separated inflating from contracting phases of the global De Sitter geometry" has me thinking "overlapping bubbles" :).
Click to expand...

Personally I feel this approach is unecessarily complicated....as I have already suggested the primary premise of relative zero is flawed to begin with.

However to get rid of the relative zeros means significant modification to Einsteins theories and a major shift regarding "light speed invariance" [ which forces Einstein to theorise as he did] and that, I dare say, aint going to happen for some time yet...
Yet Laura Mersini Houghton needs to be congratulated on attempting* to show yet again the problems occurring due to this issue of relative zeros. IMO.

* as no doubt her work will be torn apart and face severe discreditation or most likely simply ignored by those with a vested interest in maintainting the current paradigm.
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
Personally I feel this approach is unecessarily complicated....as I have already suggested the primary premise of relative zero is flawed to begin with.

However to get rid of the relative zeros means significant modification to Einsteins theories and a major shift regarding light speed invariance and that, I dare say, aint going to happen for some time yet...
Yet Laura Mersini Houghton needs to be congratulated on attempting to show yet again the problems occurring due to this issue of relative zeros. IMO.
Click to expand...
Lol, I agree with you in part. As the standard cosmology and the standard particle models are improved upon, and if the multiverse becomes confirmed by the dark flow, the voids, and the tilting predictions being in line with the positioning of the dark flow within the WMAP data relative to structure of the known universe, then getting back to a steady state cosmology that incorporates the multiverse would be logical.

True it is complicated because getting there has to be done within the scientific community where Lorentz invariance is a foundational postulate. The great minds come together and turn more slowly than the proverbial aircraft carrier changes directions.
 
quantum_wave said:
Lol, I agree with you in part. As the standard cosmology and the standard particle models are improved upon, and if the multiverse becomes confirmed by the dark flow, the voids, and the tilting predictions being in line with the positioning of the dark flow within the WMAP data relative to structure of the known universe, then getting back to a steady state cosmology that incorporates the multiverse would be logical.

True it is complicated because getting there has to be done within the scientific community where Lorentz invariance is a foundational postulate. The great minds come together and turn more slowly than the proverbial aircraft carrier changes directions.
Click to expand...

well .....prove the reality of relative zeros first and you have a starter... bet you can't!!:D
 
Last edited:
Quantum Quack said:
well prove the reality of relative zeros first and you have a starter... bet you can't!!:D
Click to expand...
If there is immediate overlap of bubble universes which Mersini implies throughout her paper then they are not "zeros" to start with. Proving them to exist would be impossible if they don't exist. However, if the preconditions of big bangs are not net zeros, but bubble overlaps, then there in lies the possibility of the multiverse. Then from within a bubble you might see dark flow imprinted in the background data, and we are seeing it.
 
quantum_wave said:
If there is immediate overlap of bubble universes which Mersini implies throughout her paper then they are not "zeros" to start with. Proving them to exist would be impossible if they don't exist. However, if the preconditions of big bangs are not net zeros, but bubble overlaps, then there in lies the possibility of the multiverse.
Click to expand...
I understand what you are saying.. I think... however the IF requires that you have relative zeros and that is countered by my point that relative zero is unable to be deteremined with out resorting to the use of an absolute zero which defeats the quest for relative zeros in any t=0 or should I say t=r0 [ r=relative]
You end up with a logical paradox which is no different from "something from nothing" and thus prove "nothing" :) as absolute....hee hee
 
The other issue that comes to mind is that if you assume that indeed bubbles of t=0 overlap as preconditions to a big bang, then the question comes up again, what created the bubble overlap and what was before the bubble overlap? Or do we assume that the bubble overlap is eternally past until we get to the same question regarding what happened before the eternal past etc etc...and created the bubble overlap..
 
Quantum Quack said:
I understand what you are saying.. I think... however the IF requires that you have relative zeros and that is countered by my point that relative zero is unable to be deteremined with out resorting to the use of an absolute zero which defeats the quest for relative zeros in any t=0 or should I say t=r0 [ r=relative]
You end up with a logical paradox which is no different from "something from nothing" and thus prove "nothing" :) as absolute....hee hee
Click to expand...
I'll explore that a little with you here. Is the "if" I referred to when I said, "If there is immediate overlap of bubble universes which Mersini implies throughout her paper then they are not "zeros" to start with", the same IF you are referring to? No "zeros" necessary then because the universe was never a "zero" to start with and the Lorentz boosts and velocities are not inflating out of "zeros" either, they have preconditions that do not equate to zero anywhere in the infinite past. The past would be complete in that it never began, it has always been ongoing.

If that doesn't address the same "zero" that you are referring to then define "zero" in terms of a universe that has always existed and is characterized by a greater landscape of big bang bubbles that expand and overlap.
 
Quantum Quack said:
The other issue that comes to mind is that if you assume that indeed bubbles of t=0 overlap as preconditions to a big bang, then the question comes up again, what created the bubble overlap and what was before the bubble overlap? Or do we assume that the bubble overlap is eternally past until we get to the same question regarding what happened before the eternal past etc etc...and created the bubble overlap..
Click to expand...
See post #30.
 
quantum_wave said:
I'll explore that a little with you here. Is the "if" I referred to when I said, "If there is immediate overlap of bubble universes which Mersini implies throughout her paper then they are not "zeros" to start with", the same IF you are referring to? No "zeros" necessary then because the universe was never a "zero" to start with and the Lorentz boosts and velocities are not inflating out of "zeros" either, they have preconditions that do not equate to zero anywhere in the infinite past. The past would be complete in that it never began, it has always been ongoing.

If that doesn't address the same "zero" that you are referring to then define "zero" in terms of a universe that has always existed and is characterized by a greater landscape of big bang bubbles that expand and overlap.
Click to expand...
The problem is in the use of logic more than anything else. IMO.
Zero doesn't exist. it can't exist as it is no-thing.

so if you are saying there are no zeros involved then you are saying that there must have been something other than zero. yes?
 
Quantum Quack said:
The problem is in the use of logic more than anything else. IMO.
Zero doesn't exist. it can't exist as it is no-thing.

so if you are saying there are no zeros involved then you are saying that there must have been something other than zero. yes?
Click to expand...
Thanks, nice chatting with you.

We are well into the philosophical so I am being philosophical when it comes to whether or not zero exists. Philosophically, if zero is the absence of everything, then in an infinite and eternal universe there is no physical place in three dimensions that qualifies as zero. If you are talking about a state of nothingness being the zero state then such a state is precluded by an eternal universe.

On the other hand, if you are not limited to the physical, then zero becomes real in a conceptual sense. One minus one for example begs for the answer to be zero. Would you deny that poor phrase a fulfillment? Give me a zero and make one minus one equal it and I am happy.
 
Getting back to Laura's paper, in the abstract there is a reference Lorentz boosts and to Lorentz invariance and covariance:
http://arxiv.org/abs/1106.3542
from abstract of Mersini's paper said:
In this paper we explore the relationship between the existence of eternal inflation and the initial conditions leading to inflation. We demonstrate that past and future completion of inflation is related, in that past-incomplete inflation can not be future eternal. Bubble universes nucleating close to the initial conditions hypersurface have the largest Lorentz boosts and experience the highest anisotropy. Consequently, their probability to collide upon formation is one. Thus instead of continuing eternally inflation ends soon after it starts. The difficulty in actualizing eternal inflation originates from the breaking of two underlying symmetries: Lorentz invariance and the general covariance of the theory which lead to an inconsistency of Einstein equations. Eternal inflation may not be eternal.
Click to expand...
Help me explore those references to see if we can describe how the paper addresses them.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorentz_covariance
Wiki said:
In standard physics, Lorentz symmetry is "the feature of nature that says experimental results are independent of the orientation or the boost velocity of the laboratory through space".[1] Lorentz covariance is a related concept, covariance being a measure of how much two variables change together.

Lorentz covariance (from Hendrik Lorentz) is a key property of spacetime that follows from the special theory of relativity. Lorentz covariance has two distinct, but closely related meanings:
1.A physical quantity is said to be Lorentz covariant if it transforms under a given representation of the Lorentz group. According to the representation theory of the Lorentz group, these quantities are built out of scalars, four-vectors, four-tensors, and spinors. In particular, a scalar (e.g. the space-time interval) remains the same under Lorentz transformations and is said to be a Lorentz invariant (i.e. they transform under the trivial representation).
2.An equation is said to be Lorentz covariant if it can be written in terms of Lorentz covariant quantities (confusingly, some use the term invariant here). The key property of such equations is that if they hold in one inertial frame, then they hold in any inertial frame (this follows from the result that if all the components of a tensor vanish in one frame, they vanish in every frame). This condition is a requirement according to the principle of relativity, i.e. all non-gravitational laws must make the same predictions for identical experiments taking place at the same spacetime event in two different inertial frames of reference.

Note: this usage of the term covariant should not be confused with the related concept of a covariant vector. On manifolds, the words covariant and contravariant refer to how objects transform under general coordinate transformations. Confusingly, both covariant and contravariant four-vectors can be Lorentz covariant quantities.

Local Lorentz covariance, which follows from general relativity, refers to Lorentz covariance applying only locally in an infinitesimal region of spacetime at every point.

There is a generalization of this concept to cover Poincaré covariance and Poincaré invariance.
Click to expand...
After reading her paper I would like to hear what you have to say about Lorentz boosts and what her conclusions are about Lorentz invariance and covariance in the multiverse?
 
My theory on Bubble Universe started in 2004. I had Bubble Galaxies, and bubble suns, and right down to bubble atoms. I drew a detailed 3D diagram of the Universe bubbles creating the phenomena that has been indicated in the past month. I'm not trying to promote my theory, just clarify that I am used to thinking along these terms so that I can add my response. My understanding is that multi-verse will push apart just like Galaxies, and other expanding features. However the pressure will make poles through our Universe, and I believe that they have already been hinted at. A slight variation in the grain scale of space time.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
My theory on Bubble Universe started in 2004. I had Bubble Galaxies, and bubble suns, and right down to bubble atoms. I drew a detailed 3D diagram of the Universe bubbles creating the phenomena that has been indicated in the past month. I'm not trying to promote my theory, just clarify that I am used to thinking along these terms so that I can add my response. My understanding is that multi-verse will push apart just like Galaxies, and other expanding features. However the pressure will make poles through our Universe, and I believe that they have already been hinted at. A slight variation in the grain scale of space time.
Click to expand...
I remember your art work. It was excellent and something to be proud of. I don't think that your concepts are presented in enough depth to say that they are compatible or not with Mersini's paper, but in a general way your thinking has some correlation with her concepts. For example the "tilt" referred to in one of her footnotes that refers to one of her previous papers, and the cold spot or void as it is referred to. Also, there is a "dark flow" which corresponds to her prediction of the presense of a bubble separate from our own.
 
Pincho Paxton said:
The major difference is that my entire theory, and all of my predictions were based on a bump gravity, so we shall see.
Click to expand...
I'll see your bump and raise you an overlap!

Back to my question from a few posts ago about how Mersini uses the concept of Lorentz boost and Lorentz invariance and covariance.

Her reference to Lorentz boosts corresponds to the event the represents the initial conditions of a new bubble universe. Correspondingly, I equate her use of the term Lorentz boost to the concept of multiple big bangs. Using that interpretation each Big Bang gives a Lorentz boost to the new bubble (or arena in my terminology) that establishes an event horizon actuated by the light speed acceleration of the new bubble (Big Bang).
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top