- Contemporary messages sorted: [ by date ] [ by thread ] [ by subject ] [ by author ] [ by messages with attachments ]

From: Stathis Papaioannou <stathispapaioannou.domain.name.hidden>

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:42:07 +1000

On 18 July 2004 Hal Finney wrote:

QUOTE-

We had some discussion a while back about a paper which proposed some

similar ideas, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0208013, Disturbing

implications of a cosmological constant. If you want to look in the

archives, the thread was called "Doomsday-like argument in cosmology"

and was in August 2002...

...I still wonder about the physical assumptions that treat the de Sitter

state as a steady state. That little coordinate transform seemed pretty

fishy to me.

-ENDQUOTE

Yes, I know there are all sorts of twists on the standard models in

cosmology out there, most of them controversial. But what I am looking at is

the "worst case scenario" for many world theories: no "Big Crunch", no

Tipler Omega Point, no daughter universes from black holes, no God, just a

finite universe expanding and cooling forever. In a zillion years from now,

the universe will be a zillion light years across, almost all the "stable"

matter will have decayed, and the temperature will be extremely close to

absolute zero. My understanding is that even in this bleak scenario,

standard, non-controversial physics does not exclude the possibility that

new matter/energy will arise out of the vacuum. In the MWI of QM, this

possibility MUST be realised in some parallel universe, albeit one of very

low measure if the new matter is something like the event "P" I defined in

my original post, an exact copy of our solar system complete with conscious

inhabitants. In a non-MW interpretation of QM, P is possible but

fantastically unlikely. If the probability of P occuring in a unit time

period remains constant, or increases, with time, then - remember, we still

have eternity ahead even though a zillion years have already passed - P will

certainly occur. If this probability falls with time, P may or may not

occur, depending on the equation. Can anyone write down the equation showing

how Pr(P) evolves as a function of time in the above situation?

Stathis Papaioannou

_________________________________________________________________

SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:

http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail

Received on Sat Jul 17 2004 - 23:48:44 PDT

Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 13:42:07 +1000

On 18 July 2004 Hal Finney wrote:

QUOTE-

We had some discussion a while back about a paper which proposed some

similar ideas, http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/hep-th/0208013, Disturbing

implications of a cosmological constant. If you want to look in the

archives, the thread was called "Doomsday-like argument in cosmology"

and was in August 2002...

...I still wonder about the physical assumptions that treat the de Sitter

state as a steady state. That little coordinate transform seemed pretty

fishy to me.

-ENDQUOTE

Yes, I know there are all sorts of twists on the standard models in

cosmology out there, most of them controversial. But what I am looking at is

the "worst case scenario" for many world theories: no "Big Crunch", no

Tipler Omega Point, no daughter universes from black holes, no God, just a

finite universe expanding and cooling forever. In a zillion years from now,

the universe will be a zillion light years across, almost all the "stable"

matter will have decayed, and the temperature will be extremely close to

absolute zero. My understanding is that even in this bleak scenario,

standard, non-controversial physics does not exclude the possibility that

new matter/energy will arise out of the vacuum. In the MWI of QM, this

possibility MUST be realised in some parallel universe, albeit one of very

low measure if the new matter is something like the event "P" I defined in

my original post, an exact copy of our solar system complete with conscious

inhabitants. In a non-MW interpretation of QM, P is possible but

fantastically unlikely. If the probability of P occuring in a unit time

period remains constant, or increases, with time, then - remember, we still

have eternity ahead even though a zillion years have already passed - P will

certainly occur. If this probability falls with time, P may or may not

occur, depending on the equation. Can anyone write down the equation showing

how Pr(P) evolves as a function of time in the above situation?

Stathis Papaioannou

_________________________________________________________________

SEEK: Now with over 50,000 dream jobs! Click here:

http://ninemsn.seek.com.au?hotmail

Received on Sat Jul 17 2004 - 23:48:44 PDT

*
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.3.0
: Fri Feb 16 2018 - 13:20:09 PST
*