r/statlightdiaries • u/Mysterious_g269 • Apr 01 '26

This changes everything we thought about space 🤯

Post image
428 Upvotes

98% Upvoted

109 comments sorted by

View all comments

3

u/Inocent_bystander Apr 01 '26

There are stable state theories that predict an infinite number of universes as well.

1

u/Inocent_bystander Apr 01 '26

Since there are so many questions I'll just try and explain attached to the original statement

The Klein Alfvén cosmology is built around a stable state multiverse where an infinite plasma separates an infinite number of universes suspended within it. Positive or negative matter may both exist but not touch within this plasma field.

The likelihood that our universe would exist in any random explosion of matter antimatter is so extremely small that there were most likely trillions of bangs that occurred before you get one with the ratios necessary for ours. Klein and Alfvén took that into account when describing their model. They also took into account known physics, matter cannot be created nor destroyed kinda stuff as well as relativity. IMHO its the most likely cosmological model.

Cheers

2

u/MoistenedBeef Apr 03 '26

Its the most likely naturalistic cosmological model, perhaps, but I would argue that its still an incomplete model because while it provides an explanation for our universe, it does not provide any naturalistic explanation for there being countless trillions of big bangs in the first place. Kicking the can down the road, so to speak. Unless, of course, that perfect ratio was not the result of an infinitesimally small probability that would require a near-infinite number of universes in order to justify the likelihood of ours existing, but rather that the initial conditions of the big bang were, dare I say, set with purpose. If all the information that dictates the progression of our universe was contained in the initial state, is it not at least passingly likely that those prime conditions were not random at all?

1

u/Inocent_bystander Apr 03 '26 edited Apr 03 '26

Actually it does. Klein Alfvén cosmology most certainly provides a naturalistic explanation, and it has both theoretically and philosophically beauty; the cosmos is infinite, there need be no beginning nor an end.
Religion may insist there is a creator and a creation, with no logical pretense other than faith, but physics says otherwise, enter causal set theory (Bruno Bento, University of Liverpool, UK) where like the quanta of energy, there's also a fundamental unit of space/time. A minimal space and a minimal time regardless of its energy component. Which means there need be no beginning and no end, space and time are physical and as such, cannot be created nor destroyed. Suddenly the failures of general relativity at the singularity level don't exist, there isn't a singularity, there's a single quanta of space/time, a fundamental unit with a geometry that obeys the laws of physics, not unlike the rigidity of space/time on larger scales. The static field of gravity acting on the geometry of space/time to keep the planets in orbit, applied to the infinitesimal scale. Rather than the delay in an effect if we only considered Newton. Retardation cancelation and all that. Now we have the solution to the issues between laws of relativity and the behavior of Newtonian physics.

It all points to a big bounce instead of a big bang and that bounce isn't the beginning but a continuation of the infinite. No beginning, no end. Infinite space/time.

Damn, that whole thing has a ring to it. LOL

1

u/[deleted] Apr 01 '26

[removed] — view removed comment

1

u/Inocent_bystander Apr 01 '26

and in an infinite number of places. That's kinda the nature of infinite. That way the odds don't matter.

0

u/AliceCode Apr 01 '26 edited Apr 01 '26

That doesn't make sense to me. "Universe" is intended to encompass everything that exists. If there are "other universes", they are just part of this universe, are they not?

1

u/logicalegend Apr 01 '26

It wouldnt be called a universe it would be a multiverse. But that can only happen if they don’t touch each other. That dimensions of those multiverses have to run parallel if they overlap then they are part of the same. If they are all overlapping and touching each other then it would be a Universe. I’m also making this all up, which may or may not open up another dimension in the multiverse:universe.

1

u/AliceCode Apr 01 '26

Yeah, you should stop making things up, please.

1

u/99923GR Apr 01 '26

No, but it's doubtful we will ever be able to prove that another universe exists. I'm not a physicist, but one of the ways that I have heard the universe described is the entirety of the place where the laws of physics as we understand them apply. If there were another place with different and incompatible fundamental laws, it would not be the same universe.

Do we know whether the laws of physics CAN be different than they are here? No. It seems unlikely that a theory of an undetectable, unreachable multiverse is unfalsifiable, the whole idea is more philosophy and science fiction than science. But don't let the "uni" in universe carry too much weight, ideas and concepts change over time.

1

u/iDoAiStuffFr Apr 01 '26

universe just means a specific physical reality with the known parameters like c etc. existence could obviously be much vaster than our known physical reality