Inflation

>potentially infinite number of universes?
post evidence of your claim in your next post or go back to

There is no non-inflating region of space

Space.
I think you just read the title of some popsci garbage and you were too lazy to actually read anything about it.

"Universe is expanding" is an oxymoron. Universe is infinite. So is the space. The matter inside is finite and it's been pulling apart from each other into the infinite space. Thats what they mean by expansion and thats where we look to see the redshift to confirm the expansion.

I'm wondering if you have highschool education at this point asking such retarded illiterate questions.

It's natural implication of inflation.

Inflation hadn't been falsified/verified as of yet.

BICEP has been working on that for a while now.

I'm asking about the hypothesised nature of the space that exists outside of our particular region of non-inflating space.

Let's say that our region has 3 spatial dimensions and 1 time, which is resultant of the nature of the quantum fluctuations that led to the formation of our universe.

What about the space outside of 'our universe' or region of space?

Infinite dimensional?

>What about the space outside of 'our universe' or region of space?
There isnt any. Why are you not understanding this?

then don't use idiotic words like multiple universes with zero evidence

>the hypothesised nature of the space that exists outside of our particular region of non-inflating space.
Are you mentally challenged ? Space is infinite, it can't expand into anything.

Ok I'm asking a question about an aspect or implication of a hypothetical model.

Hypotheses by definition do not have supporting evidence.

Inflation is the strongest competitor when it comes to hypotheses regarding the formation of our universe.

Ok, the basic idea is that a quantum energy density fluctuation allowed for energy to become 'trapped' in a particular region of space, which led to the creation of a false vacuum (which is tantamount to a well of potential energy), whereafter a quantum fluctuation led to a phase transition of sorts, which took the form of the Big Bang.

It could be thought of as analogous to water existing in liquid form in a subzero environment, which is referred to as a meta-stable state; an energy density fluctuation can then initiate a phase transition in which it turns to ice.

The laws of physics of our universe are thought to be determined by the nature of the quantum fluctuations that led to its creation.

In other universes, the laws could be entirely different.

What I am asking, is that in relation to this hypothetical model, what is the nature of the space that exists outside of our particular universe/region?

Is it infinite dimensional?

If you don't know enough about the hypothetical model, then that's fine but stop replying.

The thing is, spacetime and the shit it it is all an illusion created by your mind. Everything is forces and energy, and essentially intangible nothingness which due to our own nature, seems otherwise.

Consider a video game, there are rules and to the avatar in the game, those walls are effectively no different to the wall in front of you. But do those virtual walls exist? Does that virtual gravity hold you to the surface? Is it real or not?

This is the increasingly apparent view of our own reality.

>In other universes
>hypothetical model
>do not have supporting evidence

There's a reason why we don't know baseless autistic unscientific drivel with zero evidence.

Please keep these threads where they belong

There isn't any "space" outside of the universe.

Why are you asking us about the theoretical implications of your made up model? Work them out yourself

Why can't you accept that everything is a story, and that some are useful to be believed, and some are not?

There is no difference between a hypothesis, theory, analogy, physical law, dogma, argument, fiction, moral, thought, or any object or word you can think of.

A story is a story; it is all the Narrative.

What does evidence have to do with anything? Evidence just makes the story useful, but doesn't make it any less of a story.

You can never see the universe. It is a story you put together.

You can never experience anything directly. If you could, then you wouldn't need the story.

The world is; it has no use of a story.
And you trick yourself into thinking the story is the world when you find the story useful to be believed, but that doesn't mean your story is the world.

Why don't you focus your argument on why your story is useful to be believed instead of wasting time trying to convince and persuade using the rhetorical trick of an appeal to the Platonic Fallacy by invoking what amounts to a religious argument of "God said so" by claiming your story is real because it works in this situation, for this perspective.

I swear, Scientists are worse than Popes!

>what exists outside of the universe(s)?
literally nothing

>science isn't built upon hypotheses that are later falsified of verified via experimentation/observation

>there is only one definition of the term universe, even if an individual is explicit about their particular use of it, which may or may not differ from typical usage

>I, the OP of this thread, developed the inflation hypothesis

holy shit, did you only have highschool physics or something?

Whatever faget. :)

AUTISM
just admit if you cant answer the question
also, please pick up a real book on cosmology and stop watching videos from black science man

this
thats your answer OP
/thread

There is no "outside" the universe under normal theories of inflation, unless you are talking about something totally different that you made up

Who are you even replying to?

I didn't make any of the claims you are attempting to refute.

Hello, Dr. Krauss.

back to with your unscientific baseless """hypothetical""" models of the universe you pull out of your ass.

Might as well ask us to describe the precise physical dimensions of olympus

>he didn't get the joke

>he doesn't understand Poe's law

How was that poe's law, it was clearly a clever little pun

>pick up a real book on cosmology and stop watching videos from black science man
your dunnin-kruger is showing

>pick up a real book on cosmology and stop watching videos from black science man
your dunning-kruger is showing

ssshhh...your friends are calling you from the other universe dumkid ;)

>There is no "outside" the universe under normal theories of inflation

Inflation implies multiple universes.

These universes have their own physical laws and dimensions, i.e. four forces and 4D space time.

What is the space outside of these regions/universes hypothesised to be like?

Is it infinite dimensional?

That's my question.

You can call everything that exists the universe or the multiverse or the everything, call it whatever you like.

So let's not get into the definition of the term 'universe'.

>Inflation implies multiple universes
No it literally does not. Where did you get this idea?

Oh shit, I didn't even see that.

I have sun stroke from being outside all day yesterday BBQing.

>Inflation implies multiple universes.
explain. the matter in universe has been expanding since its birth, explain how this even proves that there is another universe.

>These universes have their own physical laws and dimensions
First show your evidence for the existence of these universes and then show your evidence that they have diffrent laws of physics

If you can't, then don't bother and just go back to

ssshhh...your friends want you back ssshhh back to your board ufokid sshhh...aliens can hear you m8. better put on one of these so they can't read your thoughts.
ssshhh keep your head down rapefugee
ssshhh...keep breathing now little bronie...let all your anger out...this is your safe space...just forget you got cucked again it never happened...keep breathing now....

CANCER

This.

There is nothing /x/ about the inflation theory. If would actually pick up a textbook on entrylevel cosmology, you would learn that. Stop spreading unscientific bullshit on here

back to with your no-evidence claims and "hypothetical" 8 grader universe models

we are talking about a hypothesis

You have yet to explain how exactly inflation implies multiple universes. So far everything you have said is /x/ tier wank

Based on which scientific grounds ?
Talking about pink singing ponies in alpha centauri is also a hypothesis but we don't discuss autism here.

back to

This place is for adults to discuss science. You think a hypothesis means "random shit I just made up" and dont understand basic levels of cosmology. Educate yourself on science before posting here, faggot

If our universe is resultant of quantum energy density fluctuations in space leading to the creation of a false vacuum and hot big bang phase transition, then given an infinite amount of time there will be an infinite number of universes.

The physical laws that govern our universe and its dimensions were determined by the nature of the fluctuations that gave rise to our universe.

The pre-big bang space is considered to be infinite, which I have just remembered and therefore answered my own question.

This thread is now redundant to me but feel free to continue arguing amongst yourselves.

see

>alking about pink singing ponies in alpha centauri is also a hypothesis
well, it isnt you huge fucking retard

you autism does not go beyond random shit you made up unless you insist on not showing the credible scientific basis for your bullshit claims

ssshhh aliens are here dumkid. keep quiet or they gonna probe ya. as bible said ;)

>the inflation theory is MY bullshit claim and has no scientific basis

PLEASE PICK UP A BOOK ON COSMOLOGY AND EDUCATE YOURSELF

I am not even saying this to be snarky, but you really lack in knowledge of very basic concepts

>the "go back to autist" ruins yet another thread by not understanding science

>where is your evidence ?
>ITS IN THERE SOMEWHERE

>>what is the universe expanding into?
>>my question
>Pick one.

He's not wrong.

You asked:
>what does our universe ‘exist in’?
...as though the universe were floating in a beaker full of formaldehyde sitting on a shelf in God's living room.

What's more, you framed this in the context of the inflation hypothesis.

Assuming we aren't expanding "into" anything, then we don't "exist in" anything either.

>universe is the thing that encapsulates everything as a concept
Well... that's like insisting that an atom must surely have no internal parts, because of how we originally defined the word "atom".
"Universe" doesn't mean quite what the word originally meant, any more than "world" or "atom" do.

>What's more, you framed this in the context of the inflation hypothesis.

>Assuming we aren't expanding "into" anything, then we don't "exist in" anything either.

You don't understand inflation, but that's ok.

For the 50000th time, where's your evidence ?

>A hypothesis (plural hypotheses) is a proposed explanation for a phenomenon.

>For a hypothesis to be a scientific hypothesis, the scientific method requires that one can test it.

>Scientists generally base scientific hypotheses on previous observations that cannot satisfactorily be explained with the available scientific theories.

>Even though the words "hypothesis" and "theory" are often used synonymously, a scientific hypothesis is not the same as a scientific theory.

>A working hypothesis is a provisionally accepted model proposed for further research

>i need spoonfeeding

Wont happen. You can use this to get a basic understanding of it and follow the notes to get to some more advanced textbooks on this.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_(cosmology)

This thread is for people who already understand the subject, not to convince brainlets of it. Sorry, I charge a lot for teaching

Are you pretending to be OP?

t. OP.

Ssshhh go stay in your loser corner with Bernie sad little man.

>I have no credible scientific basis nor evidence to back up my retarded model of the universe.
Finally you've come around.

no. how? Was I that much of a faggot?

>a scientific hypothesis is unscientific
ok

ssshhh...stop crying and focus on the thread already. how about you post a flag of what you think would fit for the technorepublic ?

>my retarded model

Yeah that's right guys, I developed the inflation hypothesis and am the reason there's a multimillion dollar experimental program running at the South Pole right now.

#BICEP

I'm a big deal, basically.

/x/tards must remain in

ssshhh...keep your head down you small IQ brainlet

...

ssshhh you're wasting whatever IQ you got left little braintard. Not that it matters to you anyway.

/x/tards got BTFO once again.

ITT: one samefag theater.

This should be in sticky as an example of what not to post. Our OP manages to be: retarded, autistic, magically thinking, underaged, butthurt about facts, popsci fag.

and then there is all the spamming

not a scientific thread so nobody cares

I'm, OP.

These are my posts:

This post made the thread redundant.

Nobody ITT understands inflation.

>Nobody ITT understands inflation.
...said the /x/tard

no, this post did it
it answered your question. stop crying now

The spammer seems to care immensely. Autistic.
If you see a thread you dont care about, dont post in it. If it is really off-topic it will get deleted anyway. No reason to turn this into /b/

>if you see an /x/ thread, just let it go
How about no. /x/tards can't complain that their retarded threads constantly get shit on here.

If they wanna discuss unscientific subjects their place is /x/

Thats right and all. But I dont see how cosmic inflation is unscientific

Hi, OP.

To answer your question:

It is possible that the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity may have an infinite number of dimensions, but not necessary.

For example, the Hartle–Hawking state is a proposed wave function of the Universe, which is calculated from Feynman's path integral.

It is a hypothetical vector in the Hilbert space that describes this wave function and it is a functional of the metric tensor defined at a (D − 1)-dimensional compact surface, the Universe, where D is the space-time dimension.

The precise form of the Hartle–Hawking state is the path integral over all D-dimensional geometries that have the required induced metric on their boundary.

According to the hypothesis, time diverged from three state dimensions after the Planck time and such a wave function of the Universe can be shown to satisfy the Wheeler–DeWitt equation.

>It is possible that the Hilbert space of a theory of quantum gravity may have an infinite number of dimensions, but not necessary.

Yeah, I guess it depends on what one takes as their Hilbert space when drawing up a model.

It'd be cool if the universe was an infinite fractal.

>It'd be cool if the universe was an infinite fractal.

It would, but I feel like it'd make new age hippy types feel as though they had discovered the true nature of the universe while high on shrooms.

>muh ego death

Yeah, but that would be a laugh though.

It took 83 replies, 15 of which were OP trying to explain inflation to idiots, before an actual reply was posted here This board is cancerous.

answer already posted here

It was obvious to anyone who understands inflation what OP meant by 'universe' and on top of that, OP clarified his definition multiple times.

You're far too autistic to understand this thread.

>hurr u just dont understand
Oh the irony. Sure the answer was a bit short, but it was obvious to anyone who understands inflation and what OP meant by 'universe'

"The universe" describes every point in space which has had or currently has matter or energy in it. "Outside" of the universe is just completely empty space.

not even that. There isnt even space. There is absolutely nothing

OP here.

I wanted to know if the Hilbert space was always infinite in eternal inflationary models.

I also clarified my definition of 'universe' to mean 'region of non-inflating space'.

So, you're wrong.

I wasnt wrong. It just wasnt detailed enough for you it seems. So fair enough

You thought that my use of the term 'universe' meant everything that exists.

This would be the multiverse in relation to eternal inflationary models.

It was a misunderstanding, resulting from my question being too ambiguous to be fair.

there is the potential for matter and energy to occupy it, it's just that nothing has been there yet

here. Hi everybody!

Got one question
A very serious one

>There is no outside, the universe expands into itself
There is no outside
>There isn't any "space" outside of the universe.
>There is no "outside" the universe under normal theories of inflation
>literally nothing

Does this mean that all points on the surface of the balloon are the actually the same point?

What does the paranormal board on Veeky Forums have to do with science?