4 ms·
> "In an infinitely old and infinitely large universe this should actually be a common occurrence. So why are we not Boltzmann Brains ourselves?" Because our U
by jbmorgado 10y ago
> "In an infinitely old and infinitely large universe this should actually be a common occurrence. So why are we not Boltzmann Brains ourselves?"
Because our Universe is neither infinitely old (is about ~14 thousand millions years old) nor infinitely large (is about 90 thousand millions ly in diameter).
Now this might seem big for you, but it's actually infinitesimal when compared to the number of necessary permutations in order for higher intelligence to appear solely by a quantum fluctuation.
This means that the only scientific possibility for higher intelligence to appear, is then that only a very small set of universe conditions must occur so that atoms then stars then planets then life then intelligent life has the time and conditions to form.
- daxorid 10y agoBecause our Universe is neither infinitely old (is about ~14 thousand millions years old) nor infinitely large (is about 90 thousand millions ly in diameter) You have just suggested the universe expands at roughly 6c, no?
- lucozade 10y agoThat's correct. Current estimates are that spacetime at the edge of the observable universe is expanding at about 6c.
- jbmorgado 10y agoIn the early moments after the big bang, the metric of the universe expanded much faster than the speed of light increasing it's size way above the c x t linearity. This doesn't violate relativity though, since what is expanding is the length of the spacial dimensions, but the particles between themselves are moving slower than the speed of light (imagine 2 points in the surface of a balloon when the ballon is inflating).
- Analog24 10y agoThe acceleration of the Universe has not been constant. In the very early Universe there was a period called Inflation where the speed of expansion was much much much faster than the speed of light.
- solipsism 10y agois about 90 thousand millions ly in diameter This is the diameter of the observable universe. We don't know if the universe is infinitely big, but all signs (e.g. the flatness of space as far as we can measure it) point to it being infinite, or very very much larger than our observable sphere. I don't understand why I'm constantly having to inform smart people of this very basic fact. Is there something wrong with the way we teach astronomy? Can you help me spread the word?
- akvadrako 10y agoYour "fact" didn't support the grandparent's argument, so now amount of teaching will get him to accept it. His other fact is also pointless - it doesn't matter how old the universe is now; the idea is that most Boltzman brains will form in the future.
- jbmorgado 10y ago1st. It's not an argument, it's science and what your parent just said violates general relativity (read the lengthly answer given in the thread). 2nd. The great grandparent asked: "So why are we not Boltzmann Brains ourselves?" and that's what was being answered. I hope that this teaching will get you to accept it...
- Analog24 10y agoIt does not actually violate general relativity. You can read the response to the post you reference for some more details.