IMO in the above two cases the word calculated should be used. The issue is what exactly is measured and which calcultions are performed to the two fractions.
Figure 4.2 at page 72
This picture is misleading.
The CMB radiation we observe now comes from a relative tidy sphere ,filled with plasma, in space. This sphere has be grown in size with a radius of roughly 42 billion light years at present.
The plasma has evolved in the stars and galaxies we can observe now, not in the way they were just after the Big Bang nor how they are at present, but at different moments in the evolution of the stars and galaxies as a function of the parameter z (red shift) or distance.
Instead Alan Guth writes:
You can also raise a different question: What caused this doubling process?
There is nothing wrong with the terminology "the universe" meaning: Everything that exists.
The problem is with the terminology "Our Universe" meaning: all that we can observe. This definition is in fact in contradiction with the ERH Hypothesis. See page 254 , because it reflects the human point of view.
What "Our Universe" should mean: is the physical reality "created" or caused by Our Big Bang. What we observe is an image of the state of "Our Universe" in the past. See also page 48
This leaves the possibility open that the size of "Our Universe" caused by "Our Big bang" is smaller than the size of "the Universe" (meaning everything) and that there occured more Big Bangs.
In some cases the details of the processes involved can not be directly observed. This is the case for example when elementary particles are involved. To unravel these inner details different experiments have to be performed with different outcomes to deduce these details.
In the case when a hydrogen atom is considered (H1 which consists of 1 proton and 1 electron) the claim that the electron can't simultaneously have an exact position and velocity is rather misleading.
The issue is that both can't be measured simultaneously, because measuring the position also influences the behaviour.
This means that the Heisenberg uncertainty principle is mainly a human measurement problem and not a Law of physics
The problem is more subtle: You can not measure the position of an electron twice (in order to calculate the velocity) because measuring the position changes the direction of the electron and influences the velocity.
Newton's and Einstein's Law do not predict the future from the present. That is impossible. In order to use Newton's Law to predict the future you must include observations from the past.
The whole issue is an accuracy issue. That means you can not predict the future with 100% certainty.
In order to describe the outcome of experiments with a fixed number of outcomes ( 2 with a coin, 6 with a dice, 37 with roulette) you do not need the concept of wavefunction and collapse.
The only thing (in most of these cases) is that you want to be sure that the chance of each outcome is identical. The only way to figure this out is by performing many experiments.
(0.5 0.5) "It's here and there (0.5 0.5) at the same time" (0.5 0 ) "It's here or there (0 0.5) I just don't know which"
|My face is not symmetric. My face is only symmetric roughly speaking.
The emphasis in the book is on two concepts: Multiverse (That there is more than 1 Universe) and mathematics.
The conclusion of the book is the statement: "Our Mathematical Universe". IMO such a conclusion does not improve our understanding of the evolution of the universe. This evolution is a sequence of physical actions or processes. Part of this processes you can describe using mathematical equations but not with great accuracy. The further back in time the greater this uncertainty.
We know that Our Sun collects comets. Each of these collisions will disturb the movement of the Sun slightly. As such will the exact position of the Sun stay a mystery in the past and also in the future.
IMO the whole flatness problem is much more a mathematical problem than a physical problem.