before the big bang, - SciForums.com

tablariddim

11-16-05, 11:21 AM

It's The most difficult question. What was there before the big bang; before the universe; and in the case that 'God created it', then the question becomes, 'How was God created', what came before 'God'? Essentially the same question.

Well, the short and most honest answer is that we don't know; have no way of knowing and probably never will. It's that 'something coming from nothing' dillema, our logic says it's improbable and probably impossible.

Thing is, why should there have been even a nothingness there? To say nothing was there, is to imply that there was 'something' that was 'nothing', or an empty vessel, an empty space, but why was the space there to begin with? Why should there have been a space there at all?

Getting back to logic; it tells us that infinity is also impossible; you know, no beginning and no end. Logic tells us that there must be a beginning somewhere so we have another dillema. I think infinity can exist in mathematics, but we have to wait for a mathematician to post on that theory.

Try an easier question Chi:D

c7ityi_

11-16-05, 01:54 PM

Time can't start somewhere in time (past), neither can the universe. There was no Big bang.

Well, the short and most honest answer is that we don't know; have no way of knowing and probably never will.

Some people have known everything for thousands of years.

devils_reject

11-16-05, 02:28 PM

there is this theory of dark matter and matter. These two matters collided and exploded in our galaxy, causing energy, which reverberated like a domino effect. In some areas it was congested while other areas had smaller energy fields. So high were this energy that when it attained a "cooler" state conciousness was a result of this condensaton.

RoscoHowOriginal

11-16-05, 06:25 PM

If time had no beginning, there would be an infinite amount of time before the present. Which means that no matter how much time has passed you would never reach the present. Which is where you are, I think.

They say to imagine that spacetime is like a big rubber sheet stretched out. If you put a bowling ball on it it dips. If you put a marble near the bowling ball it will roll towards it. This represents gravity. If you put a ball that is really heavy on the sheet it will bend so much that even if you are moving at the fastest possible speed you cannot help but fall in. It's possible that the ball could be so heavy that it would tear the sheet, and anything that fell in the hole would be lost forever to the tiny inhabitants of the rubber sheet universe. In this way matter can be lost to a universe without actually being destroyed.

Maybe this stuff can take some time and space from the original universe and somehow become a new universe. I know there is no real reason to think this, and it doesn't explain where the stuff in the sheet universe came from, but i am just saying it is a possiblility, not saying we should teach it in high schools in Kansas.

Baron Max

11-16-05, 07:42 PM

...and in the case that 'God created it', then the question becomes, 'How was God created', what came before 'God'? Essentially the same question.

No, it's not the same question. The very term "god" implies something that does NOT follow any of the laws of the universe, man's laws of physics or any other "laws". "God" implies a superman, a super intelligence, a super everything, who can and does defy all known laws of the universe. I.e., "god" can create or destroy energy ...even tho' man can not!

Baron Max

PsychoticEpisode

11-16-05, 07:47 PM

Virtual particles.....do they really appear out of nothing?

Dano9700

11-16-05, 09:13 PM

Time began with the big bang, thus the concept, before the big bang, is a incorrect, because you can't have a before if you don't have time.

Thats what I read some time ago. It hurts just thinking about it, how can there be no before.. Arrhhhh

I've never really understood physicists' notion of time, only that they say time itself is substantial, or tangible (I'm not sure if those are the right words) in some way, instead of being an abstract concept that we earthlings use to make sense of our passing lives, i.e. the typical everyday human sense of time. I'm pretty sure that scientific 'time' is what Blindman is referring to, and not abstract time. Which makes statements like these:

If time had no beginning, there would be an infinite amount of time before the present. Which means that no matter how much time has passed you would never reach the present."

Time can't start somewhere in time (past), neither can the universe.

irrelevant. I don't think standard logic can be applied to the sort of time that pertains to Big Bang -like theories, because our understanding is completely subjective.

Can someone bother to try and make more sense of this concept for me, or point me in the right direction? It's a concept that's always puzzled me because it's so hard to wrap your brain around.

EmptyForceOfChi

11-17-05, 06:06 AM

So some of you are saying that the energy of the universe has always been there? But what created that energy in the very, very FIRST place? A series of "bangs" doesn't explain that. So ....where did that energy come from in the first place?

Baron Max

yeah i was looking to discuss the root of the energy source, im very aware of theories with multiple bangs and crunches, i just want to discuss the initial energy source, and theories on how something can be the source, without bieng infinate, its hard to comprehend i was hoping some people migh have some good ideas,

peace

EmptyForceOfChi

11-17-05, 06:13 AM

first thing that we know is fact,

energy cannot be destroyed only transformed,
so a big bang that created everything cant be possible, there has to have been something that set the bang off, existance cannnot just come out of a random explosion that had no reason to happen,

the only way a single bang created the universe, is if something liek god just said let there be light and created an explosion in an untouched dimension type thing, and then just stood back and watched for billions of years (he would have alot of time on his hands) but then that still dosent explain anything, because god was already existing and as universe means everything, something was already existing wich means the bang wasnt the creation of existance, it was just the creation of our little existance inside a greater one,

so then if there was a higher force, what created that, what im asking is what was the first glimpse of anythign whatsoever, god couldent just be infinate right? isnt infinity impossible? so whats tarted everything? if there was a start?

and yeah tab its a hard question, but theories dont harm anyone, and its good to have a challenge as a collective,

peace

Baron Max

11-17-05, 07:53 AM

so then if there was a higher force, what created that, ...

God does NOT follow any physical laws, and surely not those "invented" by man! Ye're trying to apply laws to god ...as if he'd have to follow them, he doesn't.

Baron Max

apendrapew

11-17-05, 07:54 AM

I'm kind of under the impression that the life of the universe begins when the ultimate black hole explodes and the energy cools down and turns into matter. The matter expands until gravity accumulates and pulls it all together again back to a single point. And then it explodes again. And the cycle repeats itself forever. So what happened before the big bang? The big contraction. Makes sense to me, but then again, I don't really know anything about astronomy or physics for that matter.

Baron Max

11-17-05, 08:57 AM

So what happened before the big bang? The big contraction. Makes sense to me, ....

But WHAT was there to contract? And if there was something there in the contraction, where did it come from? One can't have "contraction" without something to contract ...where did it come from in the first place?

Baron Max

apendrapew

11-17-05, 09:07 AM

"But WHAT was there to contract?"

The previous iteration of the universe.

"where did it come from in the first place?"

I guess my answer to that is, nowhere. The energy came from nowhere. It was always just... there.

No beginning - no end. Just iteration after iteration, 'ya hear?

Baron Max

11-17-05, 01:38 PM

No beginning - no end.

That's kinda' tough on the old brain, ain't it? We humans have an idea of something "beginning", ya' know? It's kinda' difficult to consider that all that energy was just sitting out there waiting to expand or contract.

No matter what you say, it had to have a beginning ....and that causes the brain to do a bit of pondering, don't it?

Baron Max

Pete

11-17-05, 05:27 PM

Asking what happened before time began is like asking what is under the center of the Earth.

To me, the big question is "did time begin at the Big Bang singularity?"

Did time begin at all?

It's really a philosophical question, and it traps our human minds - we shy away from possibility of time beginning, but we also shy away from a past eternity. It's not acceptable to our intuition for time to begin, and it's not acceptable for it not to begin.

A number of very bright philosophers have tried tackling this question. It's not surprising that at least one (Tomas Aquinas) considered it to be a direct proof of the existence of God.

Blindman

11-18-05, 12:06 AM

Another way to look at it is to imagine the universe and all time pass and future as just one big static block. We are simply moving through this block.

In other words the universe just is. It has no time, thus no beginning or end, nor the unfathomable concept of infinity.

Also you can use the paradox of the beginning of time as the always approachable (if we revers time that is) but never reachable. Like the speed of light, we can alway go a little closer to the speed of light but never reach it.

Just my opinion.

Lucas

11-18-05, 01:04 AM

That's kinda' tough on the old brain, ain't it? We humans have an idea of something "beginning", ya' know? It's kinda' difficult to consider that all that energy was just sitting out there waiting to expand or contract.

No matter what you say, it had to have a beginning ....and that causes the brain to do a bit of pondering, don't it?

Baron Max

Standard Big Bang theory has been sometimes dubbed a "religious theory", because it requires an act of creation. Many people don't like the idea of a sudden beggining out of nowhere, and try to develop quantum gravity theories, in which the Universe existed before the Big Bang, in fact it has existed forever. LQC is one of them, I don't have any problem imagining that the Universe has existed forever, or will exist forever into the future. Brane cosmology is another theory proposing a pre-big bang universe, in fact one of the explanations put forward by brane cosmology is the "Ekpyrotic Scenario": the assumption that our Universe was created after the collision of 2 branes

Baron Max

11-18-05, 12:54 PM

...I don't have any problem imagining that the Universe has existed forever, or will exist forever into the future.

Well, the problem that I have with that is that it pretty much defies basic physics and scientific logic. I.e., it's not much different to saying that "god" has been around forever and god doesn't follow the laws of physics. Aren't you just making that transfer/translation? And if so, why not just say "God did it."?

Baron Max

valich

11-18-05, 08:16 PM

No one has yet to answer my posts.

Standard Big Bang Theory states that the universe started from and will end in an infinitesimal small point-space in matter, energy and time. This infinitesimal point contains all the matter and energy in the universe and then - bang! - again we go.

invert_nexus

11-18-05, 08:23 PM

Standard Big Bang Theory states that the universe started from and will end in an infinitesimal small point-space in matter, energy and time. This infinitesimal point contains all the matter and energy in the universe and then - bang! - again we go.

Well.
Allow me to retort.

Their is a problem with your stating that this is Standard Big Bang Theory. The problem is that the last I heard on the subject, there wasn't enough mass in the universe to cause a Big Crunch. There has been much muddling and fuddling and fiddling with dark matter, dark energy, etc... since that time, but even so I've yet to hear a decisive statement that a Big Crunch is assured. As far as I know, the 'general consensus' is that the universe keeps expanding forever and suffers a final whimpering heat death some countless eons in the future ('death' being a misnomer, of course. More like really boring eternity of particles so far apart that nothing ever happens....)

Anyway.
M-Theory has some other ideas on what took place. A collision between two branes (our universe being one of them.) I forget what they call this. Epapyroclastic or some weird-ass name like that. Someone here knows the term, I'm sure. Hawking was a big proponent of this at one time. I don't know what he says about it lately though. Hawking's not one to stand still.

valich

11-18-05, 08:28 PM

But then you're questioning the Big Bang Theory to begin with, but this thread is accepting it from the start and asking "before the big bang."? Your comment is a good one but belongs on a different thread.

invert_nexus

11-18-05, 08:31 PM

Who's questioning the Big Bang?
Both scenarios which I have posted have a Big Bang.
The only theory I'm questioning is the Big Crunch. Which isn't part and parcel of the Big Bang.

valich

11-18-05, 08:52 PM

Okay, I see your point. You're stating that there was a Big Bang initially and that now the universe keeps expanding.

You state that "The problem is that the last I heard on the subject, there wasn't enough mass in the universe to cause a Big Crunch."

This is incorrect. According to gravitational pulls observed in the universe, we have not been able to "account" for the additional matter needed in the universe to explain this. Just because we cannot see this matter or that that seen gravitational pull in the universe is not yet fully explained does not suggest that the universe will expand forever.

"The universe today appears to be dominated by a mysterious form of energy known as dark energy. Approximately 70% of the total energy density of today's universe is in this form. This component of the universe's composition is revealed by its property of causing the expansion of the universe to deviate from a linear velocity-distance relationship by causing spacetime to expand faster than expected at very large distances. Dark energy in its simplest formation takes the form of a cosmological constant term in Einstein's field equations of general relativity, but its composition is unknown and, more generally, the details of its equation of state and relationship with the standard model of particle physics continue to be investigated both observationally and theoretically....Einstein's theory of gravity predicts a gravitational singularity where densities become infinite. To resolve this paradox, a theory of quantum gravity is needed. Understanding this period of the history of the universe is one of the greatest unsolved problems in physics."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

valich

11-18-05, 09:00 PM

"Modern observations of accelerated expansion imply that more and more of the currently visible universe will pass beyond our event horizon and out of contact with us. The eventual result is not known."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_bang

"The Big Crunch theory is a symmetrical view of the life of the universe. Just as the Big Bang started a cosmological expansion, this theory postulates that the average density of the universe is enough to stop its expansion and begin a cosm-wide contraction.

It is unknown what the end result would be: a simple extrapolation would have all the matter and space-time in the universe collapse into a dimensionless singularity, but at these scales quantum effects should be considered. Some people use this opportunity to postulate an oscillatory universe, that starts again to expand. Indeed, if symmetry is to be followed, it is meaningless to make a distinction between a Big Crunch and a Big Bang, and so any endpoint may progress to a new universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

EmptyForceOfChi

11-21-05, 07:20 AM

kenworth

11-21-05, 09:00 AM

first thing that we know is fact,

energy cannot be destroyed only transformed,

this is only a fact within our universe.big crunches are irrelevant to this discussion.i drove myself close to insanity thinking about this question a couple of years ago and came to the conclusion that such things are so far out of our own experiences that we cannot grasp them.i mean,i can talk about electrons but when i look at my hand i find it hard to visualise atoms and likewise when i look at the stars i find it very hard to even think about the distances involved.im not saying its pointless to think about but its definately pointless to stress over it as none of us will ever know the true beginning of our existence(and by that i mean the beginning of the chain of events leading to it).

RoyLennigan

11-21-05, 11:19 AM

the theory witht he branes still dosent explain the initial beggining, (if there was one). stating events that could have happened is just like the big bang theory, it has flaws, it still dosent tackle the actual beggining of existance, if things are banging or things are colliding, or things are crunching, something had to make them bang, make them collide, make them crunch, these theorys do hold there own explaining after events that could have, would have etc,but they dont tackle the real question i think more focus needs to be put ont his initial question, instead of sidestepping it with theories of after events,

ive never believed in god or been religious, ive always been spiritual but not religious, but ims tarting to think the answer is "god" or something of this nature, seriously all other explanations dont add up, but if there were an infinite energy bieng such as god, it would explain alot more,

why anything atall? existance is here for a reason, it couldent have just sprouted out of non existances ass, i dont place all my eggs in one basket, or truely believe there is a "god" i do think daoist philosophies could be correct though on anouther note, but anything can be correct, the universe could just be gods/many gods television box,

peace,
belief that god created the universe and that it explains everything is just a cop-out to me.

what seems more likely is that everything has a legitimate cause, and that this chain of cause and effect span infinitely in every direction. you think that we're wasting our time worrying about what started our universe instead of what was behind it all. well i think you're wasting your time thinking that god started it all because, even if god did start the universe, we would most likely never know for sure, so what difference does it make? what we are able to know is if there was a big bang, under what circumstances it happened, what caused the big bang, and then we will try to figure out the details concerning the cause of the big bang. and so on, each time discovering something new about what caused our universe to come into existance. but i believe that we will never find the ultimate cause to our existance.

Baron Max

11-21-05, 12:01 PM

belief that god created the universe and that it explains everything is just a cop-out to me.

But isn't it just as much of a "cop-out" to BELIEVE that one day far into the future, science will find the answer? Aren't both of those a belief?

And it's even moreso true when you made the statement: "but i believe that we will never find the ultimate cause to our existance."

So how is the belief in god a cop-out, but yours is not?

Baron Max

RoyLennigan

11-21-05, 04:04 PM

But isn't it just as much of a "cop-out" to BELIEVE that one day far into the future, science will find the answer? Aren't both of those a belief?

And it's even moreso true when you made the statement: "but i believe that we will never find the ultimate cause to our existance."

So how is the belief in god a cop-out, but yours is not?

Baron Max
yes you're right in saying that it would be just as much of a cop-out to believe that science will find "the answer". but i don't believe that either.

i wasn't really clear with my point. i was thinking of people who think that god created everything and then use that as an excuse to denounce research and the scientific method without really knowing anything about it.

its a cop-out really to say anything absolute, but how can you express yourself in this language without doing so? the reason why i said i believe we will never find out the ultimate cause to our existance is because we can always ask questions. we can always wonder what caused the unvierse, or what caused god, or what caused god's creator, or what chain of reactions led to the big bang, ad infinitum. even if the universe is infinite, or if there is a multiverse and it is infinite (or if there is an ever-increasing complex -verse made of smaller multiverses) then there will still be causes and effects, just an endless amount of them.

i don't completely deny the existance of god because i believe that it is illogical to ever do so. we may find out if there is a god if he shows himself to us, but if there isn't a god, we will never find out.

valich

11-21-05, 04:34 PM

the theory with he branes still doesn't explain the initial beggining, (if there was one). stating events that could have happened is just like the big bang theory, it has flaws, it still dosent tackle the actual beggining of existance, if things are banging or things are colliding, or things are crunching, something had to make them bang, make them collide, make them crunch, these theorys do hold there own explaining after events that could have, would have etc,but they dont tackle the real question i think more focus needs to be put ont his initial question, instead of sidestepping it with theories of after event...

existance is here for a reason, it couldn't have just sprouted out of non existances

peace,What I've been assuming all along, is that there never was a "beginning." I view the Big Bang as a cycle that just contiues to expand, contract, expand, ad infintum. Why can't you comprehend an infinity? We do it all the time in mathematics?

And again, why does there have to be a reason for anything? For existence? It just is: The Tao.

EmptyForceOfChi

11-22-05, 08:21 AM

belief that god created the universe and that it explains everything is just a cop-out to me.

what seems more likely is that everything has a legitimate cause, and that this chain of cause and effect span infinitely in every direction. you think that we're wasting our time worrying about what started our universe instead of what was behind it all. well i think you're wasting your time thinking that god started it all because, even if god did start the universe, we would most likely never know for sure, so what difference does it make? what we are able to know is if there was a big bang, under what circumstances it happened, what caused the big bang, and then we will try to figure out the details concerning the cause of the big bang. and so on, each time discovering something new about what caused our universe to come into existance. but i believe that we will never find the ultimate cause to our existance.

if you read my post as a whole, you will find i dont think god created the universe, i dont "think" anything created the universe, but anything including god is a possibility,

i dont know or believe anything, apart from anything is possible,

peace

EmptyForceOfChi

11-22-05, 08:22 AM

What I've been assuming all along, is that there never was a "beginning." I view the Big Bang as a cycle that just contiues to expand, contract, expand, ad infintum. Why can't you comprehend an infinity? We do it all the time in mathematics?

And again, why does there have to be a reason for anything? For existence? It just is: The Tao.

its possible,

peace.

valich

11-23-05, 11:17 PM

It's certainly possible!

peace!

Xylene

11-24-05, 08:36 PM

If the current theories about the multiverse are right, the present universe that we inhabit was born from a previously-existing universe.

valich

11-24-05, 08:48 PM

Reread what I posted above: we're in agreement. Expand-contact-expand-contract, ad infinitum. None of the other previous universes and none of the other future ones will be alike.

Crunchy Cat

11-29-05, 11:52 PM

Reread what I posted above: we're in agreement. Expand-contact-expand-contract, ad infinitum. None of the other previous universes and none of the other future ones will be alike.

There's also another aspect to the MultiVerse theory. It predicts that our universe may have existed in it's parent universe (as a tiny nub) and then bumped into a sibling and they resultant effect was a rapid expansion and the unvierse we are in today.

valich

11-30-05, 11:58 PM

Where did this fairy-tale come from?

What bothers me the most is that most responders to this thread seem to think that there has to be a "beginning," an "initial," a "creation," or a birth or a dawn that gave rise to what we have today, as if there is no such thing as "eternal," "constant," "everlasting," infinity," time without a beginning or end.

This is like an anthropomorphic extrapolation of our universe: as if just because we are mortal and finite, therefore the universe cannot be immortal and infinite.

Crunchy Cat

12-01-05, 12:31 AM

Fairy tale? It's part of the 'Many Worlds' theory bub... real theoretical physics. Infinite cyclical behavior, finite cyclical behavior, other behavior, it's all theory.

I get a sense that you feel frustrated that people in this thread have not acknowledged your message that a begining / end is not necessary applicable to the structure of the universe.

valich

12-01-05, 04:11 AM

Yes, I do.

Anyways, you post "it's parent universe (as a tiny nub) and then bumped into a sibling." Sources please? I've just never heard of this one.

Crunchy Cat

12-02-05, 12:34 AM

Yes, I do.

Anyways, you post "it's parent universe (as a tiny nub) and then bumped into a sibling." Sources please? I've just never heard of this one.

Sure thing. Dr. Andrei Linde (Professor of Physics @ Stanford University) gave a public lecture about this in March 2003. I am sure he is still active in this area and I would suggest reaching out to him for further info.

RickyH

12-02-05, 12:43 AM

NOTICE TH"IS HAS ALREADY BEEN POSTED IN ANOTHER THREAD - sorry but it did seem like a good place for this just as well as the other place

Please be kind, this is only a theory. This thoery does have alot of supporting information all but one which is the basis of my theory. So if anyone knows about thermodynamics well enough to help with the third law, please do!
Science does state that energy cannot be created but that does not make it true. Seeing as how at one point science stated that earth was the center of the universe.

Ok now on with the theory

Lets say about 15+ billion years ago there was nothing no energy no matter no nothing. well with no energy you obviously have nothing to cause heat. So without heat would space become very cold so cold that it becomes absolute zero. But if that is true then the third law of thermodynmics is wrong which says that absolute zero cannot be reached. one expert on thermodynamics stated this
"ABSOLUTE ZERO?

Unfortunately we are unable to reach absolute zero itself. It is forbidden by the third law of thermodynamics. In practice, though, it is often the heat input from the outside force (or "heat leak") into an experiment which prevents further cooling. In the low temperature limit, all heat capacities C go to zero so that for a heat energy input Q the temperature rise dT = Q/C becomes increasingly large. Even absorbed cosmic rays can produce a significant heat leak."

well if a heat leak keeps us from reaching absolute zero is it possible that a space vacuum could have been this outside force this person speaks of. Seeing as how a space vacuum exist's where there is nothing this seems fairly reasonable to state. Also since many heat leaks can be started by a space vacuum it does seem reasonable to state that. So now that you have a heat leak you now have energy correct. Now that there is energy, you now have the basis of the universe's creation. Also the farthest depths od space are 3 degrees above absolute zero and since space is still expanding it could be heat leaks causing space to expand. So this theroy could be explained with somthing that takes no energy input to cause somthing that gives off an energy output. pay close attention to that because if that is correct it changes the laws of thermodynamics. Since a space vacuum which i beleive takes no energy input to work because it exist when there is NOTHING, and cause's reactions it should be proof that an energy force can be created from somthing that does not take an energy input. I suppose the nly time it does take energy is when it is expanding molecules away form each other but thats not the case this time because there are no molecules yet. So somthing that is caused by a lack of anything, starts somthing thats there when there isnt anything, which is temperature. so does it not equal out?

the website i got the heat leak from from is this http://www.ph.rhbnc.ac.uk/schools/ZeroT/Absolute.html the person who stated it is Michael Lea, a professor of physics at Royal Holloway, and the university of london also a member of the Low Temperature Physics Research Group.

RickyH

12-02-05, 12:51 AM

Also for the big bang theory to be correct there would have to be a energy source to have started a big bang correct? well if there is nothing before the big bang then there is no energy to create the big bang. So how can the big bang be true if it couldn't have happened?

valich

12-02-05, 05:47 PM

Ricky Houy: "Also since many heat leaks can be started by a space vacuum"

Where does this assumption come from?

valich

12-02-05, 06:41 PM

Sure thing. Dr. Andrei Linde (Professor of Physics @ Stanford University) gave a public lecture about this in March 2003. I am sure he is still active in this area and I would suggest reaching out to him for further info."Dr. Andrei Linde of Stanford University, a leading inflation theorist, cautioned that the principle should be invoked with care, but that it seemed sensible to assess all cosmic parameters, all elements brought to bear in support of theories, with one view in mind, namely, "what allows us to be here."

"Only the anthropic principle plus inflation will explain the universe as we see it," Linde concluded.

Both Linde and Guth of MIT have taken another romantic plunge with the idea of "eternal inflation." If an explosive event like the Big Bang, followed immediately by a brief phase of rapid cosmic expansion, happened once, they posit that it could happen an infinite number of times, and may well have.

Conceiving of an inflation that cannot reproduce bubbles of new universes many times, Guth said, seemed "as implausible as discovering a species of rabbits incapable of reproduction." He paused. "So universes reproduce like rabbits."

From the front row, Dr. Rocky Kolb of the University of Chicago piped up, "You mean, pull it out of the hat."

"OK, I'll look for a different analogy some other time," Guth responded.

If there are parallel universes elsewhere, each would have started with its own big bang, grown from a separate inflationary bubble and probably acquired entirely different laws of physics. Ours may not be a typical universe. Instead of the four dimensions of space-time in this universe, Linde suggested, other universes could have as many as 11 dimensions; some could be dimension-challenged, with only 3. Some universes could be stillborn or unstable and short-lived, thus lacking the time to evolve stars and planets where life might emerge. It could be, invoking anthropic reasoning, that a universe must have, say, a cosmological constant of precisely the right value and properties to support intelligent life.

The romantics may have outdone themselves with their eternal inflation and a multiverse instead of a universe. Even if scientists established sound reasons for their existence, parallel universes would be discrete and widely separated entities, beyond communication with each other.

No one in this universe, cosmologists said, would be able to gain any direct knowledge of other universes, though in time the theorists might make a persuasive case for their existence. Human beings would then have discovered the ultimate limit to their knowing what is out there. They might find solace, though, if there is anything to the anthropic principle, in thinking that theirs is a defining presence in the one universe they know and are trying to comprehend."
http://www.ishipress.com/cosmos.htm

Dr. Andrei Linde is a proponent of the inflationary universe theory: inflate-defate-inflate-deflate: expand-contract-expand-contract. But as the reporter states above, "the romantics may have outdone themselves" on this one: multi-universe theory like "rabbits reproducing...OK I'll look for a different analogy."

I can conceive that there are multiple dimensions, but what he's putting forward here, without any explanations as to how (cause-effect, means of way) is kind've a crack-pot. He's throwing out many different possible theories without any support or explanations.

However, also:

"By analyzing the bumps in the cosmic microwaves, which according to inflation are the result of microscopic fluctuations in the mysterious force field that drove inflation, along with other data, scientists have ruled out one simple version of inflation that is often seen in textbooks. Other versions, he added, fit the data quite well. The data are good enough to rule out whole classes of inflationary theories. That is a boon for particle physicists, who want to know what laws governed the universe at the beginning of time."
http://www.arn.org/docs2/news/bigbangconfirmation021302.htm

valich

12-02-05, 06:59 PM

"Some theorists suggest that the Big Bang was not so much a birth as a transition, a "quantum leap" from some formless era of imaginary time, or from nothing at all. Still others are exploring models in which cosmic history begins with a collision with a universe from another dimension.

According to a theory known as eternal inflation, put forward by Dr. Linde in 1986, what we know as the Big Bang was only one out of many in a chain reaction of big bangs by which the universe endlessly reproduces and reinvents itself. "Any particular part of the universe may die, and probably will die," Dr. Linde said, "but the universe as a whole is immortal."

He considered what would happen if, as the universe was cooling during its first violently hot moments, an energy field known as the Higgs field, which interacts with particles to give them their masses, was somehow, briefly, unable to release its energy. Space, he concluded, would be suffused with a sort of latent energy that would violently push the universe apart. In an eyeblink the universe would double some 60 times over, until the Higgs field released its energy and filled the outrushing universe with hot particles. Cosmic history would then ensue.

Cosmologists like inflation because such a huge outrush would have smoothed any gross irregularities from the primordial cosmos, leaving it homogeneous and geometrically flat. Moreover, it allows the whole cosmos to grow from next to nothing, which caused Dr. Guth to dub the universe "the ultimate free lunch."

Subsequent calculations ruled out the Higgs field as the inflating agent, but there are other inflation candidates that would have the same effect. More important, from the pre- Big-Bang perspective, Dr. Linde concluded, one inflationary bubble would sprout another, which in turn would sprout even more. In effect each bubble would be a new big bang, a new universe with different characteristics and perhaps even different dimensions. Our universe would merely be one of them. "If it starts, this process can keep happening forever," Dr. Linde explained. "It can happen now, in some part of the universe."

The greater universe envisioned by eternal inflation is so unimaginably large, chaotic and diverse that the question of a beginning to the whole shebang becomes almost irrelevant. For cosmologists like Dr. Guth and Dr. Linde, that is in fact the theory's lure. "Chaotic inflation allows us to explain our world without making such assumptions as the simultaneous creation of the whole universe from nothing," Dr. Linde said in an e-mail message."
http://www2.gol.com/users/coynerhm/before_the_big_bang_there_was__.htm

This is all just really wild and whacky speculation!

valich

12-02-05, 07:13 PM

"Dr. Andrei Linde used the projector but showed 20 transparencies. His talk was more technical than the talks of Davies and Rees. More equations and diagrams were utilized as he elucidated his inflationary universe models. Whenever he showed
a transparency with lots of equations, he allayed the fears of his audience by saying, "I'm not going to prove these equations. I'm only going to point to them." This elicited lots of laughter. Linde was the most humorous of the three speakers despite his more technical talk."
http://www.wisdomportal.com/Stanford/UniverseOrMultiverse.html

You could also say that, in other words, he posted numerous erroneous technical equations that he dared not attempt to try and explain them to the audience. Else he expose inconsitentcy or fiction.

RickyH

12-03-05, 09:54 AM

Ricky Houy: "Also since many heat leaks can be started by a space vacuum"

Where does this assumption come from?

I did some research on heat leaks, and learned that in labs that try to test for absolute zero. Use the vacuum affect and they do start to case some heat leaks.

valich

12-03-05, 02:46 PM

Do you have a source on that? Or what did you use as your search term? "vacuum heat"? I'm not denying it: just never heard of it. I figure if you create a vacuum, then you suck out all the heat too. At least in a perfect vacuum?

valich

12-03-05, 06:40 PM

I did some research on heat leaks, and learned that in labs that try to test for absolute zero. Use the vacuum affect and they do start to case some heat leaks.I researched "perfect vacuum" and "heat" under google and came up with the following. Most sources say that a perfect vacuum cannot be achieved, and Wikipedia does an excellent job of summing up everything I came across is scientific articles. However, what's stated below, how can anyone take Dr. Andrei Linde's theories seriously when he doesn't himself? He's throwing out multiple possibilities, but doesn't know which one is right or which one that a person should believe in. Then he puts up complicated formulas during a lecture and says, "I won't bother to explain them." If you're not going to explain them, then why confuse the audience by putting them up in the first place? Sounds like he's just trying to impress people.

"A perfect vacuum is an ideal state that cannot practically be obtained in a laboratory, nor even in outer space.... [but then]

The quantum-mechanical vacuum:
Even an ideal vacuum, thought of as the complete absence of anything, will not in practice remain empty. One reason is that the walls of a vacuum chamber emit light in the form of black-body radiation: visible light if they are at a temperature of thousands of degrees, infrared light if they are cooler. If this soup of photons is in thermodynamic equilibrium with the walls, it can be said to have a particular temperature, as well as a pressure.

More fundamentally, quantum mechanics predicts that vacuum energy can never be exactly zero. The lowest possible energy state is called the zero-point energy and consists of a seething mass of virtual particles that have brief existence. This is called vacuum fluctuation. While most agree that this represents a significant part of particle physics, it is a concept that would benefit from a deeper understanding than currently available. Vacuum fluctuations may also be related to the so-called cosmological constant in the theory of gravitation, if indeed this entity were to be observed in nature on a macroscopic scale. The best support for vacuum fluctuations is the Casimir effect.

In quantum field theory and string theory, the term "vacuum" is used to represent the ground state in the Hilbert space, that is, the state with the lowest possible energy. In free (non-interacting) quantum field theories, this state is analogous to the ground state of a quantum harmonic oscillator. If the theory is obtained by quantization of a classical theory, each stationary point of the energy in the configuration space gives rise to a single vacuum. String theory is believed to be analogous to quantum field theory but one with a huge number of vacua - with the so-called anthropic landscape."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vacuum

In astrophysics, string theory needs to postulate multiple dimensions (10 or 21) and the hypothetical "worm holes" are thought to connect one location of the same universe to another location in it, or to connect parallel universe.

Crunchy Cat

12-03-05, 08:07 PM

This is all just really wild and whacky speculation!

High level theory tends to get weird sometimes... doesn't mean it's incorrect / correct. What it does mean is it's waiting for validation / contradiction.

valich

12-03-05, 09:44 PM

No doubt, but like I said, "How can you take Dr. Andrei Linde's theories seriously when he doesn't himself? He's just throwing out multiple possibilities," but doesn't even belief in anyone of them himself? Then he posts a bunch of technical equations, but slides away from trying to explain any of them, so everyone starts laughing. To me it sounds like he's just trying to impress people.

Crunchy Cat

12-04-05, 10:04 AM

If he was an isolated incident, then I would share a similar view. He's not though. 'Many Worlds' theory has grown in adoption since then (I am unsure what has changed though to make this happen).

invert_nexus

12-04-05, 10:34 AM

Valich,

Expand-contact-expand-contract, ad infinitum. None of the other previous universes and none of the other future ones will be alike.

And:

What bothers me the most is that most responders to this thread seem to think that there has to be a "beginning," an "initial," a "creation," or a birth or a dawn that gave rise to what we have today, as if there is no such thing as "eternal," "constant," "everlasting," infinity," time without a beginning or end.

This is like an anthropomorphic extrapolation of our universe: as if just because we are mortal and finite, therefore the universe cannot be immortal and infinite.

Just curious here, Valich. Why is it that you believe in an infinite universe? One that expands and contracts over and over again? As has been stated already, the general consensus (last I heard) was that there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause the universal expansion to slow down and contract again.

Do you understand the math involved? Have you actually performed the necessary equations? Or do you simply like the idea of an infinite universe? Simply dislike the idea of a beginning? The idea of an end in an eternally expanding universe is ludicrous, of course, so I won't even mention that. But, why is it that you prefer one explanation over another? I suspect that you have no true understanding of the actual physics involved and are merely following your intuition. Can you prove me wrong?

As to the "Many worlds" theory, try reading some David Deutsch (of Oxford) as well. He's one of the champions of this idea. The particular theory espoused by Crunchy Cat with daughter universes budding from a parent due to collisions among themselves is one I've never heard before, but is as likely as any other, I suppose. There are many possibilities. We are at a stage of understanding where we can only theorize such things and not truly be able to test them yet. The operative word is yet. But, if we stick to only the tried and true, mundane, blahdy blah, then what's the point?

You have far too much of a fascination for scientific 'laws' and 'facts'. It shows in every post you make. You really need to learn just how precarious are all these things you google up. Theories come. Theories go. Their true value lies in their explanatory value. And as we learn more about the world around us, we learn of different problems in need of explanation and thus the theories must change with us to explain those problems from our new point of view.

Anthropomorphic? Can science be otherwise?
Ha!

You could also say that, in other words, he posted numerous erroneous technical equations that he dared not attempt to try and explain them to the audience. Else he expose inconsitentcy or fiction.

Your lack of imagination is astounding. Ever think that he actually didn't attempt to try and explain because he wanted to inspire his audience to do it themselves? Christ. You want to eat pre-chewed food your whole life? I find it amazingly arrogant of you to judge this man as a hoaxer or what the fuck ever when physicists trained in his field think highly of him. Even if they don't believe his theories one hundred percent, they respect the mind that comes up with them. They weren't laughing him off the podium. They were laughing with him. A man who finds enjoyment and beauty in his work.

And you call him a writer of fiction.
You're a real piece of work.
Stick with your scientific laws and facts, they suit you.
And you say you want to learn?
Ha! You want to know. You have no idea what it is to learn.

To me it sounds like he's just trying to impress people.

Interesting interpetation. And not a surprising one, coming from you.
But, if he were trying to impress people, then wouldn't he be googling up dry facts to show off how much he knows rather than coming up with 'fiction'?
Ha!

Ophiolite

12-04-05, 11:47 AM

Then he posts a bunch of technical equations, but slides away from trying to explain any of them, so everyone starts laughing. To me it sounds like he's just trying to impress people.Oh, my oh my. How ironic.

river-wind

12-05-05, 01:27 PM

energy cannot be destroyed only transformed,
This has been stated a few times, I just wanted to point out that this is no longer held as absolute truth.

The entire idea of Virtual Particles *is* the act of matter/energy being created and destroyed. On a very minute level, yes, but it is still big enough to create a measurable effect on "absolute" zero.

valich

12-05-05, 10:04 PM

Valich, Just curious here, Valich. Why is it that you believe in an infinite universe? One that expands and contracts over and over again? As has been stated already, the general consensus (last I heard) was that there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause the universal expansion to slow down and contract again.

Do you understand the math involved? Have you actually performed the necessary equations? Or do you simply like the idea of an infinite universe? Simply dislike the idea of a beginning? The idea of an end in an eternally expanding universe is ludicrous, of course, so I won't even mention that. But, why is it that you prefer one explanation over another? I suspect that you have no true understanding of the actual physics involved and are merely following your intuition. Can you prove me wrong?

As to the "Many worlds" theory, try reading some David Deutsch (of Oxford) as well. He's one of the champions of this idea. The particular theory espoused by Crunchy Cat with daughter universes budding from a parent due to collisions among themselves is one I've never heard before, but is as likely as any other, I suppose. There are many possibilities. We are at a stage of understanding where we can only theorize such things and not truly be able to test them yet. The operative word is yet. But, if we stick to only the tried and true, mundane, blahdy blah, then what's the point?

You have far too much of a fascination for scientific 'laws' and 'facts'. It shows in every post you make. You really need to learn just how precarious are all these things you google up. Theories come. Theories go. Their true value lies in their explanatory value. And as we learn more about the world around us, we learn of different problems in need of explanation and thus the theories must change with us to explain those problems from our new point of view.

Anthropomorphic? Can science be otherwise?
Ha!
Your lack of imagination is astounding. Ever think that he actually didn't attempt to try and explain because he wanted to inspire his audience to do it themselves? Christ. You want to eat pre-chewed food your whole life? I find it amazingly arrogant of you to judge this man as a hoaxer or what the fuck ever when physicists trained in his field think highly of him. Even if they don't believe his theories one hundred percent, they respect the mind that comes up with them. They weren't laughing him off the podium. They were laughing with him. A man who finds enjoyment and beauty in his work.

And you call him a writer of fiction.
You're a real piece of work.
Stick with your scientific laws and facts, they suit you.
And you say you want to learn?
Ha! You want to know. You have no idea what it is to learn.

Interesting interpetation. And not a surprising one, coming from you.
But, if he were trying to impress people, then wouldn't he be googling up dry facts to show off how much he knows rather than coming up with 'fiction'?
Ha!You know, your post get so ridiculous and just filled with criticism, condescending remarks, and foul language that when I see the name Invert, I normally just skip right over it. Just so you realize how much time you waste on even replying, because it's always a bunch of voidless bull.

90% of matter in the universe is still unaccounted for: thus they call it "Dark Matter." Still, I find the eternal uniberse as the best explanation: expand-contract-expand-contract. The creationist's view or a belief in a god complicates by view of the universe: just like pollution.

I have no time to read David Deutsch, but if you post a reply without criticism or foul language that summarizes his views, I might read it.

Ophiolite

12-06-05, 07:39 AM

Those of you unfamiliar with the weasel vallich may be interested in this analysis of his debating technique. I have place debating technique in italics since I am not certain it is a technique. It could be evidence of limited cognitive skills, or even of a psychotic personality. [Others have proposed he is an AI construct!]
At any rate, I shall give him the benefit of the doubt, here, and presume it to be a debating trick.You know, your post get so ridiculous and just filled with criticism, condescending remarks, and foul language that when I see the name Invert, I normally just skip right over it..This is what I shall call VD1 (Vallich Delivery 1). In VD1 vallich simply states the other poster is not raising any points, but merely indulging in ad hominem attacks. This allows him, ostensibly, to avoid dealing with the issues that have been raised.
Typically he will address one such issue, because he feels it lies within his comfort zone of knowledge. [This is usually a false perception, evident to all except vallich.]
90% of matter in the universe is still unaccounted for: thus they call it "Dark Matter." Still, I find the eternal uniberse as the best explanation: expand-contract-expand-contract. The creationist's view or a belief in a god complicates by view of the universe: just like pollution.This is VD2. Actually, quite elegant, if rather old hat. The explicit structure is this.
I believe A. It is a good thing to believe.
Believing B is really quite foolish.
You must be really quite foolish.
The unstated data is:
Actually, there is another alternative. This is alternative C. It is adhered to by the majority of scientists practicing in the field. This is the alternative favoured by those disagreeing with vallich. None of those challenging vallich in this debate have espoused alternative B, the foolish one, but have opted for alternative C, that held by the majority of scientists.

I commend you all to study vallich's posts for evidence of this, and other, techniques of obfuscation, misdirection and the like. You will find it educational.

valich

12-10-05, 11:28 PM

Valich, "expand-contract-expand-contract"

Just curious here, Valich. Why is it that you believe in an infinite universe? One that expands and contracts over and over again? As has been stated already, the general consensus (last I heard) was that there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause the universal expansion to slow down and contract again.

Do you understand the math involved? Have you actually performed the necessary equations? Or do you simply like the idea of an infinite universe? Simply dislike the idea of a beginning?Are you saying you don't agree with this? Post the math involved but be sure you explain and define the equations. Remember, over 90% of the matter in our universe is still unexplained (that is why we call it "Dark Matter"?), but it is a fact that our universe is now expanding, but slowing down. And your counter facts?

anytime

12-11-05, 03:18 PM

...This is an incredibly stupid question.

Best analogy I can think of is that it's like arguing about what it's like before the birth of a person (from said person's perspective).

To elaborate a little, let's say at t = 0, the universe was confined to singularity like say, in the inside of a black hole.

Laws of physics don't apply in singularities.

Therefore, just like how we will never know what's inside a black hole, we will never know what happened before t = 0.

It's a trite metaphysics question that should just be laid to rest.

valich

12-14-05, 11:02 PM

Locked

Ophiolite

12-15-05, 05:33 AM

..... but it is a fact that our universe is now expanding, but slowing down. And your counter facts?
Robert P. Kirshner Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences
Vol. 96, Issue 8, 4224-4227, April 13, 1999
Perspective: Supernovae, an accelerating universe and the cosmological constant
Observations of supernova explosions halfway back to the Big Bang give plausible evidence that the expansion of the universe has been accelerating since that epoch, approximately 8 billion years ago and suggest that energy associated with the vacuum itself may be responsible for the acceleration.

This is now accepted by cosmologists as accurate. Theorising over the last half decade has sought to account for this unexpected observation.

valich

12-15-05, 07:46 PM

I don't think I would get much out of reading this article, if that's what it says. But isn't this article only positing an acceleration originating from one supernova? Do they posit proof or evidence that the entire universe is expanding? If so, I'll look it up. Thanks.

valich

12-15-05, 07:48 PM

I have to correct that. Of course one supernova will show an "acceleration," and the universe is still expanding, but what do they say about "How long the "entire" universe will be "accelerating""?

invert_nexus

12-15-05, 07:57 PM

Valich,

Are you saying you don't agree with this? Post the math involved but be sure you explain and define the equations. Remember, over 90% of the matter in our universe is still unexplained (that is why we call it "Dark Matter"?), but it is a fact that our universe is now expanding, but slowing down. And your counter facts?

Miss me so much that you had to call me back?
I love you too, pumpkin.

I've stated no predilection for anyone of the particular theories.
Why?
Because I don't understand the maths. I always find it funny when people have this fanatical belief in one scientific theory or another when they, in fact, have no clue about the underlying maths and other foundations of the theory. Laymen who've read a nifty Scientific American article and are now 'experts' in string theory or some such.

Heh.

I find it amusing that you answer my question with a repeat of it. As if my questioning why you believe that the universe is one which expands and contracts infinitely when I believe you have no knowledge of the underlying foundations means that I hold the same fallacy on the opposite side of the fence.

All I can say is that the common consensus in cosmological theory, as far as I'm aware, is that our universe is one that will expand forever. And that the expansion is accelerating even.

But, this theory is conjectured with full knowledge of the dearth of data necessary to truly make the proper computations.

It's theory. Which means that it could well be wrong. But, according to presently accepted models, it is the most likely outcome conjectured at the present time.

But, seeing as how I don't understand the foundations of the theory further than that which a layman can, I can't say with any kind of surety that I believe in one more than the other except to fall back on the age old dependence on authority.

So. I keep my options open.

Now.
Back to my question to you.
Why is it that you believe the universe is a cyclic universe? Do you understand the maths involved? In even a simplistic sense? Or does it just sound good?

valich

12-15-05, 08:24 PM

You're wasting your time. As I said, I don't read your posts: I really don't! Your normal habit is to go line-by-line and just cut me down. Why would I want to subject myself to such depressing abuse.

Post a small comment and I might decide to read it and we'll go from there, but I'm not going to waste my time with what I know will be bull. You started to post some intelligent scientific posts regarding the Avian Flu Virus months ago, but since then, I see your name and just say "no way." It's just abusive language and behavior.

invert_nexus

12-15-05, 08:35 PM

You're wasting your time. As I said, I don't read your posts: I really don't!

Oh?
Is that why you posted to me on the 10th? You know. The post that I'm replying to? You know. This one?

Originally Posted by invert_nexus
Valich, "expand-contract-expand-contract"

Just curious here, Valich. Why is it that you believe in an infinite universe? One that expands and contracts over and over again? As has been stated already, the general consensus (last I heard) was that there isn't enough mass in the universe to cause the universal expansion to slow down and contract again.

Do you understand the math involved? Have you actually performed the necessary equations? Or do you simply like the idea of an infinite universe? Simply dislike the idea of a beginning?

Are you saying you don't agree with this? Post the math involved but be sure you explain and define the equations. Remember, over 90% of the matter in our universe is still unexplained (that is why we call it "Dark Matter"?), but it is a fact that our universe is now expanding, but slowing down. And your counter facts?

You brought me back into this thread. Not vice versa. Come on. Do you remember the things you do from minute to minute? Do you suffer from Korsakov's syndrome, by any chance?

Your normal habit is to go line-by-line and just cut me down.

Well. Since you asked nicely and all. I suppose I'll once more follow my S.O.P. (You may call me an S.O.B. if you wish. I won't mind. She was a real bitch. I'll admit it.)

Why would I want to subject myself to such depressing abuse.

Dunno. Why would you? Seems like you were up for it 5 days ago though when you decided to respond to a post of mine.

Anyway. It's only depressing and it's only abuse because you make it so.

Post a small comment and I might decide to read it and we'll go from there, but I'm not going to waste my time with what I know will be bull.

A small comment? What like, "How much cock could Valich suck if Valich could suck cock?" Nah. I lalready did that one.
Heh. Anyway.
What? My short comment up above wasn't short enough for you?
Where was the abuse?
Where was the derision?
I did briefly get on you for basically reiterating my question to you about believing in a theory without understanding the underpinnings of the theory, but nothing derisive. Personally, I think you'd be well-served to learn that theory is only the best explanation available at present. You've always seemed to denote far too great a solemnity upon scientific research and theoretical explanations.

You started to post some intelligent scientific posts regarding the Avian Flu Virus months ago, but since then, I see your name and just say "no way."

Well. You tend to bring out the worst in me, my friend. You could at least give me a reacharound.

It's just abusive language and behavior.

Would it make you feel better if I kissed you when I was done?

Ophiolite

12-16-05, 03:17 AM

I have to correct that. Of course one supernova will show an "acceleration," and the universe is still expanding, but what do they say about "How long the "entire" universe will be "accelerating""?
Vallich, go read the article. Here is a link to the on-line version. The full paper is available.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4224

As I said in my prior post "This is now accepted by cosmologists as accurate. Theorising over the last half decade has sought to account for this unexpected observation."
This is the paradigm, an accelerating expansion, that the large majority of cosmologists are working from. The only ones who seem to be opposed are those who dispute the Big Bang in any form, and half of them are probably playing Devil's Advocate.

anytime

12-16-05, 05:03 PM

My two cents:

No one is entirely sure about the "shape" of the universe right now. There are three possibilities, but they all illustrate the same general principle.

1) The universe is "closed." In this case, in principle, if you took a spaceship and flew far enough in one direction you'd end up back where you started. So the universe has no boundaries BUT it has a finite volume. An analogy might be to the surface of the earth--the surface has finite volume, but you can never find an "edge" to it while you're on it.

The fact that the universe is "expanding" does NOT mean that the universe is taking over empty space. It means that the surface on which we live is getting larger. Think of it as if we were all two-dimensional beings that lived on the surface of a balloon. The balloon is the universe to us--we have no idea there's anything but the rubber of the balloon's skin. Then someone starts inflating the balloon. So we see it as the universe "expanding" in that there's more area for us to run around in. If I'm at one spot on the balloon, and someone else is on another spot, then as the balloon inflates we'll get further away from each other. But just because it's expanding doesn't mean that it has a boundary--it's still a sphere, and therefore has no edges.

2) The universe is "flat." In this case the universe would be infinite in a more traditional sense--you could go forever in one direction and you'd never come back to where you started. But even though it's infinite, it still expands. Using a balloon analogy again, say we had an infinite 2-dimensional sheet of rubber. It's total area is infinite, so obviously it can't "expand" in the traditional sense. But if I pull on it, it will stretch, and this will be viewed by the inhabitants of that sheet as expansion--again, if I'm stuck to one piece of rubber and my friend is stuck to another, we perceive ourselves as getting more distant from each other. And this process is occurring simultaneously at every point in the universe.

3) An "open" universe. This is shaped like a 4D hyperbola. It's very hard to visualize. The closest analogy is to a saddle but that really isn't a good enough analogy.

The shape of the universe has implications for our ultimate fate. A closed universe will ultimately collapse back into itself (and maybe oscillate) and the universe will end in an enormous fireball. A flat universe will expand forever, but the expansion will slow down until the rate of expansion equals zero. An open universe will expand forever, but the rate of expansion will remain finite and nonzero. In flat and open universes the universe gets colder and colder forever.

Open is considered the most likely possibility, and if you polled researchers you'd probably get 70% or more who picked this. (In fact, a fair amount of data suggests that the rate of expansion has been speeding up.) Flat is the next most likely. Closed is extremely unlikely--only a few diehards cling to this in the face of the data. The oscillating universe, philosophically appealing as it is, is basically dead.

Xylene

12-16-05, 09:14 PM

ok can i stress one point please before we start this discussion,

keep to the point before the big bang, this isnt a topic about anything after the bang, only events/energy/existance/something before the bang,

ok what are peoples theories about existance (if any) before the bang,

what was there what caused it?

peace

Well, how about the idea that there is a multiverse--a veritable foam of universes with a whole slew of different properties--which existed before this universe, and out of which this universe was born?

valich

12-16-05, 10:10 PM

Vallich, go read the article. Here is a link to the on-line version. The full paper is available.

http://www.pnas.org/cgi/content/full/96/8/4224

As I said in my prior post "This is now accepted by cosmologists as accurate. Theorising over the last half decade has sought to account for this unexpected observation."
This is the paradigm, an accelerating expansion, that the large majority of cosmologists are working from. The only ones who seem to be opposed are those who dispute the Big Bang in any form, and half of them are probably playing Devil's Advocate.I'm not denying any of this. Read my posts above. The article states:

"we could observe the era when matter was the most important constituent of the universe and the universe was decelerating. At those redshifts, the relation between redshift and flux would bend back toward brighter fluxes, while the effects of gray dust presumably would grow, or at least remain constant. To make accurate measurements of this effect will require discovering and making good measurements of redshift 1 supernovae whose light is redshifted into the infrared. The Next Generation Space Telescope may play an important role in this decisive test."

Anytime: Your "two cents" are worth three. Chess anyone?

Xylene: "a multiverse--a veritable form of universes with a whole slew of different properties--which existed before this universe, and out of which this universe was born?"

Nice point as it is imagined - and even scientifically conjectured - that a previous and future universe would not have the same physics as our's does now.

Lucas

12-18-05, 08:01 PM

valich

12-19-05, 08:55 PM

"Lambda-CDM (ΛCDM model) is an abbreviation for Lambda-Cold Dark Matter. It represents the current concordance model of big bang cosmology that explains cosmic microwave background observations, as well as large scale structure observations and supernovae observations of the accelerating expansion of the universe. It is the simplest model that is in agreement with all the observations.

Λ (Lambda) stands for the cosmological constant which is a dark energy term that allows for the current accelerating expansion of the universe. Currently, approximately 70% of the energy density of the present universe is in this form. Cold dark matter is the model where the dark matter is explained as being cold (not thermalized), non-baryonic, collisionless dust. This component makes up 26% of the energy density of the present universe. The remaining 4% is all of the matter and energy that makes up the atoms and photons that are the building blocks of planets, stars, and gas clouds in the universe. The model assumes a nearly scale-invariant spectrum of primordial perturbations and a universe without spatial curvature. It also assumes that it has no observable topology, so that the universe is much larger than the observable particle horizon." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lambda-CDM_model

Oh, how I love these little wicked Wikipidea definitions. Only joking! But the way they state it seems to end in a contradiction in terms of topography: "assumes no spatial curvature" yet then states "assumes no observable topology." Why not have curves? Look how great they look on girls! And curvatures can come in many shapes:

"An observable Universe that is spatially "nearly flat", from the measured curvature, allows for a simplification, whereby the dynamic, accelerating dimension of the geometry can be separated and omitted by invoking comoving coordinates. Comoving coordinates, from a single frame of reference, leave a static geometry of three spatial dimensions.

Of eight feasible geometries given by the geometrization conjecture, the shape of the observable Universe, or the local geometry, is in all likelihood described by one of the three feasible spacial geometries:

3-dimensional Euclidean geometry, generally annotated as E3
3-dimensional spherical geometry with a small curvature, often annotated as S3
3-dimensional hyperbolic geometry with a small curvature, often annotated as H3

Even if the Universe is not exactly spatially flat, the spatial curvature is close enough to zero to place the radius beyond the horizon of the observable Universe."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_universe

I interpret this as saying that we can see it as flat, but it can still have curves and/or a curvature at the edges, and thus not make it infinitely flat - maybe folding in on itself at the edges. But also, it may be the current accepted hypothesis of an accelerating expanding universe, but no where does it say that it has to "keep on" expanding. This model can still hold true for the present state of the universe until the universe be shown to start decelerating, thus implying a stop and contraction. It doesn't imply that this is always how it has to be?

Mythbuster

12-21-05, 10:25 AM

valich

12-22-05, 10:37 PM

Only an "absolute vacuum" is empty, but physicists don't normally talk about a vacuum as such because it is unobtainable. Therefore, you are right, this is why we receive background radiation, but this is a form of energy. Interstellar space consists of plasma.

Dinosaur

12-23-05, 12:32 AM

After reading all the posts, a few thoughts have occurred to me.

First, saying god did it is a copout. Saying we can never know is not the same type of copout (I do not consider it a copout at all). Attributing the start to god pretends to be an answer which requires no further analysis. It says: “problem solved, I know the answer: god did it.” Denying the possibility of finding an answer might be called giving up, but not a copout.

Saying that science will find the answer seems to be a bit of a copout, but at least it is not a claim to be an answer to the question.

There is some reason to suppose that time, space, matter/energy, et cetera are artificial abstractions developed by our minds to help us understand the world of our senses. If the reality is a mix or interaction of these abstractions, then time & space cannot exist independently of matter. This concept might not help us understand, but it compresses the problem to wondering how the matter/energy came into existence. Until matter/energy existed, there was no time and perhaps no space, eliminating the problem of what was happening before the Big Bang.

The above does not help me much, but perhaps it might give others an idea.

It is interesting that Einstein once said: Past, present, & future are very convincing illusions. Maybe he was on to an important concept that most (all?) of us are missing. I think this idea is related to his concept of World Lines.

50 or so years ago the Big Bang, the Steady State (Continuous Creation), and Alternating Bang/Crunch theories were all considered possibilities. The Alternating Bang/Crunch Theory was abandoned very early in the controversy for some (I suppose) good reason. I am sure that the reason was not related to lack of sufficient matter to cause a gravitational collapse. For some time after the Big Bang won out over the other two theories, there was still talk about the possibility of a Crunch.

They might have had some good reason to suppose that after a crunch, there could not be another Bang. They might have thought that Alternating Bangs/Crunches would run down. At any rate, I think the Bang/Crunch theory was untenable before recent discoveries about Dark Matter, Dark energy, and an expansion that is speeding up.

I can think of no reason why the laws of physics in other universes (if any) should be different from the laws of physics here. This concept is mentioned in many contexts, but I have yet to see it as anything more than idle speculation. I will not go on record as denying the possibility of a different set of laws, but consider it highly unlikely due to the absence of supporting evidence.

Many worlds does not seem like a terrible idea if you do not use it as an explanation for Quantum weirdness, but I have yet to see any supporting evidence for the existence of other universes. We have one, so zero universes is not correct. If there is another, I find it hard to imagine that there is not a third, fourth, et cetera. Zero and Two universes seem like the only impossible alternatives, while one seems to the only alternative with supporting evidence.

The anthropomorphic principle does not seem to be an explanation. Our existence seems to be a result of a lot of random processes (Assuming the validity of Quantum Theory). Trying to use such a result as an explanation does not make sense to me.

2inquisitive

12-23-05, 03:43 AM

by valich:

I interpret this as saying that we can see it as flat, but it can still have curves and/or a curvature at the edges, and thus not make it infinitely flat - maybe folding in on itself at the edges. But also, it may be the current accepted hypothesis of an accelerating expanding universe, but no where does it say that it has to "keep on" expanding. This model can still hold true for the present state of the universe until the universe be shown to start decelerating, thus implying a stop and contraction. It doesn't imply that this is always how it has to be?
================================================== =============

When they say the universe is 'spatially flat' they mean light travels in a straight line, unless bent by some massive object's gravitational field. It has nothing to do with the 'topology' of the observable universe, the 'shape' of the observable universe in other words. When they say the radius of the universe is larger than the observable particle horizon, they are, in effect, saying that there is no possibility of observing the 'edge' of the universe because light from particles beyond this horizon will never reach us because of the tremendous expansion rate. We can never determine the universe's 'shape' by observation of its fartherest reaches. They HAVE estimated the size of the OBSERVABLE universe. Remember we are looking back in time as we look at the most distant objects. By estimating how far those distant objects would be from us NOW due to the expansion, the figure is 154 billion light years in diameter. The most distant objects we have observed were over 13 billion light years from us when the light we see was emitted. That light was emitted 13 billion years ago, and the objects are thought to be receeding from us many times the speed of light due to the increasing rate of expansion, thus they arrive at the estimated size at this present time in its evolution. I have no idea if this is correct, but cosmologists and astronomers much more knowledgable than I have arrived at these conclusions from the analysis of data.

One last point. Current data suggest the universe will continue to expand forever because there is not enough mass, and thus gravity, to reverse the expansion even when dark matter is included. The gap between NEEDED mass and estimated mass is quite large. The only thing I have read of that could possibly reverse the expansion is IF dark energy somehow changed its properties and became attractive instead of repulsive. I am not aware of any accepted mechanism for that to happen, but I believe several theorists are working on such a hypothesis.

Lucas

12-25-05, 07:34 PM

By estimating how far those distant objects would be from us NOW due to the expansion, the figure is 154 billion light years in diameter. .

No, the diameter is believed to be 92 billion light years

A team of cosmologists measured that the universe cannot be smaller than 78 billion ly accross. See
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=977

An article in a web of a magazine of popular science mistook the information and declared that the radius was 78 billion ly.

Look page 5 of the following article. it gives the correct estimate
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=5&catID=2

2inquisitive

12-25-05, 10:58 PM

No, the diameter is believed to be 92 billion light years

A team of cosmologists measured that the universe cannot be smaller than 78 billion ly accross. See
http://www.bioedonline.org/news/news.cfm?art=977

An article in a web of a magazine of popular science mistook the information and declared that the radius was 78 billion ly.

Look page 5 of the following article. it gives the correct estimate
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=5&catID=2

I guess it is according to whom you quote. I did make a mistake from memory, the number quoted is 156 billion light years in diameter. The news was all over the web when it came out, also a result of WMAP, 2dF galaxy red shift survey and other collabrations. Here is a cut & paste and link from one of the articles:

"All the pieces add up to 78 billion-light-years. The light has not traveled that far, but "the starting point of a photon reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is now 78 billion light-years away," Cornish said. That would be the radius of the universe, and twice that -- 156 billion light-years -- is the diameter. That's based on a view going 90 percent of the way back in time, so it might be slightly larger."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html
Edit: The correct title of the mission was the 2dF Galaxy Redshift Survey, or the 2dFGRS. The Sloan Digital Sky Survey results were also used in the estimates.

Lucas

12-26-05, 07:41 AM

I guess it is according to whom you quote. I did make a mistake from memory, the number quoted is 156 billion light years in diameter. The news was all over the web when it came out, also a result of WMAP, 2dRF galaxy red shift survey and other collabrations. Here is a cut & paste and link from one of the articles:

"All the pieces add up to 78 billion-light-years. The light has not traveled that far, but "the starting point of a photon reaching us today after travelling for 13.7 billion years is now 78 billion light-years away," Cornish said. That would be the radius of the universe, and twice that -- 156 billion light-years -- is the diameter. That's based on a view going 90 percent of the way back in time, so it might be slightly larger."
http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/mystery_monday_040524.html

That's the article I was referring to: unfortunately is not accurate. It occurs that articles in popular magazines are often wrong. The paper written by Cornish, the man that carried out the experiment, is here
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310233.pdf

he said in the article that "we will be able to exclude the possibility that we
live in a universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter"
24 Gpc is equal to 78 billion ly

in the article is not said that the radius is 78 billion ly

he also says that "with lower noise and
higher resolution CMB maps (from WMAP ’s extended
mission and from Planck), we will be able to search for
smaller circles and extend the limit to 28 Gpc" (28 Gpc is equal to 91 billion light years)

Unfortunately the second year data of WMAP was due to be released more than a year ago, but mysteriously its releasing has been postponed and nobody knows when it will appear

2inquisitive

12-26-05, 03:03 PM

That's the article I was referring to: unfortunately is not accurate. It occurs that articles in popular magazines are often wrong. The paper written by Cornish, the man that carried out the experiment, is here
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0310/0310233.pdf

he said in the article that "we will be able to exclude the possibility that we
live in a universe smaller than 24 Gpc in diameter"
24 Gpc is equal to 78 billion ly

in the article is not said that the radius is 78 billion ly

he also says that "with lower noise and
higher resolution CMB maps (from WMAP ’s extended
mission and from Planck), we will be able to search for
smaller circles and extend the limit to 28 Gpc" (28 Gpc is equal to 91 billion light years)

Unfortunately the second year data of WMAP was due to be released more than a year ago, but mysteriously its releasing has been postponed and nobody knows when it will appear

I think you may be a little confused about the timeline, Lucas. Cornish was the astrophysicist that was quoted in BOTH articles. Your numbers come from an earlier analysis, soon after the WMAP results were in. The 156 billion light year diameter estimate was NOT misquote or mistake, it was the result of further analysis by Cornish and many other scientists. The 156 billion year diameter is the newest estimate, along with an age of 13.7 billion years, plus or minus .2 billion years. Here is a link to Montana State University that should eliminate any doubts.
http://www.montana.edu/news/1105290436.html

Edit: Seems I did not read the entire article at Montana State Univ. Lucas, you were correct that the 156 billion years diameter quote was a mistake. The correct estimate is 78 billion light years. Discover magazine mistakenly thought the 78 billion light year estimate was the RADIUS of the observable universe, not the diameter. NASA's site on the WMAP mission does not speculate on a diameter of the universe, just the age of 13.7 billion years (+ or - .2 billion years).