Theory of Infinity

atlantis, as I am sure that "Steady State" and some others have realized, you have succesfully "invented" the Steady-State model of the universe previously invented by British astrophysicists Hermann Bondi and Thomas Gold. This theory was taken by astrophysycist Sir Fred Hyle and quantified into an equation, explaining by how much the universe was "continuing to create itself". The equation looked something like this:

creation rate, dC/dt=4X10 to the -44 gram/centimeters cubed/sec.

A simpler way of desribing the steady state model is that, the universe, though expanding indefinitly, takes on an unchanging and eternal quality since the voids that result from expansion are flled by the continual spontaneous generation of new matter. Hence creation of matter need not be the product of a singular happening in a finite past, but simply an ongoing law of nature.
Incidentally however, we do find many gaps, many "wide open spaces" in the universe. Also, since in the steady state model, matter is continuously created, the ages of observed portions of matter should be very sparce, some as old as 14 billion years, some older by even humndreds of billions of years, some as new as yesterday. This applies especially to stars and galaxies. If the universe were eternal in age, and if it were expanding by any means, including the spontaneous generation of matter, we would observe a mixed variety of youg, old, and extinct stars and galaxies. What do we observe? We observe a host of "youthful" stars and galaxies, with ages rangeing not much further back than 14 or so billion years. This can be considered "youthful" because the average life expectancy for a star is quite longer than that. In fact, most of the stars in the universe have the capability to burn for more than 80 billion years.
Another way to refute the steady state theory is by using a theorme that I have become quite fond of, the "singularity theorem", which provides that "a universe that is expanding, filled with matter and energy, and obeying any physically acceptable equation of state, must have been singular in the past, regardless of any lack of symmetry today." This is scientific law, not just theory. The universe, contrary to your theory that the universe is eternal yet expanding, and the steady state theorem which gives the universe infinite capabilities of expansion, must have at one time been a singularity, which is defined as "an infinitly shrunken space representing the boundary at which space ceases to exist or at which space comes into existance". There had to have been, at one time, no universe. Now there is a universe. The singularity theorem, as well such celebrated rules of the universe like the Space/time theorem of general relativity by Hawking and Penrose, general and special relativity by einstein, and countless other fundamental physical laws refute the idea of an infinite universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

samus has it right. The big bang is no longer the subject of serious debate in the scientific community based on about a dozen or so different laws of physics Indeed there are many principles in physics that dictate a universe with an expressed beginning. Some include the singularity theorem, Hwaking and Penrose's space/time theorem of general relativity, Einstein's general relativity and special relativity, and a myriad others. Others, while not directly supporting the big bang, make the success of an infininte universe impossible. Thermodynamics do this rather well in fact. If systems tend toward entropy as time goes by, then an infinite universe would have no order whatsoever (an infinite amount of time having already passed). Good boy samus

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Hi Samus,
Quote:
the model of the universe i gave is the one used by most of the top professors. i know because i asked most of the top professors via email a question relating to this and this is the model all of them gave me. i don't really care whether you believe it or not.
Unquote.

Some time ago I did some internet searching trying to find some sites discussing "the Universe", specifically dealing with "creation" or lack thereof. I ran out of time before finding much. I sent out a number of e-mails to professors at educational facilities (colleges/universities) that showed up in my web searches and asked for info, and only one responded with "?". Then I found this Forum, and posted my "belief" here, which is that of multiple big bangs. Not that "our" local bang cycles, but that they occur in an infinite number of "locations" in the universe.
So, can you forward me some of the responses mentioned in the above quote? Any URLs for the professors?

Thanks,
SteadyState
aerowood@mcsi.net

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The greeks didn't use 0, so nothing is infinitum.

 

Hi I knew and reading all this infinite time theories, concepts and stuff, I have concluded one thing...

YOU ARE ALL CRAZY!!!!

Of course I am still here to post what I think of infinity. I think that the known and current state of the Universe is at a finite size yet since the universe is expanding, the size will always change and thus can grow to larger size. This does not mean that the Universe is infinite but that we do not have the technology or capability of measuring the size of the Universe and because of it's vast size it is believed that there is no end. Maybe one day someone will solve this...

 

the world is flat

-adam

 

samus, so far, you really have not given any evidence for an infinitly-oscillating universe. In fact, you have done well to damage its credibility by making statements such as "we have found objects which are older than the universe." First of all, no we haven't. This is a crock for several reasons. The first is that there are very few ways and very few objects we can date with any accuracy without having physical samples we can touch and experiment on. All of this "older than the universe" stuff you speak of is non-interactive, we can only look at it. Now if it were a star (which we can date with a reasonably low probability of error) that were older than the universe, that would be something, but even a star must give way to the laws of common sense. In an infinitly oscillating universe, all matter collapses in on itself and then blows back apart. Do you really think that a star (or any object even right down to the size of a pin-head) would not be completely re-distributed in such a cataclismic event? There would be nothing recognizeably "older than this universe." To say that such objects exist is either a lie or a gross error.

Another thought on the matter is that during the collapsing process toward a hypothetical bounce, at least one region or volume (technically called a "domain") in the universe would utterly resist being crushed to the tiny volume necessary for the exotic effects of quantum gravity to take over.

In all interaction there is a distinct amount of entropy as a result. An interaction between all matter and all energy such as a "bounce" or initial explosion would produce entropy like has never before been known. When such an explosion occured, we were left without even the possibility of another ordered collapse and bounce, even if such bounces are hypothesized to occur in the quantum gravity era.

To change the direction of my post: One subject (on this I might be horribly wrong) that I recall on this string of posts is the general shape of the universe. It has been some years since my modern physics course wherein we discussed this topic, but here goes: this is what I remember. If the universe moves fast enough away from the epicenter of the big bang, the shape is a hyperboloid (saddle shaped), if it moves juuuuust right the shape is flat, and if it moves any slower the shape is a sphere. I really dont recall much about this, it might even hinge on some critical mass. Someone put all this straight for me okay, I would love to remember this stuff!

micah lee

 

Ok, Interesting but makes no sense.... Infinity is countless.... it is all that exists, a number never to be determined... Infinity is a constant factor which never stops changing... therefore any form of math does not work in this theory

 

I read an interesting article somewhere??? about a spinning universe Einstein developed which had the effect of time running backwards...awesome!!

 

I'd like to comment on one of the first replies to this topic:

Something that is infinite is static. Our universe is anything but static it progreses (goes through stages). To ware we do not know but we do now that it is not static. From this we can infer that the universe is not infinite.

I believe that the universe is actually static. An analogy would be when you are driving down a road, and the scenery around you changes. In reality though, the scenery is not changing at all. I propose that our time dimension is composed of an infinite progression of "frames", with each frame representing a seperate dimension of 3-D space. And- for example- each frame of yourself believes that it is in the process of experiencing moving through time, when in fact it is frozen in the "movie reel". In other words, each frame of your lifetime believes that it is the present time.

 

I doubt it...

Energy cannot be created or destroyed,it only transforms,that's why the example you gave above,show just the transformation of the energy,not its creation.