How to construct an infinite universe

Discussion in 'Pseudoscience Archive' started by thoughtbomber, Mar 29, 2003.

  1. thoughtbomber Registered Member

    Hello All,

    I'm new to this forum and I have noticed that a lot of people here have an interest in the idea that the universe is infinite. I don't have any scientific background or knowledge, but I won't let that stop me from giving you the final authoritative answer to this question (kidding).

    Most scientists seem to believe and argue that the notion of infinity is a contridiction of the theory of relativity, because relativity implies that the universe is of relative proportions and is expanding therefore must have had a definite begining.

    Suppose for a moment that the universe is both expanding and contracting at exactly the same rate (e=mc2). The expansion of the universe would be electromagnetism, the contraction of the universe would be gravity, and the place where the two meet would be space. Therefore space would not contain electromagnetism and gravity, but is actually composed of them.

    Wouldn't this unify gravity, electromagnetism and space into a system that is both relative (the expansion and contraction) and infinite ( having no beginning, and no end)?

    Also wouldn't this situation produce friction between the expansion and contraction? If so this could explain the even dispersment of cosmic background radiation. It might also provide a way to prove infintity.

    For instance, If someone could write an equation predicting the amount of radiation one would expect from this friction, and it correlated with the actual amounts measured from space. This would be a strong evidence for the hypothesis.

    Another way to test this would be to compare the behavior of electromagnetism and gravity over distance through space. It is well known that electromagnetic waves shift toward the higher frequency (red) over distance and time. Thus light argues that the universe is expanding. Why wouldn't it? Light itself is expanding. Gravity on the other hand is contracting. If a scientist could visually see a gravity "wave", I predict there would be a low frequency shift (blue), suggesting that the universe is contracting. The combined evidence would suggest the universe is both expanding and contracting.

    Yet another perspective would be the way the hypothesis treats the subject of time. If the universe were both expanding and contracting, then we could argue that the future is composed entirely of gravity, the past is composed entirely of electromagnetism, and the present is composed entirely of mass.

    Wouldn't this unify space and time?

    I know this arguement is very incomplete and largely philosophical, but I would appreciate anyones response.

  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  3. lalalandscape Registered Senior Member

    Well, considering you posted this almost 10 years ago, it seems doubtful I will get a response back. I'm not sure how you have reasoned that electromagnetism = expansion?
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  5. BeFreeAgain Registered Member

  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement

    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Not to just recap the video, but when science determined that the location of particles like electrons seem to be able to be in more than one place at one time, the interim theory invoked by the video was that eventually we found or at least concluded that the only explanation is that particles don't just exist in our universe, they flit in and out of universes and there then could be an infinite number of parallel universes or worlds.

    And each of them is slightly different.

    That allowed for talk about an infinite number of other universes where every event possible from every point in every universe plays out in another parallel universe; a troubling thought to some but a potential reality to others.

    Some sequence of events on the path: Kaku's reference to the beginning of the universe and the scenario he conveys of the Big Bang and the subsequent scientific revolution of the 1980's, that matter is made up of little strings.

    The thinking emerged that nature is made up of all the little notes that are played on these superstrings.

    At that point some said that it was so weird an idea that it immediately started to sound like a ToE.

    The test; does it explain the birth of our universe?

    Hyperbole in the video made it sound like the cosmologists all thought we were on the verge of a great discovery, but the idea did emerge in force.

    Merging the birth of the universe, the Big Bang, and all the matter in it, with string theory proved problematic, and after 10 years the two pet theories began to self destruct.

    BBT's awkward gap, the event itself, the Singularity, was the result of the breakdown of the equations that work perfectly back until 10^-35 seconds, and then fail.

    To make matters worse, scientists found multiple versions of string theory, as many as five of them.

    Then a new and startling discovery that forced string theorists to confront their least popular idea, parallel universes. It happened as a result of mathematically adding a dimension to string theory.

    Michael Duff's supergravity which had been discarded in favor of string theory in the mathematical community. Supergravity was distinguished from string theory by the number of dimensions in the universe.

    ST had 10, 9 spatial and one time.

    SG had 11 based on the simplest and most elegant mathematical framework.

    String theorists tried to survive their theories and so they examined the 11th dimension by adding it to the existing 10 dimensions and found it united the five versions of string theory into Duff's supergravity theory that they had discarded.

    The new conclusion was that all the matter in the universe was connected in one dimension, the 11th; what is called a membrane; M theory.

    The membrane had to be infinitely long and less than a trillionth of millimeter thick though, in order for supergravity to work as we observe it.

    The story goes back then to Lisa Randall who contemplated the weakness of gravity and proposed that this weakness might be explained if we have extra dimensions. Could gravity be leaking from our dimension into the empty space of the 11th dimension, thus explaining its weakness relative to other forces?

    The leaking concept lead to the idea of there being another 11th dimension, i.e. multiple 11th dimensions, and that our gravity was leaking to us from the other 11th dimensions.

    That lead to examination of all old theoretical dead ends, including the singularity, and it was found that every time, the solution could be found in another parallel universe; a result that was described as a suitably outrageous answer.

    The question came up about what happens if these branes collide?

    The video then goes to Neil Turok and the big questions of cosmology, importantly, the question of a beginning. Turok explains that if you can get through the singularity you are on your way to a complete theory of the universe.

    In a chance train ride to see the play Copenhagen, Turok and his partners asked why can't you create a universe out of a collision of membranes? They discussed universes instead of one universe which seems to also be discussed as "worlds" out of the collision of other "worlds"; the big bang is the aftermath of some encounter (collision) between two parallel worlds or branes.

    Then the singularity is solved if they can explain the clumping of matter that we observe in our "world". To explain matter, the branes could not be perfectly flat, they have to ripple, and it is the ripples that went on to cause the clumps of matter after the big bang.

    And then, by being able to take the clock back to before the big bang, they establish that the big bang was not the beginning, but there was time before the big bang; a time when the colliding branes were waves in the 11th dimension. When we go back in time to before the start of our expansion, our Big Bang, we move into a time when the parent branes were on a collision course in the 11th dimension; problem solved!

    Some say that there is disappointment in that the universe that science sought to explain may be nothing special, just one of a potentially infinite number of parallel worlds; like the arenas in QWC.

    So you ask what we think? I like it. If some of the great minds in math and physics, cosmologists, want to go with it, I'm with them because in my own layman logic I come up with a model that also takes the dimension of time back to before our big bang, and I come up with multiple universes or big bang arenas that collide and produce new arenas. I call my version Quantum Wave Cosmology, but it is best characterized as layman delisions and not science, though there are some interesting parallels

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  8. BeFreeAgain Registered Member

    Very interesting, thanks!
    Isn't it all amazing?

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

  9. rr6 Banned Banned

    Mental Construct of Infinity

    <> = macro-infinite = outwardly infinite

    oo = symbol for infinity

    3.14........ = another expression of macro-infinity?

    [......] = infinite set?

    [ ---- ] = infinite set?

    >< = micro-infinite = inwardly infinite?

    .999..... = micro-infinite aka infinitely inward multiplication by division of a wholeness identified as 1( one ) or whatever whole or is rational number?

    Finite =integrity = wholeness = quantum/quanta = discrete = value = countable etc.....

    Oh yeah, does etc....= infinity also......

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!


Share This Page