Why does the universe exist?

An eternal infinite universe seems most likely...more likely than a finite universe created by an eternal infinite entity.
Why is it here..well there is no where else to put it.
Alex
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
An eternal infinite universe seems most likely...more likely than a finite universe created by an eternal infinite entity.
Why is it here..well there is no where else to put it.
Alex
Click to expand...
Seems most likely to you as amateur star-gazer. I posted the first link below some time back: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3618962/
The second, March 2020 follow up strengthens the case for a closed universe further.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04935
Much less problematic imco than your preferred infinite universe. BB-style event happened. Exact details still up for grabs. Anyway, star-gaze on.
 
Saint said:
When energy first exist in universe?
High School's Physics says energy cannot be destroyed nor created, is it true?
Where did energy come from?
Click to expand...
There is a hypothesis that the total energy of the universe is zero, on the basis that the -ve gravitational potential may be exactly balanced by the ve energy in rest mass of matter (including binding energy) and radiation.
 
Q-reeus said:
Seems most likely to you as amateur star-gazer. I posted the first link below some time back: http://www.sciforums.com/posts/3618962/
The second, March 2020 follow up strengthens the case for a closed universe further.
https://arxiv.org/abs/1911.02087
https://arxiv.org/abs/2003.04935
Much less problematic imco than your preferred infinite universe. BB-style event happened. Exact details still up for grabs. Anyway, star-gaze on.
Click to expand...
I understand that with regards to the topology of the universe, we still are not sure if the universe is totally flat and infinite, or if that "flatness" is just part of a much larger curvature, which as yet we simply cannot detect.
That is reflected in the two papers you linked to....
"The assumption of a flat universe could, therefore, mask a cosmological crisis where disparate observed properties of the Universe appear to be mutually inconsistent. Future measurements are needed to clarify whether the observed discordances are due to undetected systematics, or to new physics, or simply are a statistical fluctuation".
and
"We conclude that either LCDM needs to be replaced by a drastically different model, or else there are significant but still undetected systematics. Our result calls for new observations and stimulates the investigation of alternative theoretical models and solutions."

Any positive outcome would be pretty big news, just as the eventual discovery of gravitational radiation was in further confirming GR, and the eventual image taken of a BH, or more correctly, its shadow.

I can certainly understand why Alex prefers an infinite universe, to any supposed infinite deity, but by the same token any finality in determining the universe to be finite, does not mean that any deity is either valid or needed.
I like Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing" scenario, with the quantum foam being defined as the nothing most of us envisage as nothing.
 
gmilam said:
How do you know this? How do you know the universe hasn't always existed?
Click to expand...
Better question is if this universe always existed. AFAIK, current science say this universe began with BB, suggesting it did not always exist. It's possible that there was something before the BB, but that's pure speculation.

I like the concept of a toroid manifold. Is this geometry compatible with universal mechanics as we know them?
18932e244f298dccef865bd1a96342f0.gif
The mathematical simplicity which allows for a dynamic recycling seem eminently functional.

https://www.pinterest.com/pin/400187116892348253/

IMO, before the BB, there existed a mathematically "permittive" condition of indefinite size.....:rolleyes:
 
Last edited:
Q-reeus said:
BB-style event happened.
Click to expand...
Hi Q-reeus
Nice to hear from you..read from you?...hope you are well and surviving what may be difficult times..I hope for you they are not.
Thank you for the links.
I finally have come up with the realisation that we really dont know how or if the universe had a start or not if it is infinite or not and I find a certain contentment in accepting that I know that I don't know whereas others all believe they do know and by they I mean everybody who does not readily admit what I just have...I have never liked the big bang for no other reason that it would seem to me all who engaged the matter may have had a predisposition to the notion of a creation point which personally I find un necessary and at least to me not logical.
I had resolved not to waste time here but seeing your post and your kindness to post links that no doubt you knew would interest me I felt I really should reply and thank you.
On the positive even with crook legs I have been up from before day break concreting the piers supporting my new observatory and stopped for a rest but I plan to continue resting while reading up on combining narrow band channels in a new program I have under consideration.
All the best.
Alex
 
paddoboy said:
I understand that with regards to the topology of the universe, we still are not sure if the universe is totally flat and infinite, or if that "flatness" is just part of a much larger curvature, which as yet we simply cannot detect.
That is reflected in the two papers you linked to....
"The assumption of a flat universe could, therefore, mask a cosmological crisis where disparate observed properties of the Universe appear to be mutually inconsistent. Future measurements are needed to clarify whether the observed discordances are due to undetected systematics, or to new physics, or simply are a statistical fluctuation".
and
"We conclude that either LCDM needs to be replaced by a drastically different model, or else there are significant but still undetected systematics. Our result calls for new observations and stimulates the investigation of alternative theoretical models and solutions."

Any positive outcome would be pretty big news, just as the eventual discovery of gravitational radiation was in further confirming GR, and the eventual image taken of a BH, or more correctly, its shadow.

I can certainly understand why Alex prefers an infinite universe, to any supposed infinite deity, but by the same token any finality in determining the universe to be finite, does not mean that any deity is either valid or needed.
I like Lawrence Krauss, "A Universe from Nothing" scenario, with the quantum foam being defined as the nothing most of us envisage as nothing.
Click to expand...
If Lawrence Krauss's pet idea of a zero energy universe were true that implies the universe HAS to be spatially infinite and exactly spatially flat overall.
But you have become acquainted for some time now with alternate expert views e.g. Sean Carroll that don't subscribe to that notion.
 
Xelasnave.1947 said:
...I finally have come up with the realisation that we really dont know how or if the universe had a start or not if it is infinite or not and I find a certain contentment in accepting that I know that I don't know whereas others all believe they do know and by they I mean everybody who does not readily admit what I just have...I have never liked the big bang for no other reason that it would seem to me all who engaged the matter may have had a predisposition to the notion of a creation point which personally I find un necessary and at least to me not logical....
Click to expand...
That reads like progress of sorts to me.
...On the positive even with crook legs I have been up from before day break concreting the piers supporting my new observatory and stopped for a rest but I plan to continue resting while reading up on combining narrow band channels in a new program I have under consideration....
Click to expand...
Wow. And I had visions of you just out in the back yard with a tube on a tripod. Time to upgrade your status to serious amateur astronomer.
Do post pics of your pride and joy.
 
Q-reeus said:
If Lawrence Krauss's pet idea of a zero energy universe were true that implies the universe HAS to be spatially infinite and exactly spatially flat overall.
But you have become acquainted for some time now with alternate expert views e.g. Sean Carroll that don't subscribe to that notion.
Click to expand...
The overall position is we cannot be sure of the topology. I like Krauss' spec that the quantum foam is nothing.
 
paddoboy said:
The overall position is we cannot be sure of the topology. I like Krauss' spec that the quantum foam is nothing.
Click to expand...
Actually the very word 'foam' implies it is something. QFT/QG assumes a vacuum filled with various quantum fields all having quite mathematically complex properties. Not my idea of 'nothing'. Krauss has admitted as much when cornered.
 
Q-reeus said:
Actually the very word 'foam' implies it is something. QFT/QG assumes a vacuum filled with various quantum fields all having quite mathematically complex properties. Not my idea of 'nothing'. Krauss has admitted as much when cornered.
Click to expand...
Krauss' position, and others, is that the quantum foam is as close to what we may normally perceive as nothing, as we can get. Makes perfect sense. How do you not have space? or time?
Again, the things science is ignorant of, is no reason to assume anything unscientific.
 
Q-reeus said:
Wow. And I had visions of you just out in the back yard with a tube on a tripod. Time to upgrade your status to serious amateur astronomer.
Do post pics of your pride and joy
Click to expand...
If you look in my thread "Some Photos" posts
211 and 85 have photos of my observatories. Bear in mind that I only started this project 12 months ago and you may see a number of things unfinished and untidy. E everything was going well until a tree fell on my fire pump and water supp.y pump at my dam and that threw things into confusion and set me back months..also the second observatory was not planned but it was an opportunity price wise I could not let go.
The "Some Photos" thread is in this section.
At p0st 85 is my project to house two mounts built by me over the last 12 months at post 211 is a photo of my recent acquisition which I plan to put in a 16 inch astro graph ... I change my mind a fair bit between the 16 inch and something smaller because driving the 16 inch may be a little difficult for me. And I have yet another small observatory in the city to bring here so finally I will be running four separate rigs.
Alex
 
Last edited:
Xelasnave.1947 said:
If you look in my thread "Some Photos" posts
211 and 85 have photos of my observatories.
At p0st 85 is my project to house two mounts built by me over the last 12 months at post 211 is a photo of my recent acquisition which I plan to put in a 16 inch astro graph ... I change my mind a fair bit between the 16 inch and something smaller because driving the 16 inch may be a little difficult for me.
Alex
Click to expand...
Thanks Alex. Never bothered to look at that thread and surprised at how good a few of those astro pics are - false color makes them really stand out. Enough off-topic digression though.
 
Q-reeus said:
Thanks Alex. Never bothered to look at that thread and surprised at how good a few of those astro pics are - false color makes them really stand out. Enough off-topic digression though.
Click to expand...
You may have missed my edit made just now.
Anyways back to "Why does the Universe Exist"...
Alex
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top