Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
7 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,816 Year: 3,073/9,624 Month: 918/1,588 Week: 101/223 Day: 12/17 Hour: 1/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Problems with an Infinite Universe
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 61 of 95 (130661)
08-05-2004 11:53 AM


this should help...
It's a t-shirt design I did. It'll make you feel more intelligent and look cooler while you're doing it...
...they look bloody good on even if i do say so myself
hit me up if anyone wants one...

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 62 of 95 (130679)
08-05-2004 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by nipok
08-05-2004 5:26 AM


Re: starting over
Hi nipok
1) the Universe is expanding. The galaxies are moving away from one another. Every point in space is moving away from every other point in space.
2) If we were to run the clock backwards we would therefore see the galaxies move towards one another
3) At a point approx 14 billion years ago, all points in space meet up in an infinitely dense singularity. Note there is no space outside this singularity - all the points in space coincide.
4) It has been shown that the initial state of the Universe must have been a singularity. The predictions made by the theory are borne out experimentally to a quite fantastic degree (variations in background radiation).
5) Tough bit - space and time are inextricably linked. To understand why this is so, you'll have to understand Einstein's theories of relativity. Plenty of websites do that far better than I could. It is more correct to talk of "space-time" rather than space and time and to say that spacetime began at the Big Bang.
added by edit: following developments in String theory, there seem to be several theories emerging in the past few years about a Big Bang prehistory (Veneziano). Maybe I should hold judgement as to whether time itself began at the Big Bang?
6) We can have no information as to what happens beyond the singularity - in fact this doesn't even seem like a meaningful question. It is possible that the Universe we see (the Hubble sphere) is only one of many "universes" comprising a "multiverse". There has been much speculation on this (it also makes the most sense to me personally), but not a single shred of proof. I think there are 2 ways that you can test this, but one involves killing yourself (quantum suicide) and the other involves building a sentient computer (David Deutsch).
(Apologies to Eta for the above).
PE
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-05-2004 11:34 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by nipok, posted 08-05-2004 5:26 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 64 by nipok, posted 08-05-2004 8:36 PM Primordial Egg has replied

  
usncahill
Inactive Member


Message 63 of 95 (130829)
08-05-2004 7:28 PM


multiverse idea
comment on eggs last statement(6)..
any point in space should also have a hubble sphere equal in size to our own given that: the same amount of time has passed at all points in space and photon decoupling should have occured at nearly the same time at all points in space (barring the last few photon collisions since that approx. time). wouldnt it be an easy assumption to make, then, that each one of these spheres is its own 'universe' (visible universe) (and some of these spheres surrounding around our own will intersect with ours, kind of like bubbles with shells that cross over each other). just an idea..

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 64 of 95 (130851)
08-05-2004 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 62 by Primordial Egg
08-05-2004 12:19 PM


Re: starting over
You claim the Universe with at capital U is expanding. I submit that the universe with a lower case u is expanding. I agree with all proof to date that a cosmic event took place about 13.7 billion years ago and most if not all the matter in our known universe was created as the subatomic particles that were released during that event when through an evolution and grouping together. I disagree with the common thought on the cause of this cosmic event but that discussion has already got me in hot water here. I feel that space-time as we call it should be lower case space-time and that there exists a Space-Time that corresponds to the Universe. There may never be proof of this but can anyone say beyond a shadow of a doubt that they can prove that space and time can not, do not, or did not exist outside of our little tiny known universe?
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-05-2004 08:49 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 62 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-05-2004 12:19 PM Primordial Egg has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 65 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-05-2004 8:49 PM nipok has replied
 Message 68 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2004 5:35 AM nipok has replied

  
Eta_Carinae
Member (Idle past 4374 days)
Posts: 547
From: US
Joined: 11-15-2003


Message 65 of 95 (130856)
08-05-2004 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 64 by nipok
08-05-2004 8:36 PM


But...
you are positing an extra structure to the Universe that is not required. You are neddlessly complicating things - sort of an anti-Occams razor.
You only augmment a model with extra structure if it helps you explain an observation or experiment.
What possible basis do you have for adding this hypothetical?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nipok, posted 08-05-2004 8:36 PM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 66 by nipok, posted 08-05-2004 9:48 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 66 of 95 (130863)
08-05-2004 9:48 PM
Reply to: Message 65 by Eta_Carinae
08-05-2004 8:49 PM


Re: But...
The basis I have for adding this hypothetical is that the argument I am trying to make is that the Universe may be infinite and the big bang and the known universe that resulted from the big bang may be one of an infinite number of such universes.
I am trying to validate the acceptance of the possibility that the cosmic event that created our known universe may occur an infinite number of times and has created and will create an infinite number of universes similar to ours.
I am trying to clarify that nothing in accepted scientific doctrine to date can disprove the possibility that the cosmic event that created our known universe may not be alone. I submit that it is possible that 500 trillion light years past the north star another big bang may have occurred last week and 25 quadrillion light years past the center of the big dipper a big bang is going to occur in four hours.
I am trying to validate the difference between what we conceive as our known universe and the entire un-ending timeless Universe. This is the foundation that I base my beliefs on. With the acceptance of the possibility that our known universe may be a small microcosm and one of many similar size universes then many other predictions of the fabric of our Universe make much more sense.
I am not trying to prove anything or state facts and if any earlier posts made me sound like I was stating fact then that was poor wording. I am trying to find a shred of proof that can denounce the possibility of an infinite Universe no matter how difficult it is to conceptualize the possibility.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 65 by Eta_Carinae, posted 08-05-2004 8:49 PM Eta_Carinae has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 67 by RingoKid, posted 08-06-2004 2:57 AM nipok has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 67 of 95 (130922)
08-06-2004 2:57 AM
Reply to: Message 66 by nipok
08-05-2004 9:48 PM


Re: But...dude
been there done that, eventually it leads to a dead end in the conversation...
...try your getting your head around this for a start and compare it to string theory
No webpage found at provided URL: http://bobert1.home.mindspring.com/kybalion.html

This message is a reply to:
 Message 66 by nipok, posted 08-05-2004 9:48 PM nipok has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 69 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2004 5:41 AM RingoKid has replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 68 of 95 (130931)
08-06-2004 5:35 AM
Reply to: Message 64 by nipok
08-05-2004 8:36 PM


Re: starting over
Hi nipok
So you think that we live in an infinite space where Big Bangs are occurring all the time (and in this case - each Big Bang is simply an explosion producing matter)? And we don't see these Big Bangs because they occur outside of our visible Universe?
Why then does the Universe look different the farther away we look?
Why do we see such large scale homogeneity in the visible Universe?
What's the mechanism for how these "little bangs" occur? In an infinite universe why are these bangs likely to occur where they do and not somewhere else?
If one of these little bangs occurred in our solar system right now, would we know about it (i.e are these universes connected)?
Space (or spacetime), the backdrop upon which matter and energy "sits" has physical properties of its own (e.g matter can warp it). Where did this space and its properties come from?
One of the little repeated but obvious issues with an infinite universe is that it allows for an infinite number of possibilities. As long as something is physically possible, the chance of it happening in an infinite universe is 1.
This means that there are an infinite number of doppelgangers of yourself for example. Weirder still, there are regions of the Universe where the probabilistic laws of the quantum world are actualised at a macroscopic level.
Somewhere in an infinite Universe, Saddam Hussein has walked through the wall of his prison, evaded capture, quantum tunnelled through the Earth and ended up in Washington to poke Bush in his eye, for example.
This is a pretty outlandish consequence - is this what you believe to be happening somewhere?
PE
PS You know its never really been proved to my satisfaction that the earth is not supported by invisible rotating turtles, but unless I can use turtle theory to explain all the data currently explained by Big Bang cosmology and GR, its of no use to anyone. Yet.
This message has been edited by Primordial Egg, 08-06-2004 04:39 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 64 by nipok, posted 08-05-2004 8:36 PM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 72 by nipok, posted 08-06-2004 9:16 PM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
Primordial Egg
Inactive Member


Message 69 of 95 (130932)
08-06-2004 5:41 AM
Reply to: Message 67 by RingoKid
08-06-2004 2:57 AM


Re: But...dude
Ringokid, for some reason, I can't get that link to work (404 error). Could you check it please?
PE

This message is a reply to:
 Message 67 by RingoKid, posted 08-06-2004 2:57 AM RingoKid has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 70 by RingoKid, posted 08-06-2004 10:21 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 70 of 95 (130967)
08-06-2004 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 69 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2004 5:41 AM


Re: But...dude
works fine from my end PE.
just google "kybalion three initiates" and take your pick. If that's what an ancient order of greeks and egyptians believed they weren't far wrong just couched in different language with a few unkowables thrown in for good measurw to keep the punters guessing, not unlike modern physics

This message is a reply to:
 Message 69 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2004 5:41 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 71 of 95 (130971)
08-06-2004 10:41 AM


Is it possible ...
...that the universe is still banging away at a leading edge only we can never see it or detect it as it's expanding faster than the light it's producing to reach us.
I mean correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't Alan Guth saying something about a force that moved matter faster than lightspeed to account for the rapid early universe inflation, yet this force hasn't been identified.
If the universe is finite but constantly expanding into infinity at a leading edge where spacetime is still being created...How could we tell if the first premise were true ???
even the "wave of thought" I had before could allow for a bubble membraned universe to inflate. The energy and light remain fixed yet the source and the observer are moving relative to each other but appearing stationary.
As in the classic people interacting on a train scenario. They are moving about to and fro from carriage to carriage appearing to move in relation to each other or reamaing stationary yet when viewed from outside the train the whole thing is moving forward...but !!!
...the engine pulling it at the front is travelling faster than the later carriages so you get a stretching effect only the people on the train have no idea just a sense of movement when looking out the window ???
hmmmmmmm...

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 72 of 95 (131125)
08-06-2004 9:16 PM
Reply to: Message 68 by Primordial Egg
08-06-2004 5:35 AM


Re: starting over
So you think that we live in an infinite space where Big Bangs are occurring all the time (and in this case - each Big Bang is simply an explosion producing matter)? And we don't see these Big Bangs because they occur outside of our visible Universe?
I submit that IF the Universe is infinite and one can travel in any direction in an unending line that at some distance far away from the edge of our known universe in it is impossible to not eventually encounter another universe.
Why then does the Universe look different the farther away we look? In what way different, which aspect of our known universe are you referring to. In trying to minimize confusion using uppercase Universe or UNIVERSE refers to the entire infinite Space-Time continuum where lowercase universe refers to our finite known universe that we have mapped out and tried to understand.
Why do we see such large scale homogeneity in the visible Universe? I submit that evolution is not just a process that can bring forth life but in a broader term evolution is a sequence of events that causes many things to be as they are. I submit that the life of a star, the life of a solar system, the life of a galaxy, and the life of a universe are all due to an evolutionary process that will duplicate itself when the circumstances are similar enough. Changes in an environment may yield different variations on this process but similar conditions will in most cases produce similar results.
What's the mechanism for how these "little bangs" occur? In an infinite universe why are these bangs likely to occur where they do and not somewhere else? This is where I got into trouble in an earlier post so I will try to tackle this more clearly later. I tried putting a reply together here but kept sounding too confusing. For now let me say that I feel that the natural interaction of atoms in flux that bounce off each other all the time are the primary catalysts that create and destroy universes. If the Universe is infinite then it exists outwards in an infinite direction but also inwards in an infinite direction. Right about here is where I loose everybody. I will elaborate on this in more detail later.
If one of these little bangs occurred in our solar system right now, would we know about it (i.e are these universes connected)? If our known universe was involved in another collision (big bang) I have no empirical data to estimate the length of time that our solar system would exist. We could be wiped out in the fraction of a second or we could be wiped out in a thousand or million years. The empirical data that I don't have and we may never have is the proportion in size of our known universe or any life supporting universe to the next largest size of self contained matter that would make up a subparticle that in turn makes up a subparticle that in turn makes up a subparticle in some chain of increasing sizes of matter until the particle is a quark or lepton in a larger structure. And yes this occurs infinitely inwards and infinitely outwards and is so hard to comprehend that sometimes I don’t even believe it but then I look at everything else in my house of cards and it makes perfect sense.
Space (or space-time), the backdrop upon which matter and energy "sits" has physical properties of its own (e.g matter can warp it). Where did this space and its properties come from? Space-Time are all relative. What we observe to be Space-Time is really our own space-time. A major fallacy in interpreting space-time has been failure to remove yourself from the frame of reference that is our space-time. We interpolate and extrapolate conclusions that we justify based on the space time principles but I submit that the fallacy lies in not removing ourselves from our tiny little universe when we make conclusions based on observations inside this frame of reference. We cannot use special relativity to account for some of our observations but then ignore it when the resulting observations don’t fit with the paradigm. Lets say for a second that a larger Space-Time continuum that uses the infinite Universe was used as a frame of reference to watch our little tiny big bang occur and our little tiny universe evolve. Then much of what we state in current cosmology could be biased by the frame of reference used to observe something that according to special relativity we should take into account for.
One of the little repeated but obvious issues with an infinite universe is that it allows for an infinite number of possibilities. As long as something is physically possible, the chance of it happening in an infinite universe is 1. This means that there are an infinite number of doppelgangers of yourself for example. Weirder still, there are regions of the Universe where the probabilistic laws of the quantum world are actualized at a macroscopic level. YES, in a true infinite universe that goes on forever, and is made up of an infinite number of universes similar to ours inside every lepton and every quark in our known universe and of which our known universe is only one of an infinite number of similar sized universes that may exist your DNA structure will be repeated an infinite number of times.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 68 by Primordial Egg, posted 08-06-2004 5:35 AM Primordial Egg has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 73 of 95 (131772)
08-09-2004 2:16 AM
Reply to: Message 22 by coffee_addict
06-24-2004 2:47 AM


multi-dimensional string theory
Is there proof for dimensions greater than 4 or is not string and superstring theory just theory? I submit that in our attempts to accomplish 2 goals we risk running around in circles. One goal is to try to explain what we observe and the other is to make those observations fit the current paradigm. At some point too many misrepresented observations will break the foundation and we will need to start over.
That day may never come or it may be right around the corner so if the current paradigm has holes then any (or almost any) building block of the foundation can be called into question. To dismiss any alternate theory blindly because it does not fit the rest of the paradigm is not a legitimate reason to dismiss it. PROOF is a good way to dismiss a valid theory in particular one that support a much different paradigm.
To that end I say again, there is no smallest particle of matter and claiming that dimensions other than the 4 we know about exist is wrought with flawed logic. What we see come out of particle accelerators is not mass and matter and point particles going about their everyday normal existences but particles undergoing a huge variance from their norm and then further being subjected to observations in a medium that also contaminates the results.
Talking this over the other day with a friend a good analogy was made about the misconception that pure energy creates matter. If a log burns energy is released. Containing the energy and forcing it back to the shape of a log is not going to give you a log back. We know that energy is released when strong atomic bonds are broken (or any mass is disintegrated). We know that energy is released when a subparticle and its anti-subparticle annihilate each other but that fact alone does not mean that pure energy alone can create matter.
In some ways energy uses mass to hold itself together. I'd almost go so far as to say mass requires energy or the existence of mass or matter will absorb or retain energy but the mass or matter is in and of itself not energy.
If there is a formula that says otherwise, one that can categorically denounce the possibility that the matter is not releasing the energy it was holding and breaking into particles too small to be detectable I would appreciate any insight. Those particles can then reform to become point particles if and when certain conditions are met. That includes the right amount of energy absorption, the right mass density, and right mass volume. I’d go so far as to say that give the right type and amount of energy, the right mass density, the right mass volume, and the right type of sub-point particles you will always get one of the 12 known point particles created.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 22 by coffee_addict, posted 06-24-2004 2:47 AM coffee_addict has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 74 by RingoKid, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 PM nipok has replied

  
RingoKid
Inactive Member


Message 74 of 95 (132567)
08-10-2004 10:35 PM
Reply to: Message 73 by nipok
08-09-2004 2:16 AM


Re: multi-dimensional string theory
A string has to vibrate in at least one of our physical dimensions and at least one other in the non physical dimensions for it to exert a detectable presence. As what I don't know, perhaps a photon, a graviton or a positve/negative charge???
For it to exist as a physical object with a 3d co ordinate in space and moving forward in time, eg a point particle, it has to register in all 4 of our percievable dimensions.
The rate of vibration determines it's elemental properties when combined with other strings to form larger particles, atoms, molecules, cells, organisms.
Imagine a string that vibrates in our 4d universe and also dimension 9 which for arguments sake we'll say is the "consciousness" dimension. By combination with other strings in an organism it becomes aware as opposed to a string that doesn't vibrate in dimension 9 which then could be just an inanimate object unconscious of it's own existence.
I like the idea of extra dimensions wrapped in between spacetime fabric as it allows for the existence of the repository of consciousness, souls, and God in heaven, even life.
just a few thoughts...
...as you were

This message is a reply to:
 Message 73 by nipok, posted 08-09-2004 2:16 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 75 by nipok, posted 08-11-2004 5:01 AM RingoKid has not replied
 Message 79 by nipok, posted 08-11-2004 11:51 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 75 of 95 (132692)
08-11-2004 5:01 AM
Reply to: Message 74 by RingoKid
08-10-2004 10:35 PM


Re: multi-dimensional string theory
(ok here I go again, getting myself into more trouble probably sticking my foot in my mouth 3 different ways but here I go anyway)

Ringo, physical or not, vibrating in one of our 4 dimensions or one of many possibly non-existent dimensions, I submit that there is no hard proof to back up string theory. String theory is the result of trying to fit observations to match an existing paradigm that MAY (or may not be) based on flawed conclusions. Particle accelerators use a detector. I don't care if its a bubble chamber, cloud chamber, argon calorimeter, or data from a Cerenkov detector, the observations we see and conclusions we make are subject to the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.
Not that I am intimately familiar with particle accelerators or the Heisenberg principle but I do know that what we observe is not the natural state of an atom. Show me conclusions based on a microscope powerful enough to see an atom 100 billion times larger than it is in its natural state and take snapshots of time at intervals of 100 billion or 100 trillion frames a second and then I’ll say there may be a value to any evidence or conclusions made towards a Theory of Everything / GUTS.
All particle accelerators do for us is tell us with some degree of scientific precision that we can measure a piece of mass or a piece of energy for a piece of time that would be immeasurable if we did not create the piece of mass or piece of energy and slow it down enough to measure it. Without the effects a detector places on the subparticles we could not measure them with current means. Now I am not in any way saying that particle accelerators have not moved particle physics leaps and bounds ahead of where we were in the 50’s nor am I saying that the plethora of evidence regarding the nature of subatomic particles in general is questionable. I am only saying that deductions or conclusions made COULD be flawed because the goal was to fit them into a paradigm that MAY be questionable and the act of observing the events MAY have contaminated the data used to make the conclusions.
To that end I again repeat that I have yet to find proof that deters me from my belief that particles much smaller than known point particles most likely exist and that a smallest particle of matter is a misnomer. There is nothing that I have found yet that can prove that there is not an infinite chain of smaller particles of matter making up larger subparticles of matter. I’d go so far as to state that quantum mechanics, quantum electrodynamics, quantum electromagnetics, and quantum photonics, as well as other principle interactions between matter and energy may very well hold true for these possible subparticles as well.
And as usual I finish up by going from the lucid to the rambling (OK, so most the above is non-lucid rambling by some accounts) but my two cents for what their worth is that I feel that the grand unification theory / theory of everything will be explained in the next 50 years. String theory is in my eyes just an attempt at a unification theory and is nothing more than a theory but lacks any proof of 9 or 11 dimensions; just suppositions based on in my eyes flawed perceptions and using these to back up any argument is not strong enough in and of itself to hold credence to the argument.
Someone will find that all four fundamental forces are all variations on electromagnetism. AETHER or ETHER was for a long time thought to be a way to bring these 4 forces together and somewhere along the line the likelihood of Aether or Ether was dismissed. (I need to look into this more) But I submit that inside the nucleus, inside the atom, and inside our solar system is an Aether with a variance of density. I submit that once this variance in density is determined it will define the formulas that bring together all four forces as different ways that electromagnetic fields interact. The nature of this variance in density between either distance or wavelengths of photons or gravitons or some other Aether will link strong, weak, and gravity. A simplistic example that may or may not be a good analogy would be to take the orbit of MARS, the forth planet from the sun and create an imaginary sphere with this diameter. Fill this sphere with atmosphere, air, oxygen, or any other gas. There will be a point in time where the density of this gas will be great enough to collapse the orbit of our planet and the Earth will fall into the Sun. The Weak and Strong force simulated in one simple concept with gravity as the catalyst all explained by electromagnetism. OK I don’t have the formulas to back it up or explain how electromagnetism causes it but maybe someday someone will.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-12-2004 02:23 AM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 74 by RingoKid, posted 08-10-2004 10:35 PM RingoKid has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024