The edge of space

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
Its so simple: The universe is physically and timewise infinite. This leaves no unanswered questions. Any other hypothesis require all kinds of wild assumptions to be made in support of of it; especially when people start asking hard questions; then the wacko meter starts going off the chart, or you get science's shotgun answer "well we just don't know that yet"
Okay, well I guess I couldn't resist.

I actually find this a bit offensive.

Let me see if I can come up with a few unanswered questions for you, given an infinite universe that has been around forever.

If the universe is infinite and has been around forever, then:

1) Why are there stars still burning? Forever is a long time, why has all the hydrogen not long since been used up?

2) Given that in about 15 billion years, this galaxy will be just a bunch of cold rocks. Also given an infinite life to the universe, there should be an infinite number of cold galaxies around. Is there some interesting explanation as to why we have not seen them?

3) Given the matter density of local space, if there have been stars burning bight forever, why is it so cold out there?

4) If there has been an infinite number of stars burning for an infinite length of time, surely there would have been enough time for the light of an infinite number of stars to reach this point in space. Then why is the night sky so dark?

5) How do you explain the redshift?

6) How do explain quasars and why they are all so distant and red-shifted?

7) How does spacial curvature fit into an infinite space model?

8) Why is it that distant galaxies all seem to be much younger than local galaxies? I know it takes the light a long time to get here, but forever is a long time. We should see the light from older galaxies, 20, 30, 40, 50 billion light years distant. How come we don't?

Well, I could go on and on and on and on....and these are the easy ones

Please give me good scientifically based answers. I don't need you to quote references or provide equations (you can if you wish though), but also "That's just some yet unexplained property of the universe" won't cut it.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,288
Okay, well I guess I couldn't resist.

I actually find this a bit offensive.

Let me see if I can come up with a few unanswered questions for you, given an infinite universe that has been around forever.

If the universe is infinite and has been around forever, then:

1) Why are there stars still burning? Forever is a long time, why has all the hydrogen not long since been used up?

2) Given that in about 15 billion years, this galaxy will be just a bunch of cold rocks. Also given an infinite life to the universe, there should be an infinite number of cold galaxies around. Is there some interesting explanation as to why we have not seen them?

3) Given the matter density of local space, if there have been stars burning bight forever, why is it so cold out there?

4) If there has been an infinite number of stars burning for an infinite length of time, surely there would have been enough time for the light of an infinite number of stars to reach this point in space. Then why is the night sky so dark?

5) How do you explain the redshift?

6) How do explain quasars and why they are all so distant and red-shifted?

7) How does spacial curvature fit into an infinite space model?

8) Why is it that distant galaxies all seem to be much younger than local galaxies? I know it takes the light a long time to get here, but forever is a long time. We should see the light from older galaxies, 20, 30, 40, 50 billion light years distant. How come we don't?

Well, I could go on and on and on and on....and these are the easy ones

Please give me good scientifically based answers. I don't need you to quote references or provide equations (you can if you wish though), but also "That's just some yet unexplained property of the universe" won't cut it.
I'm sorry that my theory offends you.

when you answer my question, I will answer yours.
so here it goes, for the 5th time:
If you are going to say that the universe "began", and therefore is neither timeless nor infinite, and that matter/mass & energy cannot be created nor destoryed, then where did all the matter that makes up the universe come from? With what energy did it happen? was the matter & energy in existence before the big bang? If so, for how long? (to be totally transparent, my motive here is to get you to say that it was always there, or come up with wild scifi explanation that I can laugh at) if not, then explain the spontaneous materialization of all of the things we see.

as Ive said many times, and has been completely ignored/skillfully deflected many times in this discussion, at some point, no matter what theory you subscribe to, you have to admit the existence of infinity & timelessness.

and BTW, contrary to what I'm sure you beleive, I have no religious reason to want this to be true. I have not published any papers on the topic which I feel I need to defend. This is just my theory, plain and simple.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
What kind of response is this anyway?:confused:

First, there are explanations, but you neither have the will nor the tools to understand them. If I spend (waste) my time explaining the latest ideas to you, all you will do is claim that my wacko meter is going off the chart. So, no thanks, I'll pass on that.:p

Second, I asked you first. Those simple questions (trivially explained by the Big Bang) I asked are just 8 of the many, many questions that could not be explained by an infinitely old and infinitely large universe.

Thirdly, your attempt to bring Occam's Razor into this as some sort of support for your ideas makes it obvious you have little understanding of what you are talking about. As it is precisely Occam's Razor that points to the theory (actually set of theories) known as the Big Bang, despite its shortcomings, as being the one that requires the least number of assumptions.

Finally, it's not your theory (which, BTW, was abandoned before my grandfather was born) that offends me, it's the way you state it and imply that whoever does not adhere to it is a wacko.

At least go study some general relativity and a bit of astrophysics and get some grounding in the tool set required to understand some of this stuff. It will become obvious to you why people tend toward the Big Bang and why they ran, many, many years ago from the theory you hold.;)
 

Kermit2

Joined Feb 5, 2010
4,162
The universe we live in was 'born' when a black hole was formed in another universe and its matter was gravitationally contracted to a singularity. That singularity then exploded in the 'big bang' and the resulting expansion of this matter/energy is occuring within the Schwartzchild radius of said black hole. That radius is the physical limit of our universe. Other such universes are similarly being created every time a black hole is created here in this universe. The resulting 'condensation' of the energy into matter is the mechanism whereby the energy fits itself into the space available to it.

That is the theory I am most comfortable with and have paraphrased from the original supposition about the origin of the universe.

It has flaws, as does every other theory presented, but for some reason it just seems right to me. So I go with it. :)
 

Georacer

Joined Nov 25, 2009
5,182
The answer is 42.

But seriously guys. I doubt that one among us has an astrophysicist doctorate or similar. That leaves us mere carriers of other people's theories, not experts.

Even when it comes down to experts, we ask another doctor for a second opinion. I believe it is safe to say that no one on this planet knows exactly how the universe was born.

Shall I remind that some people deny the evolution theory? The way you do it is like debating between Catholicism and Orthodoxy. Are we people of science or what? You can discuss all you want but I don't like it when you are one step from putting up a cosmogenesis theory match.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,288
What kind of response is this anyway?:confused:
An effective one, apparently. Resulted in yet another skillful delfection!
First, there are explanations, but you neither have the will nor the tools to understand them. If I spend (waste) my time explaining the latest ideas to you, all you will do is claim that my wacko meter is going off the chart. So, no thanks, I'll pass on that.:p
...ooohh nice. That was slick. Deflect my question by making me look like an idiot who can't possibly comprehend what you can. I'll have to save that little tactic for my own arsenal.
Second, I asked you first. Those simple questions (trivially explained by the Big Bang) I asked are just 8 of the many, many questions that could not be explained by an infinitely old and infinitely large universe.
no, in fact, (emphatically) you did not. I asked the exact same question 5 times, in posts 17, 38, 40, 52, and 64.

The fact that still nobody has made a lame attempt to answer it, tells me that you really have no idea and you beleive in a theory that is based on a huge hole in logic. And I'm still the idiot.

So, case closed in my book (really this time) unless somebody wants to take a stab at answering my question. Just for good measure, I'll ask it a 6th time (maybe 6th time's the charm?):

If you are going to say that the universe "began", and therefore is neither timeless nor infinite, and that matter/mass & energy cannot be created nor destoryed, then where did all the matter that makes up the universe come from? With what energy did it happen? was the matter & energy in existence before the big bang? If so, for how long? (to be totally transparent, my motive here is to get you to say that it was always there, or come up with wild scifi explanation that I can laugh at) if not, then explain the spontaneous materialization of all of the things we see.
 

strantor

Joined Oct 3, 2010
5,288
oops just realized there was a cross post, containing an answer! Finally! Thank you Kermit.
The universe we live in was 'born' when a black hole was formed in another universe and its matter was gravitationally contracted to a singularity. That singularity then exploded in the 'big bang' and the resulting expansion of this matter/energy is occuring within the Schwartzchild radius of said black hole. That radius is the physical limit of our universe. Other such universes are similarly being created every time a black hole is created here in this universe. The resulting 'condensation' of the energy into matter is the mechanism whereby the energy fits itself into the space available to it.

That is the theory I am most comfortable with and have paraphrased from the original supposition about the origin of the universe.

It has flaws, as does every other theory presented, but for some reason it just seems right to me. So I go with it. :)
so another universe imploded, then exploded into this one. So same matter & energy, just different universe? No new energy or matter? IMO this still points to matter & energy being timeless, however the universe not being infinite.
Thanks for the answer; as Georacer said, I'll wait and see if theres a second opinion.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
Alright, but I’m not going to get into detailed explanations about these 3 additional ideas:

1) False Vacuum/Vacuum Fluctuation – possibly the latest idea and at this point just a hypothesis for the first few nano-seconds – not mine either. Supposes that a random quantum fluctuation created a bubble of false vacuum within a true vacuum. A mass-less multi-dimensional space in which energy is stored in the curvature of that space. As the bubble inflated exponentially the energy within its curvature transformed into matter and more familiar forms of energy, at which point the known portion of the big bang took over.

2) Causality – a slightly older idea – to me, sounds most like ‘Let there be light’. Supposes that before the universe existed there would be no place for causality. Therefore it would be acceptable to make the assumption that the universe began to exist without cause and causality only came into existence with the universe itself. This one is not as strange as it seems. Have read very convincing discussion on it.

3) Oscillating Universe – fairly old idea. Supposes that the universe oscillates between a great expanse and a singularity with intervening periods of expansion and contraction. Time, as we know it, is reset at the singularity when the universe has no form or extent and begins with the big bang. This one requires closure. In other words, enough energy/matter so that gravity will eventually be able to reverse the expansion. It also requires the universe be highly curved, finite and unbounded.

Here is a pretty good discussion around vacuum fluctuations. I'm sure you can find all sorts of explanations of all sorts of different ideas by searching the Internet. This one popped right up. If you don't like these, that's fine with me. It still remains that the big bang 'theory' leaves the least unanswered questions.

BTW, I did not say or mean to imply you were stupid. It would probably be a good thing to stop referring to your self like that.

PS. Please try to remember that before the big bang there was no universe in which the laws of physics could exist. If we ever do really find out what happened, I fully expect it to be the most bizarre thing ever.
 
Last edited:

russ_hensel

Joined Jan 11, 2009
825
snip .....

.... end snip

If you are going to say that the universe "began", and therefore is neither timeless nor infinite, and that matter/mass & energy cannot be created nor destoryed, then where did all the matter that makes up the universe come from? With what energy did it happen? was the matter & energy in existence before the big bang? If so, for how long? (to be totally transparent, my motive here is to get you to say that it was always there, or come up with wild scifi explanation that I can laugh at) if not, then explain the spontaneous materialization of all of the things we see.
By and large the big bang theory is a theory of what happened after time t=0. As i stated earlier the equations fail at t= 0. There are theories but are
very speculative. Issues remain. Big Bang judged by most cosmologists to be better than its competition. Work continues. Common sense is not a good guide, unless relativity is intuitive for you, and then probably not either.
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,145
Right now physicists are working one what started it all. I mentioned the twin Brane theory, it is where two dimensions that are nothing like ours touched, just a little. This was the big bang. Everything we know is between these two dimensions. May not be plausible, but it is one of the models I was talking about.

Carl Sagan came up with a concept he called "numerous". It is a number that is so large to us it might as well be infinity, but it isn't. It is merely large. My personal belief is infinity can not exist, but I have no problem with numerous. The universe is a prime example of this.

Just remember in this discussion we can't know all the answers. Also remember that we do know some of the answers. Complete denial or belief without all the evidence is called faith, and enters into the realm of religion, which in some ways this thread resembles. Not surprising given the questions.
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
Given that the current thinking is that the net mass/energy of the universe is zero, all that is required is an acceptable explanation of the initial perturbation that started the ball rolling. I prefer those that do not require other universes.

The 'requirement', BTW, is for our sake only and is not a requirement for the universe, because whatever it was occurred before the universe.

The oscillating universe model is my current favorite. I know this is a stretch, but the concept of some form of continuity seems applicable here. Almost like a pendulum swing, even though the theory leaves no energy at final collapse to carry over into the next iteration. All we'd need to make it work is something to carry a little 'momentum' across the void. Problem is, there is no physics for a postulate concerning this to rest on at this precise point.
 
Last edited:

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
429
The universe cannot expand - what would it be expanding into? another universe? I always found the theory making rather interesting - looking at stars millions of light years away, well we are looking into the past and will never know what is happening now. So how does all the data that is not made in real time help?
 

Wendy

Joined Mar 24, 2008
22,145
The concept of distance in our universe can be a bit tricky. Ever watch Dr. Who? The amount of space inside a black hole is bigger than the outside. When space is distorted so is distances, it is no longer linear.
 

justtrying

Joined Mar 9, 2011
429
The concept of distance in our universe can be a bit tricky. Ever watch Dr. Who? The amount of space inside a black hole is bigger than the outside. When space is distorted so is distances, it is no longer linear.
I've never watched Dr. Who but I've taken a course in non-Euclidean geometry so I think know what you mean. We had to imagine 4D world, and solve strange problems about projecting 2D frogs onto some strange planes. One of the most difficult courses I ever took.

I guess string theory calls for 10(11?) dimensions...

p.s. got me thinking of Alice in Wonderland
 

BillO

Joined Nov 24, 2008
990
The universe cannot expand - what would it be expanding into? another universe? I always found the theory making rather interesting - looking at stars millions of light years away, well we are looking into the past and will never know what is happening now. So how does all the data that is not made in real time help?
What does it have to expand into?


Where did this necessity of containment come from?

Look, all I want are those 8 questions answered that I posed in in post #61. Even if you give answer to half of them I'll be happy. It seems Mr. Strantor has decided not to try them. How about you, maybe you could just try to answer a few?
 
Top