Is the Universe infinite?

[Dubbelosix]

That doesn't say it isn't the origin of what we see. 

I've worked on the Friedmann equation, i don't need you to tell me the big bang is about '' an expanding and contracting universe.''

 

Its much more than that. The theory of the big bang was that at some point, everything came from a tremendous explosion of energy, space and time. Scientists (almost universally) accept that the big bang is the origin of existence.

I heard from mordred you were a poster of science, I am pretty surprised by your ... childish look at the universe and a lame attempt to use wiki, which never said the big bang was not the origin of existence, as evidence against what I am telling you. 

 

Not impressed. 

[Strange]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

That doesn't say it isn't the origin of what we see. 

I think it is pretty clear it does. It says "the universe expanded from a very high density and high temperature state"; not that the universe was created or originated from ... And it says "from the earliest known periods" not "from an origin".

But it goes on to say "Physicists are undecided whether this means the universe began from a singularity, or that current knowledge is insufficient to describe the universe at that time."

As the model cannot go back that far, the model cannot describe the origin.

[Dubbelosix]

No it doesn't. Find me where it says the big bang was not the origin of what we see in existence today?

 

Are you actually arguing with me on this? Do you even science? 

No one says we have to look back literally to know. All that we know is that the wonder of what we see today, was a product of something we called a big bang, which was indeed, a highly dense, high pressure, highly curved region of spacetime or singularity. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[beecee]

10 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Yes, we can't literally look at it.... you are not one of these posters that gets into semantic dribble, because I quickly put those posters on ignore. 

 

Admit there is an origin point and the consensus is that it is called big bang, or did you reply to my comment just for an argument?

''The Big Bang model describes an evolving (expanding and cooling universe) not an "origin".'

What are you talking about???

Big bang is the point in which space and time come into existence, in current tend of thinking. 

 

Strange is correct and I suggest you calm down a tick. The BB is not a theory of the creation of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) from a hotter, denser state beginning at t-10-43 seconds. It was also not an explosion. That first instant up to 10-43 seconds of time, is the quantum/Planck era of which we have no true inkling of what happened and can only speculate.

I hope that helps.

[Dubbelosix]

Everything leading up to the state of the universe today, has origins at the big bang. 

Who said creation????

 

You guys are ridiculous, you are putting words in my mouth, and no, strange is NOT correct. 

[Strange]

Here is one example of a model where the universe does not have a beginning: Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

[Dubbelosix]

1 minute ago, beecee said:

Strange is correct and I suggest you calm down a tick. The BB is not a theory of the creation of the universe: It is a theory of the evolution of space and time, (spacetime) from a hotter, denser state beginning at t-10-43 seconds. It was also not an explosion. That first instant up to 10-43 seconds of time, is the quantum/Planck era of which we have no true inkling of what happened and can only speculate.

I hope that helps.

 

 

I never said creation, so you need to take that back. The theory of the big bang, is actually one about how space and time came into existence - it has long been written that big bang in conventional form is the point at which time as we understand it, began. This means space as well, strictly within relativity.

 

I am very well read on these subjects, would do you good to listen. Carrol however called it more a moment in time rather than space. That may be because pointlike dynamics in a singularity has no space. 

Just now, Strange said:

Here is one example of a model where the universe does not have a beginning: Quantum equation predicts universe has no beginning

 

 

So???

 

I explained these models existed. This isn't your defence is it?

[Strange]

Quote

The big bang is often presented as some kind of explosion from an initial point, but actually the big bang model simply posits that the universe was extremely hot and dense when the universe was young.

https://briankoberlein.com/2015/02/10/beginning/

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Everything leading up to the state of the universe today, has origins at the big bang. 

Who said creation????

 

You guys are ridiculous, you are putting words in my mouth, and no, strange is NOT correct. 

By creation I am speaking of what you seem to be referring to as the instant of the BB. Sorry, our model begins at t+10-43 second.

[Dubbelosix]

Wrong. 

 

Beyond the standard model physics posits the big bang may not be all there is. I am actually on this side. But I know conventional big bang theory and the singularity theorems, which you seem to be ignoring. You quoted my post and started an argument on the big bang not being the origin of everything: That may be so in beyond the standard model physics, but not in a science forum for a poster who wants to know what the consensus of the standard model is.

 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Dan B. said:

I still don't know if the whole 14 Trillion Universe is an outcome of just one bang or several bangs process.

 

This article might help explain it: https://www.forbes.com/sites/quora/2017/03/07/the-big-bang-was-not-a-single-point-in-time

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

I am very well read on these subjects, would do you good to listen. Carrol however called it more a moment in time rather than space. That may be because pointlike dynamics in a singularity has no space. 

Then you need to realize that the BB does not talk about a beginning, but an evolving from t+10-43 seconds.

[Dubbelosix]

Just now, beecee said:

Then you need to realize that the BB does not talk about a beginning, but an evolving from t+10-43 seconds.

 

The Big Bang did talk about a beginning, go read the singularity theorems. This was the earliest attempt at modelling a universe from some origin we called a singularity - the moment at which space and time made no sense as we understand it. 

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

The Big Bang did talk about a beginning, go read the singularity theorems. This was the earliest attempt at modelling a universe from some origin we called a singularity - the moment at which space and time made no sense as we understand it. 

The singularity marks the barrier if you will, of where the BB model does not cover, ie t+10-43 seconds....the Planck/quantum era. 

[Dubbelosix]

Just now, beecee said:

The singularity marks the barrier if you will, of where the BB model does not cover, ie t+10-43 seconds....the Planck/quantum era. 

 

 

You don't know what you are talking about, I can tell from the way you are talking about this.

 

The singularity was very much part of the big bang literature, for a very long time. Hawking and Penrose, literally became famous because of their work on the theorems that shows how a universe can be traced back to a point - in which they named a singularity. That means there is a causal history. 

If there is a causal history, then the singularity would mark the origin from which everything came from. 

Regardless of the singularity, the big bang is the origin of what we see anyway - there may have been pre big bang phases, but who cares? This all started with strange challenging me on my statement that everything we see in nature results from this big bang scenario, which is true whatever way you look at it.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

 

You don't know what you are talking about, I can tell from the way you are talking about this.

 

The singularity was very much part of the big bang literature, for a very long time. Hawking and Penrose, literally became famous because of their work on the theorems that shows how a universe can be traced back to a point - in which they named a singularity. That means there is a causal history. 

If there is a causal history, then the singularity would mark the origin from which everything came from. 

Believe what you will. Perhaps you first need to tell me what a singularity is and what theory we have that covers it...best of luck.

[Dubbelosix]

I just told you what theory covers it, are you not reading my posts properly?

I said, go read the singularity theorems by Penrose and Hawking. 

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

. This was the earliest attempt at modelling a universe from some origin we called a singularity - the moment at which space and time made no sense as we understand it. 

And space and time (spacetime) make no sense, because???  Because we have no theory that covers that period, only speculation.

[Dubbelosix]

It makes no sense for physical reasons, that are too deep for me to go into right now because I have to leave. 

 

But consider a particle, whose radius goes to zero - it also experiences a singularity in the self energy of the system. This means the self energy takes on infinite values, consider the universe like a particle in this sense. Speak later.

[beecee]

2 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

It makes no sense for physical reasons, that are too deep for me to go into right now because I have to leave. 

 

But consider a particle, whose radius goes to zero - it also experiences a singularity in the self energy of the system. This means the self energy takes on infinite values, consider the universe like a particle in this sense. Speak later.

Again for your information, the BB is a theory of the evolution of the universe, from a hotter, denser state beginning at t+10-43 seconds: We cannot apply anything to the singularity region (the quantum/Planck level) because our models ( the BB and GR) break down.

[scherado]

14 minutes ago, beecee said:

And space and time (spacetime) make no sense, because???  Because we have no theory that covers that period, only speculation.

 

21 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

You don't know what you are talking about, I can tell from the way you are talking about this.

The singularity was very much part of the big bang literature, for a very long time. Hawking and Penrose, literally became famous because of their work on the theorems that shows how a universe can be traced back to a point - in which they named a singularity. That means there is a causal history. 

If there is a causal history, then the singularity would mark the origin from which everything came from. 

Regardless of the singularity, the big bang is the origin of what we see anyway - there may have been pre big bang phases, but who cares? This all started with strange challenging me on my statement that everything we see in nature results from this big bang scenario, which is true whatever way you look at it.

From the book God's Equation, by Amir D. Aczel, pages 6-7:

Aczel said:

Ever since the big bang theory was proposed in the 1920s to explain the expansion of the universe, various theories have been advanced to explain what happened, ... Einstein's equations predicted several scenarios.

First, the universe could be closed. ... universal expansion eventually stops and ... begins a collapse into itself ... Second, the universe could slow down its expansion until it reaches a stead state ... Scientists, and the public in general, seemed to favor the first scenario. ...

Only a few scientists believed in the viability of yet a third option--that the universal expansion would continue forever. And virtually no one imagined the unthinkable: that the rate of expansion of the universe would actually accelerate. And yet, mulling the unexpected possibility, [Saul] Perlmutter could not ignore what his data were telling him. The faraway supernovae--along with their home galaxies--were receding from Earth at rates that were slower than expected. These rates were slower than the rate of recession of the more nearby galaxies. This could mean only one thing, he concluded: the universe was accelerating its expansion.

The reason for this baffling finding is not obvious. It has to do with the concept of time. ...

This is the reason I asked in a thread now locked about the nature of time.

Edited September 28, 2017 by scherado

[Dubbelosix]

26 minutes ago, beecee said:

Again for your information, the BB is a theory of the evolution of the universe, from a hotter, denser state beginning at t+10-43 seconds: We cannot apply anything to the singularity region (the quantum/Planck level) because our models ( the BB and GR) break down.

 

 

The singularity is part of the model. Even if our model cannot describe it, this doesn't matter. It is seen as some point in which everything came from. If you have any other suggestions under the same situations, then please be my guest, otherwise, its futile to argue that the origin of everything came from a big bang, especially if this is the current trend of thinking and arguing against it not being 'an origin' is semantic fodder. 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

The singularity is part of the model. Even if our model cannot describe it, this doesn't matter. It is seen as some point in which everything came from. If you have any other suggestions under the same situations, then please be my guest, otherwise, its futile to argue that the origin of everything came from a big bang, especially if this is the current trend of thinking and arguing against it not being 'an origin' is semantic fodder. 

Of course it matters! That's why we are trying to get a QGT! No one is disputing the fact that the universe/spacetime , as we know it, had a beginning at the instant of the BB. But we know nothing about that instant, no why, no how, no nothing...and that is all that Strange has correctly pointed out to you.

Edited September 28, 2017 by beecee

[Dubbelosix]

Just now, beecee said:

Of course it matters! No one is disputing the fact that the universe/spacetime , as we know it, had a beginning at the instant of the BB.

 

 

You fool!

 

You don't even know how this all started, its because strange said the big bang did not imply the universe has an origin there.

I said that the big bang implies there was some point in our history we can call the origin of everything. Unless cyclic universe theories are considered, this statement is completely true. Arguing against it saying big bang doesn't talk about a beginning, is actually silly. It actually does. The mark of the appearance of space and time from some big bang model is a beginning and origin theory. 

 

 

[beecee]

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

You fool!

You don't even know how this all started, its because strange said the big bang did not imply the universe has an origin there.

  Take it easy fella. You are wrong and need to admit it. Again, the BB is a theory of the evolution of spaceyime/Universe from a hot dense state at t+10-43 seconds.