Is the Universe infinite?

[Strange]

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

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.

I just posted a model which is neither cyclic nor has an origin.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Strange

[Dubbelosix]

How am I wrong?

 

Support the claim the big bang is not the origin of everything. I even explained, we have modelled the universe back in time all the way back when it was just young - we know the universe follows a causal history, so support your claim coherently that the universe does not have an origin at the big bang!

 

You just said that no one was saying this! I have just corrected you, time for you to admit when you are wrong, because I do it all the time with actual physicists. 

3 minutes ago, Strange said:

I just posted a model which is neither cyclic nor has an origin.

 

 

Who cares? I already made it clear that there were alternative models. 

You state them like I never said such models existed, very intellectually dishonest, really.

You only quoted my post earlier and started this ''origin issue'' for an argument, it was clear. 

 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[beecee]

1 minute ago, Dubbelosix said:

Who cares? I all already made it clear that there were alternative models. 

Again, take it easy...Don't get so excited. It's childish to start hurling insults because others pick you up on a common error. Speaking again to what I corrected you on...The universe certainly had a beginning according to the current BB theory, but we are unable to speak with any certainty about the instant of the BB and only from 10-43 seconds. Then you go all coy and say so what? with regards to the singularity....you know, where our models do not apply? 

Just now, beecee said:

Again, take it easy...Don't get so excited. It's childish to start hurling insults because others pick you up on a common error. Speaking again to what I corrected you on...The universe certainly had a beginning according to the current BB theory, but we are unable to speak with any certainty about the instant of the BB and only from 10-43 seconds. Then you go all coy and say so what? with regards to the singularity....you know, where our models do not apply?  

 

[Dubbelosix]

Stop telling me to take it easy, don't try and patronise me either. 

It would do you good to actually read how it all started, because a few posts ago, you didn't have a clue. Don't tell people to take it easy when its you making the mistakes. 

Edited September 28, 2017 by Dubbelosix

[beecee]

Just now, Dubbelosix said:

Stop telling me to get easy, don't try and patronise me either. 

Sure thing! Now tell me what is a singularity?

Why are we trying to formulate a QGT? 

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe when I start taking it easy, I'll have time to respond. Right now, not feeling up to it. 

[beecee]

3 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Maybe when I start taking it easy, I'll have time to respond. Right now, not feeling up to it. 

Sure! you take your time and think about your what you have said 

 

[Dubbelosix]

Maybe you will have time to think about how you said no one was saying the big bang was not the origin of the universe and then ask yourself why I should actually waste time on you, since I see the likes of you on forums all the time. 

[StringJunky]

I think the trouble is here that people are starting from different definitions/descriptions of the BB, or rather,  the timeline of those definitions which is periodically changing with new knowledge.

[beecee]

In the meantime I'll see if I can relay some more info....

(1) The BB arose from a fluctuation in the quantum foam. (speculation)                                  (2) At that early epoch, the four forces were united into what we know as the superforce. (speculation)                                                                                                                   3) As pressures and temperatures dropped. the superforce started to decouple, gravity first (speculation)                                                                                                                                    (4) During this period, phase transitions and false vacuums were created and the energy excesses went into creating our first fundamentals (some evidence)                                       (5) after 3 minutes our first atomic nuclei were formed. ( again some evidence)                   6) After 380,000 years temperatures and pressures were such that electrons were able to couple with nuclei and our first element was formed.                                                                  7) From then on, it was plain sailing!

But again in essesnce, while the universe/spacetime did have a beginning, we no nothing about that beginning and can only speculate.

 

14 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

Maybe you will have time to think about how you said no one was saying the big bang was not the origin of the universe and then ask yourself why I should actually waste time on you, since I see the likes of you on forums all the time. 

I said, I was not saying there was no beginning, there certainly was, but we can only speculate on its nature...you know, the singularity which you have yet to give a definition on?  

Edited September 28, 2017 by beecee

[Dubbelosix]

No you said ''no one was saying'' that the universe had an origin at the big bang. I said there was, try again. 

[beecee]

4 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

No you said ''no one was saying'' that the universe had an origin at the big bang. I said there was, try again. 

Stop trying to get out from under, not a real good look.

Let me spell it out again. The BB mode; is a description of the evolution of spacetime/universe from a hot, dense state at t+10-43 seconds. We know nothing except speculative scenarios (as I have listed for you) of the beginning or origin. Again remember that singularity? 

[Dubbelosix]

13 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think the trouble is here that people are starting from different definitions/descriptions of the BB, or rather,  the timeline of those definitions which is periodically changing with new knowledge.

 

 

Well, personally speaking, I know of only of the old, original investigations into the big bang - which in its most infant stages involves the singularity theorems, proposed by Hawking and Penrose. It has been suggested maybe, that the singularity is not a part of the big bang and so doesn't explain the origin, but this is of course, nonsense. A theory, a perfectly good mathematical theory may otherwise present a singularity. You don't need to know what it is, or why it is, only that it is there within the theory. Everything is proposed in the singularity theorems, as extending from the point we call the singularity, proposing that everything has a causal history.

 

Also, it seems like semantic nonsense to say the big bang doesn't imply an origin - unless something is cyclic in nature, then the big bang will always be the origin of everything we see today; questions like what happened before a big bang, is just again proposing a semantic argument, because again, everything still has to come from the big bang phase, regardless of what came before it.

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

Stop trying to get out from under, not a real good look.

Let me spell it out again. The BB mode; is a description of the evolution of spacetime/universe from a hot, dense state at t+10-43 seconds. We know nothing except speculative scenarios (as I have listed for you) of the beginning or origin. Again remember that singularity? 

 

 

Again, you actually don't know enough about the theory or you wouldn't be saying this. The original big bang model was adapted to take into consideraton general relativity which found an origin point called a singularity.

 

I will put you on ignore if you don't catch on, I have only a little patience these days. 

[beecee]

11 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 

 

Well, personally speaking, I know of only of the old, original investigations into the big bang - which in its most infant stages involves the singularity theorems, proposed by Hawking and Penrose. It has been suggested maybe, that the singularity is not a part of the big bang and so doesn't explain the origin, but this is of course, nonsense. A theory, a perfectly good mathematical theory may otherwise present a singularity. You don't need to know what it is, or why it is, only that it is there within the theory. Everything is proposed in the singularity theorems, as extending from the point we call the singularity, proposing that everything has a causal history.

 

Also, it seems like semantic nonsense to say the big bang doesn't imply an origin - unless something is cyclic in nature, then the big bang will always be the origin of everything we see today; questions like what happened before a big bang, is just again proposing a semantic argument, because again, everything still has to come from the big bang phase, regardless of what came before it.

 

 

Again, you actually don't know enough about the theory or you wouldn't be saying this. The original big bang model was adapted to take into consideraton general relativity which found an origin point called a singularity.

 

I will put you on ignore if you don't catch on, I have only a little patience these days. 

You can put me wherever you like...I won't lose too much sleep over it. Again, I am not denying any origin or beginning, I'm saying we know nothing about it [you know the singularity] something you now seem to be running from. Unless of course you have some validated QGT? 

The BB is the current model of the evolution of spacetime/universe from 10-43 seconds after the initial event. Anything else is speculative, subject to a valid QGT which I'm anxiously waiting for you to reveal to all of us.  

Edited September 28, 2017 by beecee

[Dubbelosix]

26 minutes ago, StringJunky said:

I think the trouble is here that people are starting from different definitions/descriptions of the BB, or rather,  the timeline of those definitions which is periodically changing with new knowledge.

 Also, I agree, it is changing all the time.

 

I predict singularity theorems to soon become a thing of the true past. It's still a popular way of thinking, even though scientists have demonstrated, many times, that singularities can be avoided, in very nice, dynamical ways.

It seems likely this will be the case, we will find either the universe is cyclic or there is a pre-phase to the universe, something I myself have written on and speculated with some interesting results. The big bang though, is still just a phase - questions about what happened before becomes a semantic fodder for trolls trying to argue whether a big bang speaks about a beginning to time. The thing people don't realise, is that singularity theorems have to talk about a beginning to time and if there is a beginning of time, space has to very shortly follow according to the rules of relativity - and even in the advent of finding evidence some day for any phases before the big bang - the big bang still remains as the origin of what the phase of this observable universe has had to undergo. 

 

3 minutes ago, beecee said:

 

The BB is the current model of the evolution of spacetime/universe from 10-43 seconds after the initial event. Anything else is speculative, subject to a valid QGT which I'm anxiously waiting for you to reveal to all of us.  

 

 

So you think matter energy and time and space just appeared... wham! Just like that, in its configuration? It doesn't require singularities, or anything before it? Whatever, I am done wasting time with you. The big bang was not a theory in absence of origin... its almost a blinding fact that somewhere an origin theory has to be accounted within the standard model - this was seen as a singularity very early on, fluctuations later, cyclic theories... and blah blah blah. 

[beecee]

5 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

 So you think matter energy and time and space just appeared... wham! Just like that, in its configuration? It doesn't require singularities, or anything before it? Whatever, I am done wasting time with you. The big bang was not a theory in absence of origin... its almost a blinding fact that somewhere an origin theory has to be accounted within the standard model - this was seen as a singularity very early on, fluctuations later, cyclic theories... and blah blah blah. 

Perhaps you also have a reading problem? or are once again trying to get out from under? I suppose in your favour your childish insults have ceased somewhat...

Let me again try in simpler terms. The universe had a beginning. I have never denied that. But we know nothing of that beginning, not until t+10-43 seconds. But hey, I'm open to intelligent speculation, you just havn't given any as yet. 

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Dubbelosix said:

Who cares? I already made it clear that there were alternative models. 

You implied that the only alternative was a cyclic model. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

[Dubbelosix]

Who cares if we know nothing about the beginning??

 

What I said before was, that the universe has an origin found from the big bang. This was challenged by someone who said it wasn't.

 

You then came in and said they were right. Then later you said no one was saying the universe doesn't have an origin at the big bang.

 

 

Throwing insults at people is not the way, I had a temporary lack of judgement and I apologise. However, look at this above, and can you take into consideration, how I feel, and what its like being told you are wrong about something, when you know technically speaking, you are right?

 

Listen, I am very knowledgeable in my physics, don't take me as someone you can easily take as fool here.

Just now, Strange said:

You implied that the only alternative was a cyclic model. Sorry if I misunderstood that.

 

Ironic, I was just apologising myself for my own attitude, apology accepted.

[Strange]

4 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

What I said before was, that the universe has an origin found from the big bang.

You have already admitted that there are several classes of models that don't include an origin.

The only reason I picked up on this is because I think that focussing on the origin (which we all agree that we know nothing about, and may not even exist) does not help the OP understand how the universe could be infinite or, even, larger than the observable universe.

While it is, of course, possible for an infinite universe to arise from a singularity, that is a hard concept to get across. So it seems simpler, to me, to focus on the evolution of the universe from one that was always bigger than our observable universe.

This entire side-discussion seems unnecessary.

Edited September 28, 2017 by Strange

[Dubbelosix]

Yes I admitted this very early on so that no one took my statement as absolute - the problem with alternative models is lack of evidence and certainly not one of lack of imagination

For instance, I have become a sucker for my own model now... forget a big hot bang and start thinking in condensate terms. You can find a model which predicts a super cool pre big bang phase described as a Gibbs-Helmholtz thermodynamic phase change from an all-liquid condensed degenerate phase into a radiation vapor. 

[beecee]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

Except we can't. The Big Bang model only goes back to a point where there is a hot, dense state (a quark-gluon plasma). Our current physics doesn't allow us to go further back than that.

Totally agree and what I have been trying to tell our friend. Nothing can be said about the beginning, other then its certainly likely that space and time, (spacetime) came into existence at that epoch Those singularities are pesky little blighters!! 

[Silvestru]

6 minutes ago, Strange said:

The only reason I picked up on this is because I think that focussing on the origin (which we all agree that we know nothing about, and may not even exist) does not help the OP understand how the universe could be infinite or, even, larger than the observable universe.

While it is, of course, possible for an infinite universe to arise from a singularity, that is a hard concept to get across. So it seems simpler, to me, to focus on the evolution of the universe from one that was always bigger than our observable universe.

This entire side-discussion seems unnecessary.

I really like this. I'm following this thread with great interest and I feel like it's back on a clear track just from this post.

[Dubbelosix]

The beautiful thing, and not without a sense of bias, is that our universe is inexorably the product of the second phase, we live in the radiation phase of the universe. I haven't published this, only referred back to academics who do know fully what they are talking about. But let's just say, nothing actually prevents my model, it just comes down to a matter of opinion, without the evidence. 

2 minutes ago, beecee said:

Totally agree and what I have been trying to tell our friend. Nothing can be said about the beginning, other then its certainly likely that space and time, (spacetime) came into existence at that epoch Those singularities are pesky little blighters!! 

 

 

You're still not quite getting this - it doesnt matter if the singularity tells us anything about a beginning, successfully good mathematical theories encounter singularities all the time and people do not explain them away, unless they use a renormalization process. 

The actual point is that a singularity has no concept of space, and so if it expands, space and time have to emerge and an origin theory is implied, which is the point. 

[MigL]

Penrose and Hawking introduced their singularity theory in the late 60s/early 70s. Penrose was more interested in Black Hole singularities while Hawking, on Big Bang singularities.
By the middle 80s both had changed their minds about the existence of singularities describing either event.
So you're on your own on this.

I would go a step further than Strange or BeeCee, and say that what came before inflation  ( at 10^-35 sec ) is currently undefined. Since we don't know the cause for inflation, how can causality be extended backwards ? For all we know the universe existed in the pre-inflation, hot dense state forever until a quantum fluctuation sent it on its merry way.

If on the other hand, your argument is that our universe began when geometry was first evident, then that is the beginning of time. But quantum foam has no geometry ( that is its definition ) so it was there before time ( as we know it ) began .

[beecee]

18 minutes ago, Dubbelosix said:

You then came in and said they were right. Then later you said no one was saying the universe doesn't have an origin at the big bang.

I admit I wasn't party to early conversation, but what I said was the BB says nothing about the origin or beginning, or words to that effect. Sorry going off half cocked.

Quote

Throwing insults at people is not the way, I had a temporary lack of judgement and I apologise. .

None of us is perfect, including your's truly.