The theory of infinity.

[Guest123456]

The universe is allways expanding so based on that we can think that at some point in the past when it hasnt expanded to this point. that it was a one dense point in the space(The big bang theory). And it suggests that it was so dense and high in tempeture that there was nothing in it but particales pressed in to one point. So the theory now is that before the big bang there was nothing. But what if we look at it in a diffrent view?. Not so long ago using the headron colidor there were discoverd new particals, so small that how advenced we are now we cant look inside of them and see what they are made of. So they were called the ellementary particals. But what if we could look even deeper and discover even smaller particeles and so on... So based on that why cant we try imagine that meybe the universe is just like that one elementary partical? And meybe thats why we cant even try and find the edge of the universe. Becouse there isnt one? What if we look at the universe the same, as we look true a microschope into a partical? Meybe at one time our known universe was just a particle to some kind of other particle and so on? Based on this there could be infinet qouestions how small whats smaller whats smaller after that and so on. But we can try and think the other way around whats bigger than solar system whats bigger than a galaxy whats bigger and a univers? Human kind cant explain it cant figure it out, but what if there never was a begining and there never will be an end, just like an infinyti doesnt have a begining or an end?

P.s. sry for the grammatic mistakes. English is not my first language.

I just want an opinion on my thoughts.

Edited August 15, 2019 by Guest123456

[Sensei]

6 minutes ago, Guest123456 said:

English is not my first language.

The all modern web browsers have dictionaries which can be installed by user. Wrong words will be highlighted with red underscore to instruct you, that they need attention, to fix them (right mouse click on such word to open list of correct equivalents).

https://www.google.com/search?q=installation+of+english+dictionary+firefox

 

13 minutes ago, Guest123456 said:

Not so long ago using the hadron collider there were discovered new particles, so small that how advenced we are now we cant look inside of them and see what they are made of.

It's not a matter of size, but a matter of energy these particles do have. Particle with bigger rest-mass decays to couple new with smaller rest-masses, and the rest of mass-energy is conserved as kinetic energy of newly created particles. They carry energies corresponding to rest-mass (conservation of momentum). So, if particle decays to two equivalent, like neutral pion meson pi, with rest-mass approximately 135 MeV/c^2, two newly created gamma photons have energies approximately 67.5 MeV (half of mass-energy of pion prior decay).

[Guest123456]

17 minutes ago, Sensei said:

The all modern web browsers have dictionaries which can be installed by user. Wrong words will be highlighted with red underscore to instruct you, that they need attention, to fix them (right mouse click on such word to open list of correct equivalents).

https://www.google.com/search?q=installation+of+english+dictionary+firefox

 

It's not a matter of size, but a matter of energy these particles do have. Particle with bigger rest-mass decays to couple new with smaller rest-masses, and the rest of mass-energy is conserved as kinetic energy of newly created particles. They carry energies corresponding to rest-mass (conservation of momentum). So, if particle decays to two equivalent, like neutral pion meson pi, with rest-mass approximately 135 MeV/c^2, two newly created gamma photons have energies approximately 67.5 MeV (half of mass-energy of pion prior decay).

For the first part of your answer: 

I am on my phone and this is just an idea that popd into my head a few minutes ago. I dont really care how correct it was. I just thought it seemd interesnting and wanted some explanations.

For the second part:

I do see your point. But could it not just split in to smaller photons with even less and less energy?

[Sensei]

Just now, Guest123456 said:

I do see your point. But could it not just split in to smaller photons with even less and less energy?

Yes. That's what happens with them finally. These highly energetic gamma photons after further collisions can decay to photons with smaller energies (and larger wavelength). They can also make pair of electron-positron (pair production) after collision with ordinary matter. They can also disintegrate ordinary matter after collision (photodisintegration). Compton scattering with matter. (please read links, if you are not familiar with these reactions)

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations

 

1 hour ago, Guest123456 said:

that it was a one dense point in the space(The big bang theory).

Note that the Big Bang theory does not say it was compressed to a point in space; but that all of space was smaller. 

To put it another way, all of space has always been full of matter. But in the past, because space was smaller, that matter was hotter and denser.

1 hour ago, Guest123456 said:

Not so long ago using the headron colidor there were discoverd new particals, so small that how advenced we are now we cant look inside of them and see what they are made of.

It is not clear what particles you are referring to. But there are a number of fundamental particles (electrons, neutrinos, photons, etc) which are all the same size: they are all zero-sized.

1 hour ago, Guest123456 said:

we cant even try and find the edge of the universe. Becouse there isnt one?

That is correct: in cosmology there is no edge to the universe. Either because it is infinite or because it "wraps round" (like the surface of the Earth).

 

[Guest123456]

9 minutes ago, Strange said:

To put it another way, all of space has always been full of matter. But in the past, because space was smaller, that matter was hotter and denser.

Thats what i had in my mind, just didnt think to explaint it more.

11 minutes ago, Strange said:

Either because it is infinite or because it "wraps round" 

Thats my point, we are not sure yet, wich is it(we probably wont be for a long time). But in the case thats it is infinite couldnt it be infinite in reverse? 

For exeple, at one point in our history we only knew that the universe was expanding, then came the theory that it started at some dense point we never knew it could be the other way around.

[Strange]

15 minutes ago, Guest123456 said:

But in the case thats it is infinite couldnt it be infinite in reverse? 

For exeple, at one point in our history we only knew that the universe was expanding, then came the theory that it started at some dense point we never knew it could be the other way around.

What does "infinite in reverse" mean?

The idea that the universe is expanding and that it started as a dense point go together, and were both proposed by the same person. After all, if it expanding, then it must have been smaller and denser in the past. Lemaitre, who first came up with the idea, called this initial hot, dense state "the cosmic egg"!

[Mordred]

Also keep in mind we can only extrapolate our Observable universe portion. The original singularity we have no way of knowing if it is finite or infinite. We only know the portion of shared causality at [math]10^{-43} [/math] seconds that leads to our observable universe was an extremely hot dense state smaller than an atom but that is only our observable portion in the past not the entirety of the universe. Which could be finite or infinite. A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse. So if it's infinite now then it's infinite in the past. ( In volume portionality) which is different than mathematical singularities where the math no longer accurately describes it.

Edited August 16, 2019 by Strange
Took the liberty of clarifying 10^43 *seconds*

[Guest123456]

14 minutes ago, Strange said:

What does "infinite in reverse" mean?

The idea that the universe is expanding and that it started as a dense point go together, and were both proposed by the same person. After all, if it expanding, then it must have been smaller and denser in the past. Lemaitre, who first came up with the idea, called this initial hot, dense state "the cosmic egg"!

Sry for my small vocabulary. 

Infinite means there is no end, so why cant it be that there was no begining(the cosmic egg)? 

I do know that what happens when particals ar compressd ect. For expemle plazma. 

But just what if it was possible, I mean there are still lots to discover about the universe, meybe becouse it was so dense there could be some other reason how it got to that? How it got so dense in the first place("the cosmic egg").That even before the egg another even smaller universe egzisted that ended its end is what we call the big bang?

And seriuosly i do know it sounds ridiculous, there are a lot of other factors i dont know about, mainly cuz i am just kid.

[Mordred]

Cyclic universe or bounce universes is a possibility. We simply don't know to say for certain. It's also equally possible that our universe didn't originate from a previous universe.

[Strange]

3 minutes ago, Guest123456 said:

Infinite means there is no end, so why cant it be that there was no begining(the cosmic egg)? 

Infinite can mean no beginning or no end, or both. 

There are several versions of the Big Bang model where there is no beginning - that the universe is infinitely old. One of the simplest is the "big bounce", where the universe is expanding following an earlier collapse. There are also several types of eternal inflation. And at least one model that attempts to combine quantum theory with the Big Bang model which results in a universe that is infinitely old.

[Guest123456]

14 minutes ago, Mordred said:

Also keep in mind we can only extrapolate our Observable universe portion. The original singularity we have no way of knowing if it is finite or infinite. We only know the portion of shared causality at 10−43 that leads to our observable universe was an extremely hot dense state smaller than an atom but that is only our observable portion in the past not the entirety of the universe. Which could be finite or infinite. A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse. So if it's infinite now then it's infinite in the past. ( In volume portionality) which is different than mathematical singularities where the math no longer accurately describes it.

Actualy, thats kind of the question and the answer i was looking for. And what I had in mind writing in this forum. "If it turns out that it is infinite that means it was infinite in the past." 

[Mordred]

Also  universe from nothing models

Just now, Guest123456 said:

Actualy, thats kind of the question and the answer i was looking for. And what I had in mind writing in this forum. "If it turns out that it is infinite that means it was infinite in the past." 

Correct

[Sensei]

9 hours ago, Mordred said:

A finite cannot become infinite nor the reverse.

Finite real number can be infinitely divided .

double value = 1.0;
double divider = 2.0;
for( ;; ) { value /= divider; printf( "%g\n", value ); }

(forget that double or float in C/C++ is just 64/32 bits)

 

Edited August 16, 2019 by Sensei

[Strange]

2 hours ago, Sensei said:

Finite real number can be infinitely divided .

But it just becomes smaller. It never becomes infinite.

I mean, it is an interesting point that you can iterate infinitely on finite objects (and even tile an infinite plane with non-repeating patterns using a finite number of tiles) but it is not really related to the topic of the thread.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

As this turned out to be more of a question than proposing a theory, I have moved it to a more appropriate forum.

 

12 hours ago, Guest123456 said:

Actualy, thats kind of the question and the answer i was looking for. And what I had in mind writing in this forum. "If it turns out that it is infinite that means it was infinite in the past." 

I would suggest finding some books, videos or online articles on the subject of "quantum gravity" as they often have some of the most cutting edge (and speculative) ideas about the origin or otherwise of the universe.

Also, at the other end of time, the astrophysicist Katie Mack is writing a book about possible ways the universe will end. (She has also written about this online if you want to search for it)

[beecee]

On 8/16/2019 at 6:43 AM, Guest123456 said:

Thats what i had in my mind, just didnt think to explaint it more.

And as things get hotter the further we go back, the nature of matter changes....eg: 380,000 years after the BB, matter only existed as Plasma, until temperatures had sufficiently dropped to allow electrons to couple with atomic nuclei to form our first elements of Hydrogen and Helium....3 minutes after the BB, temperatures and pressures were such that quarks started to combine to form protons and neutrons which eventually coupled to form atomic nuclei...at t+10-43 seconds the four known forces existed as one superforce, until conditions were such at t+10-35 seconds, that the superforce started to decouple resulting in false vacuums and phase transitions, with the excesses of energy going into creating our first fundamental particles of electrons and quarks. 

 

[Mordred]

Beecee if possible can you reference the supergravity times ie the value for supergravity symmetry breaking as such estimates are theory dependent ie MSM vs MSSM etc.

 I would like to examine their derivatives.

Edited August 17, 2019 by Mordred

[beecee]

5 hours ago, Mordred said:

Beecee if possible can you reference the supergravity times ie the value for supergravity symmetry breaking as such estimates are theory dependent ie MSM vs MSSM etc.

 I would like to examine their derivatives.

Hmmm, The aspect of the "superforce" was taught to me by a young relativist on a now defunct forum. Also in a book I once read entitled "Superforce"many moons ago, the author from memory Paul Davies? I would say without too much doubt, that you would know more of the gory details then I. I did find the following useful anyway

 

https://www.physicsoftheuniverse.com/topics_bigbang_timeline.html

 

and this....

https://web.njit.edu/~gary/202/Lecture26.html

Eras of the Big Bang

The eras of the universe, from the time of the Big Bang, are listed below.  We will discuss each in turn.

• Planck Era     (All four known forces are unified.)
• GUT (Grand Unified Theory) Era    (Gravity "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
• Electroweak Era    (The nuclear strong force "freezes out" and becomes distinct.)
• Particle Era    (particles begin to form)
• Era of Nucleosynthesis    (nuclear fusion creates Helium, and tiny amount of heavier elements)
• Era of Nuclei   (electrons are not yet bound to nuclei)
• Era of Atoms   (electrons recombine to form neutral atoms, and the first stars are born)
• Era of Galaxies   (Galaxies begin to form, leading up to the present)

The earliest eras were very short lasting, and very high energy.  The first few eras are when the laws of physics were considerably different than they are know, but we can still predict some of the behavior.  Let's look at each era in more detail:

Planck Era

The Planck Era is prior to 10^-43 s after the Big Bang, when we believe that the four basic forces of nature, 1) gravity, 2) nuclear strong force, 3) nuclear weak force, and 4) electromagnetic force were combined into a single "super" force.  The idea is somewhat like the different phases of water (ice, liquid, and vapor), which are all aspects of the same thing.  You can imagine that at certain pressure and temperature there might be conditions in which these three phases of water become a single phase, no longer distinct.  Physicists believe that we will eventually find a theory that succeeds in combining all four of these fundamental forces, but at present there is no such theory.  (We have names for such a theory, however: supersymmetry, superstrings, or supergravity.)  So we really do not know what the universe was like in the Planck Era.  Some superstring theories call for spacetime to have 11 dimensions during this time.

GUT Era

The GUT Era is when three of the four fundamental forces are combined, but gravity has become distinct.  There are a class of theories called Grand Unified Theories (GUTs) that attempt to describe all forces except gravity in a single framework.  The leading type are so-called string theories, and some are partially successful, but there are further details to be worked out.  Theorists would say that in the GUT Era the gravity force "froze out" of the universe.  The GUT Era lasted from 10^-43 s to 10^-38 s.  Near the end of this era, grand unified theories predict that the universe cooled to the point that the nuclear strong force began to freeze out, leaving three fundamental forces: gravity, the strong force, and the still combined electroweak force.  This "phase transition" released a huge amount of energy, causing space to undergo a rapid inflation.  In a mere 10^-36 s, pieces of our universe the size of an atomic nucleus might have grown to the size of our solar system.  We will later discuss observations of the universe that seem to require such extreme inflation.  Note that this inflation is very very large compared to the speed of light, but again, space itself is what is expanding, so it does not have to obey the speed limit of the speed of light.

Electroweak Era

During this era, only the electromagnetic and nuclear weak forces are still combined.  The temperature of the universe at this stage is more than 10¹⁵ K, and there are no ordinary particles yet, just photons and pure energy.  We do have a complete theory that can be used to understand the universe at the end of this era.  By the time of 10^-10 s, the temperature cools below 10¹⁵ K, and finally, the last of the fundamental forces, electromagnetic and nuclear weak forces, become distinct.  We have also done particle physics experiments at energies corresponding to a temperature of 10¹⁵ K, so we can probe the Big Bang conditions experimentally from 10^-10 s onward.

Particle Era

When the four fundamental forces were finally distinct, ordinary particles could start to form.  However, both matter and anti-matter were formed in almost equal numbers, created out of the energetic photons present at that time.  Once both types of matter were formed, a particle would not go very far before it met up with its anti-particle and annihilated to become pure energy again.  During this era, particles continually were created and destroyed until, by 0.001 s (one millisecond), the universe had expanded and cooled far enough (to 10¹² K) that creation and destruction of this kind ended.  For some reason, the universe created slightly more matter particles than anti-matter particles.  If the numbers had been exactly the same, the particles would eventually annihilate entirely and there would be only photons in the universe.  This slight asymmetry for matter (1 billion and 1 protons for each 1 billion anti-protons) left us with all of the baryonic matter that we find today.

Era of Nucleosynthesis

When the universe was only 1 millisecond old, nuclei were hot enough and dense enough to fuse to create heavier elements, but it was so dense that the nuclei broke apart again as soon as they formed.  This fusion and breakup continued until about 3 minutes after the Big Bang, when the universe cooled enough (10⁹ K) that fusion ended.  At this point, 75% of baryonic matter was in the form of hydrogen, 25% in the form of helium, and trace amounts were in the form of other atoms, mostly lithium.  One of the great successes of the Big Bang theory is that it predicts just the right amount of these different forms of matter.  At the end of the Era of Nucleosynthesis, the universe contained the "primordial" mix of hydrogen, helium, and lithium that went into making the first stars.  All heavier elements have 

[Airbrush]

Does this mean that before the force of gravity appeared (froze out), the big bang was able to expand briefly, before there was a force of gravity?

As soon as gravity appeared, then the expansion began to slow down?

[Mordred]

Supergravity theories vary depending on the model. Primarily the models are under MSSM supersymmetry. The radiation would still be sufficient to overcome the quark gluons plasma self gravity otherwise the universe would have simply collapsed prior to inflation. 

 Supergravity still has gravity but it is in thermal equilibrium with the other three forces. In essence the four forces cannot be distinguished from one another.