Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!

[Strange]

Why?

So, what is the real age of the Universe?

 

No one knows.

 

All we know is what it was like 13.8 billion years ago.

 

 

 

How could it be that the universe was infinite hot dense in the early stage (13.8 billion years ago) while its age at that moment is Zero?

 

Perhaps because its age was not zero.

 

 

 

What was the status of the universe before that moment?

 

We don't know. Our current theories don't work before that point.

 

 

 

If the universe was hot dense also 14 Billion years ago (or even 100 Billion years ago), then why we don't agree that the universe age is higher than 13.8 Billion years?

 

Because we don't have any evidence from an earlier period (because our current theories don't work beyond that point).

 

 

 

However, if it was not there, then there was a stage that there was no universe.

If there was no universe then by definition there was no universe ---- no mass, no atoms, no friction of particles, no energy, no hot dense stage - just nothing. Nothing at all.

 

We have no evidence for that. (Other than the Book of Genesis )

 

 

 

In other words, we must count the age of the universe from the transient point from nothing to something.

 

There is no evidence that there was such a transition. Or, if there was, when it happened.

 

 

 

So, please - what is the real age of the Universe?

 

No one knows.

 

 

 

When the Universe started to get something?

 

There is no evidence it started.

[David Levy]

No one knows.

 

Sorry, if we don't know the real age of the universe then most of our current theories might be useless.

Just as an example -

When we come to visit doctor, the first question is: "What is your age?"

At different age we have different phenomenon.

If somebody can't walk, the doctor needs to know its age.

If it is a baby - it is quite normal. if it is a very old man it is also quite normal, but the doctor will try to give him some sort of medicine.

If it is a young man/woman, then this is very critical.

So, the age is mandatory requested for any doctor.

The scientists are some sort Universe doctors.

If they don't know the real age of the universe - how could they develop any sort of real understanding about the universe?

If we don't know what the status of the Universe was before the infinite hot dense stage, then we actually have a severe misunderstanding.

We can't just hide behind divine power:

 

We have no evidence for that. (Other than the Book of Genesis )

 

We are dealing with science.

If we can't give a scientific explanation, then it's not science.

Edited November 18, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

 

Sorry, if we don't know the real age of the universe then most of our current theories might be useless.

 

 

I don't see why. There are many unknowns in science. That doesn't make all science invalid.

 

Our current theories are based on what we observe.

 

 

If we can't give a scientific explanation, then it's not science.

 

You are correct. There is no scientific theory that says the universe was created. So any claim that it was created is not science.

So you should stop asking about it.

Note that our current models don't depend in any way on the age of the universe or what happened before the earliest times the theory works.

 

All we do is look at the current data and work back from that. We see an early hot dense state; that then allows us to predict some things we should expect to see (such as the CMB) which are then observed.

 

The fact that our theories can't tell us about the state before that time doesn't invalidate what they do tell us.

[Delta1212]

 

Sorry, if we don't know the real age of the universe then most of our current theories might be useless.

Just as an example -

When we come to visit doctor, the first question is: "What is your age?"

At different age we have different phenomenon.

If somebody can't walk, the doctor needs to know its age.

If it is a baby - it is quite normal. if it is a very old man it is also quite normal, but the doctor will try to give him some sort of medicine.

If it is a young man/woman, then this is very critical.

So, the age is mandatory requested for any doctor.

The scientists are some sort Universe doctors.

If they don't know the real age of the universe - how could they develop any sort of real understanding about the universe?

If we don't know what the status of the Universe was before the infinite hot dense stage, then we actually have a severe misunderstanding.

We can't just hide behind divine power:

 

 

We are dealing with science.

If we can't give a scientific explanation, then it's not science.

Keep in mind that there is no intrinsic information about someone that can be told by their age. The reason that age is relevant is because of patterns that have been observed across many people at different ages that allow us to predict what is more likely than not. This still needs to be confirmed by direct testing, age just gives us a place to look and allows us to avoid wasting resources on things that are very common for a given age.

 

This does not help with the universe because even if we knew the exact age because we do not have an accumulated knowledge of the aging patterns of multiple universes. We just have this one. Absolutely everything needs to be tested directly because we have no record of what other universes were doing at the same age ours is at nor a body of evidence telling us what we should expect as a typical universe continues to age.

 

Knowing someone's age doesn't tell you what's going on with them in particular. It just allows you to generalize about what is normal for that age. But since we're dealing with a single universe, there is no "normal." There is just what is and what happens. And we don't need to make generalizations because we only care what is going on with this universe in particular and don't have any other universes that we need to move onto investigating the way a doctor has other patients and can't waste time and resources doing a full battery of tests for everything on every person that walks in the door.

[zapatos]

I see the point you are making Strange about the (unknown) age of the universe, but if science is going to treat the age as an unknown, then they should stop saying things like this:

 

Measurements by the WMAP satellite can help determine the age of the universe. The detailed structure of the cosmic microwave background fluctuations depends on the current density of the universe, the composition of the universe and its expansion rate. As of 2013, WMAP determined these parameters with an accuracy of better than than 1.5%. In turn, knowing the composition with this precision, we can estimate the age of the universe to about 0.4%: 13.77 ± 0.059 billion years!

https://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_age.html

[Strange]

I see the point you are making Strange about the (unknown) age of the universe, but if science is going to treat the age as an unknown, then they should stop saying things like this:

 

 

I agree.

[David Levy]

You are correct. There is no scientific theory that says the universe was created.

 

Thanks

 

So any claim that it was created is not science. So you should stop asking about it.

 

Why should we stop asking about it.

If you don't know, doesn't mean that there is no answer for that.

Few years ago, all the science community were sure that the universe is finite in its size.

Now more and more scientists understand that it might be infinite.

 

In the same token - today you claim that the Universe age is not relevant. One day when we will know the real age, you will understand how important it is.

 

Let me use one more example - about Darwin.

Some time ago people believed that human and all the animals have been created by divine power.

If somemoe claimed that there might be a different story, the answer could be:

 

 

We have no evidence for that. (Other than the Book of Genesis )

 

Hence, at that time, it was clear to all the science community that the starting point for our understanding must start after that creation.

So, god had created one couple (Eve and Adam) and from that point, the science (at that time) gave an explanation how all the different looking people had been developed.

However, Darwin came with a breakthrough theory.

He gave a clear theory about the source of origin.

Never the less, the modern science at his generation claimed that based on this theory the human might be ape offspring. That was a real violation of the science at that time.

Therefore, he had lost his credibility.

At Darwin epoch, the starting point of the modern science was after the human and all the animals' creation by divine power.

No one had the right to ask why? It was forbidden.

I feel today the same way as Darwin felt at his time.

The modern science claims that the starting point of the Universe is definitely an Infinite hot dense stage.

It is forbidden to ask why.

It is forbidden to ask the real age of the Universe.

It is forbidden to criticize the current approach of the modern science and its theories.

Why???

If you don't know something, why you are not open to hear different idea?

Edited November 18, 2016 by David Levy

[Mordred]

Its not forbiddem to ask these questions one just has to realize the answers are not so easy to understand. Nor do we necessarily know the full answer.

 

Universe age being one of them. We can only approximate based on indirect evidence. In which that evidence can alter slightly as we fine tune our understanding. Each time we determine a new Hubble constant the estimated age changes.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

Its not forbiddem to ask these questions one just has to realize the answers are not so easy to understand. Nor do we necessarily know the full answer.

 

 

Thanks

 

 

Universe age being one of them. We can only approximate based on indirect evidence.

 

Perfect.

So, why do we ignore the size of the Universe?

Don't you think that it is excellent indirect evidence?

If the Universe is Infinite, how could it be that its age is limited to only 13.8 Billion years?

I don't accept the idea of an early Infinite hot dense stage.

If there was an infinite hot dense stage, then by definition it was infinite even before the Big bang.

Therefore, the Universe was there long before the Big bang.

Hence its age must be higher than 13.8 Billion years.

I personally estimate that if the Universe is infinite in its size it must also be infinite in its age.

 

 

 

Edited November 18, 2016 by David Levy

[zapatos]

Universe age being one of them. We can only approximate based on indirect evidence. In which that evidence can alter slightly as we fine tune our understanding. Each time we determine a new Hubble constant the estimated age changes.

Unless I'm misunderstanding Strange, you and he seems to be saying two different things.

You are saying the age of the universe is known to a certain degree of accuracy, but that estimate can change over time.

 

Strange seems to be saying we have absolutely no idea how old the universe is. We only know how long ago the BB began, which may or may not be the age of the universe.

Edited November 18, 2016 by zapatos

[Mordred]

In a way we are both correct. That may sound strange but its possible the BB doesn't occur in the first place. Evidence merely points to a BB. New evidence could very well show that as being wrong. Some cyclic models don't require a BB.

 

 

Thanks

 

 

 

Perfect.

So, why do we ignore the size of the Universe?

Don't you think that it is excellent indirect evidence?

If the Universe is Infinite, how could it be that its age is limited to only 13.8 Billion years?

I don't accept the idea of an early Infinite hot dense stage.

If there was an infinite hot dense stage, then by definition it was infinite even before the Big bang.

Therefore, the Universe was there long before the Big bang.

Hence its age must be higher than 13.8 Billion years.

I personally estimate that if the Universe is infinite in its size it must also be infinite in its age.

 

 

 

An infinite universe does not mean an infinite past. I can readily model how a universe infinite in extent can arise from a zero energy field. Though I don't need to as its already been done in the zero point energy theory models. Which still is viable even today.

 

Though its also important to realize a field has a zero energy value until it interacts. Energy is often misunderstood, it is a property but how we measure that property depends on the observer.

 

If you think about zero point energy those quantum fluctuations are seemingly small but over a large enough volume is immense in total energy. Mathematically more than sufficient.

 

120 orders of magnitude too much energy lol. However I can show you a paper that suppresses zero point energy that still makes the zero energy universe viable. Though I will have to dig it up from my dropbox archive

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

In a way we are both correct. That may sound strange but its possible the BB doesn't occur in the first place. Evidence merely points to a BB. New evidence could very well show that as being wrong. Some cyclic models don't require a BB.

 

Thanks.

Do appreciate your support.

 

 

An infinite universe does not mean an infinite past.

 

Yes, but at least we both agree that it is an option.

 

 

I can readily model how a universe infinite in extent can arise from a zero energy field. Though I don't need to as its already been done in the zero point energy theory models. Which still is viable even today.

 

Though its also important to realize a field has a zero energy value until it interacts. Energy is often misunderstood, it is a property but how we measure that property depends on the observer.

 

If you think about zero point energy those quantum fluctuations are seemingly small but over a large enough volume is immense in total energy. Mathematically more than sufficient.

 

120 orders of magnitude too much energy lol. However I can show you a paper that suppresses zero point energy that still makes the zero energy universe viable. Though I will have to dig it up from my dropbox archive

 

I must say that this explanation is above my understanding.

 

So let me use the following example:

If you see a man with a blue shirt, what does it mean?

 

One can claim that the blue color is due to the reflection from the sea. The light comes in a vertical polarize phase to our eyes and based on some research it was proven that a white shirt can be seen as a blue.

Well - that might be correct or incorrect.

But don't you think that if we see a blue shirt then there is some chance that it is blue?

 

In the same token - If the Universe is infinite in its size don't you think that the simple answer for that is that it is also infinite in its age?

We know that the Universe expands.

There are some good evidences for that.

Hence, the size of the universe increases on a daily basis.

Therefore, if it takes long enough it will be big enough.

If it takes infinite time we should get an infinite universe.

 

So simple and clear!

Why don't we take it just in the simple way?

Why do we need to make it complicate?

Why are we so afraid that our real universe is infinite in its age?

What will happen?

Does it mean that the Sun will suddenly stop shining???

Edited November 18, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

Why should we stop asking about it.

If you don't know, doesn't mean that there is no answer for that.

 

 

There may be an answer in the future. But at present there isn't. So there is no point repeatedly asking the same question. The answer will be "we don't know"

 

 

 

Few years ago, all the science community were sure that the universe is finite in its size.

 

I don't believe that is true. But it doesn't matter.

 

 

 

In the same token - today you claim that the Universe age is not relevant.

 

No I don't. I said it is not relevant to the validity of our current theories. They do not depend on the age of the universe.

 

 

The modern science claims that the starting point of the Universe is definitely an Infinite hot dense stage.

 

Again, it does NOT claim that there was an infinitely hot dense stage.

 

 

 

It is forbidden to ask why.

It is forbidden to ask the real age of the Universe.

It is forbidden to criticize the current approach of the modern science and its theories.

 

None of these things are forbidden. A great many scientists are asking exactly these questions.

So, why do we ignore the size of the Universe?

 

 

We do not ignore the size of the universe. There have been many attempts to quantify it. The results vary between very large and infinite.

 

Don't you think that it is excellent indirect evidence?

If the Universe is Infinite, how could it be that its age is limited to only 13.8 Billion years?

 

1. The universe could be info its but still have a finite age.

 

2. The universe may not have a finite age.

 

I personally estimate that if the Universe is infinite in its size it must also be infinite in its age.

 

It may be (but it doesn't have to be).

 

But there is no evidence for that at the moment.

 

Why are we so afraid that our real universe is infinite in its age?

 

 

No one is afraid o that. You can find many scientific papers discussing that possibility.

[Delta1212]

You need to consider all evidence in the context of other existing evidence. Taken by itself, a piece of evidence can mean many different things. It is then tempting to go with the simplest explanation that can explain that piece of evidence. In fact, that is usually the best strategy.

 

However, adding a second piece of evidence complicates things, especially if that evidence isn't compatible with the simplest explanation of the first bit of evidence.

 

We don't make these situations complicated for fun. They are complicated because the evidence is complicated, and to really understand why we model things the way that we do, you need to look at all of the evidence that we have not just to one piece or even a small subset of it. Because taken one piece at a time, there are many possible explanations, some of them much simpler and more straightforward. But taking the entire body of knowledge we have accumulated, the simple explanations no longer satisfy all of the requirements that evidence places on an explanation.

 

The tricky bit is that unless you dedicate your life to the study of a given field, it's quite likely that you will never have enough information to be able to truly distinguish between good models and faulty models that are missing critical pieces of evidence that you simply aren't aware of.

 

 

You can rememdy that to an extent by asking questions about why such and such an explanation doesn't work, so I am not criticizing you for that and hope you don't take me as doing so.

 

However, it's important to try to reserve judgment a bit and avoid leaping to the conclusion that you have found a serious flaw in the model and that you have a better explanation that is simpler and makes more sense in light of the evidence, because it is highly likely that you don't have all of the relevant evidence to base that judgment on.

[Strange]

 

I personally estimate that if the Universe is infinite in its size it must also be infinite in its age.

 

Because sometimes the simple, obvious answer is wrong. That is why science relies on mathematical models and evidence, rather than "common sense".

[Mordred]

You need to consider all evidence in the context of other existing evidence. Taken by itself, a piece of evidence can mean many different things. It is then tempting to go with the simplest explanation that can explain that piece of evidence. In fact, that is usually the best strategy.

 

However, adding a second piece of evidence complicates things, especially if that evidence isn't compatible with the simplest explanation of the first bit of evidence.

 

We don't make these situations complicated for fun. They are complicated because the evidence is complicated, and to really understand why we model things the way that we do, you need to look at all of the evidence that we have not just to one piece or even a small subset of it. Because taken one piece at a time, there are many possible explanations, some of them much simpler and more straightforward. But taking the entire body of knowledge we have accumulated, the simple explanations no longer satisfy all of the requirements that evidence places on an explanation.

 

The tricky bit is that unless you dedicate your life to the study of a given field, it's quite likely that you will never have enough information to be able to truly distinguish between good models and faulty models that are missing critical pieces of evidence that you simply aren't aware of.

 

 

You can rememdy that to an extent by asking questions about why such and such an explanation doesn't work, so I am not criticizing you for that and hope you don't take me as doing so.

 

However, it's important to try to reserve judgment a bit and avoid leaping to the conclusion that you have found a serious flaw in the model and that you have a better explanation that is simpler and makes more sense in light of the evidence, because it is highly likely that you don't have all of the relevant evidence to base that judgment on.

 

 

Excellent post, very accurate.

 

 

 

I must say that this explanation is above my understanding.

 

 

 

 

Ask yourself the following question. Assume every single point in the universe is devoid of all particles including virtual particle production via the Heisenburg uncertainty principle

 

1)How would you determine the field potential energy?

2) can we assume the potential energy value is zero?

 

remember the definition of energy is just the ability to perform work. It is not an entity unto itself such as matter.

Edited November 18, 2016 by Mordred

[David Levy]

No one is afraid o that. You can find many scientific papers discussing that possibility.

 

Thanks

At least there are scientists which consider a possibility for infinity age to infinity universe.

Edited November 19, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

 

Thanks

At least there are scientists which consider a possibility for infinity age to infinity universe.

 

 

Of course. (Because we don't know, so all possibilities are considered.)

[David Levy]

Would you kindly summarize the evidences/discoveries which lead the science community into a conclusion that the universe could be infinity in its size and in its age?

Edited November 19, 2016 by David Levy

[David Levy]

You need to consider all evidence in the context of other existing evidence. Taken by itself, a piece of evidence can mean many different things. It is then tempting to go with the simplest explanation that can explain that piece of evidence. In fact, that is usually the best strategy.

 

However, adding a second piece of evidence complicates things, especially if that evidence isn't compatible with the simplest explanation of the first bit of evidence.

 

We don't make these situations complicated for fun. They are complicated because the evidence is complicated, and to really understand why we model things the way that we do, you need to look at all of the evidence that we have not just to one piece or even a small subset of it. Because taken one piece at a time, there are many possible explanations, some of them much simpler and more straightforward. But taking the entire body of knowledge we have accumulated, the simple explanations no longer satisfy all of the requirements that evidence places on an explanation.

 

The tricky bit is that unless you dedicate your life to the study of a given field, it's quite likely that you will never have enough information to be able to truly distinguish between good models and faulty models that are missing critical pieces of evidence that you simply aren't aware of.

 

 

You can rememdy that to an extent by asking questions about why such and such an explanation doesn't work, so I am not criticizing you for that and hope you don't take me as doing so.

 

However, it's important to try to reserve judgment a bit and avoid leaping to the conclusion that you have found a serious flaw in the model and that you have a better explanation that is simpler and makes more sense in light of the evidence, because it is highly likely that you don't have all of the relevant evidence to base that judgment on.

 

Yes, I fully agree with you.

In one hand the simplest explanation could be the best strategy, while on the other hand we must fulfill all the other evidences.

 

However, it is our duty to open our mind to any evidence.

In other words, we shouldn't look at every new evidence trough the prism of our current understanding. That behavior leads us to narrow minded approach.

From time to time we must set all the evidences on the table and try to find the best explanation for all the evidences.

 

That is key element for success at every field.

In that way our doctors have developed new medicine to very difficult diseases.

Open your mind, open all the possibilities – don't be afraid to ask yourself difficult questions, don't feel poor to get an advice from someone which might not have the certification.

Don't say: "Yes, we know better than you, but actually we don't know. If we don't know - there is no way that you might know".

Unfortunately, this approach leads us to dead end.

 

Therefore, we must set today a clear table.

Pile all the evidences and discoveries about our universe.

Try to understand what could be the simplest explanation for any evidence.

Just then, try to set a correlation between all the evidences.

That is the best strategy that the science community should adopt.

This is the only way for success.

Edited November 20, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

Would you kindly summarize the evidences/discoveries which lead the science community into a conclusion that the universe could be infinity in its size and in its age?

 

 

Mainly the fact that there is nothing to rule out any possibility.

 

The fact that measurements show the universe to be very close to flat could imply an infinite size. But there are finite topologies that are flat.

 

Yes, I fully agree with you.

In one hand the simplest explanation could be the best strategy, while on the other hand we must fulfill all the other evidences.

 

However, it is our duty to open our mind to any evidence.

In other words, we shouldn't look at every new evidence trough the prism of our current understanding. That behavior leads us to narrow minded approach.

From time to time we must set all the evidences on the table and try to find the best explanation for all the evidences.

 

That is key element for success at every field.

In that way our doctors have developed new medicine to very difficult diseases.

Open your mind, open all the possibilities – don't be afraid to ask yourself difficult questions, don't feel poor to get an advice from someone which might not have the certification.

Don't say: "Yes, we know better than you, but actually we don't know. If we don't know - there is no way that you might know".

Unfortunately, this approach leads us to dead end.

 

Therefore, we must set today a clear table.

Pile all the evidences and discoveries about our universe.

Try to understand what could be the simplest explanation for any evidence.

Just then, try to set a correlation between all the evidences.

That is the best strategy that the science community should adopt.

This is the only way for success.

 

No one would disagree with any of that. That is the strategy that science uses. It is how it progresses. Occam's Razor is often used as an argument for choosing the simplest theory that works. But, as someone said, make it as simple as possible ... but no simpler.

[David Levy]

No one would disagree with any of that. That is the strategy that science uses. It is how it progresses. Occam's Razor is often used as an argument for choosing the simplest theory that works. But, as someone said, make it as simple as possible ... but no simpler.

 

Thanks

 

So let's try to understand the simlest solution for infinite Universe/age with regards to the expansion.

How could it be that the Universe is infinite in its size and (or in its age), while it's still expand?

 

If the matter in the Universe was finite, if no new matter would be created, the density in the Universe could decrease by time.

After infinite time the Universe density should be close to zero.

The only way to maintain the density is by creating new mass.

Hence, the simplest solution for the expansion in an infinite Universe/age is new mass creation.

 

Somehow, the universe should create new mass in order to compensate on all the galaxies which are moving away from us.

If the mass creation is equal to the total mass which is moving away, then the density of the universe could stay stable infinity.

Therefore, expansion in infinite universe means – mass creation.

 

So simple and clear!

 

Do you agree?

Edited November 20, 2016 by David Levy

[Strange]

Do you agree?

 

 

No.

 

The trouble is, you are jumping to conclusions based on how you think things are, rather than looking at the evidence. For example ...

 

 

If the matter in the Universe was finite, if no new matter would be created, the density in the Universe could decrease by time.

 

That is absolutely correct. And that is what we observe.

 

 

After infinite time the Universe density should be close to zero.

 

Also correct.

 

 

The only way to maintain the density is by creating new mass.

 

The evidence suggest that the density is decreasing and so there is no need to create new mass.

 

So you are adding complexity (some unknown mechanism for creating matter) instead of accepting the simple solution supported by the evidence (decreasing density).

 

 

Somehow, the universe should create new mass in order to compensate on all the galaxies which are moving away from us.

If the mass creation is equal to the total mass which is moving away, then the density of the universe could stay stable infinity.

Therefore, expansion in infinite universe means – mass creation.

 

This is Hoyle's quasi-steady-state model. This was falsified when the CMB was observed and matched the prediction of an expanding and cooling universe (i.e. the density is decreasing, not staying constant). Steady state models are not able to explain the CMB (without adding ad-hoc complexity).

[David Levy]

That is absolutely correct. And that is what we observe.

Also correct.

The evidence suggest that the density is decreasing and so there is no need to create new mass.

 

 

Based on what data do you claim that the density is decreasing?

Would you kindly present this evidence?

 

Actually, if the Universe is infinite, while the mass is finite then by now the density of our universe should be zero or close to zero.

However, our observed universe is still full with billions over billions galaxies.

I assume that the same density is there outside our observation ability.

Somehow, our universe maintains the density even with its infinity size (and I assume also infinity age).

Edited November 20, 2016 by David Levy

[Mordred]

 

 

Based on what data do you claim that the density is decreasing?

Would you kindly present this evidence

The CMB itself is only possible in a cooling universe. Secondly temperature history shows a decreasing value. At time of the CMB it was 3000 kelvin today 2.7 kelvin. Density and temperature both drop due to expansion.

 

You already know these details. They have been mentioned numerous times to you in past threads

Edited November 20, 2016 by Mordred