A Universe Without Origin and End?

[Nicholas Kang]

Is it possible that our universe has no start and end? Maybe the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is just some radiation emitted from an unknown source? It might not be the evidence of Big Bang but the only clue for a new theory to emerge? Maybe the universe is just always exist or somehow we can use Darwin`s Evolution and Natural Selection Theory in this context. So, we may assume that the universe is just an evolution form an older universe, so the universe can only be old but not young, so, the universe will eventually die and fade and it is the end, no new Big Bang?

[Ten oz]

Background Radiation is not how the age of the universe is messured. http://www.space.com/24054-how-old-is-the-universe.html

 

We know the universe as we know it did start between 13.7-13.9 billion years ago. When that was from the end of some other universe or an explosion in parallel dimension, or whatever is not known.

 

Your question/thought seems to both challange the whether the big bang accorded at all and explore what came before it. For me is a lot easier to at each issue individually. Was there a big bang? Once the answer to that question is comfortably understood the next question of what cam before can be addressed.

[Nicholas Kang]

You don`t trust Big Bang?

Edited June 11, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Ten oz]

You don`t trust Big Bang?

I do believe in the big bang. It, the theory, only covers expansion and what happened after. It doesnt cover the moments before expansion of where the material came from.

[Nicholas Kang]

So? You don`t agree with my "proposal"?

[Ten oz]

So? You don`t agree with my "proposal"?

you posted that our universe may have no beginning or end. I believe our universe has both a beginning and an end. What I am unsure of is whether there was anything before our universe or if there will be anything after.

[Strange]

Is it possible that our universe has no start and end?

 

Entirely possible. Probable, even.

 

 

Maybe the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is just some radiation emitted from an unknown source? It might not be the evidence of Big Bang but the only clue for a new theory to emerge?

 

But why invoke an unknown when we have a perfectly good explanation already.

 

Also, this has nothing to do with your first question.

 

 

Maybe the universe is just always exist or somehow we can use Darwin`s Evolution and Natural Selection Theory in this context. So, we may assume that the universe is just an evolution form an older universe, so the universe can only be old but not young, so, the universe will eventually die and fade and it is the end, no new Big Bang?

 

There are some theories along these lines. For example:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/

http://www.insidescience.org/content/every-black-hole-contains-new-universe/566

This is all pretty speculative though. I'm not sure it counts as science.

[hoola]

to propose a no end or beginning scenario is a "steady state" idea, and as such, a way of dodging the possibly uncomfortable aspects of the why anything question...

[Nicholas Kang]

 

But why invoke an unknown when we have a perfectly good explanation already.

 

Also, this has nothing to do with your first question.

 

Not every time a good explanation must be correct, it can somehow be challenged by new theories. Invoking unknowns mean raising challenge towards the ordinary theory, or falsify the theory itself.

[Strange]

to propose a no end or beginning scenario is a "steady state" idea, and as such, a way of dodging the possibly uncomfortable aspects of the why anything question...

 

Not necessarily. The universe very obviously does not fit a steady state description, but we have no evidence yet about if (or how) it "began".

 

Not every time a good explanation must be correct, it can somehow be challenged by new theories. Invoking unknowns mean raising challenge towards the ordinary theory, or falsify the theory itself.

 

The first part is true. But the existing explanation will only be modified/replaced when there is a better theory - probably based on new evidence. Without evidence, there is no point just making up "something unknown"; you might as well say Santa Clause did it.

[Nicholas Kang]

Something unknown means we must find evidences for a better theory. Of course, this is crazy. If I say the CMBR is most probably not a trace clue form the Big Bang, will you believe it? Or you will say: "You are crazy, Nicholas. Don`t be a fool and idiot."

 

I think most of you will prefer to the second one.

Yet, it is not impossible that the CMBR is not an evidence from the Big Bang. Maybe it can be related to the dark energy and dark matter? Who knows?

Edited June 12, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Strange]

Something unknown means we must find evidences for a better theory. Of course, this is crazy. If I say the CMBR is most probably not a trace clue form the Big Bang, will you believe it? Or you will say: "You are crazy, Nicholas. Don`t be a fool and idiot."

 

Neither. I will say: "show me the evidence".

 

And it isn't something unknown. We have (overwhelming) evidence for the origin of the CMBR. So without (new) evidence or theory, there is no value to saying "it could be something else".

[Nicholas Kang]

Can you provide me the so called "overwhelming" evidences?

[Ten oz]

Not necessarily. The universe very obviously does not fit a steady state description, but we have no evidence yet about if (or how) it "began".

 

We use to not understand what caused any number of things: Lightning, Aurora Borealis, earthquakes, moon cycles, tides, etc, etc. Not knowing somethings origins does not mean you discard it out right. We know there was expansion(a big bang). We can use that to messure the age and size of the universe. We do not know what caused expansion but that is a different conversation than challanging if there was expansion.

[Nicholas Kang]

Are you sure that an expansion must be originated form Big Bang? Are you sure that there are no other possible answers? If one thing expand, there can be something unknown is pulling it outwards. The pulling force can be larger than the internal force, thus expand occurs. What if our universe, during the origin, is being pulled by an external unknown force, thus expand?

[Strange]

Can you provide me the so called "overwhelming" evidences?

 

You could start here: http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/bigbang.html

We use to not understand what caused any number of things: Lightning, Aurora Borealis, earthquakes, moon cycles, tides, etc, etc. Not knowing somethings origins does not mean you discard it out right. We know there was expansion(a big bang). We can use that to messure the age and size of the universe. We do not know what caused expansion but that is a different conversation than challanging if there was expansion.

 

Exactly.

Are you sure that an expansion must be originated form Big Bang?

 

The "big bang" is the description of an expanding universe evolving from an earlier hot, dense state. So the expansion IS the big bang.

 

 

What if our universe, during the origin, is being pulled by an external unknown force, thus expand?

 

The trouble is that invoking an unknown has no value. You might as well say, what if it is flying unicorns pushing the galaxies away. What if it is a mass delusion created by aliens with a sense of humour. What if ... it is something unknown.

 

That isn't science. Science looks at the evidence, builds models, tests them and, if necessary rejects or modifies them. We have a very good model. If you want to replace it, you need a lot better than "what if".

[Ten oz]

Are you sure that an expansion must be originated form Big Bang? Are you sure that there are no other possible answers? If one thing expand, there can be something unknown is pulling it outwards. The pulling force can be larger than the internal force, thus expand occurs. What if our universe, during the origin, is being pulled by an external unknown force, thus expand?

Big Bang theory is about the moment of expansion and after. It doesn't define a cause.

 

Could our universe, in the beginning, had been pulled by an external force? I think that is an unlikely idea. A force interacts with our universe would be part of our universe and not external to it. I think we'd see evidence that such powerful force existed just as radiation and gravity are forces we see throughout the universe even when they are gone.

[Nicholas Kang]

Maybe they are other unseen universes? Or maybe dimensions? Who knows?

[Ten oz]

Maybe they are other unseen universes? Or maybe dimensions? Who knows?

There very well could be but that does not mean our Universe is without beginning or end.

[Nicholas Kang]

Maybe unseen universes exert forces and cause Big Bang?

[KenBrace]

You don`t trust Big Bang?

 

The Big Bang isn't that strong of a theory yet. It's hard to gather evidence for something that happened billions of years ago.

 

That said I do think it is the best theory we have for the origin of this universe.

[pwagen]

The Big Bang isn't that strong of a theory yet

In what way is it not a strong theory? Does it not have a vast amount of evidence supporting it?

[Nicholas Kang]

In what way is it not a strong theory? Does it not have a vast amount of evidence supporting it?

 

It did have a vast amount of evidences, but there is also a lot of unanswered questions, for example(maybe these examples had been solved) the magnetic monopole problem, the flatness problem and the horizon problem. Refer http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html

Edited June 15, 2014 by Nicholas Kang

[Strange]

 

It did have a vast amount of evidences, but there is also evidences that contradict it, for example(maybe these examples had been solved) the magnetic monopole problem, the flatness problem and the horizon problem. Refer http://www.superstringtheory.com/cosmo/cosmo4.html

 

These don't contradict it, but they are (currently) unanswered questions.

[Nicholas Kang]

Unanswered question means not a stable theory or not yet perfect.