A Universe Without Origin and End?

[Strange]

No theory is ever "perfect". Whatever new theories that are developed, even if they modify or replace the current big bang model, will still have unknowns and open questions.

[Nicholas Kang]

So, a universe with no begining and no end is the best option? Since if A causes Big Bang, then you may ask what causes A? Then if B causes Big Bang, you may continue to ask what causes B and so on, till infinity.

[Deepak Kapur]

So, a universe with no begining and no end is the best option? Since if A causes Big Bang, then you may ask what causes A? Then if B causes Big Bang, you may continue to ask what causes B and so on, till infinity.

 

IMO, this is not the best option...

 

We can always ask...'What is the mechanism that causes this infinite regress?'

 

In this way we can qualify the infinite regress also. ......and so on..........

[Strange]

So, a universe with no begining and no end is the best option? Since if A causes Big Bang, then you may ask what causes A? Then if B causes Big Bang, you may continue to ask what causes B and so on, till infinity.

 

That implies everything has a cause, which may not be true.

[Nicholas Kang]

So, invalid speculation? Useless speculation?

[Bignose]

So, a universe with no begining and no end is the best option?

You seem to keep missing the point that in science, the 'best' option is the one that makes the most accurate predictions. Big Bang at the moment is doing a pretty good job, and it seems to be continuing. See the BICEP2 data that recently came out http://www.cfa.harvard.edu/CMB/bicep2/science.html

 

But, in the exact same way, science is always looking for that next thing, and there are some that question these results: http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2014/05/140514-bicep2-physics-rumors-science-big-bang/

 

Either way, the point is is that prediction and agreement with observed data is by far the main metric by which scientific ideas are judged. It is fine to talk about outside universes, universes with no beginning or end, and so on, but the real question is: what predictions can be made with these ideas? And how do those predictions agree with what is actually measured?

 

Without predictions, these ideas are just story telling. Which can be fun in its own way -- I personally enjoy reading sci-fi novels -- but it really isn't very scientific. These ideas are often the kernel of an idea that leads to predictions, but themselves are just ideas.

 

So, my point is that best is answerable. That what we need is predictions from these ideas to actually evaluate them and not just speculative chit-chat.

[Kramer]

I have some layman questions about the doubt in Big Beng theory.

 

Questions out of curiosity.

I
On the news is said:

Astronomers using the Hubble Space Telescope have pieced together this picture that shows a small section of space in the southern-hemisphere constellation Fornax. Within this deep-space image are 10,000 galaxies, going back in time as far as a few hundred million years after the Big Bang.
------ If I am not wrong, for “creation” of our earth were spend more than 4 billion years, of “time.
Isn’t odd that 10000 galaxies were created in only a few hundred million years?

Any explanation about this news?:
1- Mistake of information?
2- Mistake made by an astronomer?
3- Some other profound conundrums?

II

Let suppose hypothetically:
Astronomers scrutinized the small section of constellation Fornax and found 10000 galaxies.
How many galaxies they will found if they scrutinize each inch of both hemispheres of sky map of today universe?
Are some of the galaxies we see today the same as they found in constellation Fornax? Which one?

[Strange]

If I am not wrong, for “creation” of our earth were spend more than 4 billion years, of “time.

 

The Earth is about 4 billion years old. Which is not the same as requiring 4 billion years for it to be formed.

 

I believe that there is a quite bit of uncertainty about exactly how galaxies form. It was, apparently, a bit surprising to find galaxies quite so early. But it certainly doesn't conflict with the bag bang theory.

[Mordred]

 

The Earth is about 4 billion years old. Which is not the same as requiring 4 billion years for it to be formed.

 

I believe that there is a quite bit of uncertainty about exactly how galaxies form. It was, apparently, a bit surprising to find galaxies quite so early. But it certainly doesn't conflict with the bag bang theory.

 

 

a large part of that uncertainty is due to not knowing how soon Early structure formation occurs due to inhomogeneities in the uniformity of the universe after or during inflation. There is no strong agreement on this aspect. However as you stated it does not conflict with the BB

[imatfaal]

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

 

At least one of those problems is dubious. The magnetic monopole problem - this is hypothetical particle; it is a bit rich to use the non-existence of relic magnetic monopoles when we have no good evidenced theory which predicts them and have zero evidence of their existence.

 

Not sure about something on that page "Particle theories like Grand Unified Theories and superstring theory predict magnetic monopoles should exist, and relativity tells us that the Big Bang should have produced a lot of them" relativity tells us?

[KenBrace]

I like to think about it this way. Our universe is infinitely large and infinitely small right? You can never go so far into outer space that you reach "the end". You can always take a step further. In the same way, time never has a beginning or an end. I think of time as the position of a person's consioucness through 6D space. So in a sense "time" doesn't even exist. It is the (at least) 6 dimensional universe that exists as a single object and is infinite in the same way that our 3D universe is inifinite.

[Nicholas Kang]

I like to think about it this way. Our universe is infinitely large and infinitely small right? You can never go so far into outer space that you reach "the end". You can always take a step further. In the same way, time never has a beginning or an end. I think of time as the position of a person's consioucness through 6D space. So in a sense "time" doesn't even exist. It is the (at least) 6 dimensional universe that exists as a single object and is infinite in the same way that our 3D universe is inifinite.

 

Evidences?

[KenBrace]

 

Evidences?

 

No evidence for the 6 dimensional time theory. It's just a theory at the moment.

[Nicholas Kang]

A theory without evidences? Are they still finding evidences?

[KenBrace]

A theory without evidences? Are they still finding evidences?

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4BjGWLJNPcA

 

What scientists are finding is veering towards the theory I mentioned but it's still mostly a theoretical view of reality without much evidence yet to directly back it up.

Edited June 20, 2014 by KenBrace

[Ten oz]

I like to think about it this way. Our universe is infinitely large and infinitely small right? You can never go so far into outer space that you reach "the end". You can always take a step further. In the same way, time never has a beginning or an end. I think of time as the position of a person's consioucness through 6D space. So in a sense "time" doesn't even exist. It is the (at least) 6 dimensional universe that exists as a single object and is infinite in the same way that our 3D universe is inifinite.

It seems like you are using the missing parts of the big bang, what can before it and lays beyond, as evidence for other theories. I find that logic circular. A lack of evidence for one thing does not in itself equal evidence for another. You still need your own evidence for your theories.

You said "Our universe is infinitely large and infinitely small", that is a contradictory statement that implies size isnt relevant. While I under that depending upon perspective it may appear that way I don't find the statement correct. We can not travel or see beyond the speed of light which is what prevents us from visiting or seeing "the end" of the universe. It doesn't mean there isn't one. Also time is not a force. Time is a messurement of speed/travel. Time does exist.

Edited June 21, 2014 by Ten oz

[Deepak Kapur]

A query regarding time......

 

Before big bang, time did not exist.

 

Then, howcome big bang happen in the very first place?

 

Does it mean, certain things can happen even without time?

[Mordred]

A query regarding time......

 

Before big bang, time did not exist.

 

Then, howcome big bang happen in the very first place?

 

Does it mean, certain things can happen even without time?

 

 

That is a good question, and its also not easily answered, I'll leave it in the hands of this article

"Time before time"

http://arxiv.org/ftp/physics/papers/0408/0408111.pdf

[Deepak Kapur]

@ mordred

 

It was a good read.....all the types of universes and entropy......but......I couldn't find the answer.....

 

May be...you should help me out or give another link.

[StringJunky]

A query regarding time......

 

Before big bang, time did not exist.

 

Then, howcome big bang happen in the very first place?

 

Does it mean, certain things can happen even without time?

Pre-BB, things might not have happened in the familiar temporally/spatially sequential fashion as they did and do post-BB... these two parameters may not have even emerged before then yet the universe existed. This way you can have an eternal universe that didn't 'pop' into existence and yet the clock started at a particular moment in its evolution.

[Deepak Kapur]

@ Stringjunky

 

Does it mean that before the BB, the universe existed all at once- without the separation between past, present and future?

 

Does this mean that before BB everything happened all at once?

 

Even it were true, what is the 'NATURAL' mechanism, that led to the starting of time?- no one has given any so far........

 

IMHO, seen from this viewpoint, everything that we call natural IS SUPERNATURAL because it has a supernatural begining as per current knowledge.......

[StringJunky]

What it means is that I don't have a clue because if those two parameters were absent there is no framework to place things in to make sense of their position or order. Yes it could have happened all at once but taken an 'eternity' to do so! Sorry about the oymoron but we can't be sensible about this because two mainstays in this scenario are missing i.e. space and time.

[Mordred]

time is a difficult subject to define, in many ways its definition depends on the universe model. In multi-verse models the typical reasoning is that time exists outside our universe. In bounce models, cyclic models or any model that our universe started from another previous universe the same is true (usually)

 

In the universe from nothing models, time starts when the first bubble due to vacuum fluctuations occur.

 

there is huge debates on the time aspects, so there is no clear answer. Wish I could help more but any answer I give is open to conjecture and debate

[Nicholas Kang]

I think time is just simply a measure of the expansion of the universe. As time passes by, the universe continue to inflate and vice versa.

[Strange]

I think time is just simply a measure of the expansion of the universe. As time passes by, the universe continue to inflate and vice versa.

 

Does that mean that if it started to contract that backwards run would time?