The beginning and end of the universe?

[SimonFunnell]

Hi, my first question is, what is the official line on what happened before the big bang? I have been told three things:

 

- Two branes collided creating a big bang.

- There was no space or time before the big bang, space and time came into being with the big bang.

- We don't know.

 

 

My second question is similar but instead is about the fate of the universe. Is this article on wikipedia an accurate one?

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ultimate_fate_of_the_universe

 

Thanks.

 

 

 

[Strange]

There a quite a few other ideas for the early universe. For example:

• "big bounce" (the universe collapsed and then rebounded) and ekpyrotic cyclic universe
• "eternal inflation" (several variations)
• some recent attempts to combine quantum theory and GR suggest an infinitely old universe

I'm sure there are others - those are just the ones that I can think of right now.

 

The wikipedia page seems to cover the ideas I have heard of. I wouldn't be surprised if there are others, though.

[Phi for All]

- There was no space or time before the big bang, space and time came into being with the big bang.

 

We can't really know if there was another time prior where space and time existed. We're pretty sure our present dimensional configuration started with the expansion, but can't say for certain this is the first time it's "come into being".

[ajb]

Right now no one is sure what happened just before the big bang. No one is sure what the initial conditions really were nor what started the expansion. We are not even sure that we have the right language for this: we need a proper theory of quantum gravity first.

[bluescience]

Hey! Now i'm excited! Be aware i am human so i may make mistakes!

So about what happened before the big bang. That is a very good question, and a hard one to answer. Of course what i am about to tell you is one of many theories, but it is the one i find most logical and is supported by many great scientists such as Stepehen Hawkings.

 

 

First of, yes, time and space did come into existence with the big bang. But before the big bang, all the matter, forces, and everything of the universe that is expanding right now was forced into a singularity. Stephen says that this singularity had no dimensions, it was just there. Now as a side note, if you are imagining this, stephen likes to warn us that there is absolutely nothing around this point of singularity, so even imagining a black voidness would be incorrect, but that makes imagining it much harder. Back to the topic, so this singularity suddenly burst. Now there are many details about what was created in how many millionths of a second, but to sum it up, Hydrogen would have been created first and then helium given all the heat of the bigbang. The rest of our matter is speculated to have been made by stars(i totally different topic i will not dive into).

 

Now here is the tripy part. Scientists say that this singularity had certain conditions or certain characteristics that caused it to suddenly explode into a universe with 3-dimensional space. And that too with the perfect amount of gravity, so that the universe could continue to expand. In other words, if the strength of our gravity had been a tiny bit stronger then after a certain while the force that expands our universe would have been over powered by the force of gravity eventually and then all the space and mass of our universe would have come back to the same point of singularity. However we do not know the measurement of the perfect amount of gravity needed and how exact it is. So perhaps lets say that may be our force our gravity is the tiniest amount imaginable greater than the perfect amount needed to sustain an universe in the 3rd dimension, then eventually, when that moment will come, gravity will overcome that force and all our universe will come back to a point of singularity. However, if our gravity is the same amount less than the perfect amount needed to sustain a 3-d universe then our universe will eventually continuously expand making matter increasingly spread apart.

 

Scientists claim that there could likely have been many other big bangs of singularities out there before(sorry it is hard to put it in words, since there is no time in nothingness), but when they exploded they might have had different conditions, causing them to remain as singularities or exist in other dimensions, or come up with a different structure of matter.

 

I think i have already told you about the fate of our universe. So far scientists do not know for 100%. Our universe can continually expand on forever or shrink back to a point of singularity.

 

P.S. I haven't checked out the article on wikipedia yet, so ill do that and reply back.

Edited April 1, 2016 by bluescience

[Phi for All]

You have a LOT of errors in there. The BB didn't burst. It wasn't an explosion, it was an expansion. It was also mentioned that we don't know that spacetime started for the first time with the BB. We really can't know anything prior to that.

 

And the only reason it's called a singularity is because the math we currently use can't resolve the amount of heat and density involved, so we end up with infinities that don't help. That's the reference to a singularity.

 

You should also look up what a dimension is. They aren't places where something can exist. It's a coordinate system.

[ajb]

And the only reason it's called a singularity is because the math we currently use can't resolve the amount of heat and density involved, so we end up with infinities that don't help. That's the reference to a singularity.

Absolutely right.

 

If you 'wind back' the Universe using only classical general relativity (and some reasonable physical assumptions) then you inevitably reach a singularity; a point or region of space-time where we lose the smooth manifold structure. This result is due to Hawking and based on the earlier results of Penrose on gravitational collapse. In short, singularities seem a rather generic feature of general relativity.

 

However, there is no reason why we should expect classical general relativity to be a good theory near this classical singularity. We expect that quantum effects of the gravitational field or space-time itself will regulate these singularities. The problem is that right now we do not have a proper model of quantum gravity, though people do apply the models we have to early cosmology. People do write about pre-big bang cosmology. This is not my area of expertise, but a search of the arXiv will give you reading material.

[SimonFunnell]

Thanks for the answers. Would it be fair to say, by virtue of the fact there are more than one theory, as opposed to one definitive fact, that 'we don't know' how the universe began or how it will end?

Edited April 2, 2016 by SimonFunnell

[Mordred]

That would be accurate.

[Pugdaddy]

Is it possible that our Universe is just a region of space within a larger, for the lack of a better word "omnispace"? This omnispace has a natural or intrinsic geometry. Within the omnispace the geometry of that space has random fluctuations like a slight localized contraction of that geometry. This localized contraction changes the geometry of the space in that region and out to infinity with say an inverse square law. Some fluctuations are stable and some are not. All fluctuations both stable and unstable are random within the omnispace. All stable contractions are attracted to each other because of the gradient in the space that each fluctuation causes in the omnispace. Eventually the stable random fluctuations come closer and closer to each other in a cumulative contracting the geometry of space more and more until a runaway cascade effect occurs culminating in a maximum contraction of space at a point followed by a rebound or relaxation of space to the natural or intrinsic geometry of the omnispace. The rebound event would be what we have interpreted as the Big Bang. The expansion of space we see is this relaxation of space. Does this make sense? Is there an experiment that can test this?

[Strange]

Is it possible that our Universe is just a region of space within a larger, for the lack of a better word "omnispace"?

 

This sounds like some of the multiverse and eternal inflation ideas.

 

 

Is there an experiment that can test this?

 

Various claims have been made for patterns detected in the CMB that these are evidence for various such theories. For example:

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2009/12/is-the-massive-cold-spot-a-sign.html

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology#Empirical_tests

[Pugdaddy]

I tried to stay away from the multiverse word as all the literature I have seen on the multiverses suggests that they can bump into ours. This suggests to me that they are separate entities. My suggestion is that universe's are not floating around like bubbles in some void bumping into each other, but regions of contracted space within the omniverse. So they can't really bump into each other as they are not really moving in space. It is space itself that is contracting and expanding.

[shmengie]

I got sidetracked by Lambda-CDM not explaining a multiverse scenario of development it describes. It cause me to question which verse of universe could be static if any. If there's an expanding universe, there must be a lager verse for it to expand into.

 

Don't know what to add or subtract from the brane concept. I've not studied strings. I think that's sorta a flawed direction too, but I've not studied it, certainly would qualify my guesses of plausibility as pure guess work.

 

I've discovered at least two flaws in Lambda-CDM modeled thinking. Presently I'm in a distinct minority, that may change within a year of publication. Less likely. Depends on acceptance speed factors and how well the Internet can accelerate the process.

 

I have no control of such acceptance. I've struggled with it.

 

I have another curiously pertinent prediction:

 

Once a connection is made with QM & GR and have been explained in "English" terms. It will quickly become accepted that Lambda-CDM is inherently flawed, by starting at Infinity and postulating inflation.

 

Seems Steady State might have been the better model to extend. But I used Lambda CDM as a crutch to develop my thesis, so who knows what would happened if the same mistakes weren't made way back when 'ol Albert gave us Relativity in an equation with a greek letter or so.

 

I've theorized GR has missed hints of another shift hidden in infinities by a dark hole. I found it Yesterday. Will have a paper in rough draft competed shortly I hope.

 

I put in about 15 hours working on it yesterday. Been trying to relax and sleep.... That was about 3-4 hours ago...

 

I'm so excited and ampped on coffee, I don't know how "short" shortly might be.

 

Did post a prediction I tried to post here, when the "moderator" or someone terminated the thread I started as I was working on it. The thread has links to where the prediction that lead to my breakthru, is posted. Its over at http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?topic=66046.0

 

Added a poll, so if anyone wants to chime in on the poll or prediction, fell free to gander in that direction.

 

I never meant to tie GR & QM. A curious development I didn't see coming till it hit. I can't wait to see what happens next.

 

Edited April 3, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

If there's an expanding universe, there must be a lager verse for it to expand into.

 

Not true. (Like pretty much all of your claims about existing science.)

[shmengie]

How could it expand even if there isn't some place to expand into? If there's an enclosing infinitely large verse of universe, why aren't they the same?

 

To expand implies there is a method of expansion and an unfilled area that can be expanded into.

 

I don't know how you can claim a thing to expand w/out other things to be defined to accommodate such action.

 

If it started out infinite size. What's expanding? Energy? Dark Energy. It's a flawed conclusion that begins at the start with incomplete branes yet to be defined.

 

How can one not see that as flaw? The beginning premise is defined a stack of premises later as all previous can never be observed, so the next CMBR premise must be true to lend any validity to any number of premise defined and undefined to solidify.

 

I see that as approach hypothesis by means of faith not a scientific endeavor started by looking at infinity as a plausibly correct answer to a singularity.

 

 

I can see pointing out flaws in reason. I cannot see pointing out flaws in reason, due to one's inability to question one's faith.

 

But there's a lot of good verses in scripture that would have ppl believe otherwise... I understand the mentality. I don't have to accept it purely by convenience faith affords.

 

Its a mentality that stifles ones imagination. Just think, where we'd be if Adam never sought knowledge, nor dare to take one little first bite. (not that I study stuff that doesn't interest me. I need to know what I don't know, so I have clues about whatever else might be unknown.)

 

But the, w/out false claims, how can knowledge ever develop or evolve? Ever think we haven't answered GR & QM mission connection because only one of many premise cannot be verified by any means of direct link? I see flaws only because I look for places to look. I'm not always right. I accept that.... But I'm always not not right.

 

How many lefts does it take to make 1 right?

 

I have a sudden urge for a tootsie! POP

 

How many wrongs?

A point not taken but offered, harms not the provider.

 

I sought knowledge not offered, when I posed a question I believed I knew all answers for. I assumed by default principle of quest for knowledge, I didn't know all what else otheres might know. It's an easy posture to take to afford filling voids vacant of progress.

 

(good grief I need sleep. I started writing in poetic terms, lacking sleep imagination protrudes clear thought. I finally believe I know one thing others do not, its irritating, but I may survive. I really do not like this state of being. ((needing sleep, specifically, hopefully the poetic bs will wane, too))).

Edited April 3, 2016 by shmengie

[Strange]

I sought knowledge not offered, when I posed a question I believed I knew all answers for.

 

Annoyingly, you don't pose questions. You make assertions based on your lack of knowledge.

[shmengie]

I did ask "What's all the evidence for expansion" or lambda, in a separate thread. I didn't venture to this thread to ask questions.

 

Found the an answer I wasn't looking for, and it does have me going in odd tangents... Deprivation of sleep does that to me. Sorry.

Ppl ask questions about stuff I've studied, I will offer what I can and suggest potential realities that aren't well explained by "science" as I understand.

 

I enjoy making assertions. It affords a feel of empowerment. Guess I'm an empowerment enabling junkie.

I did elude to my answer. Those weren't meant to be clearly defined as assertion.

 

We don't know expansion is correct or incorrect. <- assertion

 

I still have questions I cannot answer, nor believe others can. That doesn't mean neither I nor others won't make progress, but asserting that one asserts when one eludes is poor assessment of fact presented in fashion of opinion or suggestion. <- referring to self, as to reference one's own opinion.

 

But you do seem to belittle those you seem to believe are of lesser education. <- Not an assertion. leads toward a conclusion in similar fashion, wanted to avoid anticipated confusion.

When one contradicts your faith, why do you not provide a supporting argument. It does lead others to believe you understand your faith well and there's no room for argument nor clarification that it is or is not clearly a:

Faith is confidence or trust in a person or thing; or the observance of an obligation from loyalty; or fidelity to a person, promise, engagement; or a belief not based on proof; or it may refer to a particular system of religious belief, such as in which faith is confidence based on some degree of warrant.

Edited April 3, 2016 by shmengie

[ajb]

How could it expand even if there isn't some place to expand into?

In short, it is because space and not space-time that is expanding. That is the 3-volume of space depends on time.

 

As a loose analogy, consider a cone. The initial singularity is a bit like the apex, though we are not sure what really happens at this point. So we should cut it out. You should then think of space as a copy of S^1. You can cut the cone up into many copies of S^1 thinking of each copy as space at a given time. Notice that each S^1 is larger as time goes on.

 

This is similar to our understanding of space-time. Notice that we do not need space-time to expand into anything. This is a common misunderstanding.

[SimonFunnell]

I'll be honest with you, I do not believe the big bang happened, and I am not the only one. Amongst people I know, from a broad spectrum of life but all generally laypersons, most if not all usually 'find it hard to believe' that the whole of the universe was somehow compressed into a small space. I am little troubled when it is said 'the universe was created in a big bang' rather than qualifying it with a 'to the best of our knowledge' or the like. Yes I am a layperson but it is not for physicists to dismiss us because we don't understand the 'elegance' or what not of the equations. I sometimes think physicists are so engrossed in the business of physics that they forget to take a step back and look at the bigger picture.

 

I am a sceptical of some of sciences theories, especially in the context of the grand narrative (big bang, creation of stars/planets as spacetime expands, emergence and evolution of life, heat death/big crunch), but I have good reason for this. Why am I sceptical? This is worth pointing out because when I was younger I was a ‘believer’. Now some may interpret that as being under the spell of some holy book, but you would be wrong. To be clear, I have no interest in religion and this is the only mention it is getting.

So what was I a ‘believer’ in? Well, it was basically something we all know and love, evolution. I believed in evolution. I am going to have to elaborate. When I was younger I basically believed, because that’s what it was, quite literally, that life emerged out of the primordial soup.

Now let’s be brutally honest about this, because this is where my scepticism was born, we don’t know how life got started. Period, we do not know. We do not have the knowledge to explain how life emerged.

This meant I believed something that was effectively an idea to be an actual fact.

Now was this my fault? Well the young are notoriously naive, ignorant, assuming and not very wise/discerning, so yes, these things played a part. But because I was young this can easily be forgiven, it’s thankfully not a crime to believe something be true or not.

The same cannot be said about the scientific establishment because they basic set the official line and they are responsible for effectively misleading me. I am not saying there is some sort of conspiracy, however as I have grown older (I am 40 now) I have found that some influential scientists are certainly instrumental in giving the impression we might know more that we actually do, as well as cultivating a unpleasant disdain in people under their influence towards others who are sceptical of science theory or aspects of it.

 

That said, there are also a lot of brilliant people who come up with brilliant things, I am all for science, I am just not convinced about all of it.

 

That's why I am here, I would like to understand as much as possible.

[ajb]

I'll be honest with you, I do not believe the big bang happened, and I am not the only one.

It depends what you mean by the 'big bang'. Usually this is just slang for an expanding model of the Universe, and for this we have lots of good solid evidence.

 

If you rewind these models classically, then you reach a singularity. However, no body really expects this classical singularity to be physically realised. So, you are quite correct that 'no body believes that the Universe started from the big bang', if by big bang you mean the classical initial singularity.

 

 

I am all for science, I am just not convinced about all of it.

No body is, and that is why it is science and not religion. Everything is tested and re-evaluated all the time. Ideas can develop and change.

[Strange]

You are mixing up a couple of things here, with both the big bang model and the theory of evolution.

 

In both cases, we don't know how things started. We don't know how or if the universe was created (I am sceptical about claims that the universe was created in the big bang, but there is no evidence one way or the other currently). We also don't know how life came about - although science has moved on a long way from "primordial soup" and there some very interesting hypotheses around.

 

One the other hand, we have a huge amount of evidence about how the universe evolved from an earlier, hotter, denser state. Similarly, we have a huge amount of evidence for the way species have evolved over time.

 

In both cases, we have good scientific theories describing evolution: the big bang model of the universe and natural selection for biological evolution. In both cases, as well, the initial simple model has had to be modified as we learn more. So, very recently, we have had to extend the big bang model to include accelerating expansion ("dark energy") and biological evolution has had to be extended to include horizontal gene transfer (Darwin and Wallace didn't even know genes existed) epigentics, and many other things.

 

 

I am little troubled when it is said 'the universe was created in a big bang' rather than qualifying it with a 'to the best of our knowledge' or the like.

 

I agree. Firstly, as I say, there is no evidence for "creation" of the universe (like abiogenesis, there are many hypotheses for what might have happened at the earliest times).

 

Secondly, journalists and popular science writers (including scientists) rarely add the caveats such as "according to current evidence ... our best theories ...". They use words like "prove" and "know", whereas science is normally expressed in much more cautious terms such as the evidence "supports" or "is consistent with" a hypothesis.

 

They also never say that what they are saying is based on images and analogies, which are only an approximation to the science (and, in some case, are just not true).

 

But I don't think you should be too quick to discard carefully developed and well-tested theories just because they are overhyped and simplified in the popular press.

 

One of the values of science forums is (I hope) that you can get an insight into the deeper science behind the pop-sci articles and videos.

 

 

This meant I believed something that was effectively an idea to be an actual fact.

 

This approach, of giving simplified versions, is common in education. If you go to university, you soon realise that the "facts" you learned at school are not really true, and the real scientific "facts" are more complex. And then, as you study more you realise that those are not facts, they are just good models, and some models are better than others. This approach to education is sometimes known as "lying to children". Some people get very upset when they find out they have been "deceived" in this way. But I'm not sure there is an alternative. You can't teach the complexities of general relativity to schoolkids so you teach them Newton's law of gravity and you give them some simplified stories about "rubber sheets" to introduce some of the concepts from GR.

 

Anyway, stick around. Ask questions. Hopefully, you will be able to fill some of the gaps and see that the science does (usually) have a pretty sound basis. Even though we don't know anything for sure and nothing is every proved.

Edited April 3, 2016 by Strange

[SimonFunnell]

One of the values of science forums is (I hope) that you can get an insight into the deeper science behind the pop-sci articles and videos.

 

 

This does seem to be a decent forum where you can indeed dig deeper to get the facts (there are some facts). I was banned from a physics forum unfairly in my eyes, there was no warnings, no appeal process, just an authoritarian moderator who was judge, jury and executioner. My crime was suggesting the universe could be a kind of cellular automata (another reason I am not convinced by the big bang) and not really explaining it very well (I think physics 'theory of everything' will turn out to the be the fact the universe is a kind of cellular automata). I have a good 25 years left in me and there is nothing stopping me from getting a degree in physics for example, its just I am a little put off by some of my experiences with the field of physics. That said, the field of physics has got the be discerning so, I suppose its about striking a balance somehow.

 

Thanks for the responses anyway, I have some reading to do.

[ajb]

My crime was suggesting the universe could be a kind of cellular automata...

So this was discussed in another thread. We should not re-introduce this topic here.

 

What I will say is that it was clear that you had nothing to add to this idea that has been explored before. You did not seem that aware of the work of others.

 

You have to be very careful here not to argue from ignorance. You need to have some real knowledge of science today before you can argue that it is wrong.

[SimonFunnell]

So this was discussed in another thread. We should not re-introduce this topic here.

 

What I will say is that it was clear that you had nothing to add to this idea that has been explored before. You did not seem that aware of the work of others.

 

You have to be very careful here not to argue from ignorance. You need to have some real knowledge of science today before you can argue that it is wrong.

 

I admit my knowledge is patchy, but I do have stuff to add, I just can't explain it all here on the forums. I am working on documenting my ideas in full, then I am going to get a video done (against advice from this forum, but still...). I am trying to focus on improving my knowledge so as to be accurate as possible. As suggested, it can be hard to get proper information from watching pop-science and what not.

[ajb]

I am trying to focus on improving my knowledge so as to be accurate as possible.

Improving your knowledge is what you should do before trying to fix problems in science. Otherwise you do not know what the problems really are.

 

For example, I am not sure what your objections to the 'big bang' are. All I can really see is that you have noticed that something goes wrong classically at the 'beginning of the Universe'. Everyone who works in cosmology accepts this.

 

As suggested, it can be hard to get proper information from watching pop-science and what not.

So don't. Pick up a textbook instead!