The Naked Scientists

The Naked Scientists Forum

Author Topic: Is our Universe static and infinite?  (Read 13187 times)

Ethos

  • Guest
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« on: 24/04/2009 20:45:51 »
Consider the posibility that our universe is static. That is to say, "always was and always will be."

Could the cosmic background radiation only be the result of many outbursts of energy local to our present observable region? The mechanism for this release of energy might be something of a lesser scale than the purposed Big Bang. Something like a limit being reached for the size of massive bodies, where the definition of a Black Hole may not exactly fit the circumstances.

For example; Let's imagine for a minute that there exists a limit for the amount of mass that can be concentrated into a single body. We've already discussed the possibility of White Holes and I can visualize a so-called Black Hole reaching the point of compaction where it would reverse it's function and become a White Hole. Now let's assume that these events are few and far between relative to our local region of space. So few in number and wide spread enough that we might assume the rational explanation for these events are what we now understand as the Big Bang.

If the Universe is infinite, then there should also be an infinite number of these Big Bangs which have occured throughout it's infinite past. The result of this would be a homogeneous backgound radiation as seen by us in our present state. It would be very difficult to distinguish between what we understand as the Big Bang and an infinite number of, possibly, smaller bangs spread out over an infinity of space and time.

..................Ethos


 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #1 on: 24/04/2009 21:23:34 »
Quote from: Ethos
Could the cosmic background radiation only be the result of many outbursts of energy local to our present observable region? The mechanism for this release of energy might be something of a lesser scale than the purposed Big Bang. Something like a limit being reached for the size of massive bodies, where the definition of a Black Hole may not exactly fit the circumstances.
This is a possibility, but there is a more simple explanation. And there is evidence to support this more simple explanation. We see that the red shift from distant galaxies is quantized in units of about 74 km/sec worth of red shift. Hydrogen clouds in space interact with photons passing through. Some of the photons are absorbed and re-radiated as the Cosmic Microwave Background. Those not absorbed are red shifted by about 74 km/sec worth and passed on to the next cloud.

Black holes may be super-massive objects that recycle heavy metals and spew out gamma radiation perpendicular to their accretion disks. Some of these are observed when there is a suitable cloud near the black hole that the gamma radiation can energise.:)
Here's a link pointing to a study.
Quote from: the link
The analysis of dwarf irregulars was revised and improved when an extensive 21-cm redshift survey of dwarf galaxies was published by J. Richard Fisher and R. Brent Tully. Once the velocity of the solar system was accounted for, the irregulars in the Fisher-Tully Catalogue displayed an extraordinary clumping of redshifts. Instead of spreading smoothly over a range of values, the redshifts appeared to fall into discrete bins separated by intervals of 24 km per second, just 1/3 of the original 72 km per second interval. The Fisher-Tully redshifts are accurate to about 5 km per second. At this small level of uncertainty the likelihood that such clumping would randomly occur is just a few parts in 100,000.
« Last Edit: 24/04/2009 21:40:31 by Vern »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #2 on: 25/04/2009 16:40:29 »
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.
Since it is dark you can deduce that either there's something very odd about our bit of the universe (ie it's the only bit in an infinite space that happens to have stars) or that the universe is finite in time, space or both.
This was figured out centuries ago, but I can't remember to whom the deduction is usually attributed.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #3 on: 25/04/2009 17:44:49 »
Quote from: Bored chemist
Since it is dark you can deduce that either there's something very odd about our bit of the universe (ie it's the only bit in an infinite space that happens to have stars) or that the universe is finite in time, space or both.
This was figured out centuries ago, but I can't remember to whom the deduction is usually attributed.
Olbers Paradox; but it is not so. All of the infinite universe schemes provide a natural disposition for infinite starlight. In the Tired Light scheme, for example, light becomes mass as it is absorbed. It is then re-radiated. We observe this as the Cosmic Microwave Background.

Olbers paradox assumes that stars live forever, however they have fixed lifetimes. The thermodynamics assumption of continuous heating is wrong. The amount of matter and matter-equivalent energy in the universe remains the same. Galaxies convert matter to energy. Empty space converts energy to matter.
« Last Edit: 25/04/2009 18:05:01 by Vern »
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #4 on: 26/04/2009 11:51:17 »
If (and it's a big if) the light looses energy in transit then it loses that energy to something. Eventually (given an infinite time) that something would have so much energy that it too would start to glow like a star. You would still not have anywhere in the sky that was dark.
(much the same argument holds for any ideas about dust getting in the way of the light- eventually it would be so hot it would glow too. Eventally isn't a long time if you have an infinitely od universe.
"Olbers paradox assumes that stars live forever, however they have fixed lifetimes. "
If the universe is infinite in time then, since stars are known to burn out and they are known to be present now, there must be a mechanism that creates them. The mechanism may not be known but it must exist.
If the star along a particular line of sight has burned out then it doesn't matter- we will see the light from an older star behind it.

"The thermodynamics assumption of continuous heating is wrong."
Good point, an infinitley old universe would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. Ours isn't at equilibrium therefore it's not infinitely old.

Please provide some evidence for the assertion that "Empty space converts energy to matter."
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #5 on: 26/04/2009 15:40:13 »

If the star along a particular line of sight has burned out then it doesn't matter- we will see the light from an older star behind it.

If in the infinite life of our universe an infinite number of burned out stars exist, brown dwarfs, neutron, ect...., how can we see stars beyond them? Wouldn't an infinite number of burned out stars block out this light?
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #6 on: 26/04/2009 20:15:37 »
Quote from: Bored chemist
Please provide some evidence for the assertion that "Empty space converts energy to matter."
We know that high energy gamma rays can interact to produce electrons and positrons. Electrons and positrons can collide to produce sub atomic particles. Lower energy light is absorbed by dust and debris and so becomes mass.
Quote
Good point, an infinitely old universe would have reached thermodynamic equilibrium by now. Ours isn't at equilibrium therefore it's not infinitely old.
I know there's a theory that everything must eventually reach equilibrium. I'm not sure that applies to the universe.

But with my run of wrong thinking lately, I don't feel too confident about anything right now:)

 

Ethos

  • Guest
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #7 on: 27/04/2009 00:12:06 »
I know there's a theory that everything must eventually reach equilibrium. I'm not sure that applies to the universe.
But with my run of wrong thinking lately, I don't feel too confident about anything right now:)
Join the crowd my friend,.... If we were never mistaken about our facts, we could never recognize the truth if and when it finally showed up. Recognizing our mistakes is necessary and the first step to intellectual growth.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #8 on: 27/04/2009 14:47:13 »
It is good that there are people willing to point to the right direction when they see you're going in the wrong direction :)

I think though that Olbers paradox can be disposed of. The amount of energy per unit of spacial area doesn't increase because the same amount of energy departs as arrives. There is not an infinite amount of energy available.
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #9 on: 28/04/2009 00:47:36 »


I think though that Olbers paradox can be disposed of. The amount of energy per unit of spacial area doesn't increase because the same amount of energy departs as arrives. There is not an infinite amount of energy available.
I agree Vern.....There are way too many obstructions when considering this position about the character of the universe. For one, there's the question of tired light. And two, with the vast distances involved, how much material could be obstructing the lights travel. And the one that I think sinks the whole argument; With an infinity of distance as the standard, the greatest part of the light would not have even reached us yet. Olbers paradox just doesn't work for me..........Ethos
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #10 on: 28/04/2009 20:28:07 »

If the star along a particular line of sight has burned out then it doesn't matter- we will see the light from an older star behind it.

If in the infinite life of our universe an infinite number of burned out stars exist, brown dwarfs, neutron, ect...., how can we see stars beyond them? Wouldn't an infinite number of burned out stars block out this light?

Even if the fuel runs out, the stars can only cool down and become "red" or "brown" (ie not hot enough to glow) if there's somewhere for that energy to go. But, in just the same way that, in an infinite universe you can't find a dark spot in the sky standing on earth, if you were on that dead star looking out there would be a "sun" in every direction. It couldn't cool down because it would be surrounded by stars heating it up.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #11 on: 29/04/2009 13:03:35 »
The universe we see is similar to the infinite one you imagine. Even if it is not infinite, it is large enough for there to be a star in every direction. So, how much do these stars warm the universe. Maybe about 2.7 degrees K :)

 

Offline techmatt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #12 on: 29/04/2009 23:23:53 »
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.

The furthest stars we know of are not visible to the human eye. The red shift is so grate they can only be seen with infra-red detectors. It may simply be the microwave radiation in the background is the furthest stars ever detected. Maybe the light is so far shifted it is no longer light.


EDIT: Never mind I now see the error in my judgement. The red shift is the slow down of light and a microwave is in the wrong direction. I will admit it was a stupid mistake.
« Last Edit: 30/04/2009 05:07:38 by techmatt »
 

lyner

  • Guest
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #13 on: 29/04/2009 23:37:58 »
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.
Since it is dark you can deduce that either there's something very odd about our bit of the universe (ie it's the only bit in an infinite space that happens to have stars) or that the universe is finite in time, space or both.
This was figured out centuries ago, but I can't remember to whom the deduction is usually attributed.
Olber
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #14 on: 02/05/2009 21:07:00 »
Go out on a clear dark night and look just to one side of the moon at a patch of dark sky.
If the universe were infinite and static then there would (if you went far enough) be a star in your line of sight and so it wouldn't be dark.

The furthest stars we know of are not visible to the human eye. The red shift is so grate they can only be seen with infra-red detectors. It may simply be the microwave radiation in the background is the furthest stars ever detected. Maybe the light is so far shifted it is no longer light.


EDIT: Never mind I now see the error in my judgement. The red shift is the slow down of light and a microwave is in the wrong direction. I will admit it was a stupid mistake.


Anyway, if there's a red shift then it's because the universe is expanding so it's not static.

(and, the fact that it was Olber has already been established)
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #15 on: 02/05/2009 22:44:28 »
I think it was in the 4th post that I supplied this link.
Quote from: Bored Chemist
Anyway, if there's a red shift then it's because the universe is expanding so it's not static.

(and, the fact that it was Olber has already been established)
Other things besides an expanding universe can cause a red shift, so I don't think that is a given. Lindon Ashmore makes a good case for electrons robbing energy from distant starlight. My speculation is that the universe is very dynamic. It is a humongous recycling machine, constantly converting mass to energy in galaxies, and converting energy to mass in free space.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #16 on: 03/05/2009 15:59:15 »
If that were a good case (and I don't think it is) then the electrons would now have robbed so much energy (after an infinite time  bathed in radiation) that they would be very hot and so they would glow too.
As hot electrons wizzed about they would get near eachother from time to time and they would repel one another because they are charged. This would cause them to accelerate.
Since accelerated charges emit radiation we would be able to see the energetic electrons.
We don't see them so they aren't there.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #17 on: 03/05/2009 17:34:04 »
Quote from: Bored Chemist
If that were a good case (and I don't think it is) then the electrons would now have robbed so much energy (after an infinite time  bathed in radiation) that they would be very hot and so they would glow too.
They do glow and radiate the energy that they absorb. But it is not infinite. It only comes to about 2.7 degrees K.

I suspect that in your thinking you are not allowing for the continuous re-radiation of the absorbed energy. There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe. Each finite area radiates as much energy as it absorbs.

No matter the amount of these finite areas that you stack side by side, each can still radiate all the energy it receives.:) 
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #18 on: 03/05/2009 19:14:43 »
"There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe."
That's exactly my point.
There's a finite amount of stuff in, for example, the solar system. If there are an infinite number of stars out there warming up that finite bit of stuff why isn't it infinitely hot?
 

Ethos

  • Guest
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #19 on: 03/05/2009 23:25:06 »
"There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe."
That's exactly my point.
There's a finite amount of stuff in, for example, the solar system. If there are an infinite number of stars out there warming up that finite bit of stuff why isn't it infinitely hot?
I think the problem with that logic is, there is also an infinite amount of space to be warmed. Those infinite number of stars are not just warming up that finite bit of space you've mentioned. They are also warming up the rest of the infinite space we call the universe. The result is just, the 2.7 degrees Kelvin we observe................Ethos
« Last Edit: 03/05/2009 23:48:15 by Ethos »
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #20 on: 04/05/2009 17:39:45 »
Quote from: techmatt
The furthest stars we know of are not visible to the human eye. The red shift is so grate they can only be seen with infra-red detectors. It may simply be the microwave radiation in the background is the furthest stars ever detected. Maybe the light is so far shifted it is no longer light.
The idea still applies, it is just at the other end of the spectrum. What was once visible light may be radio waves. And if what we suspect is true, the radio waves representing red shifted starlight would still contain the tell-tale equivalently shifted spectrum.

 

Offline techmatt

  • Jr. Member
  • **
  • Posts: 28
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #21 on: 05/05/2009 04:12:48 »
The idea still applies, it is just at the other end of the spectrum. What was once visible light may be radio waves. And if what we suspect is true, the radio waves representing red shifted starlight would still contain the tell-tale equivalently shifted spectrum.

While it may be true the wave length would be so long an antenna the size of the moon or larger would be needed to detect the furthest stars. Therefore we may never (or at least in the precipitable future) be able to detect the furthest stars to see how big the universe really is. With in this point of time I am just keeping an open mind to all the possibilities.

I do however like to play devils advocate in any discussion to explore every theory. I think someone needs to or we may never know the truth.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #22 on: 05/05/2009 12:55:27 »
We have equipment that can detect radiation below the visible spectrum. If the universe is ageless as we suspect that it is, much of the radiation will be below the visible spectrum. It will continue to exhibit its spectral structure however. That's how we know that the CMBR is not simply red-shifted starlight. It is black-body radiation. It is all very close to the same frequency.
 

Offline Bored chemist

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 8648
  • Thanked: 42 times
    • View Profile
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #23 on: 05/05/2009 20:38:36 »
"There is only a finite amount of energy in a finite area of the universe."
That's exactly my point.
There's a finite amount of stuff in, for example, the solar system. If there are an infinite number of stars out there warming up that finite bit of stuff why isn't it infinitely hot?
I think the problem with that logic is, there is also an infinite amount of space to be warmed. Those infinite number of stars are not just warming up that finite bit of space you've mentioned. They are also warming up the rest of the infinite space we call the universe. The result is just, the 2.7 degrees Kelvin we observe................Ethos
OK you have made a good start. An infinite number of stars (each emiting a finite power) and an infinite space means that, for any finite density of stars there is a finite power density (and we know that there's a finite density of stars in our bit of the universe and one of the cop outs for Olber's paradox is that our bit of the universe is odd).

Now integrate that over the whole of time and you get an infinite total energy density which corresponds to an infinite temperature- so it should't go dark at night.
If at some time someone had set up a universe like that it might hypothetically explain the 2.7K background today. But if they had set it up an infinite time ago it would now be infinitely hot.
 

Offline Vern

  • Neilep Level Member
  • ******
  • Posts: 2072
    • View Profile
    • Photonics
Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #24 on: 06/05/2009 00:09:20 »
It the universe were infinitely hot, where did that infinite energy come from? We suspect that the laws of thermodynamics hold. Overall mass-energy can not increase unless there is some rule that we do not yet know about.
 

The Naked Scientists Forum

Is our Universe static and infinite?
« Reply #24 on: 06/05/2009 00:09:20 »

 

SMF 2.0.10 | SMF © 2015, Simple Machines
SMFAds for Free Forums