Naked Science Forum
Non Life Sciences => Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology => Topic started by: thedoc on 30/05/2013 12:30:01
-
Anton Lukas asked the Naked Scientists:
13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe. There was no space, matter. Time started then.
I do have a lot of questions. Can you answer some of them?
When was matter created?
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
How can something be created from nothing?
What do you think?
-
Hi Anton.
As a non-scientist I will not attempt the first three questions, but I believe the answer to the last one is: "It can't be!".
In all the things I have read on this subject (those I could understand, anyway) the nothing from which the Universe is supposed to have come, turns out to be something.
-
the nothing from which the Universe is supposed to have come, turns out to be something.
I think this has to do with a misunderstanding of the concept of nothing.
I use to thing at the concept of "nothing" as a logical negation of all that it is.
In my opinion something cannot be created from nothing and there is no such thing like "ex-nihilis" creation.
Big-bang is (in my opinion) a remodeling of a previously existing reality.
According to the conservation of energy (or 1st principle of thermodynamics) all that exists existed forever and will exist forever.
If the total energy of universe is zero (negative energy due to gravity compensate exactly the mc^2 energy in things), then zero total energy does not define a state of nothing.
-
I think it has to do with presumptions. Those change with new findings, creating new definitions. But we all have them, and we all define a universe from it. The hope of science is that it at some stage will be able to give us a coherent answer to it all. That's what science strive for, testing, defining hypothesis's, testing again, defining new ones. In the end we might find a way to describe it that will make sense, but we will probably need new words for it. With words come new ways to think.
-
In science, anything that can't be detected is officially regarded as "nothing". That doesn't mean it's a literal nothing, but just that it's beyond the boundaries of what can currently be explored.
-
In science, anything that can't be detected is officially regarded as "nothing".
That's not quite true. If somethings existance can be inferred from something else then it's called something other than "nothing." For example: quarks are said to exist even thought its impossible to observe a single quark when its not bound to others. Virtual particles are said to exist too but they can't be observed directly.
-
Thank you a lot for your suggestions to my last question regarding "the something from nothing"
But what about the following:
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Or was all the matter created in the big bang?
Or was part of the engergy converted into matter afterward?
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
-
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Or was all the matter created in the big bang?
Or was part of the energy converted into matter afterward?
When theres so great amount of pure energy and gravity, its impossible for anything to form at that point. When universe gains size and conditions is no longer so extreme, particles begins to form. Amount of matter can be increasing and decreasing but the overall amount of energy in our universe is not increasing or decreasing.
-
I think you can define a universe several ways. As being 'closed' but closed how? Closed by our limitations of observation and definitions, or 'closed' as in following a geodesic finding it to lead back to where you started? Maybe both are valid descriptions, it all depends on where you stand looking at it.
-
Anton Lukas asked the Naked Scientists:
13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe.
Wrong. The universe has no time of occurrence in contrast to its materialized part. It existed before the alleged big boom which belongs to number of scientific myths.
There was no space, matter.
Nope. Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter, however was not empty. It had to contain something that we can call primordial pre-matter (ether or dark matter).
Time started then.
Time belongs to synonyms of motion; change... Time autonomously does not exist. As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.
I do have a lot of questions. Can you answer some of them?
When was matter created?
Some 14 billion years ago.
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
No way.
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
No. However I would call it ether or dark matter, as energy must have its owner - spontaneously does not exist.
How can something be created from nothing?
There is no such feasibility.
-
Nope. Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter, however was not empty. It had to contain something that we can call primordial pre-matter (ether or dark matter).
..............
Time belongs to synonyms of motion; change... Time autonomously does not exist. As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.
If time is an emerging concept (from motion) rather than a reality in itself, then why not space would be a concept emerging from the order of the things (matter) in universe rather than an 'autonomous' reality?
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
No way.
The amount of the matter increased suddenly at some point in the past, but it might be that now it is slowly decreasing because protons may be decomposing (half-time of order 10^33 years according to some theories). Free neutrons can quickly decompose (half-time of order few weeks). The end product is photon, which is though to have zero invariant mass. If so, the universe is slowly loosing mass and in 10^100 years the universe may not have protons to support chemistry.
Note that the total energy should stays the same (I have a strong belief in the conservation of energy, not sure why...), what changes is how energy is carried: by non-zero rest mass objects or by photons.
If the final state of universe will be just a soup of photons, how will time and space be 'defined' in that kind of universe?
-
You know, I'm not sure how matter would break down in that final thermodynamical equilibrium?
How?
-
As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.
Surely (whatever the story), the formation of matter must have constituted a change. How can you have change without time?
-
Is the start of time itself a change (going from no time to time in no time at all) ?
-
Surely, going from no time to time is a very big change. Suggesting that this could happen "in no time at all" raises some interesting possibilities/questions and would undoubtedly involve QM, which would then have to be a preexisting factor.
-
Reminds me of those deep eastern wisdoms dlorde :)
Should be possible to remake into a koan of sorts
-
If time is an emerging concept (from motion) rather than a reality in itself, then why not space would be a concept emerging from the order of the things (matter) in universe rather than an 'autonomous' reality?
Time (of what?) is not emerging concept from motion. They are synonyms, feature of matter. I do not see any factor to be responsible for emergence of space. It must be primordial.
The amount of the matter increased suddenly at some point in the past, but it might be that now it is slowly decreasing because protons may be decomposing (half-time of order 10^33 years according to some theories). Free neutrons can quickly decompose (half-time of order few weeks). The end product is photon, which is though to have zero invariant mass. If so, the universe is slowly loosing mass and in 10^100 years the universe may not have protons to support chemistry.
I don't think so. Some part of ether was converted into matter (ca 14 billion years ago) and the latter is only evolving. The universe is a closed system and nothing can "evaporte" from it.
Note that the total energy should stays the same (I have a strong belief in the conservation of energy, not sure why...), what changes is how energy is carried: by non-zero rest mass objects or by photons.
I've read (and share this view) that the principle of conservation of energy does not exist.
If the final state of universe will be just a soup of photons, how will time and space be 'defined' in that kind of universe?
I don't think it could happen. But when you ask about time, you should indicate "time of what?". Space should be understood as the universal "container" of all physical entities.
-
As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it. Because matter is in a constant motion; change.
Surely (whatever the story), the formation of matter must have constituted a change. How can you have change without time?
Well, I assume that the mother of matter was primordial ether. The emergence of matter was preceded by its accidental disturbance (= motion) in its density in some point of the universe. Thus turning ether into matter (initially led to formation of the simplest element, i.e. hydrogen) can be treated as the beginning of material part of the universe, approximated time of which we obviously know.
-
Is the start of time itself a change (going from no time to time in no time at all) ?
Question about birth of time is as logical as questions about start of motion, start of change. You need to be more specific - motion of what?; change of what?
On the other hand, before emergence of materialized part of the universe notion of "time" loses its sense. No motion (of something), no changes (of something) means no time (of something).
-
As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it.
If your saying time only started when matter formed, then when did your space exist if there was no time?
Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter,
How do you explain the concept of existence without using the concept of time?
-
Some part of ether was converted into matter (ca 14 billion years ago) and the latter is only evolving.
I thought the issue of 'ether' was actually solved by scientists (physics do just well without it).
I would agree with some view that after big bang the energy was converted to matter. Which matter from now on may slowly decompose back to energy (photons).
1) I've read (and share this view) that the principle of conservation of energy does not exist.
Any rationale for that? A link or something that would justify why total energy of a closed system is not conserved?
2) The universe is a closed system and nothing can "evaporte" from it.
Note that your sentences 1) and 2) above may be seen as contradicting each other.
-
As soon as matter was formed (which is another story), time automatically started to accompany it.
If your saying time only started when matter formed, then when did your space exist if there was no time?
Space is primordial (it's volume unchanged - according to my speculative calculation R of the universe amounts minimum 6.2*10^117 l.y.).
Space is the essence of the universe. It existed before matter,
How do you explain the concept of existence without using the concept of time?
Time of what you mean? Imagine such a state of nature that there is just space & ether. Time (of something) means motion (of something) / change (of something). Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed), and doesn't undergo changes (unless one time, accidental occurrence that led to emergence of matter). Tell me then how could you measure time of ...(what?). What would mean in such circumstances 5 minutes, 10 years or 100 billion of years. Time loses its sense. It was just such a state of the universe (you may call it timelessness). If there is no motion of (something) / no change (of something) its time = 0
-
Some part of ether was converted into matter (ca 14 billion years ago) and the latter is only evolving.
I thought the issue of 'ether' was actually solved by scientists (physics do just well without it).
I don't agree with such point of view. No ether = no conductivity. Empty space would be a perfect insulator. Physical entities couldn't then feel themselves (interact).
I would agree with some view that after big bang the energy was converted to matter. Which matter from now on may slowly decompose back to energy (photons).
There was no big bang. Matter was formed in other way. Matter is indestructible. It only changes its form.
1) I've read (and share this view) that the principle of conservation of energy does not exist.
Any rationale for that? A link or something that would justify why total energy of a closed system is not conserved?
Yeah. There is a material about it, but unfortunately in Polish (nasa_ktp.republika.pl/ZZE_nie_istnieje.html). Example in one sentence: In magnets is asymmetry of forces between poles of attraction and repulsion.
2) The universe is a closed system and nothing can "evaporate" from it.
Note that your sentences 1) and 2) above may be seen as contradicting each other.
No, because energy must have its owner. It doesn't roam on its own.
-
okay, my two cents. I guess this is all philosophical as I was lead to believe that our current mainstream scientific theories are only relevant for the moments after the big bang, and it's only through extrapolation that we are left with a singularity containing the entire known universe.
I've always seen this moment as more a location on a time axis that can be labelled "zero", a bit like the north pole, so saying there was nothing before the big bang is a bit like saying "but what happens past the north pole?"
I've also had the thought that it seems there is a gradual shift from pure energy into pure matter. If the universe is indeed expanding than eventually all the suns will stop burning and all the energy of the universe will be locked up in cold matter. I wonder if this itself will trigger some new epoch on a quantum level as the journey towards absolute zero competes with the uncertainty principle.
Of course the energy is still there, just located at a different point on the time axis.
Unfortunately I haven't had the pleasure of a physics degree so they are all musings in my head.
-
Time of what you mean? Imagine such a state of nature that there is just space & ether. Time (of something) means motion (of something) / change (of something). Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed), and doesn't undergo changes (unless one time, accidental occurrence that led to emergence of matter).
I got no idea what you mean by ether here? What is this ether that it may be disturbed?
I know of the idea of fundamental particle fields, but these particle fields exist in time.
-
Some of my thoughts on this as an armchair physisist ....everything was created 13.8 billion years ago apparently but why not 100 billion years ago or any other number in my opinion its always been here its just that it has not allways been ticking, time to me means nothing more than a way to as how a change of state between two points when matter is present. As for is matter still being created then yes it is I'd say scientists have created matter themselves. I think matter/energy are infinite, i fall back to what I said about time why would there be a set amount there's simply as much as there currently is due to whatever happened to make it which I have no ideas for but further to this I can only assume whatever did could easily create another batch at will. Oh and as for this ether stuff sounds a little bit 19th century for me. On this note will leave you all to take aim and shoot me down.
Ace
-
What was the question again Ace?
If you're really asking why 13.8 billion years has elapsed since the big bang, the anthropic answer is that it takes roughly that long for suitable conditions to arise to support the development of life, and for life to develop enough to ask the question. You need at least two generations of stars, probably more, so that the heavy elements formed by the early generation(s) of supernovas can seed the planets forming round the later generations. Then you need to wait for the planetary system to quieten down and for a sufficient number of comets to deliver enough water (if that was the mechanism for it). There are probably a number of other requirements, such as development of atmosphere, reduction in the flux of harmful cosmic radiation, and so-on.
If we assume there was something before the big bang, I don't think anyone has the foggiest idea how long 'before the big bang' would have lasted, or if it means anything to ask.
-
If we assume there was something before the big bang, I don't think anyone has the foggiest idea how long 'before the big bang' would have lasted, or if it means anything to ask.
I can sort of pretend to understand numerous universes (multiverse) being constantly created in time...the past, now and future. And again, I can pretend to understand how space and time started in the standard big bang model.
But, I'm fuddled about Niebieskieucho's ether existing in no time and having the capacity to be disturbed.
-
... I'm fuddled about Niebieskieucho's ether existing in no time and having the capacity to be disturbed.
Yup, me too.
-
When we say time didnt exist it probably means this universe had not been born but time was flowing nicely from where ever it came from.
-
okay, my two cents. I guess this is all philosophical as I was lead to believe that our current mainstream scientific theories are only relevant for the moments after the big bang, and it's only through extrapolation that we are left with a singularity containing the entire known universe.
Cosmology is based mainly on philosophy, because conditions that led to emergence of matter are not feasible to check or recreate. The mainstream science theory doesn't look well, due to many reasons. Anyway, it's just theory and that is why it can be falsified.
-
Time of what you mean? Imagine such a state of nature that there is just space & ether. Time (of something) means motion (of something) / change (of something). Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed), and doesn't undergo changes (unless one time, accidental occurrence that led to emergence of matter).
I got no idea what you mean by ether here? What is this ether that it may be disturbed?
I mean elementary building block of all forms of matter (called also dark matter) in word, pre-matter. I have already mentioned earlier, that the disturbance of ether was caused by its accidental density in some point of the universe (its of course my own inference).
I know of the idea of fundamental particle fields, but these particle fields exist in time.
How do you undersand "exists in time"? It could be understood similarly as "exists in motion". Motion of what?
-
Some of my thoughts on this as an armchair physisist ....everything was created 13.8 billion years ago apparently but why not 100 billion years ago or any other number in my opinion its always been here its just that it has not allways been ticking, time to me means nothing more than a way to as how a change of state between two points when matter is present.
In my opinion matter emerged accidentaly and it might have appeard earlier, later or never. Similarly as accidental is equality of surface of the Moon disc to the surface of the Sun disk during the Sun eclipse.
As for is matter still being created then yes it is I'd say scientists have created matter themselves.
It's impossible. Have you got any details? We are "contaminated" with matter and cannot crerate matter.
I think matter/energy are infinite,
Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.
i fall back to what I said about time why would there be a set amount there's simply as much as there currently is due to whatever happened to make it which I have no ideas for but further to this I can only assume whatever did could easily create another batch at will. Oh and as for this ether stuff sounds a little bit 19th century for me. On this note will leave you all to take aim and shoot me down.
The beginning of the passage is not clear to me. As refers to ether, it's indispensable to make conductivity of space.
-
Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.
I have to take issue with that! I agree that mathematical infinities apply only to mathematics, but how do you defend the statement that in nature infinity does dot exist; or do you mean that multiple infinities do not exist in nature?
-
Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.
I have to take issue with that! I agree that mathematical infinities apply only to mathematics, but how do you defend the statement that in nature infinity does dot exist; or do you mean that multiple infinities do not exist in nature?
It's simple. The universe belongs to reality. All real things are imaginable. Infinite universe is unimaginable and that automatically implies infinite universe cannot exist.
-
The
Infinities are only in mathematics in nature don't exist.
I have to take issue with that! I agree that mathematical infinities apply only to mathematics, but how do you defend the statement that in nature infinity does dot exist; or do you mean that multiple infinities do not exist in nature?
It's simple. The universe belongs to reality. All real things are imaginable. Infinite universe is unimaginable and that automatically implies infinite universe cannot exist.
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.
-
how do you understand "exists in time"? It could be understood similarly as "exists in motion". Motion of what?
You make the point of time being movement, yes, I think most know of this idea.
It’s your idea of an ether that doesn’t move which is not so clear to me.
You don’t explain how can you have a ‘accidental occurrence’ or density change when there is no motion to ‘cause’ them in the first place?
Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed),
So you have movment in your ether that causes accidental occurrences or density changes?
-
All real things are imaginable. Infinite universe is unimaginable and that automatically implies infinite universe cannot exist.
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.
-
acecharly:
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.
dlorde:
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.
Really? Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.
-
acecharly:
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.
dlorde:
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.
Really? Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.
All thoughts surrounding an infinite universe are currently conceptual and without questioning we would never know that this will hold true. This conversation actully reminds me of an old Chinese proverb about a frog that lived in a well and who believed that the only sky above was what he could see as he looked up.
-
Really? Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.
Well, I'm having trouble 'conceiving' how your un-moving ether can have an ‘accidental occurrence’ or density change when there is no motion to ‘cause’ them in the first place?
niebieskieucho
Ether doesn't move (if not disturbed),
-
Really? Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.
Sure, it's a universe of infinite spatial and/or temporal extent, i.e. it never ends spatially and/or temporally. Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?
On the other hand, I can imagine plenty of things that are not real, so I'm not sure where your 'imaginable' assertion gets you. Oh, yes, you didn't respond to my previous point: were black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies real before people could imagine them?
-
Turn it around.
How would you define 'finity'?
That's our old type of definitions, the ones we're used to, and the ones that make the most sense intuitively in our daily lives. Is nature a finite phenomena? Or are nonlinearities and infinities nature? To me the 'old ways' are our box, comfortable and safe, but?
When you catch a ball, how do you calculate its path?
-
When was matter created?
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
There was a Steady State theory of the universe (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory), which suggested that matter is continually being created to fill the void as the universe expands. There were experiments done to try to find these bits of matter that popped into existence, without success; essentially the same experiment is being continued in an attempt to find evidence for dark matter. But discovery of the cosmic microwave background radiation (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation) effectively killed the Steady-State theory, since it pointed to something that happened in the past, which is not happening in the same way today.
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
Various theories try to explain dark energy - some of them predict extremely high levels of it in every cubic centimeter of space.
As noted in other posts, energy levels tend to decrease to the lowest possible level, over time.
This suggests that the level of dark energy is decreasing over time, and showing itself in the increased acceleration we have seen in the expansion of the universe.
-
... the level of dark energy is decreasing over time, and showing itself in the increased acceleration we have seen in the expansion of the universe.
So dark energy is 'holding the universe together' ? by gravity or by some other means?
-
acecharly:
Would it make sense that this could be because you too are part of the universe to which that reality belongs and so find it difficult to comprehend anything outside of what we already know from here within. If a man was raised inside a room with no windows and locked doors he too would probably think like this.
dlorde:
That seems like a very particular definition of 'imaginable'. Black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies weren't imaginable until the relevant fields of knowledge provided a framework for their imagination, but they were still real. People have imagined an infinite universe since ancient times; it may or may not be real.
Really? Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.
All thoughts surrounding an infinite universe are currently conceptual and without questioning we would never know that this will hold true.
I see that you cannot sketch the universe, regardless of scale and accuracy. I have no doubt. Infinite universe does not exists. BTW what would it mean? Constantly expanding in its finiteness? How do you understand infiniteness in nature? Could you construct asymptotic ski jumping hill?
-
Well, I'm having trouble 'conceiving' how your un-moving ether can have an ‘accidental occurrence’ or density change when there is no motion to ‘cause’ them in the first place?
Ether, which has no inner structure, doesn't perform spinning motion. Nevertheless, it is no quite immobile. It's motion is oscillation. Scientific literature says that ether is immobile as a mass in contrast to spinning / rotating matter.
-
Really? Any real thing you can conceive, consequently sketch ignoring the scale and accuracy (close in a solid). If you claim you can imagine infinite universe, could you then outline it? If so, I will admit you're right.
Sure, it's a universe of infinite spatial and/or temporal extent, i.e. it never ends spatially and/or temporally.
I did not ask you for a verbal description, only a sketch.
Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?
No problem. Any of them I can sketch as a sphere.
On the other hand, I can imagine plenty of things that are not real, so I'm not sure where your 'imaginable' assertion gets you.
It doesn't matter. The discussion is on reality.
Oh, yes, you didn't respond to my previous point:
Sorry. I probably overlooked. Now I am on vacation, so may respond irregularly.
were black holes, supernovae, the big bang, and galaxies real before people could imagine them?
Yes, but it has nothing to do with a lack of imagining of them. BTW big bang never occurred. The BB belongs to number of scientific myths.
-
Turn it around.
How would you define 'finity'?
In word "limes", e.g. any object has finite number of atoms.
That's our old type of definitions, the ones we're used to, and the ones that make the most sense intuitively in our daily lives. Is nature a finite phenomena? Or are nonlinearities and infinities nature? To me the 'old ways' are our box, comfortable and safe, but?
[/quote]
Not quite. There is no need to use intuition by dividning eg 10 / 3 or calculating pi to realize that they are never ending calculations.
When you catch a ball, how do you calculate its path?
This calculation is performed by brain. Faster than solution of the equation.
-
I did not ask you for a verbal description, only a sketch.
OK - you weren't specific; a sketch can mean an abbreviated verbal description.
Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?
No problem. Any of them I can sketch as a sphere.
Really?? If you feel a sphere qualifies as a sketch of those items, I'll give you a blank (or uniformly shaded) sheet of paper as a sketch of an infinite universe.
-
Infinity can be described several ways, the modern idea seems to be be a bounded infinity. As if you took that paper and made it into a cylinder, assuming us on the outside/inside. What I mean with a balls path N, is that it from quantum scale approach becomes probabilities. Although to us presenting a 'finite' description, enabling us to catch it. And we're all mathematicians, at least when it comes to geometry, animals and humans both. We have to be to survive our motions :)
As for a aether, that will depend on how one define it. Is a 'field' a aether? Or a wave function?
-
... the modern idea seems to be be a bounded infinity. As if you took that paper and made it into a cylinder, assuming us on the outside/inside.
Nope, making it a cylinder doesn't make it infinite, it makes it finite but unbounded around its circumference, just as the surface of a sphere is finite but without boundaries.
-
Ether, which has no inner structure, doesn't perform spinning motion. Nevertheless, it is no quite immobile. It's motion is oscillation. Scientific literature says that ether is immobile as a mass in contrast to spinning / rotating matter.
Can you explain this 'oscillation' ? does it involve a time period?? if so, can you explain what's changing or moving for your structureless ether to be considered in oscillation? Are you saying the ocillations are what we 'see' as particles, is that your idea?
-
A ' unbounded 'finity' ' is to me a 'bounded infinity' :) all depending on where you stand looking at it. Take the idea of you leaving to the left of a universe, just to come in at the right :)
-
A ' unbounded 'finity' ' is to me a 'bounded infinity' :) all depending on where you stand looking at it. Take the idea of you leaving to the left of a universe, just to come in at the right :)
The old arcade game 'Asteroids' worked like that. Whenever you left the screen on one edge, you'd reappear at a corresponding point on the opposite edge. This is a closed unbounded 2D world; you can travel through it for an infinite time but it is not itself infinite, any more than a clock face is infinite because the hands can go round it for ever. All infinities are unbounded in some respect, but not all that is unbounded is infinite (e.g. closed topologies).
-
Well, I guess it's a question of terminology dlorde? You use it in a certain manner, people agreeing with you on what they mean by it. But to the guy inside the game the 'infinity' should exist, and presuming homogeneity and isotropy he won't know when he left to the left, to come in at the right. At least I would expect it to be so. Still, using they eye of a God :) we know it is still 'bounded'. And that is what I meant by a 'bounded infinity'. Shouldn't have used that paper analogy though :)
-
Back to the original qustions:
Re:How can something be created from nothing?
Just remember that official science in this context is pure speculation - same as every other theory. You may be able to think of a better theory that fits into the known facts just as well, if you think out of the box.
Re: Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Look at the stars. Every second they convert at lot of matter to energy, so even though most matter is black matter, and we do not know what that is made of, it is a fair assumption to say that the amount of matter is decreasing and will continue to do so. There is strong support for a theory that even the proton is basicly unstable.
Re: 13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe. There was no space, matter. Time started then.
That number is based on the apparent expansion rate of the Universe. Some stars indicate that the universe is much older - and it probably is.
Re: When was matter created?
If matter is unstable at the low temperatures in the present Universe, it stands to reason that matter will form in the right temperature range/energy density
Re: Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
In my mind dark energy is an illusion caused by our perception of time and volume. But, yes.
-
Well, I guess it's a question of terminology dlorde?
No, it's not a question of terminology. If you run round a running track and fail to notice you've got back to where you started, that doesn't make the track infinitely long; the same applies to the 'guy inside the game'. If you have it your way, every circle has an infinite circumference and every sphere an infinite area, which is... absurd.
-
Re: 13.8 billion years ago the big bang created the universe. There was no space, matter. Time started then.
Those are hypotheses. Many cosmologists now hypothesize that there actually was something before the big bang.
Some stars indicate that the universe is much older - and it probably is.
Last I heard, the uncertainty in the measurement of the age of the 'methuselah star' has a range that allows it to be younger than the age of the universe. It also has the lack of heavier elements characteristic of a first generation star. See Oldest Known Star (http://www.space.com/20112-oldest-known-star-universe.html). What else makes you think cosmologists have got the age of the universe wrong?
-
I did not ask you for a verbal description, only a sketch.
OK - you weren't specific; a sketch can mean an abbreviated verbal description.
Maybe my English is not good enough, but by "to sketch", I literally meant "to draw" (not necessarily precisely).
Can you sketch a photon? a black hole? the universe itself?
No problem. Any of them I can sketch as a sphere.
Really?? If you feel a sphere qualifies as a sketch of those items, I'll give you a blank (or uniformly shaded) sheet of paper as a sketch of an infinite universe.
Yes indeed ((!))
You compare incomparable things. I didn't ask for prcise and to scale drawing. Any real (material) object can be comprised in a solid. You cannot do it with infinite universe. Similarly as you divide 100 by 13 and you'll never see the final result (quotient), but you can see endless sequence of numbers.
-
As far as I understand, calculation the age of the universe is based on the present expansion rate of the Universe (when was all matter located at the same point?). However, that seems to simplistic. We know that the expansion rate is speeding up (and was slower in the past?), and according to the theory of relativity also time is variable. So I see no reason to believe that the big bang happened exactly 13.8 billion years ago
-
As far as I understand, calculation the age of the universe is based on the present expansion rate of the Universe (when was all matter located at the same point?). However, that seems to simplistic. We know that the expansion rate is speeding up (and was slower in the past?), and according to the theory of relativity also time is variable. So I see no reason to believe that the big bang happened exactly 13.8 billion years ago
As I understand it, they feed their observational data into their mathematical models, which are based on general relativity, and so the accelerating expansion is included, and any relativistic effects of time dilation are also accounted for. Whether the precision of the resulting figure is really meaningful to us is not really the issue; as long as the same mathematical models are used for related calculations, the results should be commensurate. If there are contradictions, either the observations are faulty or the models need tweaking.
-
The old arcade game 'Asteroids' worked like that. Whenever you left the screen on one edge, you'd reappear at a corresponding point on the opposite edge.
This technique has been used in a 3D simulation of the universe. They simulated the largest cubic space that would fit into their supercomputer, and then made the matter near the edge of the cube "feel" the effects of matter outside the cube by making it "adjacent" to the far side of the cube - effectively a "periodic" universe in the X, Y and Z dimensions. This is good for simulating structures which are smaller than the cube.
1 hour Podcast @ normal speed: http://omegataupodcast.net/2010/04/31-the-millennium-simulation/
-
So dark energy is 'holding the universe together' ? by gravity or by some other means?
My understanding of current theories is that dark energy is pushing the universe apart.
Earlier in the history of the universe, gravity was stronger than dark energy, but as the universe became less dense, the effect of gravity became less and the expansive effect of dark energy started to dominate.
-
I don't know dlorde, but I'm not sure it is absurd? To me it's a question of who defines it, and from 'where'. In this universe it is us that does it, and we expect our universe to be isotropic and homogeneous, as well as 'infinite'. Possibly a 'God' would disagree with that, although we find it impossible to experimentally define a 'border' for it, even when divinely informed :).
-
My understanding of current theories is that dark energy is pushing the universe apart.
This is my understanding too. Which is why I was surprised when you said:As noted in other posts, energy levels tend to decrease to the lowest possible level, over time.
This suggests that the level of dark energy is decreasing over time, and showing itself in the increased acceleration we have seen in the expansion of the universe.
Which implies that dark energy slows the acceleration, which increases as dark energy decreases...
-
I don't know dlorde, but I'm not sure it is absurd? To me it's a question of who defines it, and from 'where'.
You can define infinity to be whatever you like, but if your definition is so different from the standard definition that means something quite different (e.g. allowing finite metrics to be considered infinite), you shouldn't be surprised if people find it absurd. What use is it to consider closed topologies to be infinite?
-
Which implies that dark energy slows the acceleration, which increases as dark energy decreases...
One of the theories I have heard is that Dark Energy is a weak field that has a small non-zero value across the universe (or in other formulations, it is the difference between two very strong fields which cancel out, but not quite...).
If this field accelerates visible matter, then the Dark Energy is being converted into Kinetic Energy (or the stretching of space-time, etc), and the level of Dark Energy would be decreasing over time.
If the universe is being held tightly together by gravitation (such as in the early universe, or in our galaxy), or being held tightly together by electric fields (such as in our planet or our bodies), then the Dark Energy cannot push it apart - at least, at its present weak strength.
So rather than saying "dark energy slows the acceleration" I would say that "Strong Gravity & Electric fields inhibit dark energy from accelerating matter".
[Of, course, there is also the "Big Rip" hypothesis that Dark Energy gets stronger and stronger over time, until it rips apart galaxies, solar systems, planets and us.... But this doesn't explain where the Dark Energy gets this increased energy.]
PS: At its most basic, the term "Dark" means "We don't know what it is, so give us lots of money to find out...".
-
Well, then we're absurd :) if now the topology of whatever universe we define as infinite, is finite? As some ideas suggest.
-
As far as I understand, calculation the age of the universe is based on the present expansion rate of the Universe (when was all matter located at the same point?). However, that seems to simplistic. We know that the expansion rate is speeding up (and was slower in the past?), and according to the theory of relativity also time is variable. So I see no reason to believe that the big bang happened exactly 13.8 billion years ago
As I understand it, they feed their observational data into their mathematical models, which are based on general relativity, and so the accelerating expansion is included, and any relativistic effects of time dilation are also accounted for. Whether the precision of the resulting figure is really meaningful to us is not really the issue; as long as the same mathematical models are used for related calculations, the results should be commensurate. If there are contradictions, either the observations are faulty or the models need tweaking.
Did anybody else hear that?
-
... If this field accelerates visible matter, then the Dark Energy is being converted into Kinetic Energy (or the stretching of space-time, etc), and the level of Dark Energy would be decreasing over time.
Ah, OK. This suggests that, over time, the acceleration should slow and eventually stop, as Dark Energy reduces to zero. That potentially introduces the prospect of the expansion slowing and even reversing, as gravity takes effect. I guess the timescale depends on how much DE is out there...
[Of, course, there is also the "Big Rip" hypothesis that Dark Energy gets stronger and stronger over time, until it rips apart galaxies, solar systems, planets and us.... But this doesn't explain where the Dark Energy gets this increased energy.]
Yes, it seems odd.
-
When was matter created?
13.8 billion years ago in a single instant, also known as the singularity where the general laws of relativity break down. Cosmic inflation theory states after the Big Bang the Universe expanded exponentially in 10-37 seconds. Once the period of inflation stopped, the Universe was essentially a plasma of elementary particles moving at relativistic speeds slamming into each other creating and destroying particle-antiparticle pairs. A few minutes after the big bang, while temperatures were still in excess of a billion kelvin, primordial nucleosynthesis took effect and deuterium (H-2), the helium isotopes He-3 and He-4, and the lithium isotopes Li-6 and Li-7 were created among some less stable radioactive isotopes like tritium (H-3) were formed but either decayed or fused to become more stable nuclei. The rest pretty much settled into hydrogen.
Is the amount of matter still increasing?
Matter is increasing and decreasing, but Matter is only the stuff we can actually see, I believe your question is whether or not Mass is increasing. The two must be differentiated. As far as Mass goes, you have to consider energy as well. Einsteins formula E=mc2 (Energy = Mass * Speed of Light Squared) is called the mass-energy equivalence which states mass is a property of all energy and vice-verse. There are different forms of the equation for different instances, but essentially you can't create or destroy mass, only convert it into energy. Similarly, energy can be converted into mass, it just takes quite a lot of it (I believe this has been done at the Large Hadron Collider, and detected by the TRIUMF team).
Is the amount of dark energy increasing?
No, above would apply to dark energy as well. On the dark energy note, evan_au is correct in stating that dark energy is responsible for the acceleration of the expansion of the Universe. That's the only reason we know it's there, right now both dark energy and dark matter are the same thing the neutrino was before direct detection in 1956, a variable that made a formula balance. Without dark energy, there is no way to explain why our Universe's expansion is accelerating, the expansion should be decelerating due to gravity. Similarly, without dark matter, the solar systems at the tips of the spirals in the Milky Way Galaxy would get tossed out into intergalactic space by the rotation of the galaxy.
I believe we are closer to understanding dark matter after the direct detection of the Higgs boson particle in 2012. After all, if there was one sub-atomic particle out there we couldn't find, may there not be more? Dark energy may be more difficult, it may not. One theory is the Chameleon model which states there is another particle that can act differently in different situations. Where there is matter, the chameleon would be heavier and would be more sluggish like the weak or strong forces, while in the vacuum of space where there is little matter the chameleon would be far lighter and more reactive like the electromagnetic force.
How can something be created from nothing?
The only way we know this can happen is in quantum mechanics, and that's where it just gets weird. In complete honesty, quantum mechanics baffles me. I have no idea how anything can pop in and out of existence, or how two particles can be in different places but linked, known as Quantum Entanglement. Einstein called it "spooky action at a distance," and I think that about sums it up.
As far as how the Universe was created from nothing, there are many theories on the subject and most deal with parallel universes, like M-Theory. The theory I like the best deals with our Universe starting as a white hole when a black hole was created in a parallel universe connected by an Einstein-Rosen bridge (aka a wormhole). Essentially, mass and energy falling into the black hole in the parallel universe would have traveled through the wormhole and out the white hole on the other side. Maybe the black hole stopped feeding and went dormant after that, which is why we don't see the mass of the Universe constantly increasing, but then what happens if the black hole in the parallel universe starts feeding again? Would mass and energy start shooting out of the middle of our Universe? Where is the center of our Universe? How come quantum particles are allowed to break the rules and I'm not?
Disclaimer, I am not a physicist and none of these ideas are my own (and any or all may be wrong), please ask Michio if you have any further questions.
-
... If this field accelerates visible matter, then the Dark Energy is being converted into Kinetic Energy (or the stretching of space-time, etc), and the level of Dark Energy would be decreasing over time.
Ah, OK. This suggests that, over time, the acceleration should slow and eventually stop, as Dark Energy reduces to zero. That potentially introduces the prospect of the expansion slowing and even reversing, as gravity takes effect. I guess the timescale depends on how much DE is out there...
[Of, course, there is also the "Big Rip" hypothesis that Dark Energy gets stronger and stronger over time, until it rips apart galaxies, solar systems, planets and us.... But this doesn't explain where the Dark Energy gets this increased energy.]
Yes, it seems odd.
I would believe that the accelleration will continue, with or without DE and I base this on the following observations:
In a few billion years, at the latest, the rim of the Universe will move away at near light velocity (at present max observed redshift is only 8.6, but that is just a lower limit). As the velocity of an object near the rim approaches light speed, the mass will also increase according to relativity. The increased mass will of course attract the rest of the Unirve with ever increased force, and consequently the expansion rate will increase.
This may already be the case in the present Universe and be the source of the dark energy
-
As the velocity of an object near the rim approaches light speed, the mass will also increase according to relativity. The increased mass will of course attract the rest of the Unirve with ever increased force, and consequently the expansion rate will increase.
Wait, you're saying that in the absence of DE, gravity will increase the expansion rate?
-
That what I'm saying, but not clearly enough, it seems. Using the Stephen Hawking trick and use a 2-D model it could be described as:
Imagine that you have a thin flexible disc with steel ball evenly distributed over it. Now add more steel ball near the rim, and you will see the whole disc bend down, but especially near the rim. The balls will then roll towards the rim at higher speed.
The relativistic equivalent is of course that any object approaching the speed of light will gain mass.
-
Imagine that you have a thin flexible disc with steel ball evenly distributed over it. Now add more steel ball near the rim, and you will see the whole disc bend down, but especially near the rim. The balls will then roll towards the rim at higher speed.
Makes sense in a 2D model, the further an object moves from the fulcrum the greater the force exerted, but I guess you would have to think of space-time as the thing that is warping instead of a disc.
-
The disc was only introduced as a symbol for space-time warping, so we agree. And of course local mass concentrations have local influence. Andromeda will in the future collide with the Milkyway and the expansion of space does not prevent that, since that expansion takes place on a scale that dwarfs even superclusters. Compared to its size, the expansion of space is incredibly SLOW. If a man grew on the same scale it would take him about five million years to grow another millimeter
-
Pr. snoerkel I misread your post the first time I responded, axed that response. I was still trying to think of the universe as a 2D disc covered in steel balls without actually getting to the point of adding more (read, think, then post?). To explain a little more about what I was thinking with the fulcrum, I started thinking about the basic concept of a lever, and keeping all else the same the further you move the same amount of mass from the fulcrum the more force it will exert, physics 101. If you continue to increase that distance enough, the force will be great enough to stretch the beam thus further increasing the distance. Assuming the beam is infinitely malleable and will not break (space-time) the more it stretches, the further it will stretch in a given period of time, thus accelerating the expansion of the beam. There are a lot of assumptions here, like the fulcrum & beam being permanently attached at one end with the mass permanently attached at the other, as well as nothing to prevent the beam from, say, hitting the ground, but I think you get the idea.
This idea of gravity accelerating expansion has my mind reeling. I've never really liked the whole Dark Matter & Energy explanations. I understand why we think they exist, maybe not the equations behind them, but the general principles, and something doesn't fit. I'm not saying I agree with Hawking on this one either, but I like that he's at least challenging the assumption of an unknown utilizing existing principles. Both of Einstein's theories, the geodetic effect (gravity warps space-time) and frame-dragging (spinning objects can pull space time with them), were confirmed by Gravity Probe-B's gyroscopic readings. Both of these could be used explain Hawking's theory here, the geodetic effect would drag the disc down and frame-dragging would cause one steel ball to drag others with it.
If you apply the same idea of the stretching beam to the disc, couldn't this tie into the idea of metric expansion of space? They seem to contradict each other in some ways, as Hawking's idea seems to suggest the mass is moving with space being fixed, while metric expansion says the mass is fixed while it's space itself that's expanding. However, if space is more akin to a thick liquid as frame-dragging suggests, why couldn't the movement of mass cause the expansion of space, thereby causing the mass to appear to be moving faster than it actually is?
I might be coming to the wrong conclusion here, but if both mass and space can move, wouldn't that make faster than light travel possible? For example, if I'm moving at 99.99% the speed of light and I warp the space behind me by dragging and stretching it, that would increase the distance I've traveled meaning I actually traveled faster than light. However, it doesn't seem you would be able to use this to move to a destination faster than light, simply further away from one.
-
The relativistic equivalent is of course that any object approaching the speed of light will gain mass.
Yes, but in the universe, that velocity is relative to an observer. All observers will have their own 'relativistic rim' at their observable limit. The 2D steel disc is analogous only to a single observer's view.
-
slorde's last remark is indiputable, but I do not see that the overall picture being the same for all observers will change anything. This is also the case in the present model of Cosmos. Unfortuneately my idea does not explain dark matter, just dark energy. But the idea uses only general relativity with no additions and seems to answer two of the original questions.
That idea with the faster than light travel needs a little more detailing, at least I did not grasp it fully, but that might be because I am focused on formulating an alternative to the traditonal big bang theory. The present one seems a little odd. First the Universe was created out of nothing or by collision of branes or something. Then it expanded faster than light. Finally it did not collapse into a black hole when matter was created, as it should have done according to the laws of gravity. Official science says that the laws of nature were different then - so who changed them - and when?
In the universities they teach that when the Universe was 10E-32 sec. old, it had a size of 0.1 m. I have been unable to find out how they are able to substantiate that. Had anybody been there how could they know the time? In a universe consisting entirely of photons there is in principle no way to construct a clock or a yardstick. Or is there?
-
Is there anywhere in the current universe we know of that reaches a billion kelvin? Couldn't that have something to do with it? The hottest white dwarf is around 200,000 kelvin, 1/5, but what about larger stars. I concede I do not know enough about the relative heat when comparing star size, I would think the bigger they are the hotter they get, but could not find data for anything other than white dwarfs.
As far as the size of the Universe at 10-32 seconds, they can't substantiate anything, yet. From what I've read, only at 10-11 seconds do things become "less" speculative, whatever that means.
Parallel Universes aside, there is also the theory that the Universe was never created, but instead has been continually bouncing back and forth from a period of great expansion back to the big crunch. What we think of as the big bang, was simply the universe starting a new period of expansion after a big crunch. This could make sense in a way if near the end of each big crunch vast amounts of mass is converted into energy at a single time causing, well, a very big bang. As long as the amount of mass and energy in the universe remains the same, regardless of whether there is more energy or mass at a given time, this theory would appear to work because the mass that was converted into energy to cause the big bang could then be turned back into mass in some manner. But as you stated, why didn't it just collapse into a black hole?
I would have to say the biggest issue I have is wrapping my head around anything infinite, whether were talking about an infinite empty universe past the point the universe has currently expanded to or time as infinite with continual expansions and collapses of the universe. Infinity in any context may be too much for my feeble human mind to comprehend.
My gut tells me that as we learn more about the behavior of the quantum world and the closer we get to understanding how it truly effects the macro world (equation of everything), the closer we will come to understanding the really tough questions, like how something can come from nothing.
-
What astronomy and physics has done is to extrapolate from astronomical evidence, as luminosity and stars spectra. And so far it seems to fit, with how stars come to be the first generation, to the generation of star the sun is, as well as a inflation and expansion. It's like a very complicated puzzle where you use all you know, and can find out, to put the pieces together.
"The only elements that would have been formed from the big bang are hydrogen, helium, and perhaps trace amounts of lithium. Elements up to iron can be produced in a star by nuclear fusion. (Heavier elements require more energy to start the fusion than is released in the fusion reaction--i.e. energy is LOST. Therefore, only elements up to iron are formed by nuclear fusion.) In a star like our sun, there is not enough mass to create the pressure and heat needed for even the fusion into iron. Our sun will produce metals only up to carbon and oxygen.
Any metals heaver than iron could only be produced in a supernova. (Just a note, astronomers and astrophysics use the term "metal" to mean any element heaver than hydrogen or helium).
The fact that our sun contains trace amounts of iron and heavier metals means it must have been there when it formed, since these cannot be formed by the nuclear fusion within our sun. Since first generation stars would only contain hydrogen, helium, and trace amounts of lithium from the big bang, our sun is not a first generation.
This makes sense since our sun is only around 5 billion years old and the universe is about 16 billion (opinion varies from 11 to 20 billion, but 16 is right in there and generally accepted). That leaves at least 10 billion year for things to have happen before our sun formed: That is a lot of years for other stars to have formed and died, recycling some of its mass back into the universe and our sun. Since the life cycle of very large stars could be as little as 100 million years to supernova stage, the sun could conceivably be many generations along."
At the beginning you used earths relative motion to see how stars, apparently, 'moved' with earths position relative the sun, called parallax, to define a distance. To define those you first have to know the distance from Earth to the Sun, called one astronomical unit (one AU). then you use trigonometry to find a distance to the closest stars. As soon as we could send up probes in space we started to use them too to get those distances better defined, as you won't have a atmosphere distorting in space.
"Some of the best data on stellar positions in the sky come from Hipparcos, a spacecraft launched in 1989 by the European Space Agency. Hipparcos has measured the trigonometric parallaxes of about 10,000 stars to an accuracy of better than 10 percent, out to a distance of about 300 light-years. But our galaxy is about 100,000 light-years across, so parallax measurements become useless long before we approach the distances to other galaxies." from How do astronomers measure the distances... (http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=how-do-astronomers-measur)
To get further out, we make some assumptions, as you can read in that article too. The assumptions are about Cepheid stars being stable objects, presenting themselves astronomically the same way no matter the distance.
"Early in this century Henrietta Swan Leavitt discovered that the longer the period of variation of a Cepheid variable, the greater its luminosity. Another American astronomer, Harlow Shapley, then was able to correlate the brightnesses of Cepheids with those of known types of ordinary stars, tying Leavitt's relative distance scale to an absolute one. "
Here is more about determining astronomical distances. Determining Distances to Astronomical Objects by Björn Feuerbacher. (http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/astronomy/distance.html)
Einstein wanted a static balanced universe and got rather upset when Fridman showed that there were other possibilities 1922. The Theory of the expanding universe as originated by A. A. Fridman. (http://lorentz.leidenuniv.nl/~ivashko/Zeldovitch63.pdf)
Fridman was a Russian mathematician who worked it out from Einsteins equations. Some years after his, too early death, another guy Lemaitre, a French cosmologist this time, came and developed a independent theory which went further than Fridman's three models. I think he was the guy that first presented the idea of a universe starting in a very compact area, to then 'explode' outwards. He studied mathematics under Eddington, and a brilliant mathematician. And one has to remember that it all fits so far, the whole idea of creating 'star dust' from light (energy), becoming first generation stars, becoming later generations, to the way we measure distances. Whatever ideas that might replace it must also fit all of this, and do it even better.
-
"I might be coming to the wrong conclusion here, but if both mass and space can move, wouldn't that make faster than light travel possible? For example, if I'm moving at 99.99% the speed of light and I warp the space behind me by dragging and stretching it, that would increase the distance I've traveled meaning I actually traveled faster than light. However, it doesn't seem you would be able to use this to move to a destination faster than light, simply further away from one."
You have a Lorentz contraction at relativistic speeds, acting in the direction you travel. That one can be seen as traveling ftl, ignoring that lights speed in a vacuum won't change for you, so your rocket do 'warp' the space in front of you. But it is complementary to the time dilation your origin find you to have. According to their measurements it's your clock that have slowed down instead. None of those definitions are wrong though, both come from measuring, using ones local clock and ruler.
-
I think this is the current definition. Inflation. (http://www.lifesci.sussex.ac.uk/home/John_Gribbin/cosmo.htm)
-
yor_ons post seems to imply that I am trying to promote some kind of a steady state Universe.
Not so. I just wonder what will be the end of an ever increaing Universe. According to theory, the proton is unstable with a half time of 10E36 years. In case of proton deficit, neutrons will decay to protons. So, eventually, space will be totally without matter, enthropy will reach maximum and time will stop. The Universe will be very large then - or will it? How would one meassure distance without matter and without time?
-
Might time itself not be a construct of observation? I don't want to divert into the quantum world here, because I don't know/understand enough about it, but the basic principle I do understand is that by observing something, reality is changed (see observer effect). If there is no matter, there will be nothing to observe the universe (that we know of). I don't think the observer effect is restricted to life or intelligence, but I do not know.
A thermodynamic equilibrium certainly suggests that time, even if continuing, would have nothing to observe it and no reference point to base how much time has elapsed. If you cannot measure it, does it exist?
Edit: Sorry, that doesn't answer your question, but simply restates it in a different way.
-
Not so Pr :)
You wrote "the present one seems a little odd. First the Universe was created out of nothing or by collision of branes or something. Then it expanded faster than light. Finally it did not collapse into a black hole when matter was created, as it should have done according to the laws of gravity."
The last link makes a very readable presentation of inflation, and the Big Bang, as well as 'new ideas' in physics as a whole. And I have a feeling that some readers might want it too, to compare ideas. As for why matter inside this universe didn't collapse into some black hole, I guess I would refer that to the 'inflation' being ftl myself? The dust 'coagulating' into first generation suns. When it comes to Einstein the writer isn't as acknowledging as I would prefer though :) Although all physics build on others works, I still think Einstein did some pretty remarkable thinking. Not only SR and GR, but being one of those defining entanglements, laying a primary ground for quantum mechanics, in his work on Brownian motion, and the photoelectric effect.
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-brownian.htm
http://www.aip.org/history/einstein/essay-photoelectric.htm
-
Then again, I'm not sure about that :) that the inflation in itself is applicable as a explanation, even if I assume it to be isotropic and homogeneous, meaning that it had a perfectly even (uniform) spread of 'dust', the same concentration everywhere. Maybe the universe 'rotates'? Maybe that would have something to do with it? Or maybe we should stop looking at it as a 'common universe' :) which then would be my hobby horse.
-
Zavenoa proposes that time itself could be a construct of observationm and I agree, at least to the point that in our perception time and space are two quite different things, although we for a century have known that space is connected to time. But if time stops when the enthropy reaches maximum, distance looses its meaning as well. So, my proposal is that in tha absence of matter, there will be no time and distance, meaning that only energy remains, and the Universe could be seen as both enourmeous and a singularity where all energy is located in one point.
This idea has its equivalent in the string theory, where most dimensions are reduced to nothing, only space-time has volume, and I suggest that is because of the presense of gravity in the present Universe. If gravity did not exist, as may happen in the far future, also space-time would contract.
Incidently that picture is the same as the start of the big bang that official science promotes.
-
Oh yes, gravity is indeed the 'metric' of space. And also the thing defining it three dimensionally (in reality four dimensionally though), as I think too. Or maybe one should consider it a symbiosis? As mass (energy) is what defines that metric of gravity. A pure vacuum, without gravity, could be described as one single coherent 'frame of reference' I think, both from a time dilation and a Lorentz contraction.
-
So, my proposal is that in tha absence of matter, there will be no time and distance, meaning that only energy remains, and the Universe could be seen as both enourmeous and a singularity where all energy is located in one point.
Incidently that picture is the same as the start of the big bang that official science promotes.
This would appear to support the idea that this is not the first "cycle" of the universe. I mentioned in an earlier post the idea of an ongoing transition from inflation to deflation, but the deflation and ensuing great crush may not be necessary if this is correct. It may be that the universe simply expands until a singularity, all laws of physics break down, and expansion begins anew with another big bang. This may also help explain some of the issues with the big bang theory involving a different set of rules for the laws of physics. If you begin at a singularity, and "broken" laws of physics, they may not correct themselves immediately, or at all. This would sort of support the steady state theory, although not in the way Sir James Jeans presented it.
-
It seems that we are much in the same line, then. Let us try to evalve from there:
Assuming that space-time will collapse in the absence of gravity, I will then propose a slight modification of that theory. I will propose that if force of gravity is below a certain threshold value (possibly linked to the uncertainty principle), still the collapse will take place.
Now imagine the Universe in a far future. Black holes evaporated due to Hawking-radiation, most (but not all) protons decayed. Universe consists of lonely protons moving among each other. Entropy can still increase (by further proton decay), so time is running. But the distance between the protons is high, and force of gravity now at the aforementioned critical level.
Suddenly a proton decays and space-time around it, already at the critical level, immediately collapses. The photons that were contained in that particular volume of space are concentrated in a point, from where it starts radiating into the surrounding space at a very high energy level.
The local collapse affects space around it, since the surviving volume of space-time must relocate to fill out the gap left by the collapse. Space-time and the protons it contains start moving against the point of collapse at about light speed. Once moving, there is nothing to stop them until they start interacting with each other near the point of collapse. At that point nuclear reaction takes place and emitted radiation condenses to matter by the same mechanism as in the traditional big bang theory. The difference is that matter is formed over time and the concentration of mass will never reach that needed to form a black hole. The beauty of that is of course that we need not postulate a change in the laws of nature as needed in the traditional big bang theory.
-
... It may be that the universe simply expands until a singularity, all laws of physics break down, and expansion begins anew with another big bang. This may also help explain some of the issues with the big bang theory involving a different set of rules for the laws of physics.
This sounds rather like Roger Penrose's Conformal Cyclic Cosmology (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_cyclic_cosmology), where, at the heat-death, time and distance become meaningless and the state of the universe becomes equivalent to a low-entropy big bang scenario... or something! see if you can make sense of it...
-
While I am not opposing Roger Penroses ideas, I believe a simpler explanation will do. I see those theories as a an attempt to preserve the determination principle from classical physics.
-
All of our science, logic, and philosophy is based on causality. When we project our models of the cosmos backward in time, we run into a point about 13.8 billion years ago when causality breaks down. How to explain or describe a non-causal condition eludes me and everyone whose work I've read on the problem. Generally, physicists aren't very good at these sorts of problems and assume things like the physical laws preceded spacetime and matter.
The only logically-consistent model I've been able to come up with is that the background of reality is noncausal... boundless information but no cause and effect. As evidence of this I point to "spigot algorithms" which theoretical physicists originally argued were impossible because they rely on accessing infinite information via a finite process. The theoreticians shut up when the Bailey–Borwein–Plouffe formula was proven true. I think they shouldn't have. Spigot algorithms have all the attributes of look-up algorithms rather than calculations.
Quantum mechanics provides and explanation/rule for how (but not why) a finite, causal universe would appear within that chaos. QM requires that all observations/interactions be causally-consistent. Inconsistencies would yield states (operators or eigenstates) whose matrix is non-Hermitian. Schrödinger said these were "unobservable".
It might be that there is something inherent to the structure of observation that filters out all non-causal observations.
Cosmologically, it's not hard to get from a Planck-scale universe containing exactly one quantum of "stuff" to a universe that looks like ours. The tough part is getting to something from nothing. The difficulty is providing an explanation (inherently causal) of a non-causal event.
-
Quatum mechanics, at least, is not based on causality, since although there might be a reason why an atom decays at that precise moment, nobody will ever know what that reason is. If you have two unstable but identical atoms in front of you, you will never be able to tell which one will decay first. Neither will anybody else.
-
Quantum mechanics also explains why the question "How can something be created out of nothing?" is not valid.
The uncertainty principle states that a volume of space-time will contain virtual particles, so the space will always contain something. If, in the absence of matter, space shrinks, so does time. Energy is defined as potential work per time unit so energy comes and goes with the space time.
-
Hi to All! I am a new guy here and recently joined the forum to participate in interesting discussions.
-
Hi to All! I am a new guy here and recently joined the forum to participate in interesting discussions.
Welcome!
Btw, that introduction would probably get more attention in the Guest Book (http://www.thenakedscientists.com/forum/index.php?board=3.0) thread...
-
Replies like #7, encompass us in the observations of the physics of this age. At an early age space is the distance between objects in the room. Later we learn that space is the void between worlds. In quantum science we learn that space can have infinitesimal dimensions, with vast distances in the subatomic realm. In cosmology our entire universe, all 13.5 billion years of it a speck on a brane, our expression in the multiverse. To me it seems like a series of wrappers, or skin of the onion. You peel one back and there is just another world inside, or more appropriately here, as we expand our minds we discover another layer surrounding ourselves expanding what we consider as real.
For our existence a transitive state had to have occurred. Transition implies structure, for our limited understanding of the cosmos, our existence implies the Big Bang did not come from nothing, rather from something. X reacted with Y and 13.5 billion years later we hold this conversation. Common imagination limits our ability to conceive another wrapper surrounds our thirteen and half billion years of our Existence. We are so egotistical to believe that before our reality, there was no reality, that there was nothing.
I am completely comfortable with this state of affairs. I like the physical, it is comforting, it is a playground to experience and enjoy. I like its complexity, and know it will keep me entertained for a number of years. Can I drop the other shoe? Can we know an existence outside of the physical realm? But if you believe in an existence outside of the physical realm, aren't you expressing just another structure? For want of a clearer term, just knowing the existence of a "spiritual" realm implies not only the capability for it to be a wrapper around our existence but that it permeates our entire existence as well.
Reply 7 gives the responder comfort to "know" the extent of reality, but for those of us who want more that can never suffice. We see aeons of time and we want assurance that there will be space enough.