1
Physics, Astronomy & Cosmology / Re: What was before the big bang?
« on: 20/09/2015 02:45:43 »Since we are dealing with distinctly non-mainstream ideas; the problem of infinite regression in relation to the Universe is not so difficult to overcome, without getting into theology. The trouble is that the concept requires fully accepting that infinity is not a number, and eternity is not time. It is not difficult to get scientific people to accept this, but if you try to go a step further and ask them to agree that there can be no change in infinity, and that there cannot be an infinite succession, and you hit a brick wall.
It is important to stress that I am not attempting to be dogmatic here, I am not even saying that this is what I believe, I am merely putting forward some of the ideas that have come into my head in the course of thinking about the possible origin of the Universe, and in particular about infinity. I gladly accept that the ideas are there to be knocked down, and in fact welcome that as part of my own learning process.
I invite you to consider the possibility that the cosmos is infinite. (Whenever I use the word “infinite” I include “eternal” within the term). I am, here, picking up the idea, that appears in some scientific circles, that the four dimensions of spacetime that we experience are only a shadow of a higher-dimensional reality that is beyond our reach. I am suggesting that the cosmos has infinite dimensions, or perhaps just one infinite dimension, which we cannot experience. Like zero, whatever you divide, or multiply infinity by, it remains unchanged. However, unlike zero, infinity should remain unchanged if you try to add something to it, or subtract something from it, because, if it is truly infinite, whatever you “add” will already be part of it, and whatever you try to subtract will still remain part of it, otherwise, it would no longer be infinite. Even when trying to explain this idea, we run into problems with terminology. Strictly, I should not talk about “parts” of infinity; surely, it has no parts; that is of the essence of infinity. Leaving aside the mathematical “infinities” that almost inevitably find their way into this kind of discussion; it feels as though no part of a true infinity should be thought of as being finite, because a true infinity cannot be sub-divided. In eternity, time should receive the same treatment, it too is eternal; of course this is also a contradiction in terms; what I should really say is that time, as we understand it does not exist. There is no passage of time, in the cosmos, nor do we, in our Universe, pass through time. We live in an eternal, unchanging now, of which we can experience only a shadow.
Hi Bill,
Please incorporate the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics into your "theory". Are you saying all macroscopic behavior is reversible? It is therefore time asymmetric? Do you feel there can be a universal state of maximum entropy where complete equilibrium exists? If the cosmos is eternal, why are we not in this state now? Why did we evolve from a clearly low entropy state in the past?