[Halc]

there being just one universe, and only one

Well I suppose that depends on your definition of 'universe' and of 'there being' as well. I mean, I take an relational empirical approach, which is even more unusual than most of the stuff you propose. So I define 'there being' relative to X as anything measured by X. That means 'the universe' (all that is measured by X' is quite finite in both space and time. Some star like our own, but in a galaxy 7 BLY away? It doesn't exist to me since I cannot measure it. It isn't in my universe.

You can define this more conventionally, like ('everything that exists'). A thing either has this property or not, so there can be only one set of all things that have this existence property and another set of the things that don't. The universe is the former set. There can by definition be only one of those, and it would even be logically inconsistent to talk about a different universe, since if it existed, it would be part of the one universe by definition. Your post seems to indicate your holding this more conventional definition. The distant star exists even though no light from it has ever reached here yet.

Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter

Pretty safe, but it doesn't follow. A universe that is infinite but only has 'stuff; locally in one place would have a finite amount of material, and thus most of the infinite space would be dead empty. Some some additional postulate of say homogeneity would get the infinite matter to logically follow.

and [an infinite amount of] energy

That presumes more stuff as well, in particular that the mean energy density of the universe is positive. Since there is very much negative energy out there, maybe the negative energy outdoes the positive stuff. It also doesn't seem to be conserved in a cosmological frame, so the energy is always going both up and down. Dark energy for instance is always going up, but light energy and kinetic energy and such always go down over time. This may not be true in a model like you describe since the cosmological frame is an expanding one with finite time since the beginning. You don't really have a mathematical model that would be needed in order to answer the question of whether your universe has infinite energy or not.

[Zer0]

OK, so no one is arguing against an infinite and eternal universe, but that door is always open to anyone who wants to try a convincing argument.

Without Evidence ' for ' & ' against ' it...No Argument is a Convincing one, rather Futile.

 In the mean time, I like to philosophize about there being just one universe, and only one. It would be an infinite and eternal universe that has always existed and will always exist.

Well, if you are Philosophizing...then Why just stop there.
How bout Infinite & Eternal Multiverses?

That is what I would call a solid foundation to build on. Would it then be safe to say that the infinite universe is full of an infinite amount of matter and energy which are the building blocks of everything in the physical universe? I think so.

Solid Foundations are not Safe.
Earthquakes do Not kill people,
Buildings Do!

198933,199094,

" If We come from Nothing...
Go back to Nothing..
What then, have We truly Lost?
NOTHING! "
(Monty)

ps - ( : Welcome Back : )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

there being just one universe, and only one

Well I suppose that depends on your definition of 'universe' and of 'there being' as well. I mean, I take a relational empirical approach, which is even more unusual than most of the stuff you propose. So I define 'there being' relative to X as anything measured by X. That means 'the universe' (all that is measured by X' is quite finite in both space and time. Some star like our own, but in a galaxy 7 BLY away? It doesn't exist to me since I cannot measure it. It isn't in my universe.

I get that. I define "universe" as all that is, all matter, energy, everything, all connected in the sense that everything occupies one contiguous, infinite space.

You can define this more conventionally, like ('everything that exists'). A thing either has this property or not, so there can be only one set of all things that have this existence property and another set of the things that don't. The universe is the former set. There can by definition be only one of those, and it would even be logically inconsistent to talk about a different universe, since if it existed, it would be part of the one universe by definition. Your post seems to indicate you're holding this more conventional definition. The distant star exists even though no light from it has ever reached here yet.

Yes, that is how I was intending it.

...

Yes to homogeneity . I have referred to it as the "Sameness Doctrine" in my rantings.

and [an infinite amount of] energy

That presumes more stuff as well, in particular that the mean energy density of the universe is positive. Since there is very much negative energy out there, maybe the negative energy outdoes the positive stuff.

I don't know. Negative energy? Any examples?

It also doesn't seem to be conserved in a cosmological frame, so the energy is always going both up and down. Dark energy for instance is always going up, but light energy and kinetic energy and such always go down over time. This may not be true in a model like you describe since the cosmological frame is an expanding one with finite time since the beginning.

No, I like the "no beginning" scenario, and in my view, an infinite universe doesn't expand as a whole, though there is contraction and expansion locally via big bangs and big crunches, here and there, now and then.

You don't really have a mathematical model that would be needed in order to answer the question of whether your universe has infinite energy or not.

I suppose, but my model is not developed enough to need a mathematical model. I am just posting about some layman level ideas. I appreciate the feedback and now have some new food for thought.

[Halc]

I get that. I define "universe" as all that is, all matter, energy, everything, all connected in the sense that everything occupies one contiguous, infinite space.

Suppose there exists a 5 dimensional being. That can't exist in 3 dimensional space, infinite or not. If it's all connected, then 'universe' is confined only to things with a location in that one space, and not all the existing stuff that isn't in that space.  So the statement seems somewhat self-contradictory.

I don't know. Negative energy? Any examples?

Gravitational energy (PE) is negative. An object that is infinitely distant from all mass (or an object in a massless universe) has zero PE.  Any mass nearby contributes it a more negative potential than that.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Suppose there exists a 5 dimensional being. That can't exist in 3 dimensional space, infinite or not. If it's all connected, then 'universe' is confined only to things with a location in that one space, and not all the existing stuff that isn't in that space.  So the statement seems somewhat self-contradictory.

Not in my view. I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.


201667,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I have no problem with the universe being confined only to things with a location in that space, since in my view there is only that one infinite and eternal space, and all existing stuff is in that one contiguous space.

OK, so your definition of 'all that is' is everything in our particular 3D space and not all the other stuff.  The other stuff isn't part of 'all that is'.

I'm actually pretty OK with that, and my own relational definition is far more restricted than even that.

I can certainly understand that a sound relational position can be more restrictive. Mine "evolved" over the years from trying to deal with finite and infinite. What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event, or it could be the observable portion of an expanding big bang event within an infinite greater universe where big bangs are not necessarily the result of a singular universe-wide event.




201843,

[Halc]

What we can observe and/or detect could certainly be a finite expanding universe from a singular event

One observes/detects events and objects, not the universe itself,  So while the universe is still infinite in extent, the contents of it (the parts that exist relative to say our local galaxy cluster) is a very finite list. The rest is counterfactuals.

Positing the existence/state of things that have not been measured gets you classical physics, and it has been demonstrated (proved even) that the universe is not classical.

[paul cotter]

Hi Halc , any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical" as I am curious about this.

[Halc]

any chance you could expand on the statement that "the universe is not classical"

In a classical universe, there is no retro-causality (effect before cause) and that objects exist even in the absence of measurment (the moon is there even if never measured).
Bell's theorem proved that at least one of those two principles (locality, counterfactual definiteness, respectively) must be false. No valid quantum interpretation supports both. The universe cannot be classical since it cannot obey both principles.

[paul cotter]

Thanks Halc, i'll have to digest that. I had thought that Bell's theorem was connected with ruling out hidden variables but then I am only vaguely familiar with it. I need to do some studying.

[Zer0]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Negative_energy

ps - Hope Eternal is Okay n doin Well!

From Zero's link: Alan Guth. Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.


Thanks, Zer0. The Negative_energy link was interesting. I will still point out ...  the Big Bang, or Alan Guth's inflationary universe interpretation of the origin of the Big Bang, refer back to a Beginning, and throughout my rants I have continued to posit that there was no beginning. To my way of thinking, 13.7 billion years or 13.7 trillion years are like a mere instant in the duration of time past if there was no beginning.


203882,

[Halc]

From Zero's link: Alan Guth.

Just to clarify, the quote does not appear anywhere on the Negative energy wiki page liked by Zero, but it does appear on the blurb for Alan Guth's book, which is one of the references on that wiki page.

Theory of known American theoretical physicist Alan Harvey Guth of the inflationary universe modifies the scientific Big Bang theory, describing the origin of all space, time, matter, and energy, 13.7 billion years ago, from the violent expansion of a singular point of extremely high density and temperature.

Don't know who wrote this blurb, but it is wrong, and I don't think Guth would have worded it that way. The universe was never a singular point since you can linearly (older model) or exponentially (inflation theory) expand one all you want and it will remain a point.

Yes, Guth was one of the major contributors to inflation theory, a significant change and improvement to the big bang model.
This universe is not in conflict with say the Cyclic model of Penrose, which stacks one conformal universe atop the next in infinite series. So in that sense, it does not refer to any one 'the beginning' since there are always more before and after.

If I interpret this correctly, it means that this diagram

can be stacked one atop another, but I might be wrong about that.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally? I ask those who notice this topic to comment about their views, for discussion.


204094,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...That's only a problem for those that suggest that time is something that passes. Not my problem.

Ok, but scientists, geologists for example, establish time units like ages, epochs, eras, periods, etc. to put geological history into a time perspective, Time passing may be a human construct, but measuring and discussing it is common in science.



204254,204522,

[Zer0]

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally? I ask those who notice this topic to comment about their views, for discussion.


204094,

I'd very much like to Discuss this a bit more if you are Interested.

Imagine a Still Image of an Egg.
Now another Still Image of a Cracked Egg.
Now imagine a plate of scrambled egg or sunny side up as per preference.

Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.
No Changes conceived.
No movement, Nothing!

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

How do We really measure Time?
By Flow of Entropy?

& How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

ps - prapz We exist inside off of the egg & prapz We might never be able to come out of our shell.
But that should Not stop Us from Imagining a Coop!

[Halc]

We know time passes, but the beginning of time is not easily established. Was there a beginning, or has time been passing eternally?

...
Obviously, All the above imagined images would have Different Time slots.
(egg-t1, crack-t2, served-t3)

Yes, true even if time isn't something that passes. Those three states still have different time slots.

If the Egg is a Fundamentally essential object, without which, no still images can be imagined.

Have no idea what you might be suggesting with this one. An egg hardly seems fundamental, and an image is not an egg, and we have plenty of images of things (unicorn is traditional) that seem not to exist.

Can We then conclude, Without the Egg, Time does not Exist.

That's like saying without the unicorn, time doesn't exist. Time can exist just fine without an egg.
Time can exist without motion, but it's harder. The paint fades over time. That's evidence of time without utilizing the motion of anything.

How do We really measure Time?

Typically by counting regular events. That works, flow or no flow. There is no way to detect flow, so one cannot measure time by any empirical detection of flow.

How do We measure Entropy without the Existence of molecules, atoms, electrons, protons, quarks etc etc?

There would be no 'we' to measure it without that stuff. Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

Hope some of this helps.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Entropy isn't especially a particularly meaningful thing without matter or radiation to measure.

... Agreed. In order for entropy to be occurring constantly, with no beginning and no end, we would have to be in a universe where time itself is but a measurement of relative motion of objects in one form or another.  What keeps entropy from being complete, meaning what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that in an infinite and eternal universe, matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.


205634,206057,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...  what keeps all of the useful energy in the universe from be expended, is that ... matter and energy are "fundamental" building blocks of everything else, cannot be used up, and are continually being converted from one to the other by natural processes.

The main natural processes in my estimation are big bangs and big crunches on a grand scale. If everything in the universe is continually being recycled from matter to energy and back to matter via big crunches and big bangs, then the trigger for each big bang would be a preceding Big Crunch. And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.


206109,206438,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

And there is no reason why the infinite universe isn't an infinite patchwork of forming crunches and expanding bangs, with new crunches and new bangs going on all the time, here and there across an infinite space filled with an infinite amount of matter and energy. The ultimate perpetual machine.

And if the universe is a "perpetual machine", infinite and eternal, ever changing, and yet the same, then what I call the "sameness principle" is always in effect, meaning no matter where you are in that infinite expanse, there is nothing new in regard to the physics that are in effect.


206451,206550,206710,207075,