[Bill S]

Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

You must be either a scientist or a mathematician.  It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. 

The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".  Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.

If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?

Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.

It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.

Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

[jeffreyH]

Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

You must be either a scientist or a mathematician.  It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. 

The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".  Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.

If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?

Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.

It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.

Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

Bill take it from me you leave all the mathematicians and scientists standing in your wake. They don't realize it though.

[Bill S]

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

How many infinite numbers of times are there?

Cantor maintained that there was an infinite number of infinities, but even he ran into problems with "absolute infinity".

It is easy to forget that Cantor's infinities were mathematical infinities which are fine for the purpose for which they are intended, but are not really infinite.

[ScientificSorcerer]

before the big bang the entire universe was contained in a single spot, All that mass in a single spot created a huge gravitational field more powerful then all the black holes in the universe combined. The matter in the "super black hole/singularity" was pressure induced into a bois einstine condensate, the force of gravity was too much and crushed the matter into energy causing the big bang. There is proof that matter existed before the big bang too.

You see when all of that matter turned into energy simultaneously the massive gravitational field disappeared in a split second (because energy has no mass), This caused rippling gravity waves that persist to this day  these gravity waves are called dark energy. These dark energy gravity waves are huge, each wave length is millions of light years across. Dark energy proves that matter existed before the big bang because the rate of expansion of the universe correlates to calculations as to the size of the big bang's gravity waves.

Matter was made out of energy soon after the big bang and will soon ball up into another singularity for another big bang to occur. Matter is renewed by this process but energy lasts forever and has always been a property of the fabric of space which also lasts forever. It lasts forever because it's unaffected by time (because they are one in the same thing.)

[JP]

Because "everything that can happen does happen, an infinite number of times."

(there are still left "an infinite number of times" to happen all that can happen, even if it did happened in the past for another "infinite number of time".)

You must be either a scientist or a mathematician.  It seems impossible to separate scientists and mathematicians from mathematical infinities, which are only approximations. 

The following thought scenario links this discussion with that of another thread.

There is a road of infinite length, in the middle of which there is a bridge.

How do I know the bridge is in the middle? I know that because the road must extend to infinity on either side.

Of course, we all know that, physically, there cannot be a road of infinite length because, as far as we know, the only places where a road could be built are finite, but this is a "thought scenario".

One night the Finite Defence League blow up the bridge, so no one can cross from one side to the other. We know that the road extends to infinity in both directions, but can each section really be considered infinite?

What do we have? Is it two halves of infinity, two infinite roads or two finite roads?

Intuitively, one might say that, as each half goes to infinity, we must have two infinite roads. That seems more reasonable than "two halves of infinity".  Moreover, we know that intuition does not necessarily equal good science.

However, consider that if you are at a point (eg 1km from the bridge site) along the road, and you travel towards the break; in 1km you come to the end of "infinity". Does this make sense?

Because we reach an end, whichever side we approach from, it is tempting to argue that the road segments are finite. However, if members of the People’s Infinite Front decide to repair the bridge, but they are infinitely far away along the road; can they ever reach the bridge? The answer must surely be “no”.

We were able to reach the end, so in our frame of reference, the road is finite; but the PIF, who were infinitely far away could never reach the bridge, so in their frame of reference it must be infinitely far away. For them, the road segments go on infinitely in both directions.

Does this mean that infinity is relative? It would seem to suggest that.

If infinity is relative, so must eternity be. This must raise the question: Could there be a frame of reference in which there might have been absolutely nothing, yet there might still be something now?

Perhaps it would save crossed wires if I say that I think there would not be, but I could have missed something.

It might be argued that we cannot, with justification, extrapolate from what we observe in the Universe to what might be the conditions outside, and that we cannot say with certainty that, outside the Universe causality could not be such that something could be "spawned" by absolutely nothing.

Personally, I think that's "a bridge too far", but that is just a non-expert opinion.

Another infinity thread?  Is the number of threads we have on infinity infinite or is it just very large? 

I think I should make it clear, in case anyone's browsing this thread looking for scientific answers, that no one knows if infinity is physically realizable or not.  I tend to lean towards Bill's perspective that infinity is probably not physical, but it's an open question.  There are those who would disagree with me and we all have zero evidence to back up our claims.  :p

The problem is that science progresses by testing hypotheses, and so far as I know there is no testable hypothesis that could distinguish between an infinite universe or merely a very large universe on the basis of current observations.  In fact, any sufficiently large, expanding universe will always have parts that we simply can't see because light can only have traveled so far in a finite time since the big bang.  The fact that the universe appears to be accelerating in its expansion indicates that there are parts we may NEVER be able to see.

[Pr. snoerkel]

The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses.
But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.
So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer

[jeffreyH]

The BB as traditionally explained by science certainly violates the first law of thermodynamics. And what about the third law? It says that the Unirverse eventually will end up in a state where no mechanical energy can be produced. So, if masses exist at that point they must be either be collected in one point, a huge black hole, or be outside each others observation horizon. Otherwise it would be possible to create mechanical energy by mutual interaction between masses.
But a black hole would be radiating as shown by Hawking and that could in principle be utilized for mechanical energy. Same goes for any mass even the slightest above absolute zero temperature.
So, the only way to preserve the third law would be to imagine an end scenario somewhat in line with that proposed by ScientificSorcerer

For the first law it all depends on what exactly happens in a black hole. We assume a singularity but if we consider that mass is torn apart beyond the event horizon then mass in a solid state is meaningless beyond this point. If gravitational feedback depends upon solidification and this is pure speculation on my part, then gravitation takes on an entirely different aspect within the confines of the horizon. There may well be a lot of energetic interaction at the core which prevents total collapse. As always with a system there may be a critical mass beyond which point a big bang is inevitable. Bearing in mind it is at infinity where the mathematics breaks down then removing the possibility of a singularity would resolve an awful lot of issues plaguing physics. While it is quite accepted that light speed is an absolute that cannot be obtained and the same with absolute zero the possibility that the singularity is an absolute seems to have been largely ignored.

[ScientificSorcerer]

I agree with JP.

Simply put, the universe could not possibly be infinite (in size) Because the big bang shows us that the entire universe was contained in a single spot, would that single spot contain infinity? probably not because the big bang wasn't infinity large. Logically speaking the universe is only as big as the light traveled from the moment of the big bang.

If the Big bang took place 13.8 billion years ago then light could have only traveled 13.8 billion light years away in all directions so the universe is a sphere which is 27.6 billion light years in diameter "it's Big" but not infinity large.

I don't mean to say that the fabric of space isn't infinite But the area of space with "stuff in it" is finite. As I said in my last post the universe is expanding too but that wont go on forever because dark energy is just really big gravity waves. The force of gravity will inevitably pull everything together into a mega black hole which will implode into another big bang.

http://d1jqu7g1y74ds1.cloudfront.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/12/history.bigbang.jpg

JeffreyH posted an interesting point, Black holes are not infinite because you can calculate how much mass it's got by it's gravity. A black hole only appears to be infinite because it's so freaking condensed.

Most of us don't realize that atoms are 99.99999% empty space. Imagine blowing up an atom to the size of the sun the nucleus would only be about the size of you.  Atoms are kept away from each-other because of the electromagnetic repulsion force of the electron cloud. But In a black hole the force of gravity overcomes the electromagnetic repulsion and nuclei are forced into a Bois Einstein condensate in which the empty space within atoms is filled by other atoms. Creating something which is ridiculously condensed THAT IS A SINGULARITY.

[Pr. snoerkel]

The statement from ScientificSorcerer needs some supplement. Because of inflation, the Universe must be minimum 27.6 billion light years in diameter but could really be any size. Inflation theory is well established and cannot be ignored. You can say that you think it wrong for this or that reason, but you cannot ignore it

[ScientificSorcerer]

To me Inflation theory is just another theory that is probably purely mathematical, as in there is really no supportable evidence to it, just a bunch of crap. Not one part of that theory can be backed up by any physical observable evidence at all, we cant see anything beyond a certain point so they made up this Idea saying "what if" there's another universe beyond that point "what if" there are infinite universes out there, you simply can't prove it or disprove it because it's unknowable.

Science done like that isn't science at all, it's religion. heck the big bang theory borders on religion but at least there is real observable evidence supporting it.

I lean towards a big crunch type of theory because it makes logical sense. It's simple the force of gravity attracts everything together, you can see evidence of it already happening with the formation of galaxies and black-holes, the only thing keeping that idea from being undeniable is dark energy, which I have explained wont go on forever and wont impede the big crunch.

[Bill S]

Another infinity thread?

Lest anyone should suspect that I have a vested interest in introducing infinity (I can’t imagine why they would) into as many threads as possible, I wish to point out that I am not guilty in this case. 

I accept that any suggestion as to what there might have been before the BB is speculation, with no real scientific or experimental evidence to back it up.  However; Would I not be correct in thinking scientific data stops short at about 10^-35s after the Big Bang?

Three questions arise here:

1. If there is no data prior to that, why would any scientist accept that there was a Big Bang? After all, "no data is no data".

2. If it is acceptable to extrapolate back 10^-35s. why not 2X10^-35s, which would take us back beyond the (proposed) Big Bang?

3. Who decides how much extrapolation is acceptable, and in what circumstances?

[ScientificSorcerer]

The big bang theory basically arose from looking at stars though a big telescope, the farther you look into space the farther back in time your looking at in the universes life, This is because light has to travel a long distance to reach us from that far away. when you look through a nasa grade telescope you can see millions of light years away, In effect your looking millions of year in the past. This practice has allowed scientists to see what the universe looked like along time ago. This combined with noting the temperature of space that long ago allowed use to paint a picture of the rebirth of the universe. Just look at the link in my last post.

[Bill S]

This practice has allowed scientists to see what the universe looked like along time ago.This combined with noting the temperature of space that long ago allowed use to paint a picture of the rebirth of the universe.

This I have no problem with; It just seems, sometimes, that deciding what is and is not permissible extrapolation is an arbitrary decision.     

[ScientificSorcerer]

Bill S

You have to remember that all of these "extrapolations" are just theories, that's why the Big Bang theory is just a theory, it's not fact that means anything is "permissible" as long as it stands up to scientific scrutiny which is just smart people's educated opinion.

As Democritus ones said


Nothing exists except atoms and empty space everything else is just an opinion

He also said that "people can know a great many things but lack wisdom"

What he means is you can't just take someone's word for it just because they are a leader, or in this case a leader of the scientific community.

[Bill S]

...you can't just take someone's word for it just because they are a leader, or in this case a leader of the scientific community.

Absolutely!  A quick look through some of the blogs and discussion forums would leave you in no doubt as to the confused mess your ideas would be in if you took every expert's statements of "fact" at face value. 

[ScientificSorcerer]

But despite all of the opinions, some of it is true fact. If you want to Find the truth "some of it is out there" you have to use your brain to determine what is truth and what is false. I have a theory (educated opinion) as to what caused the big bang, which correlates to scientific fact.  I want to hear your opinion on it 



It starts with a black hole, Whats in a black hole? I "think" I know what is in there, I think that In a black hole the force of gravity is so strong that it overcomes the electromagnetic force, namely the electron cloud. I think that the gravity inside a black hole squishes the atoms together so much that the nuclei of each atom actually touch and bypass the electron cloud, they act sort of like one big super-atom.

I back up this statement with the Bois-Einstein condensate (BEC). An actual 5th state of matter! It is characterized by the nuclei of atoms in the BEC state coming together to form a super-atom. We know it exists because you can make it in the lab. look at this link describing the BEC.

http://www.colorado.edu/physics/2000/bec/what_is_it.html

Scientists can make this stuff by freezing matter down to near absolute zero, But the BEC state in a black hole is pressure induced by gravity "not" temperature induced. Atoms in it's normal states of matter are 99.999% empty space BUT in the BEC state atoms are condensed into being 0% empty space Thus all the atoms in a black hole are 9999999 times more condensed then normal matter THATS WHAT I THINK happens to matter in a black hole.
Light that enters a black hole is literally stopped in it's tracks apon entering a black hole, look at this video of how that works.

So now you know what "I think" happens to matter and light inside a black hole. I think Matter in a black hole is in the BEC state and Light is trapped inside the BEC.

This relates to my theory on the big bang because I believe that before the big bang everything was contained in one spot, "a super black hole" In which all the light and matter in the universe was contained in the BEC state. The combined gravity of the entire universe in one spot caused the atoms inside the black hole to "break" or "squish" and in the process be converted into energy. (because you know what happens when you split an atom)

When one atom split, it caused a chain reaction with all the other atoms, causing all the matter in the universe to be converted into energy (giving you the big bang)

All that matter got into one spot because of the attractive force of gravity. The same process that causes little black holes to form, billions of years from now the universe will come together into a super black hole. look at this video describing how that works.

They make it sound all dramatic but the big crunch will take billions/trillions of years.
Big bangs are just like the clock of the universe hitting 12 and starting over, It's still the same clock but it's a new day, I hope this makes sense.

This theory of mine has one problem "dark energy theory" which states that the universe is flying apart, and will soon overcome the attractive force of gravity. this video explains.

I believe that dark energy is NOT continuous expansion of space, instead "I think" dark energy is the result of gravity waves generated during the big bang. let me explain, Gravity waves exist, that's a fact and they they were first observed by looking at to black holes orbiting each other and these gravity waves act a lot like dark energy from an outside perspective.

you see before the big bang everything was contained in a single spot and all that mass in a single spot created a huge gravity well.



when the big bang occurred all that mass was converted into energy and that huge gravity well disappeared instantly because energy has no mass and no gravity. all that gravity gone in a split second caused rippling gravity waves, imagine this, imagine a rubber sheet with a ball on it.



now imagine what would happen if that ball just disappeared, that rubber sheet would return to it's normal state but it would bounce up and down first because of the elastic nature of the rubber sheet.  the fabric of space is no different exept a wave in the fabric of space is the distortion of space, space stretching and contracting.



we live in this massive gravity wave, at the crest of this massive wave space in that spot is most condensed and at the wave trough gravity is closest to it's normal state. space looks like it's spreading out because we are heading toward a wave trough (on the down slope of the wave) so space is coming from a more condensed state caused by the gravity wave back down to it's normal state. I hope that makes sense.

This is my theory, it's based on physics facts, not physics theories. the only thing that I assumed which is not based on fact is that a BEC state can be induced via pressure and that the big bang caused gravity waves. Both assumptions have a basis in scientific facts.

What do you think about my theory/educated opinion?

[Conspirologist]

ScientificSorcerer

I hope you don't mind that I've been looking at some of your posts and I found that one thing is an enigma to me and that's how much of a firm grasp you have on concepts like gravity waves, superconductors, invisibility, theoretical particles, Tesla coils, piezo-electricity and what ever the heck "BEC" is. Just all forms of science, How the heck do you know this stuff???

I can barley understand some of the stuff on this forum, especially stuff posted by you. How do you do it??  Did you go to Harvard or something?

I like how you said that the "truth is out there" you just have to use your head to see it sitting right in front of you. I firmly agree with that! indubitably

[jeffreyH]

If atoms are pushed so tightly together then you would ultimately have feedback in the coulomb field in the same way feedback occurs in gravity fields. This would also be true of gluon confinement. The problem is that all the particles are either likely to tend to be in the form of neutrons or free quarks and gluons. In the case of neutrons having neutral charge I would doubt they would have much effect on light directly. Feedback in quark confinement would have a dramatic effect but you would need to formulate a link between gluons and gravity. A daunting task.

http://condensedconcepts.blogspot.co.uk/2013/05/from-cold-atoms-to-quark-gluon-plasmas.html

[Bill S]

I tend to like non-mainstream ideas, and believe that an idea that has had a lot of thought put into it is a thing of value, even if the experts can shoot so many holes in it that it begins to look like a colander.  (You will have no difficulty believing that I’ve been there).  Finding such an idea that is defended by someone who doesn’t descend into ad hominem attacks and insults is a rare treat.

 To me, such ideas have the considerable value that they tend to make me think of questions I might not otherwise have considered, so I am going to kick off with some of these questions.

“It starts with a black hole”

Does a black hole have to be a hole in something?  If so, what would that be?

“Gravity waves exist, that's a fact….”

This is true, if you really mean “gravity waves”, but I suspect you are referring to gravitational waves.  As far as I am aware there is no direct proof of their existence, but I may be way out of date.

“…before the big bang everything was contained in a single spot and all that mass in a single spot created a huge gravity well.”

Does a gravity well have to be a well in something?  A gravitational field would seem the most likely thing, and if that’s the case, does a gravitational field have to have something in which it can exist?

Is the universe completely contained in the central matter, or is the gravity well/gravitational field part of the universe?

[ScientificSorcerer]

Bill S
For an answer to your first question about black holes. If you look at the animated gif of a black hole in my last post, you can clearly see why they call it a black hole. Its not really a "hole" in space It's just got so much gravity that not even light can escape it's gravitational pull (light gets sucked into it) so that light never reaches us, as a result you see an optical distortion called a black hole.

as for your second question about gravity waves. Indeed gravity waves/gravitational waves may or my not exist But there is a lot of evidence supporting there existence. I think these short videos will clarify any confusion as to what gravitational waves are.

you can see how this correlates to "Dark energy" they seem like very similar things to me. As I mentioned earlier you would need huge gravity waves to correlate dark energy and gravitational waves. I think the big bang created these huge gravity waves.

and as for your last question about gravity wells and before the big bang.
You see if the big bang did in-fact produce gravitational waves then that proves that the singularity before the big bang did exist and that it had mass, a lot of mass, an entire universe of mass. Because without mass you can't get gravitational waves. that would mean that matter did exist before the big bang and that dark energy's expansion is the result of gravity waves and that it wont last forever and concepts like the "big rip" would be ruled out leaving only one explanation as to how the universe will end. (in a big crunch) which will create a super black hole with the entire universe in it, which will implode into another big bang.

and sorry about my terminology (gravity well =gravitational field) (gravity waves=gravitational waves)

Jeffrey H
I am admit-ably not too knowledgeable in the area of quarks and gluons, I know what they are and the basics as to how they work But To the best of my knowledge quarks don't normally propagate by themselves in free space, I thought they just turn into energy within a split second after the smashing of the atoms.
I personally think that "both" quarks and gluons are exotic forms of plasma and that the "plasma" is made of light spinning around around those tiny particles, I forget the name of those tiny theoretical particles at the moment, you know the ones that they are trying to measure underground, they do the experiments underground to filter out cosmic rays. Dang it what were they called 

Conspirologist
I have actually never gone to college, and I appreciate your complement I'm flattered