[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

OK, but why post something like that? It has been explained many times how this contradicts all known laws of physics. Any concentration of mass in one place like a new bang in existing space would be an amazing amount of mass in a tiny space, when it's Schwarzschild radius is far larger. The mass would vanish in an instant into its own temporal singularity. The universe would have nothing but a bunch of black holes in it.

Your name off to the left says "Science enthusiast" but 'going with' something blatantly self contradictory like that is science denialism, not science enthusiasm. Science is about learning, not about blind naive assertions.

I'm hypothesizing that "big bangs" are not uncommon events in an infinite universe that is filled with matter and energy across its infinite expanse. Have you contemplated that kind of universe, or do you stop at Standard Theory and generally accepted science? It is the "as yet" unknowns that catch my interest.


Contemplating "infinity" is a grand pastime in itself, and the grand nature of the "as yet unknowns of the universe" make it hard to accept the consensus view while major questions remain open.


And note that this thread and these posts are in the sub-forum "on the lighter side", and are not intended to be hard science.


134397,134428,

[Halc]

I'm hypothesizing that "big bangs" are not uncommon events in an infinite universe that is filled with matter and energy across its infinite expanse.

Yes, you just said the same thing in the prior post, and it's still wrong for reasons including the one I gave (among others), and not because consensus is otherwise.

Have you contemplated that kind of universe, or do you stop at Standard Theory and generally accepted science?

New theories are fine if they work. This one requires an entire rewrite of the last seven centuries of physics, which I don't see being posted here.

And note that this thread and these posts are in the sub-forum "on the lighter side", and are not intended to be hard science.

Fine, but you don't accept that it cannot work without said total rewrite of new physics that is completely absent.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I'm not a science professional in any respect, and I don't know enough about science to do more that speculate as we discuss these topics. I post as a pass time because of my layman level interest but I don't have any credentials and am not very well studied in all of this. I agree that I am wrong often and I don't expect my posts to be taken as the gospel. Is this thread in this forum putting me in jeopardy with management?


134462,

[Halc]

Is this thread in this forum putting me in jeopardy with management?

Not at all. You just don't seem to care that your fantasy cannot possibly work.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Not at all. You just don't seem to care that your fantasy cannot possibly work.

I care ... so let's start with "infinite". I have the view that the universe is infinite because if space is not infinite, what is the observable universe expanding into?


And if it is not infinite, what is the nature of the outer boundary?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The other part of my premise is that the universe has always existed.

The alternative is "God did it". Is that where you are going with this? Are you invoking the Supernatural?


134761,

[Halc]

The other part of my premise is that the universe has always existed.

I might agree with that part, at least so far as to say there is not a time when there was no universe (or anything else), and a later time when there was. But I consider time to be contained by the universe rather than the other way around. The statement above is open to interpretation.

The alternative is "God did it". Is that where you are going with this?

Heh... There are a lot more alternatives than that, and ones that don't involve positing something even less likely than our universe. Getting into philosophy on a science site are we?

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

The other part of my premise is that the universe has always existed.

I might agree with that part, at least so far as to say there is not a time when there was no universe (or anything else), and a later time when there was. But I consider time to be contained by the universe rather than the other way around. The statement above is open to interpretation.

That time containment idea might be worth talking about, though I an advocate of time eternal.

The alternative is "God did it". Is that where you are going with this?

Heh... There are a lot more alternatives than that, and ones that don't involve positing something even less likely than our universe. Getting into philosophy on a science site are we?

Not my intention . Mention a different alternative to "always existed".

[Halc]

Mention a different alternative to "always existed".

This would require one to drop one or more naive bias.

"Always existed" is a phrase only meaningful to objects (a house, galaxy, the weather, etc.) contained by time. So if the universe is not reduced to an object contained by time, but is rather a structure that contains time, then it just exists. This is standard realism, a view held by Einstein and by probably the majority of physics that understand Einstein. If the universe is not a structure that contains time, then all of relativity theory is wrong, and there's not really an alternative thoery that has done its own generalization. So for instance, there's the neo-Lorentian interpretation, which says absurdly that all the equations that Einstein derived in relativity theory can be used to make any prediction, despite the fact that they're all based on premises that are wrong (such as the frame independent constant speed of light). But that's a view (used by nobody that actually has to work with physics) that posits the universe as an object contained by time, and thus is in need of being 'started'.

Dropping the bias of 'universe as an object in time' is not difficult, but if it is for you, then dropping the others will be out of reach, so I'll not go into other alternatives that require more out-of-the-box thinking. This is a science forum. Science is concerned with making empirical predictions, and none of the explanations of the existence of the universe make any empirical predictions, so they're not science.

It's like the question you asked about life elsewhere: If it's beyond the event horizon (which is currently just outside the Hubble radius and well inside the radius of the visible universe), then it cannot be measured by us and by any definition of existence that involves measurability, doesn't exist. That's a very different answer than the mathematical "any nonzero probability multiplied arbitrarily high results in a certainty".

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I would clarify my speculation about "always existed", to at the minimum, include space.

I would go further to speculate that space has never been empty, because my layman level logic tells me that you can't get "something" from "nothing", and I maintain that though empty space can be thought of as "nothingness", unless space has always contained matter and energy, then in order for the universe to be as it is today, you would have to invoke "something from nothing".


135975,
136715,

[Halc]

my layman level logic tells me that you can't get "something" from "nothing"

With that I will agree.

I maintain that though empty space can be thought of as "nothingness"

Empty space might be indistinguishable from not-space, but I'd not say that it would be nothingness. Time implies a change in state, so time without this change would be equally meaningless. So I'm still agreeing with you here.

unless space has always contained matter and energy

And that too. I'm not saying otherwise. But that statement isn't inconsistent with one big bang. The logic is similar to what holds me up: The floor does, and the ground holds that up, and by the logic you seem to be implying, it must be turtles all the way down, but instead there's a limit to how deep you can dig a hole to find out what holds me up. It isn't 'nothing' holding me up. There is a bottom and it isn't inconsistent to not have that in turn supported from below.

then in order for the universe to be as it is today, you would have to invoke "something from nothing".

But nobody seems to invoke that. It's pretty easily torn apart.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

But nobody seems to invoke that. It's pretty easily torn apart.

Correct, so my conclusion is that space has always existed and has always contained matter and energy, i.e. no beginning; in line with the thinking that the universe is infinite and eternal.


136733,136836,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

From that conclusion, an interesting question might be asked of me about the observed expansion of the universe. The observed expansion is theorized to have been caused by The Big Bang. Am I saying that there was no big bang?

No, and I speculate that instead of the entire universe beginning with the Big Bang event, I'm speculating that it was a Big Bang "type of event" within our vicinity of the universe which caused our entire observable universe to appear to be expanding in every direction, causing distant galaxies in all directions to be observed to be receding from us.


However, my speculation is that the finite "observable" universe is tiny relative to the vast infinite universe beyond; a universe that has always existed. So a Big Bang event could happen in our vicinity that might only affect our local expanse of the universe, and that would perhaps have only a negligible impact in distant reaches of space.


137005,137135,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Is an infinite universe easy, or hard to comprehend? I'd say it is easy if you are generalizing, but to really grasp what could be out there in the far reaches of space, and over infinite time ... it seems hard to have much clarity.

So when I say in the title of this thread, "why not multiple big bangs?", it is not a reference to The Big Bang event, of which there is just one implied. It is a reference to possibly an infinite number of big bang type of events occurring all across space and over all time: an on-going and eternal/universal process. From that perspective, there was no beginning of the history of the universe.


However, from any local perspective, held by any past or present intelligent life form in the universe, infinity and eternity must be hard to fully comprehend.


139406,139455,139523,140357,

[Halc]

Is an infinite universe easy, or hard to comprehend?

Most people have little trouble comprehending that part. It's not what's implausible. It's your physics that doesn't work. Matter suddenly banging into existence at some point in existing space, besides being a total violation of all conservation laws, also creates a gravitational singularity, even if it's only the mass of an apple, let alone a mass greater than that of the visible universe. There would be no light, new material, stars, atoms, or anything. It predicts a universe with zero light.
So I'm saying, push the idea on a non-science site, because it only works if a blind eye is turned to science.

So when I say in the title of this thread, "why not multiple big bangs?", it is not a reference to The Big Bang event, of which there is just one implied. It is a reference to possibly an infinite number of big bang type of events occurring all across space and over all time: an on-going and eternal/universal process.

Are you talking about spontaneous particles appearing like you get with pair production?  Nothing big like an apple? That would predict a steady state of greyness, with no receding objects, and everything sort of being born in a kind of heat-death state. Such a model was proposed a couple centuries back before entropy was understood and before expansion was observed.

Also, if new stuff gets periodically added for an infinite time, the universe necessarily must become full after some finite time. So is there a mechanism to remove old mass/energy?

However, from any local perspective, held by any past or present intelligent life form in the universe, infinity and eternity must be hard to fully comprehend.

Infinite time and eternity are very different things. Eternalism just says the universe isn't something that exists in time. It doesn't posit the boundaries of time or the lack of them.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Infinite time and eternity are very different things. Eternalism just says the universe isn't something that exists in time. It doesn't posit the boundaries of time or the lack of them.

An infinite and eternal universe theory does posit that here is no time or space boundary; they are both thought to be potentially infinite. There is no proof, so to advocate "infinite and eternal" is philosophical.


I consider it the height of my logic, but to anyone who doesn't think that way, they are welcome to argue otherwise. Just suggest what caused the start of time. Just suggest what kind of boundaries there might be to a finite universe?




141066,141203,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

What caused the start of time. What kind of boundaries there might be to a finite universe?

Nothing caused the start of time, because there was no "start"; time has been passing everywhere, forever.
And there has never been a finite universe so there has never been boundaries to the universe. The infinite universe is unbounded.


141204,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I have said about time, that time simply passes everywhere. I may get some argument when I say that time passes at the same rate everywhere though. Or not.
That idea supposes that there is someone with a watch in every parsec, and they all synchronized watches some time ago.


141357,141524,141653,141917,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

But if the watches are not synchronized, and can tick at different rates depending on their velocity relative to some imaginary fixed point in space, (which might not be a realistic possibility at all), can we just drop a flare there to mark the spot ?


I don't think so!


149929,

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

After a review of my thinking to date, my conclusion is
 that it is a reality that the universe has always existed and has always been infinite. ( that was my hypothesis before I started the review, lol.)


I think that the infinite and eternal existence of matter and energy is a premise that I would like to consider on this particular thread; i.e. has all the matter and energy in the infinite and eternal universe always existed.

Further, on this thread, it will be appropriate to say that the nature of the one and only universe can logically be boiled down to the three infinities of space, time, and energy; the universe is infinite in space and thus it has an infinite expanse, it has always existed, and everything physical can be reduced to space and energy. Therefore, there is only one universe, it is infinite, which means there is no "outside of it", and it is eternal.


131230,131268,131306,131500,

 If everything physical can be reduced to space and energy, what it takes to reform matter?
 Lack of entropy? If true, and the entropy it's forever growing, it, such universe would at some point loose all of it's material purposes if there's any?

 Guess the question is: How one reforms matter as we know?