[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,

[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,

[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,

[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?

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

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,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

[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,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.



142050,144594,

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

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,

 It can work if universe exist and doesn't at the same time, divided by the plank scale, like a predictable future which erases and recreates that which it just erased constantly, that tic tac rate would be C.
 As for frame of reference, the frame of reference of matter it's always it's past, as it would be not a real static frame of reference, only the geometry of spacetime reajusting itself constantly at C.
 My frame of reference would always be the fields to which I'm submitted, always reference to zero when I'm my own frame of reference.

 It's an understanding about the cosmological limit, it's too much of a convince that quasars for example jets out matter at 99.999% of the cosmological constant.
 One of the feasible possibilities it's that: C it's not a moving speed, rather a quantification rate limit.
 A1-A2-B1-B2-C1-C2.... Towards infinity which would be... A1-A2-A1-A2-A1-A2 on a straight line distance following and seting the arrow of time.
 Each time A1 meets A2 the particle it's recreated there, but in between A1-A2 the existence of anything but spacetime was (0) for it didn't existed as a thing since nothing can't move trough nothing.
 What I mean by nothing can't move trough nothing (faster than C) it's the suggestion itself, that in between A1 and A2 (one Planck volume) "the thing" wold not be a thing at all, the update "speed" it's set and nothing cannot surpass it as "a thing".
 Matter seems to bypass this by offering a center for mass, still such reference it's only reference for itself while for space it is still zero.
 If the information was erased as a thing and recreated on the destination, with a C speed as the frame rate it would be virtually undistinguished from a moving object.

 Matter travel is to spacetime using the same means of the photon, if the photon requirements are to produce virtual photons In order to work, one can say that it's also true that nothing it's relative to nothing but spacetime.

Hmmm, I'll have to take a closer look at this, later.

 It's confusing but the concept it's quite simple.
 Particles cease to real while "occuring" in between a Planck.
A1 its the A side of the wire, while A2 it's the future exit of the wire.
 The particle it's real at A1 while "planking/traveling trough absence of time" the particle it's virtual all information being transported at C rate trough a sort of wormholing effect which we attribute as properties of the particles/spin, and becomes real while arriving at A2.

 Now the catch A2 and A1 are one and the same.
 But that can't be.
 Can if you introduce a direction anything bellow 45° from the real location would be impossible for light as it would represent being quantified backwards.

 How much energy one needs to make another current flow trough a wire in order to push backwards the incoming flow from the other side?

 If both meet at the needle you'd have "opositing forces", not different forces only opositing the arrow, guess that's represented by charge..

 Maybe the trick for matter is to "isolate" one section of the wire/tunneling effect, which it's indeed spherical and flat rather than tunnel like while on euclidian space.
 A star would be suitable for that.
 You can offer a center for it's potential, and as it starts to grow and spin it start to move all the gas particles which gives momentum to all matter nearby, and such momentum will be conserved in space.
 Meanwhile, sun now a real object(a reference of it's own still only for itself), starts to recieve the same mechanics that jumps light, but this time with a real object with mass, such object can indeed be said it's "moving with a speed".
 Suggesting the geometry of the planets and stars it's all but the electromagnetic force generated by that "section of the wire" isolated from the whole inside the innercore.
 You simple locked the low of electrons inside a single dot, and that was made by casualty and chance alone.

 So there's this gap, if light  it's not traveling with a C speed.
 But rather "occuring" from Planck to Planck with a absolute framerate C.

 First is physical, second it's mathematical/geometrical.
 First one moves, the second one pops in and out of existe.

 If A1 and A2 are but the same the initial state of light would be inevitable at C as it would be interference pattern.
 You don't need to move from A1 to A2 on a Planck volume, A1 its A2 and A2 it's A1, from there it's simple binary...1/0/1/0/1/0/1 each dash one single planck distance.

 If true, "nothing truly states" "objects made of matter" being unable to travel faster than C, for C would be no longer a limit speed for objects but a framerate for spectrum occuring "over the fabric".
 Matter doesn't need necessarily to care about space, it's it's own frame at all times.

 Just considering indeed the spin of the electron and the photon the source of everything.
 Perhaps even accounting how light and dense space/BigBang/innercores can turn space into matter.
 Trap it in there, let it's own electromagnetic field build the star and forge matter.

 Trapped "space seems weird" but it's just like the early universe, only that the reproduced one occurs isolated from the euclidian one, inside stars and planets.

 Sort of trapping space, isolate it from the exterior using matter, wonder that such portion of space inside planets and stars would make contact with the exterior.

 Five years, I mind till this part a picture it's forming but at this point the whole explanation it's a mess...🙄

 Photon gain mass and looses it cause it's restored at each Planck.
 Since A1 and A2 only distinction it's the arrow of time it's quite obvious that photons would simple occur at C and unable to stop, it's not a speed, it's a rate.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Alex, this shows a fair amount of imagination, which is fine/in line with my post history, if my self evaluation counts, lol.

I have to give it a rest until something applicable comes to mind.


,143157,143228,143427,143501,144594,144894,

[puppypower]

If you plug in the speed of light into the three equations of special relativity; mass, distance and time, you will get discontinuities in time, distance and mass. We know mass cannot exist at the speed of light, since the math  becomes infinite, which cannot occur.

I would also expect a type of discontinuity in both space and time to complete the set. The easiest way to model this limit for space and time is that space-time will break down at the speed of light reference, into separated space and separated time that are not connected. By not being connected other options open up.

At the cross over point, mass and space-time would become massless without space-time. We would have only space that is not constrained by time and time that is not constrained by space.

If one could move in space, without the constraint of time, and/or move in time without the constraint of space, matter and energy could not exist, since matter and energy are limited to space-time being connected. Moving in space, without the constraint of time, would make you omnipresent. The laws of physics are omnipresent, or they are the same in all references. This more like an information type realm instead of material based.

Energy could not exist where space and time are not connected,  since energy, such as photons requires time and space connected as  frequency and wavelength. Instead you could have something like frequency without wavelength and wavelength without frequency. These building blocks allows us to go back to before the BB and \ before any theory that has matter and energy already in place. Science stops are the wall, but the wall can be scaled.

[puppypower]

To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=10⁵⁰ kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.

[Alex Dullius Siqueira]

To help explain what may be on the other side of the wall, consider the human imagination. I can imagine flying to the sun with wings of wax, then burrowing through the sun, to its core, to get a a nice sun tan. This is all imaginary and cannot occur in space-time, since the way matter and energy are related in space-time will not support this.

Yet, at the level of consciousness and information, space-time is not the limiting factor in terms of the sun tan scenario. My brain does not automatically prevent me from thinking outside of space-time based limits as specified by physics, with respect to energy and material. Such thinking would be limited by social stigma and taboo, but not any practical space-time limitation within my brain's matter or consciousness.

This type of data processing is actually closer to time without space and  space without time. Things do not have to add up as expected of space-time, at the level of information, even when it come from the matter of the brain, that is based on the limits of space-time; free will beyond space-time. 

On the other hand, if I was a development engineer and I was commissioned to build something, I will need to limit my imagination to only the subset of all imaginary combinations, that are allowed by space-time. Outside that box would not be practical for my job. But outside that box has way more options. Space-time is a subset of separated space and separated time, with more limitations.

In a realm where space and time are not connected, we would be in state of infinite entropy, since the possibilities for complexity and randomness would be unlimited, since space-time constraints are not there. The realm beyond the wall can theoretically spawn a subset called space-time.

That other realm will also become the potential, behind the second law, that governs entropy within our universal space-time. Entropy is harder to describe than energy or matter since it comes from a much more expanded reality; beyond what is, into what can be in the future; increase. 

To make our space-time realm appear from space and time not connected, we would need to intersect an independent time line with a space line. Since this will limit the free style complexity, at the point of intersection, entropy will lower locally. and give off tons of free energy potential. This is not energy, yet, but potential to become energy when space-time appears. Free energy is connected to entropy as -TS or temperature times entropy. The BB was very hot, so even a small amount of entropic potential S will go log way when T=10⁵⁰ kelvin.

Since space-time is a subset of space without time and time without space  I would expect they two will stay connected, so extra time potential and/or extra distance potential will continue to overlap space-time. This will create affects like probability, since space-time is no longer limited to 2-D, but is more like 2+-D.

If you look at the inflation period of the BB, where the universe expanded faster than the speed of light, this would be explained as adding some extra distance potential to early space-time or space(+)-time This allows extra giddy-up in space, beyond the time expected of the speed of light, traveling in pure space-time. It adds a partial omnipresent affect, that allows the universe to expand in all directions at the same time.

GR and gravity are based on acceleration, which has the units of d/t/t or space-time plus extra time potential; time line. Mass is connected to extra time potential, which is why it is so hard to interface gravity with the purer space-time affects of the other three forces.

Mass allows space-time references to persist in time, as a range of references in time. Mass cannot move at the speed of light, so it cannot reverse back to the wall, but has to go in another direction that gives the universe persistence in time.

The current expansion of the universe is due to distance potential from the other realm, that we now called dark matter and energy. However, this is not exactly based on energy. The expansion expands all wavelengths of and energy and distances, thereby forces a lowering frequency; lost time potential and less mass equivalent in universal space-time. This increases entropy which absorbs the free energy, bringing us closer to the infinite entropy realm.

This is just a theory but it does open a door in the wall beyond space-time.

 I think I agree with that in a sense:

 Two neurones are faster than the cosmological constant
 Speed of light x2 over one single frame (brain)
 One billion neurones are faster than the cosmological constant
 Speed of light x 1b over one single frame (me)

 Abstract thinking it's like abstract exotic matter.
 I see something and I can transform that into wherever I want to.

 It's a complicated situation which compromises the whole understanding if there's any.

 Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

...
 Not why not multiple BigBang, rather "why is universe?"

I think that the "Why question" is reduced to "not applicable" for anything infinite and eternal. It just is, always has been, will always be, and could be no other way, IMHO.


145130,145254,145430,