[Zer0]

No hurries n No worries...
Please take your time..
& Get Well Soon!

: )

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

When I contemplate multiple big bangs, I am envisioning those various big bang events occurring within one infinite and eternal universe, as opposed to each big bang forming its own separate universe. From this thread you can discern that, in my thinking, there was no beginning of the universe and there will be no ending to the universe, and that leaves room for endless possibilities in the types of events that can occur and the types of places where they can occur, across infinite time and space.

Conveniently, the concepts of time and space can thus be used to bring order to the possibilities, because in a given place, events occur sequentially, and that order allows us to be on the same page in regard to discussing bouts of speculation about the "as yet" unknowns. All you have to do to help readers get on the same page is stipulate the starting circumstances and describe how those circumstances arose from the past, according to your scenario. 

Taking that tact, one issue concerns the origin of matter making up the particular view of the universe you are entertaining. In my thread, matter has always existed throughout the infinite universe, so its origin encompasses an infinite past characterized by no beginning.

Observed expansion of the universe then brings up a concern; how can an infinite universe with an infinite past expand?

My suggestion is that there is expansion going on within our field of view, while out there beyond where we can observe, from our unique point in time and space, there very well could be other points in space so remote and so separate, that though they are part of the one whole universe, they are so remote from us as to effectively be beyond our observation/discovery in almost any imaginable timeframe.


So what makes me think that such remote places exist? I fall back on the concept of infinite places in infinite space where time passing has always been occurring, ie, the concept of no beginning and no ending.


,,,197734,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

So what makes me think that such remote places exist? I fall back on the concept of infinite places in infinite space where time passing has always been occurring, ie, the concept of no beginning and no ending.


,,,197734,

... Of course my view is that those vary remote places exist ... so far from us that the time to get to them from Earth, traveling at the speed of light, is way beyond the amount of time since the beginning of the universe, if you suppose there was a beginning. I suppose that is why I like the "no beginning" premise.

I'm beginning to appreciate the fact that "infinite and eternal" has no bounds. It's like, "you could ride forever "neith" the streets of Boston, the man who never returns"... (from some old song I barely recall .

But given the premise that in those places, so remote from us, there are intelligent local life forms that think the same way; would they consider our presence to be "too remote for time to have reached"?

198219,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

Of course my view is that those vary remote places exist ... so far from us that the time to get to them from Earth, traveling at the speed of light, is way beyond the amount of time since the beginning of the universe

Light currently as close as 16 BLY away (well within the radius of the observable universe) can never reach us ever. How do you expect light from something further away to accomplish it?

I expect that there are such remote places, not that they are accessible to us, or us to them, even at the speed of light. I would say that the infinite universe imposes limits of its own.


198250,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

https://www.oann.com/newsroom/spacex-rocket-launches-astronomy-mission-to-study-dark-energy-and-dark-matter/

The exciting exploration and research continues ...


198547,198661,

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

I would say that the infinite universe imposes limits of its own.
...

And by that I mean that the operative limit would be that there would be no limit to the expanses that exist in any and every direction, from any and every point. A boundless, endless, infinite universe could contain every possible combination of circumstances, of elements known and unknown, and of arrangements of matter, energy, and life, in all possible forms, in all possible motions; a universe that is continually producing all possible interactions, time and time again, throughout it all.




198706,198802.

[Bogie_smiles (OP)]

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. 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.

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.


198933,199094,

[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.

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.

[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.

[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,

[paul cotter]

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

[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!