What's new
US Message Board - Political Discussion Forum

This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
If the universe is expanding then it must have a beginning. If you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. You cannot continue that history indefinitely. This is still true even if a universe has periods of contraction. It still has to have a beginning if expansion over weights the contraction. Physicists have been uncomfortable with the idea of a beginning since the work of Friedman which showed that the solutions of Einstein's equation showed that the universe had a beginning. The problem with a cyclical universe is with the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics. If it is a periodic universe then the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem. The model by Steinhardt and Turok does not have this problem. They have cycles but the size of the cycle increases with time. So the next cycle is bigger than the first. So in this sense the total entropy of the universe still increases but the entropy you see in your limited region may not grow. This model does no contradict the inflation model because since each cycle is bigger than the previous cycle you still have expansion. And since you still have expansion, it still has to have a beginning because if you follow it backwards in time, then any object must come to a boundary of space time. The best explanation for how the universe began is the inflation model. It is possible for matter to have a beginning. In a closed universe the gravitational energy which is always negative exactly compensates the positive energy of matter. So the energy of a closed universe is always zero. So nothing prevents this universe from being spontaneously created. Because the net energy is always zero. The positive energy of matter is balanced by the negative energy of the gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. There is no conservation law that prevents the formation of such a universe. In quantum mechanics if something is not forbidden by conservation laws, then it necessarily happens with some non-zero probability. So a closed universe can spontaneously appear - through the laws of quantum mechanics - out of nothing. And in fact there is an elegant mathematical description which describes this process and shows that a tiny closed universe having very high energy can spontaneously pop into existence and immediately start to expand and cool. In this description, the same laws that describe the evolution of the universe also describe the appearance of the universe which means that the laws were in place before the universe itself.

 

irosie91

Diamond Member
Joined
Jul 12, 2012
Messages
73,305
Reaction score
7,723
Points
1,830
ok------I still do not know why X approaches infinity
 

waltky

Wise ol' monkey
Joined
Feb 6, 2011
Messages
26,211
Reaction score
2,583
Points
275
Location
Okolona, KY
Uncle Ferd wonderin'...

So, is it possible that a neighboring universe expands so much...

... that it 'pops it's seams' so to speak...

... and 'spills out'...

... and starts another, parallel universe?

And is this caused by the dark matter...

... in the originating universe?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Uncle Ferd wonderin'...

So, is it possible that a neighboring universe expands so much...

... that it 'pops it's seams' so to speak...

... and 'spills out'...

... and starts another, parallel universe?

And is this caused by the dark matter...

... in the originating universe?
Only God and maybe Hawking knows, lol. Of course Hawking IS an asshole and many people believe God is too!
 

hobelim

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 1, 2013
Messages
9,412
Reaction score
509
Points
130
Location
elsewhere
Uncle Ferd wonderin'...

So, is it possible that a neighboring universe expands so much...

... that it 'pops it's seams' so to speak...

... and 'spills out'...

... and starts another, parallel universe?

And is this caused by the dark matter...

... in the originating universe?


Maybe the dark energy and dark matter itself, 96% of this universe, is the firmament of an unseen and undetectable parallel universe, superior by volume and substance, existing within the one we know simultaneously outside of space and time?

Everything we see, everything we know, everything that can be detected, everything our mortal lives will ever be is all wrapped up in the remaining 4%,......... unless you break on through to the other side....
 
Last edited:

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
627
Points
85
.
there is no contraction, BB is a cyclical loop between matter and energy. Singularity is the moment of transformation.

natural laws are dimensions that interact.
 

expat_panama

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
2,959
Reaction score
360
Points
130
...The Laws of Nature existed before space and time...
The title appears to contradict itself in that something cannot do anything (even "exist") without (or even "before") space and time --unless we're referring to that 'thing' existing in maybe a separate space-time in which other space-times (including our own) somehow 'exist' as some kind of subset inside a greater all encompassing hyperspace-time.

That's a lot of work that doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

A far more tidy and elegent model might be we say that at the point of the original cosmological singularity, our space time was caused into being as the result of some greater power. My take is it's another way of saying "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". If we want to then go on to explore the nature of the Original Causal Power then we'll have to be a lot more careful w/ our wording.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Uncle Ferd wonderin'...

So, is it possible that a neighboring universe expands so much...

... that it 'pops it's seams' so to speak...

... and 'spills out'...

... and starts another, parallel universe?

And is this caused by the dark matter...

... in the originating universe?


Maybe the dark energy and dark matter itself, 96% of this universe, is the firmament of an unseen and undetectable parallel universe, superior by volume and substance, existing within the one we know simultaneously outside of space and time?

Everything we see, everything we know, everything that can be detected, everything our mortal lives will ever be is all wrapped up in the remaining 4%,......... unless you break on through to the other side....
220px-Diagram_Systems.png


The net energy of the universe is zero as the positive force of matter is balanced by the negative force of gravity of that matter which is the space time curvature of that matter. Therefore, the universe is an isolated system. How exactly do you propose breaking through to the other side?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
...The Laws of Nature existed before space and time...
The title appears to contradict itself in that something cannot do anything (even "exist") without (or even "before") space and time --unless we're referring to that 'thing' existing in maybe a separate space-time in which other space-times (including our own) somehow 'exist' as some kind of subset inside a greater all encompassing hyperspace-time.

That's a lot of work that doesn't seem to get us anywhere.

A far more tidy and elegent model might be we say that at the point of the original cosmological singularity, our space time was caused into being as the result of some greater power. My take is it's another way of saying "in the beginning God created the heavens and the earth". If we want to then go on to explore the nature of the Original Causal Power then we'll have to be a lot more careful w/ our wording.
I don't believe God and the Laws of Nature are one in the same. That would be like saying a painter is his painting.
 

Paladin_

Member
Joined
Feb 11, 2017
Messages
93
Reaction score
9
Points
21
Location
Michigan, USA
From what I can see (and I'll admit my knowledge of cosmology isn't comprehensive), the fundamental flaw in your argument is that it assumes a closed system (that is, a single, unique universe or one that is part of a unique, recurring loop of universes). But for all we know, our universe may be part of an even LARGER universe, as some have hypothesized.

But even if it IS unique and singular, we don't actually know if it's a closed system (and therefore subject to the entropic limitations of the 2nd law). It seems to be self-contained, but as we encounter more mysteries like dark matter and dark energy, we must realize that there are a great many things about the construct of our universe we still don't understand.

Furthermore, it's often speculated that many of the physical laws which govern the universe evolved as the early universe evolved from the Big Bang -- in other words, that the physical laws that now guide the universe aren't the same as those which existed in the moment of the "bang."

In that same vein, it's also quite possible that, if our universe IS only the latest in a series of contracting and "banging" universes, the laws for each weren't exactly the same.

Nor does it logically follow that there must have been a "beginning" -- a first universe. That's simply an intuitive human extrapolation based upon conventional human experience. And, while such intuitions can be extremely practical and useful, they can also be quite wrong (as Einstein demonstrated with regard to time).

Given these considerations, it's far from certain -- indeed, it doesn't seem likely -- that the "laws of nature" existed before the universe did.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
From what I can see (and I'll admit my knowledge of cosmology isn't comprehensive), the fundamental flaw in your argument is that it assumes a closed system (that is, a single, unique universe or one that is part of a unique, recurring loop of universes). But for all we know, our universe may be part of an even LARGER universe, as some have hypothesized.

But even if it IS unique and singular, we don't actually know if it's a closed system (and therefore subject to the entropic limitations of the 2nd law). It seems to be self-contained, but as we encounter more mysteries like dark matter and dark energy, we must realize that there are a great many things about the construct of our universe we still don't understand.

Furthermore, it's often speculated that many of the physical laws which govern the universe evolved as the early universe evolved from the Big Bang -- in other words, that the physical laws that now guide the universe aren't the same as those which existed in the moment of the "bang."

In that same vein, it's also quite possible that, if our universe IS only the latest in a series of contracting and "banging" universes, the laws for each weren't exactly the same.

Nor does it logically follow that there must have been a "beginning" -- a first universe. That's simply an intuitive human extrapolation based upon conventional human experience. And, while such intuitions can be extremely practical and useful, they can also be quite wrong (as Einstein demonstrated with regard to time).

Given these considerations, it's far from certain -- indeed, it doesn't seem likely -- that the "laws of nature" existed before the universe did.
It isn't my argument. It is called inflation. It explains the origin of the large-scale structure of the cosmos. It explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, and why no magnetic monopoles have been observed. It is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation.

Do you have a model that explains why the Universe appears to be the same in all directions, why the cosmic microwave background radiation is distributed evenly, why the Universe is flat, why no magnetic monopoles have been observed and is accepted by most scientists, who believe a number of predictions have been confirmed by observation?

Inflation (cosmology) - Wikipedia

http://atlas.physics.arizona.edu/~kjohns/downloads/lsst/Ryden_IntroCosmo.pdf
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
From what I can see (and I'll admit my knowledge of cosmology isn't comprehensive), the fundamental flaw in your argument is that it assumes a closed system (that is, a single, unique universe or one that is part of a unique, recurring loop of universes). But for all we know, our universe may be part of an even LARGER universe, as some have hypothesized.

But even if it IS unique and singular, we don't actually know if it's a closed system (and therefore subject to the entropic limitations of the 2nd law). It seems to be self-contained, but as we encounter more mysteries like dark matter and dark energy, we must realize that there are a great many things about the construct of our universe we still don't understand.

Furthermore, it's often speculated that many of the physical laws which govern the universe evolved as the early universe evolved from the Big Bang -- in other words, that the physical laws that now guide the universe aren't the same as those which existed in the moment of the "bang."

In that same vein, it's also quite possible that, if our universe IS only the latest in a series of contracting and "banging" universes, the laws for each weren't exactly the same.

Nor does it logically follow that there must have been a "beginning" -- a first universe. That's simply an intuitive human extrapolation based upon conventional human experience. And, while such intuitions can be extremely practical and useful, they can also be quite wrong (as Einstein demonstrated with regard to time).

Given these considerations, it's far from certain -- indeed, it doesn't seem likely -- that the "laws of nature" existed before the universe did.
So now let me explain why you are wrong. By definition, if the universe were cyclical then it cannot be an open system which means it is a closed or isolated system. Therefore, we know there was a beginning to the cycles because the 2nd Law of Thermodynamics tells us that the entropy will increase with each cycle. The 2nd Law of Thermodynamics is a fundamental law of nature which tells us that entropy can only increase or stay the same. Entropy can never decrease. Which means that in a finite amount of time, a finite system will reach a maximum state of disorder which is called thermal equilibrium and then it will stay in that state. A cyclical universe cannot avoid this problem.

An open universe on the other hand, will expand forever. Even without dark energy, an open universe expands forever, with gravity negligibly slowing the rate of expansion. With dark energy, the expansion not only continues but accelerates. The ultimate fate of an open universe is either the "Big Freeze" or the "Big Rip", where the acceleration caused by dark energy eventually becomes so strong that it completely overwhelms the effects of the gravitational, electromagnetic and strong binding forces.

So if the universe is an open system, it must have had a beginning because if we follow it backwards in time, then any object in the universe must come to the boundary of space time.
 
Last edited:

expat_panama

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
2,959
Reaction score
360
Points
130
...it's far from certain -- indeed, it doesn't seem likely -- that the "laws of nature" existed before the universe did.
This is all well and good but in view of the fact that we are in this universe and should expect to continue to be so for the rest of our lives then the question of how things were going along "before" back when time did not exist is silly.

Let's get serious. If we say "before" then let's realize we all using the same definition --namely:

be·fore
bəˈfôr/
preposition, conjunction, & adverb
preposition: before; conjunction: before; adverb: before
1
.
during the period of time preceding (a particular event, date, or time).​

--because if we are then there was no "before" that happened prior to the beginning of our time/space universe. Even if there were then everything that took place "then" would not be in our universe so there is no way that it could possibly affect us. We could never know, and it would never make any difference. We can say it's the "primal cause", we can say it's our Creator beginning everything, or we can simply say something starting with--
I don't believe...
--and it won't change anything, including what we know about what we can't possibly know.
 

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
627
Points
85
So if the universe is an open system, it must have had a beginning because if we follow it backwards in time, then any object in the universe must come to the boundary of space time.


you are speaking about the trajectory of the matter you are observing, in our universe the finite angle of trajectory would return the matter to the point of Singularity where at that point it has been converted from energy of the previous cycle to the matter you are observing ... in the open system if the trajectory does not return the observed matter to a beginning location of Singularity then it will never reach a boundary of space and time.

so in either case there is no demarcation of either a beginning or an end.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
...it's far from certain -- indeed, it doesn't seem likely -- that the "laws of nature" existed before the universe did.
This is all well and good but in view of the fact that we are in this universe and should expect to continue to be so for the rest of our lives then the question of how things were going along "before" back when time did not exist is silly.

Let's get serious. If we say "before" then let's realize we all using the same definition --namely:

be·fore
bəˈfôr/
preposition, conjunction, & adverb
preposition: before; conjunction: before; adverb: before
1
.
during the period of time preceding (a particular event, date, or time).​

--because if we are then there was no "before" that happened prior to the beginning of our time/space universe. Even if there were then everything that took place "then" would not be in our universe so there is no way that it could possibly affect us. We could never know, and it would never make any difference. We can say it's the "primal cause", we can say it's our Creator beginning everything, or we can simply say something starting with--
I don't believe...
--and it won't change anything, including what we know about what we can't possibly know.
Agreed. We don't know what happened before space and time existed. We can only surmise what might have happened after it did. The best guess is that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.
 

expat_panama

Gold Member
Joined
Apr 12, 2011
Messages
2,959
Reaction score
360
Points
130
...The best guess is that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.
Ah let's say maybe that this is your best guess concerning what took place during the period of time over in some kind of realm where time itself did not exist at all --it's sure not my best guess. Not even second best.

I'd be curious tho, just what kind of "natural laws" are you talking about? We talking about stuff like the Law of Relativity where e=mc², or maybe the law of gravity--

gravityequation.png

--bearing in mind that before the big bang not only did energy and mass not exist, but neither did distance. Is that a problem?
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
...The best guess is that the laws of nature were in place before space and time.
Ah let's say maybe that this is your best guess concerning what took place during the period of time over in some kind of realm where time itself did not exist at all --it's sure not my best guess. Not even second best.

I'd be curious tho, just what kind of "natural laws" are you talking about? We talking about stuff like the Law of Relativity where e=mc², or maybe the law of gravity--

gravityequation.png

--bearing in mind that before the big bang not only did energy and mass not exist, but neither did distance. Is that a problem?
That was explained in the OP by Vilenkin. It is Ledermam's and Guth's conclusion as well. I suspect most cosmologists and physicists who accept inflation also accept this as well.

If you want to see the equations see here.

http://atlas.physics.arizona.edu/~kjohns/downloads/lsst/Ryden_IntroCosmo.pdf
 
Last edited:

BreezeWood

VIP Member
Joined
Oct 26, 2011
Messages
10,748
Reaction score
627
Points
85
--bearing in mind that before the big bang not only did energy and mass not exist, but neither did distance. Is that a problem?


BB is a loop: matter to energy to matter, the transformation occurs at the moment of Singularity.
 
OP
ding

ding

Confront reality
Joined
Oct 25, 2016
Messages
82,424
Reaction score
8,112
Points
2,055
Location
Houston
Some people only have one thing they can say, and then some have two.

 

New Topics

Most reactions - Past 7 days

Forum List

Top