Multiverse and the expanding universe

[Captain Kremmen]

There are a few difficulties with the BB theory.

Firstly, how did something appear from nothing.
Secondly, why did it happen?
Thirdly, why are the physical constants set up at the time of the BB
conducive to producing beings able to ask these questions at all.

We may never know the scientific answers to these questions
but the BB provides a good model at least down to the first split second.

There is no evidence for multiverses, except as a fudge to cover what we don't yet understand.

 

[quantum_wave]

Arp is seen as a smaller scale Hoyle: smart chap, just got the wrong end of the stick and is now looking foolish because he won't let go.

Plasma physicists? It's a sort of weird pathology, isn't it? You can prove anything with cherry picking.

But thank you for the recommendation. I shall take a look at it.

You're welcome. That kind of work doesn't really present much in the way of new cosmology but it does bring together in one place both the things that BBT has going for it and the things that cause concern. It points out that impartial research methods are the cornerstone of science and that unquestioning support for one view by many over time can add up to going in the wrong direction.

 

[quantum_wave]

There are a few difficulties with the BB theory.

Firstly, how did something appear from nothing.
Secondly, why did it happen?
Thirdly, why are the physical constants set up at the time of the BB
conducive to producing beings able to ask these questions at all.

We may never know the scientific answers to these questions
but the BB provides a good model at least down to the first split second.

There is no evidence for multiverses, except as a fudge to cover what we don't yet understand.

We pretty much agree on your points.

Except the "fudge" part . The standard answer to how something came from nothing is "we don't know" from the scientific community, and "God did it" from the religious community. If the only evidence is, "here we are", then let's go with "God did it" and start talking about what's going on around town or on TV. But the amount of evidence is staggering and we keep observing more details as we search.

The Big Bang may be a good model after the first picoseconds. But what would have had to "be" to cause the BB. When you think about it, almost any precondition would lead to an entirely different model to explain the universe.

There would have to be a cause of expansion. BBT doesn't address anything until after the BB so it ignores any possible cause.

Once we find ourselves in an expanding observable universe BB implies that it had a beginning from nothing and many of us don't buy that?

Let's say there was a cause and that cause was the burst of a big crunch. That means that there is a history before the BB. Given a big crunch that bursts, we automatically know something about that history that is not factored into BBT.

What we would then know is that expansion has not been going on in all places throughout all of the history of the universe and that at least in the vicinity of our own big crunch, there was a place and a time where something physically existed and it was not expanding.


A big crunch would have formed by the reverse of expansion, i.e. the collapse of matter and energy into the crunch.


So a simple "guess" (no evidence) about a precondition (a big crunch) raises the question about the extent of the universe and the ratio of matter to energy. Wouldn't we be able to "guess" that there was enough space and energy to support multiple arenas? Wouldn't we be able to "guess" that when crunches burst, eventually galaxies form from the expanding energy of the burst? Wouldn't we be able to "guess" that the galaxies from a history of multiple bursts would mix and merge out in the greater universe? And wouldn't we be able to guess that gravity would cause big crunches to form from that mixing and merging?

So your statement that there is no evidence does not mean that our model is right and it doesn't mean that any preconditions to the BB have to be viewed as "fudging" the evidence. In fact the best ideas of what caused the big bang lead to a much different model and a multiple arena landscape seems to yield a model that looks much like the universe as we see it, even though we can see only from within our particular expanding arena.

The part that makes me go there is that we don't have to have a model that implies something from nothing.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

We pretty much agree on your points.

Except the "fudge" part . The standard answer to how something came from nothing is "we don't know" from the scientific community, and "God did it" from the religious community. If the only evidence is, "here we are", then let's go with "God did it" and start talking about what's going on around town or on TV. But the amount of evidence is staggering and we keep observing more details as we search.

The Big Bang may be a good model after the first picoseconds. But what would have had to "be" to cause the BB. When you think about it, almost any precondition would lead to an entirely different model to explain the universe.

There would have to be a cause of expansion. BBT doesn't address anything until after the BB so it ignores any possible cause.

Once we find ourselves in an expanding observable universe BB implies that it had a beginning from nothing and many of us don't buy that?

Let's say there was a cause and that cause was the burst of a big crunch. That means that there is a history before the BB. Given a big crunch that bursts, we automatically know something about that history that is not factored into BBT.

What we would then know is that expansion has not been going on in all places throughout all of the history of the universe and that at least in the vicinity of our own big crunch, there was a place and a time where something physically existed and it was not expanding.


A big crunch would have formed by the reverse of expansion, i.e. the collapse of matter and energy into the crunch.


So a simple "guess" (no evidence) about a precondition (a big crunch) raises the question about the extent of the universe and the ratio of matter to energy. Wouldn't we be able to "guess" that there was enough space and energy to support multiple arenas? Wouldn't we be able to "guess" that when crunches burst, eventually galaxies form from the expanding energy of the burst? Wouldn't we be able to "guess" that the galaxies from a history of multiple bursts would mix and merge out in the greater universe? And wouldn't we be able to guess that gravity would cause big crunches to form from that mixing and merging?

So your statement that there is no evidence does not mean that our model is right and it doesn't mean that any preconditions to the BB have to be viewed as "fudging" the evidence. In fact the best ideas of what caused the big bang lead to a much different model and a multiple arena landscape seems to yield a model that looks much like the universe as we see it, even though we can see only from within our particular expanding arena.

The part that makes me go there is that we don't have to have a model that implies something from nothing.

Fair enough, I think that the only real conflict between science and religion comes when they try to disprove each other.

ie Scientific Atheism and Bible Based science.
I detest them both.

 

[quantum_wave]

Fair enough, I think that the only real conflict between science and religion comes when they try to disprove each other.

ie Scientific Atheism and Bible Based science.
I detest them both.

I don't have a dog in that fight.

Self-aggrandizing indignation and charges of idiocy aimed at non-believers seem incredible coming from people who insist that there was no space or time before the beginning of the observed expansion. I guess that applies to both groups. Scientific Atheism says the Big Bang did it, and Bible Based Science says God did it.

I just say the beginning of the universe didn't happen . That does not mean that there is no God, just that there is no irrefutable proof.

Humans eventually and individually contemplate the concept of God. Most anyone's version of God is about an entity that could easily make its presence known. Maybe by appearing to each of us from a burning bush or something and saying, "I am God", or, "God is Love", or what ever. On the other hand if the intention of God was for us to individually decide without irrefutable evidence, i.e. to make a personal choice, then there would be no way to irrefutably prove God exists.

If there was a beginning that was confirmed as coming from nothing, then that might be construed as infallible proof of God, and then who would be free to make their own choice as to the existence of God?

So the sure way to avoid proof one way or another is if the universe has always existed. No need for God to get it started, and no way to exclude the possibility that God exists. You have to decide for yourself if you accept my personal cosmology.

 

[kaneda]

So the sure way to avoid proof one way or another is if the universe has always existed.

While it is possible that the universe is far older than is currently believed, no matter how many billions, even trillions of years old, it would still have needed an origin.

 

[quantum_wave]

While it is possible that the universe is far older than is currently believed, no matter how many billions, even trillions of years old, it would still have needed an origin.

That is a mind set that is built up in most of us from early childhood. Everything we know about would seem to have had a beginning. But the flaw is that the universe itself would have to come from nothing in order to have a beginning, right?

Do you accept that the universe came from nothing? I'm willing to consider it if you are willing to discuss both sides.

 

[Captain Kremmen]

If the universe has always existed, how did we get to now?
An infinite amount of time would have to have passed.

 

[quantum_wave]

Suppose the universe ended tomorrow. There would be an end. But if the universe never ends, there would still be a tomorrow.

Suppose the universe had no beginning, there would still be a yesterday, today, and tomorrow (we hope).

You don't have to go back to a beginning to get to today; you only need to be here today, time takes care of itself .

 

[quantum_wave]

If the universe has always existed, how did we get to now?
An infinite amount of time would have to have passed.

See my response above to the question in your post.

Here is another question that often comes up when talking about a universe that has always existed; Olbers' Paradox. Most all of us have heard of it and may know how it is solved in an expanding universe of finite age.

But we may not all have considered Olbers' from the perspective of a multiple arena universe that is spatially infinite and that has always existed. Under those circumstances why isn't the night sky as bright as day?

http://www.mathpages.com/home/kmath141/kmath141.htm


There are some good solutions to that question discussed in the above link. The link gives an explanation from the perspective of a single infinite universe that has always existed (not considering the arena landscape or multiverses). It is a little complex but considers the finite life of stars, i.e. the fact that when each star is formed, it contains all the energy that will fuel it for its finite life.

To quote from the link, "It’s worth noting that the resolution based on conservation of energy does not require a finite age for the universe, nor even a finite age for “stars”. It merely requires that all the mass-energy leaving a star must have first entered the star. In other words, we deny that stars are absolute sources of energy. They are merely concentrations of energy."

An arena landscape of a greater universe and finite big crunches that burst into expansion within their particular arenas would add still another consideration. The added consideration then becomes the finite amount of energy that goes into an arena and the finite life of arenas as well as various other factors that might be related to an arena landscape.

Any additional thoughts worth not ignoring?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

Suppose the universe ended tomorrow. There would be an end. But if the universe never ends, there would still be a tomorrow.

Suppose the universe had no beginning, there would still be a yesterday, today, and tomorrow (we hope).

You don't have to go back to a beginning to get to today; you only need to be here today, time takes care of itself .

Do you believe that the past and the future exist in any real sense, or that they are mental constructs?

 

[quantum_wave]

Do you believe that the past and the future exist in any real sense, or that they are mental constructs?

I say that we live in the “now”, but also time is a continuum. The time continuum is composed of all “nows” and so the past and future are mental moves along the time continuum. That would be the same thing as a mental construct if you distinguish between that and imagined events that one can also construct.

With that distinction, I believe that it is not being cavalier to talk of the past and future in real terms because the capabilities of our brains let us bring any point on the time continuum into the “now” of our consciousness. It is a convenience to be able to categorize our present conscious thoughts into thoughts that pertain to the past and thoughts that pertain to the future. How does that sound?

 

[Captain Kremmen]

If Time is a continuum, and therefore itself a dimension, then from a higher dimension all past and future can be seen.
If time is not a dimension itself, and time is only "now" in every dimension, then all dimensions only exist in that "now". That would make past and future mental constructs.

I suspect that that is the case.

 

[Reiku]

Scientists, with the information that they have gathered, have concluded that the universe is constantly expanding at an accelerating rate. Is this because this universe is "pulling" energy from another universe?

Sources:
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/3137
http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=179051#10
http://www.europhysicsnews.com/full/10/article1/article1.html
http://www2.cnrs.fr/en/45.htm?&debut=160xt/

I speculated this about a year ago. I said independantly of any sources that the universe began accelerating in expansion because the universe was constantly splitting and emerging.

It seems my idea has caught on with mainstream science.

I am very happy about this outcome.

But i informed Dr Wolf of my thoughts all that time ago, and at that time, he told me my idea would be wrong, because it doesn't require energy for universes to split and merge.

Apparently now it might.

 

[quantum_wave]

If Time is a continuum, and therefore itself a dimension, then from a higher dimension all past and future can be seen.
If time is not a dimension itself, and time is only "now" in every dimension, then all dimensions only exist in that "now". That would make past and future mental constructs.

I suspect that that is the case.

Me too.

But time is interesting to think about isn't it? If time is not a dimension, a position that is hard to prove in the negative, then like you say all dimensions are in that same now.

All dimensions, if time is not one, are Euclidean space unless you are into String Theory or some hyper physics ideas. So let's say that we have three dimensions, all in the same "now" everywhere. But from our own reference frame, even though "now" is the same here and in a distant galaxy, the finite speed of light disconnects us from other locations in our frame of reference. "Now" is the same in both places, but there can be no instant communication due to the finite speed of light.

Also, a conflict with the "now" being the same everywhere occurs when we look at identical clocks in two reference frames. The effect of time dilation associated with acceleration and relative motion between frames of reference would give us some pause when considering a universal "now". However, clocks in the same frame of reference always stay synchronized.

Gravitational time dilation, the effect that causes clocks in a stronger gravitational field or potential to run slower, could also be viewed as a conflict to the concept of a universal "now". The thing to remember here is that the reference frame is different because gravity has acceleration potential, and that potential is different at the top of a mountain than it is at sea level.

So I think the concept of a universal now survives both types of time dilations if you compare the clocks from within the same frame of reference, as I understand it.

 

[quantum_wave]

I should have said this in the last post:

Using the concept of a universal "now" takes time out of the equation. In the "now" everything is at rest relative to everything else for each and every "now". So Captain, if we consider the past and future as "mental constructs", you must consider any theory that includes time in its equations to be "mental constructs".

It would be taking the concept of a "universal now" too far if we were to say that just because there is really only one universal frame of reference at each "now", that different frames of reference cannot exist.

Our mind enables us to consider relative motion. That means that we can consider more than one now at the same time, i.e. now 1 and now 2 occurring sequentially, and the motion that takes place is thus brought into the equation.

Buy simply considering relative motion we automatically create separate frames of reference for every point that moves relative to every other point during that period between now 1 and now 2, right?

 

[CheskiChips]

There are a few difficulties with the BB theory.

Firstly, how did something appear from nothing.
Secondly, why did it happen?
Thirdly, why are the physical constants set up at the time of the BB
conducive to producing beings able to ask these questions at all.

We may never know the scientific answers to these questions
but the BB provides a good model at least down to the first split second.

There is no evidence for multiverses, except as a fudge to cover what we don't yet understand.

Firstly; something didn't have to appear from nothing. It could have always been something...why did there have to be nothing first?

..Thirdly; Physical constants evolved...rather rapidly but they did evolve.

Although I agree, there's no multiverse.


===
I do say though, 90% of speculation in this thread if pure garbage.
I haven't seen one $$Equation$$ in here yet.

 

[quantum_wave]

Firstly; something didn't have to appear from nothing. It could have always been something...why did there have to be nothing first?

..Thirdly; Physical constants evolved...rather rapidly but they did evolve.

Although I agree, there's no multiverse.


===
I do say though, 90% of speculation in this thread if pure garbage.
I haven't seen one $$Equation$$ in here yet.

Ah, so everything without equations is pure garbage?

Don't ideas precede equations?

Are you saying that relativity, motion over time has no equations?

Are you saying that the conservation of energy has no equations?

What exactly are you saying about how this thread is pure garbage? Can you be specific?

You don't seem to think that your statement that you "agree there is no multiverse" is garbage do you?

 

[CheskiChips]

Ah, so everything without equations is pure garbage?

Don't ideas precede equations?

Only after equations preceded ideas.
If I was a mod everything that says "Universe" in it would be directly moved to pseudoscience.

 

[quantum_wave]

Only after equations preceded ideas.

Do we even have equations that precede ideas :shrug

If I was a mod everything that says "Universe" in it would be directly moved to pseudoscience.

Really? That sounds stark.

Can you explain why the use of the term universe should be pseudoscience? I'm not sure everyone understands the difference between protoscience and pseudoscience.