24 replies to this topic

[Poore]

http://space.newscie...make-sense.html

I found this article to be extremely interesting, and was wondering what other people thought of this. It really drives home how little we really understand about our universe, especially the section on dark matter.

[vodkamaru]

http://space.newscie...make-sense.html

I found this article to be extremely interesting, and was wondering what other people thought of this. It really drives home how little we really understand about our universe, especially the section on dark matter.

It also shows how little we understand ourselves with the sections on the placebo effect and homeopathy. These phenomenon are discussed in a book I previously suggested and it really makes you wonder just how powerful the human mind is.

[GuardianNinja]

To be honest I read until it said big bang then I closed the tab, but that about the placebo thing was pretty cool.

[vodkamaru]

To be honest I read until it said big bang then I closed the tab, but that about the placebo thing was pretty cool.

Did you stop reading because you got bored or because the article started talking about the big bang?

[Toxin]

when i saw the words "big bang" i stopped. and i will never beleive this guy if he believes "big bang"

[Keen]

I'm sensing a bit of a judgmental attitude around these parts. I don't like the Big Bang theory much myself, but it's very popular, and if you want to ignore everyone who lends it credit, you'll never learn anything about science.

[Poore]

Wait, wait, wait...why don't you like the Big Bang? If it's for religious reasons, I'd urge you to reconsider. I'm a Christian, and I'm a full supporter of the Big Bang theory.

[Keen]

I don't like big bang because scientists cling to it so eagerly that they tend to overlook the distinct possibility that our universe had other origins (or none at all). It's a very unscientific way for scientists to be acting. I find things like this kind of interesting.

[Selena]

Booya, Drek. I find that one very fascinating myself. Actually, that was kind've how I've always seen it in my head. Big Bang seems like more of a starting point to more advanced theories than anything else.



If the reason for not liking the Big Bang-esque theories behind the universe is a religious thing, then remember - God is a pyromaniac and always has been. If anyone wants to kick things off with a giant explosion, it's him.

[Arturo]

And for its religious aspects, it was a Catholic Priest (who also was phisicist) one of the biggets cretaiors of the theory.

[Poore]

I don't like big bang because scientists cling to it so eagerly that they tend to overlook the distinct possibility that our universe had other origins (or none at all). It's a very unscientific way for scientists to be acting. I find things like this kind of interesting.

Well...actually, it's not unscientific. It's the best model we currently have with the data we have access to. As this article suggests, people are considering other models, but the Big Bang is the best thing we have right now. That's called Ockham's Razor. Once new data comes around that is more compelling, then the new theory becomes more valid than the old. Until that point, you have to stick with what the best data you have shows you.

However, I DO agree that some scientists are very close-minded and use this principle as a shield to block out other ideas that conflict with their own, much like Fundamentalists do with the Bible, and I'm not defending those people. What I'm saying is that disagreeing with something just because it's the most widely accepted theory sounds more like a rebellious teenager than a scientist observing all the data.

Also, the transcendence of infinity kinda shuts down the whole "our Universe has no origin" thing. For a long time, many speculated that the Universe was infinite, and had no beginning or end, but that's a logical impossibility. Think about this. You're sitting at your computer, reading this post. Think about all the events that led up to this moment. It's a finite series of events. It would take a long time, and would be almost impossible unless you were being monitored for every second of your life, but you could count them all. They happened. It's a definite number. If the Universe had existed for an infinite period of time, there would always be one more event that you could've happened before reaching this moment, and this moment therefore would never exist. It's a property of non-discreet systems, and in any non-discreet system, the possibility of any single event occurring is 0. The Universe is a discreet system, and therefore has a finite number of events with which it is defined.

Edited by Poore, 25 December 2007 - 02:43 PM.

[Showsni]

You're sitting at your computer, reading this post. Think about all the events that led up to this moment. It's a finite series of events. It would take a long time, and would be almost impossible unless you were being monitored for every second of your life, but you could count them all. They happened. It's a definite number. If the Universe had existed for an infinite period of time, there would always be one more event that you could've happened before reaching this moment, and this moment therefore would never exist. It's a property of non-discreet systems, and in any non-discreet system, the possibility of any single event occurring is 0. The Universe is a discreet system, and therefore has a finite number of events with which it is defined.

What? Why is it necessarily a finite sequence of events? Why shouldn't the Universe be a discrete system with infinitely many events in it? Q is infinite and discrete, for example... Or N...

[Poore]

What? Why is it necessarily a finite sequence of events? Why shouldn't the Universe be a discrete system with infinitely many events in it? Q is infinite and discrete, for example... Or N...

Numbers are simply a method of representing data - trying to pass off a sequence of numbers as the same thing as events governed by the laws of space and, more importantly, time, is another matter entirely. If an infinite amount of time has to pass before reaching the current moment in time, then the current moment in time never comes to be. Look at it this way. If an infinite amount of seconds have to pass before I finish typing this post, then I will never finish typing, because that amount of time can never pass. It's infinite.

Unless, perhaps, you have another theory on how time works? Note: I know that relativity shows us that time can be altered, but I've never seen anything convincing telling me that time doesn't exist at all.

Edited by Poore, 25 December 2007 - 07:11 PM.

[Steel Samurai]

Physics tells us that time cannot be infinitely split into smaller parts, anyway.

[Keen]

Well...actually, it's not unscientific. It's the best model we currently have with the data we have access to. As this article suggests, people are considering other models, but the Big Bang is the best thing we have right now. That's called Ockham's Razor. Once new data comes around that is more compelling, then the new theory becomes more valid than the old. Until that point, you have to stick with what the best data you have shows you.

However, I DO agree that some scientists are very close-minded and use this principle as a shield to block out other ideas that conflict with their own, much like Fundamentalists do with the Bible, and I'm not defending those people. What I'm saying is that disagreeing with something just because it's the most widely accepted theory sounds more like a rebellious teenager than a scientist observing all the data.

I never said the theory itself was unscientific, but my position is that the big bang is much too widely thought to be truth, rather than thought to be the most likely origin of our universe. I dislike what Big Bang theory has become through human abuses.

Also, the transcendence of infinity kinda shuts down the whole "our Universe has no origin" thing. For a long time, many speculated that the Universe was infinite, and had no beginning or end, but that's a logical impossibility. Think about this. You're sitting at your computer, reading this post. Think about all the events that led up to this moment. It's a finite series of events. It would take a long time, and would be almost impossible unless you were being monitored for every second of your life, but you could count them all. They happened. It's a definite number. If the Universe had existed for an infinite period of time, there would always be one more event that you could've happened before reaching this moment, and this moment therefore would never exist. It's a property of non-discreet systems, and in any non-discreet system, the possibility of any single event occurring is 0. The Universe is a discreet system, and therefore has a finite number of events with which it is defined.

According to the Big Bang theory, no events prior to the original event can have any significance because the process of the Big Bang (effectively nullifying physical laws, as it were) would destroy (render meaningless) all information that could have existed prior.
This allows us to suppose that the universe had a definite point of origin in space-time, so we can measure all other events with respect to the Big Bang event. That is why you say Big Bang theory is superior to any infinite universe theory, right? Because it allows for a finite time to pass before any particular event?

Now what I have to ask is, why is it important how much time passed before some event? Or why does it matter whether we can theoretically trace physical information back beyond all time? If someone says that an infinite amount of time must pass before an event can occur, but an infinite amount of time can never pass, it shows a result of their point of view rather than an actual hole in theories of an infinite universe. Time is not something that must pass if you look at it from a certain hard deterministic viewpoint, supposing that all physical states of the past and future already and always exist. In that case, a point in time is related to, but does not necessarily depend on, only the points of time directly adjacent. From this, one might form an idea of an infinite series of relationships forward and backward, but the existence of these infinite states cannot directly influence our point of interest, which only cares about two other states in time.

Further, suppose that an infinite universe did exist, then we might observe that it must eventually return exactly to a physical state it had earlier attained and therefore would run in cycles rather than a truly infinite series of states.

[Poore]

According to the Big Bang theory, no events prior to the original event can have any significance because the process of the Big Bang (effectively nullifying physical laws, as it were) would destroy (render meaningless) all information that could have existed prior.
This allows us to suppose that the universe had a definite point of origin in space-time, so we can measure all other events with respect to the Big Bang event. That is why you say Big Bang theory is superior to any infinite universe theory, right? Because it allows for a finite time to pass before any particular event?

Now what I have to ask is, why is it important how much time passed before some event? Or why does it matter whether we can theoretically trace physical information back beyond all time? If someone says that an infinite amount of time must pass before an event can occur, but an infinite amount of time can never pass, it shows a result of their point of view rather than an actual hole in theories of an infinite universe. Time is not something that must pass if you look at it from a certain hard deterministic viewpoint, supposing that all physical states of the past and future already and always exist. In that case, a point in time is related to, but does not necessarily depend on, only the points of time directly adjacent. From this, one might form an idea of an infinite series of relationships forward and backward, but the existence of these infinite states cannot directly influence our point of interest, which only cares about two other states in time.

Yeah, but that viewpoint is also based on pure speculation. There's no way to prove it. That sounds more like metaphysics than science., and, as I said before, I base what I consider to be true off of the best scientific data that I have. Right now, I have no reason to doubt that our current interpretation of time and how it behaves is flawed. When you can show me solid data that disproves this, I'll consider rethinking the way I believe time behaves. Big bang is 'superior', although I never used that word, because it's more empirical, and it makes more sense to me considering all the data I have to observe.

Further, suppose that an infinite universe did exist, then we might observe that it must eventually return exactly to a physical state it had earlier attained and therefore would run in cycles rather than a truly infinite series of states.

Ah, but then the cycles themselves would have finite length. I'm not trying to sound like a jerk, but once again there is no convincing evidence that shows me that time does not exist, or that it doesn't behave at all differently from the way we currently believe that it does.

[Showsni]

What? Why is it necessarily a finite sequence of events? Why shouldn't the Universe be a discrete system with infinitely many events in it? Q is infinite and discrete, for example... Or N...

Numbers are simply a method of representing data - trying to pass off a sequence of numbers as the same thing as events governed by the laws of space and, more importantly, time, is another matter entirely. If an infinite amount of time has to pass before reaching the current moment in time, then the current moment in time never comes to be. Look at it this way. If an infinite amount of seconds have to pass before I finish typing this post, then I will never finish typing, because that amount of time can never pass. It's infinite.

Unless, perhaps, you have another theory on how time works? Note: I know that relativity shows us that time can be altered, but I've never seen anything convincing telling me that time doesn't exist at all.

So what you mean is, "It's impossible to count to infinity." Okay, granted.
Though you can count to an arbitrarily large number.
Random ramblings...
Time is simply a method of judging the rate of change in distance with regards to speed... Or Displacement and velocity, if you like. Imagine a unit mass ball that isn't acted on by anything. Then it will just sit there, forever, as far as our experiment's concerned. In an infinite amount of time, it would still be sitting there. If nothing's moving, time doesn't pass, in effect; you can't possibly measure the passing of time if everything's stationary. Then if the universe had always existed, but was entirely without motion, it would always have existed, but since time wasn't strictly passing it wouldn't have been an infinite amount of time ago.

Summing up: It's possible the universe always existed, but before a set point of time it wasn't moving.
(I.e. from above, if change in distance = 0, change in time = 0.)

(Of course, if change in speed = 0, change in time = error...)

[Poore]

So what you mean is, "It's impossible to count to infinity." Okay, granted.
Though you can count to an arbitrarily large number.
Random ramblings...
Time is simply a method of judging the rate of change in distance with regards to speed... Or Displacement and velocity, if you like. Imagine a unit mass ball that isn't acted on by anything. Then it will just sit there, forever, as far as our experiment's concerned. In an infinite amount of time, it would still be sitting there. If nothing's moving, time doesn't pass, in effect; you can't possibly measure the passing of time if everything's stationary. Then if the universe had always existed, but was entirely without motion, it would always have existed, but since time wasn't strictly passing it wouldn't have been an infinite amount of time ago.

Summing up: It's possible the universe always existed, but before a set point of time it wasn't moving.
(I.e. from above, if change in distance = 0, change in time = 0.)

(Of course, if change in speed = 0, change in time = error...)

But, if you argue that, it opens up a whole can of worms, namely:

Unless physics as we know it suddenly changed at some point, then there has to be some sort of action that originally caused the Universe to start moving. Things just don't spontaneously start moving on their own - for every action, there is an equal an opposite reaction. Also, if anything existed in the Universe other than a void, it would have gravity (unless you want to argue the gravity also just started spontaneously existing), and gravity would cause things to move. Unless, of course, the Universe had always existed before that with all matter having a perfect gravitational equilibrium that prevented anything from moving because of the perfect distribution of gravity across the entire Universe, but that seems a bit far-fetched to me.

I'm not saying that any of these theories can't be correct, or that they won't become more plausibly demonstrated through data someday, but until that point the idea is pure speculation and is not congruent with our current scientific experience regarding the properties of existence in our Universe. Period.

Edited by Poore, 26 December 2007 - 06:06 PM.

[Keen]

Yeah, but that viewpoint is also based on pure speculation. There's no way to prove it. That sounds more like metaphysics than science.

All I'm saying is that your arguments do not preclude the existence of an infinite universe.

Mine does:

Ah, but then the cycles themselves would have finite length.

[Poore]

But how does your theory account for what caused the initial motion of the Universe to begin? Either there was a single definite point where the initial motion of the system began, or it's been in motion for an infinite period of time. Even if it's running in cycles, those cycles require energy to continue their momentum. If you don't have an initial source of energy, then these cycles have been consuming an infinite amount of energy without taking in any energy to begin with. And that is impossible. It's like trying to speculate that a burning piece of wood, instead of being lit on fire at some point by a definite source of heat energy, has simply always been burning. It's a conclusion that doesn't make any sense.

This is why big bang has been the most popular scientific theory for the beginning of the Universe - it follows everything we have come to understand about the Universe and how it works. Period. Maybe it does run in cycles. Maybe the Universe itself is bound by some other system that holds it in flux and constantly feeds energy into it and has done so for an infinite period of time. But based on what we can observe and how we understand it to work, making a SCIENTIFIC conclusion that the Universe is infinite is not possible. That's what I've been arguing.

[Toan]

I've always liked the idea of the Big Bang/oscillating universe. Just seems to make sense - I think there can be such a thing as infinite time - no definitive moment where the universe began or will end, as it just always is. With the theory that Drek linked to, yes, we can count the events up to the Big Bang, but as Drek point out that all evidence before the Big Bang was destroyed, there might be 1 cycle before it, there might be a billion before it, but we'll never know, so the time before that isn't finite, it's infinite. Likewise, the time after our current cycle is infinite, as there's no finite end. We've only chosen the Big Bang as a reference point for a coherent, finite time-number system.

So, I tend to view an oscillating universe idea as an expansion of the Big Bang theory, each cycle being like a new universe, started by a Big Bang, and headed toward/ending with whatever the hell we're headed towards. Time for each cycle is finite, but the number of cycles is infinite - like the way units of time are derived i.e. 1 year is the time it takes for the Earth to orbit the Sun, but there can be infinite years... just not within another unit of time, like the 1 cycle from Big Bang to Big UnBang each universe experiences.

Scientists aren't certain of what caused the Big Bang to go "bang" anyway, right? Maybe it has something to do with the collapse of the universe before it. That's why I prefer this theory - as Poore stated, every action was sparked by another.

My other theory, which also works, is that some all-powerful God-diety made the matter-ball that was exploded for the Big Bang, and made it go "bang". *shrugs*

Great article, though.

[Keen]

But how does your theory account for what caused the initial motion of the Universe to begin? Either there was a single definite point where the initial motion of the system began, or it's been in motion for an infinite period of time. Even if it's running in cycles, those cycles require energy to continue their momentum. If you don't have an initial source of energy, then these cycles have been consuming an infinite amount of energy without taking in any energy to begin with. And that is impossible. It's like trying to speculate that a burning piece of wood, instead of being lit on fire at some point by a definite source of heat energy, has simply always been burning. It's a conclusion that doesn't make any sense.

I have no particular theory I stand behind, but I want to keep the doors open as wide as possible, so to speak. The theory I'm defending at the moment is one in which there is no point in time that is especially more significant than any other. Our perceivable portion of the universe was supposedly created all at once, past and future made 'simultaneously', from a hyper-dimensional point of view in which our perceived time does not differ greatly from our perceived space.

Energy is conserved. You cannot consume it. You can never run out of it. Also note, all gravitational energy is negative, and increases toward zero as two bodies approach an infinite distance from one another, so it's possible that the total energy of the universe could be zero, but since you can always add a constant to energy without affecting physical equations, that's really a moot point. The total amount of energy in the universe is arbitrary. It's the way energy changes over space-time that matters, never the specific amount. I believe what you are referring to, as being consumed, is usable energy, as is consumed due to entropy. Interestingly enough, while we know that entropy tends to increase over time, given a finite-particle system and infinite time, entropy can decrease, thereby making more energy usable.

This is why big bang has been the most popular scientific theory for the beginning of the Universe - it follows everything we have come to understand about the Universe and how it works. Period. Maybe it does run in cycles. Maybe the Universe itself is bound by some other system that holds it in flux and constantly feeds energy into it and has done so for an infinite period of time. But based on what we can observe and how we understand it to work, making a SCIENTIFIC conclusion that the Universe is infinite is not possible. That's what I've been arguing.

A scientific viewpoint must not discard any possibility lightly. I find it disturbing that many scientists will doubt and even discard observational data because they believe it to be flawed when it doesn't lie in line with Big Bang theory.

[Poore]

A scientific viewpoint must not discard any possibility lightly. I find it disturbing that many scientists will doubt and even discard observational data because they believe it to be flawed when it doesn't lie in line with Big Bang theory.

You haven't been listening. Just because I don't currently think your theory is the most scientifically sound theory does not mean I have discarded it. It means I accept the big bang as being the most sound theory with the data I have. Your theory is not necessarily wrong - it's just less scientifically sound. I'm all for studying other theories and setting out to try and prove them, but until that happens, I'm not going to just say I don't believe the big bang is the best theory anymore because it's "close-minded" to not accept any one theory as being the best.

I'm not saying big bang is the only theory, I'm saying that, with current data, it's the best theory. That's it. I'm not going to argue this anymore, because you obviously aren't listening to me. You can keep throwing theoretical ideas at me until you're blue in the face, but that doesn't change the fact that the big bang is the most sound theory we currently have.

Edited by Poore, 27 December 2007 - 09:17 AM.

[Selena]

The Big Bang is probably only sound because it's older, less complicated, and far more studied. It still has the same kind of problems as all the other theories. For example, why were the components of the Big Bang just lying around in the first place, and how did they get there? Something can't just exist in a time before existence. I don't, however, believe in a 'no origin' universe. Even an oscillating universe is going to have some kind of origin. But asking how and why it first went into motion is like asking how and why the building blocks for the Big Bang came into being. The theories only explain the birth and possible fate of the universe, not how or why it began.

The main reason I favor a universe that works in cycles is because the universe, internally, thrives on recycling its own matter. Stars die and shoot of their material to be used in new stars. The leftover neutron stars are gobbled up by black holes and shot back out to be used for new things. Then the black holes eventually just break down. For some reason, at least in my head, it seems fitting that that same method of recycling would be used on the larger scale. It all has one starting point, but an oscillating universe could go on for an infinite amount of time from then on. Certainly worth research efforts.

[Keen]

You haven't been listening. Just because I don't currently think your theory is the most scientifically sound theory does not mean I have discarded it.

Well, I know you know better. I'm talking about those... others. But you have been putting forward that an infinite universe is logically impossible, and I'm just not seeing how that is. If I've missed your point, please try to explain it to me a bit differently. I've enjoyed this back and forth, as it's stayed on-topic far better than most other such discussions I've had. I wouldn't want to see it stopped because I got careless and offended you by mistake.