How we know the Universe has not existed forever

Re: We have the universe model right before our eyes

The reason is because scientists don't start from scratch when they do this. Generally they either solve existing equations, or just extend slightly an existing body of physical laws. Although analogies (like a spiral form being common) are sometimes used in physics, it is generally only within this framework. There are now very extensive models of physical law derived mathematically from just a few basic assumptions (e.g. Special Relativity is derived from two very simple and precisely stated assumptions). When scientists attempt to determine things like the origin of the universe, usually, they are making a slight extension to a body of known physical, mathematical law, rather than saying, "Well maybe it works like this."

Brandon9000
Brandon9000, I'm so glad you joined A2K. And thank you for responding to my question rather than ignoring it as the scholars seem to do. I appreciate your information.

BumbleBeeBoogie

Re: Brandon9000

Thank you for your friendly welcome, and for the gracious spirit in which you accepted my comments. See you around the boards!

Brandon

We know there are no objects observed for t years larger than M=13 (+/- alpha) billion years ago. This fact and the big bang theory suggest that there were no period prior to M.
But big bang could be an event in the enveloping timespace of the 4-dim big bang universe timespace. One way of knowing whether the (hypothetica) enveloping timespace is to investigate whether there can be observed phenomena in the big bang 4-dim universe that cannot be explained in theories about the 4-dim universe but necessitate to introduce factors from (hypothetical) enveloping universe. In that case the time from the present to M might be extended to that of the (hypothetical) enveloping universe.
The difficulty is that it is hard to determine whether the factors for explaining the yet unaccounted phenomena can be solved solely by the existence of (hypothetical) enveloping universe or not.

The hypothetical sandwich is having trouble being digested.

The hypothetical stomach hurts.

Someone has asked me to play a game that they (and only they) know the rules to. I put my stone down. Do I lose? Do they make up the next rule?
Can I win if I succeeed in devising a rule for which their's is painfully self contradictory?

Ahhhhh, cosmology.

The hat fits so tight the head aches.

Beed, Quit wearing that tight hat.

advice taken...

Beedlesquoink, Where have you been all my life?

Here.

Hi, Bert. Kudos.
Andy

hey andy

ebrowne, Point by point (hopefully)

I. Microwave background.
a, The surface of first scattering----or
b,Energies red shifted to the microwave spectrum due to the nature of light and spacetime.
1. IMO this is ambiguous.

II. Recession of the Galaxies.
a, The galaxies are actually going away from a central point---or
b, The galaxies appear to be receeding due to the nature of light and spacetime. Spacetime being determined by mass and distance.
1. Ambiguous again.

III. No objects observed over 13 billion years old (away).
a, We just can't see any further ie, we cannot receive any longer wave lengths. (longer wave lengths=lower energies)---or
b, There are no objects further away than 13,000,000,000 light years distant.
1. Ambiguous
2. this should be able to be proved mathematically. Einstein surmised it but I am not aware that he had sufficient observations to prove it either way.

IV. Cosmological principle. On a large enough scale matter is fairly evenly distributed throughout the universe. This agrees with the CMBR probe. It is also how gas molecules would distribute themselves given zero gravity and any temperature above zero K.
1. Again, it seems to prove nothing about ages, beginnings or ends. So What?

VI. Look back.,
Unfortunately for the big bang we observe galaxies in all stages of evolution. But when you consider that a galaxy spends nearly all its life as an adult (main sequence) and probably a good part of the rest as a "black hole" I don't find it remarkable that there are no young galaxies in the immediate neighborhood.
1. Consider that a galaxy will probably mature in about a million years. By "mature" I mean all matter in orbital motion.
2. A galaxy will live as an adult (main sequence) for 10 billion years at least.
3. A galaxy may live another million years or so as a "black hole" from our point of view.
Those figures are "off the wall" just for illustration. But if they are any where near close this means that 99.999% of all matter is in galaxies that are main line (adult). No wonder that there are no kids in the neighborhood. (somebody count my zeroes)

V. Describing space as a mass-energy field is kind of like describing the Rose Bowl football game with no goals or forty yard lines.
Space is the grass that the forces of mass and energy play on. But the Big Bang cannot be worked out with a space like that.
(you can't play football on a hockey rink very well either)

If space is actually a zero time-zero mass-zero energy-zero volume entity, (in other words, doesn't exist) then you can make the big bang work.

But if space is actually just an empty field then the big bang won't work, at least with physics as we think we know it.

So I conclude, The big bang requires a space of nothing that didn't exist prior to it. Since this nothing probably never existed the the Big Bang probably never happened.

The Big Bang-Expanding Universe theory also would seem to require a physics that doesen't seem to exist. It needed to expand into a space (volume) that doesn't (or didn't) exist. At least in the first fractional second of existence.

There are probably better reasons for the MW background, and for the red shift. Ones that hopefully will not require a suspension of belief in physics.

Consequently I think that it is fair to say" We do not Know if the Universe ever began. Ditto with the Cosmos.

got a question. Time had a begining, yes at the big bang, its when all light we see today originated. But are you saying time is finite because all matter will eventually end up as 1 again as it was at the point of the big bang? Because galaxies far away are accually moving away from us at an INCREASING velocity due to the newly discovered dark-matter or anti-matter which accually repels gravity. The theory is that its atoms neucleous is made up of electrons and neutrons with the protons orbiting on the outside. Ive also heard that if you bring matter and anti-matter into contact they will form pure energy and there will no longer be any matter. At the same time if you explode pure energy u get matter and anti-matter. This doesnt obey the laws of phisics as ive come to know it. Its accepted that you cannot create nor destroy matter but this is what ive heard on a documentary with laboratory testing to proove it. Know nething about this? cos anti-matter's existance is making some of the galaxies accelerate apart from each other. And if this is so - then there would be seemly infinite time.

Every particle, including the proton, neutron, and electron has an anti-particle. Presumably an antimatter atom would have a positron (anti-electron) cloud around some number of anti-protons and anti-neutrons, depending on what element it was. When any particle comes in contact with its anti-particle, they annihilate each other releasing an amount of energy which can be calculated from the masses of the two particles with the formula E = mc (squared). Conversely, a photon (quantum of energy) can split into a particle/anti-particle pair, a process known as pair production. I'm not really sure, and possibly someone can clarify this, but it seems to me that anti-matter would possess ordinary attractive gravity, since anti-matter particles have normal, positive mass.

We do have a rather large defecit of definitional certainty here;
ebrown's 'universe' is, in my and Frank's opinion, and others here, only "our" "observed" set of the astronomical objects with which we are familiar, and which we can see, or 'experience' with our current technological capacity.

The "universe", however, is "everything" by its definition, including what ebrown describes as the universe, and also including everything 'beyond' that (whether or not one 'believes' there is 'anything' beyond).

I look at the "universe" as i describe it here, as infinite; and, support that view by pointing out that whether the universe is limited to only what we can perceive (very unlikely, but possible), then it is everything that there is, and therefore represents (a decidedly paultry, but nontheless) infinity. If the universe goes on 'forever' (whatever that is) as is my feeling that it does, then that is 'infinity' (a more generous, and convincing version)!

I (for the record) back the concept of the big bang, occurring from nothingness, and expanding into the space we now perceive it to fill and beyond (for ever, or untill the expansion ceases - who knows). My concept of this phenomina, however includes the continuing function of 'happening'.
By that i mean i feel that the big bang was the beginning of the eruption of nothingness toward 'everythingness', but that that 'occurrance' of matter and energy from nothing is continuing, and will continue, until the parameters of this activity (whatever they are) render it 'complete'.

In other words the big bang is still happening; and all the matter and energy to be formed from this event do not yet exist (thus the 'dark matter' discrepancy).

I would suggest "two" universe definitions:

Universe A - '(a)ll'; the whole thing - infinity.

and

Universe K - the '(k)nown' universe that we can perceive, feel, and measure.

and of course, on this site we embrace the entire spectrum of knowledge;
from A 2 K !!

Just for grins Bogowo.

We have previously described three different views pertaining to universe.

One is-- Our Observable Universe, limited by the powers of our observation.

The second is -- The Universe-- described as all matter that appears to have been formed by our "Big Bang". It may or may not all be observable.

The third is--Cosmos-- All that is, was or will be. Again it may or it may not all be observable.

The divisions between these views may be a bit arbitrary,to say the least.

If an accelerating expansion (which has been recently found) of the observable universe is not explained explicitly, to which a "dark energy" is attributed, within the observable universe, then it might suggest the existence of "cosmos" genuinely larger than the (observable) universe.

Because and satt know for sure about all thinks fantastic.

But I cannot "prove" it yet.