How we know the Universe has not existed forever

akaMechsmith..
You can suppose that the universe (model) in big bang theory is, simply stated, something like an atlas written on a expanding balloon. While balloon expanding (scale of the map expanding) there appeared particles, stars, galaxies at their coordinates, with their coordinates "flying" apart among them along with the time line. The wavelength of light does not change with respect to the coordinates referred, but the scale of the universe is different in the course of the time goes on and from the transcendental perspective (which seems unnecessary for analyzing the process) it appears as if the wave length had changed.

(Correction: The exposition above is not very exact.
It is more correct to say that an expanding balloon has an atlas of coordinates, and their coordinates become distant among them.)

0 Replies

Thanks satts, That is kind of the way I read it also.

If the big bang had happened then there would be an energy apparent that would be red shifted from our vantage point. Assuming the big bang describes an area of nearly infinite mass-energy then the light would be red shifted to near infinity from our vantage point. Perhaps to the microwave spectrum or even longer.

But what gives me pause is that the same thing would happen if Earth was surrounded by near-infinite or even infinite spacetime. The light would also be red shifted although the galaxies would remain in whatever orbital location that they happen to be. I think that Boyles law or something similar could be adapted sufficiently to explain their location if necessary.

The difference in the apparent motion can be explained by the fact that light propagates but galaxies (as matter) don't. Light is continually moving from one accelerated frame of reference (spacetime) to another.

So another question; Why do you think modern cosmology is so sure (comparatively) that the Big Bang-Expanding Universe scenario corresponds to reality?

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

So another question; Why do you think modern cosmology is so sure (comparatively) that the Big Bang-Expanding Universe scenario corresponds to reality?

In a few words, it is the observed cosmic microwave background radiation corresponding to theoretical exposition.

0 Replies

What scientific evidence exists to support the idea that the universe we can observe and infer from what we observe, is infinite?

What scientific evidence exists to support the idea that the universe we can observe and infer from what we observe, is contained within an infinite entity?

What scientific evidence exists to support the idea that what some think is possible or may be true is actually true?

0 Replies

Carl Sagan made a believer out of me. He and some other non scientific scholars made a believer out of me.

Joseph Campbell, Carl Jung, Ghandi, Thomas Jefferson, Joan Miro, Pablo Picasso, and of course Cesar Chavez.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

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.

Mech, tonight, after finishing the reading of this thread, I have lots of questions.

Is the question really what we know for certain? Can you prove to yourself you know anything for certain without assuming at least one thing you cannot know for certain?

What is probably true?

Is the CMBR a red shifted radiation from an object that is 13 billion light years or so distant in space and time, but does not now exist in its original form? Or is it merely the ambient noise from a noisy spacetime?

Are we humans confined to the existence in, the observation of, and the inference from, only that which is composed of the same stuff (i.e., matter and energy) as we are?

If so, what can we probably infer about that which is composed of a different kind of stuff from that which we are ?

Is it possible that a different kind of stuff exists or ever existed?

0 Replies

satt_focusable wrote:

akaMechsmith..
You can suppose that the universe (model) in big bang theory is, simply stated, something like an atlas written on a expanding balloon. While balloon expanding (scale of the map expanding) there appeared particles, stars, galaxies at their coordinates, with their coordinates "flying" apart among them along with the time line. The wavelength of light does not change with respect to the coordinates referred, but the scale of the universe is different in the course of the time goes on and from the transcendental perspective (which seems unnecessary for analyzing the process) it appears as if the wave length had changed.

The exposition above is not very exact.
It is more correct to say that an expanding balloon has an atlas of coordinates, and their coordinates are stretched apart among them.
Sorry about the incorrect figure above.

0 Replies

JoanneDorel wrote:

Carl Sagan made a believer out of me. He and some other non scientific scholars made a believer out of me. ...

OK! Fair enough!

What do you believe is true about this universe we can observe/infer?

What do you believe is true about WHATAM (i.e., all there is, was, or ever will be)?

0 Replies

Personally, i believe i'll have a meatloaf sammich for lunch . . .

0 Replies

Thanks Satts,
I kind of figured that. On both counts Smile

0 Replies

Ican, In reply in order from the top,

The assumption is that I exist. I have to accept your testimony on this point. There is a similar arguement about our "perceptions".

What is probably true. A view consistent with observations.

The CMBR. Ambiguous views IMO.
Big Bang theory first--- The CMBR is radiation from "the surface of first scattering". Essentially this is when the Universe changed from the realm of Quantum Mechanics to the realm of matter and energies that we see today.

OR the CMBR is energy which has been "red shifted" to the microwave spectrum due to the actions of space time with energies. This is the point where you began to assist with the math some time ago Confused

.

OR the CMBR is simply noise. This leaves us with the problem of the source of the noise. A problem not unknown to electronic technicians.

Are we humans confined. No I wouldn't think so as long as the thing had some effect. But may I take a little leap here. If anything does nothing, has no weight, and occupies no volume I don't think it exists.

What can we infer -- That it probably does not exist.

Different kinds of stuff. I don't KNOW if it is possible-- but there is NO evidence of anything else existing.

Satts, please tell me if I said anything basically wrong, Please allow a little poetic license. Confused

0 Replies

Joanne,

If you think that the universe is to complicated to understand then you must, by default, believe.

But if you think that it is possible for humans to be able to understand a comparatively simple but very large machine then come along for the ride?

It will occasionally be a bumpy one, but probably worth it for the view Smile

.

0 Replies

In the beginning, you wrote this to Ed:

Frank Apisa wrote:

...
But to suppose that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is all that there is...

...is not especially scientific or logical.

Yes, it is!

It is possible, we both have previously agreed, that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is all that there is.

It is also possible, we both have previously agreed, that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is not all that there is.

What is scientific about either of those statements? Is our agreement based on science or logic? No it is based at best on our intuitions. Neither of us has ever presented any evidence of either possibility. Maybe one or the other is possible; then again, maybe one or the other is not possible.

Claiming that something is possible without having any clue as to whether it is possible or not, is not a scientific claim, but only an intuition/faith based claim.

Frank Apisa wrote:

In fact, it resembles the kind of thing that went into earlier assumptions that the Earth was a pancake flat object situated smack dab in the center of the Universe.

No scientist ever claimed the earth "was a pancake flat object situated smack dab in the center of the Universe". The modern scientific method is only about 400 years old. No real scientist in that time period has even speculated such a thing. Many non-scientists did make that claim, but no scientist did. Consequently you have offered a false analogy.

What Ed has written is a summary of the evidence that says that what we can observe/infer is finite in time, space, and stuff (i.e., matter and energy). If Ed were to start writing about possibilities of what exists outside of that which we can observe/infer, he would enter the same realm as you and I occupied when arriving at our mutual agreement. This is true even if Ed were to claim that nothing is outside. Science is only competent to assert things about what can be observed/inferred. It is not science to assert things about what cannot be observed/inferred.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now you want to assume that present day science is the last word about what the Universe actually is -- what constitutes the Universe.

...your assumptions are presumptuous, gratuitous, and unsupported by the "facts" you yourself are offering.

These statement characterize themselves. they are purely an expression of faith on your part. Ed does not characterize any science as "the last word" about anything. He merely states that what science has told us so far has an excellent chance of being true at the current level of accuracy we can observe/infer about anything science has so far observed/inferred. He claims the chance of a finite universe is excellent on the grounds that so many different observations/inferences lead to the same conclusion.

So we can hypothesize, guess, speculate, or fantasize what lies outside our observable/inferrable universe, but that is not science.

For example, I fantasize that the stuff outside our observable/inferrable universe is a fundamentally entirely different kind of stuff than the stuff inside. That's not science, that's science fiction. Making only a couple of assumptions that I cannot prove are certainly true, I can prove all that which lies outside of our universe has zero influence on what ever has happened, happens, or will happen inside our universe. But again that's not science. By changing those assumptions slightly, I can prove all that which lies outside of our universe determines what ever happens inside our universe.

But science goes on indifferent to the non-knowing of agnostics, and successfully determines scientific truths that are valid enough for us to enjoy the benefits of technology derived from those scientific truths.

0 Replies

Ican, , I agree with Franks criticism vis-a-vis " to suppose all that resulted from the Big Bang is all that is.

That automatically assumes that a big bang happened. That is an assumption that we cannot make. We don't have enough spots on our ruler.

This assumption is made so often that it is practically an article of faith Confused

. But it sure as heck isn't scientific!

It seems to me that the big bang requires an expanding universe for corroboration. The expanding universe requires a big bang to propel it. The whole ball of wax is backed up by the CMBR.

The CMBR is predicted equally well by a big bang or a very large (from our point of view Cosmos. This was debated back in the 1800s when it was thought that an infinite universe would result in an high temperature, and a very bright, due to light, environment.

I think that the CMBR is the predicted light "red shifted" to the MW spectrum. I think it took Albert to predict the "red shift" and he didn't get here till later. I think that Michaelson and Morley should have seen it but thats not what they were looking for. And since at most the error would be about three parts per trillion they'd have to have been looking pretty hard at their mirrors.

So I think it more probable that the big bang never happened, Probably Very Happy

.

0 Replies

i feel that, perhaps due to the 'onerous ultimateness' of universality, everyone is overly willing to obfuscate our cosmological disscussion with unwarranted complication;

We can, quite simply "see" (in effect) the big bang. we have evidence of its occurance, and its timeframe. (admittedly the detail therein is open to interpretation)

What we cannot know is whether or not there was, or will be other such events, or different phenomina before, during, or after it.

But the 'nothingness' from which it came is, by its very nature, 'infinite'; one cannot isolate a descrete piece of 'nothingness'; it is a state of non-being, a concept, an idea; and, therefore "infinite"!

0 Replies

ican711nm wrote:

In the beginning, you wrote this to Ed:

Frank Apisa wrote:
...
But to suppose that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is all that there is...

...is not especially scientific or logical.

Yes, it is!

No it isn't!

Quote:

It is possible, we both have previously agreed, that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is all that there is.

It is also possible, we both have previously agreed, that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is not all that there is.

So both are possible.

And since there is almost no evidence indicating which is the reality (and none that is unambiguous) my statement stands. It is not especially scientific or logical to suppose one over the other.

Quote:

What is scientific about either of those statements? Is our agreement based on science or logic? No it is based at best on our intuitions. Neither of us has ever presented any evidence of either possibility. Maybe one or the other is possible; then again, maybe one or the other is not possible.

That is an especially illogical paragraph. How could either NOT BE POSSIBLE?

Quote:

Claiming that something is possible without having any clue as to whether it is possible or not, is not a scientific claim, but only an intuition/faith based claim.

Huh?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
In fact, it resembles the kind of thing that went into earlier assumptions that the Earth was a pancake flat object situated smack dab in the center of the Universe.

No scientist ever claimed the earth "was a pancake flat object situated smack dab in the center of the Universe".

Are you suggesting that you know what every scientist who has ever lived has claimed and not claimed?

I'm not sure what condition you were in when you composed this post -- but I can only hope you were stoned. I'd like to think you can reason better than this post is indicating.

Quote:

The modern scientific method is only about 400 years old. No real scientist in that time period has even speculated such a thing. Many non-scientists did make that claim, but no scientist did. Consequently you have offered a false analogy.

Once again -- you will have to convince me that I should accept that you know what every scientist who has ever lived has said and not said.

Otherwise, this entire line of thought is nonsense.

And what is this tactic of pretending that when one refers to "scientist" -- one must be referring to someone who lived during an arbritrarily designated 400 year period? Something you just dreamed up?

Quote:

What Ed has written is a summary of the evidence that says that what we can observe/infer is finite in time, space, and stuff (i.e., matter and energy).

Why do you suppose there is anything worthwhile about posting that the finite stuff we can see and infer is finite?

Of what possible use is there to limiting ourselves to finite portions of what may be an infinite universe -- just so you can point out that the finite portion is finite?

Quote:

Frank Apisa wrote:
Now you want to assume that present day science is the last word about what the Universe actually is -- what constitutes the Universe.

...your assumptions are presumptuous, gratuitous, and unsupported by the "facts" you yourself are offering.

These statement characterize themselves. they are purely an expression of faith on your part. Ed does not characterize any science as "the last word" about anything. He merely states that what science has told us so far has an excellent chance of being true at the current level of accuracy we can observe/infer about anything science has so far observed/inferred. He claims the chance of a finite universe is excellent on the grounds that so many different observations/inferences lead to the same conclusion.

Nonsense!

0 Replies

Frank; something that you will, one day, have to come to terms with, is that, while all things must (with evidence to the contrary not available) either possible, or impossible, things are "actually" either 'true', or 'not true', but not both! Rolling Eyes

at the very least, a flip of a coin will tell you quite a lot! Laughing

0 Replies

Since we are on to "logicality" perhap we should consider what "wave particle" duality tells us about the law of the excluded middle.(Either A or~A is true).

Originally scientists thought "wave" and "particle" were two mutually exclusive states as applied to say electrons but the "reality" of the state is now considered to be a function of purpose of the question asked and "evidence" could be observed for either position. If we apply similar reasoning to the question of "whether the universe is finite or not" the implication is that the status of the evidence presented is likely to also reflect the purposes of the observer, especially since the mathematics of "infinity" identifies different versions of the concept. (See for example "Infinity and the Mind" by Martin Rucker)

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

I agree with Franks criticism vis-a-vis " to suppose all that resulted from the Big Bang is all that is.

It is possible that you are correct. On the otherhand it is also possible that you are incorrect.

akaMechsmith wrote:

That automatically assumes that a big bang happened. That is an assumption that we cannot make. We don't have enough spots on our ruler.

This assumption is made so often that it is practically an article of faith . But it sure as heck isn't scientific!

All that is required for an assertion/assumption to be scientific is for a preponderance of the currently existing scientific evidence to imply that it is true. Newton was correct enough to facilitate making valid predictions and making stuff that successfully travels in our solar system. Einstein didn't contradict any of that when he observed that stuff traveling near the speed of light increases its mass and slows down its time clock. But Einstein did prove Newton was incorrect at speeds of stuff near the speed of light.

I bet that someone will eventually show that under certain conditions s/he discovers in future, that both Newton and Einstein are incorrect. But, that's science! So what else is new?

akaMechsmith wrote:

So I think it more probable that the big bang never happened, Probably .

Again, possibly you are correct. Then again, possibly you are incorrect. Damned if I know! Smile

0 Replies

Frank Apisa wrote:

Quote:
What is scientific about either of those statements? Is our agreement based on science or logic? No it is based at best on our intuitions. Neither of us has ever presented any evidence of either possibility. Maybe one or the other is possible; then again, maybe one or the other is not possible.

That is an especially illogical paragraph. How could either NOT BE POSSIBLE?

AH HA! Now I understand your logic difficulties!

Let A = It is possible that what was created by the big bang is all that exists.
Let ~A (i.e., Not A) = It is possible that what was created by the big bang is Not all that exists.

Either A or ~A is possible.
Either A or ~A is Not possible.

So if A were true, then ~A would be false.
So if ~A were true, then A would be false.
So it is possible that one (e.g., A) or the other (e.g., ~A) is possible.
So it is possible that one (e.g., A) or the other (e.g., ~A) is not possible.

Quote:

Claiming that something is possible without having any clue as to whether it is possible or not, is not a scientific claim, but only an intuition/faith based claim.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Huh?

In chinese laundry terminology: "no tickee, no washy".
In scientific terminology: "no preponderance of scientific evidence, no accepted scientific truth".

Frank Apisa wrote:

Are you suggesting that you know what every scientist who has ever lived has claimed and not claimed?

No! I'm suggesting that you don't know even one bonified scientist (i.e., a strict adherent to the scientific method -- which method has existed less than 400 years) who has claimed the flat earth or pancake theory was true.

Frank Apisa wrote:

I'm not sure what condition you were in when you composed this post -- but I can only hope you were stoned. I'd like to think you can reason better than this post is indicating.

My condition is irrelevant as is your condition.

Frank Apisa wrote:

And what is this tactic of pretending that when one refers to "scientist" -- one must be referring to someone who lived during an arbritrarily designated 400 year period? Something you just dreamed up?

Please accept my sincere apologies. I presumed you knew the history of the modern scientific method. I thought you knew it evolved within the last 400 years. That of course is the same time period within which Newton, Einstein and the Big Bang theorists (Hawking, et al) have existed and presented their scientific theories and scientific proofs.

from www.m-w.com
Main Entry: scientific method
Function: noun
Date: 1854
: principles and procedures for the systematic pursuit of knowledge involving the recognition and formulation of a problem, the collection of data through observation and experiment, and the formulation and testing of hypotheses

Frank Apisa wrote:

Why do you suppose there is anything worthwhile about posting that the finite stuff we can see and infer is finite?

Because scientists have inferred from some finite observations that some things are infinite in our finite universe: for example, the set of real numbers, the time required for stuff to travel a finite distance within a finite hollow object traveling at the speed of light, the amount of energy required to accelerate finite stuff to the speed of light. If Mech is correct and the distance between stuff in our finite universe is not increasing, then our universe could not be shown scientifically to be finite after all. But if Edwin Hubble is correct, then it is easy to show that our observable/inferrable universe is finite.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Of what possible use is there to limiting ourselves to finite portions of what may be an infinite universe -- just so you can point out that the finite portion is finite?

The whole universe may not be infinite. In fact we have encountered zero evidence that the whole universe is infinite. So the whole universe may actually be finite. Why guess otherwise, except to support some faith based notion like infinite God, or we probably will never know.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Now you want to assume that present day science is the last word about what the Universe actually is -- what constitutes the Universe.

Not me, sport. I don't want to presume or assume any such thing. Read my last post to Mech. Like time, science marches on. So what else is new.

Frank Apisa wrote:

...your assumptions are presumptuous, gratuitous, and unsupported by the "facts" you yourself are offering.

Do you have any real evidence to support the truth of your "presumptuous, gratuitous, and unsupported by the 'facts' " statements you yourself are offering"?

Frank Apisa wrote:

Ed does not characterize any science as "the last word" about anything. He merely states that what science has told us so far has an excellent chance of being true at the current level of accuracy we can observe/infer about anything science has so far observed/inferred. He claims the chance of a finite universe is excellent on the grounds that so many different observations/inferences lead to the same conclusion.

YES! YES! YES! WE AGREE! Laughing

But it was you not me who characterized Ed's logic at the beginning of this forum as

Quote:

...
But to suppose that "that which resulted from the Big Bang" is all that there is...

...is not especially scientific or logical.

It was you who wrote that. And, it is me who is disagreeing with you about exactly that. As you finally pointed out here, Ed didn't suppose any such thing. He merely hypothesized it on the basis of available scientific observations/inferences.

Frank Apisa wrote:

Nonsense!

Now that is what is really nonsense.

0 Replies

How we know the Universe has not existed forever

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know