The mass of The Universe

Forums: Science, Bang, Dale Is A Bot, Poof, Bang The Bot
Email this Topic • Print this Page

As it seems extraordinary difficult to support the idea of infinity, I'm wondering about the final instant of the Big Crunch. There's a very intriguing and attractive (to me anyhow) prop stating that it reaches zero diameter and infinite mass, time stopping at the moment POOF it drops out of existence, same "moment" of course as the next Big Bang

So is it possible that mass increases nonlinearily

Topic Stats
Top Replies
Link to this Topic

Type: Question • Score: 0 • Views: 2,010 • Replies: 16

No top replies

View best answer, chosen by dalehileman

@dalehileman,

Do you have any string at hand? Part of the answer can be found there.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Quote:

any string at hand?

No Stur but I can readily access it. Then how do I proceed

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

If you take note, I placed string in italics. Therein you will find the hint, the clue, the answer.

(although it may just be a theory)

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Quote:

(although it may just be a theory)

Of course Stur it's all theory. Making a quickie Wickie pickie, however, was kicky. Although it didn't address the ultimate, that idea that grav is infinite at the center of the typical black hole seems suggestive, at the Moment of Zero Everything, even all the string disappearing into a singularity of infinite mass, zero diameter

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

It could be just taking a reroute over to the next universe.

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

Further, if the string 'disappears' into the infinite mass, it hasn't disappeared; rather, it has become part of a new creation. Now, it may be a creation which your mind cannot wrap itself around; it is nonetheless a creation.

Nothing truly ends, it merely changes.

1 Reply

@Sturgis,

Quote:

It could be just taking a reroute over to the next universe.

Yes, exactly, the instant between the end of one Big Crunch and the next Big Bang

Quote:

http://www.space.com/18811-multiple-universes-5-theories.html

The idea of an infinite number multiple simultaneous universes invisible to one another leaves me pretty cold. In general, the simpler of two theories has a better chance

Quote:

Further, if the string 'disappears' into the infinite mass, it hasn't disappeared; rather, it has become part of a new creation.

Okay but sounds open to semantical interpretations

Quote:

Now, it may be a creation which your mind cannot wrap itself around; it is nonetheless a creation.

Again semantics. I see creation as an ongoing affair

Quote:

Nothing truly ends, it merely changes.

I agree tho many see it occurring just once, coming from naught and returning to nothing. But don't like that myself; too many loose ends, too much paradox, contradiction

Incidentlly, maybe OT, but 1. Infinite Universes

Scientists can't be sure what the shape of space-time is, but most likely, it's flat (as opposed to spherical or even donut-shape) and stretches out infinitely. But if space-time goes on forever, then it must start repeating at some point, because there are a finite number of ways particles can be arranged in space and time.…is another way of saying that if anything that can happen will happen, then there are an infinite number of each possible Universe

Thus at infinite number Sturs and Dales chatting, identical in every respect, to the millimicron, at this moment; also an infinite number different only in the length of of a single pubic hair. Intuition rejects the notion, outright. Don't know why, it just does

0 Replies

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

As it seems extraordinary difficult to support the idea of infinity, I'm wondering about the final instant of the Big Crunch. There's a very intriguing and attractive (to me anyhow) prop stating that it reaches zero diameter and infinite mass, time stopping at the moment POOF it drops out of existence, same "moment" of course as the next Big Bang

There isn't going to be a big crunch.

Plus, "time" is something that is internal to our universe. By saying "the same moment as the next Big Bang," you are acting as if the concept of time would somehow apply outside our universe.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

There isn't going to be a big crunch.

You state that Ora with such apparent assurance that we can only guess you have access to something we don't

Quote:

Plus, "time" is something that is internal to our universe.

Okay

Quote:

By saying "the same moment as the next Big Bang," you are acting as if the concept of time would somehow apply outside our universe.

In a finite Universe there is no outside

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
There isn't going to be a big crunch.

You state that Ora with such apparent assurance that we can only guess you have access to something we don't

No. You have access to the same information.

In addition to the fact that our universe's expansion is accelerating out of control, there is also now the new news that our universe is doomed to be destroyed by a vacuum metastability disaster sometime in the future.

dalehileman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
By saying "the same moment as the next Big Bang," you are acting as if the concept of time would somehow apply outside our universe.

In a finite Universe there is no outside

If there really were no "outside", then that would pretty much eliminate any possibility of that new universe you were talking about, because that new universe would be "outside" our universe.

However, whether our universe is finite or infinite has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether there is an "outside" or not.

And last I heard, there was pretty solid proof that our universe is infinite.

And the latest data from the Plank Space Observatory might just have proof that there is an "outside".

2 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

No. You have access to the same information.

Yes no Ora, my apologies, I'm always hoping somebody will explain this stuff in short sentences of ordinary words

Quote:

In addition to the fact that our universe's expansion is accelerating out of control,

Yes I understand about that. Intuition however, objects to the idea of all those cooling objects and particles mutually accelerating apart forever. Surely grav eventually will reassert itself for a Big Crunch

Quote:

there is also now the new news that our universe is doomed to be destroyed by a vacuum metastability disaster sometime in the future.

Alas

In a finite Universe there is no outside

Quote:

If there really were no "outside", then that would pretty much eliminate any possibility of that new universe you were talking about, because that new universe would be "outside" our universe.

You might have misunderstood my speculation. If the Universe is finite then there just simply can't be an outside. The Big Crunch supposedly ends in a moment of "nothingness" before the next Big Bang, this "new Universe" not "outside" of but merely subsequent to

Quote:

However, whether our universe is finite or infinite has no bearing whatsoever on the question of whether there is an "outside" or not.

In neither case can I entertain the idea of an "outside". What do you suppose is "out there," space

Of course you're welcome to entertain theorize simultaneous Universes incapable of interaction owing to some sort of strange difference in their realities might be considered "outside" one another; but like I said, the simpler theory usu turns out to be the right one

Quote:

And last I heard, there was pretty solid proof that our universe is infinite.

It's hard to believe, as a violation of the general rule, frugality. If infinite, and if anything that can happen, will happen, then there must be at any given instant an infinite number of each and every possible world. Seems absurd

As I said Ora, can't defend my position, it's just Intuition

Quote:

And the latest data from the Plank Space Observatory might just have proof that there is an "outside".

To save me hours scrolling Google I wonder if you might summarize this finding in short sentences of ordinary words suitable to the Typical Blockhead (me)

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

oralloy wrote:
And the latest data from the Plank Space Observatory might just have proof that there is an "outside".

To save me hours scrolling Google I wonder if you might summarize this finding in short sentences of ordinary words

They detected large-scale patterns in the temperature fluctuations of the Cosmic Microwave Background, on a scale too large to have been created by processes internal to our universe:
http://sci.esa.int/science-e/www/object/index.cfm?fobjectid=51559

http://sci.esa.int/science-e-media/img/67/Planck_anomalies_Bianchi_on_CMB_410x205.jpg

One possible explanation is that the Big Bang was caused by a collision between two other universes, and the pattern is the imprint of that collision.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ekpyrotic_universe

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

on a scale too large to have been created by processes internal to our universe:

Thanks Ora for that illustration, it's beautiful Again, however, it's hard to imagine an "outside" unless there's just a finite amount of matter all around, that grav holds it into "ball," and that outside the ball there's nothing but infinite space. Somehow tho the notion isn't very satisfying

Thanks also for that link. The idea of "two Universes," however, bothers me. If there's a huge space accommodating two Universe-like bodies, then isn't there still just the one Universe

1 Reply

@dalehileman,

dalehileman wrote:

The idea of "two Universes," however, bothers me. If there's a huge space accommodating two Universe-like bodies, then isn't there still just the one Universe

The collision would involve two universes (if the theory is correct). But there would be many (maybe infinite) universes. Most of them just wouldn't be involved in that collision.

As for whether there can ultimately be just one universe, it depends on how the term is defined.

There may well be an infinite number of the things that we normally think of as a universe.

But if you define "universe" as encompassing the entire system of everything that exists, then I guess it all could still be counted as a single universe.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

oralloy wrote:

...our universe is doomed to be destroyed by a vacuum metastability disaster...

Not with a bang or a whimper, but with a "Vacuum Matastability Disaster", now that's how a Universe should be destroyed. Yes! Smile

1 Reply

@rosborne979,

rosborne979 wrote:

oralloy wrote:
...our universe is doomed to be destroyed by a vacuum metastability disaster...

Not with a bang or a whimper, but with a "Vacuum Matastability Disaster", now that's how a Universe should be destroyed. Yes!

Well to tell you the truth, I was hoping that our species would go out into the galaxy and thrive for a very long time. It kind of sucks that this will be our ultimate fate.

At least it'll be over fast, with little warning.

And maybe the universe will last for a little while at least, before it goes.

0 Replies

@oralloy,

Quote:

But if you define "universe" as encompassing the entire system of everything that exists,

Ora, I think that's a common way of looking at it, but with no "outside"

0 Replies

The mass of The Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know