It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Why the universe is infinite and didn't begin as a singularity

page: 3
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Sep, 26 2017 @ 09:47 PM
link   
Strange if you think about it, almost like, when I was young time seemed to go very slow and now it's flying by but never stops or reversed?




posted on Sep, 27 2017 @ 06:18 PM
link   
a reply to: ChaoticOrder

If the point of all, everything, origin is conceptualised, in what expanse would this be ?

Eyeing up and entertaining our self-reality egoism pos-neg division in realm specific ratio.

Would this explain the eternal dance of Relationships in all concepts/contacts ?

Is every relationship, a constant overlap, of positive and negative turbulence?

Does the positive cancel out the negative atom or vice a versa?

Poles attract and disassociate Pos – Neg constant.

Is it the construct of multiple + mind ? = belief that connects constructs the consensus of belief in a molecular basis to create our flat universe ish through pos-neg belief of said reality ?

We born! Become, adding + on Sum basis to the whole fraction potential.

Without our individual Positive + Negative - the actuation, the sum, of all existence would equate to what exactly ?

Big Bang ?

No Original belief.

Expanse ?

By What ?



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 07:56 AM
link   
ChaoticOrder:

Why the universe is infinite and didn't begin as a singularity.


Having read your post, and that of the Bimetric thread you linked to, a thought occurred to me as to why the universe may indeed be flat?

Prior to the so-called 'Big Bang', existential conditions are practically unknowable, with only speculation, conjecture and a lot of assumptions seeking to point the way to understanding. The Big Bang theory does not allow for any type of condition to exist prior to ignition, and of course, this is wholly counter-intuitive to not only common sense, but logic too.

For a singularity to exist, some external force has to be pressing down upon it, the singularity has to feed upon energy from somewhere. If the universe was born out of a point-like singularity, there had to be energy conditions external to it in which it existed to be a singularity. Singularity cannot exist without there being external compression impacting upon it. Try the following hypothesis out...

What if existence occurs in layers? That is to say that our own universe is sandwiched between a layer of negative energy and a layer of positive energy? Where the the layers of negative and positive energies briefly meet and interact with each other cataclysmically, 'Big Bangs' occur with super energies driving the inflation. Due to the probability that inflationary expansion remains in-situ between the layers of negative and positive energies, the universe created would indeed be flat and expanding along 2-d axis's.

Of course, scale is what confounds us, but another aspect we can consider is that gravity did not arise out of the Big Bang, but already existed as the attractive force between the layers of negative and positive energies. We could suggest that the distance between the negative and positive energy layers is usually constant, but on occasions, tornadic vortices of high energy densities swirl down (or up) between the layers, and once they connect with the other layer, Big Bangs (acting as repulsive force) are created leaving a spatial vacuum in which universes like ours fill?



posted on Oct, 1 2017 @ 11:37 AM
link   
S&F. Excellent topic and it's something people with actually discuss, as opposed to just arguing with one another. Nice job.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 08:52 AM
link   
Based on Facts and logic, im not sure then how you come to many of these conclusions OP.

The CMB can be produce in other manners... HOWEVER and it is a big big big HOWEVER that the anisotropy scale of the CMB is a difficult one to simply explain away. The anisotropy scale (for the layman) is the scale of noise.

The 'Temperature' of it is 2.72548±0.00057 K that variation is SO SO small, the easiest way that this can occur given that the CMB has this temperature in all directions is that the universe was causally connected at some point in history, which meant there was a very smooth energy environment without many enormous hot spots and cold spots until after the CMB was 'frozen out'

Also OP I actually don't see any of your 'strong and compelling evidence' that the universe didn't start as a big bang, you simply make the statement and don't appear to back it up... unless i completely missed it.



posted on Oct, 2 2017 @ 10:30 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433


The 'Temperature' of it is 2.72548±0.00057 K that variation is SO SO small, the easiest way that this can occur given that the CMB has this temperature in all directions is that the universe was causally connected at some point in history

The problem is that this uniformity is very hard to explain if you're starting with a singularity, even with the theory of inflation it's hard to explain how the energy was spread out so smoothly over such large distances. The Forbes article someone posted on the first page actually goes into this point:


The Universe doesn't have different temperatures in different directions, even though an area billions of light-years away in one direction never had time (since the Big Bang) to interact with or exchange information with an area billions of light-years in the opposite direction.

The Big Bang Wasn't The Beginning, After All


They propose a solution where the Big Bang doesn't release energy straight away, instead the vacuum energy is released in a delayed fashion, after space has already expanded to very large scales. As I said, it's just another sign that energy was released from a pre-existing vacuum over large scales.


Also OP I actually don't see any of your 'strong and compelling evidence' that the universe didn't start as a big bang, you simply make the statement and don't appear to back it up

I didn't say there was no Big Bang type event, I said the universe didn't begin as a singularity if it is indeed infinite, and I laid out very clear logical reasons for why I believe that to be the case. If you think the argument I made against the video I referenced is incorrect then I'd like to know why.
edit on 2/10/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 06:00 AM
link   
Im not sure I agree with all of the statements made in the forbes article, the author/contributor is a Astrophysics PhD, who writes popular science...It is very common that such authors put their ideas out there in public domain and don't really allow for any objective criticism.
I am a particle physics PhD. I am putting that out there on the table since the first obvious 'criticism' of my comment might be "Oh what do you know" not that I am accusing anyone of doing that pre-emptively. The reasoning is mostly that the physics and processes occurring during the big bang is closer to particle physics and so it gives an interesting cross over. The article is also an opinion piece, not a scientific article that has gone through any scrutiny, so, lets do some right now.

I don't think that exactly what occurred is a done deal, but there are a few different interpretations. Let me address the points in that forbes article.



1) The Universe doesn't have different temperatures in different directions, even though an area billions of light-years away in one direction never had time (since the Big Bang) to interact with or exchange information with an area billions of light-years in the opposite direction.

Not sure why this is a point of contention, this can be considered evidence that during the early universe all matter was causally connected as i said. It means there was a time in which the universe was small and compact (in that space time was unexpanded) and even. If space time was to then expand (and the space time expansion causing doppler shift of the relic radiation) you would completely expect the CMB to be flat. "Never had time" is a confusing and quite honestly a weak argument since in a compact origin, you do expect exactly what we observe... that the CMB looks the same everywhere, because it represents a time in which everything was connected by light transport.

Thus his evidence is an exact 180 degree shift compared to standard logical analysis... its like saying that left is in fact right.



2) The Universe doesn't have a measurable spatial curvature that's different from zero, even though a Universe that's perfectly spatially flat requires a perfect balance between the initial expansion and the matter-and-radiation density.

This is an observation, I am not certain it is really classed as evidence against the big bang, it is like saying the odds of winning the lottery are very small thus no one should win the lottery. Nature doesn't have to bend to our will. It could also be evidence that our measurements are not yet accurate enough. Or that the properties of the universe at the scale we are at now is naturally flat, rather than a closed or open configuration. Amazing yes, but I don't think that our observations are yet mature enough.



3)The Universe doesn't have any leftover ultra-high-energy relics from the earliest times, even though the temperatures that would create these relics should have existed if the Universe were arbitrarily hot.

This is an unknown, firstly, if he means photons, then the CMB is basically relic ultra-high-energy photons from that era. Relics also have to be reasonably stable should they be particle matter. We have, as yet, not observed anything like this in our particle accelerators. Does it mean that he is wrong? well ultimately it is unknown. But if there are no ultra-high energy stable particles, you don't really expect a relic density either.
This point seems somewhat weak and dismisses the whole field of direct dark matter searches. This, if proven, could be those missing relics. There are also other options for relics too.


Furthermore, his stipulation in regard to the physics that occurs at high density and high temperature is also somewhat economic with the truth. We already know of how particle matter in extreme conditions behaves in weird and interesting ways. Like a compact fermi-gas can increase in pressure, without increasing in temperature (or is it the other way around) The video also doesn't really explain that it is space-time itself that is expanding, thus when you do compress the universe or make space-time smaller, so are the dimensional attributes of the objects contained within, or at least, its a good assumption that it would be the case.

Expansion of spacetime and the concept of a closed - flat or open universe is also conceptually difficult to picture. It is the same difficulty people have with representations of blackholes which pop-sci likes to show as a hole in a two dimensional plane. When really it is a 3 dimensional object.

In the same way, if you represent it in two dimensions, a closed universe is one that would remain looking like a sphere of 2d space... flat would look like an infinite plane and open would look saddle shaped.



posted on Oct, 3 2017 @ 09:35 PM
link   
a reply to: ErosA433

I agree the article isn't what I would call very robust but the point about the low temperature variations is one I've heard made many times before so I'd say there is some validity to that argument. Your point is of course valid as well because inflation was pretty much designed to solve the issue of why our universe seems to be so isotropic and homogeneous. But when you seriously analyze the idea of inflation it does start to fall apart in certain regards and I view it as a very ad-hoc solution. Most computer simulations which model how the universe evolved don't even include inflation, they just start with all the matter evenly spread about a 3D cube and then they let it collapse to form structures. If an infinite amount of negative and positive energy were released throughout an infinite flat universe due to some sort of vacuum phase transition, that could quite easily account for why the universe appears so isotropic and homogeneous, without requiring several complex theories which are heavily fine-tuned to work exactly how we need them to.
edit on 3/10/2017 by ChaoticOrder because: (no reason given)



new topics

top topics



 
19
<< 1  2   >>

log in

join