The Science of God

reply to post by Astyanax


I havent read those links, however, been doing some research of my own. I feel that the Big Bang does provide an explanation as to whether the Universe is Open (will continue accelerating forever), Flat (will come to a stop / accelerate at a negligible rate) or Closed (Will collapse in on itself).

The problem that cosmologists face is the uncertainty of the correct value for the density of the Universe, since the Universe is always expaning etc. However, when using calculations, they have come to the conclusion that the density of the Universe is extremely close to that of Critical Density.

Critical Density being the density required to create a flat Universe.

Although this does not provide an answer to whether the Universe is O/F/C. It does however indicate that the rate at which the Universe expands will slow down, since the figure we believe to be *close* to correct is so close to that of Critical Density.

From my own point of view, symmetry wise and everything else included, i.e. the fact that everything is cause and effect, balance of forces etc. I feel that the Universe is either going to be Flat or Closed. Open doesnt make any logical sense to me. There is more "harmony" in a Flat or Closed Universe.

What y'all think?

Cheers

Brad

[edit on 2-6-2009 by Toughiv]

Originally posted by Toughiv
reply to post by Astyanax

 

I havent read those links, however, been doing some research of my own. I feel that the Big Bang does provide an explanation as to whether the Universe is Open (will continue accelerating forever), Flat (will come to a stop / accelerate at a negligible rate) or Closed (Will collapse in on itself).

If we consider a model of the universe which is finite, created from a big-bang, then we might consider that all of the attributes associated with the universe are also finite.

In this respect, consider that space and time as created aspects of the finite universe; space represents a dimensional zone, a cocoon or physical aura which is intrinsically linked with matter, time represents a fundamental medium in which allows matter to exist in its experienced form.

If space has a bilateral relationship with matter, as created along with matter at the big bang then we may legitimately concern ourselves with the issues of density - it being a comparative measure. If space continues to grow it essentially creates more volume and the density of matter becomes lower (since the matter is finite). However, we have said that space may be termed bilateral and that in this model it is also finite, therefore we may conjecture that it has a limit of inflation.

This might suggest that the expansion of space, rather than of matter, may be the limiting factor against an "open" universe. How does it behave for a "flat" or "closed" universe? Well, if we continue the association between space and matter then we have to consider how space behaves in the absence of matter. Proof could be obtained by observance of anomalies at the perceived centre of the universe as we might expect distortions to occur as he density of matter is severely reduced.

In the "flat" universe, within the confines of this model, we might expect a balance of forces between matter and space to create a static state but a key issue would concern the nature of space in the absence of matter. However, we need to consider that the universe is not uniform and the I would rate the likelihood of achieving a true balance of opposing forces as low.

In a "closed" universe within this model, we might expect a coercive effect from space itself as it reaches the limit of inflation which affects matter to the extent that kinetic and gravitational forces are overcome to produce a collapse against the suggestion of accelerated expansion caused by dark matter.

Ultimately, in a model where we consider space to be finite we have to consider the limits of space in our model of the expansion of matter.

Originally posted by SugarCube
If we consider a model of the universe which is finite, created from a big-bang, then we might consider that all of the attributes associated with the universe are also finite.

Yes, that would seem to follow.

If space continues to grow it essentially creates more volume and the density of matter becomes lower. However, we have said that space may be termed bilateral and that in this model it is also finite, therefore we may conjecture that it has a limit of inflation.

This would be if inertia plus the inflationary force (dark energy or whatever it is) exactly balanced the compressive force of gravity. Then the universe would be on the verge of recollapse (critical density = 1). And the critical density has indeed been measured at about that value. However, the physics of the situation seem to forbid this:

As the universe expands and the matter in it thins, the gravitational attraction decreases (since it is proportional to the density), while the cosmological repulsion increases; thus the ultimate fate of the ΛCDM universe is a near vacuum expanding at an ever increasing rate under the influence of the cosmological constant.

Wikipedia entry on 'Metric Expansion of Space: Local Perturbations'

And indeed, measurements of distant galaxies show that the expansion of the universe is accelerating. No equilibrium state or recollapse seem to be impending.

Well, if we continue the association between space and matter then we have to consider how space behaves in the absence of matter. Proof could be obtained by observance of anomalies at the perceived centre of the universe as we might expect distortions to occur as he density of matter is severely reduced.

Sadly, you are standing at the perceived centre of the universe, and as you can see, there's lots of matter around.

However, we need to consider that the universe is not uniform and the I would rate the likelihood of achieving a true balance of opposing forces as low.

You're considering the universe as a whole, so there is no fundamental obstacle to achieving equilibrium; also, on a large enough scale the universe is symmetrical. The problems lie elsewhere.

[edit on 3/6/09 by Astyanax]

[edit on 3/6/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Just a few points.

You say on a large scale the universe is symmetrical. I disagree. If the universe were symmetrical, Stars, Planets and Galaxies would not exist.

reply to post by Astyanax


Also, when it comes to matter thinning and Gravity becoming weaker, I think Black Holes and Dark Matter will have a lot to play when that time comes

Originally posted by AstyanaxThis (limit of inflation) would be when the inflationary force (dark energy or whatever it is) exactly balanced the compressive force of gravity. In this case the critical density would be roughly equal to 1 and the geometry of space would be flat. Measurements indicate that such is the case; the universe seems to be flat, therefore on the verge of recollapse. However, measurements of distant supernovae and galaxies show that the expansion of space is accelerating - it's expanding faster than ever. A paradox.

The expansion of space cannot be said to be the same as the expansion of supernovae and galaxies. The said entities exist within a medium that we may term space but from a dimensional aspect space itself can be perceived the limit of the physical universe. A fly buzzing about the interior of a large balloon will not necessarily indicate the expansion or contraction rate of the balloon itself.

Originally posted by AstyanaxSadly, you are standing at the perceived centre of the universe, and as you can see, there's lots of matter around.

The centre of the universe must be considered a point. The matter in our very solar system, the presence of the sun, would indicate that we are not at the centre of a "big bang" expansion. We have sufficiently developed entities, matter, about us to indicate that we are some distance and time from the centre point of expansion, even if not in a uniform "blast" pattern.

Originally posted by AstyanaxThe opposing forces are dark energy/quintessence and gravity. You're considering the universe as a whole, so there is no real obstacle to achieving equilibrium; also, on a large enough scale the universe is symmetrical.

The opposing forces of the quintessence and gravity are attributes within the confines of the universe as a container for dimensional existence. A perceived limit of space (as the wall of a balloon) may exert its own coercive effects that are not satisfactorily understood, quite apart from the interior attributes.

Equilibrium may be achieved within the balloon of the universe but this is an "internal" balance in relation to the specifics the dimensional aspects of space at a point in time. If space itself changes dimensions then the equilibrium can be upset.

Originally posted by SugarCube

The expansion of space cannot be said to be the same as the expansion of supernovae and galaxies. The said entities exist within a medium that we may term space but from a dimensional aspect space itself can be perceived the limit of the physical universe. A fly buzzing about the interior of a large balloon will not necessarily indicate the expansion or contraction rate of the balloon itself.



I like this idea, I must say!

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Toughiv]

Originally posted by ToughivSecondly,I think common sense explains why the Universe is expanding at a faster rate. If something goes BANG it is going to speed up. Look back to my explanation of this to DaMod where I used Skydiving as an analogy. You speed up until Terminal Velocity is reached, at that point it is still unclear whether the Universe is Flat, Open or Closed.

I would debate this point Toughiv, purely because the analogy isn't necessarily applicable. When Skydiving, the process of acceleration is caused by the Earth's gravity and at a constant rate, the Earth being a finite body with a notionally uniform gravitational pull on the average human being (i.e. discounting the gravity of the human form as negligible in comparison). The terminal velocity is reached purely as a effect of atmospheric resistance.

Without atmospheric resistance, the terminal velocity would be much higher and subject to a constant acceleration throughout the descent. The terminal velocity would only be reached at a point immediately prior to impact (e.g. regardless of whether a chute had been deployed - Ouch).

The point here is not that the expansion of the universe is simply speeding up (e.g. as under a constant acceleration) but that the acceleration itself is actually increasing. This is not applicable in Skydiving - Sorry, I know I am being pedantic

For the acceleration to increase, we would have to consider another impetus, caused not by the kinetic energy of the big bang but by a different phenonema.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by SugarCube]

reply to post by SugarCube


In response to your point. I cannot argue with that, you are quite right, should the acceleration of the Universe's expansion be speeding up that is

I think you have proven there is a certain percentage of uncertainty when it comes to validating that point.

I for one feel that the acceleration of the Universe is not speeding up. I havent seen no evidence to support this beyond reasonable doubt.

Originally posted by Toughiv
You say on a large scale the universe is symmetrical. I disagree.

It's not a matter of opinion; on a big enough scale, the universe is seen to be symmetrical.

The distribution of matter on scales ranging from atomic level to superclusters seems to be very irregular. This may appear to be in conflict with Einstein's cosmological principle, which states that the universe is homogeneous and isotropic on the large-scale average. But, on large enough scales the principle seems to be valid: observations on scales larger than 100 megaparsecs ( seem to indicate a reasonably uniform distribution.

Source

The early universe was even more symmetrical:

this so called ``cosmic background radiation'' is incredibly smooth (like a baby's bottom?) and uniform. No matter what direction we look in the sky, this radiation appears to be exactly to same. There are some irregularities, but they represent deviations of only about one part in ten thousand, which is way to small to detect in this picture. This incredible uniformity tells us something amazing about the matter from which the radiation comes: it was distributed around us in an (almost) perfect, uniform sphere. In short we again appear to be at the center of the Universe, as the ancient astronomers had supposed. Of course there is no scientific reason to believe that our location in the Universe should be special in any way. There is a more "mundane" explanation for the observed uniformity of the microwave radiation: the radiation must look perfectly smooth and spherical from every point in the Universe. This in turn is possible only if the radiation (and the matter that emitted it) were perfectly homogeneous throughout the Universe.

Source

If the universe were symmetrical, Stars, Planets and Galaxies would not exist.

If the universe were locally symmetrical, correct: they could not. It is not locally symmetrical, though; locally, it's lumpy. By the way, 100 megaparsecs = 325 million light-years; that's the kind of scale on which the universe is symmetrical.

Secondly,I think common sense explains why the Universe is expanding at a faster rate. If something goes BANG it is going to speed up.

No, that is not correct. Once the bang is over it will keep going at the same speed or slow down due to friction. A skydiver is under the influence of gravity. He will speed up until the air resistance to his fall is equal to the gravitational force acting upon him. That's terminal velocity.

In fact, the continuing cosmological expansion suggests that whatever caused the Big Bang is still banging away.

reply to post by Astyanax


Firstly, I rephrased myself, I understood what you were saying, that ony a large enough scale yes, hence my Earth analogy.

Secondly, the continued expansion does not necessarily mean it is still going bang what so ever. First law of motion. If there is no other force it will continue to expand. When it comes to the Universe expanding at a growing rate, SugarCube has presented a very good argument above, i.e. the fly inside the balloon. Im not really sure if that argument can be countered.

Cheers

Brad

I would like to repost a diagram I prepared earlier - not just because the effort involved warrants a bit more exposure but also to illustrate my general point of the "balloon" and expand on it slightly.

[atsimg]http://files.abovetopsecret.com/images/member/0bb5428cc2e0.jpg[/atsimg]

Clearly - Not drawn to scale!

The diagram illustrates a conception of:

(1) The initial big bang and expansion.
(2) The expansion of space and internal expansion of matter.
(3) Not easy to see, but a reduced density of matter in the centre.
(4) A conjectured "rip" in space fabric in relation to the negligibility of matter.
(5) The expansion of the "rip" into a bloody big hole.

Dimensionally, the whitespace in the centre does not exist as such, travelling to the limit of the "space/hole" border would mean that you "pop" out at the opposite side, still in space. The border is impermeable to matter.

Using this model, I can conceive of why acceleration can increase in the expansion of the universe matter, essentially pushed from behind by the also expanding border of the rip. Density of matter may changed only marginally since the volume of space (i.e. the black ring) may is stretched into an increasingly thinner band of existence.

Purely conjecture of course and subject to derision and scorn.

[edit on 3-6-2009 by SugarCube]

reply to post by SugarCube


Can you explainto me why you feel there will be/ is

(4) A conjectured "rip" in space fabric in relation to the negligibility of matter.

Thanks!

Originally posted by Toughiv
Can you explainto me why you feel there will be/ is

(4) A conjectured "rip" in space fabric in relation to the negligibility of matter.

This theory relies on the bilateral relationship between space and matter. We may conceive of space as the medium in which matter exists and is essentially a relative concept.

There are two scenarios we could consider concerning the Big Bang:

(i) An infinite zone of space existed before and containing the Big Bang and matter simply expanded into it.
(ii) Space did not exist until the Big Bang occurred at which point it expanded as a medium in which matter could also expand into.

Personally, I believe in the (ii) since it seems to make more sense to me. If we consider the universe as finite and we consider that dimensional attributes were created as part of the big bang, enabling space AND time to exist then we have a conceptual model that suggests that space is expanding too.

Now, if there are finite attributes to matter then we might consider that there are finite attributes to space aswell, i.e. a fixed amount that allows some contraction and expansion but that has limits of elasticity, if you will. During the initial expansion, it is easy to suggest that the compressive capabilities of space must be great, however, we cannot be sure that a conversion to a dimensional universe occurred in one instantaneous process, especially considering that time itself may have "evolved" to our current understanding during those early moments.

Now, if space is intrinsically linked with matter, it may be that space as a defined framework of the universe also relies on the presence of matter to maintain its integrity. We know that large gravitational fields can "bend" space (I would term this a compressive effect) but it may also be that a complete lack of matter over a large enough zone cause a negative distortion and creates the "rip" (I would term this an expansive effect).

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Toughiv]

[edit on 3-6-2009 by Toughiv]

Originally posted by SugarCube
The expansion of space cannot be said to be the same as the expansion of supernovae and galaxies.

I think you misunderstand, SugarCube. The evidence doesn't come from watching supernovas and galaxies expand. It comes from observations that clearly show light from very faraway objects undergoing a nonlinear increase in redshift with distance. The first of these studies were of Type 1a supernovas (during the 1980s), described and explained here. Since then, the Hubble Space Telescope and other instruments have shown the same kind of results for very distant galaxies. Still further confirmation comes from the results of the Sloan Digital Sky Survey. The data are pretty unambiguous, now that worries about cosmic dust and the reliability of 'standard candles' have been largely put to rest: the expansion of the universe is definitely accelerating.

I fear my links have been falling on stony ground. I provided the references for all this stuff in earlier posts.

The centre of the universe must be considered a point.

No, the universe does not have a centre of that kind. Its expansion is isotropic, not outward from a point - just as is, incidentally, that of an inflating balloon. The expansion is everywhere the same; it is counterbalanced by gravity in the presence of large concentrations of matter (which is why galaxies and ATS members don't fly apart), but it is still very much there.

This isotropic expansion is also the reason why the 'rip' in space shown by your diagram does not occur.

The opposing forces of the quintessence and gravity are attributes within the confines of the universe as a container for dimensional existence. A perceived limit of space (as the wall of a balloon) may exert its own coercive effects that are not satisfactorily understood, quite apart from the interior attributes.

Again, this is a misunderstanding, somewhat similar to spy66's: the universe is not contained within anything, nor is it expanding into anything. There is no evidence for boundary effects at the limits of the universe; we cannot, in any event, observe those limits, since parts of the universe are moving away from us faster than the speed of light.

[edit on 3/6/09 by Astyanax]

reply to post by Astyanax


Right so what you are saying is SpaceTime doesnt actually exist as Balloon exists, rather they are dimensions created as soon as matter came into existence. As soon as we had matter we had Distance and speed at which that Distance is covered and so Time.

Hmm, this leads to a very wierd problem. Gravity is not overcomming the effects of the Bang. There is no evidence to suggest a steady state Universe, so it looks like we are in trouble?

reply to post by Toughiv

Spacetime exists. You know what space is - famously, it's what keeps everything from being in the same place. Time exists - it's what keeps everything from happening at once. The balloon exists within spacetime.

I don't know what you mean by 'we're in trouble'. Do you mean the universe must come to an end? It's not going to happen any time soon. The universe will outlive humanity.

Originally posted by Astyanax
reply to post by Toughiv

 

Spacetime exists. You know what space is - famously, it's what keeps everything from being in the same place. Time exists - it's what keeps everything from happening at once. The balloon exists within spacetime.

I don't know what you mean by 'we're in trouble'. Do you mean the universe must come to an end? It's not going to happen any time soon. The universe will outlive humanity.

i) I mean imagine spacetime as the balloon and the air inside matter, i dont think it works like this. That is what i was trying to get at. More like the balloon is the extremeties of Matter itself.
ii) I know Time + Space exist, but they only exist because of matter.
iii) You dont know that mankind wont be around at the time
iv) Funnily enough the End of the Universe has been prophecized in a lot of religions.

Cheers

Brad