End, Beginning, non of both?
Posted: 13 July 2012 09:18 AM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23

Could it be possible that the Universe, or maybe the space in which the universe came in to existence (if there is such a thing), could have existed in this form since ever, like it had no beginning and was there already?

It is possible to imagine something which starts at a certain point and exists forever in the future, but to imagine this the other way round is a little bit hard to do.

Does the Universe have to have a “start” or could it be that it is regenerating in some strange way, collapsing, expanding and then collapsing again?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Administrator
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  15433
Joined  2006-02-14
Alexander80 - 13 July 2012 09:18 AM

Could it be possible that the Universe, or maybe the space in which the universe came in to existence (if there is such a thing), could have existed in this form since ever, like it had no beginning and was there already?

It is possible to imagine something which starts at a certain point and exists forever in the future, but to imagine this the other way round is a little bit hard to do.

Does the Universe have to have a “start” or could it be that it is regenerating in some strange way, collapsing, expanding and then collapsing again?

Sure, it’s possible but none of these possibilities is consistent with our best evidence, which is of a big bang that started everything, and of a future without ‘collapse’. (Given ‘dark energy’, the universe is likely to accelerate its expansion). Some cosmologists speculate about other universes prior to this one, but as of yet they are little more than speculations.

 Signature 

Doug

-:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:- -:—:-

El sueño de la razón produce monstruos

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 10:20 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  1191
Joined  2011-08-01

I was just reading something last night that I barely comprehended but I think it was taken from A Universe from Nothing by Lawrence Krauss (on my Amazon wish list, for anyone needing a hint for my Christmas gift wink ).

Anyway, the idea was that “nothing” existed before the big bang, but nothing is not really nothing. It is actually seething with virtual particles and other interesting stuff that’s hard to comprehend. All it took was one tiny random quantum fluctuation in this field of nothingness, plus less than a second of inflation to start all of spacetime, matter, and energy that we know as the universe. It seems fantastic but it actually seems plausible, even inevitable, when properly explained. Apparently the math works, anyway.  cheese

 Signature 

Free in Kentucky
—Humanist
“I am patient with stupidity but not with those who are proud of it.”—Edith Sitwell

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 12:58 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  230
Joined  2010-02-20
Alexander80 - 13 July 2012 09:18 AM

Does the Universe have to have a “start” or could it be that it is regenerating in some strange way, collapsing, expanding and then collapsing again?

No, the universe could have existed as such forever, or could be cyclical but neither of these is supported by the current evidence.  The steady state idea is DOA based
on the expansion of the universe and the cyclical universe has some serious issues such as the accelerating expansion due to dark energy, the universe is unlikely to end
in a Big Crunch” and the ratio of H to He is wrong, among other things.

 Signature 

“The present age ... prefers the sign to the thing signified, the copy to the original, fancy to reality, the appearance to the essence ... for in these days illusion only is sacred, truth profane.”

Feuerbach

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 01:13 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2425
Joined  2007-07-05
TeachScience - 13 July 2012 12:58 PM

The steady state idea is DOA based on the expansion of the universe and the cyclical universe has some serious issues such as the accelerating expansion due to dark energy, the universe is unlikely to end in a Big Crunch” ...

I love that Dark Energy.

Just give something that you don’t know anything about a name and it seems like you know something.

psik

 Signature 

Fiziks is Fundamental

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 02:47 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14

`
So, would anyone participating in this discussion say that we can unequivocally assert that the BB, the start of our universe, was the beginning of absolutely everything?  Which, of course, is different than saying “the beginning of everything we know (or can know)”.

Is it justifiable to assert that it’s impossible for energy (in some form) to be eternal?

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 02:54 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2229
Joined  2007-04-26
psikeyhackr - 13 July 2012 01:13 PM
TeachScience - 13 July 2012 12:58 PM

The steady state idea is DOA based on the expansion of the universe and the cyclical universe has some serious issues such as the accelerating expansion due to dark energy, the universe is unlikely to end in a Big Crunch” ...

I love that Dark Energy.

Just give something that you don’t know anything about a name and it seems like you know something.

psik

While consistent with your cynical approach to most things, thats not entirely correct. Dark Energy is a name used to describe an observable phenomena. The name is simply a tool used by physicists so everyone knows they are referring to the same phenomena. But you knew that.

 Signature 

For every complex problem there is a solution that is simple, obvious,.... and just plain wrong

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 03:27 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  207
Joined  2011-09-23
Axegrrl - 13 July 2012 02:47 PM

`
So, would anyone participating in this discussion say that we can unequivocally assert that the BB, the start of our universe, was the beginning of absolutely everything?  Which, of course, is different than saying “the beginning of everything we know (or can know)”.

Is it justifiable to assert that it’s impossible for energy (in some form) to be eternal?

`


Could we say that our universe is the only thing “out there”?
Could we see behind its “end”?

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 05:12 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

As usual, people come up with simplistic assumptions.  “Eternal” sort of implies that time is forever as a straight line going into infinity in both directions.  It’s also possible that just as the physical dimensions might be, time may be circular.  That would mean that “eternal” has no meaning.  LOL

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 08:56 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  698
Joined  2007-10-14

`
I tossed out the questions I did because I was interacting with someone earlier today who was asserting the usual ‘uncaused cause’ thing, while asserting that there was nothing ‘before’ the BB…...

But, imo, if you’re asserting a ‘cause’ for the universe, doesn’t that necessitate asserting something about the ‘before’?  since the human concept of cause-and-effect is contingent on time.

Anyway, he seemed to be making assertions (instead of merely positing a hypothesis) that neither he nor current science could really comment on, much less corroborate…..and I was just curious to know if there was any kind of ‘consensus’ regarding the potential ‘causes’ of our universe coming into existence.

`

 Signature 

‘we are so fundamentally constituted of desire that we go on hearing music…...even though we know the band is gone and the stage is silent’

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 July 2012 11:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Moderator
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  5551
Joined  2010-06-16

I believe theoretical and astro-physicists have come up with some plausible and likely hypotheses, but since we haven’t yet developed any way of seeing what existed before the BB, we can’t be certain.  And, the ideas are so complex and deep that I wish them luck and go on to the next article on a different topic, hoping that I can understand that.

Occam

 Signature 

Succinctness, clarity’s core.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 07:46 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Jr. Member
Rank
Total Posts:  14
Joined  2012-07-14

“In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth”. All started from Him, He gave us brain to think and gain knowledge. But people are getting smarter now, that question things like the beginning of everything.

 Signature 

There’s no harm if we believe in Him.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 July 2012 10:09 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  4859
Joined  2007-10-05
magus - 14 July 2012 07:46 AM

“In the beginning, God created the heaven and earth”. All started from Him, He gave us brain to think and gain knowledge. But people are getting smarter now, that question things like the beginning of everything.

We are getting smarter and questioning things that Bronze Age goat herders told us came as revelations from the creator of the universe. We know better now. We no longer think as children, accepting what we are told without question, instead we use our brains to put together pieces of the cosmic puzzle and need no gods to see the overall picture.

 Signature 

You cannot have a rational conversation with someone who holds irrational beliefs.

Profile