Posted on 04/26/2012 3:13:30 PM PDT by SeekAndFind
Cosmologists use the mathematical properties of eternity to show that although universe may last forever, it must have had a beginning
kfc 04/24/2012
The Big Bang has become part of popular culture since the phrase was coined by the maverick physicist Fred Hoyle in the 1940s. That's hardly surprising for an event that represents the ultimate birth of everything.
However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.
In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.
For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.
Another is the notion of eternal inflation in which different parts of the universe expand and contract at different rates. These regions can be thought of as different universes in a giant multiverse.
So although we seem to live in an inflating cosmos, other universes may be very different. And while our universe may look as if it has a beginning, the multiverse need not have a beginning.
Then there is the idea of an emergent universe which exists as a kind of seed for eternity and then suddenly expands.
So these modern cosmologies suggest that the observational evidence of an expanding universe is consistent with a cosmos with no beginning or end. That may be set to change.
Today, Audrey Mithani and Alexander Vilenkin at Tufts University in Massachusetts say that these models are mathematically incompatible with an eternal past. Indeed, their analysis suggests that these three models of the universe must have had a beginning too.
Their argument focuses on the mathematical properties of eternity--a universe with no beginning and no end. Such a universe must contain trajectories that stretch infinitely into the past.
However, Mithani and Vilenkin point to a proof dating from 2003 that these kind of past trajectories cannot be infinite if they are part of a universe that expands in a specific way.
They go on to show that cyclical universes and universes of eternal inflation both expand in this way. So they cannot be eternal in the past and must therefore have had a beginning. "Although inflation may be eternal in the future, it cannot be extended indefinitely to the past," they say.
They treat the emergent model of the universe differently, showing that although it may seem stable from a classical point of view, it is unstable from a quantum mechanical point of view. "A simple emergent universe model...cannot escape quantum collapse," they say.
The conclusion is inescapable. "None of these scenarios can actually be past-eternal," say Mithani and Vilenkin.
Since the observational evidence is that our universe is expanding, then it must also have been born in the past. A profound conclusion (albeit the same one that lead to the idea of the big bang in the first place).
Ref: arxiv.org/abs/1204.4658: Did The Universe Have A Beginning?
Wait, was this generally regarded a bad move by the miserable people with digital watches or by the small green pieces of paper? So long, and thanks for the expanding universe.
Anywhere there is an a-hole, that’s where Obama is.
As nearly as I’ve ever been able to tell by reading, God works entirely within the laws of mathematics, probability, and physics. If you want violations of mathematical and probabilistic laws and particularly if you need them in wholesale lots, you need to be talking to the evolutionites, they specialize in that sort of thing.
Then how do you explain Open cluster NGC 188? Or Galaxy NGC 3172 among other objects?
Galaxy NGC 3172 makes Galaxy NGC 1586 look like a cap pistol.
The point of my post was not comparing the size of objects, but the posters claim the northern/polar region from earth, was, "Empty".
I suspect the correct question is not “When did the universe begin?”, but “when did time-space begin?”
Time-space can be imagined as an ‘x’ and a ‘y’ axis on a graph. But you *must* have both a multiplicand and a multiplier to get a product. That is, if you have time, but zero space, the universe does not exist. Or if you have space, but zero time, the universe does not exist. Only when you have both does the universe come into being.
And as Einstein showed, when mass-energy is put into time-space, it distorts the product of time-space in a third, or ‘z’ axis, perpendicular to both ‘x’ and ‘y’.
So until this point, until time and space and mass-energy interact, there is no universe.
“As nearly as I’ve ever been able to tell by reading, God works entirely within the laws of mathematics, probability, and physics.”
Yes, exactly my point. As near as you’ve been able to tell, because the things of this universe, such as math, probability, and physics, are the only things which we are designed to conceive. We cannot, through such means, know what, if anything lies outside the universe, how it works, or if the same rules of logic, math, and science apply at all. You are assuming that they do, but you have no evidence to support that and no means to procure such evidence.
Obscure reference to Seinfeld quote about a 12 gauge shotgun making an 11 gauge look like a cap pistol. 1586 is 1/2 of 3172!
Regarding Cycles : They always tend to be cyclical.
You confidently state that you can’t see much of the matter that exists.
(dark matter).
take a look at this — what is your opinion?
http://www.space.com/15333-dark-matter-missing-sun.html
If dark matter (at a very high rate in our universe, somewhere near 70%) does not in fact exist, then most mathematical models of universe formation collapse.
Big Bang ping!
I did not claim the north sky was empty. I said, there is an empty space or area in the north sky.
I particular, I believe it’s behind/around Polaris. If we look around any object in space, and we continue to “zoom in” by increasing our resolution power of our device (currently hubble is about as good a visible light gets) we continue to see more structure.
http://imgsrc.hubblesite.org/hu/db/images/hs-2006-02-a-print.jpg
The above is an image of the Polaris group (from hubble), that has no visible structure in the background. Note: this does not prove anything unless we continue to improve our resolution and can continue to see structure everywhere else other than in/around Polaris.
Now this is an great point of discussion — is there or is there not a uniform (loose definition here) distribution of mass in the universe? i.e. are there a empty vector through our universe?
You believe what is behind Polaris?
What happens when gravity overcomes the force of the big bang and the universe begins to collapse? Will it collapse until it becomes so small that it explodes again?
RE: ...and its parents were???.....
The cause does not necessarily have to be plural.
You believe what is behind Polaris?
did not claim the north sky was empty. I said, there is an empty space or area in the north sky.
BTW, there are empty spaces all over our solar system, our home galaxy, interstellar space, the universe etc., which there are no visible planets, stars, galaxies, etc.
Outside of gravitational forces, there are even empty spaces between binary star systems.
How you picked out the Polaris region to imply or suggest something is hiding behind it, or that area of the universe seems empty, I absolutely have no idea.
how does an empty space “hide”? you are making straw arguments here.
You believe what is behind Polaris?
did not claim the north sky was empty. I said, there is an empty space or area in the north sky.
BTW, there are empty spaces all over our solar system, our home galaxy, interstellar space, the universe etc., which there are no visible planets, stars, galaxies, etc.
Outside of gravitational forces, there are even empty spaces between binary star systems.
How you picked out the Polaris region to imply or suggest something is hiding OR is behind it, or that area of the universe seems empty, I absolutely have no idea.
how does an empty space “hide”?
Uh, one more time. You believe what is behind Polaris?
Why are you afraid to clarify your own comments?
It’s a simple concept. Is there a “navel” of the universe?
If there were, could we see it?
There are a lot of theoretical physics/math surrounding this point — i.e. even if there were a “center” of the universe, which direction should we look for it?
In addition, should not space seem to be expanding in all directions.
There are conflicting observations, but it’s not clear we observe the universe moving from us in all directions (which theoretically an expanding universe from a big bang should produce).
The speculation about a empty area (e.g. a navel), could only be proven if we had sufficient resolution power to observe a vacated space, and matter going in different vectors around it.
What it seems we can observe today is the following
1) Not all parts of the universe are going away from us at the same speed
2) There is a *lot* of missing matter in the universe (dark matter) we can’t see (based on making the numbers work for the Big Bang Expansion).
Gerald L. Schroeder is an MIT Astrophysicist who has written 5-6 books on the harmony of science/scripture. I have read a few of his books. Here’s one.
http://www.amazon.com/Genesis-Big-Bang-Discovery-Harmony/dp/0553354132/ref=ntt_at_ep_dpt_3
He ranges from theoretical math to information theory, chaos theory, etc. a great read.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
