The universe before it began

Seed Magazine ^ | 5/22/06 | Maggie Wittlin

[Gordongekko909]

What's my definition of science?

[Stone Mountain]

3) just the right amount of matter so that the expansion slows at an ever decreasing rate that approaches (but never reaches) zero. This results in a non-cyclic universe with a finite, bound volume.

Good point - I forgot about option 3. The way I see it, though, is that there would have to be just enough volume to keep things relatively consistent or at least cyclic - in a cycle of slightly expanding and contracting as the ratio of the matter in the universe keeps changing with respect to the size of the universe. It seems to me that if expansion is constantly slowing, at some point in the future, it will hit zero - of course this would be on the scale of billions of years... At that point, it seems to me that the universe would eventually start to contract - the logic being that if there is enough matter in the universe to slow the expansion, the expansion will eventually stop or at least stop expanding at any significant rate. At that point, since the amount of matter in the universe should still be constant (conservation of mass), wouldn't that imply that the existing matter in the universe would act on the universe and reverse the process and start it contracting?

[LonePalm]

Talk about the mote in God's eye.

Garde la Foi, mes amis! Nous nous sommes les sauveurs de la République! Maintenant et Toujours!
(Keep the Faith, my friends! We are the saviors of the Republic! Now and Forever!)
LonePalm, le Républicain du verre cassé (The Broken Glass Republican)

[jwalsh07]

What's my definition of science?

Dunno, what's my golf handicap?

[Robwin]

"The "Hindu" and Buddhist cycle of creation and destruction." My thoughts exactly.

[<1/1,000,000th%]

Loop quantum gravity strikes again.

I heard they've found where all the missing socks go, as well.

[Gordongekko909]

Well, y'see, you made reference to my "definition of science." See post 96. And I don't recall giving a definition of "science" anywhere in this thread, but you nonetheless seem to know what my definition of "science" is. So I'm asking you to tell me what it is.

I do not claim to know your golf handicap.

[woofie]

I should have been born in the previous universes............

[BillT]

Who knows? But that's where the little buggers are assembled.:-) And science has observed this how many times?

[Radix]

These people have been reading too much Asimov!

[jwalsh07]

In order to offer a hypothesis on whether or not the universe will cease expanding, the guy doing the hypothesizing first has to know what causes the expansion and the nature of that force. To my knowledge, blue collar knowledge, nobody has those answers though it is posited that dark energy drives the expansion. What are the properties of dark energy? Your guess is as good as mine.

[jwalsh07]

Sorry, not playing word games today. If you have something to say defending this article as "science", say it. My position is clear, this is no more science than your interminable use of the dreaded sphagetti monster is.

[Gordongekko909]

'kay, then. Have a nice day, and may his Noodly Appendage guide and protect you.

[Gandalf_The_Gray]

It seems to me that if expansion is constantly slowing, at some point in the future, it will hit zero... At that point, it seems to me that the universe would eventually start to contract...

Tell you what, go get some graph paper and a calculator. Pick some random numbers to plug into this equation as "X" and plot the result. You'll see what I mean after a few numbers.

Y = 1/X

Anything divided by zero is infinity by definition so try some numbers that are very small like 0.0000001 and then try some that are very large like 1,000,000.

The graph of "Y" is said to be asymptotically approaching zero as "X" approaches infinity. That is every time you double "X", "Y" is cut in half but it only goes to zero when "X" equals infinity. To further confuse the issue "Y" also is asymptotically approaching infinity as "X" goes to zero. The graph of the function is said to have two asymptotes at Y=0 and X=0.

Regards,
GtG

[Stone Mountain]

I'm a former math major so I'm quite familiar with inverse relationships and assymtotes. Not sure what your point is, though. Mathematically, there are some functions that approach but don't get to zero. In the real world, however, you would have to show that there is some reason not to get to zero when a function is decreasing constantly. There might be some physical law in the universe that would constrain the function from reaching zero (and eventually negative if we are talking about the universe contracting) but I'm not familiar with why that would be.

[Stone Mountain]

In order to offer a hypothesis on whether or not the universe will cease expanding, the guy doing the hypothesizing first has to know what causes the expansion and the nature of that force. To my knowledge, blue collar knowledge, nobody has those answers though it is posited that dark energy drives the expansion. What are the properties of dark energy? Your guess is as good as mine.

That, I definitely agree with. The only point being that if the universe is expanding, but expanding at a slower rate than it once was, there is at least an implication that the rate will continue to slow absent more information. But yeah, dark matter and dark energy are more of an intellectual construct to make the equations come out more than they are observed phenomena. Hopefully, those theories won't go the way of the "ether" theory back in the day...

[Stone Mountain]

Unless you believe in G-d, the thought of something out of absolutely nothing is just not credible.

Doesn't that just push the question back a little further? Either God was created out of nothing, or he was always there. If the former, then the original contention is wrong. If the latter, why is it easier to believe that God was always there instead of the rest of the universe always being there?

[rbg81]

why is it easier to believe that God was always there instead of the rest of the universe always being there?

The underlying assumption is that G-d exists in this dimension--in our reality. Maybe he does, but maybe he doesn't. Consider the possibility that what we call G-d actually inhabits another dimension, totally hidden from us, but has absolute control over this dimension and (perhaps) others.

I sometimes imagine G-d as a computer programmer and we are the program. The program exists only in the computer and can only process what it is fed. Simulated characters in the program cannot perceive what is outside of their virtual environment (unless the programmer wants them to). Ultimately, the programmer has total control over the program and what it does (assuming he doesn't make mistakes). In this context, the Big Bang is akin to G-d pressing the ENTER key.

Even if you buy this analogy, something, somewhere had to come first. There had to be a primordial creator. However, I believe the nature of that entity will remain unknowable unless and until he makes it known to us. Even then, if the truth were right in front of us, we may not be able to comprehend it. While I have the utmost respect for science and scientists, in this case, I think all it can do is scratch at the surface of the truth.

[Cementjungle]

I always figured that there have been several Big Bangs. The Universe does the big bang, expands and eventually expands to a point then starts to collapse back on itself, resulting in another big bang and it all starts over again.

The universe might have done this trillion of times already, who knows.

Of course there still has to be something bigger, or something that created the whole mess in the first place; that would be God. Now when you try to explain how God came to be that's when the brain really gets fried!

[GW and Twins Pawpaw]

No way to know how many times its been observed without a review of the scientific literature but enough to establish it as fact. Elements are synthesized inside stars. This will continue until the star runs out of fuel.