What Could Cause a Big Crunch in the Expansion of the Universe?

[LtDan]

My own particular region of the universe --- the region of me --- was started off, I am dead sure, by my father and my mother nearly seventy-two years ago. Whether or not they decided to start it off, I cannot say for certain. They never confided in me about such matters.

I am not lacking in imagination, by the way. I am, after all, the originator of the raisinbread universe idea, and that idea requires belief in an infinite universe --- an infinite sized mass of dough and raisins existing without a pastry chef ever having been involved.

 

[Chalnoth]

I am not lacking in imagination, by the way. I am, after all, the originator of the raisinbread universe idea,

No, you aren't. Not by a long shot. With a very quick online search, for example, I found this:
http://theory.uwinnipeg.ca/mod_tech/node216.html

According to the date on the website, it's nearly 10 years old. I'm sure the raisin bread analogy is much, much older than that. I can't honestly recall where I first heard it. I believe it may have been in Carl Sagan's Cosmos series, which was released back in 1980.

and that idea requires belief in an infinite universe --- an infinite sized mass of dough and raisins existing without a pastry chef ever having been involved.

You're making some very unreasonable conclusions here. First, it is completely unreasonable to extrapolate out to infinity from a local, expanding region. The universe may be infinite. It may not be. We know it's very large, of course, but that doesn't mean it's infinite.

And the claim that there was some intentionality involved in starting off our universe is completely ridiculous and has no place whatsoever in science. I could go on and on about precisely why this is, but I feel I've spent far too long on the topic already.

 

[Atomic Number]

While we don't yet know how our region of the universe got its start, we are working towards the answer. And we can be pretty darned near certain that whatever started it off, it almost certainly not was any sort of entity that decided to start it off. Far, far more likely is that it is just a naturalistic process that happens all the time.

And the claim that there was some intentionality involved in starting off our universe is completely ridiculous and has no place whatsoever in science. I could go on and on about precisely why this is, but I feel I've spent far too long on the topic already.

Chalnoth, you have no problem saying you don't know X, Y, Z about the universe, and it's nice to see that because for whatever reasons a lot of professional scientists, or people who just like science, cannot say that very often.

The exception for you (and many other science-loving folks) is when it comes to the whys and wherefores behind the start the universe. In that case, you know with as close to certainty as possible about something that I would argue is the #1 most unknowable thing for humanity.

There's a lot that science cannot explain, and which does not belong in science, as you correctly point out. But what's truly ridiculous is believing science is the arbiter in such matters, because at that point it's not science, either - it's faith in something that can never be proven, which is the foundation of your criticism.

And, no, this is not an argument for religion, atheism, or anything else outside the realm of science, because everything outside the realm of science runs into the same problem. Feel free to believe whatever you believe, I honestly do not care, nor do I care to argue your beliefs against mine or anyone else's because it's pointless in the grand scheme of things, and, on a much smaller scale, irrelevant to this forum. All I'm saying is that science has its limitations, and I don't understand why it can be so hard to acknowledge that.

 

[Chalnoth]

Except this is a question about what happened, which is most definitely within the domain of science.

 

[Atomic Number]

If we don't know how the universe began, except that it's completely ridiculous to think that some intentionality was involved, that is not a what it is a why. It's also not science.

 

[Fredrik]

And the claim that there was some intentionality involved in starting off our universe is completely ridiculous and has no place whatsoever in science. I could go on and on about precisely why this is, but I feel I've spent far too long on the topic already.

I'll say it then. It's because including gods or other supernatural things in our theories would deprive them of their predictive power. In fact, they wouldn't make any predictions at all, so they wouldn't be scientific theories anymore. They would just be "sets of statements" that can't be falsified, and therefore have nothing to do with science.

...the radiation detected by Penzias and Wilson that so many people believe --- and some say know --- is an echo of the Big Bang. I don't believe it is, but most others disagree. I think --- speculate --- that it's a humming sound or signal created by all matter as it expands in size.

If it was, there would be more of it coming from regions where there is more matter nearby. We would see a lot of it if we look towards the Andromeda galaxy, and even more if we look towards the center of our own galaxy. So your speculation is clearly wrong.

Note that the reason why Chalnoth could be "dead sure" that you were wrong is a good quality of your speculation: that it has observable consequences. Unfortunately those consequences disagree with experiments that have already been performed.

If we don't know how the universe began, except that it's completely ridiculous to think that some intentionality was involved, that is not a what it is a why. It's also not science.

What exactly are you saying is "not science"?

 

[Atomic Number]

What exactly are you saying is "not science"?

The two quotes I pulled from Chalnoth's otherwise excellent reasoning in this whole discussion have zero to do with science. Maybe in 975,600,001 years, if humanity is still around, we might finally have some answers to hard questions. Maybe it will only take 29,487,656 years. Maybe there is absolutely no way intelligent life can fully understand the origins of everything there ever was, is and will be, even if you have $$\infty$$ years to study the situation. Either we're theoretically capable of knowing this stuff or we aren't. Right now I don't know and neither does anyone else.

As a big fan of science, I prefer science to stick with science and not assume the burdens of theology, philosophy, etc.

 

[Rymer]

Many engineers have a different viewpoint than the 'typical scientist'.

Engineers realize that ANY problem can and will have more than one solution. Generally its an assumed fact of nature.

Many scientists seem to believe that ultimately there is only 'one correct and true' answer. Yes, they do know that the current answer is not complete -- but they still seem to believe in the concept that there exists such an answer.

Sometimes the engineer has trouble telling the difference in the mindset of a scientist and that of a faithful follower of a religion.

 

[LtDan]

Chalnoth,

No one involved in this discussion has so far made a claim that there was "intentionality" involved in the creation of the universe. I do not believe the universe was ever created. I believe it is probably infinitely old and without spatial boundaries. Teleology is not involved in my raisinbread universe.

Fredrik,

That Penzias and Wilson humming noise, I speculate, is the radiation signal given off by all matter in the universe as it expands, including the invisible matter, or dark matter, that makes up the matrix of the universe. It comes from all matter, and not just from the matter we can see, so there would not be an enhancement or concentration of the signal coming from particular areas of the universe.

 

[Chalnoth]

Atomic Number,

You're apparently attempting to put science into a little box which doesn't exist. I don't know precisely why you are attempting to do this, though obviously I have my suspicions. The fact of the matter remains that science is not a static bunch of rules. Science is, at its heart, disciplined inquiry. Nothing more, nothing less. There are no artificial boundaries to science. No rules that are not open to argument.

As a result, because it is entirely possible to engage any hypothesis whatsoever in a reasoned, disciplined manner, there just isn't anything to which science cannot have some say. Now, what science says may be, "That is a bad question," or, "The answer to that is completely arbitrary," but that doesn't mean you can't approach the question, whatever it is, in a reasoned, disciplined manner. And in this case, the question involved isn't even that bad: there most definitely is an answer to what process generated our region of the universe. We don't yet know what that answer is, but it is easy enough to put some very strict bounds upon the possibilities presented by various religious groups: not bloody likely.

 

[Chalnoth]

Many engineers have a different viewpoint than the 'typical scientist'.

Engineers realize that ANY problem can and will have more than one solution. Generally its an assumed fact of nature.

Many scientists seem to believe that ultimately there is only 'one correct and true' answer. Yes, they do know that the current answer is not complete -- but they still seem to believe in the concept that there exists such an answer.

There's a fundamental difference between there existing more than one solution to a problem and more than one correct answer to a question regarding the nature of reality. Scientists are imminently familiar with the concept of their being more than one solution to a problem, as they encounter it all the time in doing their work, work which is, by large, problem solving. This is perhaps most striking in biology, where different organisms find different solutions to the same environmental problems all the time. For example, where whales and seals use blubber for insulation, otters use very thick fur. Same problem (keeping warm in water), different solutions.

But when it comes to a question of the nature of reality, well, it's simply logically impossible for a proposition that is sufficiently specific to be both true and false at the same time. That would be a contradiction. Therefore there can only ever be one correct answer to a sufficiently specific question about the nature of reality. Note that the "sufficiently specific" qualifier is necessary here, and one of the parts of science that takes up quite a lot of time is learning how to word questions specifically enough that there is one and only one answer. It's not always easy. With the above, for instance, the question, "How do mammals who live in the water keep warm?" isn't specific enough: there are multiple ways. "How do otters keep warm?" is, however, a specific question with a specific answer, even if that answer may be a little complex (it's not quite as simple as, "otters use fur," as there are other things involved, but that is definitely part of it).

Sometimes the engineer has trouble telling the difference in the mindset of a scientist and that of a faithful follower of a religion.

This accusation is thrown around all the time by people whose beliefs science challenges, or among those who feel that such beliefs are somehow to be respected regardless of their lack of evidentiary support. It doesn't hold up under any amount of reasoned inquiry, however.

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth,

No one involved in this discussion has so far made a claim that there was "intentionality" involved in the creation of the universe. I do not believe the universe was ever created. I believe it is probably infinitely old and without spatial boundaries. Teleology is not involved in my raisinbread universe.

As I've said, that conclusion is unreasonable at this time. It may be infinitely old and without spatial boundaries (note: it can also be finite without spatial boundaries). But by no means is there good evidence to say it is.

Fredrik,

That Penzias and Wilson humming noise, I speculate, is the radiation signal given off by all matter in the universe as it expands, including the invisible matter, or dark matter, that makes up the matrix of the universe. It comes from all matter, and not just from the matter we can see, so there would not be an enhancement or concentration of the signal coming from particular areas of the universe.

That's not going to work, as dark matter surrounds the normal matter. Or, more accurately, normal matter exists within clumps of dark matter. The statement that Fredrik posted still works.

I should say, though, that I hadn't thought of the point that Fredrik posted, though it's a good one. I was merely thinking of the multitudinous independent tests of the CMB that make it completely unreasonable to conclude it is anything different than the "last light" of the big bang, without really powerful evidence to suggest otherwise. It was clear to me that you had no such evidence, so I feel I was completely justified in being nearly certain that your statement regarding the nature of the CMB was flat wrong.

Of particular interest is the Baryon Acoustic Oscillation data. This analysis takes the CMB data, and our understanding of how matter behaves at those early times, and makes a very specific prediction as to how nearby galaxies should be distributed. Basically, the idea is that most of the time, as you go to larger and larger average separations between galaxies, there are fewer and fewer galaxies. But at a certain distance scale, there is a small increase in the number of galaxies, before dropping off again. Detailed observations of the distribution of galaxies show this 'bump' clear as day, and at precisely the magnitude predicted, to within experimental errors.

 

[Rymer]

That's not going to work, as dark matter surrounds the normal matter. Or, more accurately, normal matter exists within clumps of dark matter. .

If you are referring to non-baryonic dark matter, that has still to be shown.

 

[sylas]

If you are referring to non-baryonic dark matter, that has still to be shown.

... actually, all available evidence does strongly indicate precisely that. As is usual in science, it is not a formal proof. But the evidence for non-baryonic dark matter includes galactic rotation curves and gravitational lensing, and both these lines of evidence do indeed show that normal (baryonic) matter is found within clumps of dark matter.

Cheers -- sylas

 

[Rymer]

... actually, all available evidence does strongly indicate precisely that. As is usual in science, it is not a formal proof. But the evidence for non-baryonic dark matter includes galactic rotation curves and gravitational lensing, and both these lines of evidence do indeed show that normal (baryonic) matter is found within clumps of dark matter.

Cheers -- sylas

sylas, I can actually point to galactic rotation curves and gravitational lensing as 'proof' it DOESN'T exist too. All depends on the model used. And this is NOT MOND.

Amazing stuff 'dark matter' -- has a big gravity effect but hangs around in a halo outside galaxies (but not all of them) and is never seen near baryonic matter in our solar system.
Only 'detectable' when needed to explain anomalies of 'mainstream' models.

 

[Chalnoth]

If you are referring to non-baryonic dark matter, that has still to be shown.

Huh? Gravitational lensing observations show quite succinctly that the dark matter is concentrated in the same locations as galaxies (though somewhat more smoothly-distributed...basically each galaxy tends to sit within a much more massive and physically larger clump of dark matter).

 

[Chalnoth]

sylas, I can actually point to galactic rotation curves and gravitational lensing as 'proof' it DOESN'T exist too. All depends on the model used.

That is just arbitrarily disregarding the evidence.

Amazing stuff 'dark matter' -- has a big gravity effect but hangs around in a halo outside galaxies (but not all of them) and is never seen near baryonic matter in our solar system.
Only 'detectable' when needed to explain anomalies of 'mainstream' models.

It's not "outside" of galaxies. It's just more smoothly-distributed. And the reason why it is more smoothly-distributed is exactly the same reason why we don't see it: it doesn't interact magnetically.

You can do simple calculations of the expected dark matter distribution in our own solar system, by the way, and it's quite a bit below the level of detectability. At least for now. Perhaps in the coming decades this will no longer be the case, though I strongly expect that by then we'll have strong positive detection of the particles that make up dark matter anyway, and will therefore know pretty well what the local density of dark matter is.

 

[Rymer]

That is just arbitrarily disregarding the evidence.


It's not "outside" of galaxies. It's just more smoothly-distributed. And the reason why it is more smoothly-distributed is exactly the same reason why we don't see it: it doesn't interact magnetically.

You can do simple calculations of the expected dark matter distribution in our own solar system, by the way, and it's quite a bit below the level of detectability. At least for now. Perhaps in the coming decades this will no longer be the case, though I strongly expect that by then we'll have strong positive detection of the particles that make up dark matter anyway, and will therefore know pretty well what the local density of dark matter is.

OK -- that kind of dark matter. WIMP.

So this dark matter, only has weak and gravity forces.

What is amazing to me is that 'gravity' -- the weakest of all -- is modeled as warping space-time. While all the other stronger forces have a transport or interchange particle
basis. Not clear why gravity is so special.

However, apparently this dark matter somehow has mass, minimum clumping -- hangs around vaguely -- in varying amounts? -- and is also called 'collision-less'?

Have I described it properly?

 

[Atomic Number]

Chalnoth, who said there were bad questions and good questions? Who said this was about religion? You're missing the point. You don't know anything for sure about the universe - EXCEPT that some sort of entity almost certainly didn't create it. That's as speculative as anyone who says it almost certainly was. How has, in your words, "disciplined inquiry" determined this in either way?

Of course science can try to tackle any subject. That's not the same as saying it answers all questions, or has the capability to answer everything that is unanswerable now. Science is powerful, important and necessary but it does have its limits, and to not even acknowledge those limitations is to be incredibly undisciplined. Your beliefs cloud your judgment as much as all those "various religious groups," whoever they are and whatever they're saying. All I'm talking about is science.

 

[Chalnoth]

So this dark matter, only has weak and gravity forces.

Not necessarily. Everything interacts gravitationally, so obviously it's going to do that. But it's not clear what other forces it interacts with. It is possible that it interacts via the weak force, or it may interact via some other interactions. We don't yet know for certain because we haven't detected it definitively.

What is amazing to me is that 'gravity' -- the weakest of all -- is modeled as warping space-time. While all the other stronger forces have a transport or interchange particle
basis. Not clear why gravity is so special.

These aren't necessarily so different. The primary reason we model the other forces as using interchange particles is because they are strong enough that we can relatively easily determine how they interact in a quantum manner. With gravity it isn't so easy.

By contrast, it is relatively easy to model electricity and magnetism in terms of curved space-time: all you need to do is include the electromagnetic action in with the matter action. Mathematically it's not terribly easy, but it's been done.

However, apparently this dark matter somehow has mass, minimum clumping -- hangs around vaguely -- in varying amounts? -- and is also called 'collision-less'?

Have I described it properly?

I don't know why people find it so hard to believe that something like this might exist. Neutrinos have all of the properties required to be the dark matter, except for the fact that they don't have enough mass. So all we need there to be is a neutrino-like particle with more mass.

 

[Chalnoth]

Chalnoth, who said there were bad questions and good questions? Who said this was about religion? You're missing the point. You don't know anything for sure about the universe - EXCEPT that some sort of entity almost certainly didn't create it. That's as speculative as anyone who says it almost certainly was. How has, in your words, "disciplined inquiry" determined this in either way?

Sorry, the two statements are not remotely symmetrical. One analogy I like to use is this: the truth is like a bullseye on a dartboard. If you enter the room with the dart board with your eyes closed (you don't even know which wall it's on, or how high it is), and just throw the dart, the chance that you'll hit the dartboard, let alone the bullseye, is vanishingly small.

This is akin to somebody who makes a positive claim without supporting evidence.

The statement that any sort of entity intentionally created the universe is a positive claim made in the complete absence of any sort of evidence. As such, it is almost certainly false.

Of course science can try to tackle any subject. That's not the same as saying it answers all questions, or has the capability to answer everything that is unanswerable now. Science is powerful, important and necessary but it does have its limits, and to not even acknowledge those limitations is to be incredibly undisciplined. Your beliefs cloud your judgment as much as all those "various religious groups," whoever they are and whatever they're saying. All I'm talking about is science.

Oh, I am perfectly aware of the limits of science. I just don't recognize the arbitrary limits that people like you place upon it. Nor do I have the cartoonish view of science that you attribute to me.

And you may note that I am not the one that brought up a creator. I will say, however, that the very idea of a creator is a distinctly religious idea. Accusing me of being the one that is bringing religion into this is laughable. I'm merely the one that pointed out that that's what is being talked about.

 

[LtDan]

I apoloigize for bringing up the idea of the raisinbread universe. I didn't mean to get people fighting with one another.

 

[Chalnoth]

I apoloigize for bringing up the idea of the raisinbread universe. I didn't mean to get people fighting with one another.

The problem wasn't that you brought out this idea. It was that you tried to compare it to a religious one in order to promote it.

 

[LtDan]

I don't recall trying to compare the raisinbread universe idea to any religious concept. I think that must have been someone else. I am not at all religious. I think every religion that I have ever heard of is superstition.

 

[apeiron]

The statement that any sort of entity intentionally created the universe is a positive claim made in the complete absence of any sort of evidence. As such, it is almost certainly false.

.

While rejecting god style answers, fine tuning would be a legitmate kind of evidence here. There is the question of how was something so particular created.

And then complexity is a second strand of evidence. We know there are some kinds of creating entities (us humans) so there could be larger scale versions.

Something is going on that simple reductive science is struggling to grasp.

But what follows from that? You can either go the god route - look for an intentional creator. Which is obviously unsatisfactory for so many reasons.

Or you can instead look for creating processes. Which would lead you towards system science, downwards causality, hierarchy theory, etc.

 

[Chalnoth]

I don't recall trying to compare the raisinbread universe idea to any religious concept. I think that must have been someone else. I am not at all religious. I think every religion that I have ever heard of is superstition.

Then why did you pull out the typical creationist canard that a universe with a beginning has to have a creator?

 

[Chalnoth]

While rejecting god style answers, fine tuning would be a legitmate kind of evidence here. There is the question of how was something so particular created.

And then complexity is a second strand of evidence. We know there are some kinds of creating entities (us humans) so there could be larger scale versions.

Something is going on that simple reductive science is struggling to grasp.

But what follows from that? You can either go the god route - look for an intentional creator. Which is obviously unsatisfactory for so many reasons.

Or you can instead look for creating processes. Which would lead you towards system science, downwards causality, hierarchy theory, etc.

I do not understand what you are saying here.

 

[apeiron]

I do not understand what you are saying here.

And I'm sure you really tried. :rofl:

You said there is completely no evidence so the burden is all on the other party.

I said there is evidence of a sort. Both kinds accepted as such by others in these kinds of discussion.

1) finetuning needs explaining.

2) At least some examples of intentional beings are known to exist.

So either:

1) You try to firm up a traditional god-type argument.

2) You look towards modern broader notions about creation processes.

 

[Chalnoth]

And I'm sure you really tried. :rofl:

You said there is completely no evidence so the burden is all on the other party.

I said there is evidence of a sort. Both kinds accepted as such by others in these kinds of discussion.

1) finetuning needs explaining.

2) At least some examples of intentional beings are known to exist.

Neither is evidence that even suggests a creator, though. First, those beings that are known to exist that have such intentions are built from a process of evolution within our own universe. If you want to posit that our own universe might have been the result of somebody's experiment in some other universe, I suppose you're welcome to it. But such a hypothesis doesn't help us uncover the process by which our universe came about.

Second, fine tuning may need explaining, but positing a deity doesn't do that, as a deity is in even more need of explaining than the fine tuning itself! Another way of tackling this fine tuning argument is simply to point out that "I don't know" does not equate to "clearly this hypothesis must be correct". An argument from ignorance is not an argument at all.

So no, no evidence at all.

 

[apeiron]

So no, no evidence at all.

If you stick your fingers in your ears then you can definitely ignore what you don't hear.

Fine-tuning is widely accepted amongst academics as a problem that demands some kind of selection process, whether weak or strong. It is not a conclusive point, but certainly a reason to delve further.

Likewise, human existence is a fact. And part of science will be including humans in the general physical picture in some natural way.

Do these two things demand us to leap towards god-style theories? Not at all. Gods patently do not cut it. But they are justification for a leap towards some ontology more broadly based.

Which I suggest is option 2. The various brands of holism or systems science which can add notions like downwards causality to the intellectual mix.

 

[Chalnoth]

If you stick your fingers in your ears then you can definitely ignore what you don't hear.

Fine-tuning is widely accepted amongst academics as a problem that demands some kind of selection process, whether weak or strong. It is not a conclusive point, but certainly a reason to delve further.

I didn't say it didn't require explaining. Just that positing an intelligent entity is not an explanation, because the intelligent entity is, by definition, more complex than that which it purports to explain.

Likewise, human existence is a fact. And part of science will be including humans in the general physical picture in some natural way.

Do these two things demand us to leap towards god-style theories? Not at all. Gods patently do not cut it. But they are justification for a leap towards some ontology more broadly based.

Which I suggest is option 2. The various brands of holism or systems science which can add notions like downwards causality to the intellectual mix.

This doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you're proposing some sort of vague mystical nonsense that falls into the exact same category as positing a god.

 

[apeiron]

This doesn't make any sense to me. It sounds like you're proposing some sort of vague mystical nonsense that falls into the exact same category as positing a god.

I am proposing the opposite. But never mind. I can see that you are comfortable with the completeness of your worldview. Only savage races speaking in mad tongues can exist beyond the world you know. Even if a few of those savages have nobel prizes in physics.

 

[Rymer]

"Beware of the man who works hard to learn something, learns it, and finds himself no wiser than before... He is full of murderous resentment of people who are ignorant without having come by their ignorance the hard way."
-- Kurt Vonnegut

----

 

[Chalnoth]

I am proposing the opposite. But never mind. I can see that you are comfortable with the completeness of your worldview. Only savage races speaking in mad tongues can exist beyond the world you know. Even if a few of those savages have nobel prizes in physics.

Well, you haven't elucidated your point so that I can actually present a definite opinion. But the vague ways in which you are framing it make me extremely suspicious.

And if you don't think your worldview is insane nonsense, then you should be able to elucidate clearly and concisely why it is a reasonable worldview. Though I will admit this is not the place.

 

[LtDan]

No evidence of what?

I am --- or was --- a trial lawyer. I really like evidence, but it must be evidence of something.