Can the Infinite Time Theory Be Refuted in Cosmology?

[Sauwelios]

Lectori salutem.

This seems like a cosmological question, so I will put it here:

Can anyone refute the finite space/energy/matter in infinite time theory?

Thanks in advance.

Sauw

 

[Eh]

What is the finite space/energy/matter in infinite time theory?

 

[Sauwelios]

Finite space/energy/matter implies that the universe is not something endlessly extended, but set in a definite space as a definite force.

Infinite time implies that it has never begun to become and will never cease from passing away.

 

[Eh]

But what theory in specific are you referring to? Typical theories have space and time being inseparable. In other words, you can't have time without space.

 

[Sauwelios]

Does it matter to which theory I am referring? Can you refute the hypothesis that the universe consist of a finite amount of energy (in whatever manifestation) that flows on in an infinite stream? Not infinitely deep or wide, but infinitely long?

 

[Eh]

By infinite stream do you mean infinite time? So the hypothesis is a universe finite in size, but infinite in time.

If so, there are several problems with the idea. For one, the expansion of the universe makes the idea a problem. Wind the clock back on an expanding universe, and you hit a singularity - a beginning to space and time.

Even if the universe was static not expanding, the problem of entropy arises. If time was infinite, the energy in the universe would be in the form of useless radiation, which means no stars, planets or galaxies.

 

[Sauwelios]

Can you give me a link to an intelligible account of the expansion-theory? With that I mean an account that is not all mathematics, but neither patronisingly simplified.

TIA Sauw

 

[Sauwelios]

On second thought: No, the expansion-/big bang-theory does not oppose the idea of infinite time: that notion is simply the consequence of two thousand years of creationism (Christianity). It is not as if "it all started with a big bang": for if the state of the universe <i>before</i> the big bang was one of equilibrium, the big bang could never have happened: it implies instability.

 

[chroot]

Eh: please don't feed the crackpots.

- Warren

 

[Sauwelios]

Do you have any positive contribution to the discussion, Warren?

My argument is sound: the big bang-theory implies instability. Or did you think things exploded out of the blue?

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Sauwelios
Or did you think things exploded out of the blue?

Why not ?

 

[Sauwelios]

Why things do not explode out of the blue.

"Nothing can come of nothing. Speak again."

- King Lear


The law of cause and effect states that an effect - an explosion, for instance - must have a cause; and that this cause, in turn, is also an effect, the effect of a cause, which in turn is caused by the effect of an effect of an effect etcetera etcetera.

A more modern version of this law is the law of the conservation of energy.

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Sauwelios
A more modern version of this law is the law
of the conservation of energy.

Forgetting for a moment that QM says this
law is violated on microscopic scales,
is this law absolute ? Did it always apply ?

 

[russ_watters]

Originally posted by Sauwelios
On second thought: No, the expansion-/big bang-theory does not oppose the idea of infinite time: that notion is simply the consequence of two thousand years of creationism (Christianity). It is not as if "it all started with a big bang": for if the state of the universe <i>before</i> the big bang was one of equilibrium, the big bang could never have happened: it implies instability.

What everyone is trying to say (though maybe not succinctly enough) is this: Since at the Big Bang, there was a singularity (sorta like a black hole) that is the point of the beginning of time. Time is a property of the universe that came into existence at the big bang.

There has been speculation about what came "before" the big bang - but its academic. It is not part of our current universe and is therefore meaningless in a discussion about our universe.

Time, at the very least, had a beginning and the beginning was at the big bang.

"Nothing can come of nothing. Speak again."

- King Lear


The law of cause and effect states that an effect - an explosion, for instance - must have a cause; and that this cause, in turn, is also an effect, the effect of a cause, which in turn is caused by the effect of an effect of an effect etcetera etcetera.

A more modern version of this law is the law of the conservation of energy.

To the best of my knowledge, neither King Lear, nor Shakespeare were cosmologists. The laws of cause and effect and conservation of energy do not apply to the big bang theory. The big bang is a starting point. A boundary condition. For the purposes of the theory, there was no "before" so therefore no "cause."

It is also important to note that the big bang theory is incomplete. The laws of physics start to break down when you get within a few nanoseconds of it. So it works pretty well only up to that point (and even then, the specifics are still being worked on).

 

[quantumcarl]

Originally posted by Sauwelios
Do you have any positive contribution to the discussion, Warren?

My argument is sound: the big bang-theory implies instability. Or did you think things exploded out of the blue?

In what way, to you, is an explosion a sign of instability?

Explosions are actually very balanced actions... all the physical laws are in place the minute before, during and after an explosion.

Perhaps you are projecting your own opinion and ego-centric anthropomorphic idealism into the action of an explosion... or, in this case... into the "big bang".

 

[Sauwelios]

Well well - an INTERESTING reply! How nice...

"Since at the Big Bang, there was a singularity [...] that is the point of the beginning of time. Time is a property of the universe that came into existence at the big bang."

Yes. The space-time continuum.

"There has been speculation about what came "before" the big bang [...] It is not part of our current universe and is therefore meaningless in a discussion about our universe."

I don't think so. One can infer what came before it from the conditions of the "current universe", because it is an expanding universe and is therefore reducible.

I did not mean this to be a discussion of the CURRENT universe but of the whole universe. Every explosion follows an implosion. It is a necessity similar to the process of inhaling and exhaling. Or are you saying that you can either exhale or keep your breath indefinitely?

"To the best of my knowledge, neither King Lear, nor Shakespeare were cosmologists."

A baker is not a butcher, but that does not mean that he can't slaughter a pig.

"The laws of cause and effect and conservation of energy do not apply to the big bang theory. The big bang is a starting point. A boundary condition. For the purposes of the theory, there was no "before" so therefore no "cause.""

Does the road end at the finish-line?

"It is also important to note that the big bang theory is incomplete. The laws of physics start to break down when you get within a few nanoseconds of it. So it works pretty well only up to that point (and even then, the specifics are still being worked on)."

Thank you for your contribution to this thread.

Regards, Sauwelios

 

[drag]

Greetings !

Originally posted by russ_watters
To the best of my knowledge, neither King Lear,
nor Shakespeare were cosmologists.

Indeed.

quantumcarl, those are great graphs in
a wonderful variety of colors, but,
if I may dare to ask, what do they mean ?

Sauwelios, since it is impossible to observe
infinity in time or space it's a bit difficult
to argue either way about it .

Live long and prosper.

 

[Sauwelios]

quantumcarl wrote:

In what way, to you, is an explosion a sign of instability?

Explosions are actually very balanced actions... all the physical laws are in place the minute before, during and after an explosion.

Perhaps you are projecting your own opinion and ego-centric anthropomorphic idealism into the action of an explosion... or, in this case... into the "big bang".


Dear Carl,

Take, for example, a nuclear explosion. Such an explosion occurs because the nucleus is intentionally destabilised. It would not occur if the nucleus were not disturbed by pesky little scientists...

"With greatness - that means: cynically and with innocence."
- Friedrich Nietzsche

Now for your actual statement, or rather, for that which is suggested by that statement: a "normal" explosion takes place WITHIN the space-time continuum. But in the case of the big bang it was the universe ITSELF which exploded - along with all the physical laws applicable within that universe.

Thank you for your - ever so prudent - description of my typical activity: the philosophical.

Sauwelios

 

[Sauwelios]

Originally posted by drag
Greetings !

Indeed.

quantumcarl, those are great graphs in
a wonderful variety of colors, but,
if I may dare to ask, what do they mean ?

Sauwelios, since it is impossible to observe
infinity in time or space it's a bit difficult
to argue either way about it .

Live long and prosper.

Therefore, the doctrine of eternal recurrence stands unrefuted. - Thus it might be true! That means: you may live this life, just as long and as prosperous as (I hope) it is now, again and again. And again.

Better make the best of it while it lasts.

Sauwelios

 

[megashawn]

Does the road end at the finish-line?

On some tracks, yes.

 

[Sauwelios]

So you're saying that the cars either crash into a brick wall or ride of a cliff? Highly unlikely in an official race with sponsors and all...

 

[quantumcarl]

Sawelios, you say:

"Every explosion follows an implosion"

As far as I know this is an erronious assuption. What implosions were there that set off the explosions in Iraq recently?

As for 'instability" in a nuclear explosion... these types of explosions are a result of natural laws of balance... they are, in effect, a function of balance. When the labguy splits an atom, this tiny, insignificant little action results in an equal and opposite, hummungous action... known to us as a nuclear explosion.

There is no implosion before hand... unless you want to go sentimental and metaphoric on us and say the spliting of an atom is a form of mental implosion..."philosophically speaking".

One more example would be the lighting of a stick of dynamite. The flame that ignites the fuse is not imploding anything. Its expanding the easily excitable molecules of gunpowder on the fuse... and causeing a chain reaction of small explosions which cause a larger one when they get to the stick of dynamite. No implosion here either.

What is it you're trying to get at in this thread?


Drag:

The diagram is a visualization of String dynamics... right click on the image, go to properties and copy the address and paste it into your address bar, hit Enter and you will be near the paper that accompanies the image.

 

[Sauwelios]

Originally posted by quantumcarl
Sawelios, you say:

"Every explosion follows an implosion"

As far as I know this is an erronious assuption. What implosions were there that set off the explosions in Iraq recently?

The bombs that you are talking about implode on impact; the fact that this makes them explode is secondary...

As for 'instability" in a nuclear explosion... these types of explosions are a result of natural laws of balance... they are, in effect, a function of balance. When the labguy splits an atom, this tiny, insignificant little action results in an equal and opposite, hummungous action... known to us as a nuclear explosion.

They are a function of balance, yes - i.e. a function of balance and imbalance: what use is it to talk of balance without the notion of - if only relative - imbalance? Stable, that means: stable enough not to collapse - relatively stable. There is no such thing as true stability: this notion, like the idea of "moments", for instance (in-stants!), is - like all words! - "a rudimentary survival from the age of superstition" (with Nietzsche): words are used to pin something down. One cannot observe the life of a butterfly after it's pinned down to a piece of cardboard... "Stability" implies that the subject stand still, which is only theoretically possible, namely at the zero point of the absolute temperature scale of Kelvin, which cannot be reached, but only approached.

There is no implosion before hand... unless you want to go sentimental and metaphoric on us and say the spliting of an atom is a form of mental implosion..."philosophically speaking".

One more example would be the lighting of a stick of dynamite. The flame that ignites the fuse is not imploding anything. Its expanding the easily excitable molecules of gunpowder on the fuse... and causeing a chain reaction of small explosions which cause a larger one when they get to the stick of dynamite. No implosion here either.

I think you are making the mistake of listening to what your common sense tells you: it also says that a flash of lightning moves from the thundercloud to the Earth's surface, and that the sun revolves around the earth. I do not have the time to go into your examples. Ask an explosives-expert.

What is it you're trying to get at in this thread?

"To impose upon becoming the character of being - that is the supreme will to power.

"That everything recurs is the closest approximation of a world of becoming to a world of being: - high point of the meditation."

- Friedrich Nietzsche, The Will to Power, section 617

 

[drag]

Originally posted by Sauwelios
Therefore, the doctrine of eternal
recurrence stands unrefuted. - Thus it might
be true! That means: you may live this life,
just as long and as prosperous as (I hope)
it is now, again and again. And again.

But, it also might not be true...

 

[Sauwelios]

"This doctrine is mild for those who do not believe in it, it knows no hell and no threats. Whoever does not believe has a <i>transient</i> life in his consciousness."

- Nietzsche, posthumously published fragment.

 

[heusdens]

The issue of time having a beginning or having no beginning, has been a long issue ever since in philosophy. Here is a contribution to this, written long before the Big Bang theory was discovered.

http://csf.colorado.edu/psn/marx/Archive/1877-AD/p1.htm#c5"