Can infinity fit in the palm of your hand

[YummyFur]

I'm currently trying to reassess my image of the BB and the universe in general.

I've been led to believe/understand that at the moment after the creation event the universe would fit millions of times within the space occupied by a single subatomic particle.

However there's something wrong here because the universe is infinite yet without a boundary (so I'm told) therefore it was still infinite when it was smaller and I can't see how it suddenly stops becoming infinite, I mean it's either infinite or it is not.

Therefore at the moment of creation when the universe was the Planck length in size it still must have been infinite.

My question is this... how do I visualise this infinite yet tiny object.

 

[DaveC426913]

No, the universe is finite yet without boundary.

Your fears are unfounded.

 

[phinds]

No, the universe is finite yet without boundary.

Your fears are unfounded.

Dave, I thought that was still an open question. Not so?

 

[Drakkith]

Is there a difference between distance WITHIN the universe, and the size OF the universe? Not sure if that makes any sense though.

 

[mrspeedybob]

If the universe is finite, then immediately after the BB it would have been very small. If the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite. Immediately after the BB it would have been infinite in volume, yet extremely dense.

When people say things like "X time after the big bang the universe was the size of a grapefruit" what they usually mean is that all the matter in the current observable universe was in a volume the size of a grapefruit. What exists outside our observable universe still existed then, just outside the grapefruit sized sphere. Don't take it to mean all of existence was wrapped up in a grapefruit.

 

[YummyFur]

No, the universe is finite yet without boundary.

Your fears are unfounded.

Is there a better way then of visualising the nascent universe than as point like object as say one would visualise a proton.

If the above is true (a proton like universe), I'd like to then know if it is valid to picture the universe at the earliest possible time in it's evolution as occupying the smallest possible quantum of spacetime. In which case all that would ever exist (in the Universe) was already existent albeit in a dormant form.

 

[Drakkith]

Is there a better way then of visualising the nascent universe than at point like object as say one would visualise a proton.

Mrspeedybob's post seems good to me. Instead of trying to imagine ALLLLL of the universe, even that beyond the observable universe, just imagine the observable universe as that size.

 

[YummyFur]

If the universe is finite, then immediately after the BB it would have been very small. If the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite. Immediately after the BB it would have been infinite in volume, yet extremely dense.

When people say things like "X time after the big bang the universe was the size of a grapefruit" what they usually mean is that all the matter in the current observable universe was in a volume the size of a grapefruit. What exists outside our observable universe still existed then, just outside the grapefruit sized sphere. Don't take it to mean all of existence was wrapped up in a grapefruit.

What would be your reaction to the suggestion that at the instant of the creation of time and space and stuff that everything that is within the current universe, whether observable or not, would have occupied the smallest possible quantum of spacetime. Is this a valid point of view.

 

[Drakkith]

What would be your reaction to the suggestion that at the instant of the creation of time and space and stuff that everything that is within the current universe, whether observable or not, would have occupied the smallest possible quantum of spacetime. Is this a valid point of view.

Claiming that the universe could fit within X volume implies that there is a definite size of the universe itself. I'm not sure I agree with that, as it conflicts with my limited understanding of the way it works.

 

[YummyFur]

Claiming that the universe could fit within X volume implies that there is a definite size of the universe itself. I'm not sure I agree with that, as it conflicts with my limited understanding of the way it works.

This is precisely what I'm trying to understand. How to visualise this nascent object. How do you picture it in a way that is consistent with what you understand?

 

[phinds]

My own impression had been that the whole concept is a difficult one (for me anyway) in that the universe was smaller at the time of the big bang than it is now but that it still occupied all of space and was therefor infinite. To say that implies that "all of space" would therefore have had to have been a size that we would consider finite is wrong and this is both the essence of what I believe to be the case and also the thing I can't really get my head around.

Dave, I'm still waiting to hear from you from post #3

 

[Drakkith]

This is precisely what I'm trying to understand. How to visualise this nascent object. How do you picture it in a way that is consistent with what you understand?

I don't try to picture the universe as being "inside" of something, such as another dimension. If you could go back to 1 billion years after the big bang, everything would be much much closer together in space, however there would still be no boundary to the universe, no edge. It would be without limits. Whether this is because the universe is actually infinite in size or because it is closed and going past a certain point just means you come back around to your starting point, I don't know.

 

[Chronos]

The 'true' size of the universe is unknown [and possibly unknowable]. The little patch within which we reside, aka the observable universe, is and always was finite.

 

[DaveC426913]

Please note that there was no matter - no "object" - anywhere near the beginning of the universe. Matter did not even come into existence until tens of thousands of years after the BB had expanded and cooled.

The post-BB universe during that time was comprised entirely of energy. How much light can you fit in a room? As much as you want. Photons (bosons), unlike fermions, do not take up space.

That's how it is possible to have it fit in a small space.

 

[YummyFur]

@Chronos, but what about at the instant of creation, is it possible to speak of the size of the entire universe then?

 

[marcus]

If the universe is finite, then immediately after the BB it would have been very small. If the universe is infinite then it has always been infinite. Immediately after the BB it would have been infinite in volume, yet extremely dense.

When people say things like "X time after the big bang the universe was the size of a grapefruit" what they usually mean is that all the matter in the current observable universe was in a volume the size of a grapefruit. What exists outside our observable universe still existed then, just outside the grapefruit sized sphere. Don't take it to mean all of existence was wrapped up in a grapefruit.

What would be your reaction to the suggestion that at the instant of the creation of time and space and stuff that everything that is within the current universe, whether observable or not, would have occupied the smallest possible quantum of spacetime. Is this a valid point of view.

Claiming that the universe could fit within X volume implies that there is a definite size of the universe itself. I'm not sure I agree with that, as it conflicts with my limited understanding of the way it works.

This is precisely what I'm trying to understand. How to visualise this nascent object. How do you picture it in a way that is consistent with what you understand?

Yummy, since we do not KNOW whether time and space began at the start of expansion (BB) there is not one unique correct mental image. The BB may have been a bounce, our U could have been contracting till it reached a density high enough that quantum effects make gravity repel---and then the contraction rebounded. Quite a lot of the research effort is on that kind of model these days. So far there is no scientific reason to think that time and space began at the BB.

So there is no one correct way to picture the BB. The BB is simply the start of expansion. It may or may not be a "creation" of anything. Could simply be a bounce at very high density.

Also we don't know if the U had a FINITE SIZE OR NOT at the moment of the BB.
Cosmologists work simultaneously with two different versions of the standard model cosmos---finite and infinite. In the same technical paper you may see two tables, one with numbers for the finite volume case and one for the infinite volume case. Or you may have just one table with separate columns of numbers.
IT IS PREMATURE TO COMMIT to one mental picture or the other.

AFAICS everything in these two posts by SpeedyBob and Drakith is correct. One cannot say that the U had some definite size. It is unscientific to claim this because we do not have evidence of that. It COULD have, but we do not know that yet. (So Drakith is right.)

And like SpeedyBob says, there is the currently observable chunk, just a limited region of the U that we have gotten light from so far. We are sure there is more out there. The model must include the rest or it wouldn't work. It is not like we have evidence of an "edge".
Even if the total U is finite, the evidence suggests it is many times bigger than our observable chunk. And it may be infinite. I would suggest keeping both images in mind.

Have a look at the first link in my signature, immediately below this sentence where it says "einstein-online".

 

[YummyFur]

Please note that there was no matter - no "object" - anywhere near the beginning of the universe. Matter did not even come into existence until tens of thousands of years after the BB had expanded and cooled.

That's just my bad terminology, by 'object' I did not necessarily mean 'matter' specifically, for my purposes I consider 'energy' to be an object.

So redefining 'object' to mean 'anything that exists' would you be happy to accept that at the smallest possible increment of spacetime after the creation event, that all that currently exists was existent at that first moment, albeit in an undifferentiated or unmanifest form

 

[DaveC426913]

That's just my bad terminology, by 'object' I did not necessarily mean 'matter' specifically, for my purposes I consider 'energy' to be an object.

Hrm. I was rather hoping that, with the realization that object versus energy was a critical shift in mental models, you'd say 'Ohhh! Ah! I see now.'

So redefining 'object' to mean 'anything that exists' would you be happy to accept that at the smallest possible increment of spacetime after the creation event, that all that currently exists was existent at that first moment, albeit in an undifferentiated or unmanifest form

Well... yes. That's the general understanding.

 

[YummyFur]

Also we don't know if the U had a FINITE SIZE OR NOT at the moment of the BB.
Cosmologists work simultaneously with two different versions of the standard model cosmos---finite and infinite. In the same technical paper you may see two tables, one with numbers for the finite volume case and one for the infinite volume case. Or you may have just one table with separate columns of numbers.
IT IS PREMATURE TO COMMIT to one mental picture or the other.

So IF the universe was a bounce then that makes our universe special insofar as it's not going to bounce again. Isn't that a little strange? If it originated from a bounce then then how many bounces would there have been before the BB seeing as it ain't going to bounce no more. It can't be between one and infinity because infinity can neither begin nor end and since our universe is the final bounce (if there was a bounce) there cannot have been an infinite amount of bounces. All in all it seems to me that a bouncing universe does not make sense if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

 

[Drakkith]

So IF the universe was a bounce then that makes our universe special insofar as it's not going to bounce again. Isn't that a little strange? If it originated from a bounce then then how many bounces would there have been before the BB seeing as it ain't going to bounce no more. It can't be between one and infinity because infinity can neither begin nor end and since our universe is the final bounce (if there was a bounce) there cannot have been an infinite amount of bounces. All in all it seems to me that a bouncing universe does not make sense if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Just because we see accelerating expansion currently, does not mean that it will continue. We don't even know the reason for the expansion, only that it is occurring. (Although I'm almost certain there are several theories) In the view of inflation after the BB, something had to cause it and something had to cause it to end. Remember that all of the theories on the BB and on the end of the universe are VERY tenuous and only represent our current knowledge on the subject, which is improving as time goes on. If there is something that will cause the universe to stop expanding 10 billion years from now, well there's pretty much no way for us to even know about it yet!

The short version of this is pretty much take the views on the beginning and end of the universe with a grain of salt and stick to the middle!

 

[YummyFur]

Hrm. I was rather hoping that, with the realization that object versus energy was a critical shift in mental models, you'd say 'Ohhh! Ah! I see now.'

;¬)

Well... yes. That's the general understanding.

That's good because I'd like discuss in a new thread the concept of 'consciousness' as the substantive form of the universe rather than an attribute of a material substance which is how it is commonly perceived. In a sense this would be the grand unification.

 

[Drakkith]

That's good because I'd like discuss in a new thread the concept of 'consciousness' as the substantive form of the universe rather than an attribute of a material substance which is how it is commonly perceived. In a sense this would be the grand unification.

That's probably against PF rules on personal theories, so I would be careful.

 

[DaveC426913]

That's good because I'd like discuss in a new thread the concept of 'consciousness' as the substantive form of the universe rather than an attribute of a material substance which is how it is commonly perceived. In a sense this would be the grand unification.

I don't know how you got from the Big Bang to consciousness but, generously, that would be considered a personal theory. A better term would be woo-woo-ism.

Either way, PF isn't the place for it.

 

[marcus]

... All in all it seems to me that a bouncing universe does not make sense if we accept that the expansion of the universe is accelerating.

Well that case has been studied. It may not make sense to you, but it makes sense to the computer that runs the model

You ask "isn't that a little strange?" I think the answer is no, it is not especially strange. For example the U can have always existed and have been contracting until the bounce occurred some 14 billion years ago.
That is one case that has been studied a lot. No more strange than that the U has been existing always in a steady state. Less, I'd say. (steady state is not stable, contraction and expansion each are stable modes according to Gen Rel.)

The deSitter U is one of the oldest models, and it does this. No beginning. Long contraction followed by bounce, followed by long (accelerating) expansion. Dates from around 1917 as I recall. We are used to that face of existence. Perhaps you think existence itself strange? But given that the U exists, eternal existence seems no more inherently strange than existence that fails in one way or another to be eternal.

 

[YummyFur]

@Drakkith, this is precisely why I wished to clarify that nothing more that what existed comes into existence other than in a different form. If I proceed I will choose my words carefully. Is it analogous to say when you pick up a stone and place it on a table, seeing as you have increased it's potential energy you have therefore increased its mass. The analogy is between the seemingly intangible property of energy and the substantial property of mass.

 

[YummyFur]

I don't know how you got from the Big Bang to consciousness but, generously, that would be considered a personal theory. A better term would be woo-woo-ism.

Either way, PF isn't the place for it.

If that's the case then fair enough. However just as a scientific method is to look at matter and ask the question, 'what is this stuff' wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that at the BB that whatever matter (or anything) is ultimately it already was at the BB, albeit in another form.

And as we look around us we wonder, 'what is this stuff'. Also quantum physics keeps bringing in the concept of 'an observer', and therefore is not it reasonable to also delve into, in a scientific way precisely what this 'observer' is? Without using fuzzy language or metaphysical concepts.

 

[YummyFur]

I don't know how you got from the Big Bang to consciousness ...

Simply that 'consiousness' whatever it is, was already existent because as you have already agreed it must have been albeit in a form other than how it is understood. It just seems to me to be a simple logical conclusion.

 

[Drakkith]

@Drakkith, this is precisely why I wished to clarify that nothing more that what existed comes into existence other than in a different form. If I proceed I will choose my words carefully. Is it analogous to say when you pick up a stone and place it on a table, seeing as you have increased it's potential energy you have therefore increased its mass. The analogy is between the seemingly intangible property of energy and the substantial property of mass.

Energy is an abstract quantity but it is not intangible. Energy has mass too!

If that's the case then fair enough. However just as a scientific method is to look at matter and ask the question, 'what is this stuff' wouldn't it be reasonable to conclude that at the BB that whatever matter (or anything) is ultimately it already was at the BB, albeit in another form.

Sure. But since we have models that say it was there as energy, I don't really see your point.

And as we look around us we wonder, 'what is this stuff'. Also quantum physics keeps bringing in the concept of 'an observer', and therefore is not it reasonable to also delve into, in a scientific way precisely what this 'observer' is? Without using fuzzy language or metaphysical concepts.

An observer can be anything that a particle interacts with, such as another particle. It has no relation to consciousness.

Simply that 'consiousness' whatever it is, was already existent because as you have already agreed it must have been albeit in a form other than how it is understood. It just seems to me to be a simple logical conclusion.

There is a difference between something like energy and mass existing and not yet forming into matter, and something like a Hurricane. A hurricane is an emergent phenomena I think, (Not sure if that term is correct) as could be argued with consciousness. This means that the combination and interaction of simple building blocks constructs something much more complex than any of its parts individually. But I guarantee you that this hurricane did not exist at the BB.

 

[YummyFur]

Energy is an abstract quantity but it is not intangible. Energy has mass too!

Was I not already acknowledging that in my post which you quoted from, when I said that 'as potential energy is increased, so is the mass'?

Sure. But since we have models that say it was there as energy, I don't really see your point.

My main point is in fact the precise opposite of your final conclusion, that consciousness is an 'emergent' property.

There is a difference between something like energy and mass existing and not yet forming into matter, and something like a Hurricane. A hurricane is an emergent phenomena I think, (Not sure if that term is correct) as could be argued with consciousness. This means that the combination and interaction of simple building blocks constructs something much more complex than any of its parts individually. But I guarantee you that this hurricane did not exist at the BB.

A hurricane is a name for a form of matter and energy. I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.

 

[Ryan_m_b]

Guys and Gals please keep to the discussion at hand. Off-topic posts from now on will be deleted.

 

[Cosmo Novice]

Guys and Gals please keep to the discussion at hand. Off-topic posts from now on will be deleted.

GZ on the PF mentor status Ryan! Maybe we can have some good moderation on the "FTL warp drive" inventors and the "lets colonise Mars in the next few weeks" promoters!

 

[Drakkith]

A hurricane is a name for a form of matter and energy. I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.

Then you should find a good philosophical forum for this idea then, as this is not the place for that topic.

 

[DaveC426913]

I am positing consciousness as the material substance of the world, literally.

Yep. Not the place for it. Thread marked for closure.

 

[phinds]

Simply that 'consiousness' whatever it is, was already existent because as you have already agreed it must have been albeit in a form other than how it is understood. It just seems to me to be a simple logical conclusion.

Yummy, I've been very pleased to see how polite everyone has been about this post. Often the response to such things is quite abrupt. Although several folks have told you nicely that this is not the place for such speculation, they perhaps should have added that you really need to read the forum rules about overly speculative posts so that you'll better understand why you have been getting this message. This is a great forum but it is a SCIENCE forum and far-out theories, particularly ones that are not falsifiable, don't fly.

 

[Hootenanny]

This stopped being science a long time ago, if it ever was.

Thread closed.