Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

Eternal recurrence

  1. May 8, 2003 #1
    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
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 8, 2003 #2

    Eh

    User Avatar

    What is the finite space/energy/matter in infinite time theory?
     
  4. May 8, 2003 #3
    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.
     
  5. May 8, 2003 #4

    Eh

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  6. May 8, 2003 #5
    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?
     
  7. May 8, 2003 #6

    Eh

    User Avatar

    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.
     
  8. May 8, 2003 #7
    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
     
  9. May 8, 2003 #8
    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.
     
  10. May 8, 2003 #9

    chroot

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Eh: please don't feed the crackpots.

    - Warren
     
  11. May 8, 2003 #10
    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?
     
  12. May 8, 2003 #11

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Why not ? :wink:
     
  13. May 8, 2003 #12
    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.
     
  14. May 8, 2003 #13

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Re: Why things do not explode out of the blue.

    Forgetting for a moment that QM says this
    law is violated on microscopic scales,
    is this law absolute ? Did it always apply ?
     
  15. May 8, 2003 #14

    russ_watters

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    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 univers 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.

    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).
     
  16. May 8, 2003 #15
    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".
     
  17. May 8, 2003 #16
    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 univers 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
     
  18. May 8, 2003 #17

    drag

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    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 :wink:.

    Live long and prosper.
     
  19. May 8, 2003 #18
    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
     
  20. May 8, 2003 #19

    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
     
  21. May 8, 2003 #20

    megashawn

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    On some tracks, yes.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?



Similar Discussions: Eternal recurrence
  1. Is matter eternal ? (Replies: 5)

Loading...