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

Singularity in infinite space-time

  1. Jul 29, 2012 #1
    in an empty infinite space time, there lies the possibility that something came from nothing, since infinity encompasses everything. yes? no? i assume that the matter that appear out of thin air, with out any external intervention in my belief. was Hydrogen. the simplest element in the table. coincidentally having 1 proton and 1 electron. (singularity) for when pressurized and heated create the rest of the elements we know now.
    with that conclusion, I must ask. if space-time was at equilibrium before matter appear. when it did, did it only disturb space directly, and indirectly time? or did it affect both equally?

    i assume not, I reason that, if they had been affected equally, then there would be no need for the expansion of space. since it would have stayed at equilibrium. which brings me to my next point, maybe the explanation of time progression.
    since space can not exist within matter but time can, which is where the disturbance appears.
    to try and find equilibrium, more space-time is created to account for where time exist but space does not. also maybe creating the progression of time in the process. and since space-time are one, only more space time can be created never being able to reach equilibrium, it expands at an increasing rate because the time it wasn't able to match in the last time gets added to the next time. thus creating and exponential expansion. space tries to affect matter the only way it can by pushing it, but since it is all around the matter we get the shape of most celestial objects.
    this is as far as i have developed the idea if you could break this apart and nit pick it it would be most welcomed :)
  2. jcsd
  3. Jul 29, 2012 #2


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    Infinity doesn't imply that everything is possible.There are infinite odd numbers. That doesn't mean that there must be an odd number which is even, somewhere out there.
  4. Jul 29, 2012 #3
    with numbers is a bit hard to use that expression, since number which we created follow rules set up on them by us.
    but does infinity encompass every possibility? if it does then my argument would hold true.
    plus your asking for something that meets one of two states, so its a contradiction since it has to be one or the other, if an even number was odd then its odd, it can't as far as i see it be both.
    Last edited: Jul 29, 2012
  5. Jul 29, 2012 #4


    User Avatar

    And I suppose you counted them all?
  6. Jul 29, 2012 #5


    User Avatar

    No, space can exist without matter - a vacuum has nothing in it. When a vacuum tries to suck stuff into it, it's not sucking - it has no energy - matter is trying to push it's way into empty space. There are vacuum fluctuations but for most of the time space is empty.

    Space time usually refers to the dimensions of our world. We have 3 spatial dimensions and one time dimension. All the matter in our universe appears to fit in 3 dimensions, and we notice time. Those are the dimensional rules of our universe.

    I have an idea about the vacuum - true empty space. That it has infinite dimensions, and allows you to put whatever you'd like in it. Because it simultaneously has no dimensions and infinite dimensions.

    I'm too tired to think about it right now. But in my idea the vacuum allows all kinds of contradictions to happen, and at the same time forbids things. That it might allow two completely different universes to exist in the same place - or that our dimensions might mean we're curled up tightly in another universe.
  7. Jul 29, 2012 #6
    I think you have a contradiction in your opening sentence. If your spacetime is empty, then the probability of there being something anywhere in it must, by definition, be zero. So I agree with Khashishi's analogy- having lots of room for things to happen in doesn't mean that things will actually happen, especially if you define the room specifically as one in which things cannot happen.

    "infinite" and "everything" are far from synonymous.
  8. Jul 29, 2012 #7
    sorry misread, i stated that space can not exist inside of matter, which is how celestial bodies curve space.
  9. Jul 29, 2012 #8
    well if space-time existed before matter, which is my starting statement, if you throw a dice with infinite amount of sides, with one side stating that matter appears. after and infinite amount of throws, eventually it will land on matter appearing.
    and if space-time is infinite, it encompasses all possibilities, how can something lie outside of infinity, when it comes to possibilities?
    even the fact that the laws of nature can breakdown as they do in black wholes.
  10. Jul 30, 2012 #9
    But there are no dice in empty space- so there cannot be any throws in the first place. I don't know what makes you think an infinite space implies infinite possibilities, but I'm very sure that this assertion is wrong.
  11. Jul 30, 2012 #10
    ok well now that there is matter in the infinite space-time that we live in that actually does imply that if matter is infinite all possibilities with the matter will occur, i'm just thinking of before matter started if it wasn't always there.
    also its impossible for anyone to know whether empty space-time isn't going through possibilities at all time. that why this are called theories. its to see if something is possible and or probable.
    we can't know for sure that if space-time was empty. maybe it wasn't i DONT know its an idea. don't be so negative in the forums and just state no. explain so the other person can have a better view of your train of though and how you came to your conclusion. its a learing process not a trial of right and wrong.
    i'm not saying your wrong because i don't know, i'm giving my opinion and thoughts for discussion. since nothing is certain in out universe you can't say for certainty that your statement is any more valid than mine.

    if you hold yourself to close to your opinion, without knowing that you could be possibly wrong, you leave room for hatred and unkindness.
    have a awesome day bro.
  12. Jul 30, 2012 #11


    User Avatar
    Science Advisor

    If you defined your terms and stated your premises carefully enough then you might be able to take the above and convert it into something mathematically precise enough to be refuted.

    As it stands, I cannot make coherent sense of it.

    Let me try to flesh out a particular version of what you might mean.

    Suppose that the universe were infinite and discrete and arranged in a three-dimensional grid. Suppose that each cell in this grid could either contain or not contain a unit of mass.

    Suppose that you could try and try again, as many times as you like to lay this universe out in various random or non-random patterns.

    There was a fellow named Cantor who proved long ago that in such a setup there are always patterns that are possible but which do not actually occur.

    [There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply]

    A discussion of this does not belong on the "General Physics" forum. Possibly it could go into General Mathematics, but I doubt that Cantor bashing is good grist for that mill either.
  13. Jul 30, 2012 #12


    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    That's stretching it to the limit, and wrong. Science relies on theory AND evidence. This does not mean that anything is possible. So this does not help your argument at all. I'd also recommend reading the forum rules:

    "Generally, in the science discussion forums we do not allow the following:
    • Personal theories or speculations that go beyond or counter to generally-accepted science

    When a member posts in PF, he/she must be prepared to be challenged scientifically. Threads may also eventually be moved/closed. No need to get upset by any of this.
  14. Jul 30, 2012 #13
    The problem here I think is that you don't understand what you mean (or what other people mean) when they say 'infinite universe' (I'm substituting universe for space-time here).
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  15. Jul 30, 2012 #14
    ok i know that i can not fully express in a coherent manner what my idea is. i'm no where near an expert.
    but in your statement, yes i know you are quoting a proven statement. but it doesn't make sense when you have an infinite amount of possibilities, infinity is hard to grasp. synonyms of infinity help understand it a bit better. it is incalculable, never ending and with out number.
    we have a hard time conceiving something that never stops but it doesn't mean that it has limits. it is limitless we can't calculate what and infinite amount of matter in an infinite amount of space can conjure up. so like you stated [There are technical details about the number of tries you get as compared to the number of locations in the universe in order for Cantor's proof to apply]. but here we are talking about infinity, so cantors proof doesn't apply in this case.

    thanks for critisism, i'm going to try and better explain my point and see if i can conjure up some type of formula, but i'm not the brightest kid. so don't expect much.
  16. Jul 30, 2012 #15
    Ok, umm well before proof of something can be put forward an idea has to be developed, like Einstein general relativity theory. it sat in the patent office for 10 years before he realized how to prove or back up his theory by realizing that if space time is being bent, then looking beside a massive object would show light curving.

    my theory would be proven if we could observe matter appearing from no where. unlikely but maybe. because if it happened in the beginning of the universe as a possibility, then that possibility would be repeated and infinite amount of times, also giving us infinite matter. after that it gets twisted and hard to grasp but it is not going against any generally accepted rules. most current theories are based after the big bang and the structure of the universe. i'm asking about the possibility of space appearing from nothing in an empty infinite space-time (IF space-time existed before matter did) and its consequences and results.

    and i wasn't being scientifically challenged when told "But there are no dice in empty space- so there cannot be any throws in the first place. I don't know what makes you think an infinite space implies infinite possibilities, but I'm very sure that this assertion is wrong."
    how does he know there were no possibilities in empty space? why doesn't infinite space and time not equal infinite possibilities, who stated that and what is their reasoning?

    i'm not expecting people to search for me i'm also looking but the amount of information out there is too much to sift through so in a forum of physic (and maybe i should have put it under cosmology but fine its my first post) i though people would read my post and say ohh hey take a look at this it might help answer your confusion, or ask me questions about why i think this.

    jbriggs444 made a scientifically challenging statement so i thanked him and will try and better explain myself. mikeW didn't have any source nor train of though in his statement.

    and not mad just bro just would like smart responses, though hopefully in lay man terms since if you can't explain something simply, you do not understand it well enough hahaha

    it learning man, don't be so up tight, if you disagree with my post, then ignore or report me. but give a thorough reason why.

    and also we actually don't know whether something is 100% true, what we have is the best explanation given at the time, thats how science progresses. newton was proven wrong by Einstein, which at the time before it was proven it was seen as foolish and outrageous.
    now i'm not trying to prove any one wrong just asking about a though that from what i've seen other people have had but with no proper counter argument given.

    anything else you want to add sir? : ) if not then i wish you the best in this learning experince we call life. Peace
  17. Jul 30, 2012 #16
    i've done my best to grasp the infinity of space-time, i believe everything is possible. though not probable but that why i ask. i won't state your wrong in your assumption. i know i don't understand infinity well enough since it is incalculable and measureless and unimaginable.
    but my best though would be the everything is possible since if we can't imagine nor calculate the amount of thing that exist out there then, most likely all is possible, we don't know what happens inside a black hole, we just assume by the laws we think it has from what we can observe. maybe instead of being densely packed and curving space time to an extreme, maybe it is just the opposite of my idea. instead of matter appearing from nothing it is matter disappearing into nothing, though that breaks a rule of matter/energy not being able to be destroyed. but if matter did appear from nothing then i'm sure the opposite would also be possible.
    don't you think? just try and follow my train of though so you can give me some constructive criticism.
    don't just state i'm wrong and don't understand, if i thought i understood then i wouldn't have asked for others opinions' i would have just made a statement with a closed thread
    thanks though hopefully people can get a better understanding from this. as i have.
  18. Jul 30, 2012 #17
    can 1 thing be outside of infinite space-time? if it can then yes infinite doesn't include everything.
    now it is possible that everything doesn't include infinite, as the observable universe which is all we know is not the extend of the universe. everything is all the known things infinite is that plus the unknown? maybe?
  19. Jul 30, 2012 #18


    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2017 Award

    Yes. I was trying to help you, bro. :wink: Peace.
  20. Jul 30, 2012 #19
    a bit of some more info, matter curves space because they can not exist in the same place, therefore curving space. but does matter curve time? now i know that time seems to progess faster at higher altitudes. i just wonder that if time and space are one, and matter only affects space directly by curving it, and time indirectly by its affect on space.
    so when a planet bend the space does the space get more condense therefore making it seem as if time is traveling slower closer to the matter.
    imagine instead of how most of the time space time is represented on pics as a flat space bending below an object.
    imagine a spider web. the closer to the center(matter) the less distance between each grid line, when you exit the web, that is where space time are at equilibrium, and not being affected by matter making time travel at its normal speed. but close to matter, space is more condense making time seem to move slower.
    Last edited: Jul 30, 2012
  21. Jul 30, 2012 #20
    i know, and i thank you. though i know i sound sarcastic in my statement, which i was a little bit i do thank you.
    do you still think my post and theory violates the rules and that my response to mikew was wrong in my part?
Share this great discussion with others via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook