# Zero to infinity can we assume same for universe ?

• rishi.sharma
In summary,This person is trying to develop physics theories by mathematical analogs, but is confused by the logic behind it. Zero to infinity and big-bang to infinity struck him as confusing, and he has a doubt about how universe came into existence. He also asks if we can assume same for universe. However, the fact that we don't know what happened before the Plank time makes it difficult to use this logic.

#### rishi.sharma

Zero to infinity...can we assume same for universe ??

Hi,
I am new to this forum,
Basically I am not a scientist(not at all), like others in the forum, I belong to computer and Network field,
However the science fantasies and attracts me very much just like others, ever since I was a kid , I fantasised about the space science, and as I grew older it continues to fantasize me more and more..

I was reading a topic created by a person , where he mentioned that "is mathematics the ultimate answer ??"

A logic of Zero to Infinity and Big-Bang to infinity struck me rather say it confused me...I have always heard that universe came out of nothing ! some say its big bang...

I have a doubt,rather say I just wanted to put it forward, - " Can we assume that just like mathematics begins from '0' and expands till 'infinity'...the same theory is responsible for creation of Universe ??... Just like there's practically/theoratically and logically no end to the numbers that can exist , same way there's no end to universe and the way it is expanding ??

but the fact that makes me more confused when using this logic is that , how does '0' came into existence,( i mean universe using this logic.)...I know I am confused about this but can someone throw some light to this logic please ?

Thanks,
Hrishi.

Trying to develop physics theories by mathematical analogs is nothing more than game people like to play.

Zero and infinity are well defined mathematical concepts.

What happened at time zero is an open question, although physicists have a good idea what happened immediately afterward. Infinity doesn't seem to play any role yet.

What happened at time zero is an open question,

Thats exactly what I was wondering about...:).

rishi.sharma said:

Thats exactly what I was wondering about...:).

"zero time" or "t=0" or "the big bang singularity" as it is often stated, is a "point in time" that you WOULD get to if you could wind the clock of the universe backwards from now to the beginning. I say "would" and "could" because, here's the problem (and this is just an expansion of what mathman said):

Physics, as it is currently understood, accounts very nicely for all events that occurred starting just AFTER that "t=0", but it does not, and cannot, explain what came before what is called the Plank Time, which is about 10E-43 seconds after the singularity.

SO ... for all we know, there were really large unicorns that butted heads just before the Plank time and that got out universe started. I think that's a pretty unlikely scenario, but we don't KNOW that didn't happen because we don't know what DID happen.

So physics can wind the clock backwards to the Plank Time, but cannot say ANYTHING about what happened before the Plank time. We call it a "singularity" which is verbal shorthand for "we do not have a *$#*#$* CLUE what happened"

(Search for Vagueness here on forums or google it up.)

Concept is about, say pre-existence, a state of perfect symmetry, where there isn't something, nor 'is' there nothing...

Put this to your idea of numbers representing Universe then Vagueness would be a piece of blank paper, where there is no number, then you write 0 and voila, Big Bang happens, then you write down numbers in order and Universe unfolds.

So, how did Universe come into existence by this model? By symmetry breaking. But why did it broke? Perhaps it is just a random event. My personal thought is though that something already existing initiated it, perhaps ever-present essence of something we understand as awareness.

In hope my post doesn't get deleted as being too speculative let me declare that I am just a layman and this here is just my personal view (original idea of Vagueness is not mine, and I refuse to accept that something can come out of nothing, while I'd never call quantum fluctuations to be nothing).

We call it a "singularity" which is verbal shorthand for "we do not have a *$#*#$* CLUE what happened
I hope that Singularity changes its meaning soon, with so much development in Technology.! :p
//
Btw Is it possible that rather than having one so called "Big-Bang", our universe in composed of many such big-bangs,which happened afterwards the first one, i.e. at t=0; the first bang took place, which further led to many other big-bangs ? I mean just like Nuclear Chain Reaction, ...is this theory valid or its just yet another hype ??
//
also I read somewhere that the big-bang was caused due to annihilation of matter-antimatter ...is that true ?? ...If yes then what would have happened to light/rays that were produced at t=0 due to annihilation ?? ,where would they have escaped to in something called nowhere , because light cannot travel in dimension-less medium(IDK),but with highest speed ,light would have been the first thing that was supposed to be escaping in every direction......
Please do shred some light on this...

//
well Bayon, not to worry as I am also layman and I am seriously a teenager trying to get his doubts solved and getting his misconceptions cleared by the physics masters...

The thought that you put forward was something that was before the beginning of big-bang ,... I just wanted to say there must be something present already, for something like this to occur and expand...because it seriously feels awkward to believe something can happen without anything...and if that was to be true...then this nothingess must be something...(i know this may sound wierd). :p

rishi.sharma said:
I hope that Singularity changes its meaning soon, with so much development in Technology.! :p

I would love to be wrong, but I think we are probably centuries away from knowing what the singularity was

//
Btw Is it possible that rather than having one so called "Big-Bang", our universe in composed of many such big-bangs,which happened afterwards the first one, i.e. at t=0; the first bang took place, which further led to many other big-bangs ? I mean just like Nuclear Chain Reaction, ...is this theory valid or its just yet another hype ??

I don't think that's even a theory ... I think it's just something you made up.

//
also I read somewhere that the big-bang was caused due to annihilation of matter-antimatter ...is that true ??

No, there WAS no matter or anti-matter before the big bang according to our current understanding.

...If yes then what would have happened to light/rays that were produced at t=0 due to annihilation ?? ,where would they have escaped to in something called nowhere , because light cannot travel in dimension-less medium(IDK),but with highest speed ,light would have been the first thing that was supposed to be escaping in every direction......
Please do shred some light on this...
I have no idea what you are talking about, but it doesn't sound like any physics I've ever heard of

The thought that you put forward was something that was before the beginning of big-bang ,... I just wanted to say there must be something present already, for something like this to occur and expand...because it seriously feels awkward to believe something can happen without anything...and if that was to be true...then this nothingess must be something...(i know this may sound wierd). :p

You need to read more about Quantum Mechanics before you make such a statement (and after reading more, you won't MAKE such a statement

Seriously, rishi, you should read up on this stuff and try to learn what's really going on instead of just putting out theories with no foundation in science.

okay, looks like I am fantasizing things rather than making a logic, ...probably being stupid asking such questions before really studying well about it...// I would seriously go and read about quantum mechanics as you said, because i seriously want to learn about this...but being just a beginer I might be asking such silly questions..anyways..thanks for replies...

rishi.sharma said:
okay, looks like I am fantasizing things rather than making a logic, ...probably being stupid asking such questions before really studying well about it...// I would seriously go and read about quantum mechanics as you said, because i seriously want to learn about this...but being just a beginer I might be asking such silly questions..anyways..thanks for replies...

Asking questions based on actual science is where you will get a lot of help here. It's a great forum, but it's a SERIOUS forum, and you need to base your questions on actual science, not just what you think might be fun to think about. It can seem a bit harsh at times, but if you decide to play in the deep end of the pool, you have to learn to swim.

By the way, if you do start to read Quantum Mechanics, stock up on headache pills.

Quantum mechanics ceases to make sense, once you begin to grasp it.

There are theories that our big bang was simply one of many. This idea goes under the name of eternal inflation. You can read about it here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
There are other ideas such as cyclic cosmology :
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5383
or that our universe bounced from a previous collapsing universe
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=big-bang-or-big-bounce
that our universe rescaled itself from a previous one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology
etc etc etc
If you would like to read more about them I suggest reading some of the many popular science books on the topic. Google auhtors such as Alan Guth, Neil Turok, Martin Bojowald, Alex Vilenkin, Roger Penrose, Sean Caroll. They have all written popular levels books on their ideas, although Penrose is probably the least for the layman out of the bunch. if I had to pick one Id pick:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385509642/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Its easier to follow than Guth's book and includes a good explantion of inflation and cyclic cosmology. Be aware that they are promoting their own model which they admit has not gained as widespread popular support. But it does cover two models whereas the others only cover one each.
Also these are great web sites to keep up to date:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
http://www.physorg.com/

Last edited by a moderator:
There are theories that our big bang was simply one of many. This idea goes under the name of eternal inflation. You can read about it here:
http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178
There are other ideas such as cyclic cosmology :
http://physicsworld.com/cws/article/news/5383
or that our universe bounced from a previous collapsing universe
http://www.scientificamerican.com/ar...-or-big-bounce
that our universe rescaled itself from a previous one
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Conformal_Cyclic_Cosmology
etc etc etc
If you would like to read more about them I suggest reading some of the many popular science books on the topic. Google auhtors such as Alan Guth, Neil Turok, Martin Bojowald, Alex Vilenkin, Roger Penrose, Sean Caroll. They have all written popular levels books on their ideas, although Penrose is probably the least for the layman out of the bunch. if I had to pick one Id pick:
https://www.amazon.com/dp/0385509642/?tag=pfamazon01-20
Its easier to follow than Guth's book and includes a good explantion of inflation and cyclic cosmology. Be aware that they are promoting their own model which they admit has not gained as widespread popular support. But it does cover two models whereas the others only cover one each.
Also these are great web sites to keep up to date:
http://www.sciencedaily.com/
http://www.physorg.com/

thanks for this ,
really appreciate for the info.:)

Last edited by a moderator:

Apart from its symbol I consider infinity as on the edge of physics and philosophy and defined as having no dimension, no beginning or end and therefore eternal. - it has always been there and always will. In this definition it follows that our universe is within infinity and there are infinite universes. It is an awesome, if not the most awesome, concept. Albert Einstein among others, said it was unknowable. Physicists and philosophers, maybe wisely, stay away from it. Thinkers from the Abrahamist group (Judaic, Christian and Muslim) tend to avoid infinity but not so the South East Asian thinkers who often incorporate it in their philosophies - the creationist concept is difficult to break free of. It still is a toss-up between infinity and some kind of alternative, usually involving loop within a field of absolute mystery. Back here on Earth another concept to avoid is divisional infinity - infinitely smallness within or around particles of energy - don’t go there.

gatena said:
Apart from its symbol I consider infinity as on the edge of physics and philosophy and defined as having no dimension, no beginning or end and therefore eternal. - it has always been there and always will. In this definition it follows that our universe is within infinity and there are infinite universes. It is an awesome, if not the most awesome, concept. Albert Einstein among others, said it was unknowable. Physicists and philosophers, maybe wisely, stay away from it. Thinkers from the Abrahamist group (Judaic, Christian and Muslim) tend to avoid infinity but not so the South East Asian thinkers who often incorporate it in their philosophies - the creationist concept is difficult to break free of. It still is a toss-up between infinity and some kind of alternative, usually involving loop within a field of absolute mystery. Back here on Earth another concept to avoid is divisional infinity - infinitely smallness within or around particles of energy - don’t go there.

I have no idea what you are talking about. Do you?

Smells like philosophy with a dash of (attempted?) comparative theology. Arggh! It burns! ;)

Chronos said:
Quantum mechanics ceases to make sense, once you begin to grasp it.

I'd have to disagree with this. I am a long way from grasping QM, and I can already tell that it makes no sense! lol. Good advice about the headache meds, though.

rishi.sharma said:
...also I read somewhere that the big-bang was caused due to annihilation of matter-antimatter ...is that true ?? ...If yes then what would have happened to light/rays that were produced at t=0 due to annihilation ?? ,where would they have escaped to in something called nowhere , because light cannot travel in dimension-less medium(IDK),but with highest speed ,light would have been the first thing that was supposed to be escaping in every direction......
Please do shred some light on this...

As already mentioned, the matter/antimatter bit is false. But there is a a kind of "light", rather it's radiation, that lingers from soon after the universe began. It's called the cosmic microwave background radiation, CMB.