Halibut Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If you assume it was created or caused you will always have a problem with infinite regression. In my humble opinion it is infinite and as always existed. How does the big bang fit into that view? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JFKvsNixon Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 How does the big bang fit into that view? What about: Big bang - Universe expands - Gravity stops the expansion - Gravity then pulls everything together cause what is know as "the Big Crunch" - When all the mater is compressed to a single point in the universe a Big Bang occurs - Go back to the beginning. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 How does the big bang fit into that view? Easily the universe is constantly changing, what we can see is an insignificant portion of the infinite universe. In other parts that we cannot see gravity could already be creating more singularities that will eventually explode to start new systems of galaxies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Yes you would, but nobody ever did invoke that assumption merely because they had to find a cause for the Universe. Indeed it was never assumed at all; quantum fluctuations were discovered. Are you implying that cosmologists are of the opinion that quantum fluctuations aren't attributable to creating the universe after all? Why would cosmologists come up with the quantum fluctuation theory if they never intended to make the assumption that the universe was created by quantum fluctuations? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
HeadingNorth Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 Are you implying that cosmologists are of the opinion that quantum fluctuations aren't attributable to creating the universe after all? They may be. The point, though, is that cosmologists didn't invent the quantum fluctuation theory in order to account for the Universe's creation. The Universe's creation does not need to be accounted for! Saying that there does not have to be a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean that there is no reason; quantum fluctuations have been observed and are known to exist, and calculations show that given a sufficiently hard vacuum there could easily be a quantum fluctuation big enough, and unstable enough, to create the entire Universe out of it. The theory comes from that evidence and calculation, not out of an illogical insistence on believing that the Universe cannot exist unless something caused it to do so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 They may be. The point, though, is that cosmologists didn't invent the quantum fluctuation theory in order to account for the Universe's creation. The Universe's creation does not need to be accounted for! It does need to be accounted for when you present a theory which claims quantum fluctuations created the universe when you're not able to explain why quantum fluctuations existed before the universe existed. Posted by HeadingNorth Saying that there does not have to be a reason for it to exist, doesn't mean that there is no reason; quantum fluctuations have been observed and are known to exist, and calculations show that given a sufficiently hard vacuum there could easily be a quantum fluctuation big enough, and unstable enough, to create the entire Universe out of it. The theory comes from that evidence and calculation, not out of an illogical insistence on believing that the Universe cannot exist unless something caused it to do so. In order for the quantum fluctuation theory to work, cosmologists need to refrain from asking themselves the blindingly obvious question- 'If we're claiming that quantum fluctuations don't need a cause for their existence, how can we then say the opposite about a creator that didn't need a cause for it's existence? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 If you assume it was created or caused you will always have a problem with infinite regression. In my humble opinion it is infinite and as always existed.In my opinion, you'd be faced with the very same infinite regressive loop if you insisted the universe is infinite and has always existed. If the universe has always existed, it must have always been in a perpetual state of expansion, ie, the 'big bang' and 'big crunch' theories would become redundant because neither one could precede the other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
MrSmith Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 In my opinion, you'd be faced with the very same infinite regressive loop if you insisted the universe is infinite and has always existed. If the universe has always existed, it must have always been in a perpetual state of expansion, ie, the 'big bang' and 'big crunch' theories would become redundant because neither one could precede the other. There doesn’t have to be a big crunch to get the big bang, the vacuum of space if full of quarks which I believe are the building blocks of matter. Because they exist through infinite time it was inevitable that sooner or later they would create the visible universe we can see. It is likely that there will be other areas of the universe outside our view that resemble our visible universe. The problem science as now about one area of our visible universe is a rapid expansion that they can’t account for, hence dark matter. But it’s just as likely that our visible universe is being attracted by a separate area of matter that formed after a different big bang to our own. It’s likely there have been infinite big bangs. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
danot Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 There doesn’t have to be a big crunch to get the big bang, the vacuum of space if full of quarks which I believe are the building blocks of matter. Because they exist through infinite time it was inevitable that sooner or later they would create the visible universe we can see. It is likely that there will be other areas of the universe outside our view that resemble our visible universe. The problem science as now about one area of our visible universe is a rapid expansion that they can’t account for, hence dark matter. But it’s just as likely that our visible universe is being attracted by a separate area of matter that formed after a different big bang to our own. It’s likely there have been infinite big bangs.But we don't know anything about quarks themselves. We know where to find them, we know what they do, but we don't know how they form or what they consist of, which only complicates the matter further. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jim Hardie Posted October 30, 2011 Share Posted October 30, 2011 There doesn’t have to be a big crunch to get the big bang, the vacuum of space if full of quarks which I believe are the building blocks of matter. Because they exist through infinite time it was inevitable that sooner or later they would create the visible universe we can see. It is likely that there will be other areas of the universe outside our view that resemble our visible universe. The problem science as now about one area of our visible universe is a rapid expansion that they can’t account for, hence dark matter. But it’s just as likely that our visible universe is being attracted by a separate area of matter that formed after a different big bang to our own. It’s likely there have been infinite big bangs. My bold: a) A vacuum can't be full of anything. b) Monkeys and typewriters? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.