Welcome to DU!
The truly grassroots left-of-center political community where regular people, not algorithms, drive the discussions and set the standards.
Join the community:
Create a free account
Support DU (and get rid of ads!):
Become a Star Member
Latest Breaking News
General Discussion
The DU Lounge
All Forums
Issue Forums
Culture Forums
Alliance Forums
Region Forums
Support Forums
Help & Search
Science
Related: About this forumMathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning
http://www.technologyreview.com/blog/arxiv/27793/?p1=blogsThe Big Bang has become part of popular culture since the phrase was coined by the maverick physicist Fred Hoyle in the 1940s. That's hardly surprising for an event that represents the ultimate birth of everything.
However, Hoyle much preferred a different model of the cosmos: a steady state universe with no beginning or end, that stretches infinitely into the past and the future. That idea never really took off.
In recent years, however, cosmologists have begun to study a number of new ideas that have similar properties. Curiously, these ideas are not necessarily at odds with the notion of a Big Bang.
For instance, one idea is that the universe is cyclical with big bangs followed by big crunches followed by big bangs in an infinite cycle.
InfoView thread info, including edit history
TrashPut this thread in your Trash Can (My DU » Trash Can)
BookmarkAdd this thread to your Bookmarks (My DU » Bookmarks)
11 replies, 2289 views
ShareGet links to this post and/or share on social media
AlertAlert this post for a rule violation
PowersThere are no powers you can use on this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
ReplyReply to this post
EditCannot edit other people's posts
Rec (2)
ReplyReply to this post
11 replies
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Mathematics of Eternity Prove The Universe Must Have Had A Beginning (Original Post)
xchrom
Apr 2012
OP
Speck Tater
(10,618 posts)1. My theory is...
Pure consciousness created the universe so it would have a place to hang out, shoot pool, and have a beer with friends.
laconicsax
(14,860 posts)7. Close--the meaning of existence is cheese. n/t
eridani
(51,907 posts)8. Zo--you haff confessed to moving it? n/t
Richardo
(38,391 posts)2. The cyclical model has always had the most appeal to my sensibilities.
I feel validated!
Jim__
(14,077 posts)3. I think the paper says it probably had a beginning.
From the paper:
3 Did the universe have a beginning?
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we
have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning,
and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both
eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that
they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple
emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse.
Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to
be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.
At this point, it seems that the answer to this question is probably yes.2 Here we
have addressed three scenarios which seemed to offer a way to avoid a beginning,
and have found that none of them can actually be eternal in the past. Both
eternal inflation and cyclic universe scenarios have Hav > 0, which means that
they must be past-geodesically incomplete. We have also examined a simple
emergent universe model, and concluded that it cannot escape quantum collapse.
Even considering more general emergent universe models, there do not seem to
be any matter sources that admit solutions that are immune to collapse.
I like the idea of probably a lot better than must have. I really can't wrap my mind around the idea that the universe has an infinite past; but, the universe is not constrained by human understanding.
it's almost equally hard to wrap one's mind around the idea that the universe had a definite beginning because the question then turns to, what came before that?
RegieRocker
(4,226 posts)4. Prove it!!!
qb
(5,924 posts)5. I'm skeptical of theories that wildly extrapolate mathematical abstractions into reality.
Equations are only an approximation of reality. Common wisdom in most scientific disciplines dictates that you treat results that lie outside of the range of measured values used to develop your model with skepticism.
It is fun, however to joint the cosmologists in their flights of fancy.
Odin2005
(53,521 posts)6. I prefer empirical data, not mathematical BSing.
Jim__
(14,077 posts)10. Part II - Leonard Susskind weighs in.
An excerpt from an article on what Susskind says:
...
He goes on to discuss various thermodynamic arguments that suggest the universe cannot have existed for ever. The bottom line is that the inevitable increase of entropy over time ensures that a past eternal universe ought to have long since lost any semblance of order. Since we can see order all around us, the universe cannot be eternal in the past.
He finishes with this: "We may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity."
...
His argument is equivalent to saying that the cosmos must have had a beginning even if it looks eternal in the past, which is rather similar to Mithani and Vilenkin's view. The distinction that Susskind does make is that his focus is purely on the practical implications of this--although what he means by 'practical' isn't clear.
That the universe did or did not have a beginning is profoundly important from a philosophical point of view, so much so that a definitive answer may well have practical implications for humanity.
...
He goes on to discuss various thermodynamic arguments that suggest the universe cannot have existed for ever. The bottom line is that the inevitable increase of entropy over time ensures that a past eternal universe ought to have long since lost any semblance of order. Since we can see order all around us, the universe cannot be eternal in the past.
He finishes with this: "We may conclude that there is a beginning, but in any kind of inflating cosmology the odds strongly (infinitely) favor the beginning to be so far in the past that it is effectively at minus infinity."
...
His argument is equivalent to saying that the cosmos must have had a beginning even if it looks eternal in the past, which is rather similar to Mithani and Vilenkin's view. The distinction that Susskind does make is that his focus is purely on the practical implications of this--although what he means by 'practical' isn't clear.
That the universe did or did not have a beginning is profoundly important from a philosophical point of view, so much so that a definitive answer may well have practical implications for humanity.
...
Susskind's short paper.