Infinity

[I_am_not_mafia]

Found more ...

The universe forgets what happened before the big bang

SOME cosmologists think that our universe has been cycling through an endless series of big bangs and big crunches. If so, it implies the universe is doomed to repeat the same thing over and over. A new study, however, suggests that with each big bang, the universe mostly forgets its past and starts anew.

The accepted wisdom in modern cosmology is that it is meaningless to ask what came before the big bang. That’s because the big bang is what physicists call a “singularity” – a moment at which the equations of physics break down. “No one is happy with the big bang singularity,” says Martin Bojowald, a theorist at the Pennsylvania State University, University Park.

Bojowald works on loop quantum gravity (LQG) – a theory that seeks to unify the otherwise incompatible theories of general relativity and quantum mechanics. In LQG, space-time is made of tiny interconnected loops, each only 10-35 metres across, that form a smooth fabric much like a shirt’s fabric is smooth even though it is woven from separate threads.

Bojowald and his colleagues have run the equations of LQG backwards and shown that they can avoid the singularity. They showed that as the universe collapses, it reaches a point at which it bounces back in a big bang, and the process repeats (New Scientist, 24 April 2006, p 15).

https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...r-nothing/
https://www.newscientist.com/article/mg2...-big-bang/

[fdesilva]

At the big bang the laws of physics do not exist. That is why its called a singularity. You do not have a before hand as time itself was created at this event. These are the accepted facts, not something I am making up
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

No, these are not accepted facts. This is just the extent of our understanding.

Science is open to change with new findings and in that sense its not a definite. However the most widely accepted fact is that there was a singularity at the big bang. All of the references you have given, also make this very clear. So it has an origin. In regards to it being cyclic this view is seen to be less viable as the universe has been found to be expanding at an increasing rate which would mean that it will expand to infinity so the energy which is finite ,will get distributed over infinity, making it zero in other words the universe will disappear.
Thus the question of where it came from is valid, as such all your references are also asking that same questions and hypothesizing on how it may have come about. What this thread is about is to say that, if what ever that created this universe has an infinity that is the same as this universe, then it would in turn have a creating event and as such will not qualify as the ultimate origin. The ultimate origin essentially has an infinity that is different to the infinity derived in this universe.

[Arkilogue]

Which infinity?

An infinite empty space?
An infinite space permeated by a field?
An infinite space permeated by matter?
An infinite line?
An infinite plane?
The infinite travel of a line around in a circle?
The infinite rotation of the surface of a sphere?
The infinite rotational travel of the space within a torus like a wheel of time?

Well if you can draw me an infinite line I'll take back what I said. You might well have the concept of one, but you can't produce one.

Touche' pussycat!

[Arkilogue]

I am sceptical of any theory that tries to explain DNA, self aware consciousness and the physical universe to enough degree beyond a cursory understanding. I do not see how it can be useful because it is trying to encompass too much. This is because the underlying mechanisms are so different and we need to know the specifics of each. With DNA you are talking about molecules. With self aware consciousness, you have to explain the ordering of extremely complex neurons being useful in a particular environment. With dark energy you are talking about the physical constants of the universe.

It's like coming up with a theory that explains the Big Bang, poetry and the weather.

It's real simple, I'll show you when I get back from work in 4-5 hours.

[Arkilogue]

Not yet, still hashing out the details and I doubt I'll ever have the time or money for the required education to present a comprehensive scientific paper. But I can publish a books of ideas and let the expects recognize what they are able to and take it from there.

Even if I could write it all out for you in a neat little mathematical sentence...I wouldn't.

Well if you tell me the ideas you have for the origin of the big bang in a logical sequence, I'll be happy to give you my primitive opinion.

Thank you kindly for the offer! I'll take you up on it when I get back from work.

[chimp3]

Well if you tell me the ideas you have for the origin of the big bang in a logical sequence, I'll be happy to give you my primitive opinion.

Thank you kindly for the offer! I'll take you up on it when I get back from work.

Can I ask you what field of science you work in ?

[InquiringMind]

2.       Infinite distance can never be reached. Speed has a maximum which is the speed of light as such an infinite distance cannot 

We don't know this, and possibly can't know this, because we can't see anything further away that about 13.75 billion light years, because the light hasn't had time to reach us yet.  And actually we can't even see that far, because the universe only became transparent about 13.35 billion year ago.  So we don't actually know what's further away than that.  

But infinity is, in my view, a construct of our finite (ha ha) imaginations.  In math they say that infinity is a direction, not a number.  Remember discussions on the playground?  

"My IQ is like 500."
"Oh yeah? My IQ is infinity."
"My IQ is infinity plus one."
"My IQ is infinity times a thousand."
"My IQ is infinity times infinity."  

Infinity is not a number.

[Arkilogue]

Thank you kindly for the offer! I'll take you up on it when I get back from work.

Can I ask you what field of science you work in ?

Applied physics.

[Arkilogue]

Ah, here's some similar terminology to what I use and functions I intuit.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lattice_QCD
Lattice QCD is a well-established non-perturbative approach to solving the quantum chromodynamics (QCD) theory of quarks and gluons. It is a lattice gauge theory formulated on a grid or lattice of points in space and time. When the size of the lattice is taken infinitely large and its sites infinitesimally close to each other, the continuum QCD is recovered.[1]


I start with a continuum of quark matter that breaks symmetry into a lattice gauge of equal sized spheres in a maximum density sphere pack. There are several packing arrangements that achieve maximum density but I use the ABC (face centered cubic) arrangement because of it's rotational symmetry, it has no over all left or right handed difference when the stack is inverted. They all predict a maximum expansive constant on each universe within the stack of ~74.05%

[chimp3]

Can I ask you what field of science you work in ?

Applied physics.

Applied as in calculating how many boxes you can safely load on to a fedex truck ? If you are claiming to be a scientist with a university degree then I think that would open some very challenging conversations here on AF.