Is it possible that the universe could be eternal??...

[dave4shmups]

I've read some arguments towards this end, but don't most scientists agree on an actual age for the universe?? This is an important topic to me, because Christians always argue that, however far back you go, "god" had to have started/created it all.

[Tiberius]

It depends on what you mean by "eternal". If you mean "for all time" then yes, since current theories state that time itself began with the Big Bang, which was the expansion of space/time and the "start" of the universe we live in.

If you mean instead "for infinity" (i.e. no start, no end) then the question is rather unanswerable, although it does form several philosophical questions, such as how you can ever get to a finite point in time (as we experience) when you have no reference on the infinite timeline.

[Anomalocaris]

The age of universe refers to the time since the universe first evolved to a state that is within the power of current state of art in physics to describe. Physicists, like religionists, don't have any robust framework with meaningful predicative power to describe what went on before. The difference is physicists tries to diligently advance the state of the art of physics to build that framework, and take pains to point out that until the framework is thoroughly tested, only speculation is possible about what went on before. Religionist, of course, flip a few pages of bible and "knows", undeterred by, indeed oblivious to, the sad track record of this method of "knowing".

I am not a physicist, but I have close contacts with a number of them. My understanding is that one of the frameworks being refined for eventual test is M theory. One version of M theory says universe indeed has no beginning, but instead undergoes infinite oscillations each with it's own independent time line of roughly 100 trillion years. We are 13 billion years into the present oscillation. In this theory, prior to the time when currently well established physics can look back into, there was not nothing. Instead there was something that was the direct linear ancestor of what we have now, only we need to further refine physics to describe it, and how that ancestor transitioned to our time.

[solja247]

@ Chuck, 'relgionists' use something called philosphy to prove the likely hood of God existing. However, modern science is in complete contradictory to philosophy (How can something be both a particle and wave!?!)

One of the frameworks being refined is M theory. One version of M theory says universe indeed has no beginning, but instead undergoes infinite oscillations of 100 trillion years each. We are 13 billion years into the present oscillation. In this theory, prior to the time when current, well established physics can look back into, there was not nothing. Instead there was something that was the direct linear ancestor of what we have now, only we need to further refine physics to describe it.

Its going to be interesting to see how long the M theory is going to stick around, we dont know much about the cosmos so I reckon sometime in the near future someone will refute it...

---

or, at least, prove it...

[Anomalocaris]

@ Chuck, 'relgionists' use something called philosphy to prove the likely hood of God existing. However, modern science is in complete contradictory to philosophy (How can something be both a particle and wave!?!)

How can something both be a mammal, and swim like a fish? Philosophy also had a hard time with that apparent contradiction. But eventually a highly extensible branch of philosophy extended itself to encompass this apparent conundrum. This branch concerns itself with Establishing testable understanding of how the world really works, not with building little card houses of self reference, nor with making vehement but idle and unprovable speculations based on one ancient holy book or another. This branch is called natural philosophy, Most working scientists are therefore Doctors of Philosophy, also known as PhD. Perhaps you've heard of it?

[ib.me.ub]

If you mean instead "for infinity" (i.e. no start, no end) then the question is rather unanswerable, although it does form several philosophical questions, such as how you can ever get to a finite point in time (as we experience) when you have no reference on the infinite timeline.

It is unanswerable for us, at this present point in time.

[Edwardo Piet]

[...]
If you mean instead "for infinity" (i.e. no start, no end) then the question is rather unanswerable, although it does form several philosophical questions, such as how you can ever get to a finite point in time (as we experience) when you have no reference on the infinite timeline.

I'm gonna digress a bit here on some speculation I find somewhat interesting, hopefully I'm not too off-topic. And I hope I say something at all interesting.

The past can be measured in the sense it can be defined as simply "before now" or "before the present" in other words, as can the future as being after the present.

But then these both depend on the definition of "present". And the thing is, the present is completely immeasurable because it passes in an instant which can't be measured. There is only flowing or "happening", occurring, etc.. So what really would be a "finite" point in time? Or have I misunderstood you there?

[Anomalocaris]

If you mean instead "for infinity" (i.e. no start, no end) then the question is rather unanswerable, although it does form several philosophical questions, such as how you can ever get to a finite point in time (as we experience) when you have no reference on the infinite timeline.

It is unanswerable for us, at this present point in time.

Without idle musing about the philosophical meaning of infinity or forever, you can come up with reasonable, and in principle testable scientific theories postulating that something will not change state at any future time t as t approach infinity, and has not changed states for any past t as t approached negative infinity. One example is the proton. Ever more rigorous tests aimed at showing protons have finite half lives have thus far failed. Close as we can tell, at least as far as the universe itself will last, protons are forever. Try proposing to your girl friend with a proton ring.

[dave4shmups]

Well, part of what I'm trying to do is refute the Christian argument that, no matter how far back you go, you have to have a God to start it all. Or, as on theologian put it, you're just postponing God starting the universe.

[ib.me.ub]

Ultimately, you won't be able to change their minds.