The Origin of the universe

[Richard Roark]

Exactly this is how i came my statement tortured one. After reading the brief discussion of Infinity in OPAR my statement does needs to be revised. Infinity was just the wrong term to use. Hmmm. What term though will apply to the statement though. Any suggestions rational one.

[EC]

Exactly this is how i came my statement tortured one. After reading the brief discussion of Infinity in OPAR my statement does needs to be revised. Infinity was just the wrong term to use. Hmmm. What term though will apply to the statement though. Any suggestions rational one.

I would recommend you read the Finite and Unbounded Universe thread and the included essay by forum member Alex. It decribes what I said much better than I possibly can. Beware, the thread got messy though, and I would just recommend his essay on the subject primarily. Not long ago my thinking was similar to what yours was in your post I responded to, but the essay if read carefully will eliminate the errors that leads to that thinking. The short answer is that "unbounded" is the term you are looking for.

By the way welcome to the forum.

[Richard Roark]

Thanks for the welcome.Yet, you did state that the part of my statement about the universe not having a beginning nor a end is correct. The reason for the making of my statement, to be more precise, is to confront any naysayers about how as such , the universe got here. The main people to fend off are the religous people i know and when they find out that i am an atheist they go on the offensive. Sorta funny, the Christian religions preaches about accpetance and tolerance and yet the moment a person finds out you are an atheist they attack you. I guess they just aren't so confident in there own philosophy Perhaps an explanation to the logic and how i reached the conclusion would be in order also, just ask and maybe we can clarify the matter expediently.

Edited March 12, 2005 by Richard Roark

[KevinDW78]

I have had "The Elegant Universe" sitting on my bookshelf for years waiting to be read. I really need to read it. I bought it after seeing the NOVA PBS series of the same name by Brian Greene and bought the book because string theory sounds so incredibly interesting to me. Hopefully I'll find the time soon.

[adrock3215]

I have had "The Elegant Universe" sitting on my bookshelf for years waiting to be read. I really need to read it. I bought it after seeing the NOVA PBS series of the same name by Brian Greene and bought the book because string theory sounds so incredibly interesting to me. Hopefully I'll find the time soon.

The Elegant Universe is a great book, and you should read it as soon as possible. Greene follows the lead of Hawking and does a great job of explaining theoretical physics in a communicable manner and subsequently introducing the mathematical concepts, as opposed to presenting a series of equations. I think Greene has a newer work out now, but I heard from people who read it that it doesn't match The Elegant Universe.

Edited July 10, 2008 by adrock3215

[Nyronus]

Forgive me if this is thread hijacking, but a few moments ago I posted an essay that I believe is relevant to the topic. It is on why when a theist holds that the universe must have a "why" he is in reality making a circular argument for God, and that the question of "why" is in reality a non-issue when dealing with the existence of God.

[Jake]

Anyone interested in String Theory should read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics.

I have only an undergraduate knowledge of physics, but I've always been bugged by some of the ideas and methods of string theorists. Smolin's book is a great case against String Theory and the process by which it was constructed. The stories of his personal interactions with some string theorists reminded of some of Ayn Rand's comments about irrational trends in Physics (I wish I could remember where she discussed this).

[KurtColville]

Anyone interested in String Theory should read Lee Smolin's The Trouble with Physics.

I have only an undergraduate knowledge of physics, but I've always been bugged by some of the ideas and methods of string theorists. Smolin's book is a great case against String Theory and the process by which it was constructed. The stories of his personal interactions with some string theorists reminded of some of Ayn Rand's comments about irrational trends in Physics (I wish I could remember where she discussed this).

Jake, it's very gratifying to see Dr. Smolin recognized for his excellent work, especially on an Objectivist board. I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Smolin as a Physics major at Syracuse University. He is brilliant -- borderline genius. I didn't fully appreciate how truly insightful he was then, but over time I have gleaned some measure of just how much nonsense he has had to filter out from his colleagues who peddle non-locality, multiple universes, string/M theory, and the rest of the menagerie of modern physics. His commitment to describing the laws of nature objectively, without falling for the customary temptation to impose fanciful schemes or "elegant mathematics" on reality, is tremendous. I haven't read "The Trouble With Physics" yet (I aim to soon), but I've heard from very reputable physicists that it is excellent. Kudos to you for citing it!

[eriatarka]

Wasnt Smolin the guy who came up with the idea that the universal constants of nature (hbar etc) have the values they do because our universe is one of many that 'evolved', and that every black hole contains a different universe with a different set of constants? That seems at least as speculative as any of the things which he attacked.

edit: http://www.acampbell.ukfsn.org/bookreviews/r/smolin-2.html

Edited July 11, 2008 by eriatarka

[EC]

Jake, it's very gratifying to see Dr. Smolin recognized for his excellent work, especially on an Objectivist board. I had the privilege of studying under Dr. Smolin as a Physics major at Syracuse University. He is brilliant -- borderline genius. I didn't fully appreciate how truly insightful he was then, but over time I have gleaned some measure of just how much nonsense he has had to filter out from his colleagues who peddle non-locality, multiple universes, string/M theory, and the rest of the menagerie of modern physics. His commitment to describing the laws of nature objectively, without falling for the customary temptation to impose fanciful schemes or "elegant mathematics" on reality, is tremendous. I haven't read "The Trouble With Physics" yet (I aim to soon), but I've heard from very reputable physicists that it is excellent. Kudos to you for citing it!

What is rational about stating that the universe is just a random "foam" at the Plank length?

[KurtColville]

Regarding EC's ["Planck"] and eriatarka's posts, I wasn't aware that Dr. Smolin held those positions. Those are awful. I guess I really need to read the book now, to see just where he is. After reading reading through eriatarka's link, I came back to the thought that physicists could make a great start toward clearing up all their problems by recognizing the simple fact that the universe is the sum of everything that exists. If they want to talk about different, seemingly inaccessible regions of space, create another word; "universe" is taken.

[EC]

Yea, his theory, Loop Quantum Gravity, while an interesting approach at unifying GR and QM, does not satisfy the basic philosophical restraint which is the Law of Identity. Random energy fluctuations at the Planck level can NOT by definition obey the basic axiom that A is A. He's basically saying that at a small enough level A can be A or non-A depending on random fluxuations in the energy density and structure of space-time. It is also obvious that he has to be wrong because space-time qua space-time can have NO structure--which is the heart of his theory-- because both space and time are just relationships between existents--NOT primaries in themselves on which the universe could be "built".

[Nyronus]

After reading reading through eriatarka's link, I came back to the thought that physicists could make a great start toward clearing up all their problems by recognizing the simple fact that the universe is the sum of everything that exists. If they want to talk about different, seemingly inaccessible regions of space, create another word; "universe" is taken.

Hence why I make it a point to use the term "cosmological universe" when I discuss physics with other Objectivists. At least after the last debacle. Although I do think its a little unfair to attack physics because they use a word to define a different concept.

While the black-hole genesis idea seems interesting (it would explain where our own singularity came from), I think the problem may be that, eventually, you'd run out. Black Holes can only form with a huge amount of either mass or energy. In the end, which each subsequent child "universe" having but only a fraction of the mass of the parent, the black hole chain would hit a point at which there would not be enough mass or energy to make more than one incredibly small black hole, and, since, the new "universe" would keep expanding, it could never gain enough of that mass back at one point to create a new black hole. Not to mention that the random variation will make pocket-verses in which black holes cannot form. Eventually, all mass and energy will dissipate and be lost as loose radiation among the various pocket-universes. Unless, of course, mass and energy can travel between each pocket-universe, but then they would all be one unified universe, wouldn't they?

While my opinion is not an expert one, I myself am am more inclined to lean toward a cyclic theory in which there is one (or more) cosmological clouds, cycling from expansion to contraction in and out of a singularity. Knowing what I do of physics, it makes the most sense to me.

[EC]

While my opinion is not an expert one, I myself am am more inclined to lean toward a cyclic theory in which there is one (or more) cosmological clouds, cycling from expansion to contraction in and out of a singularity. Knowing what I do of physics, it makes the most sense to me.

And from what I know of physics--which is quite a lot--, and philosophy, I can tell you that a "singularity" is an impossible phenomenom and a contradiction in terms. It is physicists drawing the wrong conclusion from the data set based on flawed philosophical premises. A similar instance would be the Copenhagen "interpretation" of quantum mechanics.

[Nyronus]

And from what I know of physics--which is quite a lot--, and philosophy, I can tell you that a "singularity" is an impossible phenomenom and a contradiction in terms. It is physicists drawing the wrong conclusion from the data set based on flawed philosophical premises. A similar instance would be the Copenhagen "interpretation" of quantum mechanics.

So all those black holes they tell us we keep finding? I don't understand how a black hole is a "contradiction in terms." Can you explain it to me then?

[Jake]

So all those black holes they tell us we keep finding? I don't understand how a black hole is a "contradiction in terms." Can you explain it to me then?

"Black hole" and "singularity" are two different concepts.

From the American Heritage Dictionary entry on "singularity":

- Astrophysics A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

- Mathematics A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

The mathematical/physical formulae used to describe a black hole predict a singularity at its center. An infinity cannot exist, therefore the formulae are incomplete, or the mathematical interpretation of the observable entities called black holes isn't wholly correct. He wasn't denying the existence of black holes, just the supposed existence of infinite energy density at their center.

I think black hole centers are a major sticking point in the effort to unite quantum mechanics and gravity.

[Nyronus]

"Black hole" and "singularity" are two different concepts.

From the American Heritage Dictionary entry on "singularity":

- Astrophysics A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.

- Mathematics A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists. Also called singular point.

The mathematical/physical formulae used to describe a black hole predict a singularity at its center. An infinity cannot exist, therefore the formulae are incomplete, or the mathematical interpretation of the observable entities called black holes isn't wholly correct. He wasn't denying the existence of black holes, just the supposed existence of infinite energy density at their center.

I think black hole centers are a major sticking point in the effort to unite quantum mechanics and gravity.

Ah, I see.

I really need to learn the mathematics behind these kinds of things so that I can understand them better.

Edited July 12, 2008 by Nyronus

[EC]

The mathematical/physical formulae used to describe a black hole predict a singularity at its center. An infinity cannot exist, therefore the formulae are incomplete, or the mathematical interpretation of the observable entities called black holes isn't wholly correct. He wasn't denying the existence of black holes, just the supposed existence of infinite energy density at their center.

Exactly. The prediction of any "infinity" or "singularity" shows clearly that our mathematical understanding of the physics involved is still lacking. There is definitely something that can be described as a "blackhole", however our current scientific understand of the phenomena is wrong or incomplete.

[Jim A.]

There are a number of ideas on basic, fundamental issues that I think have "screwed-up" people's heads.

One is the idea that A does not necessarily have to be A. Another is: "But what's reality? What's reality for you isn't necessarily reality for me." Another is: "But whose reason? What's rational for you isn't necessarily rational for me."

But there are a couple of ideas that first come to my mind as two of the foremost ideas involved in "screwing-up" people's minds: One is the idea that there is an after-life; after all, what better idea to give people the excuse to defer the pursuit of their highest, most precious values to some later time--say, the time after they die and no longer have to struggle to achieve any values;

Another is the idea that the Universe had a beginning. Think about it: if the Universe had a beginning, that presupposes it had a cause. That cause, therefore, had to be something before and superior to the Universe. And if there is anything "superior" to the Universe, then its laws of existence would supercede those of this Universe. If so, that "other", "superior" universe can be appealed to in times of crisis in this one; someone can "talk" to that "other" universe--or that "person" who controls this Universe. One can wish--or pray. A person in this Universe does not have to rely on his or her own effort to think, act, struggle and survive. This person does not, therefore, have any real incentive to engage the primary involved in this process--thinking.

Over the years, lack of rigorous exercise of rational thought can have only one result: insanity.

I don't remember who said it, but it is certainly true: "The sleep of reason breeds monsters." (Was it, of all people, the painter, Goya?)

[AllMenAreIslands]

Definitely the main problem is lack of nomenclature. It is simply idiotic to talk about "baby universes" when what one is trying to refer to is the amount of space occupied by the contents of a single big bang, post-explosion.

The axiom that "Matter changes its form but cannot cease to be" is what made me realize that the Big Bang didn't bring the Universe into existence. The Big Bang that was responsible for our corner of the Universe only gave rise to one wodge of space. A wodge among many.

Yeah. I figure "wodge of space" is a better term than "baby universes." A wodge of space is the amount of room needed for the product of a big bang. Although it will be a fairly long time before we're able to measure a wodge, we clearly need the term in order to discuss in a rational manner the life of the mass of material that explodes in a big bang. Reason says that a black hole is a big bang in the making. When enough material is absorbed into a black hole, it turns into a big bang. Therefore, there is no beginning and no end to the Universe. A given configuration of material in a wodge has a fairly hefty lifespan, but it's not infinite. Each time a wodge returns to its black hole state, it is probable that next time the material explodes in a big bang, the configuration will be different.

The Universe is infinite because the material of which it is made is constantly being recycled.

Makes sense to me.

Edited November 25, 2008 by AllMenAreIslands

[EC]

The Universe is infinite because the material of which it is made is constantly being recycled.

Makes sense to me.

Wrong, the universe is finite and unbounded. Infinity is a metaphysical impossibility.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

He seems to have meant "infinite" over time, i.e., lasts forever, not infinite in spatial extent.

[AllMenAreIslands]

He seems to have meant "infinite" over time, i.e., lasts forever, not infinite in spatial extent.

Yes, that's what she meant.

[Steve D'Ippolito]

Whoops, your XX chromosomal makeup was not at all obvious over the internet.

[EC]

Yes, that's what she meant.

Okay, as long as you understand time is not "infinite" either. It is eternal and unbounded in the same sense of the spatial dimensions, i.e., time does not apply to the universe as a whole just existents that lie within it.