Time, Infinity and the Universe

[namooP]

Ok, bare with me on this one. I know a lot of its bullshit and the rest is a patchwork of the most basic understanding of some complex theories, but it was fun to think about.

I couldnt sleep last night, and I got to thinking about the universe, and the fact that it has limits, since it started from a point and got bigger. Then I figured, if the universe isnt infinite, then nothing that physically exists inside it can be (on a side note, I figured that the only this that exists in infinity is nothingness, which only exists outside the universe). But because time can be manipulated (by speed and gravity), it exists in the universe, so cant be infinite.
I was pretty pleased with my self after this, but it kinda fell down on analysis.

Of course time isnt infinite, it only existed since (duh) the beginning to time (big bang) until now, and it will continue expanding with the expansion of the universe forever. Looks like my theory fell to shit. Oh well.

Still couldnt sleep though, so I kept going. I remembered the idea that the universe might eventually start to collapse in on itself. Heres where it got interesting. If time progresses forwards as the universe expands, wouldnt it rewind as the universe collapses?

(Another important side note. We can never tell if time is flowing backwards or forwards. Because we only ever exist for an instant at a time, everything would seem normal for that instant, until we regressed another instant and everything would seem normal then. Give me a break, this is hard to explain.)

That was pretty interesting, but I ran with it. Lets start at the start. Theres the Big Bang, the universe expands, Earth forms and cools, youre born, you die, the universe continues to expand until it begins to collapse. Then everything rewinds. Your death, your birth, earth forms and cools, the universe shrinks back into it pre-Big Band singularity.

But what then? Youre at year dot. Second dot. Instant dot....... and it explodes again. The Big Bang, the universe expands, Earth forms and cools, youre born, you die, the universe continues to expand........ until it begins to collapse.
Because time rewound to the big bang, everything will be EXACTLY the same as it was before our big bang. So everything should progress the exact same way it did this time. And that should happen the next time, and the next time and the next time............

Which leads to questions about fate, choice and reality that I havent worked out yet.

Comments?

[Forthesevenlakes]

Hasn't the "Big Crunch" theory fallen out of favor with many astrophysicists? Not to tread on your theory, but I was under the impression that many scientists favor a continually expanding universe model now. Even if time/space compressed to a single point again, there is no guarantee that the universe would unfold exactly the way that it did this time around, unless there were some kind of overarching order, and only one potential way it COULD unfold.

However, your theory bears some likeness to Nietzsche's theory of Eternal Return, where time is cyclical, and its important to make the best choices possible, since one could conceivably be repeating them throughout history. Definitely check out Nietzsche's theory and also the novel "The Unbearable Lightness of Being" since it touches on this topic as well, if you are interested.

[Nagognog2]

Yes, the concept of all coming back together again has been pretty much abandoned. This was found by measurements of the furthest (oldest) objects being found to be increasing in velocity, rather than slowing.

[namooP]

Yeah, the Big Crunch hit a bit of a slump, but if it were to happen, this is how I imagine it would go.

I\'m sure if every other part of (my already far fetched) theory were to be correct, things would have to progress as they did before. Because time rewound, every single piece of existence will be identical to how it was before our big bang. Identical to perfection. I would include fate and choice in that analysis too, as I think any variation there fall under spirituality more then astrophysics. In my mind, I can fit the chaos theory into this too.

[bewilderment]

I've heard the same about the "big crunch". And, if it were to hypothetically happen then what would ensue would depend upon whether there is actually free-will or not which is under debate. I used to hold a staunch determinist attitude (I still lean this way, but am not so adamant), but I'm not so sure anymore since there is so much that physics is still questioning things. I also don't consider the stance to be pessimistic as many do. Once we have figured out the so-called "Theory of Everything", maybe we'll get closer to the answers.

As far as infinity, I regard infinity as an absence of time.

[Nagognog2]

You cannot experience infinite space because you don't have the time. Therefore it cannot exist.

[namooP]

That\'s the thing, free will can still exist in this theory. To simplify it a little, say you lived your life once first time round, and then time played back and forward over that. You made all your decisions through free will, but it\'s like playing back and forwards over a record. It\'s the same decision over and over again. You can decide to do anything you want. If I want, I can go and jump out a window right now, but whatever I do, it\'ll be what I did every time before and every time to come. It\'s time itself that is being thrown around.

[bewilderment]

But, that would be determinism: given all of the same variables, only one outcome is possible. Think of it this way: if the universe collapses and everything recedes then those events are erased with all of the matter being pulled into the gravitational singularity. And, space-time is simply a container for events to occur. Then, if there is free-will different events may occur within the same container. It always depends on whether or not there is only one way for the big bang to occur. If there are multiple ways then each "bang" will produce something different. If there is not more than one way and determinism holds true then things will be forever on repeat, just an "echo" sort of effect.

Let's say that things are like a record being played...then I can only make one choice at this very moment which is to be typing these letters. I can make no other choices, in which case I am only an echo. My initial "self" may have had free will but my current self does not which means there is a difference between the initial "me" and the "me" now. This creates incoherence within the "record" theory.

[namooP]

I believe though, that after time regresses to the singularity a new big bang doesn\'t occur, but instead time plays forward again.

In the same vein, there is no \"initial self\" or \"current self\" (I used those as a simplification to explain a point). Because time is created and destroyed during each cycle, the order is irrelevant, non-existant even. Its been happening for infinity and this is the first time, because in the grand scheme of the ultra-universe* time is abstract.


*Is there a umbrella term for both the universe and the \"nothingness\" outside it?

[bewilderment]

Originally Posted by namooP

I believe though, that after time regresses to the singularity a new big bang doesn\'t occur, but instead time plays forward again.

How could it be new if it's happened before? It can't happen multiple times without a "before".

In the same vein, there is no \"initial self\" or \"current self\" (I used those as a simplification to explain a point). Because time is created and destroyed during each cycle, the order is irrelevant, non-existant even. Its been happening for infinity and this is the first time, because in the grand scheme of the ultra-universe* time is abstract.

As said above, how are there multiple cycles if time doesn't exist? The number one has to come before two and two before three, etc.

*Is there a umbrella term for both the universe and the \"nothingness\" outside it?

I think that it's generally supposed there is nothing outside of the universe. "Nothingness" preceded the universe, but the "universe" now is the blanket term which encompasses all. Otherwise, you can make up a new word or something. I once knew a guy who liked to call thing the "Totality" with a capital "T". I don't know if that was his own personal word or what. But, scientifically, the universe is a term meaning everything. Or, multiverses, whatever really...very little is actually known. *shrugs*

[namooP]

Originally Posted by bewilderment

As said above, how are there multiple cycles if time doesn\'t exist? The number one has to come before two and two before three, etc.

This only holds true of time exists. There technically arent multiple cycles. While a the same time there are. Its a concept impossible to rationalise because the human mind cant proprely comprehend it. When the universe regresses to a singluarity, nothing at all exists, not even time. Therefore nothing can ever have existed. So when everything is recreated, it\'s the first time again, while still not being the first time.

Imagine if there was some 5th dimension outside of time. Something beyond the normal rules and limitations of our universe. Nothingness, say. Well, in the confines of this Nothingness it will be a repeating cycle, while in the confines of our reality, it\'ll be the first, because Nothingness doesn\'t really exist for us. Again, this is a bit of an over-simplifiction but it would otherwise be impossible to explain.

I think that it\'s generally supposed there is nothing outside of the universe. \"Nothingness\" preceded the universe, but the \"universe\" now is the blanket term which encompasses all. Otherwise, you can make up a new word or something. I once knew a guy who liked to call thing the \"Totality\" with a capital \"T\". I don\'t know if that was his own personal word or what. But, scientifically, the universe is a term meaning everything. Or, multiverses, whatever really...very little is actually known. *shrugs*

Totality sounds familiar so if necessary I\'ll use that. Ultra-universe sounds a bit sensationalist anyway. I\'ll use Nothingness for the incomprehensible void outside the universe.

[xctico]

The problem when visualizing the universe is that you can't see time and space as constants, for they are relative. Time get's compresses from motion and gravity so once you reach the edge of the universe you reach the edge of time [when you're moving in a field without gravity or a point of reference you can't have relativity, as you are relative nothing >basically the same problem as dividing something by 0] [read einstein]

Now current theories like the string theory and the M theory speculate that we do not live in a universe made of 4 dimensions, but rather 12, and that all points in that universe are interconected at a subatomic level. [read Hawkins...]


So you see, there can't be a big crunch, or a big bang when the distance between any two points in the universe can be made equal to cero, for we have the same problem as we did before... perhaps we are still only an instant after bigbang, or still inside the particularity that gave birth to big bang... as we have not managed to expand in all posible dimentions. [this is all me talking madness, with one of my theories about reality]

[namooP]

\"Theres no great genius without an admixture of dementedness\". - Seneca. Im going to have to freshen up on my astro-physics again. That damn God Delusion has been distracting me.

[brighteyes88]

okay, i dont have much knowledge on this subject, except i read stephen hawkings ' a brief history of time' (well, havent finished reading it yet), but i have some ideas...

firstly, the way i understand it, we understand the finite better than we understand the infinite. example, we can comprehend the idea of there being a limit to the universe very easily, because we see limits everwhere, a piece of matter has certain dimensions.
but i dont think anyone can truly comprehend the idea of something without limits.

so i put forword a sortof 'meteoroids' theory, that the universe has limits, but are impossible to find, and we will simply find ourselves right back where we started (assuming of course we can travel faster than the rate at which the universe is expanding{which we all know is impossible}).

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - albert einstein

now im going to discuss the possible religous explanations of...well, everything.

i believe that the whole system of our knowledge of the universe is put there(by whichever power) to give us something to do, and is irrelevent and impossible to define... as a buddhist, i believe the only hope to understand anything is to meditate

someone who isnt me might say that is why he does drugs

[brighteyes88]

PS:

swim is also a buddhist and would like to say that its not strictly agains the buddhist rules. the idea bing that the more advanced you get, the less you will want to do them(drugs).

[Nagognog2]

Mahayana or Theravardic Buddhisim?

[brighteyes88]

im not exactly sure which sect im going to follow, all i know is its for me. ive started basic meditation, and am kinda leaning towards zen.

however, im also very interested in taoism

[brighteyes88]

so yea, mahayana, but no teacher yet, or even anyone to talk to about it.

[zera]

Originally Posted by brighteyes88

okay, i dont have much knowledge on this subject, except i read stephen hawkings ' a brief history of time' (well, havent finished reading it yet), but i have some ideas...

firstly, the way i understand it, we understand the finite better than we understand the infinite. example, we can comprehend the idea of there being a limit to the universe very easily, because we see limits everwhere, a piece of matter has certain dimensions.
but i dont think anyone can truly comprehend the idea of something without limits.

so i put forword a sortof 'meteoroids' theory, that the universe has limits, but are impossible to find, and we will simply find ourselves right back where we started (assuming of course we can travel faster than the rate at which the universe is expanding{which we all know is impossible}).

"science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" - albert einstein

now im going to discuss the possible religous explanations of...well, everything.

i believe that the whole system of our knowledge of the universe is put there(by whichever power) to give us something to do, and is irrelevent and impossible to define... as a buddhist, i believe the only hope to understand anything is to meditate

someone who isnt me might say that is why he does drugs

Infinity is well understood and studied by mathematics, ever since Cantors diagonolization proof 130 years ago. Analysis and algebra both successfully include infinity in their workings just fine. Just because you cant visualize something doesnt mean you cant understand it. You cant visualize a googleplex (theres not enough atoms in the universe), but we still know that Log(googleplex) = google. You cant visualize a ten dimensional shape, but topologists work with it all the time.

Similarly we know many many properties of infinity, for example theres not just one type of infinity, some infinities are larger than others, for example even though there is an infinitie amount of whole numbers and an infinitie amount of real numbers, there are infinitiely more real numbers than whole numbers (crazy, huh?). This can be proven mathematically.

[brighteyes88]

Originally Posted by zera

Infinity is well understood and studied by mathematics, ever since Cantors diagonolization proof 130 years ago. Analysis and algebra both successfully include infinity in their workings just fine. Just because you cant visualize something doesnt mean you cant understand it. You cant visualize a googleplex (theres not enough atoms in the universe), but we still know that Log(googleplex) = google. You cant visualize a ten dimensional shape, but topologists work with it all the time.

Similarly we know many many properties of infinity, for example theres not just one type of infinity, some infinities are larger than others, for example even though there is an infinitie amount of whole numbers and an infinitie amount of real numbers, there are infinitiely more real numbers than whole numbers (crazy, huh?). This can be proven mathematically.

wasnt aware of this, but im very interested.


everytime i think about it too hard(like trying to picture it or define it), my starts spinning and i cant think, get a headrush which has once caused me to black out...so if you can help me, it would be appreciated.

[upperdecker]

I know that "the big bang" theory is what most people believe in but I kinda don't believe in it. I'm not saying God created the univere but how can we say what created the universe just by what we have learned on this little speck of dust? And even if there was a big bang that created the universe, what happened a few minutes before the big bang? And then what happened before that? To me, it seems that the universe has always been and always was. I'm no scientist and this might sound ignorant but its what I think. IDK, its just waaaaaay too complicated to wrap my mind around.

[wellhelm]

I been thinking/reading about time today and think most of the above posters will agree that time is just a concept and does not exist? Maybe you kids could help me with something? Time, as a concept is how we measure change, right? Yet, really chnge could be seen as a concept to of just measuring a difference? So now does difference exist? Other than as a concept?

[BIG-TRON]

The universe is breathing, it expands and contracts like a human lung.
If one is interested in the Cosmos, one might find it interesting to do sum research on sacred geometry.
It seems like the universe consists of an intelligent design.It wasn't just a big-bang which occured, it occured because an intelligent conscouisness created it so.
We are all(all living things in the cosmos) connected & linked to each other through the excisthing Ether.(Plato)We all are responsible for creating the reality as we now know it.
Reality is nothing but an 3-d hallucination on this plane of excistance. When trippping on certain drugs, one can make contact with alternate realities and what not. It's just as real as reality is to a sober person.

[wellhelm]

This absolutely begs the question what created the creator?

[trptamene]

If you are interested in this kind of thing one should read "The Elegant Universe" by Briane Greene.