Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Is our universe stationary ?
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 69 (136482)
08-24-2004 5:43 AM


I start this thread to tackle the argument made by many that the Universe cannot be truly infinite because Einstein’s theory of general relativity shows that space and time is limited or bounded by that which was created from our big bang Any other argument for or against the big bang as a point singularity creating a space-time continuum that is "all there is" and "all there will ever be" are better suited for another thread in this forum.
The stationary or non-stationary nature of our relative pocket of space-time may never be known. I am only proposing the hypothetical what-if scenario that questions what we could deduce should we someday find that our known universe does in fact have its own velocity.
If it was not stationary then it would have had velocity and to have velocity it would need to move distance A in a time frame of B. So for our point singularity to not be stationary it would need to exist inside a larger pocket of space time in order for it to move a certain distance during a certain time frame, yes?
So if there was such a velocity at the point in time our singularity began to expand and create the space-time continuum that we experience now then it would logically follow suit that our entire known universe would not currently be stationary but instead is moving through a larger space-time continuum with a current velocity.
So then lets for a moment say that it is possible that our point singularity had velocity then this would mean that there is another space-time continuum outside the one we know of, yes?
So the next question is if our universe has velocity, can there be 2 and only two space-time continuums or does the existence of a second space-time continuum provide the foundation to logically deduce there must be many many more, possibly an infinite number of pockets of space time? I use this logic (I think correctly) that one of the big arguments against the truly infinite Universe is because we think there is only one space-time continuum and it was created from our big bang, yes?
If we conclude or observe something that tells us our universe has velocity then would that produce the logical assumption that our pocket of space time is most likely one of an infinite number of such pockets of space time?
To me I think it does. I think that if we observe something that tells us that our universe is moving through the void of space and has velocity then the point singularity that created our big bang could not have been stationary and therefore the universe must be infinite.
I can’t quite explain why yet, just a gut instinct but I think that if such a velocity exists then it may be much greater than the velocity of anything contained inside our universe. We jump from 30KM/s for Earth’s velocity to about 230KM/s for our solar system’s velocity to 300-600 KM/s for the Milky way’s velocity to 600+ KM/s for the Local Group’s velocity so for no other reason than the apparent increase in velocity as we expand into each larger orbiting self-relative cluster of matter it would seem that it is logical to assume that if our known universe has a velocity it is much greater than anything contained inside it.
Lets say that our universe is in motion. Would we be able to detect anything different about the stars at the very front of the trajectory or at the very end of the trajectory? In theory if a star was moving through our space time towards the ending edge of our universe that being the point of our universe farthest away from the front of the trajectory could it break free from the overall gravitational attraction of our universe and be left behind. I suppose it could also look like someone throwing a ball in the air and then having gravity pull the ball back if the two velocities were close enough. So since I believe in an infinite universe and a cataclysmic collision being the actual reason for our big bang and not a point singularity then I submit that in the next 300,600, or maybe 900 years we will have the tools at our disposal to map out so much more of our universe than what we know now. And I think what we may find is an area on the outer edge of our universe where things are happening that will be unexplainable without the velocity of our universe being the culprit. And when that happens it will prove that the universe must be infinite.
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-24-2004 04:45 AM
This message has been edited by nipok, 08-25-2004 01:55 AM

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Dr Jack, posted 08-24-2004 10:50 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 08-24-2004 10:59 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 10:59 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 6 by RAZD, posted 08-24-2004 11:03 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 12 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 2:43 AM nipok has not replied

  
AdminNosy
Administrator
Posts: 4754
From: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Joined: 11-11-2003


Message 2 of 69 (136520)
08-24-2004 10:44 AM


Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

  
Dr Jack
Member
Posts: 3514
From: Immigrant in the land of Deutsch
Joined: 07-14-2003
Member Rating: 8.7


Message 3 of 69 (136524)
08-24-2004 10:50 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nipok
08-24-2004 5:43 AM


There is no possible experiment be performed by observers on an object that can distinguish whether that object is stationary or travelling at a constant velocity. That's what relativity tells us. But, in fact, it's more profound than that - things aren't either moving or not; we can only decide which they are doing if we pick a fixed point.
So, in answer to your question: the universe can be both, and either, moving and stationary; but since both outlooks are equally valid we may as well pick the conceptually simplest and consider the universe to be stationary.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nipok, posted 08-24-2004 5:43 AM nipok has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 4 of 69 (136527)
08-24-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nipok
08-24-2004 5:43 AM


nipok writes:
If the big bang was in fact caused by all matter we know of to have originally been contained in a single location and then it would have been stationary yes?
Wait, why? Why couldn't the singularity be moving before the BB?
Lets say that our universe is in motion.
The problem is that there is no way known to man to be able to detect such universal motion or to disprove it.
I mentioned somewhere before that once upon a time there was hope to do this. Unfortunately, the ether was impossible to detect and the idea was just abandoned.
In theory if a star was moving through our space time towards the ending edge of our universe that being the point of our universe farthest away from the front of the trajectory could it break free from the overall gravitational attraction of our universe and be left behind.
We can detect stars that either move away from us or move toward us by measuring the shift in their light frequencies. It's called a doppler effect.
suppose it could also look like someone throwing a ball in the air and then having gravity pull the ball back if the two velocities were close enough.
Yes, but you wouldn't be detecting the absolute motion. You'd be detecting the motion of the ball relative to the motion of the Earth.
If we take this analogy back to the motion of objects in the universe, we wouldn't be able to detect the universal motion. We'd be detecting the motion of a star relative to the motion of the universe.
So since I believe in an infinite universe and a cataclysmic collision being the actual reason for our big bang and not a point singularity then I submit that in the next 300,600, or maybe 900 years we will have the tools at our disposal to map out so much more of our universe than what we know now.
I see no reason why the BB should be replaced by this cataclysmic collision hypothesis.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nipok, posted 08-24-2004 5:43 AM nipok has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 7 by Tony650, posted 08-24-2004 3:25 PM coffee_addict has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 5 of 69 (136528)
08-24-2004 10:59 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nipok
08-24-2004 5:43 AM


Aside from Mr. Jack's answer there is an additional problem. In what sense can space be said to move ? Surely movement is a change in spatial location ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nipok, posted 08-24-2004 5:43 AM nipok has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 8 by Tony650, posted 08-24-2004 3:36 PM PaulK has replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 6 of 69 (136529)
08-24-2004 11:03 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nipok
08-24-2004 5:43 AM


keep thinking
nipok writes:
If the big bang was in fact caused by all matter we know of to have originally been contained in a single location and then it would have been stationary yes?
No. Particles appearing spontaneously in accordance with quantum mechanics have motions that cover a wide spectrum. There is no valid reason to assume a stationary start.
But the other problem with this concept is that the motion (or lack thereof) has to be in relation to something outside the universe (as you mention) and this puts it outside our purview. Our frame of reference is this universe, so relative to our frame of reference the universe is stationary and any relative motion to an external frame would be seen as the motion of the external frame -- the station coming to meet the train.
There is also the ekpyrosis theory of the universe starting with a collision between two 4D 'branes within a 5D (or greater) superuniverse, a collision that could have occurred over a wide area rather than a single point.
See The Big Bang: What Really Happened at Our Universe's Birth? | Space
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmerican.Zen[Deist
{{{Buddha walks off laughing with joy}}}

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nipok, posted 08-24-2004 5:43 AM nipok has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 7 of 69 (136593)
08-24-2004 3:25 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by coffee_addict
08-24-2004 10:59 AM


Darth Mal writes:
I mentioned somewhere before that once upon a time there was hope to do this. Unfortunately, the ether was impossible to detect and the idea was just abandoned.
That was in my thread.
If you're interested, you mentioned it here.
As for the question of the universe moving, I don't think there's any reason, in principle, that it couldn't be, but I think we would ultimately run up against the same wall as in my previous thread. Namely, how do we test this? Since all motion is relative, the only way to detect "universal motion" would be to have a frame of reference outside the universe.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by coffee_addict, posted 08-24-2004 10:59 AM coffee_addict has not replied

  
Tony650
Member (Idle past 4032 days)
Posts: 450
From: Australia
Joined: 01-30-2004


Message 8 of 69 (136599)
08-24-2004 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by PaulK
08-24-2004 10:59 AM


PaulK writes:
Aside from Mr. Jack's answer there is an additional problem. In what sense can space be said to move ?
Paul, did you ever read my thread regarding relative motion? I never did feel that I came to any satisfactory conclusions regarding those scenarios (although I'm clearer now on some of the specifics). If you have anything you can add there, I'd love to hear from you.
PaulK writes:
Surely movement is a change in spatial location ?
The nature of movement (or motion) is one of the things I was trying to pin down in the aforementioned thread, and although I would have previously agreed with your definition, these days I'm not so sure it's that simple.
If we say that motion is a change in spatial location then we are making space an absolute frame of reference so, by definition, it cannot move. It would be like asking if the surface of the Earth can move along the surface of the Earth. Now that's not a problem, in itself. The problem is how do we then define "spatial location"?
One of the (tentative) conclusions I came to in the other thread was that, for motion to be defined in terms of space, there must be "absolute" locations in space. Otherwise how can anything change its location in space?
Personally, I think a better (or at least, more "universal") definition of motion is; a change, over time, in the relative orientation and/or distance of systems/reference frames.
The universe, as a whole, could be considered a "system" so if space does possess some kind of "absolute" quality, and if there is another frame of reference to relate it to, then it could be said to be moving.
I have no idea how we could test this, though. Even if we could show absolute points of reference in space, we couldn't relate them to anything but the systems within space, since we have no way of detecting any "external" reference frames.
Of course, these points are entirely moot if it turns out that there aren't any absolute locations in space. We are then left with the conclusion that no system truly changes its spatial location, it merely changes its location relative to other systems.
By the way, this is just my take on it. Personally, I'm neither arguing for nor against the idea. I don't know if space (or the universe) moves or can move. To be honest, I think the nature of the question makes it very hard to ever find out. It's interesting to think about, though. Indeed, those thought experiments have been frustrating me for years.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 10:59 AM PaulK has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 4:14 PM Tony650 has replied
 Message 10 by Brad McFall, posted 08-24-2004 4:20 PM Tony650 has replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 9 of 69 (136603)
08-24-2004 4:14 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tony650
08-24-2004 3:36 PM


I didn't read all of the previous thread - and when I looked again at the first page I didn't see anything of great relevance.
But no, I don't think that defining movement as a change of spatial location requires defining space as an absolute coordinate system. To take a simple point unless there is an absolute zero point all measurements must be relative. Without an absolute coordinate system with a fixed reference point then we get the same results as Special Relativity - all inertial (non-accelerating) frames of reference are equivalent.
But to say that space was moving you would have to define a measure of distance that was independant of space. Want to explain how you could do that ?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tony650, posted 08-24-2004 3:36 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by coffee_addict, posted 08-25-2004 3:16 AM PaulK has not replied
 Message 19 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 5:48 AM PaulK has replied
 Message 22 by Tony650, posted 08-25-2004 11:10 AM PaulK has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 10 of 69 (136605)
08-24-2004 4:20 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Tony650
08-24-2004 3:36 PM


motion is delusional, sometimes!
I know this only applies to the part of understanding cosmology when the subjectivity of the investigator is at issue but if the question was is the Universe moving inertially with respect to different genetics of humans then this DOES indeed apply to the thread head question here, for I think indeed I have found THE DELUSION that Gladyshev claimed was plaguing biophysics. I'll give more details later if anyone is interested but it (the illusion in the delusion) seems to result when trying to comprehensively use the words "predict" and "prescribe" when dealing with the subject matter of "Evolving Hierarchial Systems" wherein Stanley N. Salthe wrote in the 80s about "constuitive changes". I dont really think these are changes at all be issues about relative motion you brought down in your thread so where Salthe attempted to reinscribe, "The acquisition of increased internal stability (a kind of measure of negentropy) will mean that constitutive changes in the system will slow down."(page 28) I, BSM, think that Salthe confused HIS OWN AGING (and hence any motion of the UNIVERSE) with Russell discrimination (by claiming a lack of proof by Cantor gaining only the reals as limits of the rationals etc etc mathematically) of distance and interval. I will have more forthcoming. But if the universe is moving relative to human genetics (lets say the TWO DIFFERENT ASTEROIDS started two different chemical equilibria of life here with humans nonselfishly only arising from one side of these two rocks etc) then this "change" might be a symmetry of heritibility only and not an indication of dogmatic difference if I have correctly thought the non sequitar here as Gladsyhev's delusion in the c/e illusion on return not from space but from a transcendental "frame" of mind.
This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 08-24-2004 03:26 PM

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Tony650, posted 08-24-2004 3:36 PM Tony650 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by Tony650, posted 08-25-2004 11:16 AM Brad McFall has not replied

  
NeilUnreal
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 69 (136644)
08-24-2004 10:25 PM


The universe is not stationary. It revolves around whatever girl I currently have a crush on.
-Neil

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 12 of 69 (136692)
08-25-2004 2:43 AM
Reply to: Message 1 by nipok
08-24-2004 5:43 AM


reply to page 1 replies
Before rushing out to pick my question apart please step back a moment to reflect on the question at hand. I read the replies so far and not one of them grasps the concept at hand. I blame myself for not stating up front the scope of what I was trying to discuss.
My point for this post was solely for the purpose of tacking those who question the possible infinite nature of the universe based solely because of observations related to the theory of General Relativity. ALL OTHER discussions as to the finite or infinite nature of the universe that are not based on the theory of General Relativity as a reason for their argument are better suited for another thread.
People are comfortable with our space-time continuum as The Space-Time Continuum because it gives them comfort. They do not want to speculate as to what is outside the pocket of space-time created by our big bang because it offers too many unknowns. So instead they use our space-time to justify a logical limit to space or a limit to time because of that which is relative to us. So really all we need to do to open up their minds is to provide for a second space-time continuum or pocket of self contained space time and we can negate any argument for our known universe being all there is or all there ever will be.
Maybe they are right. Maybe our space-time is the only space-time and nothing exists outside the boundaries of what we have been able to detect to date. The general consensus of the scientific community is that the big bang was a point singularity because everything we see in all directions is expanding as if from a central location.
I submit there has not been enough time involved in the tracking and analysis of data to even come close to making an accurate assessment of the true catalyst that brought forth our pocket of space-time. So if we can find a way to observe that our space-time continuum is not alone in the entire Universe then we negate any argument against an infinite Universe based solely on the space-time relative to us.
So if velocity of our point singularity existed prior to the initial expansion then it must have been traveling inside of another space-time pocket. That is my point. Once we can prove the existence of another space-time pocket outside our known universe then all arguments against an infinite Universe because of the theories of General Relativity become null and void.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by nipok, posted 08-24-2004 5:43 AM nipok has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by coffee_addict, posted 08-25-2004 3:11 AM nipok has not replied
 Message 15 by PaulK, posted 08-25-2004 3:25 AM nipok has replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 13 of 69 (136694)
08-25-2004 3:11 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nipok
08-25-2004 2:43 AM


Re: reply to page 1 replies
Could you please provide things other than pure speculations and assertions?
nipok writes:
People are comfortable with our space-time continuum as The Space-Time Continuum because it gives them comfort. They do not want to speculate as to what is outside the pocket of space-time created by our big bang because it offers too many unknowns. So instead they use our space-time to justify a logical limit to space or a limit to time because of that which is relative to us. So really all we need to do to open up their minds is to provide for a second space-time continuum or pocket of self contained space time and we can negate any argument for our known universe being all there is or all there ever will be.
This is completely unscientific. In fact, this is complete nonsense.
People don't like to speculate what's outside of our known universe because there ain't any data to work with. Why start wild guessing if you don't have a clue what the hell is beyond the known universe?
This reminds me of an Outer Limit episode I saw a few years back.
There was this group of humans being held as prisoners by a bunch of robots. This particular group of humans was the last remnant of the human race. Apparently, the human race was conquered by an alien race about 10 generations before this point in the show.
Anyhow, the group is held in a compound surrounded by a very high wall. In other words, after 10 generations or so behind the wall, the humans had absolutely no idea what was beyond the wall. They began to have this myth that beyond the wall were giant monsters and that they were better off inside the wall for an eternity.
After the hero of the story managed to rally a mini-revolution against the robots, they managed to break through the main door and got to see for the first time what was beyond the wall. Well, there were no monsters.
What's the moral of the story? You can let your imagination run wild if you want. When it comes down to it, it ain't scientific. No data or observation to begin with.
Maybe they are right. Maybe our space-time is the only space-time and nothing exists outside the boundaries of what we have been able to detect to date. The general consensus of the scientific community is that the big bang was a point singularity because everything we see in all directions is expanding as if from a central location.
We don't even have any data or observation to even begin speculating on what's beyond the "rim". This is pure fantasy.
I submit there has not been enough time involved in the tracking and analysis of data to even come close to making an accurate assessment of the true catalyst that brought forth our pocket of space-time. So if we can find a way to observe that our space-time continuum is not alone in the entire Universe then we negate any argument against an infinite Universe based solely on the space-time relative to us.
Yes, you are correct. However, until then any speculation on the matter is pure science fiction, nothing more.
So if velocity of our point singularity existed prior to the initial expansion then it must have been traveling inside of another space-time pocket. That is my point. Once we can prove the existence of another space-time pocket outside our known universe then all arguments against an infinite Universe because of the theories of General Relativity become null and void.
Tell us when you've finally solved the problem and win a nobel prize.
I'm sorry if I sound a little harsh, but I really don't see the relevance in the subject. There's nothing we have except pure imagination to suggest anything beyond the known universe.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 2:43 AM nipok has not replied

  
coffee_addict
Member (Idle past 477 days)
Posts: 3645
From: Indianapolis, IN
Joined: 03-29-2004


Message 14 of 69 (136695)
08-25-2004 3:16 AM
Reply to: Message 9 by PaulK
08-24-2004 4:14 PM


PaulK writes:
But to say that space was moving you would have to define a measure of distance that was independant of space. Want to explain how you could do that ?
That's easy. All we need is a magic wand.

The Laminator
We are the bog. Resistance is voltage over current.
For goodness's sake, please vote Democrat this November!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 9 by PaulK, posted 08-24-2004 4:14 PM PaulK has not replied

  
PaulK
Member
Posts: 17822
Joined: 01-10-2003
Member Rating: 2.2


Message 15 of 69 (136697)
08-25-2004 3:25 AM
Reply to: Message 12 by nipok
08-25-2004 2:43 AM


Re: reply to page 1 replies
The objections raised have nothing to do with the possible existence of other universes. So rather than making baseless speculations about the motivations behind the criticism, perhaps you should try to answer the points raised against your first post.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 2:43 AM nipok has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 16 by nipok, posted 08-25-2004 5:04 AM PaulK has replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024