The Universe is Absurd: we probably shouldn't even call it that

I actually really like the idea of continuous Big Bangs. I even presented this idea for the final in one of my Astrophysics classes.

"If there really is no red shift [blue shift] to prove de-expansion of the universe, maybe we just aren't in that part of the cycle." Yes, this is definitely a possibility. I thought you meant expanding and contracting at the same time in different regions. The Universe could absolutely contract in the future, and could have in the past as well. I have no problem with this this and actually find it quite plausible.

I definitely agree with everything you've said in the last comment. I think we've had a great discussion on the topic, and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. Thanks for taking part!

I have actually already read this article. It is, as I said before, just two physicists that are proposing this theory. The majority is still on the side of the Big Bang, or something very similar to it. Anyway, I will address your points below:

"Where the heck would [the Universe] have come FROM" This isn't solved by the infinite existence of the Universe. It would still have to come from somewhere. Something probably has to be infinite, as weird a concept as that is, otherwise we will forever be plagued by a battle of causality, but it just seems like our Universe is part of a larger picture. My reasons for thinking this will come up in further points.

"CMBR is quite possibly the result of energy and motion." Ok, but what type of energetic event would cause this type spectra? Some specifics would be great. How would motion emit microwave radiation like this? Do you mean collisions? Motion itself is meaningless in terms of force and energy unless it is acting as a system of objects, like in a collision. This still doesn't really make sense to me. Maybe you mean acceleration? Acceleration would imply force, but motion does not.

"What the heck would be on the OTHER SIDE of a boundary? More universe?" You obviously didn't read my notes on space curvature. Two of the three theories other than yours that I outlined would imply no borders. In both the torus (flat) and sphere (positive curvature), there are no boundaries. Think of it like a repeating sidescrolling videogame. You can go infinitely in one direction, but there is a finite amount of map. Maybe you're having trouble visualizing this, but you shouldn't even attempt to. I don't mean the Universe is shaped like a doughnut, it is just a two dimensional analogy. We live in three spatial dimensions, and the visualization is subsequently complicated.

"We also know that stars are born and die in regular predictable cycles." We, being the scientific community, do not know this. It is true that stars are born and die, but it is not a predictably cyclical process. Most of the systems we see now are the result of intergalactic Hydrogen dust that accumulated following the energetic expulsion of the origin. Some of this matter has been trapped in black holes, some is trapped in brown dwarfs that now consist of elements too heavy to undergo nuclear reaction. The amount of matter that is available for nuclear reaction (everything lighter than Iron) is steadily decreasing, and will be trapped for a long time in the form of nuclear bonds. On top of that, the Universe is getting less dense because of accelerating expansion. Even regular expansion would do, but this just strengthens my point. We need sufficient energy density for nuclear fusion to happen, and that energy needs to be in the form of matter that a potential star would be able to process. Stars will not burn forever, and new stars will not always grace the sky. If the Universe has existed forever, our sky would be dark. This is the best current theory.

"No one knows what a black hole is." Yes. Yes, we do. It is a very massive/energetic object that bends spacetime sufficiently to prevent even light from escaping its grasp beyond a limit called the Event Horizon. The only thing we do not know is what happens at the very center of this entity, which is very interesting, but doesn't imply we don't know what a black hole is. It is energy/mass, just like everything else.

"The matter in the universe may be expanding AND contracting. There is evidence for both." There actually isn't. I don't know what your source is for this, but I'm sure even the most cursory Google search of the word "redshift" will provide evidence otherwise.

"It is my opinion that matter is infinite and therefore we will never run out of it. Check out Quantum physics and Zero Point Energy." Ok, I'll take these both on below:

Small amounts of matter can pop in and out of existence (quantum theory), but it always does so in pairs which annihilate an equal amount of matter that was formed. It is very unlikely that this could spawn stars indefinitely. Something must have happened to initiate an imbalance in matter/antimatter, or else the whole Universe would have annihilated itself. Even if matter were infinite, stars would not continuously form into infinity. This has nothing to do with the total amount of matter, but really the energy density of a regional system. Because the Universe is expanding, it will eventually not be able to produce new stars. So my question here stands.

Zero point Energy just means that particles and fields have a positive energy when in their absolute ground state (ie, when at absolute zero in a vacuum). ZPE is a possible explanation for the accelerating expansion of the Universe. I don't know why you're implying I'm not familiar with the subject because it seems to support my position that the Universe is indeed expanding and not contracting.

@Austinstar: I just thought of another couple questions.

This new theory predicts that the Universe is constant in size (density), and therefore existed forever. We know that galaxies are moving away from each other because of redshifting. That would mean that in the past, galaxies were closer together. Is there another explanation for what's going on here? I cannot reconcile this.

Also, we know that stars are able to sustain themselves for only a certain amount of time. After a while, they either become supernovae, black holes, or a host of other exotic entities. Because the Universe is expanding, this means that eventually there will not be enough density to produce new stars. If the Universe is infinitely old, why are there still stars in the sky?

@Austinstar: I was able to find two physicists that are proposing this idea. I will mention that the overwhelming majority of physicists still believe the Big Bang Theory to be the most likely. It is possible that our Universe has existed forever, or at least I cannot think of a perfect way to refute that idea, but the fact of the matter is that we do see Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation which is consistent with the Big Bang model.

My question would be as follows: if the Big Bang did not happen, what else could cause this static in microwave radiation? I will also note that the concept of infinity does not inherently bother me, it is only when postulated in the context of a Big Bang, or any finite origin, where I cannot resolve this apparent discrepancy.

I would like to see the aforementioned link for my own education though.

@Austinstar: I think this is the only point where we are having a disconnect. Time isn't a constant, and it isn't simply a human construct. It exists just as tangibly as any of the other three widely accepted dimensions. What we measure as time actually gets manipulated by the mass and matter surrounding it. I will write more about this concept in The Universe is Absurd series in the future because I think many people have trouble grasping the idea of time as a malleable feature.

To quickly illustrate the idea: the more energy that exists in a system, whether it be in the form of matter or otherwise, the slower time moves relative to other places in the cosmos. If you have a system of infinite energy density, time stops. It happens inside of black holes and at the origin. This concept is supported by general relativity, the standard model of physics, and empirical study. That means that if we exist within the Universe, as we do, time does not continue backward past the Big Bang. It's super weird to think about, but that's seriously our best theories hard at work. It's true that these are just theories, but they really are our best theories.

I think a cool illustrative example of the flexible nature of time is the lifespan of a photon. For a photon being emitted from a star, let's say... two lightyears away, it takes two years to reach us. That's all fine and well, but that's only from our perspective. From the photon's perspective, moving at the cosmic speed limit, literally zero time elapsed from the moment of its emission and when it gets absorbed by your retina. What's even weirder, or maybe equally weird, is that it doesn't experience distance either. Just something for your brain to gnaw on for a while.

In either case, I do agree that something could have "caused" the Big Bang, meaning there was something "before" it. I just don't think our current understanding of time and causality necessarily hold during this process.

@Austinstar: I agree with this as a great possibility entirely, except for one point. For me, the beginning of time (as far as the Universe's origin is concerned) is at the Big Bang. Without space, the idea of spacetime, and therefore time, does not exist. Time is dependent on the matter and energy that coexist with it, just think of general relativity.

At the moment of singularity, like in a black hole, time ceases to exist at least for those observing from outside the event horizon. I think the same could be said for the Universe's Big Bang. That being said, it is likely that the Big Bang resulted from something else, but I do not think that this relationship follows the concept of time and causality that we experience on a daily basis.

If you dissociate yourself from the typical definition of time, and allow it to encompass a more vast array of phenomena, I would absolutely agree with you that time could very well be infinite. I guess in the end we are in complete agreement, I just had to add that little caveat, that our Universe's time is finite in at least one direction, the beginning. For what lies beyond our Universe, I would have no way of knowing.

Thank you very much for your reasoning. It is much appreciated.

@austinstar: I just realized how much I wrote, so I need to warn you: I went a little bit overboard here. Let's just write this off as an act of passion, shall we? Yes, I will be cleaning this up in a hub. Anyway, here goes:

What is on the other side of space?

This apparent paradox can be summarized as follows: If space ends, what is on the other side of it? If space never ends, how can we reconcile the concept of infinity? It's a catch-22 at its finest.

The resolution of your issue with borders is convoluted but scientifically valid. The Big Bang actually creates space, the dimensions we interact with. Beyond this region there is nothing, not empty space, but actual nothing. Multiple Universes would not have to be separated from each other because they create their own space. There is no threat of Universe A's space occupying the same space as Universe B because they create enough of it for themselves and don't have to share. You have to stop thinking of space as an inherent quality of the outside of reality, because it probably isn't. The implications of this theory depend on whether we find the Universe to be flat, open, closed, finite or infinite.

Let's talk about what it means to be flat. What I mean by this is that space follows Euclidean geometry, where parallel lines stay parallel, and right angles stay perpendicular into infinity. This can be true of three dimensions, it is just exceedingly hard to visualize, since we typically have access to a maximum of three dimensions. We can easily see if a two dimensional surface is curved because we can see into the dimension in which it is curved. Think of a ball. A ball has a two dimensional surface which experiences a positive curvature, allowing something to travel around it and end up in the same place it started. Flat curvature would be like a piece of paper. This is worrisome, because paper has edges.

We actually do not know if the Universe is infinite or finite. What we do think is that the Universe is "flat" (euclidean). Although, it could simply be that it is so large that our comparatively small observable Universe seems flat, kind of like how we used to think the Earth was flat because our sample was too small. Anyway, this would look like an analogous sphere, where our three dimensions are the surface. I guess I should go through these cases briefly, but do please note that most of them lack what we would call a border, which I think you will find comforting, as I do.

Let's start with your theory, because it is actually a well respected one. If we have a flat Universe, which we think we do, the most intuitive conclusion would be that it extends into infinity. This would truly be an infinite, flat Universe, and some physicists like this scenario best. The reason I have a problem with it is that we think all of the energy in the Universe came from the Big Bang. Since the Big Bang occupied/produced a finite amount of space at its origin, it seems unlikely it would be able to reach infinity in a finite amount of time, which is all the time we have so far, 14.7 billion years.

Another theory is that the Universe is flat, but finite. This would be like the piece of paper I mentioned earlier. Since the Universe is constantly expanding, it will likely reach infinity, but it will take an infinite amount of time to do so. I like this theory because it respects time as a currently finite thing. What I do not like is that this theory implies there is an edge of space. If we were able to travel fast enough to get to that edge, we have no way of conceptualizing what might happen. Personally, this is enough to want to reject the theory, but we should be careful not to let our own potential misunderstanding invalidate an otherwise worthy theory. After all, relative to us, this proposed edge of the Universe is moving much faster than the speed of light, and can therefore never be reached. In this sense, even this version of the Universe would be effectively limitless.

There is a workaround that keeps the Universe spatially flat, and finite, all without the existence of an edge, or border. This all sounds great, but the theory does have one drawback, it is increasingly convoluted. Here's how it goes: the Universe is spatially flat, and finite, but shaped like a torus (think of a doughnut). You would be able to travel infinitely in one direction, but would eventually be in the same place you left off, like travelling around the globe. Note that although space would feel infinite, and would have no borders, the amount of mass and spacetime is finite. This resolves my issues with infinite mass/space via finite time, and borders, but does so with a significant increase in complexity, which has been shown to be a bad sign for theoretical physics. It also implies multiple paths to the same points with varying distances, which seems illogical, but we are currently testing for evidence of this.

The final theory I will present is one that violates popular opinion and, as far as we know, the current data set. It is also the theory I most qualitatively enjoy. This is a Universe with positively curved space, analogous to the two dimensional surface of a sphere. This would mean that we could travel infinitely in any direction and reach the same place we left off, ignoring the cosmic speed limit. It also means that spacetime and mass would be finite, but feel essentially infinite. We also rid ourselves of any inconsistencies with different paths being varied distances to the same points. The main problem with this theory is that the current data seems to suggest that our Universe is flat. It also implies that on a large enough scale, our Universe is non-Euclidean, though we would never notice this in practical application. I like to think of a possible reconciliation, where our sample is just too small. This is analogous to when people thought the earth was flat, because the area immediately surrounding them looked flat. Our observable Universe could be a significantly small enough portion of the total Universe for it to appear flat. We may be wrong. We do not know.

All of these theories are valid, and all have their respective downfalls. The truth is, we may never know how the Universe really works, but the journey sure is fun.

@electro: this really weirds me out too... I'm guessing we are akin to fish in a fishbowl. Sure, we can postulate the theories governing phenomena within said bowl, though a proper vantage point would kill us, if even possible to acquire. I hope to be one day proven wrong, but I think we are forever confined to these limitations. We can only develop laws that help us predict events within our bowl, without really ever knowing anything about the greater validity of our claims or the origin of these fundamental laws. In short, we may be able to figure out what happens, but the answer to why may always elude us.

@chef: here's my first crack at it: https://hubpages.com/education/The-Universe-is-Abs...

@chef-de-jour: oh man... I guess I have to now. The Higgs is definitely a hard sell, and I'm probably going to get in a bit of trouble for issuing my stance on the matter, but I can't resist. Wish me luck.

@Sue: Thank you very much. There are very few aspects of physics that we have yet to fully comprehend. This subject is one that is uniquely unresolved, which fascinates me. Thanks for the comment!

Thanks Prof Liway and Mel, the article definitely raises more questions than it answers, but I hope to delve deeper into possible solutions to these queries as the series unfolds. Prof, feel free to use any of my content in your lectures sans credit, just be sure to site images that are not mine (gotta set a good example here). Mel, I wanted to get more into this idea, but its so hard to conceptualize, let alone communicate, exactly how reality differs from what we allow to be our sufficient approximate in everyday life. Perhaps I'll be able to touch more on this in the future.