[dmill1220]

Hello everyone!
Please believe me! I, in no way intend to start a heated debate over this subject in any manner.
Im just looking for varied input on the Current theories out there, with any deviations from presently accepted theories,that anyone may have.
I would like to keep this friendly,and intuitive and in laymans terms that we can all understand, especially me! LOL!
I have heard of String theory, or M theory and the Multiverse theory,
the strange dark energy and its role in current cosmology.
the expanding and contracting or cyclic theories, are there more?
I even heard of one where things go from infinetly larger to infinetly smaller!
which one do you like the most and Why?
Dennis:)

[Dragon Star]

# Big Bang Theory

# Bubble Universe Theory

# Cyclic universe theory

# Recycled Universe Theory

# Clockwork universe theory

# Block Universe Theory

# Electric Universe theory

And it goes on and on and on...Big Bang and/or Multiverse Theory are what I think to be most likely. Both have more evidence and more support from direct observation then any-other theories as of now.

[dmill1220]

I personally Like the Multiverse and Cyclic theories, Cosmology does indeed have quite a few theories, To me its a fascinating Mix of possibilities.

It makes me feel Humble, sort of puts us in a perplexing Conundrum.
We really know very little of exactly How it was created, and where the Universe is headed. That to me is the fascinating part! the possibility that we could be completely wrong on all counts is really alluring.

With the little understanding that I have of this wonderful question, I can only rely on my intuition, but I lean to the ones I mentioned above. I dont like the Idea that it may expand forever and end up a cold place with dead Stars and Planets it a sad ending for me, but this also could be Correct!
Dont you wish we could zoom to the future just to see of we ever figure it out? I sure do! then again maybe its just one of those questions that can never be answered fully!
Dennis:)

[Blue Fire]

Good topic dmill! I don't think I'm knowlegeable enough to evalute a favorite cosmological theory, but I'll take a stab at a comment or two. I am currently fascinated by the idea of the Holographic Principle, as cursorily explained here in Wiki:

Quote

The holographic principle is a speculative conjecture . . . claiming that all of the information contained in a volume of space can be represented by a theory that lives in the boundary of that region. In other words, if you have a room then you can model all of the events within that room by creating a theory that only takes into account what happens in the walls of the room

and here:

Quote

Reasons for the holographic principle
Given any finite, compact region of space (e.g. a sphere), this region will contain matter and energy within it. If this energy surpasses a critical density then the region collapses into a black hole.

A black hole is known theoretically to have an entropy [1] which is directly proportional to the surface area of its event horizon. Black holes are maximal entropy objects [2], so the entropy contained in a given region of space cannot be larger than the entropy of the largest black hole which can fit in that volume.

A black hole's event horizon encloses a volume, and more massive black holes have larger event horizons and enclose larger volumes. The most massive black hole that can fit in a given region is the one whose event horizon corresponds exactly to the boundary of the given region.

Greater mass entails greater entropy. Therefore the maximal limit of entropy for any ordinary region of space is directly proportional to the surface area of the region, not its volume. This is counter-intuitive to physicists because entropy is an extensive variable, being directly proportional to mass, which is proportional to volume (all else being equal, including the density of the mass).

If entropy of ordinary mass (not just black holes) is also proportional to area, then this implies that volume itself is somehow illusory: that mass occupies area, not volume, and so the universe is really a hologram which is isomorphic to the information "inscribed" on its boundaries [3].

The key point here, for me anyway, is the finding that the entropy of a black hole is directly related to it's surface area rather than to volume. In any case, just the mere thought of what we think of as our universe being essentially illusory due to some kind of holographic effect projected (to represent the universe you and I observe) from an encompassing area boundary, seems so elegantly weird!

Another pet idea I entertain often is that there actually is a smallest chunk of space and a smallest chunk of time. I think this actually follows from the cosmological theory that all of spacetime exists at once and that you and I only experience a "forward" arrow of time as a consequence of traveling through spacetime in a particular "direction" at the speed of light, but in tiny steps from one state to another - sort of like how a movie proceeds one frame at a time. And so objects can move entirely through space but not time (like light), or entirely through time but not space (like someone standing motionless), or some combination of space/time vectors (like someone driving northeast whereby their motion is partly north and partly east).

I think having a smallest unit of time and a smallest unit of space would eliminate a lot of those nasty infinities that mathematical analysis of space and time currently has to deal with. Curiously, if this is so, then Zeno's Paradox is solved easily without resorting to analyzing either the logic or mathematics of traversing infinitely divisible distances.

Whew, that's all the brain matter I can spare at the moment. But I'm looking forward to other folks' posts here. :)

[Dragon Star]

Well we have a very good idea where it is going, and how it got to where it is, but how it started in the initial millionth of a second and before is clueless to us, because there truly are so many ways it could have happened it will be a very long time before we make sure we have the right one, but I will say that we will figure it out as long as we save our butts long enough to get there.:D

Read more on fate of the universe.:)

[Blue Fire]

Dragon Star said:

[snip] but I will say that we will figure it out as long as we save our butts long enough to get there.:D

I concur!! But saveing our butts is a whole 'nother can of worms!! Let's take the optimistic view that we learn how to do this first before it's too late. *hoping, hoping, hoping* :D

[dmill1220]

HI Blue fire!
WOW! Thats a very interesting theory, that I dont think I ever heard of, but I like it! I really never thought of it in that Manner.
Dennis:)

[Dragon Star]

Oh, nice explanation on that theory Blue. ;) Quite interesting indeed.

[dmill1220]

Hi Blue Fire!
I did some further research on the Holographic Principle theory that you pointed me to, its a fascinating idea!
it makes so much sense its wierd!

Time, is it not an invention of Man, in order to make sense of everthing we see or do?
Dennis :)

[Dragon Star]

Time is a tricky subject, as relativity comes to bite you in the butt. I would expand on it here but I think it deserves it's own thread. If someone would like to make it that would be nice.:)

[dmill1220]

I agree Dragon!
a very tricky subect indeed! and can be a very explosive one at that!
Let me explain why I said this!
We see, smell, hear, or Feel everything , our brains can only process Info with these input devices,
I do understand Relativity, and can see were youre going with this, but remember this, its an important concept!
since we are limited just by our senses alone, what else could we be missing? Our concept of time and understanding of relativity is one enriched, or made possible, by our physical senses and, observations, Mathematics, and logical deductions or verified experiments right?

Can we be so sure that we have all of the physical senses or tools necessary, to see all there is to observe? I am sure that we don't, our own science has proven that to us already! things that we have discovered by means that our senses could not show us, this leaves an interesting Paradox in what we observe around us. one such example out of many others is, dark energy!

When I finally see a grand unified theory of everything, its still possible that we may still be missing part of the picture.
I try to look at things in a different perspective simply because the eye and, our senses, can fool us, or leave something out that is actually there but we are just not built to comprehend or see it.
Please understand that I am in no way refuting what Einstein has layed down, Im just trying to express that there can be alot more possibilities due to our limited senses. no one can have all the answers if all of the input devices are not in place for proper processing.

My statement of time comes from this line of reasoning, and its only a speculative opinion. I did not intend to start a heated debate!
Dennis :)

[dmill1220]

There seems to be opinions from string theory advocates according to Dr. Edward Witten, About Space and Time being Illusions.
I find this to be quite a bold statement from a theoretical Science that has yet to be proven, and is not very well understood.The article can be found in Astronomy Magazine online.
Here we go again with yet another opinion on where String theory is going and its implications. here is a quote from this article,
Quote:A: Many physicists have suggested that such seemingly intuitive concepts as "space" and "time" might be illusions — that they may be approximations of something deeper. What does string theory say?

EW: It does very much look, in the context of string theory, that space and time are approximations that are good for ordinary purposes. If you have a human-size distance, like three meters, or a human-size time period, like … five seconds, time is a good notion and space is a good notion. But when you get down to very, very tiny levels — even below the subatomic level — it looks like our ordinary notions of space and time break down. We don't really understand what's behind space-time — it's probably tied up with the fact that we don't yet understand the basic ideas that string theory is based on :end Quote.

Oh boy what a big can of worms! Does anyone really believe in such a speculative theory? IS there a War on current accepted theories?
Im not sure what to believe in myself. since it is purely Hypothetical at Least, and the statement that we really dont know whats behind Space and Time is also included in this Statement .
Dennis:)

[Blue Fire]

Dmill1220, this reminds me of the age-old debate involving Relationist theories that Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibniz argued for. The following is from Brian Green's The Fabric Of The Cosmos.

Quote

... Leibniz, who was Newton's contemporary, firmly believed that space does not exist in any conventional sense. Talk of space, he claimed, is nothing more than an easy and convenient way of encoding where things are relative to one another. Without the objects in space, Leibniz declared, space itself has no independent meaning or existence. Think of the English asphabet. It provides an order for twenty-six letteres - it provides relations such as a is next to b, d is six letters before j, x is three letters after u, and so on. But without the letters, the alphabet has no meaning - it has no "supra-letter," independent existence. Instead, the alphabet comes into being with the letters whose lexicographic relations it supplies. Leibniz claimed that the same is tre for space: Space has no meaning beyond providing the natural language for discusssing the relationship between on object's location and another. According to Leibniz, if all object were removed from space -- if space were completely empty -- it would be as meaningless as an alphabet that's missing its letters.

As I understand it, this view is still currently held by some, and may even be enoying a come-back, of a sort, with the expansion of ideas like the Holographic principle wherein what you and I experience, sense, detect, measure, etc. is merely illusion and that there is some bounding entity that is producing all those effects with some kind of holographic process. The question seems to boil down to whether space and time actually exist in and of themselves - whether spacetime is a 'something' or a 'nothing'. And whether space is absolute or 'relative'. Other theories currently popular seem to be heading in the direction that space may be absolute, in a sense returning to the idea behind the aether of space that was proposed so long ago and then discarded as quite invalid by the time Einstein came along.

Admittedly, I haven't studied this kind of stuff to be any kind of expert on it, but it is interesting nonetheless to me. :)

[dmill1220]

An Excellent Point Blue!
I too, am fascinated with this subject.
I would like to speed things up about 200 years or so and see where we are then,
Can you point me to the fountain of youth? LOL!
I wish we could speed things up a bit, my curiosity is killing me!
But haste makes waste and good science is a slow exacting process!
I would love to compare what we discover in the future, to all of these competing theories!
Dennis:)

[Dragon Star]

dmill1220 said:

Can you point me to the fountain of youth? LOL!

I hear that an overdose of Cyanide has a very similar effect...

...but don't take my word for it. :D

[dmill1220]

Thats Nice Dragon!
Very Funny! and probably true!
LMAO!
Dennis ;)