Originally posted by an0n:
The universe does not need a beggining, nor an end. The universe dictates all laws of energy, matter and time. If it wants it to look as if there was a big explosion then it will friggin look like there was a big explosion. The 'Big Bang' might simply have been a tiny pop compared to the all encompassing vastness of space. Mikhael, I take it you know about the multiple horizon/bubble thingy? This would explain why the universe is expanding quicker, because of the gravity from the matter in the other explosions.
To your first point, Hawking suggests that the universe, when seen from something within it appears to have a beginning and an end, simply because of the the way we percieve time. He has shown, however, that by using a different concept of time (which is not inconsistant with our current conception of time), it is possible for the universe to be of finite duration, but not have any edge state (a beginning or end).
By 'multiple horizon', I think you are referring to the possibility of a cluster of smaller Bangs exploding close together but serperately, or perhaps one triggering the rest. Whereas this is a distinct possiblity, it still suggests (by standard conception) an edge state.
I have a theory:
A vacuum is nothing. It is not a tangible substance which can be bent and shaped, it simply is nothing. This nothingness fills infinity and 'space' as we know it is simply the limits of where matter has encroached onto this vast emptiness. Therefore the universe could be infinite in size as nothing there would require no energy or matter to create or sustain, the edge of the universe would simply be matter wooshing off into the blackness, and beyond that would simply be more empty space. People claw to the ideas that are derived from Einsteins and Hawkins theories no matter how many dead ends they encounter. It may be that Hawkins cannot form a unified field theory simply becaue the respective fields are in some way wrong in their perceptions of time and space.....Then again I could just be talking crap. I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
Vacuum is not nothing. It is the absence of something. This is an important semantic difference, especially in the case of virtual particles, and thus, the Casimir Effect (the generation of energy by the spontaneous creation and destruction of nonexistent particles in an empty space).
An interesting thing comes up when you adjust the normal conception of time, you end up, as mentioned above a 'no edge' condition. In theory, if you were to travel far enough in one direction, you would walk around the universe back to where you started. The problem is that you would have to travel much faster than the speed of light to do this (incurring all the usual problems). The beautiful part of this is that it is wholly consistent with the physics of the universe as we observe it to be.
You suggest that the phycists of various species may be wrong in their perceptions of time and space. Whilst this is indeed possible, I would cite for you a far more likely explanation (as their theories seem to be correct more often than not, and the evidence backs them up). Consider, by way of example, a simple mathematical issue: Fermat's Last Theorum. Baffled mathemeticians for centuries until someone pointed out that the theorum could be written in a certain way (called a parametric equation). Then one day, along came a pair of Japanese mathemeticians, Taniyama and Shimura and they suggested that all parametric equations had a modular equation equivalent. Between these two simple facts, a British mathemetician changed his basic conception of the problem and proved Fermat correct (though likely not in the manner in which Fermat had discovered).
Whilst we may not concieve space and time in the 'proper' way to formulate a Grand Unified Theory, that does not make these people wrong.
------------------
--Mik
http://www.404error.comruhkferret on ICQ/AIM
"Your guy was a little SQUARE! You had to use your IMAGINATION! There were no multiple levels or screens. There was just one screen forever and you could never win the game. It just kept getting harder and faster until you died. JUST LIKE LIFE." --Ernie Cline
