Steady State Universe - Philosophical Implications

[Space Smith]

Steady State Universe - Philosophical Implications.

There is evidence that the Big Bang is wrong. Eg Red Shift is caused by "tired light" - basically photons are being deenergised by colliding with other atomic particle. Anyway. I haven't posted so much as to debate that but....

If the "Steady State" is the correct model then the "eternal return" possibility of the "Big Bang" goes out the window doesn't it ?

The Steady State model would mean that the Universe is infinite as well as eternal "both ways" along the time arrow.

With such huge swathes of space/time, somewhere in the Universe someone else is writing this message on a plant like ours and every other feature identical. There will of course be huge number of similar people on similiar worlds doing nearly the same thing. It boggles the mind

So how can we somehow get to grips with issues regarding the human soul in this endless infinite universe ?

 

[j d worthington]

Welcome to the Chronicles, Space Smith!

Well, first... all the evidence I've seen tends to indicate modifications in the standard model of the Big Bang; I've seen no indication of it being replaced by anything, let alone a return to the Steady State model. If you could provide some links, or citations, to recent work on this, I'd be very interested, as it would indeed have vast implications....

Also, your example of numerous others writing, etc., would indicate a form of such recurrence itself, would it not?

As for your final question... well, that depends on what you mean by "the human soul". If you mean it in the traditional sense, I'm afraid I'd have to say there is no evidence such a thing exists. If you mean it in its more metaphorical sense, how does this differ from one involving a "big bang"? Either way, the human race is such an infinitely tiny part of the whole, that it becomes negligible, of importance only to itself (at least, until we encounter some other sentient, intelligent, probably technologically-advanced species) -- or at least, to the species limited to this planet. Thus, I don't really see how the difference in model alters that particular question at all....

 

[matisamd]

as i understand it the unified theories of string theory are the current most advance accepted knowledge we have in out understanding, and scifi shows like sg1 and even tng are joyfully funny with there application of those understandings. and AFAICS the multiple dimension theory ie ware every possibillity exists for every possible action of every atom helps explain time travel, which is also part of the posibilty of string which says time travel is possible by the creation of a warm hole then sending one end of as near light speed and bring it back means you have a time portal to the past , i dont know if a warm hole would be unidirectional making it a portal to the future but hey. because you get to grips with yuor soul with tools at yuor disposal and if there insufficiant be part of the porgres and invent anew ones.

when you say old light are you talking about when electrons jump energy levels and give off diff frequencies of light ?


But yuor last question i sum up as the more we learn and look back the more we must realise we probably dont understand everything infact we probably understand almost nothing yet feel so empowered by tht which we under stand.

basically i dont beleave in heaven i dont beleave we just end i beleave when we die or what our soul is, is somthing we really really dont understand, but! like the first series of any show that may continue 10 seasons more the first series tells you basically the whole story, what i mean by that is look to the simple we do understand ie no matter how corny it is or why we do it or what we gain by being loving to everyone and trying to see good in each other is the best we can do, think like sg1 episode 200 said, as i am not able to put it into words better currently. If you saw the show. if not go watch the last 5 minutes they put it so well.

disclaimer all my knowledge is second hand from other sources like tv book etc and are all very unrealiable as anything done by epople is, also i made it worse like chinese whispers

 

[Space Smith]

Thanks for the replies. From what I can gather the following writer, with an electrical engineering background is saying that cosmologists and "stringers" have lost "contact" with core science. (Can't put my hand on the book in question or author at the moment- but will later). "Science" proceeds by specialists in one discipline considering other disciplines. The author state that string theory doesn't meet meet the requirements of falsifiable experiment and is therefore an exercise in intellectual m*********** (my words)


The Big Bang I believe is predicated on everything moving apart. The further it is away, the faster its moving, hence the greater the "Red Shift". The traditional Big Bang argument being that light (considered as a wave) is being stretched to he "redder end" of the spectrum.


The "tired light" theory is a photon that every x light years collides with a particle. The author mentions that empirical evidence for red shift according to the Big Bang modellers is becoming or is (?) not supportive. Indeed the BBers partially adopting "tired light" to explain certain anomalies.

I claim no great expertise in "science" (obtained a 2:2 in maths/physics many years ago). There are political forces involved with funding issues. People are making a living out of the Big Bang ! (As someone who knows more than many how deceitful the rulers of this world are this is something of the variety of small potatoes )


WRT to the human soul. I suppose the birth and life of a human being could be mirrored by the Big Bang and Big Crunch. A sense of being born , dying and rebirth. The Steady State suggests "material eternity" with no parallels with what we regard as life cycles of humans, trees, planets, stars galaxies etc It's hard to get a "fix" on - not that we should. The universe doesn't owe us nice analogies to explain our existence


(Finally looks like a forum with some intelligent people on it ! Good to be here )

 

[chrispenycate]

A steady-state, non- expanding universe might well be spacially infinite would be an aging system; if it started with only hydrogen it would ultimately die due to lack of energy; oh some consiserable time hence, but to a mathematician "infinity" is not merely a very large number, it is boundlessness. The Hoyle "continuous creation" model allowed for expansion (yes, something which is infinite can expand; it just doesn't get any bigger) with constant density, which allows for eternity as well.
But "red shift cannot be explained away by collisions, which would reduce the energy but would not shift spectral lines. It could be explained away by a continuous change in the speed of light, or one or two other fundamental physical constants over long periods of time (after all, the lightfrom some of the further observed objects is several billion years old, and if a physical constant was different when it was generated, this could well give a shifted spectrum).
Or the gravitational field of the universe slowly diminishing.
Or light itself losing energy over time

But none of these bode well for a universe which is expected to last forever.

 

[Space Smith]

A steady-state, non- expanding universe might well be spacially infinite would be an aging system; if it started with only hydrogen it would ultimately die due to lack of energy;

Not necessarily. The second law heat death scenario is not proven. The Universe would have already died IF it is steady state and eternal...I think we are still learning about the mass energy thing.

oh some consiserable time hence, but to a mathematician "infinity" is not merely a very large number, it is boundlessness.

And of course there's different types of inifinity.

The Hoyle "continuous creation" model allowed for expansion (yes, something which is infinite can expand; it just doesn't get any bigger) with constant density, which allows for eternity as well.

hmmm not sure what you mean here..." bigger" needs a frame of reference ?

But "red shift cannot be explained away by collisions, which would reduce the energy but would not shift spectral lines. It could be explained away by a continuous change in the speed of light, or one or two other fundamental physical constants over long periods of time (after all, the lightfrom some of the further observed objects is several billion years old, and if a physical constant was different when it was generated, this could well give a shifted spectrum).
Or the gravitational field of the universe slowly diminishing.
Or light itself losing energy over time

Damn. Will have to go back and remind myself of spectral line stuff.

Will also arm myself with book when I can find it
There's something to do with the cosmological constant being derived from physical constants that could only apply to the universe as it is now. The author says that this would be extremely unlikely - sorry about being vague...and he ties this in with "tired light"

But none of these bode well for a universe which is expected to last forever.

"bode well" suggests a preference (and I wonder if there might be subjective reasons for preferring the Big Bang model ? "I am the Alpha and The Omega sayeth the Lord "etc)

 

[HardScienceFan]

A genuine redshift anomaly seems to exist, one that would cause a re-think about cosmological issues if the data are accepted. Let’s look at this for just a moment. As we look out into space, the light from galaxies is shifted towards the red end of the spectrum. The further out we look, the redder the light becomes. The measure of this redshifting of light is given by the quantity z, which is defined as the change in wavelength of a given spectral line divided by the laboratory standard wavelength for that same spectral line. Each atom has its own characteristic set of spectral lines, so we know when that characteristic set of lines is shifted further down towards the red end of the spectrum. This much was noted in the early 1920’s. Around 1929, Hubble noted that the more distant the galaxy was, the greater was the value of the redshift, z. Thus was born the redshift/distance relationship. It came to be accepted as a working hypothesis that z might be a kind of Doppler shift of light because of universal expansion. In the same way that the siren of a police car drops in pitch when it races away from you, so it was reasoned that the redshifting of light might represent the distant galaxies racing away from us with greater velocities the further out they were. The pure number z, then was multiplied by the value of lightspeed in order to change z to a velocity. However, Hubble was discontent with this interpretation. Even as recently as the mid 1960’s Paul Couderc of the Paris Observatory expressed misgivings about the situation and mentioned that a number of astronomers felt likewise. In other words, accepting z as a pure number was one thing; expressing it as a measure of universal expansion was something else.

[FONT=&quot]Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with
a periodic separation of ¡­ 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in
these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by
spectroscopic or similar selection effects.
[/FONT]
you're talking about this, among other things?

 

[Space Smith]

[FONT=&quot]Two new samples of QSOs have been constructed from recent surveys to test the hypothesis that the
redshift distribution of bright QSOs is periodic in log(1 + z). The first of these comprises 57 different
redshifts among all known close pairs or multiple QSOs, with image separations ¡Â 10¡Ç¡Ç, and the second
consists of 39 QSOs selected through their X-ray emission and their proximity to bright comparatively
nearby active galaxies. The redshift distributions of the samples are found to exhibit distinct peaks with
a periodic separation of ¡­ 0.089 in log(1+z) identical to that claimed in earlier samples but now extended
out to higher redshift peaks z = 2.63, 3.45 and 4.47, predicted by the formula but never seen before. The
periodicity is also seen in a third sample, the 78 QSOs of the 3C and 3CR catalogues. It is present in
these three datasets at an overall significance level 10-5 - 10-6, and appears not to be explicable by
spectroscopic or similar selection effects.
[/FONT]
you're talking about this, among other things?

Well. Not in that much detail , which is way beyond me or my inclination to study it

HardScienceFan. A question. What is your best guess at what sort of universe we live in, based on all you know ?

 

[HardScienceFan]

well i guess i opened the trap for myself there.

Uh,I'm here so much,i can't get any reading done.
I grew up reading Coleman,Gamow,Asimov,Hoyle
Hard to shake that heritage

I'm with the 'expanders'

*Too little cosmology on the net,that's the problem*

 

[chrispenycate]

"bode well" suggests a preference (and I wonder if there might be subjective reasons for preferring the Big Bang model ? "I am the Alpha and The Omega sayeth the Lord "etc)

Yes, the "big bang" universe does contain elements of "let there be light", doesn't it? How about postulating a wider field (which can only be called a "universe", since the word implies all matter, energy and spacetime that exists, ever has existed or ever will exist; but this is many orders of magnitude more complex than the space we consider a universe) within which physical laws are not rigid, but quantum effects predominate. Continuously this will be producing "sub-universes" with fixed sheaves of invariable physical laws. Not "thousands per second" as time intervals are undefinable. Most (almost all. 99.9…% to an incredible number of decimal places) of these are unstable, most of the rest are uninteresting. It is not an extention of the anthropic principle that we live in one where the physical constants allow life, and does not require a benevolent intelligence; merely, that in another configuration, we wouldn't have been asking the question.
In the overall picture, since conservation of mass, energy, momentum are not laws, merely suggestions taken up in the space we happen to inhabit, since the arrow of entropy can point any way, even pink or angry, there is no need for beginnings or endings, and it could power a subset eternally, pulling out excess mass through black holes and pumping in undifferentiated matter to maintain the balance between hydrogen and the heavier elements eternally; but evidence obtaine by observing very distant (and thus a long way back in time) suggests that the system is evolutive, that the afformentioned ratio is changing, that the universe is aging….
Still, these observations are anything but definitive – the observed universe is a big place (although not, in big bang terms, infinite, still big enough to be quite daunting.
Uh oh - a client who wants me to print out the scores for some children's songs, seven to eleven.
Change of style.

 

[Space Smith]

We all agree on something . The Universe is BIG

Or is it ?

 

[j d worthington]

Well... that depends on what you're using as a comparison. Compared to another universe (I know, Chris will argue with me on this one, and technically he's right... but this usage has come to be accepted for non-technical purposes, so I'll risk his bonking me on the head....) then it depends.... (And even this is arguable; cf. Heinlein's "Waldo", for instance.)

However, in comparison to us... "big" just doesn't cover it.....

 

[Space Smith]

Well... that depends on what you're using as a comparison. Compared to another universe (I know, Chris will argue with me on this one, and technically he's right... but this usage has come to be accepted for non-technical purposes, so I'll risk his bonking me on the head....) then it depends.... (And even this is arguable; cf. Heinlein's "Waldo", for instance.)

However, in comparison to us... "big" just doesn't cover it.....

BIG is bigger than big

Yes . A comparison.

Its not an original thought but...: This universe is the equivalent of a subatomic particle say in a kitchen sink. Lots of "universes" on our scale make up another scale of universe.

Iterate that process up to a point....then consider the largest in that chain of iterations may be a sub atomic particle in the crumb of a biscuit I have just eaten. Circular if you know what I mean.

At a complete and utter tangent. I nearly asked a woman out this morning. It crossed my mind that the pleasures of such a transient undertaking - whether it lasted a night or thirty years - make one not give much thought to life the universe and everything and that. Is it just single males or men fed up with their wives consider such impracticalities and uneconomic thinking of "life the universe and everything" ?

 

[j d worthington]

Nope. It's human beings in general.... Just take a look at history.......

 

[gully_foyle]

I used to read alot of Fred Hoyle, so I thought the idea of a steady state universe had its charms. And he had a few theories to explain expansion, particularly that space is being created in situ, thus pushing apart the space already created (bad explanation, I know).

But, the steady state universe requires just one universe, that has been and will always be. It doesn't leave much room for variation of the physical laws that govern the universe. Consequently I like the concept of a series of universes, that we go through an evolutionary process and that each new cycle creates a new set of laws, potentially improved on the old ones, that keep the universe together, and makes it such a nice place for us to live in.

wrt The human soul, I think our souls are pretty much tied into the universe anyway, regardless of whether it was a big bang, a steady state or god's desire for a bit of lighting.

 

[Space Smith]

I used to read alot of Fred Hoyle, so I thought the idea of a steady state universe had its charms. And he had a few theories to explain expansion, particularly that space is being created in situ, thus pushing apart the space already created (bad explanation, I know).

Yes I have a book of his.

But, the steady state universe requires just one universe, that has been and will always be. It doesn't leave much room for variation of the physical laws that govern the universe. Consequently I like the concept of a series of universes, that we go through an evolutionary process and that each new cycle creates a new set of laws, potentially improved on the old ones, that keep the universe together, and makes it such a nice place for us to live in.

Subjective, but understandable. I don't know whether there's reason to believe the universe improves or is just a playground for "God" to experience through matter. There's an astrotheological saying that goes something like "As above, so below". If God's "mission" is to "enjoy" then so should we

wrt The human soul, I think our souls are pretty much tied into the universe anyway, regardless of whether it was a big bang, a steady state or god's desire for a bit of lighting.

Yes I agree 100%.

 

[Theleb K]

my thoughts, for what they are worth in the grand scheme of things, I've just alluded to on another thread. That is, quoting an old text, "...Nature contains Nature, Nature encompasses Nature..."

ie. in order to understand something new in nature you have to look at what's around you already. This doesn't shed light everywhere, clearly, BUT from this viewpoint, I don't see too many 'precedents' in nature for infinity so the idea of an infinite or an infinitely expanding Universe doesn't sit well with me.
There may be alot of grains of sand on the beach, or alot of blades of grass in the field but, if we can be bothered to count, the number is finite at a fixed moment in time...

This may be more philosphical than scientific but I am not a scientist!

 

[Space Smith]

This may be more philosphical than scientific but I am not a scientist!

It is often a conceit amongst "scientists" that they feel specially equipped to pontificate about "scientific things". (Whereas I am very conceited and feel free to pontificate on everything that takes my fancy )Everyone is free to speculate. I know a "scientist" on another forum who is one of the most stupid people to have navigated cyber space.

It seems to me that many "scientists" are "bought". Dependent on whatever the prevailing paradigm there is in their field to attract funding. Coming up with new stuff can displace people from their work. There's my "rant"

Yes. Looking around you. That's good. Being in the moment. Fixed on the Self as we go about our business (if only it were that simple )

 

[HardScienceFan]

an element of truth in what you say,Smithy.
the scientific world does have its fads,and dogmas even

 

[Interference]

If something can happen once, why not twice? If twice, why not twenty-seven times? If twenty-seven, why not an infinite number?

What caused the Big Bang?

Irrelevant.

What started the Universe?

Was it an isolated incident?

Were the ingrediants for this initiation available elsewhere?

Were other suitable ingredients available instead?

It this the first Universe?

Might the existence of the Original Universe be responsible for the creation of others?

In an infinity of Universes, need they all be subject to the same Universal Laws?

Did any or all Universes begin with a 'bang'? Or none??

What part did multi-dimensional space play in the formation of the Original Universe?

If I tickle my toe, why does my ear tingle? (just to add at least one question I'd have a chance of answering myself )