Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times

From: Stephen Harris (cyberguard1048-usenet_at_yahoo.com)
Date: 11/28/04 

Date: Sun, 28 Nov 2004 21:13:23 GMT

"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote in message
news:coctq4012li@drn.newsguy.com...
> Stephen Harris says...
>>
>>
>>"Daryl McCullough" <daryl@atc-nycorp.com> wrote
>
>>The steady-state theory is not still dominant and I posted some
>>reference quotes to Mike Oliver.
>
> I'm sorry---I meant the idea that the universe is infinite.
>

The infinity of the steady-state theory SST is infinitely old and infinitely
large.
There is no beginning of time as in the Big Bang model.

I said the infinity of the steady-state theory is not the same type of
infinity as described by the Big Bang model, the universe begins with time.
The word "infinite" is used in both cases but has two different meanings.
The
SST meaning has a static, absolute, completed sense, which reminds me
of how a mathematical infinite plane is stated into existence, no process
of expansion of the entire universe but expansion within volumes of the
universe that do no exceed their original boundaries.

The Big Bang uses a time dependent function for density and size of
the universe. This infinity seems relative to me, there is process. And
I think that is why Einstein's theory impacted the plausibility of SST.

>>> (open) universe, the universe is spatially infinite from the beginning.
>>
>>I accept that this is the explanation. But, I have trouble accepting
>>the fact that it is also claimed that Big Bang originated from
>>an infinitesimal point and then expanded/exploded without the volume
>>of the universe changing.
>
> In the unbounded cosmologies, the Big Bang was not a time when the
> universe was at a single point---it was a time when the universe had
> infinite density.
>

I'm comparing SSt to the Big Bang. There is no infinite density in SSt.
Because the same word "infinite" in both theories does not mean the
concept that the word represents is the same in both theories.

This answers part of my question within the Big Bang theory context.
"Note that in the above paragraphs I have been careful to use the term
"observable Universe" rather than Universe. The Universe itself, or the
maximum amount of space that we will eventually be able to see given an
infinite amount of time, may well be infinite. In quoting a size of the
Universe we infer how far we can see in one direction (15 billion light
years),
and how far we can see in the other direction (15 billion light years) and
add the two to get a size (30 billion light years). An age of 15 billion
light years in each direction therefore leads us to infer that we are at the
centre of a sphere with radius 15 billion light-years, and hence that the
Universe is 30 billion light-years "across". The trick, however, is that
because the Universe is homogeneous and isotropic, every observer must
measure a size of the Universe that is 30 billion light years... even ones
that are at the "edge" of our observable Universe! This means that either
the Universe is sufficiently curved that space doubles back on itself (like
on the surface of a sphere), or that the actual Universe is much larger than
the observable one. We currently think that the latter possibility is the
case."

This quote says the at the moment of creation, space and time were
created so that there was a physical dimension.
"13.7 billion years ago, the entirety of our universe was compressed into
the
confines of an atomic nucleus. Known as a singularity, this is the moment
before creation when space and time did not exist. According to the
prevailing
cosmological models that explain our universe, an ineffable explosion,
trillions of degrees in temperature on any measurement scale, that was
infinitely dense, created not only fundamental subatomic particles and thus
matter and energy but space and time itself. Cosmology theorists combined
with the observations of their astronomy colleagues have been able to
reconstruct the primordial chronology of events known as the big bang."

> You might want to look at the cosmology faq entry here:
>
> http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/infpoint.html
>
> --
> Daryl McCullough
>

I wrote:

"There used to be a theory in astronomy/cosmology that the universe
was infinite. Then evidence that the universe was expanding caused
this theory to be dropped." ***

This means the theory SST was dropped with its intepretation of infinity.
It does not mean that infinity was dropped from the Big Bang theory.
I think the interpretation of infinity in BB is different from SSt becasue
SSt used a universe of infinite age/infinitely large while the BB uses
an infinity which has a beginning in time. I don't see the state, whatever
it was before the big bang as equivalent to the universe as infinitely old.

When you challenged my *** quote I clarified with:

"I said there used to be a theory that the universe was already infinite
as in no expansion it was _already_ infinite.

Expansion undermined this theory not because it provided evidence
of the finiteness of the universe, but because if the universe is under
expansion there can't be a working completed infinity of the universe
theory."

I'm distinguishing between the senses of infinity used. Einstein did
his work around 1915. He thought the universe was fixed, no expansion.
I'm saying that there was a theory like SSt which said this fixed size
universe was also infinite. This is before Big Bang theory or evidence
from Hubble that the universe was expanding; expansion is part of
the Big Bang theory tied to a beginning in time. SSt has no beginning
in time.

I'm saying there are two types of infinity involved in this discussion.
Not, that the BB notion of infinity implies a finite universe. You wrote:

"Actually, the evidence that the universe is expanding is not evidence
that it is finite."

I did not say that because the universe is expanding it is finite.

I said that evidence for expansion meant that the sense of meaning of
infinite
in the Big Bang theory (which is tied to the beginning of time and space)
was evidence to conclude that the sense of meaning of infinite in a proto-SS
theory
(which ties time and space in a context of _no_ beginning) was no longer
as plausible as the Big Bang theory which replaced it. My comment was
about the type of conceptual infinities involved in a comparison between
the two theories, not an attribution of future finiteness to one. Their
difference
is static to dynamic. The BB theory is often described as having a finite
beginning and is then infinite. The Newtonian cosmological idea has a
universe infinitely old. It has no finite beginning nor finite ending (is
infinite).
The finiteness assertion I'm making has to do with the beginning of
the universe which seems defintional in both theories. Expansion favors
the BB theory. The BB theory that I read has a physical universe evolution
with a finite beginning. Contra, an infintely old universe does not have a
finite beginning in time evolving into an infinite expression.

So I've said infinity has different meaning between the two theories.
To challenge that, one would need to reconcile the meaning of
infinity between the two theories. I've explained my difference in
terms of the beginning of time which implies that time was/is not infiite.
Explaining why Big Bang also rightly uses the term infinity does not
explain how the meanings of infinity are equivalent between the theories.
Infinity to me means no beginning and no end. The BB theory says
the universe is 13.7 billion years old, not infinitely old.

Regards,
Stephen

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times
    ... The infinity of the steady-state theory SST is infinitely old and infinitely ... There is no beginning of time as in the Big Bang model. ... infinity as described by the Big Bang model, the universe begins with time. ...
    (comp.theory)
  • Re: Infinite number of people toss a coin infinite times
    ... The infinity of the steady-state theory SST is infinitely old and infinitely ... There is no beginning of time as in the Big Bang model. ... infinity as described by the Big Bang model, the universe begins with time. ...
    (sci.logic)
  • Nonrenormalization vs Renormalization 56: Big Bang Moves To Infinity To Zero As Time --> Inf
    ... and xi replacing x, i = 1 to n, and then in y is replaced by the ... Cause x is at infinity but the Universe y ... where the Universe also is). ... infinity at the Big Bang. ...
    (sci.physics)
  • Re: Is continuum completely filled up?
    ... The collection of intervals is something else than what we in topology ... I talk about what I took doubt about mathematics, ... Infinity is shown by following way. ... I wonder what is the end of the universe, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Can any old earther refute common genetic ancestry?
    ... a hot "big bang". ... Why would these not be the only possible laws? ... It can have a length of any value between zero and infinity. ... Let me remind you of what you do know: the universe has various constants with particular values, and these happen to allow for life. ...
    (talk.origins)