A universe with no beginning?

[dustin_archibald]

This may be more of a philisophical issue but why is it that we require the universe to have a beginning? Why do we (humans) feel the need to ascribe an age to the universe and how it came about?

It's entirely possible, and very probable, that the universe had no beginning, that it always has, and always will exist.

I find it interesting that we can easily say (without discomfort) that the universe will expand indefinitley but to say that it has existed indefinitely makes us uncomfortable.

[AntonioLao]

Are you trying to revive the discussion of Steady State Theory of cosmology? This theory was abandoned by many scientists since the discovery of the cosmic background radiation. After all, there are more compelling evidence supporting the Standard Big Bang theory. And the more recent inflationary theory of Alan Guth has furthermore gives credence to the modernized and improved Big Bang theory. Science does not turn the clock back for lack of evidence but use experimental evidence to move on to new territories and leave all other unsupported hypotheses as waters under the bridge.

[dustin_archibald]

Are you trying to revive the discussion of Steady State Theory of cosmology?

No. Actually until now I didn't even know what I was describing had a name. Basically, I was wondering why we feel the need for the universe to have a beginnning. On further examination of the subject it seems illogical to assume that it had a beginning. Nothing that we can observe actually has a beginning since all events are effects of previous events.

Science does not turn the clock back for lack of evidence but use experimental evidence to move on to new territories and leave all other unsupported hypotheses as waters under the bridge.

While science is always moving ahead, it must always look back to ensure that it is not doing something it has done before. In addition it must look back to see if new evidence supports past theories. That being said I have no evidence to support the Steady State Theory.

[AntonioLao]

Basically, I was wondering why we feel the need for the universe to have a beginnning.

the need was never by choice. The big bang was based on compelling physical evidence. To mention a few, CMBR, Olber's paradox, http://scienceworld.wolfram.com/astr...rsParadox.html and more I can't think of at the moment.

when we know how a car engine works by internal combustion, hardly anybody needs to go back and question why it works (re-inventing the wheels). Because we know it's based on physical laws of thermodynamics and there are only two laws: the 1st and the 2nd. Nobody or no scientists questions the established laws of physics. There are not many laws for us to remember. Newton's laws are also well founded laws for low speed and low energy. For high speed and high energy, there are quantum laws and relativistic laws.

[dustin_archibald]

The big bang was based on compelling physical evidence.

Is that accurate? From what I've read, Big Bang theory (not its original name) came about first. Evidence, like what you pointed out, supports the theory. Regardless, single big bang theory has yet to be proven, which is why theories like multiple big bang are still being investigated.

when we know how a car engine works by internal combustion, hardly anybody needs to go back and question why it works (re-inventing the wheels).

Humans invented the car. There is no "theory" on how a car works. If a person doesn't know how a car works they can pick up a book or go to school and get difinitive anwers. The same cannot be said about the creation of the universe. All the evidence you speak of supports the theory, but it does not yet prove it.

Because we know it's based on physical laws of thermodynamics and there are only two laws: the 1st and the 2nd. Nobody or no scientists questions the established laws of physics. There are not many laws for us to remember.

The nature of a scientist is the search for truth. As such people must, from time to time, re-evaluate whether accepted knowledge is true.

Newton's laws are also well founded laws for low speed and low energy. For high speed and high energy, there are quantum laws and relativistic laws.

But no unification laws?

That's another thing I am unclear on: what is the threshold for determining if something (like speed, energy) is low or high. These terms seem relative but then again I don't know the values that are supposed to be used.

How do we determine if something is large or small? Is it based on the complexity of the object?

Back to the original question:
From what I understand, the theory of a steady state universe made assumptions that were illogical, with no observations to base them on (ie: infinite size, unlimited matter, etc).

[AntonioLao]

Hubble observed that galaxies are receding from each other and later George Gamow coined the words Big Bang. Scientifical truths are based on empirical facts. And from these facts, laws are formulated but if later facts violate the established laws then new ones are made.

At low speed and low energy classical laws of mechanics and thermodynamics are all valid but at high speed approaching the speed of light Einstein's laws of special and general relativity must be used. At high energy approaching Planck energy then quantum mechanical laws must be used.

[dleviwing]

Antonio;
500 years ago the laws of physics stated the Earth was center of the universe. The laws of physics accommodate the accepted model that we are currently working with. We do note need to obey the laws if we find a better explanation for them. Once we do that, we will have solved the TOE.
Do we follow the authoritarians, or should we rebel? J
Do we really know if Olber's paradox is true?

[AntonioLao]

Do we really know if Olber's paradox is true?

at the time of Olber's question, it was a paradox but not anymore. It is generally accepted by the top minds in cosmology and astrophysics that this is not a paradox if the universe has a beginning but not necessarily having and end.

the beginning is a starting point of expansion but the universe could have an infinite cycles of expansion and contraction.

the problem cosmologists are having is that they cannot find the critical mass needed for the universe to eventually contract. This is the missing mass problem and some thinkers came up with the idea of dark matter and dark energy for solutions of the problem.

[dleviwing]

It is generally accepted by the top minds in cosmology and astrophysics that this is not a paradox if the universe has a beginning but not necessarily having and end.

the problem cosmologists are having is that they cannot find the critical mass needed for the universe to eventually contract. This is the missing mass problem and some thinkers came up with the idea of dark matter and dark energy for solutions of the problem.

Antonio;
Quoting science scripture dose not convince me scientist know the real answers yet. You may be allowing yourself to be impressed by their great minds and interpreting this to mean great problem solvers. Maybe it takes a mind somewhat less abstract and less cultured to solve the problems of today's science. Maybe it needs an engineer to translate the PhD language to a more common language so more of the population do not view scientist as intellectual morons.
Why do you think that auto mechanics, truck drivers, MD's, and others are producing web sites proclaiming scientist are wrong and that they have better ideas?
Scientist are not reaching the general public with lucid explanations of our existence nor of our beginnings.
Though I agree with the premise of a "Big Bang", I do not accept current theories as accurate. This is not an idle statement from someone who just read a few science books.
Science has lost its credibility and I would like to see it recovered.
Scientist need to stop trying to convince the public that a duck is a swan. They know a duck when they see or hear one.
I am not angered by scientist who create these interpretations of the mathematics, I am only disappointed and saddened.
Sorry for the soapbox speech.

[AntonioLao]

Dave,

Are scientists honest people? Or are they honestly deluded? Is there more than one side to the truth?