An Infinite Steady State Universe

[Neil Russell]

I want to start by defining infinite as applied to our universe, that is infinite in size in all dimensions, no beginning no end just always existing.

In practice, of course, the universe is far from steady and very much dynamic. Our solar system is an example of this our planets and sun are made up of elements which have been made up in nova and super nova star explosions which exported their materials through out our galaxy. Our solar system as it moves through interstellar space accumulates these elements and is steadily growing in mass.

What is the life time of a nova or supernova star? a billion, 5 billion or 10 billion years. There just is not enough time in the big bang model ( a life time for the universe of 12 to 16 billion years they suggest?) to spread the elements to build star systems.

In the infinite universe our galaxy is constantly being seeded by nova explosions, so interstellar space will be a vast dust ( up to dead star size) cloud. Star systems trawl through this attracting material into their respective solar systems. Our solar systems Oort cloud is evidence of material being swept up by the sun.
A supernova at the edge of a galaxy will blow material free of that galaxy into intergalactic space and I believe the galaxy has its own equivalent of an Oort cloud at its margins. So there is dust and bigger in intergalactic space.
Space is not an "empty pristine void" rather there is "dust" out there. (Is this the dark matter they are looking for?)

I have never been happy with the red shift theory of the universes expansion.
Astronomers work at night and they must see some magnificent sun sets and sunrises. Those glorious ones where the dust in the atmosphere gives lovely red skies.
So why have they discounted the tired light explanation for red shift? At a given observational radius from earth the blue shift of galaxies stops. It stops because the light is overwhelmed by the effect of tired light. From that point out as light battles its way through more and more galactic "dust" the red shift becomes greater due to distance travelled, nothing to do with advancing or retreating from us.

To summarize there is not enough time in the big bang theory to accumulate the material to form even our own solar system.
There is an explanation for the red shift that does not mean the universe is expanding.

[NorthernBoy]

What is the life time of a nova or supernova star? a billion, 5 billion or 10 billion years. There just is not enough time in the big bang model ( a life time for the universe of 12 to 16 billion years they suggest?) to spread the elements to build star systems.

Well, that's not really true, is it? We believe that 13 and a bit bilion years is quite enough to have 3rd generation stars shining at the moment. As you say, some stars live for only a billion years. `that being the case, how do you justify your assertion that we have not had enough time for the development of what we see now.

It is as though you are claiming that we can't have had three generations of people since the last war, simply because you've read in a newspaper about a woman giving birth at 60.

[DrWho]

There just is not enough time in the big bang model ( a life time for the universe of 12 to 16 billion years they suggest?) to spread the elements to build star systems.

Says who? 13.7 Gy is plenty long, especially since the first stars were massive and short lived (just a few million years).

So why have they discounted the tired light explanation for red shift?

Well, for one thing, images would be blurred more by scattering than is observed. For another, distant physical processes (such as supernova light curves) exhibit time dilation consistent with their redshift.

There is an explanation for the red shift that does not mean the universe is expanding.

No there isn't - see above.

[slang]

What is the life time of a nova or supernova star? a billion, 5 billion or 10 billion years. There just is not enough time in the big bang model ( a life time for the universe of 12 to 16 billion years they suggest?) to spread the elements to build star systems.

If you don't know what the lifetime of a nova or supernova star is, how can you possibly conclude that there isn't enough time?

[gzhpcu]

The "tired light" hypothesis proposed by Zwicky, has been abandoned by most astronomers long ago.

Here is a paper on it:

http://articles.adsabs.harvard.edu/c...&filetype=.pdf

Today, tired light is remembered mainly for historical interest, and almost no scientist accepts tired light as a viable explanation for Hubble's Law.

source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light

[Neil Russell]

Thank you for your responses. Northern Boy I am still not convinced that there is enough time to make a universe as we see it now without some"special case scenarios" such as DrWho proposes, namely early stars were massive and short lived, says who?( I just had to slip that in!!) To make big bang work you have to keep building exceptional cases in whereas steady state is simpler.
Slang your comment was not helpful unless you can supply the average age of a super nova star, please. The truth is none of us have been around for the life time of a nova star, so we cannot measure its life time, we depend on some very clever astronomers for estimates!! of their life times.
gzhpcu thank you for your article. The fact remains that there is "dust" in space which does have an effect on light, tired light is one explanation?

[forrest noble]

Neil Russell,

..there is not enough time in the big bang theory to accumulate the material to form even our own solar system. ....a lifetime for the universe of 12 to 16 billion years they suggest?

In accord with your statements above, the classical examples of what structures are not well explained by the standard model, which have been given as examples by quasi-steady-state theorists over the many decades, are the vast structures of the universe. Some of the largest of these structures are:

• large clusters of thousands of galaxies, or superclusters that span a billion light years.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Supercluster

• The Great Wall

• Huge voids where even the CMWB is depleted

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/CMB_cold_spot

• Vast motions implying huge structures or unknown processes such as the "dark flow"

http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog...-cosmic-h.html

These vast structures seem to be poorly explained by the standard model, according to classical quasi-steady-state theory, that seemingly could be more easily explained by a universe much older or by one that is infinite in age.

There is an explanation for the red shift that does not mean the universe is expanding. ....so why have they discounted the tired light explanation for red shift?

The original tired light proposal is considered to have been disproved because it does not include time dilation, which is a well proven simple, logical concept. For instance we think we know the general processes of type 1a supernovae explosions. We know that on an average the duration and afterglow of their light lasts "x" period of time if it was relatively close by. At a redshift of lets say 1, the average duration of the supernovae event would be expected to last twice as long. The waves would be twice as long but the number of waves in the entire event would be the same. So whatever the redshift "z" is, the length of the event would be expected to be z times x. This appears to be true for the many hundreds of type 1a supernovae that have been observed.

Although this first version of tired light may not be correct, there are many other explanations of tired light as well as many other hypothesis to explain galactic redshifts other than an expanding universe, as you seem to imply by your tired light statement. Whether the standard model interpretation of an expanding universe is right or wrong, it should be noted that some quasi-steady-state-theories, including the most well-know by Hoyle, also include an expanding universe.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tired_light
http://www.plasma-universe.com/index.php/Redshift

[Jens]

I'll ask a couple of questions to bring up a couple of issues with the steady-state model. As a qualification, I personally like the idea of a SSU, so I'd be happy to see such questions answered! But they are problematic.

1. One problem with tired light is this: if the universe has existed forever, then the dust heated by the light should itself have become hot. This is actually a part of Olber's paradox.

2. If the universe has always existed, then why is there still hydrogen around? Why haven't the stars changed it all to helium and beyond?

[forrest noble]

Hi Jens,

1. One problem with tired light is this: if the universe has existed forever, then the dust heated by the light should itself have become hot. This is actually a part of Olber's paradox.

I agree with you Jens. This appears to be a potential problem with the model. The way Fred Hoyle, the most famous proponent of a steady state model, solved this problem was by also proposing that the universe is expanding (like the standard model) allowing more room for EM radiation to occupy without having to excite existing matter.

Speculation:

Other quasi-steady-state models (QSS), without expansion, would seemingly have to have a heat-sink of some sort, such as Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH), or create large voids or something like that for this continuous heat to dissipate into.

2. If the universe has always existed, then why is there still hydrogen around? Why haven't the stars changed it all to helium and beyond?

In Hoyle's model matter is always being created from the ZPF. One of several of his speculations was that this process could be occurring around SMBHs. This would accordingly account for a continuous new supply of hydrogen.

Can't find any links on this but to my recollection:

Other QSS models have also included similar hydrogen creation mechanisms. One model I recall included a nuclear fission process within older stars. Both hydrogen, helium, and I believe it included atoms as large as carbon, would accordingly be created by fission processes accordingly near the nucleus of stars. After creation this material would quickly float to the surface (so it could not undergo fusion again) where it would blow away as stellar wind. I know of no evidence for this process so it may have been either pure speculation or, at that time, newly proposed astro-physics to account for a continuous supply of hydrogen for this QSS model.

[Jens]

I think that's one possible answer to the conundrum: that somehow the cosmological redshift is a manifestation of the process that is recycling matter. I think it is an interesting speculation, but unfortunately I can't suggest any concrete way that it would happen, or more importantly, any test that would show if this is happening or not.

[Jens]

Actually, something else occurred to me (I'm not sure why I didn't think of this earlier). But one solution to Olber's paradox is that although the universe is infinite and ageless, it is also fractal, and so the density of matter approaches zero at the scale grows, and hence the chance of finding a star at any point in the sky approaces zero. If that is so, then tired light would also not be a problem.

That still leaves the problem of matter recycling. . .

[RussT]

I'll ask a couple of questions to bring up a couple of issues with the steady-state model. As a qualification, I personally like the idea of a SSU, so I'd be happy to see such questions answered! But they are problematic.

1. One problem with tired light is this: if the universe has existed forever, then the dust heated by the light should itself have become hot. This is actually a part of Olber's paradox.

2. If the universe has always existed, then why is there still hydrogen around? Why haven't the stars changed it all to helium and beyond?

if the universe has existed forever

The problem with starting with this 'philosophy', is the same as the Big Bang starting with the finite 'philosophy'...

There is NO 'Cause and Effect' to either one...because they are philosophical assumptions.

We simply cannot tell one way or the other.

To try to 'decide' how the Universe 'is' OR to try to start from a QM standpoint, of 'what' is space/matter/density ETC ETC is pure folly.

What we 'can' try to determine though, is "How does Baryonic Matter creation" occur.

Hoyle was the one who figured out that Baryogenesis...the creation of the HydrogenI and Helium, lithium, deuterium, had to be created first, before stars could become Nuclear Fussion machine.

So, if New Galxies are being created ,and there was NO Big Bang...No Universe full of Gases, then how are New Galaxies being created that have HI and look like these...?

http://kencroswell.com/FirstDarkGalaxy.html

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

Plus approxiimately 80% of all galaxie are LSB's (Low Surface Bright Galaxies) which all have Lot's of HI.

2. If the universe has always existed, then why is there still hydrogen around? Why haven't the stars changed it all to helium and beyond?

And, actually this is a better question for the Big Bang.......

If ALL the Hydrogen was made in the beginning, then WHY wasn't it all "Ionized" at approximately the same time when all the first galaxies were forming?

[RussT]

I agree with you Jens. This appears to be a potential problem with the model. The way Fred Hoyle, the most famous proponent of a steady state model, solved this problem was by also proposing that the universe is expanding (like the standard model) allowing more room for EM radiation to occupy without having to excite existing matter.

I believe that the orginal Steady State model was just SSC (Steady State Cosmology) (Hoyle, Gold, Bondi), and didn't include an expanding universe.

Red Shift started Just as a distance indicator, and it wasn't until the "Very Speculative" "Doppler" Stretching of the photon waves came about, that has become a 'purely mathematical stretching' phenomena, that no one has been able to falsify, did they switch to the Quasi-Steadt State Cosmology (QSSC)

Speculation:

Other quasi-steady-state models (QSS), without expansion, would seemingly have to have a heat-sink of some sort, such as Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH), or create large voids or something like that for this continuous heat to dissipate into.

SO, this is Not that big a speculation, based on their orginal model, Accept......

That I heard it again tonight, on a Universe program that Michio Kaku was on...By again, I mean that I have seen Susskind say the same thing, and it is pervasive through ALL of current Physics...and obviously they think they MUST continue this line of reasoning...

Michio said.........Any Physicist/Scientist that dares Break the "Second Law of Thermodynamics" is in "Real Trouble"

BUT, that is the ONE thing that has NOT been done, and once you understand "How Matter Gets Created" it becomes Obvious, that is the answer to ALL the Big Questions and how to eliminate the Singularites from the SMBH's, so a Steady State Can work.

Baryonic Matter Going Straight Through SMBH's to get "Spaghettified" and become the 'base particle', the Neutrino's coming through the Voids to us, and going out OUR SMBH's.

And here is an alternative version of "Conservation of Energy"...

Since the 'energy coming into the universe through the Voids is continual' and the energy going out through the event horizon's of our SMBH's is continual', then the lowest energy state of the Universe is conserved and in equilibrium.

They always talk about how close or far Gamma Rays in GRB's are to try to determine how much damage they might do, SO, obviously they cannot retain the same energy if we were 10 billion light years from them as they would contain if we were 100 light years from them, even though they do obviously continue to be Gamma Rays ;they are not stretching into Xrays, or UV rays.

[forrest noble]

RussT,

I believe that the orginal Steady State model was just SSC (Steady State Cosmology) (Hoyle, Gold, Bondi), and didn't include an expanding universe.

Dang it Russ, you made me look for a link when you could've found it yourself and not made this "incorrect" statement even though it followed "I believe". I did not read their original proposal written in '48' but I did read the one written in 1956 which included an expanding universe. However, SSC could have been their original designation, as you suggest.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

Red Shift started Just as a distance indicator, and it wasn't until the "Very Speculative" "Doppler" Stretching of the photon waves came about.......(QSSC)

As I recall, this statement of yours is generally true but Right or wrong, today the expansion of EM radiation via the expansion of space is not considered speculative at all by mainstream cosmologists.

your friend forrest

[Kwalish Kid]

I agree with you Jens. This appears to be a potential problem with the model. The way Fred Hoyle, the most famous proponent of a steady state model, solved this problem was by also proposing that the universe is expanding (like the standard model) allowing more room for EM radiation to occupy without having to excite existing matter.

Speculation:

Other quasi-steady-state models (QSS), without expansion, would seemingly have to have a heat-sink of some sort, such as Super Massive Black Holes (SMBH), or create large voids or something like that for this continuous heat to dissipate into.

QSSC (Quasi-Steady State Cosmology, as the proponents name it) includes the same expansion as Steady State Cosmology. However, overlaid on this expansion is a bouncing back and forth of the scale factor between an ever growing maximum and an ever growing minumum.

Can't find any links on this but to my recollection:

Other QSS models have also included similar hydrogen creation mechanisms.

Indeed. See Hoyle, Burbidge, Narlikar, A Different Approach to Cosmology (paperback version 2005, Cambridge University Press). They seem to locate the areas of creation in the centres of galaxies. Under their schemce, this process creates the black holes seen at the centre of many galaxies.

One model I recall included a nuclear fission process within older stars. Both hydrogen, helium, and I believe it included atoms as large as carbon, would accordingly be created by fission processes accordingly near the nucleus of stars. After creation this material would quickly float to the surface (so it could not undergo fusion again) where it would blow away as stellar wind. I know of no evidence for this process so it may have been either pure speculation or, at that time, newly proposed astro-physics to account for a continuous supply of hydrogen for this QSS model.

There is some research on the ability of supernovae to scatter dust into extra-galactic space. QSSC relies on this research, but few find it convincing. Standard attempts to restrict the amount of dust in the space between galaxies look at the opacity of this space with regards to infrared light. I don't have the references handy.

[forrest noble]

Jens,

I think your ideas are interesting and have merit but the purpose of this thread, and the ATM section in general, is to consider the proposal of the OP, Neil Russell -- whether the universe could be steady state and whether the universe is expanding or not. I believe this is his general idea. For this reason our comments should be generally restricted to his ideas for the purpose of evaluating his proposal.

.......one solution to Olber's paradox is that although the universe is infinite and ageless ..........

I think you meant to say: ..... one solution to Olber's paradox is that: if the universe is infinite and ageless........

regards

[Kwalish Kid]

if the universe has existed forever

The problem with starting with this 'philosophy', is the same as the Big Bang starting with the finite 'philosophy'...

How fortunate that the Big Bang theory does not begin with this assumption!

There is NO 'Cause and Effect' to either one...because they are philosophical assumptions.

Cause and effect may be philosophical concepts, but general relativty deals with the notion of cause and effect in quite direct ways and thus so too does the Big Bang theory.

What we 'can' try to determine though, is "How does Baryonic Matter creation" occur.

Hoyle was the one who figured out that Baryogenesis...the creation of the HydrogenI and Helium, lithium, deuterium, had to be created first, before stars could become Nuclear Fussion machine.

So, if New Galxies are being created ,and there was NO Big Bang...No Universe full of Gases, then how are New Galaxies being created that have HI and look like these...?

This conclusion doesn't follow. Galaxy creation can go on throughout much of the history of the universe. Eventually it would have to stop because of lack of materials in sufficient density.

If there is new matter being created in large quantities, then this is difficult to accept given the Big Bang theory, but it could be accepted with a little modification of the overall theory. (One would have to replace GR with some other theory.)

I believe that the orginal Steady State model was just SSC (Steady State Cosmology) (Hoyle, Gold, Bondi), and didn't include an expanding universe.

Red Shift started Just as a distance indicator, and it wasn't until the "Very Speculative" "Doppler" Stretching of the photon waves came about, that has become a 'purely mathematical stretching' phenomena, that no one has been able to falsify, did they switch to the Quasi-Steadt State Cosmology (QSSC)

From almost the beginning, SST incorporated redshift as an indicator of the change in the scale factor over time. QSSC is a much later development (late 1990s) and it incorporates evolution at the cosmological scale, effectively abandoning the perfect cosmological principle.

[Kwalish Kid]

There is an explanation for the red shift that does not mean the universe is expanding.

Of course there is, but is it worth anything? How does your explanation explain the change in the relationship between redshift and distance over very large distances? At long distances, there appears to be less redshift with distance (or rather, objects at a given redshift begin to be dimmer than they should be). At even greaterdistances out, this trend starts to reverse: there is greater redshift with distance (or rather, objects at a given distance begin to be brighter than they should be). These are the results of the Supernova Cosmology Project, the High-z Supernova Serach Team, and the Supenova Legacy Survey, and they should be explained by any theory that purports to explains redshift.

[forrest noble]

Kwalish Kid,

Thanks for the additional info and your informative posting.

[Kwalish Kid]

Rough references for QSSC:

J. V. Narlikar, R. G. Vishwakarma, and G. Burbidge, "Interpretations of the Accelerating Universe", Publications of the Astronomical Society of the Pacific, 114:1092–1096, 2002 October

J. V. Narlikar, R. G. Vishwakarma, Amir Hajian, Tarun Souradeep, G. Burbidge, and F. Hoyle, "INHOMOGENEITIES IN THE MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION INTERPRETED WITHIN THE FRAMEWORK OF THE QUASI–STEADY STATE COSMOLOGY", The Astrophysical Journal, 585:1–11, 2003 March 1

E.L.Wright, "The WMAP1 Data and Results", arXiv:astro-ph/0306132v1 5 Jun 2003

Dust:

DAVID J. SCHLEGEL, DOUGLAS P. FINKBEINER , AND MARC DAVIS, "MAPS OF DUST INFRARED EMISSION FOR USE IN ESTIMATION OF REDDENING AND COSMIC MICROWAVE BACKGROUND RADIATION FOREGROUNDS", THE ASTROPHYSICAL JOURNAL, 500:525È553, 1998 June 20

I don't have the references handy, but a search on Google Scholar for "aguirre dust" will turn up some decent references used both by the proponents of QSSC and those promoting the standard cosmological model.

[Neil Russell]

Wow! there are some clever people out there.. I still believe the lack of time for the big bang to form a universe is still a valid assumption
The red shift is an interesting one, I still believe there is "dust" out there in intergalactic space which must have some effect on light, time will tell.
To deal with matter formation in a steady state universe I thought it better to start a new thread.

[RussT]

RussT,


Quote:
I believe that the orginal Steady State model was just SSC (Steady State Cosmology) (Hoyle, Gold, Bondi), and didn't include an expanding universe.

Dang it Russ, you made me look for a link when you could've found it yourself and not made this "incorrect" statement even though it followed "I believe". I did not read their original proposal written in '48' but I did read the one written in 1956 which included an expanding universe. However, SSC could have been their original designation, as you suggest.

You are correct forrest...I should have made my statement much clearer, and if I would have linked it, I would have immediately recalled what is very evident.

http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...tate_cosmology

The steady state theory rests on the fundamental cosmological assumption, called the perfect cosmological principle, that the universe does not evolve or change with time on large scales. Hence the universe has existed for an infinite time in the past and will continue to exist for an infinite time in the future, looking like it does now.

Continuous Creation
The steady state theory does not suggest that the universe is static. It came after Hubble discovered the expanding universe and takes the expansion into account.

How can the universe expand without changing? In the steady state theory, hydrogen atoms appear - from nothing - into empty space. They gradually collect to form new galaxies that fill in spaces left between galaxies as the universe expands. This continuous creation of matter keeps the average density of the universe and the average distance between galaxies constant as the universe expands. Hence, an alternate name is continuous creation theory.

Read more: http://astrophysics.suite101.com/art...#ixzz0QgaE0WYZ

SO, even though they included 'expansion', the Universe was "infinite" in their theory, and so was never 'shrunk down to a smaller universe', AND there were NO Horizons that were expanding.


And as you can see, Matter Creation in the orginal was just 'hydrogen atoms' forming from nothing in empty space.

My point is very simple....we do see expansion...BUT, we see that expansion in the Voids between the galaxy clusters...BUT, that does NOT mean that the Universe was ever 'shrunk down to a point/grapefruit/Atom or any other tiny little "Spaghetti Monster"/"Invisible Elf".

SO, if all of those Voids have expanded over time, and the Universe was never tiny (Never had even been in danger of "Gravitational Collapse"), then those photons coming from vast distances do NOT have to be stretched, they have just traveled their farther distances as the Voids stretched.

Originally Postedby RussT
Red Shift started Just as a distance indicator, and it wasn't until the "Very Speculative" "Doppler" Stretching of the photon waves came about.....

As I recall, this statement of yours is generally true but Right or wrong, today the expansion of EM radiation via the expansion of space is not considered speculative at all by mainstream cosmologists.

Well of course not. Tired light theories are mostly refuted by 'time dilation'. The current view of 'stretching photons' is definitely 'energy loss'...just look at the CMB, it has lost energy/been stretched down to the lowest microwave level, from what?...visible light that was 3000K at the surface of last scattering.

[RussT]

How fortunate that the Big Bang theory does not begin with this assumption!

"Everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded Universe"...ring a bell?

This conclusion doesn't follow. Galaxy creation can go on throughout much of the history of the universe.

Obviously......they are here. BUT the whole key to the Universe IS...

How are galaxies formed...or more correctly...when does a Massive Black Hole become part of a galaxies life???

And, since you (Nor does anyone else on this 3rd rock from Sol) do NOT know the answer to this question, then this...........is sheer ignorance (Meant in the correct way... )

Eventually it would have to stop because of lack of materials in sufficient density.

And in Post #12 I said...
So, if New Galxies are being created ,and there was NO Big Bang...No Universe full of Gases, then how are New Galaxies being created that have HI and look like these...?

http://kencroswell.com/FirstDarkGalaxy.html

http://www.narrabri.atnf.csiro.au/pu...mages/ngc2915/

Plus approxiimately 80% of all galaxie are LSB's (Low Surface Bright Galaxies) which all have Lot's of HI.[/QUOTE]

[Jens]

SO, even though they included 'expansion', the Universe was "infinite" in their theory, and so was never 'shrunk down to a smaller universe', AND there were NO Horizons that were expanding.

Just as a very simple question, I don't really understand how the universe could be infinite and yet expanding. Where would it expand to? I know that logically, you can response that for example, the line of whole numbers is infinite and yet you can still add an infinite number of numbers between each whole number. So logically I suppose it's not impossible, but I find it hard to imagine how it could work in reality.

[RussT]

Just as a very simple question, I don't really understand how the universe could be infinite and yet expanding. Where would it expand to? I know that logically, you can response that for example, the line of whole numbers is infinite and yet you can still add an infinite number of numbers between each whole number. So logically I suppose it's not impossible, but I find it hard to imagine how it could work in reality.

Yes, that is why I started my whole scenario with...

if the universe has existed forever

The problem with starting with this 'philosophy', is the same as the Big Bang starting with the finite 'philosophy'...

There is NO 'Cause and Effect' to either one...because they are philosophical assumptions.

We simply cannot tell one way or the other.

You are simply taking the "Universe is Infinite" literally...so then the question is...if it is already infinite...then,,,,'how can inifinity expand'?

That's not it...since we cannot tell, but we do see galaxies getting farther away, then it must be expanding somewhere.....where do we see that...... The Huge Voids between the galaxy clusters....BUT that does NOT mean that the Universe was ever 'shrunken down to a point/egg/atom/grapefruit'.

SO, if there were NO Big Bang.........No universe full of gases.......

What are the Biggest Gamma radiation Events in the Universe since the "Quote-UnQuote" Big Bang?

[Kwalish Kid]

"Everywhere the center of a finite but unbounded Universe"...ring a bell?

That quotation means finite in spatial volume, not finite in time. Though many popular science journalists speak of the finite time of the Big Bang theory, this is not something that Big Bang cosmologists commit to.

[Kwalish Kid]

Just as a very simple question, I don't really understand how the universe could be infinite and yet expanding. Where would it expand to? I know that logically, you can response that for example, the line of whole numbers is infinite and yet you can still add an infinite number of numbers between each whole number. So logically I suppose it's not impossible, but I find it hard to imagine how it could work in reality.

The expansion of the universe is not that of a smaller volume filling a larger volume. The expansion is literally the increase in the mean distance between free-standing structures adrift in the universe. The universe of today is literally larger than the universe of yesterday and the distance between everything that is not tied down inside a gravitational structure like a galaxy (or cluster) is further away from every other galaxy (or cluster).

This is why the Big Bang theory does not have to have a waiting period for matter to get to the place where it will form stars and galaxies--the matter is already there. The matter didn't need to spread out to fill a void, there was no void until space itself spread out, leaving the matter that was there fairly thin except where it clumped into stars and galaxies.

[Neil Russell]

Guys we are doing it again ( mankind that is) assuming that we are at the centre of "the" universe. If the expansion is occurring it could be a local effect within a much larger, infinite, universe.

[Starfury]

What is the life time of a nova or supernova star? a billion, 5 billion or 10 billion years. There just is not enough time in the big bang model ( a life time for the universe of 12 to 16 billion years they suggest?) to spread the elements to build star systems.

The lifetime of a star that is massive enough to become a supernova is measured in a few million years, tens of millions at most. More than enough time to spread heavy elements is present.

The first stars were massive, hot, and short lived. They lived only a few million years before they blew themselves up and seeded the Universe with elements heavier than hydrogen and helium.

[sirjon]

I want to start by defining infinite as applied to our universe, that is infinite in size in all dimensions, no beginning no end just always existing

I believe in Prof. Hawking's hypothesis that the universe is self-contained and Linde's inflationary model that it is inside a 'bubble' bigger than the universe. (source: Hawking's A Brief History of Time). The universe is finite but it continues to expand. Infinitely? No one can tell, only God. But if you based it on how the astronomers observe the pattern of expansion, it seems to be in that pattern. But in recent reports, what astronomers confused about is what keep the galaxies move away from one another? Next, what do you mean by "infinite in size in all dimensions"? What I believe is that an 'absolute empty space' co-exist with the universe and it is the one infinite but the universe... definitely, it is finite.