Why the universe is infinite and didn't begin as a singularity

I've written posts on this issue over the years but I've never created a thread dedicated to this topic so here it is. I love cosmology but probably my largest concern with our modern theories is that virtually all of them revolve around the concept of a Big Bang, a point at the beginning of time where an infinitely dense singularity suddenly decided to rapidly inflate and release all it's energy until we ended up with the universe we find ourselves in now. There is virtually no desire to think about other ways the universe may have started despite extremely strong evidence that it didn't start as a singularity. Most scientists now believe the universe is "flat" and infinite, meaning space-time has no curvature over large scales, it goes on in every direction forever and will never curve back in on its self.

The exact shape is still a matter of debate in physical cosmology, but experimental data from various, independent sources (WMAP, BOOMERanG and Planck for example) confirm that the observable universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error.[3][4][5] Theorists have been trying to construct a formal mathematical model of the shape of the universe. In formal terms, this is a 3-manifold model corresponding to the spatial section (in comoving coordinates) of the 4-dimensional space-time of the universe. The model most theorists currently use is the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model. Arguments have been put forward that the observational data best fit with the conclusion that the shape of the global universe is infinite and flat,[6] but the data are also consistent with other possible shapes, such as the so-called Poincaré dodecahedral space[7][8] and the Sokolov-Starobinskii space (quotient of the upper half-space model of hyperbolic space by 2-dimensional lattice).[9]

Shape of the universe - Wikipedia

Of course some will point out that the universe could simply be so large we are unable to detect the curvature, however there are several reasons myself and many scientists tend to believe the universe is infinite and flat. All our analysis of the CMB indicates there's no curvature and a flat universe will conserve energy because a curved universe will have a positive or negative energy density, meaning some energy must have been created from nothing, whereas a flat universe is modeled as a zero-energy universe where an equal amount of negative and positive energy exist, making it the most mathematically elegant and physically plausible solution.

Some may also point out that as Wikipedia mentions there are some special geometries that allow space to be flat yet still finite, however Occam's razor would indicate such special cases are unlikely, we should prefer the simplest and most elegant solutions until we have a reason to think otherwise. So assuming the universe is infinite and flat, is it possible for an infinite universe to arise out of a singularity? Many scientists seem to believe it is possible although I haven't seen any convincing argument about how it could work. Just about the only video I've seen try to explain how it could work in a serious manner is the following:



Basically what the video claims is that an instant after the Big Bang occurred the universe contained infinite space, it attempts to justify this explanation by showing that if you reduce the distance between an infinite line of points, eventually the distance becomes zero. I find this argument quite hard to believe personally, going from 0 to infinity in a single instant is not exactly a solid explanation. Adding up the distance between the points at any time before the distance becomes zero will result in a distance of infinity, it doesn't matter how close they are to each other, if there's an infinite number of points the distance will sum to infinity.

So it's some what hard to conceptualize that infinite line of points suddenly collapsing into a single point as shown in the video, they even show the two sides of the line collapsing into the center as if there was an end to the points on each side, which is highly misleading because of course infinity has no end. Einstein taught us how space and time are entwined into a single fabric we call space-time, so when we say the universe is flat and infinite we're not just saying space is infinite, we're saying space-time is infinite. Infinite space-time, by its very definition, implies that time had no start and has no end, time didn't just decide to begin one day.

If the universe is flat and infinite and didn't begin as a singularity, that forces us to completely rethink our idea of how the universe began, however it seems like most scientists willfully ignore these very serious implications and choose to have faith in the Big Bang theory and the ad-hoc attachment theory called inflation. So much of cosmology revolves around these core theories but we must be willing to consider alternative ideas unless we want to get trapped in incorrect concepts which will never lead us to the truth. Maybe infinite space-time has always existed and the Big Bang was a release of energy inside that pre-existing space, our universe clearly isn't a bubble of space-time floating in a void.

Or maybe an infinite amount of energy was created throughout infinite space-time due to some sort of phase transition in the vacuum, and then gravity caused that energy to collapse and condense and form structures and even the large scale web like structures we call cosmic filaments. I don't really claim to have the solution but what I do know is that our current theories cannot hold up to serious scrutiny and seem to have more holes than swiss cheese. Hopefully I managed to make a fairly strong case for my stance on this issue, I know people don't like it when their most sacred scientific concepts are questioned, but I'd remind them science isn't a religion.

My main issue with an infinite universe is ... and bare with me because I am in no way shape or form a scientist...

The big bang happens, in less time than it takes to neck a pint the universe is the size of a ball. Now, this is a good cooking pot due to unimaginable pressure from a confined but expanding space, the heat (close to shower level hotness - confirmed by science and me at 4am every morning) is to intense that it allows formation of.... quarks and stuff! leptons, free real estate and lemsip all boils up and as the next pint is skulled the universe is now the size of a house and basic elements are made.

This could no in theory happen if there is already infinite space. If the argument is then, that the space has always been there and so have the elements etc to create the galaxies etc then we wouldn't be here. The universe would have succumb to heat death by now.

Please, go easy on my simple views.

A well presented thread, starred and flagged. I have a very similar view of the way the universe began, in what I called an expansion. An expansion of light, which was the (+) force or essence, into the darkness, which was the (-) force or essence. Because the negative is / was immeasurable, I called it infinite and also called it the substance that always is, was and will be. Therefore the light which expanded into the darkness was also infinite. From darkness will come light. The light rushed forward to immediately equalize with the light and it expanded to infinity in nothing more than a moment. In an equal quantity to the darkness. To balance the forces of (+) & (-). I believe the darkness is probably anti matter.
Or anti light to be more precise, or how about anti photons

a reply to: thekaboose

If the argument is then, that the space has always been there and so have the elements etc to create the galaxies etc then we wouldn't be here.

My argument is that space-time has always existed if space-time is indeed infinite, that doesn't necessarily mean energy or matter has always existed in the universe. Quantum mechanics tells us that energy can spontaneously appear from the vacuum out of nothing, but I also believe an equal amount of positive and negative energy must be created in the process in order to conserve energy, quantum mechanics is weird but it always conserves energy. If you read to the end of my opening post you'll see I propose two possible alternative explanations.

a reply to: R6A6W6

Well my argument isn't really based on personal opinion as much as it's based on facts and logical reasoning. Also making up your own terms to describe things like negative energy is not going to help convince people of your argument.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder
Fair enough, I was only suggesting I have a similar theory and liking what you were saying. Sorry I had an opinion.

a reply to: R6A6W6

Didn't mean to sound snippy I just get a bit irked when metaphysical stuff is mixed with physics. I get what you're trying to say and yes there are similarities, but negative energy is in no way "darkness", although it does have the connotation it's really nothing like that.

- What about the Hubble-constant? How does that fit into "infinity and beyond"?

- What about the age of the universe? Still 14B years? If the universe would be of infinite age, what about "light up the dark" by infinite stars per square-rad?

- What about the Cosmic microwave background?

The glow is very nearly uniform in all directions, but the tiny residual variations show a very specific pattern, the same as that expected of a fairly uniformly distributed hot gas that has expanded to the current size of the universe.

Source: wikipedia on this topic.

TextOf course some will point out that the universe could simply be so large we are unable to detect the curvature, however there are several reasons myself and many scientists tend to believe the universe is infinite and flat. All our analysis of the CMB indicates there's no curvature and a flat universe will conserve energy because a curved universe will have a positive or negative energy density, meaning some energy must have been created from nothing, whereas a flat universe is modeled as a zero-energy universe where an equal amount of negative and positive energy exist, making it the most mathematically elegant and physically plausible solution.

Not a scientist either.

How can you presume a shape while looking from the inside out?

How can you presume a shape when only looking backwards through time?

What is as a zero-energy universe where an equal amount of negative and positive energy exist? If there is zero energy. Where is the neg and pos energy? You said it was zero energy. Or, do you mean that energy exists within a zero energy state? Which would then be a true constant. The same thing everywhere, all the time. Then. Would there need to be any shape or size where. within the state of zero energy. Shape and size would perhaps be irrelevant as, it equals zero and would not require reference points?

Also. If, like you say. Equal amounts of pos and neg energy. What happens when this energy dies off? Does it decay to the point of zero and, become part of the zero energy universe?

a reply to: ManFromEurope

- What about the Hubble-constant? How does that fit into "infinity and beyond"?

That's a very complicated question but essentially I believe it comes down to negative energy creating a negative pressure which causes space to expand between galaxies. That is one of the core ideas discussed in my thread titled Bimetric Relativity, Twin Universe Cosmology, Negative Energy. Even though there is an equal amount of positive and negative energy in the universe, on very large scales different sections of the universe could have different ratios and we happen to live in an area of the universe where the pressure of the negative energy slightly overpowers the positive energy, causing local expansion to occur.

- What about the age of the universe? Still 14B years?

Read my response to thekaboose, I haven't said anything in this thread about when the energy/matter of our universe first came into existence.

- What about the Cosmic microwave background?

A singularity-based Big Bang event is not required for CMB radiation to exist, any similar large release of energy could produce such radiation.

a reply to: blackcrowe

What is as a zero-energy universe where an equal amount of negative and positive energy exist? If there is zero energy. Where is the neg and pos energy?

The zero-energy universe hypothesis proposes that the total amount of energy in the universe is exactly zero: its amount of positive energy in the form of matter is exactly canceled out by its negative energy in the form of gravity.[1][2]

Zero-energy universe - Wikipedia

That's the basic concept of what a zero-energy universe is, although I would generalize the definition slightly and remove the part about gravity. Stephen Hawking promotes the idea that we live in a zero-energy universe where the negative energy exists in the form of gravitational potential energy, this is pretty mainstream stuff really. I discuss other possible sources of the negative energy in my Bimetric Relativity thread, primarily the existence of negative matter.

do know is that our current theories cannot hold up to serious scrutiny and seem to have more holes than swiss cheese. Hopefully I managed to make a fairly strong case for my stance on this issue, I know people don't like it when their most sacred scientific concepts are questioned, but I'd remind them science isn't a religion.

Well stated! and neither is esoteric knowledge.

According to unaccounted records of Pythagorus, Space-Time is infinite, and matter is constantly manifesting into our physical universe, emerging as plank scale monads 'primal atom' infused with 'dynamis' a sort of embryonic consciousness.

The monad percolates its way through 49 dimensional layers, collecting more monad on its passage through each dimension. Passing through increasingly denser layers until the monad bundle is complete, appearing in the physical world as an atom with all its components comprised of monads. The way the 12 different variations of monads approach the physical dimension, creates angle and spin which determines the kind of atom formed.

The entire cosmos has no beginning or end but witnesses the appearance of galaxies manifesting and dissolving as its purpose is complete and new galaxies take their place.

Its not in accord with modern science because we don't understand that matter, is a contiguous spectrum of monads that doesn't stop at plasma but continues on into ever finer monad structures until it finally becomes the single monad once again, the completion of its consciousness journey evolving from dormant to omniscient.

But no evidence can be found your honour, so we will have to come up with something we can prove.

That is however the way the early Greeks used to see it and I personally, totally buy it.

Nothing science has, to date, discovered anything, to contradict these ancient teachings, because everything works within its framework.

a reply to: ManFromEurope

Also I should point out that the Hubble-constant / Cosmological Constant doesn't fit into our current theories and we have a very hard time explaining why the universe expands at the rate it does, where at least a Bimetric Relativity model can produce a plausible answer that emerges naturally from the theory. I wrote a thread on this topic a few years ago also:

Understanding the Cosmological Constant Problem (aka vacuum catastrophe)

not your theory at all, i read this the other day>>www.forbes.com...

originally posted by: dan121212
not your theory at all, i read this the other day>>www.forbes.com...

Interesting article but what they're proposing is not the same as anything I've proposed, and I've been discussing this issue for several years as you can see in my other threads. They're saying the Big Bang happened but it didn't release any energy until after the inflation period because the energy was "bound up in the fabric of space itself", as they put it. The delayed release of what they call "vacuum energy" helps them explain things such as the even distribution of matter throughout the universe and the low temperature variations throughout the universe. I find it quite telling really that they think some sort of larger vacuum must have existed before the energy could be released, it's just another sign that energy was released from a pre-existing vacuum over large scales.

a reply to: ChaoticOrder

You also say in your OP

I know people don't like it when their most sacred scientific concepts are questioned, but I'd remind them science isn't a religion.

Then provide me with a wiki link and tell me to leave bits out.

Now. If, like i also suggested to you. Energy decays to zero. Does it then become part of the already zero energy universe constant, but have an effect on expansion of the universe? What i mean is. Even though the constant has a value of zero. Could decay of energy add to the zero energy universe constant? Maybe a bad example. 1g of gold could measure 1/8th the area of our galaxy amount of space. I know it's a bad example. There would of course be real ratio's involved. But, hope it makes sense. Then. If that was the case. Would we see expansion happen at a faster rate nearer to mass? Where energy is dying off and decaying into the zero constant.

our conceptualization of the Cosmos/Universe is limited to our senses...

our senses tell us that a 'chameleon' blends in with the environment...and that's-the-only-way it is...

what if the 'chameleon' actually changes the structure of the environment it finds itself in instead ?

I suggest the ~14 Billion light-year sphere of Observation around us denizens of this physical-material Cosmos will forever expand as 'we' move our position within our time-space bubble... so that any edge or frontier of our Universe Always is Unreachable as the new unseen territory automatically becomes the same physical properties as the observers present surroundings

thus--- the illusion of Infinity, in a series of ~14 Billion LY bubbles, which theoretically never End......
Ah Ha... then, WE are 'creator gods' also in a sense (if we could ever surpass speed-of-light travel for generations within the present Observable Universe sphere of 14 Billion LY)

a reply to: blackcrowe

Now. If, like i also suggested to you. Energy decays to zero. Does it then become part of the already zero energy universe constant, but have an effect on expansion of the universe? What i mean is. Even though the constant has a value of zero. Could decay of energy add to the zero energy universe constant?

This is a fairly interesting question that I haven't thought much about before... my intuition tells me that energy is never created or destroyed, it just changes form. But considering quantum mechanics seems to allow energy to be created I cannot rule out the possibly that energy can be destroyed. As I said though I believe energy is always conserved by creating an equal amount of positive and negative energy, so maybe if a positive particle disappears then it must have a negative partner that also disappears simultaneously, similar to the way entangled photons have an opposite spin to conserve energy and entanglement will force one particle to choose a spin when the wave function of its partner is observed and collapsed, forcing it to take on a well defined spin value. Also I think it's important to realize that however the energy of our universe was created it was a very special event, perhaps even a one-time thing. However the idea that energy could decay to create a non-zero-energy universe is still an interesting one that may be worth more consideration.

I find the idea of infinity physically existing to be just as dubious as something coming from nothing.

originally posted by: Krazysh0t
I find the idea of infinity physically existing to be just as dubious as something coming from nothing.

Ok lets say the universe is curved and contains a finite amount of space, and we're just unable to detect the curvature. So basically what you have is the classical idea of a space-time bubble in a void. What then excludes the existence of other space-time bubbles appearing through a Big bang type event? What prevents an infinite number of other universes existing? That's essentially the classic idea of a multiverse, I'm sure you've seen it described in space documentaries. What makes that type of infinity any more plausible?