Shatner wrote:FrankTrollman wrote:Various religions have posited that the universe had a beginning or was eternal, and they are both wrong. The universe is currently still beginning. All the time. And it will keep on doing that forever.
-Username17
My question is, how can the universe still be "beginning"? I accept that empty space is a high energy state and decays into a lower energy state + matter and stuff. However that seems like a one-way process. And sure we can sweep a section of space clean (which costs energy), causing it to bubble forth with new particles but it's still a decline down entropy.
So, if we had an initial high energy state and things trend towards lower energy states, how can this be anything other than a one-way trip towards entropic decay? That's what I'm not getting and that's why I'm wondering if I'm not understanding the point.
The best way to look at it is in terms of signs. Let's call the entropic shift a negative energy change (because it is), and the creation of matter and light as a positive energy change (because it is). We know these things balance each other for a lot of reasons. The actual amount of energy in the universe could be any number, because all we get to see are those offsetting changes. And that's really important, because in all probability the actual starting amount of energy in the universe is
zero.
So let's consider a piece of near empty space. It has some amount of stuff and some amount of entropy and that balances out. But the universe for whatever reason would rather have more entropy and more stuff in it - which also balances. So some particles show up spontaneously out of the damn void and the total energy of the space is still whatever it was - probably zero. Now here's the exciting part: that stuff that got created isn't stagnant, it's moving. And in the process of doing so, it's making more space to be in. And that space has zero energy in it. But now you have two units of near empty space that have rather less stuff and rather less entropy than the universe would prefer. So it keeps growing.
Point of fact: we're pretty sure that creating more empty space
is ultimately energetically neutral, because the boundaries of the universe aren't slowing down in their continuous expansion. What's actually happening is that things are
speeding up, with more empty space being added and filling itself with crap
all over. Something that could only happen if empty space was zero or negative energy. But the empty space having zero energy doesn't stop the creation of "stuff" from being spontaneous, because the entropy and energy of creation makes a balanced equation regardless.
Most disturbing point about the universe: We see a universe that is expanding and accelerating and constantly creating itself and 13.7 billion years old. But the constant acceleration of the creation will eventually
change what is visible from a planet (not Earth particularly, since it will have been devoured by the sun long before this becomes an issue). The rate of space being added between two points is proportional to the amount of space between those two points. As things get farther away from each other, more space is created per year pushing them away even faster. Given enough time (like 7 times the current observed life of the universe as I recall), the amount of space between us and galaxies on the far side of the universe will be so much that a whole light year of empty space will be added every year. Which means that even with the most powerful telescope, you could never see it.
This leaves open the very real possibility that the universe is a
lot more than 13.7 billion years old, and that the 13.7 billion years old part is just the polyp we are in that is visible to us.
-Username17