Seeing the whole picture / paradigma
(an answer I owe you)

One of the first questions that arises me, is if the universe as far as we think it is, is to be conceived as something "self-contained", or of something that was "caused" by something of a "super-nature".
With the latter, I would mean that some models describing the early universe, picture our universe of having come into being, and causing everything material coming into existence, including the space-time frame, from a "higher-order" world or universe in some unknown state.
It might show up, that the BB theory ultimately would lead to this, and which gives rise to the conclusion that the universe as we know about, is not something self-contained, and must be embedded in a higher order framework.

Ultimately I think it would lead to this.
If you think of emerging theories, like the "brane-world", one gets the idea of where this leads to.

My assumptions about the Universe (that is: the broadest definition one can give to it, defining it as self-contained) would be that it is infinite in extent, and has no boundaries.
But there are infinite many ways, in which the universe can be infinite. The road on which the brane theory is evolving is one way (the "universe" embedded in a higher order brane world).

If one must assume the universe to be infinite in order for it to be self-contained, then for me, it would be more obvious to start from the assumption that it would be infinite within the space-time frame we normally assume.
At least to me, that would make more sense then assuming in first instance that it was finite (in respect to the amount of mass, time and space), and then later on conclude that this couldn't possibly be self-contained, and then go on and assume a higher order world in which this universe is embedded in.
Within this self-contained universe, with "normal" space-time attributes, and assuming that space-time is infinite (without begin or end) and also matter is infine in extent, I think it is possible to explain all the observed facts.
For instance, an infinite universe doesn't require expanding to exist, nor will it collapse, it explains the flatness of space, one doesn't need to assume that 90% of all matter is not directly observable, the state of development of the oldest galaxies can be better explained, etc. Even the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation can be explained within these assumptions.
On the condition that, based on these assumptions, satisfactory explenations can be given for all the observed facts, including of course the redshift observations. I think it is too early to conclude that such assumptions can be excluded, even as up to now, Big Bang theory did a convincing job in explaining a lot of observed facts. But we are certain, Big Bang theory does not hold too well on certain areas and comes up with contradicationary predictions. Some observed facts can't be satisfactory explained by the Big Bang theory, especially I think on the field how galaxies formate. The constraint of the Big Bang theory because of the limited age of the universe (approx. between 10-12 billions years) doesn't fit some observations of mature galaxies, which could not have formed in this time scale.
This is not yet conclusive evidence for fact that the BB theory doesn't hold, but it indicates that the BB theory is not yet a satisfactory explenation.
But it is arguable that the alternative assumption about the infinitness of the universe, must not yet be excluded, and it might turn out that based on this assumption the observed facts can be explained more satisfactory.


<font size=-1>[ This Message was edited by: heusdens on 2002-11-25 12:17 ]</font>