You may be mistaking Nereid for me with that citation, but I agree with Nereid in that to think geometrically about the infinitely small you frequently imagine seemingly infinite space around the object by comparison. Expressed differently the ratio between one meter length and infinitely large length is the same as the ratio between infinitessimal length and one meter.

I believe that we are of finite size (neither infinite, nor infinitessimal). I believe the same thing of the universe. The universe may be as small as 4x10^26 times further across as you are tall. This is much smaller than infinite.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

What caused the big bang will never be known for sure, and no theory about it can ever be tested coz the circumstances existing then can never, ever be recreated.

Before the big bang, we are talking of a totally different era from the one we know (after the big bang). We have no way of ever looking back into it. The laws operating in the pre big bang era could have been different from those after it.

We can not form opinions about what was possible or impossible before the big bang based on our observations of how things work after the big bang. Maybe the universe came out of nothing. Perhaps then, it was possible for something to come out of absolutely nothing. How would you know? You do not know what it was that was when it was, before the big bang.

What came before the "big bang"? Is there a God? Is there life after death? All really intriguing questions. Unfortunately we have not been around long enough to gather the data and information to even begin to answer these types of questions with any certainty. Perhaps in the distant future (if we last that long) we will be able to answer them with some sort of absoluteness.
However, in the interim best thing to do is read, study and form your own loose opinion.
What I mean by loose opinion is don't be afraid to change your mind or opinion if new ideas become available.
Personally I like string theory. Nestled in string theory are "branes" also "M-theory".
There is no point in getting into these things too deep here. So, do a search or look them up. I am sure there must be lots of information on them.
They may or may not fit into your personal ideology....

There are two kinds of infinities, an actual and a potential, and it needs some care to be sure which one you're talking about. A potential infinite could be what the universe is if it began at the BB and is either flat or open. In this case there was a beginning of both space and time but could continue to expand over time forever. It'll never get there of course but it has the potential to.

Now consider if time (for instance) was an actual infinite. We wouldn't be here. Why? Because in an actual infinity of time any event must occur somewhere in this infinite extent which means that an infinite time must have passed before that event occured.

For a much better explanation than this have a look at the Kalam Cosmological Argument at http://ourworld.compuserve.com/homepages/b...ramey/kalam.htm

Yes parsec. I agree.
Tolerate the diferant, Understand the complex, Unfold the difacult.
Above all this stay open to knew ideas.

This is not necessarily so. Wherever you are in time or space, it can not be proven that there were not an unmeasurable amount of each in all directions of space and flow of time. If the universe had no beginning, however much finite time you postulate in the past is not sufficient to get back to a non-existent beginning. Take the largest finite number you know how to express, take its factorial, and raise the result to its own power, and repeat this as many times as the number is large and you still have a finite number however large. Infinity is in a class by itself. Think: without limit.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Thanks GOURDHEAD,

This is a really nice way to express just how big infinity is. There are a lot of people who just never latch on to the idea.

__________________
Forming opinions as we speak

I've tried to convey some of the flavour of 'inifinity' in this thread before; let me try again.

Infinity as a qualitative idea is wooly, scary, and wholly immune to any kind of sensible discussion.

Infinity as a quantitative concept can be tackled in mathematics, quite easily for the last century or so.

Some of the results from the centuries' long work of mathematicians can leave you confused, in a 'wow!' state, and much besides, the first time you encounter them. Nonetheless, they are now rigourously developed and thoroughly tested.

Among the results:
- 'infinite' and 'infinitesimal' are two sides of the same concept; wherever you have one, you automatically have the other
- there are different degrees of infinity ... which have names (aleph null, aleph one, ..)
- various aspects of infinity - that are of interest and use to physicists, cosmologists, etc - are well understood and thoroughly tractable (e.g. via 'limits')

Turning to how scientists use mathematics ... for quite a long time now (at least a century), physics (which includes astrophysics and cosmology) has been thoroughly quantitative, with all theories being expressed in mathematical form. This means, among other things, that if you wish to get a deep appreciation of a theory in physics, you need to have an understanding of the mathematics which the theory is built on.

As a side note: all the engineering which most (all?) of us are likely to encounter (directly or indirectly) is built on theories in physics, dating from the time of Newton to various aspects of quantum theory as recent as the last decade or three. All of these theories make extensive use of the concept of infinity.

Several folk in this thread have given eloquent expression to confusion and disbelief, with regard to 'infinite time' or 'infinite space'. This is thoroughly understandable confusion.

The 'resolution' of this confusion involves (among other things) a more detailed look at 'time' and 'space'.

Many - most? - of us think we have a good understanding of 'time' and 'space'. However, as those of us who have read up on (special) relativity know, 'time' is quite slippery (remember, 'simultaneous' is not absolute - what's simultaneous to one observer may not be at all simultaneous to another). Greene, Hawking, and many other famous scientists (even Einstein) have written popular books which have sold by the million; books which include 'word descriptions' of some of the paradoxes and counter-intuitive aspects of such good modern theories of physics as relativity. Some of us can remember reading some of the weird things these guys have said (in words) ... black holes, singularities, and more ... but as these books almost universally avoid equations and math, we don't really get a good understanding of these theories (not least because the books work by analogies, which are never complete or perfect).

So, how 'real' is the mathematics upon which the most successful theories in physics today (GR and QFT) are built? In other words, if the mathematics includes 'infinity', does that mean that 'the real world' includes 'infinity'?

And if those infinities are in such esoteric things as 'all paths', or such things that we think we have some grasp of (such as 'temperature'), is 'the real world' (which is part of 'the universe') 'infinite', at least in part?

So if we think of 'infinite' in terms of 'space', when we discuss 'the universe', surely the question isn't some philosophical one which may move us deeply (or leave us stone cold), but 'in what ways would such an infinite space affect anything that I could see or do (even in principle)?' or 'what observations or experiments could I perform whose results would tell me whether, "in fact", the universe is of infinite spatial extent?'

Here we can not avoid treading on semantical landmines. In my view there can be no hard proof of dimensions of the universe either in space or time. Whether the entire universe (in my view entire is redundant here) is extremely large and finite or infinite is of little consequence.

A comforting way to contemplate the size of the universe is to allow for it to be partitioned into large finite chunks that are only very loosely coupled to each other, i.e., gravity and light from one section does not affect the others. There appears to be reasonable inferences drawn from current observations analysed in the context of general relativity (setting aside quantum non-locality) that the observable chunk of the universe where we are is very loosely if at all coupled to the much larger section that we nor the inanimates can observe or be affected by.

The one strong indicator, far from a proof, that our chunk of the universe is of finite size in space and of finite time duration is the ratio of hydrogen to helium and the ratio of hydrogen + helium to all other elements so far observed and analysed through spectroscopy. These values strongly support a finite time, therefore a starting point in time for this chunk, for the salting of the "metallic" elements. If this chunk had been around for a infinite amount of time and if what we observe as expansion is not a half cycle portion of some sort of oscillation, it's hard to imagine that we would not already have been black holed or turned mostly to iron or positronium.

__________________
For those inclined to oppose human meddling with the structure of the universe or the composition and configuration of objects and groups of objects within the universe, consider:
Whether there is a limit to the magnitude of a modulation of chaos below which order remains invariant? Or, is order but a fiction invented by perspectives applied over finite, however large, time intervals?

Here is how I resove the issue through pondering....is it lkely...who knows. Conceptually, reduce all matter into energy and spread it homogeniously across the universe. This is the simplest form the Universe can take, the only nothing possible. Basically you have a single infinate homogenous particle, then it decayed. That is your Big Bang.

So you are saying that one particle caused the big bang? Then the Question becomes, where did that particle come from? The explanation of the big bang simply cannot presuppose matter as its cause because all matter was created via the big bang. Therefore, you cannot use matter to explain something that created all matter or you fall into the circular argument, or an infinite regress.

The more I think about the problem, the more I begin to realize that the universe is infinitely complex and infinitely strange and I do not know if we will ever be able to understand all the laws and rules that govern it. How can something as wonderful as our planet and everything else that we may find close to our hearts come from nothing. Logic tells us that something cannot come from nothing and yet the universe either had to come from nothing, or that something had always existed to cause the big bang, be it energy or temperature or something we know not what.

What we do know is that there was a point some 15 billion years ago where everything was born. Laws, rules particles and everything else has its origin in this singularity and everything else prior, if there was something prior was destroyed. We know the big bang occurred and we know that the universe is not infinite and is subject to limits and measurements. However, to fathom the origin of the universe is maybe the single greatest question in the history of question because it seeks to answer the first cause of everything.

I do have one question. Have we pin pointed the point where the big bang occurred and if we have not would it not lie at the center of the universe?

Take a look in a mirror - what you see is 'the point where the big bang occurred'.

Go to Hawaii, visit the Keck telescopes. Ask them to point one (either one) at the most distant object we've been able to detect (so far). Look in the eyepiece - what you see is 'the point where the big bang occurred'.

I am not sure if you are following me here. Matter can be not be created nor destroy, this is classical conservation. Energy can become mass and mass back to energy....e=mc(2) thingy. If you conceptually use this famous equation and transform all mass into energy and spread it evenly (homogenously) throughout the univese, you would have conceptually an infinate scalar field. You would have no electrodynamics, no density differenciation (a time singularity), no way in which space-time, in terms of GR, could produce anything. Basically you would have an infinate 3D infinity with the 4th dimension being constant. The singularity is not a small anything, it is the absents of dynamics and for all physical purposes (Relativity) it is nothing. Time would be static. Any theory must presuppose matter of some form or another for the sake of conservation. Conceptually, this infinate scalar field could be considered an infinate particle..or a monism if you will.

So there was indeed a singularity....not a small super mass that expanded...but an infinate field that decayed....a cool beginning that heated up very quickly. There is no reason whatsoever that 3D be included in the singularity, the 4th dimension works just fine. There is more to the story....but our mods, I am sure would prefer this be in the Alternative forum.

I thought that all laws break down at the big bang singularity, even the conservation principle.

What 'happened' in the first Planck second can only be speculation today - the best science we have is inconsistent in this regime (and theories which might address the inconsistencies poorly understood and poorly constrained, as of now).Why? What leads you to any conclusion concerning the Planck second, other than your intuition? (and please don't say 'logic' - I would then ask you to explain quantum theory using 'logic')Yes indeed (especially if it's science and not constraint-free philosophical speculation :P )

And thus a major problem with the Big Bang Singularity....such laws needn't break down with my concept of a pre-Big Bang......occum's razor. My idea does share a point in which the "first" event occured, but there was no expansion of this point...there was a chain-reaction like decay, spherically and at a speed less than c.

What is logic if its not the most obviouse conclousion, based on pure scientific fact and proof. So what happened in those micro secounds befor the Big bang. WE dont 'know'., and we may never.
However I do have an opinion that I am keen to share with you.
The whole of the local group af Galaxies, our Milky Way galaxy invluded are part of the whole known Universe. All of which came into exsistance aproxamatly 14 billion years ago.
Not a lot, seems like a good answer to your question.
Time can only be measured by a spiecies that wants to know all of the answers.
Pre the Big Bang, there was no time, becouse there was nothing to measure time against. We may well be the only spiecies that wants to know, or cares. About any of this

There is a consensus opinion here that it is irrelevant to ask questions about "BEFORE" the Big Bang, as "TIME" itself began at the Big Bang.

HOWEVER. We (humans) live VERY MUCH in "TIME". We live it, breathe it, die in it.

SO... Are we humans so SEPARATED from "reality" that we will never find the answers? Are we simply deluding ourselves with these "deep" thoughts?

OR...is our conclusion that there was no "before" WRONG??

This whole debate troubles me, because it suggests that the entire universe (and our existence within it) is totally absurd & crazy.

Can anybody help me out here?

[joke]Have you read up on some of the more counter-intuitive aspects of quantum theory?[/joke] :P

I mean, how can Edwin's (actually, his wife's) poor cat be in a superposed state of 'dead' and 'alive' (until you open the box and take a peek)?

two major substance of the matter struck or exploded on each other then followed in the pieces?