# How many times has the universe doubled since the big bang?

#### RandallF

Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves, if I was at the Big Bang and started my clock at the moment time took hold what time is it now?

rod

#### rod

Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves, if I was at the Big Bang and started my clock at the moment time took hold what time is it now?

This depends upon the value for H0 or Hubble constant and computed Hubble time for the present age. Here are cosmology calculators for use COSMOLOGY CALCULATORS You get different ages too for the open vs. flat universe models. In the early days of cosmology, the Hubble time was 1E+9 years old. Revisions in the Hubble constant over the years in astronomy resulted in different ages published for the age of the universe. For example, Einstein indicated in the early years of investigating the redshifts, there was a great conflict between the age of star systems and the age of the universe computed from the Hubble constant. "There does arise, however, a strange difficulty. The interpretation of the galactic line-shift discovered by Hubble as an expansion (which can hardly be doubted from a theoretical point of view), leads to an origin of this expansion which lies "only" about 1E+9 years ago, while physical astronomy makes it appear likely that the development of individual stars and systems of stars takes considerably longer. It is in no way known how this incongruity is to be overcome." ref - Relativity, The Special and The General Theory, Crown Publishers Inc., p. 134. 15th edition.

#### rod

"Each time the universe doubles..." There is another problem too. Where did 3D space come from? There apparently is no answer in the Big Bang model so a doubling of the size of the universe is based upon 3D space and where that came from too. "Although the question of why our universe has exactly three (large) spatial dimensions is one of the most profound puzzles in cosmology … it is actually only occasionally addressed in the [scientific] literature," the article begins.", Filling the early universe with knots can explain why the world is three-dimensional, https://phys.org/news/2017-10-early-universe-world-three-dimensional.html

#### rod

FYI, when I think about the universe doubling in size using the Big Bang model, I think about starting at the Planck time and Planck length. How many times did the universe double in size starting at Planck time and Planck length until 1 second after the Big Bang? What about Planck time and Planck length until 3 minutes after Big Bang? Perhaps we will find a very fast expansion rate, and a highly variable expansion rate in the model, with many doublings in size

#### RandallF

I'm trying to dumb down an idea so it makes logical sense to the average person.(That may be asking too much but I'm hopeful.) I know time is perceived differently depending on where in the universe it is measured. And as I stated earlier: Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves,
Can anyone give me an answer and an explainable rational to the following question:
If at the moment of the Big Bang I start to successfully surf the leading edge of the expansion of the universe and at the moment time took hold I started my clock - what time is it now?
I know the answer isn't 14-16 Billion years because I'm moving incredibly fast and I'm experiencing a huge number of universe doublings. Therefore, logically my clock should be recording a much much slower rate of change.
Thank you, Randall

#### rod

Randall, you bring up a very interesting idea about time dilation at the *leading edge of the expansion of the universe*. According to Special Relativity, if I am traveling at 50% c, my clock should run about 15.5% slower than my clock running at rest where 1 second passes on my clock at 50% c but at rest, 1.15 seconds passes. In inflation, 3D space expands >> c In my reading, I do not recall seeing this addressed by the cosmology department. Modern cosmology is committed to the multiverse and inflation model, this is highly dependent upon quantum gravity being real. I do not know what quantum gravity does to time calculations or if there is a *leading edge of expansion* in the multiverse cosmology.

#### michaellyam

Randall, you bring up a very interesting idea about time dilation at the *leading edge of the expansion of the universe*. According to Special Relativity, if I am traveling at 50% c, my clock should run about 15.5% slower than my clock running at rest where 1 second passes on my clock at 50% c but at rest, 1.15 seconds passes. In inflation, 3D space expands >> c In my reading, I do not recall seeing this addressed by the cosmology department. Modern cosmology is committed to the multiverse and inflation model, this is highly dependent upon quantum gravity being real. I do not know what quantum gravity does to time calculations or if there is a *leading edge of expansion* in the multiverse cosmology.
Could you please explain me about time dilation in more simple format.

#### voidpotentialenergy

It has never doubled. Same universe as it was in compressed state just occupying more of nothing now

Mental Avenger

#### David-J-Franks

I'm trying to dumb down an idea so it makes logical sense to the average person.(That may be asking too much but I'm hopeful.) I know time is perceived differently depending on where in the universe it is measured. And as I stated earlier: Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves,
Can anyone give me an answer and an explainable rational to the following question:
If at the moment of the Big Bang I start to successfully surf the leading edge of the expansion of the universe and at the moment time took hold I started my clock - what time is it now?
I know the answer isn't 14-16 Billion years because I'm moving incredibly fast and I'm experiencing a huge number of universe doublings. Therefore, logically my clock should be recording a much much slower rate of change.
Thank you, Randall
I know time is perceived differently depending on where in the universe it is measured. And as I stated earlier: Each time the universe doubles the perception of time halves,
I'm not quite sure what you mean, please explain more. I think your perception of time will always be the same for you in your immediate surroundings because' you and your clock are together and experiencing all the same speeds/accelerations etc. It will seem different if you look further afield after changing speed/acceleration or the amount of gravity you are in.

If at the moment of the Big Bang I start to successfully surf the leading edge of the expansion of the universe and at the moment time took hold I started my clock - what time is it now?
If you were at the beginning of our universe you must be from another universe! The clock you have would then have been purchased from a planet in that universe, and so, would be synchronized to its daily time.

Now, there's the whole universe, which means all of the contents of the big bang, which you are on the edge of, and there's the observable universe. The observable universe is all that's relevant to us because that is the furthest distance that light has had time to reach us, we cannot see all of the universe. So, we can't see back further than 13.8 billion years in time. That doesn't mean however that the radius of the observable universe is 13.8 billion light-years. The universe started out expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation), so in that 13.8 billion years the observable universe has actually expanded to a radius of about 46.5 billion light-years. So, when you see reports of the oldest stars at around 13 billion years old, they are closer to that 46.5 billion light-years in the actual distance (I think 30 billion light-years is typical). Because we cannot see the whole universe no one knows how big it is. Estimates range from 250 times bigger than the observable universe (7 trillion light-years across) to 10 to the power 12,200 megaparsecs across (from the No-Boundary Proposal). In other words, there isn't even a good estimate!

The bad news is that if you're on the edge of the universe you will never be able to reach us to re-calibrate your clock to earth time because the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light at the edge (amount not known). This is allowed because relativity permits space to expand faster than the speed of light. In other words, objects are not moving away from each other faster than light speed but that the space between them is expanding faster than light speed. So you will only ever know the time as set on the planet where you purchased your clock.

Time will always feel the same to you because you and your clock are experiencing all the same accelerations and speeds together. Problems with time dilation and relativity only kick in when I try to measure your time and you try to measure my time.

If you measured the age of the universe after it had expanded with your alien time scale then yes I think the alien clock that you travelled with would show a slowed-down time due to relativity.
I know the answer isn't 14-16 Billion years because I'm moving incredibly fast and I'm experiencing a huge number of universe doublings. Therefore, logically my clock should be recording a much much slower rate of change.
You would never be able to compare your clock with earth time from the edge of the universe, you are out of light speed range. In fact, you would not even know earth existed, so would not know what a year was.

Relativity also changes length, so, your perception of what constitutes a doubling in size might not be absolute, I'm not sure.

rod

#### rod

I'm not quite sure what you mean, please explain more. I think your perception of time will always be the same for you in your immediate surroundings because' you and your clock are together and experiencing all the same speeds/accelerations etc. It will seem different if you look further afield after changing speed/acceleration or the amount of gravity you are in.

If you were at the beginning of our universe you must be from another universe! The clock you have would then have been purchased from a planet in that universe, and so, would be synchronized to its daily time.

Now, there's the whole universe, which means all of the contents of the big bang, which you are on the edge of, and there's the observable universe. The observable universe is all that's relevant to us because that is the furthest distance that light has had time to reach us, we cannot see all of the universe. So, we can't see back further than 13.8 billion years in time. That doesn't mean however that the radius of the observable universe is 13.8 billion light-years. The universe started out expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation), so in that 13.8 billion years the observable universe has actually expanded to a radius of about 46.5 billion light-years. So, when you see reports of the oldest stars at around 13 billion years old, they are closer to that 46.5 billion light-years in the actual distance (I think 30 billion light-years is typical). Because we cannot see the whole universe no one knows how big it is. Estimates range from 250 times bigger than the observable universe (7 trillion light-years across) to 10 to the power 12,200 megaparsecs across (from the No-Boundary Proposal). In other words, there isn't even a good estimate!

The bad news is that if you're on the edge of the universe you will never be able to reach us to re-calibrate your clock to earth time because the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light at the edge (amount not known). This is allowed because relativity permits space to expand faster than the speed of light. In other words, objects are not moving away from each other faster than light speed but that the space between them is expanding faster than light speed. So you will only ever know the time as set on the planet where you purchased your clock.

Time will always feel the same to you because you and your clock are experiencing all the same accelerations and speeds together. Problems with time dilation and relativity only kick in when I try to measure your time and you try to measure my time.

If you measured the age of the universe after it had expanded with your alien time scale then yes I think the alien clock that you travelled with would show a slowed-down time due to relativity.

You would never be able to compare your clock with earth time from the edge of the universe, you are out of light speed range. In fact, you would not even know earth existed, so would not know what a year was.

Relativity also changes length, so, your perception of what constitutes a doubling in size might not be absolute, I'm not sure.

David-J-Franks, not bad Jedi What you say about the radius of the universe near 46.5 billion light years away from Earth can be seen in cosmology calculators, COSMOLOGY CALCULATORS Using a z number (redshift) = 1,000 for the CMBR, that points to near 46 billion light years distance (comoving radial distance) based upon the flat universe model for inflation. The CMBR does present a barrier it seems as to what may or may not exist beyond. Some thorny problems are such distances from Earth are not verified using telescopes - at the present and the quantum mechanics use of quantum gravity - remains unverified too from everything I have found from 1988 through this year on the subject. So for Rod - I continue to use my telescopes and enjoy observing the Galilean moons and moons of Saturn - I am confident these are out there and I do not struggle with z numbers 1000 or larger as current cosmology and inflation models suggest showing some other universe or multiverse still much farther away

David-J-Franks

#### William Pennat

Take the Planck length 1.6 x 10^-35 meters (smallest possible unit of space) and divide it into the current size of the universe, some 93 billion light years in diameter. (Left as an exercise for the reader!)

rod

#### rod

Take the Planck length 1.6 x 10^-35 meters (smallest possible unit of space) and divide it into the current size of the universe, some 93 billion light years in diameter. (Left as an exercise for the reader!)

Keep in mind we do not observe redshifts where z=1000 or larger to show the universe is as large as the Big Bang model suggest. The largest redshift or z is about 11.0 However the Planck length and Planck time is a good place to start in the Big Bang model.

#### David-J-Franks

Take the Planck length 1.6 x 10^-35 meters (smallest possible unit of space) and divide it into the current size of the universe, some 93 billion light years in diameter. (Left as an exercise for the reader!)
Unfortunately the method you have given won't give the answer the original post asked for. Your method is the amount by which it has multiplied. not the number of times it has doubled. The correct formula is p x 2 to the power x = 93 billion light years, where p is the planck length and x is the number of times the Universe has doubled. Rearranging the formula gives: 2 to the power x = 93 billion light years ÷ p. Taking logarithms of both sides give the formula:
x log 2 = log(93 billion light years ÷ p). Dividing both sides by log2 gives the final answer, x = [log(93 billion light years ÷ p)]/log2.

Last minute edit because p the planck length is in metres you'll have to change light years to metres otherwise the equation won't work properly.

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

Take the Planck length 1.6 x 10^-35 meters (smallest possible unit of space) and divide it into the current size of the universe, some 93 billion light years in diameter. (Left as an exercise for the reader!)
When using the formula I've just given above, it might be worth using the more accurate version of the planck constant, because it is being divided into such a large number, any errors will get multiplied a lot. According to Wikipedia the planck length is 1.616255(18)×10 to the power -35. There is a big assumption being made here as well. Just because you can extrapolate the universe all the way backwards using equations to an extremely small point, it doesn't mean to say that at some point matter just can't be compressed anymore and it may be that it stops being compressed well above planck length. In other words the original contents of the big bang may well have been many times larger than the planck length. I think that's all guesswork, I don't think anyone knows what the original size of the universe was. The other point is, it is not necessary to know that total size of the whole universe to work out how many times it's doubled, if you assume that all of it has doubled in proportion to all other parts. in other words, if it all expanded at the same rate wherever you are in the universe measuring the expansion of one small area such as the observable universe, the ratio of expansion should be the same for the whole universe. So when working out how many times the Universe has doubled using just the observable universe it should then also apply to the whole universe.

Finally, when you're working the equation out, there might be a remainder, in other words it might not have doubled an exact whole number of times yet.

#### voidpotentialenergy

IMO the question is riddled with problematic math.
How big was the universe at the point of the big bang?
Are we expanding into nothing?
Are we just a phase of a black hole making the question mute?
Does the big bang happen more than once?

Any or all of them will make an impossible to answer question.

David-J-Franks

#### David-J-Franks

IMO the question is riddled with problematic math.
How big was the universe at the point of the big bang?
Are we expanding into nothing?
Are we just a phase of a black hole making the question mute?
Does the big bang happen more than once?

Any or all of them will make an impossible to answer question.
Are we expanding into nothing?
Does it matter what we are expanding into? An expansion rate has been measured for the observable universe.
Are we just a phase of a black hole making the question mute?
Again, does that matter if we are inside a black hole, we are still expanding.
Does the big bang happen more than once?
Why does it matter how many times the big bang has happened? The calculation is for this cycle of the Big Bang.
How big was the universe at the point of the big bang?
Agreed, nobody knows how big the universe was to start with. IMO, this is the only valid point you raised, this is why we started from the planck length.

Yes, it is in an unanswerable question, but it's raised more points to think about than many other threads. I enjoyed thinking about both parts of the question.

#### voidpotentialenergy

Does it matter what we are expanding into? An expansion rate has been measured for the observable universe.

Again, does that matter if we are inside a black hole, we are still expanding.

Why does it matter how many times the big bang has happened? The calculation is for this cycle of the Big Bang.

Agreed, nobody knows how big the universe was to start with. IMO, this is the only valid point you raised, this is why we started from the planck length.

Yes, it is in an unanswerable question, but it's raised more points to think about than many other threads. I enjoyed thinking about both parts of the question.
If we are everything and expanded into nothing then expanding into nothing makes the question mute.
If we are just one universe in an endless sea of them then we expanded into something, then the question is valid unless we are just a phase of a black hole and space/time just an illusion of perspective.
Time inside a black hole =? Space inside a black hole =?

If the big bang happens more than once then we could be living in an endless universe.
The big bang happens, everything moves away rips apart and never returns.
The empty space left over causes a new universe to be slowly born to repeat again.
That would make the question how far has this big bang expanded since it's most compressed state.

I agree it's most fun to think about the reality of this universe and how easily we could be wrong about our conceptions.

Charmaine

#### Charmaine

I'm not quite sure what you mean, please explain more. I think your perception of time will always be the same for you in your immediate surroundings because' you and your clock are together and experiencing all the same speeds/accelerations etc. It will seem different if you look further afield after changing speed/acceleration or the amount of gravity you are in.

If you were at the beginning of our universe you must be from another universe! The clock you have would then have been purchased from a planet in that universe, and so, would be synchronized to its daily time.

Now, there's the whole universe, which means all of the contents of the big bang, which you are on the edge of, and there's the observable universe. The observable universe is all that's relevant to us because that is the furthest distance that light has had time to reach us, we cannot see all of the universe. So, we can't see back further than 13.8 billion years in time. That doesn't mean however that the radius of the observable universe is 13.8 billion light-years. The universe started out expanding faster than the speed of light (inflation), so in that 13.8 billion years the observable universe has actually expanded to a radius of about 46.5 billion light-years. So, when you see reports of the oldest stars at around 13 billion years old, they are closer to that 46.5 billion light-years in the actual distance (I think 30 billion light-years is typical). Because we cannot see the whole universe no one knows how big it is. Estimates range from 250 times bigger than the observable universe (7 trillion light-years across) to 10 to the power 12,200 megaparsecs across (from the No-Boundary Proposal). In other words, there isn't even a good estimate!

The bad news is that if you're on the edge of the universe you will never be able to reach us to re-calibrate your clock to earth time because the universe is still expanding faster than the speed of light at the edge (amount not known). This is allowed because relativity permits space to expand faster than the speed of light. In other words, objects are not moving away from each other faster than light speed but that the space between them is expanding faster than light speed. So you will only ever know the time as set on the planet where you purchased your clock.

Time will always feel the same to you because you and your clock are experiencing all the same accelerations and speeds together. Problems with time dilation and relativity only kick in when I try to measure your time and you try to measure my time.

If you measured the age of the universe after it had expanded with your alien time scale then yes I think the alien clock that you travelled with would show a slowed-down time due to relativity.

You would never be able to compare your clock with earth time from the edge of the universe, you are out of light speed range. In fact, you would not even know earth existed, so would not know what a year was.

Relativity also changes length, so, your perception of what constitutes a doubling in size might not be absolute, I'm not sure.

Well , being just a " regular " person ... I understood this answer more so than the previous answers from anyone , for this question ... & perhaps you can answer a question for me . Someone posted a comment about " how big was space at the time of the big bang ? " ... isn't true or maybe just a theory , that space began at the moment of the big bang .

David-J-Franks

#### David-J-Franks

If we are everything and expanded into nothing then expanding into nothing makes the question mute.
If we are just one universe in an endless sea of them then we expanded into something, then the question is valid unless we are just a phase of a black hole and space/time just an illusion of perspective.
Time inside a black hole =? Space inside a black hole =?

If the big bang happens more than once then we could be living in an endless universe.
The big bang happens, everything moves away rips apart and never returns.
The empty space left over causes a new universe to be slowly born to repeat again.
That would make the question how far has this big bang expanded since it's most compressed state.

I agree it's most fun to think about the reality of this universe and how easily we could be wrong about our conceptions.
HAPPY NEW YEAR!
If we are everything and expanded into nothing then expanding into nothing makes the question mute.
Measuring doubling is measuring relative to a size before, it only needs the initial size and the current size relative to the initial size, both of which we don't know. I can't understand why it matters what it's expanding into.
If we are just one universe in an endless sea of them then we expanded into something, then the question is valid unless we are just a phase of a black hole and space/time just an illusion of perspective.
I definitely don't believe "we are everything" and that there's such a thing as "nothing"

In my book, my theory, called 'Steady State of The Infinite', is based on 2 main simple principles:

1, Space is infinite. There are restraints on how far we can go, but there's no reason to believe there are any physical boundaries, if there were, there's always the other side. In my book, I call space and everything in it 'The Infinite'.

2, 'Matter-energy' can neither be created nor destroyed – This conservation law, also, automatically implies that there has ALWAYS been something (and that includes before the big bang) and that there WILL always be something. Another way to put it, is, that our universe did not come from 'nothing'.

If you accept space is infinite, it would be too bizarre to think our universe is the only matter in this infinite space. It would mean stuff in our universe is a one-off special, an other-wise exception to an infinite void. There's no reason to believe any laws of physics could allow 'something' here and absolutely nothing any where-else. What enables or gives rise to something here, will enable or give rise for something to be everywhere- so no void! Stuff here, is not a special case - If there's something here, there's something everywhere!

Since there's no reason to believe our stuff and laws of physics are special, it's reasonable to assume stuff and laws are the same throughout 'the infinite'. This, in turn, means there's a connection or something in common throughout 'the infinite'. So I suggest the underlying commonality is just space and what it consists of, (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever).

If the laws of physics allow one universe, the same laws must allow an infinite number. So, if there's a universe here, why not over there and over there etc., until there's an infinite amount. So, I suggest that whatever mechanism gives rise to a universe, then there must be an infinite number of them!
unless we are just a phase of a black hole and space/time just an illusion of perspective.
I most certainly believe we are the result of an explosion of a black hole, or a rebound from a big crunch, which for an instant would be like a black hole perhaps. The logic is simple:
From my book:

"Because you can't get something from nothing –

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's order, information and energy."

The only thing we currently know that sucks matter in on a large scale, thus explaining the 'what went in first, is a black hole. As our universe gets old it looks like things increasingly get sucked into black holes, until there's nothing but black holes left. If the universe collapses back in on itself it will rebound with another big bang. That's called the cyclic universe model, for which I think it's a bit bizarre to think the same universe keeps repeating this, presumably with all the others doing the same. So in my theory, I suggest black holes from our universe combine with black holes from other universes and then form one giant black hole which then explodes to form a new universe with different ingredients to this one, much more sensible. I think black holes will explode either, because they can't just keep getting bigger and bigger, or they collide with each other and then explode. It's recycling!
and space/time just an illusion of perspective.
Can you explain that please?
Time inside a black hole =? Space inside a black hole =?
I think we 'ARE' in an exploded black hole, so you can use your own current definitions of time. As you may know from other posts I believe there's no such thing as time there's only "motion and regular or periodic motion". That was all covered well in the 'Stopping time' thread. 'Space', (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever). there seems to be plenty of that, whatever we're in.
The big bang happens, everything moves away rips apart and never returns.
It will mix and merge with other universes as described above before it has time to rip apart - no 'big rip'!
The empty space left over causes a new universe to be slowly born to repeat again.
Something from empty space? May as well believe in magic.
That would make the question how far has this big bang expanded since it's most compressed state.
It may be possible one day scientists can calculate the original size of the big bang, but I think that's light-years away. There are already estimates, but they vary wildly.

Last edited:

#### David-J-Franks

Well , being just a " regular " person ... I understood this answer more so than the previous answers from anyone , for this question ... & perhaps you can answer a question for me . Someone posted a comment about " how big was space at the time of the big bang ? " ... isn't true or maybe just a theory , that space began at the moment of the big bang .
HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Thanks so much for your response.

As you can see, I've just made a long post above, so I'm exhausted now.

It's a great question you've asked and I'll be excited to answer it as best I can, when I've eaten and rested. In the meantime, tick the 'watch' box near the top of the page and you'll get email alerts when someone responds to this thread.

#### voidpotentialenergy

HAPPY NEW YEAR!

Measuring doubling is measuring relative to a size before, it only needs the initial size and the current size relative to the initial size, both of which we don't know. I can't understand why it matters what it's expanding into.

I definitely don't believe "we are everything" and that there's such a thing as "nothing"

In my book, my theory, called 'Steady State of The Infinite', is based on 2 main simple principles:

1, Space is infinite. There are restraints on how far we can go, but there's no reason to believe there are any physical boundaries, if there were, there's always the other side. In my book, I call space and everything in it 'The Infinite'.

2, 'Matter-energy' can neither be created nor destroyed – This conservation law, also, automatically implies that there has ALWAYS been something (and that includes before the big bang) and that there WILL always be something. Another way to put it, is, that our universe did not come from 'nothing'.

If you accept space is infinite, it would be too bizarre to think our universe is the only matter in this infinite space. It would mean stuff in our universe is a one-off special, an other-wise exception to an infinite void. There's no reason to believe any laws of physics could allow 'something' here and absolutely nothing any where-else. What enables or gives rise to something here, will enable or give rise for something to be everywhere- so no void! Stuff here, is not a special case - If there's something here, there's something everywhere!

Since there's no reason to believe our stuff and laws of physics are special, it's reasonable to assume stuff and laws are the same throughout 'the infinite'. This, in turn, means there's a connection or something in common throughout 'the infinite'. So I suggest the underlying commonality is just space and what it consists of, (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever).

If the laws of physics allow one universe, the same laws must allow an infinite number. So, if there's a universe here, why not over there and over there etc., until there's an infinite amount. So, I suggest that whatever mechanism gives rise to a universe, then there must be an infinite number of them!

I most certainly believe we are the result of an explosion of a black hole, or a rebound from a big crunch, which for an instant would be like a black perhaps. The logic is simple:
From my book:

"Because you can't get something from nothing –

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's order, information and energy."

The only thing we currently know that sucks matter in on a large scale, thus explaining the 'what went in first, is a black hole. As our universe gets old it looks like things increasingly get sucked into black holes, until there's nothing but black holes left. If the universe collapses back in on itself it will rebound with another big bang. That's called the cyclic universe model, for which I think it's a bit bizarre to think the same universe keeps repeating this, presumably with all the others doing the same. So in my theory, I suggest black holes from our universe combine with black holes from other universes and then form one giant black hole which then explodes to form a new universe with different ingredients to this one, much more sensible. I think black holes will explode either, because they can't just keep getting bigger and bigger, or they collide with each other and then explode. It's recycling!

Can you explain that please?

I think we 'ARE' in an exploded black hole, so you can use your own current definitions of time. As you may know from other posts I believe there's no such thing as time there's only "motion and regular or periodic motion". That was all covered well in the 'Stopping time' thread. 'Space', (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever). there seems to be plenty of that, whatever we're in.

It will mix and merge with other universes as described above before it has time to rip apart - no 'big rip'!

Something from empty space? May as well believe in magic.

It may be possible one day scientists can calculate the original size of the big bang, but I think that's light-years away. There are already estimates, but they vary wildly.
I agree no such a thing as the final frontier.

Lets pretend that this universe started from nothing, just a region of space with noting in it.
Lets call that region of space potential energy that quantum fluctuation fill in and slowly creates everything with the amount of energy that nothing occupying space has.

Now we have a reason for space and time with properties and how everything could start.
We also have a reason how infinite numbers of them can start and now one can collide with another to start a big bang.

Lets also pretend that a black hole expanding doesn't expand into nothing.
It just expands into the region of space that is part of the gravitational influence of this universe.
Do we ever really move outside the black hole and it's extreme time dilation.
We could be experiencing time and space as reality when both could be illusions, the entire universe might really take a milli second to repeat and take up nearly no room in doing it.
We stuck inside see a totally different process because of perspective.
It explains the flat projector look of the universe.

Not my fave idea ever but interesting way to think for sure.

I would like to believe that we do start from potential energy of 0, it's the reason for everything.
We are part of a cyclic universe that runs into neighbors and repeats.

The true start size of the universe is the region of space it's gravity influences so start point of big bang is full size the universe can be.

#### David-J-Franks

Well , being just a " regular " person ... I understood this answer more so than the previous answers from anyone , for this question ... & perhaps you can answer a question for me . Someone posted a comment about " how big was space at the time of the big bang ? " ... isn't true or maybe just a theory , that space began at the moment of the big bang .
The current, favoured theory is the 'big bang model. The view is that space and time emerged from the big bang.

It all started from a hot dense patch of matter which expanded to form our universe. The idea was arrived at because astronomers noticed the universe was expanding. So if you extrapolate the equations and laws governing the universe, (mostly Einsteins General Relativity), then you end up with the aforementioned hot dense patch of matter. If you take the extrapolation to the extreme you arrive at an infinitely dense and small patch, called the singularity. However, this absurd conclusion just shows that the limit of physics has been reached. In fact, the laws of physics are not known below certain limits called the Planck length and Planck time. The Planck length is 1.62 x 10 to the power -35 metres, as a fraction, that's 1.62/10000000.........(35 zeros total) metres. The Planck time is 5.39x10 to the power -44 seconds, as a fraction, that's 5.39/100000.........(44 zeros total) seconds. As a result, nothing can currently be known about the nature of this hot dense patch of matter. The big bang model is the expansion of space from this hot dense patch of matter. The theory does not explain what was before the big bang, or, how the hot dense patch of matter arose in the first place.

My own opinion is, that matter can only be compressed down to a certain size, and so that, just because the maths can go back to infinitely small, doesn't mean the hot dense patch of matter was infinitely small.

I'm the author of a book called 'Steady State of The Infinite', published on Amazon. I've been reading theories of the universe for about 30 years, whilst they are all very clever, I still haven't found a believable one, so I wrote my own called 'Steady State of The Infinite'. I think a lot of misunderstanding comes from treating the universe as the be-all and end all of everything, there seems to be an inability to comprehend a bigger picture.

By starting off with some simple reasoning, I've built a more complete picture. (1) You can always point ahead and keep going, including beyond our universe – therefore space is infinite. In my book, I call all of space and everything in it 'The Infinite'. (2) Matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. That means there has always been something – and that also means before the big bang!

So, if you now see things from the perspective of 'The Infinite' it all looks a bit simpler. For example, our universe can now be treated as an object in 'The Infinite' rather than being all of space. To proceed from here I quote from page 7 in my book;

“Now, if our universe came from a big bang and is expanding, it must have a centre and boundary or edge, if it has an age then it has a finite size. That means it's an object – objects exist in a space, they are not the creation of space as most theories suggest. Consequently, it can't be homogeneous or isotropic and so violates the much cherished 'cosmological principle', which assumes the universe is even and the same in all directions, and from any viewpoint, and has no centre. So, my version of the universe might look different from the centre than from the edge.”

And then from pages 8 and 9;

“If space is infinite it would be too bizarre to think our universe is the only matter in this infinite space.

If it is the only universe and it came out of a big bang, then the big bang would have been the beginning of time. The trouble with this idea is that, as argued in chapter 1, 'there has always been something' and that 'you can't have something from nothing' would imply that the initial contents of the big bang had always been there waiting indefinitely and just 13.8 billion years ago decided to explode into our universe.

What would have caused it to explode after waiting an infinite amount of time? Bizarre. One way around this would be to suggest that the universe collapses and then goes bang again in an endless cycle. Why would there be just one universe doing this with nothing in the rest of 'the infinite'? Again, too bizarre to believe.

Therefore, I think it's reasonable to assume all of 'the infinite' contains matter and other universes. As there are no boundaries, and if it has always been there, it should by now be evenly distributed. If not, there would still be a flow of matter across 'the infinite', also bizarre.”

So, because, as proposed, 'The Infinite' is full of other matter, our expanding universe will meet up with it and stop expanding! There are several possibilities from here; (1) The cyclic universe. (2) Our universe merges with the other matter, and, somehow a dense enough patch of matter forms then collapses in on itself and rebounds with another big bang to make a new universe. Bear in mind that on a smaller scale, in a nebula, matter is all the time collapsing in on itself to form new stars. (3) My main theory in my book, which has similarities to (2) but is more detailed and specific, with a surprising twist.

The endless cycle I mentioned above, is a mainstream theory called the 'cyclic universe'. However in my book, I've suggested why it doesn't make sense to me, so I created my own proposition to explain our universe's origin and fate. When I add in some more simple reasoning about 'information and order', 'cause and effect' and 'entropy', a more complete and mind-blowing picture emerges.

In my 'Steady State of the Infinite' theory there's constant change, but no overall evolution. For, if something has always existed, it can't still be evolving. As for new things developing, I think of it as reorganising of matter and order due to eternal motion when new universes are formed from the remains of old ones.

Also, from my book, I coined the phrase:

"Because you can't get something from nothing –

That which came out of the big bang went in first. - Including all our universe's order, information and energy."

Therefore according to the above, if space also came out of the big bang, then it must also have gone in to start with, and so was not the beginning of space as suggested in your question. However, for all intents and purposes, it was the beginning of space for our universe. I speak here of space as a 'something' because it most likely consists of something rather than being a complete void, (quantum field/foam/fluctuations, aether, vacuum energy, dark energy or whatever).

My book:

Best wishes, David

voidpotentialenergy

#### David-J-Franks

I agree no such a thing as the final frontier.

Lets pretend that this universe started from nothing, just a region of space with noting in it.
Lets call that region of space potential energy that quantum fluctuation fill in and slowly creates everything with the amount of energy that nothing occupying space has.

Now we have a reason for space and time with properties and how everything could start.
We also have a reason how infinite numbers of them can start and now one can collide with another to start a big bang.

Lets also pretend that a black hole expanding doesn't expand into nothing.
It just expands into the region of space that is part of the gravitational influence of this universe.
Do we ever really move outside the black hole and it's extreme time dilation.
We could be experiencing time and space as reality when both could be illusions, the entire universe might really take a milli second to repeat and take up nearly no room in doing it.
We stuck inside see a totally different process because of perspective.
It explains the flat projector look of the universe.

Not my fave idea ever but interesting way to think for sure.

I would like to believe that we do start from potential energy of 0, it's the reason for everything.
We are part of a cyclic universe that runs into neighbors and repeats.

The true start size of the universe is the region of space it's gravity influences so start point of big bang is full size the universe can be.
Lets call that region of space potential energy that quantum fluctuation fill in
I don't understand, if that space has got energy in it, it means it's not empty to start with.
Now we have a reason for space and time with properties and how everything could start.
Why do you need a reason why everything could start, why can't you just accept that there has always been something, simply because matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed? There's no need for a creation story.
We could be experiencing time and space as reality when both could be illusions,
I at least agree time is an illusion, here's a copy of what I wrote in post number 19 above - "I think we 'ARE' in an exploded black hole, so you can use your own current definitions of time. As you may know from other posts I believe there's no such thing as time there's only "motion and regular or periodic motion"".
the entire universe might really take a milli second to repeat and take up nearly no room in doing it.
Relative to who, somebody outside the universe?
It explains the flat projector look of the universe.
I don't understand what you mean.
I would like to believe that we do start from potential energy of 0, it's the reason for everything.
I believe there has always been 'something', so no need to start from nothing. There has always been something, simply because matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed. Universes come and go, but they're created from stuff that already exists, ie recycled stuff.
We are part of a cyclic universe that runs into neighbors and repeats.
I partly agree with that. My take on this is as said in post 22 above - "So, because, as proposed, 'The Infinite' is full of other matter, our expanding universe will meet up with it and stop expanding! There are several possibilities from here; (1) The cyclic universe. (2) Our universe merges with the other matter, and, somehow a dense enough patch of matter forms then collapses in on itself and rebounds with another big bang to make a new universe. Bear in mind that on a smaller scale, in a nebula, matter is all the time collapsing in on itself to form new stars. (3) My main theory in my book, which has similarities to (2) but is more detailed and specific, with a surprising twist.".
The true start size of the universe is the region of space it's gravity influences so start point of big bang is full size the universe can be.
Sorry, I don't understand.
Not my fave idea ever but interesting way to think for sure.
What is your favourite idea?

My full theory in my book:

#### voidpotentialenergy

I don't understand, if that space has got energy in it, it means it's not empty to start with.

Why do you need a reason why everything could start, why can't you just accept that there has always been something, simply because matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed? There's no need for a creation story.

I at least agree time is an illusion, here's a copy of what I wrote in post number 19 above - "I think we 'ARE' in an exploded black hole, so you can use your own current definitions of time. As you may know from other posts I believe there's no such thing as time there's only "motion and regular or periodic motion"".

Relative to who, somebody outside the universe?

I don't understand what you mean.

I believe there has always been 'something', so no need to start from nothing. There has always been something, simply because matter-energy cannot be created or destroyed. Universes come and go, but they're created from stuff that already exists, ie recycled stuff.

I partly agree with that. My take on this is as said in post 22 above - "So, because, as proposed, 'The Infinite' is full of other matter, our expanding universe will meet up with it and stop expanding! There are several possibilities from here; (1) The cyclic universe. (2) Our universe merges with the other matter, and, somehow a dense enough patch of matter forms then collapses in on itself and rebounds with another big bang to make a new universe. Bear in mind that on a smaller scale, in a nebula, matter is all the time collapsing in on itself to form new stars. (3) My main theory in my book, which has similarities to (2) but is more detailed and specific, with a surprising twist.".

Sorry, I don't understand.

What is your favourite idea?

My full theory in my book:

The universe being here forever avoids the question of how all the (E) got here in the first place.

If we break the universe down to just different forms of (E) then a big bang is simple an expression of (E) into a region of space that is already part of the this universe.

It expands into itself so it never doubles.

Now how do we create a universe from nothing?
It took me the better part of 2 years to wrap my head around the fact that nothing probably occupies space and the fact that it does probably the reason quantum fluctuation happens and sets a balance.
Until that balance point quantum fluctuations dual particle creation probably don't annihilate each other and that is (E) and the building blocks of a universe.

Could be that simple that 0 has potential energy.

What version of the universe are we in?
#1 because a big bang is simply a phase of what is already here in the region of space/quantum fluctuation that is our universe already.
IMO a mistake to think of the big bang as a beginning.

I totally agree that a black hole is just compressed energy.
No crazy singularities and physics break down, just a region with the lack of activity/time so it can compress no further.

I also agree that time is simply activity.
A gravity well slows it and going fast also slows it.
Could be a property of quantum fluctuation, moving through or compressing .

All JMO but i think nature is going to tend to be in the simplest format possible.

On a side thought here is something to think about.
Quantum fluctuations activity happening all the time in all the universe.
Dual particle creation and destruction leaves behind temporary gravity. Dark matter?
Dual particle creation and destruction creates temporary energy.Dark energy?

Last edited:
Truthseeker007

#### William Pennat

Unfortunately the method you have given won't give the answer the original post asked for. Your method is the amount by which it has multiplied. not the number of times it has doubled. The correct formula is p x 2 to the power x = 93 billion light years, where p is the planck length and x is the number of times the Universe has doubled. Rearranging the formula gives: 2 to the power x = 93 billion light years ÷ p. Taking logarithms of both sides give the formula:
x log 2 = log(93 billion light years ÷ p). Dividing both sides by log2 gives the final answer, x = [log(93 billion light years ÷ p)]/log2.

Last minute edit because p the planck length is in metres you'll have to change light years to metres otherwise the equation won't work properly.

OK. I think you're right. It's the difference between "multiplied" and "doubled". Multiplied would be 2 x original size, then 3x, 4x, 5x original size, etc., as opposed to doubling 2x, 4x, 8x etc.

David-J-Franks

Replies
0
Views
158
Replies
39
Views
8K
Replies
51
Views
6K
Replies
1
Views
198
Replies
1
Views
3K