Question Infinity or not infinity? That is the question.

[Catastrophe]

Hello Harry,
I do not understand your post #250. You say my post is "dreaming", and that it is time for scientists to hang up their gloves. Do you mean me, as I am a scientist?

Then you seem to repeat exactly, almost word for word, the substance of my post, which it seems you were criticising.

I posted: "This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang."

You posted: "This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang."

I posted: The Universe went from being opaque to transparent at this point. Light had formerly been stopped from traveling freely because it would frequently scatter off the free electrons.

You posted: "The Universe went from being opaque to transparent at this point. Light had formerly been stopped from traveling freely because it would frequently scatter off the free electrons."

What am I missing?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

CAT said
I posted: "This process of particles pairing up is called "Recombination" and it occurred approximately 240,000 to 300,000 years after the Big Bang."

Is that your opinion? Is this a process that you agree with?
Do you think that the Big Bang occurred?

The process of quantum recombination, particularly from a classical black hole.
Evolve from Neutrinos to Axion to Partonic matter to Quark Matter to Neutrons to Hydrogen to composite atoms.

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello Cat

I hope that you do not think that I was attacking you.

 

[billslugg]

Recombination is simply what happens at the tip of a candle flame, where the gas goes from ionized back to neutral. It is no surprise to me that it occurred when the nascent fireball cooled. What caused the initial expansion? No one knows what went on before 10e-43 s, nor will we ever.

 

[Catastrophe]

Hello Cat

I hope that you do not think that I was attacking you.

No, Harry, of course not!

Do you think that the Big Bang occurred?

I am more inclined to smaller bangs, distributed over time, and not connected with any so called singularity. Also that expansions/contractions may take place within observable universes, although, of course, no one knows. This solves the entropy problem for "cyclic" systems. Although they would then not actually be cyclic. Observable universes are not closed systems. I am open to consider sensible suggestions. I do not acknowledge any single Universe. It "is" metaphysical, because it is unobervable in its entirety.

I resolve the definition question by proposing that observable universes are ubiquitous, depending on the observer(s). "All there is" depends on the location, boundary dictated by light travel, sensory methods/instrument use, et cetera, of the observer.


Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Hello, Billslug and Cat

Years ago, we thought the universe was just our Milky Way, then it was our Local Group of galaxies (over 200), then it was our Supercluster, then we had a few Superclusters, and now we have over 100 Superclusters, and see Deep Field in any direction and see billions of Galaxies.

Space is space and is infinite.
The universe is space with matter distributed throughout.

Some parts of the universe are massive, billions of light years across, and may look to be a universe in itself.

Our supercluster of Galaxies has a monster core over 70 billion solar masses.
Its core attracts millions of stars, and its dipolar jet stream expels millions of stars.

What I'm trying to say is that we are just starting to learn about the ongoing UNIVERSE

 

[taniaposh12]

Well, what can I say?


If you believe the universe is finite—then define what "finite" truly means.


If you believe in time travel—then I genuinely hope it's real.

 

[Catastrophe]

Instead of "all there is", how about "all there is" according to any observer.

And, before anyone sdds "the sum total of 'all there is' to all observers", does this actually mean anything in the rreal world? What is meant by "all abservers"? This would have to include "all observers, anywhere, anytime" . . . . . . putting it right back into metaphysics.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

The universe is like a never-ending story.

No end

Finite has an end.

 

[Catastrophe]

The universe is like a never-ending story.

Correct - metaphysically speaking.

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

Wrong or right, we are part of it.

 

[Catastrophe]

Wrong or right, we are part of it.

Are you suggesting that "wrong or right" is absolute? Not relative?

Cat

 

[Harry Costas]

What is this paper trying to say?

Submitted on 24 Feb 2025]

Bound Domains​

G. M. Voit

How much energy is required to unbind baryons from the cosmological structures that originally bind them? This tutorial article explains why trying to answer this question using just a halo model can be misleading. Instead, it recommends parsing the universe into ``bound domains,'' which are the gravitationally bound structures that ultimately become widely separated islands as the universe evolves. It explains why a bound domain's potential well was about as deep ~1 Gyr after the Big Bang as it is now, and it outlines how future research might take advantage of a bound-domain approach to make progress on some open questions about the baryon distributions in and around galaxy groups and clusters.

 

[Harry Costas]

Does this mean that the matter within the universe is finite?

[Submitted on 10 Dec 2024]

BBN-simple: How to Bake a Universe-Sized Cake​

Aidan Meador-Woodruff, Dragan Huterer

Big Bang Nucleosynthesis (BBN), the process of creation of lightest elements in the early universe, is a highly robust, precise, and ultimately successful theory that forms one of the three pillars of the standard hot-Big-Bang cosmological model. Existing theoretical treatments of BBN and the associated computer codes are accurate and flexible, but are typically highly technical and opaque, and not suitable for pedagogical understanding of the BBN. Here we present BBN-simple -- a from-scratch numerical calculation of the lightest element abundances pitched at an advanced undergraduate or beginning graduate level. We review the physics of the early universe relevant for BBN, provide information about the reaction rates, and discuss computational-mathematics background that is essential in setting up a BBN calculation. We calculate the abundances of the principal nuclear species in a standard cosmological model, and find a reasonably good agreement with public precision-level BBN codes.