Is the Universe Infinite?

and, just for fun:

does an 'original thought' add to the infiniteness of the ultiverse; thereby disproving its infinite nature by adding to it?

0 Replies

Had I known I only had 5pages to go to catch up with this topic and that they were merely quarrel about on whom the burden of proof is. I would have posted my conclusions earlier on on my own machine. But I just finished reading here(NOT at my home machine ;-) so I'm afraid I'll refrain myself from any actual input for now.

Instead of discussing each others authority on the matter, remember where you are. I mean, even JLN get's away with saying maybe (oh look a topic, I mean THE topic of the thread) the universe is neither finite nor infinite, because of the true non-dualistic nature of reality. But, BoGoWo (respecting and respected conversationalist) states that all is polarity and this is a very dualistic view. I'd rather make the topic about the integrity of nondualism as the principle to be followed to see 'The Truth' (formless, beyond our comprehension and categorizations), but it can easily be said that nondualism has dualism(dualism vs. nondualism, O vs 1, finite vs infinite) to thank for its credibility. Hmm I believe this is the rather mature version of what I had noted so far on the topic (at home, in a .txt file on my desktop Wink

Insignificant comments will be made when I return from this little 'field trip'.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

You question my starting point when in fact your starting point is not the base of the equation. F=M x A is where both you and I derived our formulas....

I could say quite a bit more, however, all I will say is that all Physics problems don't begin at F = MA, any more than all historical discussions begin with a discussion of human evolution. The most logical starting point for the problem I gave was the formula for centripetal acceleration.

nipok wrote:

Either way like I said it has nothing to do with my theories and even less to do with this thread.

A familiarity with basic Physics is a minimum requirement for revising modern Physics. I could still say a great many things about your ideas here, but I will let it suffice to admit that you have demonstrated familiarity with the topic.

0 Replies

Brandon, I shouldn't offer suggestions here because I am illiterate regarding Physics, but it does seem to me that a "familiarity with BASIC physics" is not at all sufficient for the revision of modern physics, not even as a "minimum requirement."

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Brandon, I shouldn't offer suggestions here because I am illiterate regarding Physics, but it does seem to me that a "familiarity with BASIC physics" is not at all sufficient for the revision of modern physics, not even as a "minimum requirement."

I agree that it is not sufficient, but it is necessary.

0 Replies

Brandon9000 wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Brandon, I shouldn't offer suggestions here because I am illiterate regarding Physics, but it does seem to me that a "familiarity with BASIC physics" is not at all sufficient for the revision of modern physics, not even as a "minimum requirement."

I agree that it is not sufficient, but it is necessary.

Disagreed. And noted, but we shall all continue freely and in search for more understanding.

0 Replies

Rex, I've never let technical naivete stop me. Sometimes the technical amateur can see things the sophisticate misses because of his commitment to the paradigm of his discipine. And, besides, non-professional thinking is more fun than when you do it for a living.

0 Replies

0 Replies

JLNobody wrote:

Brandon, I shouldn't offer suggestions here because I am illiterate regarding Physics, but it does seem to me that a "familiarity with BASIC physics" is not at all sufficient for the revision of modern physics, not even as a "minimum requirement."

I agree whole-heartedly. Thinking only in basic Newtonian terms a philosopher would be very ill equipped to tackle the logical possibilities as to the fabric of our space time continuum. Even with just a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, and relativistic physics one would still find themselves forced to more speculative theory without the ability to provide due process of the scientific method. But this is where it gets good. Even the best experts in the world who study the results first hand day in and day out are still forced to guessing, approximating, speculating, and even going so far as to create imaginary particles and imaginary dimensions to make their observations fit the current paradigm. Well I shout out loud THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES ON. The current paradigm is broken and needs a stronger foundation built in order to more harmoniously and coherently align the observations.

Now back to our show.

So I asked a few posts back what else there could be outside that which we know. If we want to talk about an infinite universe then this is the core discussion. Forget about my rants on subatomic universes for now this makes more sense when we get further along. Maybe it was to early for me to jump to the second level in my house of cards. Lets go back to level one and as Brandon stated walk through a series of deductions together.

Lets discuss the options as to what else lies beyond the boundaries of what we know exists. I state there are two options. Nothing at all or something. I further submit that if there is something then it is more logical to deduce there must be an infinite number of something's rather than just 1 other something.

Again, one option is that there is nothing, nothing at all. We can tackle this later.

The other option is that there could be an infinite number of something's out there. The reason I use the logic that it is OK to jump from 1 other something to an infinite number of something's is because of the current paradigm flaws. To have something exist outside the boundaries of what we call our big bang then it was not created by our big bang and it was created by another process. It would not be regulated by the spatial timeline we use to govern our space time continuum and exists in its own space time continuum. The acceptance of one other space time continuum in my eyes means the acceptance of an infinite number of other local pockets of self contained space time.

So before I go any further lets stop and take a break. (It sure slows things down when I have to make 1 deduction after another to make a point but I think it might be good reading) So far we have just a few cards laying against each other, may a roof on top. These cards which are the foundation for the house of cards are that only one of these two statements can be correct :

A) Nothing exists outside our relative space time continuum.
B) An infinite number of something's exist outside our space time
continuum.

If there is a third LOGICAL option that someone could present an argument for I welcome it.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

These cards, the ones that make up the base foundation for my house of cards are that only one of these two statements can be correct :

A) Nothing exists outside our relative space time continuum.
B) An infinite number of something's exist outside our space time
continuum.
If there is a third LOGICAL option that someone could present an argument for I welcome it.

I suppose that the next deduction must be to conclude that item A is false

To use Einstein's theory of general relativity as an argument for it being impossible for there to be anything outside our known universe I submit that you fail to first apply Einstein's theory of special relativity and remove yourself from the frame of reference you are observing which is our known universe.

In laymen's terms general relativity gave us the concept of our own space time continuum. Time Dilation using highly accelerated clocks and red-shift are two of the observable predictions proposed by general relativity. To argue that nothing at all could exist outside all that we know I can only assume you are claiming that the space time continuum that we live in, the one that was created by our big bang, prevents there from being anything else.

To put it another way, if there is anyone out there that wants to LOGICALLY argue that there can be nothing outside our known universe and use any other argument than General Relativity and our space time continuum I welcome that reply as well. If you are not using GR to make an argument for nothingness then you agree in an infinite number of non-intersecting lines that extend outwards in all directions from the outermost boundaries of our constantly expanding universe. Again, There can only be two choices and they can't both be true.

Any one want to argue for the logical conclusion that there can be nothing and not use GR to back it up OR better yet, anyone not using GR to backup an argument for nothingness not believe in a time and space never ending and never beginning ??

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

There can only be two choices and they can't both be true..... ....Any one want to argue for the logical conclusion that there can be nothing and not use GR to back it up OR better yet, anyone not using GR to backup an argument for nothingness not believe in a time and space never ending and never beginning ??

As we entertain the few arguments for nothingness using an argument other than general relativity lets assume the bulk of the dissenters are using GR as their reason.

So then if you want to use GR to back up the thought that nothing can exist past the boundaries of our known universe either you feel that GR makes our Universe a sphere or GR exists in our known three dimensions. If you feel that GR can be used to explain nothingness existing as the void that the big bang took place in then for this void to be totally absent of anything not created in our big bang you must feel that our Universe is a sphere.

If you do believe in nothingness because of GR and you do not think that our Universe is a sphere then you must agree in an infinite number of non-intersecting lines that extend outwards in all directions from the outermost boundaries of our constantly expanding universe. Again, There can only be two choices and they can't both be true. Anyone want to argue that they believe in GR, don't believe the Universe is a sphere, and also does not accept an infinite number of non-intersecting lines coming out of the center of our planet?

So where are we. We went from two simple choices to a bunch of choices now.
A1) Universe is finite and exists in a void of nothingness because of GR
A1a) GR causes the Universe to be a sphere
A1b) GR does not cause the Universe to be sphere.
A2) Universe if finite and exists in a void of nothingness for a reason other than GR
B) Universe is infinite. Outside our known universe is something and almost certainly an infinite number of something's.

So Options A1b, A2, and B all accept that there must be an infinite number of non-intersecting lines that extend outwards in all directions from the outermost boundaries of our constantly expanding universe. It is only option A1 then that could logically provide for our known universe not to be all there is and all there ever was and all there will ever be.

So to disprove that the Universe is a sphere would then enforce the deduction that the Universe is infinite and the space time continuum of our known universe is not alone. OK, there may be a few small assumptions here and there and I hope we don't get tied down in minutia again. I left openings for people to add to what I perceive as black and white statements and can clarify what I see as black and white (polarity 1 or 0 BoGo) .

I think this all make sense. Sorry for all the rambling folks but Brandon was right. I went too fast. I hope that by slowing down a bit maybe we can all make sense of this in our own minds or come to grips with our own significant insignificance. If GR is the reason to feel that our space time continuum has a beginning and it began with the big bang and therefore there is nothing outside our known universe means either the Universe is infinite or the Universe is a sphere.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

B) Universe is infinite. Outside our known universe is something and almost certainly an infinite number of something's.

So we really have 2 options as I see it. The Universe is a sphere or there are an infinite number of self contained space-time continuums of which our known universe is just one of them. These other things may or may not be universes but that is a discussion of a purely speculative nature. There can be no logical deduction to base an infinite number of self-contained space-time continuums not to include an infinite number of universes like ours. I also submit that an infinite number of self contained space time continuums would contain an infinite number of collections of matter that are not universes. A single asteroid lost in space outside of our Space Time Continuum would be its own STC without being a universe on scale with us.

So then I deduce, induce, conject, infer, or what ever term you want for what I see as a logical assessment of the observations that either you have a Sphere or an infinite number of universes similar to ours.

Anything other than the Universe being a sphere or containing an infinite number of universes similar to ours I am open to discuss. I think between the last 4 or 5 posts I've narrowed down what I see as the forks in the road. I think that using logic and intelligence one is able to accept the likelihood of one scenario over a bunch of others and that is really all we can do until someone can prove beyond a shadow of any doubt what the universe is really made of.

So how does one go about proving that our time space continuum is not a sphere ?

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

So how does one go about proving that our time space continuum is not a sphere ?

I guess one way would be to have the original singularity that supposedly created our Universal space time to have a pre-existing velocity. If the big bang singularity was stationary when it exploded (and this big bang is all there is in the entire universe) ie, the entire Universe then a sphere in space time would need to be stationary because if it was not stationary it would be moving (duh) and in order to move distance you need space and in order to have velocity you need time. SO if we can prove that the cosmic event that created our known universe had original momentum, velocity, acceleration, or anything thing other then being perfectly stationary one could assume logically that the Universe is not a sphere and must therefore be infinite.

So what sort of observations might we make if the cosmic event that created our known universe or better yet our current known universe itself is moving through space or moving through a larger space-time continuum.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

JLNobody wrote:
Brandon, I shouldn't offer suggestions here because I am illiterate regarding Physics, but it does seem to me that a "familiarity with BASIC physics" is not at all sufficient for the revision of modern physics, not even as a "minimum requirement."

I agree whole-heartedly. Thinking only in basic Newtonian terms a philosopher would be very ill equipped to tackle the logical possibilities as to the fabric of our space time continuum. Even with just a basic understanding of quantum mechanics, electrodynamics, and relativistic physics one would still find themselves forced to more speculative theory without the ability to provide due process of the scientific method. But this is where it gets good. Even the best experts in the world who study the results first hand day in and day out are still forced to guessing, approximating, speculating, and even going so far as to create imaginary particles and imaginary dimensions to make their observations fit the current paradigm. Well I shout out loud THE EMPORER HAS NO CLOTHES ON. The current paradigm is broken and needs a stronger foundation built in order to more harmoniously and coherently align the observations.

Now back to our show.

So I asked a few posts back what else there could be outside that which we know. If we want to talk about an infinite universe then this is the core discussion. Forget about my rants on subatomic universes for now this makes more sense when we get further along. Maybe it was to early for me to jump to the second level in my house of cards. Lets go back to level one and as Brandon stated walk through a series of deductions together.

Lets discuss the options as to what else lies beyond the boundaries of what we know exists. I state there are two options. Nothing at all or something. I further submit that if there is something then it is more logical to deduce there must be an infinite number of something's rather than just 1 other something.

Again, one option is that there is nothing, nothing at all. We can tackle this later.

The other option is that there could be an infinite number of something's out there. The reason I use the logic that it is OK to jump from 1 other something to an infinite number of something's is because of the current paradigm flaws. To have something exist outside the boundaries of what we call our big bang then it was not created by our big bang and it was created by another process. It would not be regulated by the spatial timeline we use to govern our space time continuum and exists in its own space time continuum. The acceptance of one other space time continuum in my eyes means the acceptance of an infinite number of other local pockets of self contained space time.

So before I go any further lets stop and take a break. (It sure slows things down when I have to make 1 deduction after another to make a point but I think it might be good reading) So far we have just a few cards laying against each other, may a roof on top. These cards which are the foundation for the house of cards are that only one of these two statements can be correct :

A) Nothing exists outside our relative space time continuum.
B) An infinite number of something's exist outside our space time
continuum.

If there is a third LOGICAL option that someone could present an argument for I welcome it.

C) More of the same. We just haven't seen it yet. "What we know" may not be all there is of this STC.

D) Space is infinite but the matter comprising the known stars and planets etc. has not occupied it all and never will.

0 Replies

If you are in fact implying a finite spacetime continuum. That is real, not just the way we see the universe, actual spacetime. Then, could outside of this universe not exist a finite, exact same amount of universe, not-universe not exist around the universe? Anti-universe if you will, not anti-matter thought, that's part of our spacetime continuum. Something outside, to null the inside when confronted with its polar counterpart. Ending the dualistic vision of opposites creating the harmony in the essential void. Or perhaps E) 1 something outside of the continuum. True oneness, but one might be able to argue the same for the continuum.

0 Replies

nipok wrote:

are that only one of these two statements can be correct :
A) Nothing exists outside our relative space time continuum.
B) An infinite number of something's exist outside our space time
continuum.

John NYC wrote:

C) More of the same. We just haven't seen it yet. "What we know" may not be all there is of this STC.

D) Space is infinite but the matter comprising the known stars and planets etc. has not occupied it all and never will.

ReX wrote:

E) If you are in fact implying a finite spacetime continuum. That is real, not just the way we see the universe, actual spacetime. Then, could outside of this universe not exist a finite, exact same amount of universe, not-universe not exist around the universe? Anti-universe if you will, not anti-matter thought, that's part of our spacetime continuum. Something outside, to null the inside when confronted with its polar counterpart. Ending the dualistic vision of opposites creating the harmony in the essential void. Or perhaps E) 1 something outside of the continuum. True oneness, but one might be able to argue the same for the continuum.

My goal in trying to break this down analytically is to see if it is possible for everyone involved to deduce what the most likely or logical possibility is. Since we may never know for sure then all we can do is theorize. I'm not being defensive or trying to force my point of view so please don't take it that way. I am only trying to expand my descriptions so we can all reach a mutual viewpoint for discussion. Comparing apples to apples and oranges to oranges I suppose is one way to look at it.

Option C would fall under option B. What we know of our space time may be a very small part of a larger space time, I agree. Or what little we know of our space time may not be all there is of it. But either way it still boils down to either the possibility a boundary with nothing outside of it or a boundary with something outside of it. Having no boundary at all which is what I think you are implying by option C leads towards an infinite space in all directions. Or since you italicize <I>this</I> then maybe you mean that our space time is part of a larger space time. If there is more of the same that we have not seen yet you imply to mean that our STC is infinite and has no boundary and that there is no other space time other than ours. The problem with this is that we know that our pocket of space time that we call our known universe seems to have been created from a single event so it does have a starting point. We don't know what came before this starting point but we are pretty sure with a high degree of confidence that our known universe had a point in time or as we know it a point in our time line where it was created and it started expanding from this point to where we are today. So we know that the Entire Universe, all there is, all there ever was, and all there will or can ever be is much more than just our little known universe if we submit that the space time pocket we live in is the only space time pocket in existence.

Otherwise all the other sub-pockets of self contained self relative space time could be contained in a larger space time continuum relative to itself. It would then follow logically that the larger STC would need to be contained in an even larger STC and so on. The logic for this is the same as the logic for not having just 2 space times. There is either 1, the one we feel originated from our big bang or there is an infinite number. That is the logical deduction. Having 2 or 3 or 246 separate space time pockets and nothing else is not a logical deduction. So "more of the same" with a finite boundary regardless of how large it really is compared to our little known universe is still option A. "more of the same" with no boundaries is option B.

<hr>
Option D is just rephrasing Option A. An infinite universe full of nothing except the matter and mass in our known universe. I don't see this as a different option.

Now option E, that is a different story. At first glance it does appear to be a third choice. A choice that is not either A or B. That being our universe and an anti-universe working as a pair. Like a particle and an anti-particle or matter and anti-matter. But really it does not offer a third choice, it offers another option for A and B. We could have a finite STC with nothing outside of it but an anti-universe that is finite or we could have an infinite number of STC's with an infinite number of anti-universes associated with them. Since the later offers nothing to either argument we can still leave option B as an "infinite number of space time pockets" So only as it relates to option A could it have any value added to the process. What is important to note is that all the deductive reasoning is based on observations or speculation of known physical laws to our universe. The X, Y ,Z and time coordinates provide a system to calculate, predict, and observe too many events in both Newtonian and Quantum equations. That alone does not negate the anti-universe but it pairs this option with Option A. Combined the STC and Anti-STC proposed still require a boundary with nothing outside of it. If it is not STC and it is not Anti-STC then it is nothing and so we have some finite universe -/ antiuniverse with nothing outside of it. If however the STC or STC's are infinite then the possibility of the anti-universe bears no fruit to the problem at hand because it still leaves with the initial proposition of an infinite number of ST pockets. So this option really falls into both A and B and in doing so falls into neither A nor B. I realize this sounds like horse crap and I am pawning off the possibility of an anti-universe but I am doing the opposite. I grant you that it could be but it still leaves us with 2 choices, A or B. It is not a third choice.

0 Replies

E was indeed not a third option, but rather a tools of equation A and B. But as pointed out earlier, perhaps A and B are dualistic views and the real Truth is nondualistic, surpassing both equations and letting you view either way as (equally Smile

) valid. Neither something nor nothing, finite nor infinite, and both at the same time. The dualistic view of dualism vs nondualism keeps rearing its tail in my mind, and perhaps in JLNs too but the discussion might be to reminding of polarity (all BoGoWo and company's fault :p).

0 Replies

I'm simply going to post what I thought about last time, without rereading any of my preliminary conclusions, so if you don't like what I say, too bad. Address me and correct me if you will.

BoGoWo:
_____________________________
all is "polarity";
'something is defined by 'nothing'!
(off, on)(0,1)

I've always agreed. But lately I've been thinking 0 exists because of -1 + +1. Something is not defined by nothing, nothing is defined by something and it's opposite. This seems like a slightly different approach, seemingly saying the same thing. Yet I feel it is (perhaps very) different. Nevertheless, this all remains dualistic, something which I like to question too. JLN's opinion that it's neither finite nor infinite appeals me greatly. It could make sense, and be true. True above our understanding and would prove that our categorization is inherently too subjective to be objectively true. I like that. But in this case, the other case is no longer valid. It's not-valid and it's not in-valid. But such a statement would exclude the earlier dualistic statement, would it not? Therefor, you ARE wrong. (I end with this so that you would reply and show me the error in my reasoning)

"Or X + (infinity - 1) mass; but not infinity + X mass! Laughing"
Infinity + X = Infinity is it not?

akaMechsmith:
You can get near the speed of light in either directions, but you can't cross it because you can't travel at the exact speed at any given 'time'. That's how I understand GR. BUT if you look at something as simple as the doppler formula, you'll see that when you divide by zero you have an impossibility too. In real life we see the sound barrier being broken. Something which we could only figure out by experiment and testing(no?). So maybe one day we'll do the same with light. Seems impossible, but so did going to the moon, or breaking the sound barrier.

As you say: so there for as per Mr. Einstein nothing in the universe can travel faster than light (and still be in our universe Wink ).
So you do know you 'could' go faster then light without breaking the premise for GR & SR(?) -I just had to straighten that out, even if it was just for myself Smile

-, the implications are unknown to me though.
"What is actually being said is that we cannot observe anything that is exceeding the speed at which light propagates."
That's a good conclusion, which would help the point of view that there is no reality, merely observation. Or the act of observing without agents(as the buddhists on this forum would say).

Nipok:
"Explain to me what the square root of negative four is and then maybe either of us could be in a position to explain what happens to matter when it passes the speed of light."
2i, moving on.

Brandon:
You bring up getting around the problem. Quantum mechanics above all 'science' proves that it's just the way you look at it(hmm, on closer analyses, perhaps you could say the same about GR & SR). Particles, waves. It's not one, it's not the other, it's not both, it's not neither. It's how you look at it. Around it? Perhaps, I wouldn't name it through the science either. Sorry for the grammar use, but I believe I can make my point without exerting myself anymore today Smile

0 Replies

A universe without boundaries: neither spacial nor temporal.

"Solid" matter is separated in space. Space exists between particles: both large and small; on telescopic scales and microscopic scales. Space is the void between objects. Space is infinite and has no boundaries.

Objects (planets, stars, etc.) have not , and never can, fill all of space because the phrase "all of space" is similar in concept to "all of infinity." Space, as the void between objects, has no electrons, no neutrons, no strings, no energy. If there are strings, then space is the void between strings. If there is a smallest particle, then space is the void between particles. Picture an enormous white canvas with black polka dots of various size (from infinitesimal to cosmic). The white areas correspond to space. The same contiguous space exists between stars as between protons.

Space has no intelligence of its own; it just is.

Space has no boundaries; it goes on forever in all directions. If you must think sphere, then space is an infinite sphere. Space's spherical "core" is wherever an observer is. "Core" in this sense has no meaning since it is everywhere. To say surface of a sphere, in this context, has no meaning; there is no surface. If you must think plane, then think infinity straight out and never turning back on itself. There are likely places in space that are immeasurable distances from any matter such that there is no relativity (since there are no objects to relate to each other). There are likely to be places in space wherein there are other "clusters of matter" (such as our own).

Time is a human construct. As soon as the first human formulated the idea, all of time came into existence. A good guess would be that the idea of time blossomed to explain our own short duration as living individuals. Our concept of time is so powerful that we are bound by it. We view everything with time running in the background. We can't imagine anything as existing without its time component. When the last human being dies, however, time will cease to exist (yes, there may be other intelligences with concepts of time, but what's that to us?), but space and matter will still be there. Earth and the cosmos and atoms existed before the first human and will exist after the last.

Space and matter can exist without time, but because we are time bound we explain space and matter in terms of time. Our 'matter cluster" is eternal. A big bang occurred and a big crunch occurred: always. Crunchbangcrunchbangcrunchbang forever. To ask where eternal space and eternal matter came from is to deny their timelessness. They've always been there and always will be.

0 Replies

Nipok-- re your post of Aug23 2:08AM,

You assume that there was a beginning to the Universe. Mechanically speaking Very Happy

the evidence provided by light is a bit shakey. And light is the only tool in our box that we can use Sad

at all.

Rex, re 8/24 12:45PM

I suspect that a "light barrier" will prove to be similar to an "escape velocity". If you keep accelerating, even at a modest pace, eventually you will exceed the speed of light-- at least as far as your wife and kids at home are concerned. (observers again :wink: )
Buddists do have some good points but their thesis comes back to definitions again. Is reality what we observe or what we imagine Question

John nyc re 8/24 12:54 PM

I beg to differ. Time does exist if only as a necessary sequence. The division of time into humanly managable portions is a human construction, but time does actually exist. And it has differing speeds due to related masses. Check out the behavior of "gamma rays" as a corroborating measure. Also there were a couple of experiments that seem to bear this out. The "Harvard Tower Experiment" (was on the web a while back but I've lost the link. Also an "atomic clock" ( I think it was a cesium emission counter) was shown to run about three parts per trillion slower atop the Empire State Building than one at the base.
If you have the time :wink: might want to take a couple of watches over there and observe them for about fifty years Smile

.

As to your second comment--- see my note to Nipok.

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know