Is the Universe Infinite?

john/nyc wrote:

...A universe without boundaries: neither spacial nor temporal
..."Solid" matter is separated in space. Space exists between particles
..."all of space" is similar in concept to "all of infinity."
... Space, as the void between objects
...Space and matter can exist without time.
...Our 'matter cluster" is eternal.
...Crunchbangcrunchbangcrunchbang forever.

This is Option B. Infinity.

Infinity means that the laws of Newtonian physics and Cartesian positioning as they relate to the X,Y,Z coordinates for mapping a point at some distance from you or I are unconstrained and unconstrainable.

You are tackling the concepts of space and time as separate objects.
You are right they are totally separate independent objects.

But I was not talking about space or time.

I was talking about space-time as proposed by General Relativity, AKA space-time continuum. I have referred to this as STC and OSU (Outer Significant Universe)

Your statements lead me to conclude you endorse option B.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Nipok-- re your post of Aug23 2:08AM,
You assume that there was a beginning to the Universe.

Nope. You used upper case U to mean "entire Universe" properly but didn't catch that I was refering to lowercase universe ie: that created from our big bang. I was not refering to the infinite Universe.

I take your post as an endorsement of Option B

0 Replies

Insane in the membrane
Our universe is finite, but the number of universes might be infinite.

In order to the human timeline and spacetime, it seams like galaxies are speeding up to towards the end of our visible universe, it tells us about something beyond the borders of what we can see. Some force is causing this, thats alot stronger then our universe.

Maby our universe is like a dounut, expanding towards the membranes that once created the big bang and our universe.

I dont know if you all have seen the show "The Elegant Universe", but I find it very good at discribing some of these questions we ask about the "theory of evrything".

You can watch all episodes at this web-page :

http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/elegant/program.html

0 Replies

Re: Insane in the membrane

Slowdiver wrote:

Our universe is finite, but the number of universes might be infinite.

So, Universe
Another option B it would seem.

although, if we put everything we can't 'comprehend', we can't 'define' 'absolutely' ( forgive 'me', for the '''s everywhere), into the infinity we might be including buddhist views, or any nondualistic view into that, so that might be wrong. Because finite seems so much 'smaller' and easier to understand, we(ah, who am I kidding, YOU :p) be inclined to put everything else in the infinity category when it could be neither (or both, but infinity can include finitude as asherman would say, not vice versa, but that's another story).

0 Replies

Re: Insane in the membrane

ReX wrote:

Slowdiver wrote:
Our universe is finite, but the number of universes might be infinite.

So, Universe
Another option B it would seem.

although, if we put everything we can't 'comprehend', we can't 'define' 'absolutely' ( forgive 'me', for the '''s everywhere), into the infinity we might be including buddhist views, or any nondualistic view into that, so that might be wrong. Because finite seems so much 'smaller' and easier to understand, we(ah, who am I kidding, YOU :p) be inclined to put everything else in the infinity category when it could be neither (or both, but infinity can include finitude as asherman would say, not vice versa, but that's another story).

If there is a buddhist view as to the structure of space and time and it is presented and it does not fit one of the two options then we have our third option.

0 Replies

Maybe the Universe as we know it is actually a table-sized aquarium on another being's desk. If I raise an ant farm in a large glass container on my desk, do you think the ants would know any different? To us, their world is finite, but to them it could be made to appear infinite.

0 Replies

Yes, I suspect that it is "B" but "Big Bangs" and "Creations" are not necessary, nor shown very well.

This is called "The Steady State Universe" and personally I think that it answers more questions better that the other universal theories abounding within infinity and eternity, Smile

whatever they are.

For instance it has taken five to seven billion years to roughly double Earths day length. This in the presence of quite strong, relatively speaking, tidal (gravitational) interactions. Could we expect the Milky Way galaxy to be as stable as we observe it in twice the time Question

When one considers the relative strengths of gravity over distance it seems impossible for galaxies, galactic clusters, and larger gravitationally bound structures to have formed in the times required by a "big bang' or "creation scenario".

When we consider that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is predicted by the "Big Bang Theory", Relativity Theory, and also by any Infinite Universe Theory, then IMO it's rather ambiguous.

When we are looking for the missing mass required to slow cosmological things down to fit our observations again we come up again against an ambiguity. The mass is not required in a steady state universe. It cannot be seen or observed as required by "big bang" theories. Therefore we have another ambiguity. The missing mass does not exist, or the missing mass cannot be seen. The missing mass, if it exists, may be atomic hydrogen with an energy level below the threshold of visibility (a perfect black box so to speak) in accordance with Planck's radiation law. Or it may not exist. If it doesn't exist the the "Big Bangers" have a problem. If it is determined to exist then us "Steady Staters" (A much abused minority Smile

) have a problem.

2 Cents

Mechanically speaking I do not think that that there are any organizing structures in any universe larger than a galaxy. I don't need any larger tools to build a universe . I see no evidence of any either.

Show Me Smile

0 Replies

Buffalo,

I have run that very scenario through but it runs into trouble with energy transferrence and the physical properties of matter on the scale of the giants that own the aquarium. There are mechanical limits to the size of galaxies for instance.

The Ants in the aquarium may not notice the table but we humans would.

We would notice a bottom (edge) an end, or limits of some sort.

They (our keepers) would have to figure out some way to keep warm as if it took seven billion years after the furnace kicked on to feel the heat it probably wouldn't be satisfactory. Very Happy

We cannot see any limits except those that are imposed upon us by the "mechanical" limits of electromagnetic radiation. That, and imaginations, are the only tools we have. Sad

I am fairly well satisfied that the scale we see (in which Electromagnetic Radiation travels at 300,000 Kilometeres per second when unfetterd) is the scale we've got. The reason that it travels at that speed have been pretty well explained and verified. (Listen to the astronauts conferring with NASA for some indication)

0 Replies

akaMechsmith wrote:

Yes, I suspect that it is "B" but "Big Bangs" and "Creations" are not necessary, nor shown very well.

This is called "The Steady State Universe" and personally I think that it answers more questions better that the other universal theories abounding within infinity and eternity, whatever they are.

For instance it has taken five to seven billion years to roughly double Earths day length. This in the presence of quite strong, relatively speaking, tidal (gravitational) interactions. Could we expect the Milky Way galaxy to be as stable as we observe it in twice the time

When one considers the relative strengths of gravity over distance it seems impossible for galaxies, galactic clusters, and larger gravitationally bound structures to have formed in the times required by a "big bang' or "creation scenario".

When we consider that the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is predicted by the "Big Bang Theory", Relativity Theory, and also by any Infinite Universe Theory, then IMO it's rather ambiguous.

When we are looking for the missing mass required to slow cosmological things down to fit our observations again we come up again against an ambiguity. The mass is not required in a steady state universe. It cannot be seen or observed as required by "big bang" theories. Therefore we have another ambiguity. The missing mass does not exist, or the missing mass cannot be seen. The missing mass, if it exists, may be atomic hydrogen with an energy level below the threshold of visibility (a perfect black box so to speak) in accordance with Planck's radiation law. Or it may not exist. If it doesn't exist the the "Big Bangers" have a problem. If it is determined to exist then us "Steady Staters" (A much abused minority ) have a problem.

Mechanically speaking I do not think that that there are any organizing structures in any universe larger than a galaxy. I don't need any larger tools to build a universe . I see no evidence of any either.

Show Me

Are you a steady stater true to Wheeler/Feynman or Gold, Bondi, and Hoyle ? Either way steady state only discusses that which is inside our known STC and does not address what might be outside our STC so it is neither A nor B nor C. But I don't think you were trying to include steady state as an A or B but moreso just stating that separate from being a steady stater you personally believe in option B.

0 Replies

Hoyle's
With the reservation that it is only fair to discuss what is observable but there seems to be no reason to suspect that matters outside our limits ( which are imposed upon us by the mechanical limitations of light [EMR] are any different.)

(You don't have to drink all the soup to know how it tastes) :wink: Since the universe seems to be remarkably homegenous I think the metaphor fits.

0 Replies

Akamechsmith, "You don't have to drink all the soup to know how it tastes" is a wonderful way to explain the logic of sampling from a universe (pardon the pun).
But of course the size of the sample--the number of tastes required--depends on how homogenous is the soup, which is probably greater than is the case for most universes.

0 Replies

Here's some of my views:

1) Yes finite - less than 10 ^ 100 atoms, age 13.8 billion years, diammeter 80 billion light years => over 70% of the Universe is casually disconnected under relativistic physics from the rest of itself.

2) Given the above only theoretical physics can guess and possibly later prove things about the whole.

* * *

So to the first point, during its creation relativistic physics didn't apply until the energy densities fell low enough for quantum gravity to break down into the four forces (electromagnetic, strong nuclear, weak nuclear, electromagnetism) that set relativity in stone today. So before time = 10 ^-34 seconds after the big bang inflation probably occured at 50,000 * lightspeed; allowing the Universe to inflate from the size of a quark to a basketball in a quantum moment. This forever disconnected most of the Universe from itself as it continued expanding, as by the time the laws of relativistic physics that came into dominance (after 10 ^ -34 seconds) no force carrier would every be fast enough to cross from one side of the Universe to the other.

A "Hubble Sphere" is simply an imaginary ball with you in the centre and its radius is 13.8 billion light years - the age of the Universe * the speed of light. That's how far you can see from any point in the universe. That's how far things can be away from you before they can't possibly affect you!

So imagine the Universe is a sphere, with our Hubble Sphere someone inside it. We can be affected and potentially observe only (14 / 40) ^ 3 = 4% of the Universe! Actually it a bit higher than 4% because the edges of our inflationary Universe would have cooled faster than the centre of the big bang - so the four force carriers would have come into existence at the edges of the Universe a bit before the centre did. The maths are hard but the principle is still the same.

So its a big ask to speak definitively about it!

0 Replies

g_day,

0 Replies

Thanks! The joy of these threads is that you invariable mix lay folk's logic, religion (1 of 5,000 belief systems' views), theoretical physics (any of 15 systems which are all so wierd no one can understand them and the maths is so hairy a high energy physicist would cringe, e.g. SuSy) and Frank's view Smile

(our resident agnostic) who I've missed chatting to lately!

0 Replies

Hi g_day,

I'm always glad when you stop by. Very Happy

A little thing that I have been working on relative to your post is what the observed (on Earth) wave length of light that was emitted at say 400 millimicrons would be to an observer some 45 billion years later, about three times the radius of a "Hubble Bubble".

Have such wave lengths been observed Question

as perhaps an largely undifferentiated horizon hopefully.

Please don't waste to much effort on it as I suspect that somewhere someone has someplace a chart with the arithmetic already done. I have built one to some 15 squared radiuses from Earth but as the zeros mount up so do my insecurities. Sad

0 Replies

g__day wrote:

So its a big ask to speak definitively about it!

That's why were are in a Philosophy forum. We are Philosophizing.
I think there are two scenarios, Option A and Option B. If we obtain a general enough agreement on what is covered by one of those two scenarios then all we need to do is using observation, deduction, and a smidgen of speculation we should be able to determine which of the two options is more likely. It could be a very long time before anyone proves anything related to the infinite nature of the Universe but when my whole house of cards stands together most people accept the infinite Universe as the only real option.

0 Replies

akaMechsmith

Thanks - your question is tricky because the wavelength doesn't change as a function of distance (that intensity that drops). But intensity would be affected by:

1. The universe expanding - causing red-shift as the light source moves away from you

2. The rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating by an unknown amount, over 45 billion years alot could change

3. the curvature of spacetime is likely to change and it will certainly affect wavelength - so if you pass near massive bodies your wavelength hitches a ride on their travelling gravitational filed - so you get a red or blue shift

So I don't think we know the variable well enough to do the maths!

nipok - agreed. I think the universe may prove to be far different than we perceive it is with our 5 senses and our minds!

0 Replies

The buddhist view would not be C. It would be A AND B, when it claims it's neither A NOR B. They are merely views. You asked an option in STC. But Einstein himself admitted(or cried out to anyone who was willing to listen) that STC are not the laws of the universe(let alone the Universe) but simply the way we look at it to date(today, maybe in 40billion years, our views as will the laws which we seem to recognize might change).

That it's all subjective and it's not possible for us to comprehend things as they are in their true form. We simply look at things in a certain way and when that fails to work at a certain moment, we use another theory. Neither is wrong, neither is absolutely right. They're just the way you look at it.

Think of of light being a particle, photon and/nor a wave. If I were to say, is light a particle and give you option A & B.
A) It's a photon
B) It's a wave
Ok, now choose.

Understand?

"...for us physicists believe the separation between past, present, and future is only an illusion, although a convincing one."
In other words, him famous remark, reality is only an illusion, albeit, a persisting one.

I'm sure he'd agree with me quoting him in such a manner:
The religion of the future will be a cosmic religion. The religion which based on experience, which refuses dogmatic. If there's any religion that would cope the scientific needs it will be Buddhism....

0 Replies

g_day,

As so often has happened you addressed the problem directly Smile

I am concerned with the gravitational "red shift" in which light, radio waves and presumably all other waves respond to mass or time.

It has been shown to happen. I suspect it happens simply as a result of the accelerations provided by gravity. IF it happens then it would have to be accounted for in determining the Hubble Constant. I have never found where anyone has done the math with the possible exception of DeSiter around 1929, and possibly Fred Hoyle about 1950.

It has been shown (I think) that the sunlight we observe has been "red shifted. Carl Sagan mentioned that on Pluto the Sun would appear as a reddish star. The techies in charge of Voyager figured the the frequency shift (due to both speed and distance) would be shifted past their ability to receive at some point.

If you take a wave length at emission and expose it to one Earth gravity (in the appropriate direction) for one second then it will be red shifted about eight parts per 300,000.

STOP THE PRESSES Exclamation

In talking to you I just realized where I have been screwing up on a minor arithmetical problem. Very Happy

It has been occupying my spare gray matter for a couple of years now Exclamation

I now think that, allowing for the demands of Adam Smith (I have to work sometimes) I have just resolved my difficulties with the "Hubble Constant".

PM me if you are interested at all. It's kind of past a normal forum, especially a philosophical one. Very Happy

Thanks for listening. Mech Laughing

0 Replies

Excellent!

I always think of heavy bodies curving spacetime and this causes the red or blue shift!

0 Replies

Is the Universe Infinite?

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know