Is the Universe Infinite?

We are looking at a 'steady state' version of the universal continuum here; each black hole is a portal to an inverse universe, which grows from the base of the hole, while the matter from the parent continuously pours into it.

There is a series of 'window' like breaches in space/time, where material pulses positively at one spot, and negatively at another.

We can now look at our universe - our 'big bang', and try to assess at what level we find ourselves in the production of our universe, from our generating black hole, in another.

This model seems to proliferate, since there are numerous black holes in our universe, generating others; however, perhaps the model is exaggerated, and there is a phenomenon (possibly Quasars) in our universe that is the inverse side of an external black hole.

Otherwise it would seem that we are an advanced (age wise) 'seed' universe!

What shall we name our 'black hole', and the universe from which it sends us our universe?

Let me think about that for a little while. On first glance it "feels right". I like the balance and flux implied.

Even Stephen Hawkings has changed his opinion that black holes themselves are not what was first thought and he suggests they are leaking both light and matter. Could the origin of the universe be less a big bang than an original black hole that burped? Hey, who knows for sure?

A Black Hole may be nothing more than the "filling in" of a "void" which takes place at ever increasing speed until the event is happening at the speed of light and therefore unobservable by us.

BoGoWo,

I'm sorry, but your post reads as if you are making fun of me. Perhaps I'm mistaken, in which case I'm sorry for the assumption. Like john, I'm not exactly in my depth when discussing a concept like the (in)finity of the universe. Therefor I try to construct my ideas by a simple example, and expand on it both for the benefit of myself and of the benefit of others, because I fear that my english may prove to be a troublesome factor in understanding my posts. Heck, at times I barely understand what I write!
Anyways, your post seems to come close to that philosophical question asked at universitities in the middle ages:
How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

Oh btw, I probably have to read up on the exact way a nuclear explosion works, but I always believed that the electrons and protons and neutrons and stuff continued to exist. Wasn't it a barrage of neutrons shot into a radioactive material that triggers an expanding explosion? I'll have to read up on this... Anyways, since there exists a microkosmos of bacteria and other even smaller life forms around us, the devastation caused by a nuclear explosion is still larger I guess hten most people account for...

If the universe is infinite, and if our world and the life on it has not come into existence by a divine power of any sort, but by a lot of factors being just right for the formation of complex organisms,
and if the universe in its infinitness is filled with an infinite number of stars and planets, it goes that there are an infinite number of worlds out there that have intelligent life. Presumably, since we are capable of space travel, an infinite number of other planetary civilizations are capable of this too.

So, likewise, an infinite number of other civilizations may have come to theorize over the same question. And with an infinite number of civilizations pondering over the same question, presuming said question can be solved, an infinite number of civilizations may already have the answer to this question. So all we need to do is find one of those infinite number of civilizations, or perhaps they'll find us, and the question may be solved... So no need to ponder about it anymore? Right?

Hmm... I wonder where the fallacy in this line of reasoning is located...

Naj

JLNobody,

Yes you are of course correct. I indeed made the error of seeing this spaceship as something apart from the universe. Seems I have trouble with the relationship between us(or perhaps me) and the universe we live in...

Najmelliw, re your post of Jul 19,2004 3:34PM

The subject which you addressed (literally uncountable worlds with intelligent life may (IMO probably) exist)

This question is known as the "Fermi Paradox" in which the questioner asks "If the Universe is infinite then where are the spacefaring civilizations?"

I have answered it in several ways, the primary one being that the constraints (insurmountable mechanical limitations ) of intelligent life have precluded such contacts.

I BELIEVE that the Universe (if properly defined) is infinite and evolving. What it is is another question . I am reasonably certain that both the big bang and the "red shift" of an expanding universe are optical illusions predicted by relativity theory.

I have been working on the Math but unfortunetly my talents (so far) are not equal to the task.

You may wish to search "Fermi Paradox" or "red shift" for a little more illumination on your little conundrum Good luck, I have been hunting answers for years. Hope you find some

You are mistaken! I was simply trying to read between the lines a bit; and oddly the 'angels' comment is exactly the one i use when i'm getting fed up with bickering over minutae.



I was suggesting (somewhat 'tongue in cheek') that there could be a race of sentient beings, far to small for us to be aware of, on each minute planetary system, not to mention the bacteria, etc. which would be relatively huge in comparison!.

BoGoWo, Re your "tongue in cheek" comment:

I have considered that but I ran smack dab into the "mechanical" limits of light, amongst other problems.

At wave lengths that would allow something the size of a bacteria or virus to understand or transmit information the energies would be so relatively high that that the information would be useless.

The closest that we can observe a recognizable intelligence seems to be in the "social insects" in which there seems to be some 15,000 or more discreet intelligences suborned to the interests of the colony. The average honey bee or termite is easily seen with light. And any one of them isn't any too bright. "Slime Molds" as a colony also would be interesting but probably not for the conversation :wink: .

"The fleas have mites and the mites have mites and so on infinitum". I forgot where I heard that but the minimilization of the size of an infinite series soon runs into purely "mechanical" limits.

Infinitely larger scales seem to have similar problems. As close as I can figure out it doesn't seem to be a problem of perceptions or imaginations . In deed it may actually be the way it looks (or is defined).

i suspect, Mech, in spite of the fact that the quantum level is still a field of discovery, the continuum of scale, with which we now deal, is probably all we will ever be aware of.

What did you think of my "Black hole/inverse universe" model?

BoGoWo,

In re. your suggestion that sentient life might exist throughout the entire range of scales, from the largest to the smallest. This was a theme in some science fiction back in the early part of the 20th century, but the theme no longer has much interest because we think we know more now about the universe. The cosmic scales are fundamentally different than the sub-microscopic. Atoms are not planetary systems, nor are planets electrons. Very different states of "being". In the cosmic scale, Einsteinian physics rule, and remain largely unchallenged. At the sub-microscopic scale, Einsteinian physics don't work where Quantum physics rule. How can two such different and opposing sets of "rules" exist in a universe where we are convinced that a single equation set should describe all physical relationships? That is the Holy Grail of modern math and physics, the Unified Field Theory, or the Theory that Explains Everything. Sorry for the small digression.

Life, as we define it, exists where the Cosmic and the Sub-microscopic scales blend into one another. At atomic, and smaller scales, the distinction between mass, energy and the undefined that make up both are more and more elusive. Down at the Planck scale, there may be no mass or energy, but only the mysterious interaction of N-dimensions. On this side of the atomic scale, Newtonian and Einsteinian Physics work far better as the predominance of apparent mass and size (related to time and space) becomes greater. On the human/earthly scale Newtonian physics is the way to go, but once we begin to examine cosmic scales Newtonian physics are just inadequate. So, we and all of life as we know it exist only along the frontier between Cosmic and sub-microscopic scales. I suppose a sentient cosmic scale system is possible, but mostly fiction.

In re. Black Holes and Inverse Universes. Those elements of your idea that attracted me initially don't seem to work upon consideration. There are very likely as many inverse universes, as there are verse. What would an inverse universe be? I think it would be one where what we call anti-matter would predominate. Instead of electrons being negative charges, they would be positive, and obitual motions might run counter to those we are familiar with. Spatial and temporal dimensions would be unchanged. In both universe and anti-universe there would be a matching amount of anti-matter. That really means that the two forms of universe would be virtually identical, with only the emphasis changed. Do you see the problem here. Universe and Inverse-Universe turn out be the same, except by how we arbitrarily define the predominance.

At the "bottom" of a black hole mass at least approaches infinite creating the gravitational forces that overpower light. The density of matter there must be the same from the smallest to the largest black hole, with the gravitational pull in the larger black holes only extending further out into space/time. Might this uniformity of conditions at the "bottom" of black holes give birth to new universes as Big Bang singularities of any sort? The classical pulse called for ALL the mass/energy of this universe to come together in a Big Crunch/Big Bang beginning the new pulse. With the Black Hole the amount of mass/energy is obviously far less than that contained in the entire universe, and intuitively we want to say that would fail to meet the conditions of creating a Big Crunch/Bang. However, if the density of mass at the bottom of a black hole is approaching infinite, then it might be very close to being able to start a new universe in another dimension. There are some interesting problems there, and I'm still thinking about some of them.

Black holes are not static, though at their bottom all space/time may be reduced to near, if not absolute zero. At the mouth the black hole exists in time and space. The simultaneousness and transition between the two states raises further interesting questions. Do black holes move in concert relative to the point where they crossed the density boundary to become black holes. I think they must, so would there be relative motion at the bottom of the black hole consistent with the motion a the mouth, or would the bottom be fixed?

It will take some considerable time for me to think through even a portion of the questions raised, but I though I should at least respond with some tentative ideas now. Anyway, the short answer is I think your idea is interesting, but does not likely to be prove out.

Najmilliu,

In re. your post of the 19th. The infinite worlds and civilizations you suggest probably do exist. However, they may exist in different universes from our own. Even if they exist within our own perceptual universe they may be too far distant in time/space for contact ever to occur. When we talk about our universe being infinite, we are referring to beginnings, endings and boundaries, not the number of objects (though total mass is certainly a part of the equations) within the universe. Within our perceptual universe there are a finite number of galaxies, stars, and systems, though the number is very large.

The number of stars that have planetary systems must be very large, and, I believe, that many have given birth to life as we know it. In some of those systems life may never have risen above slime. In others, sentient beings capable of surpassing us in knowledge and understanding may have developed. Some civilizations may have reached wonderful heights, only to disappear long before our ancestors ventured out onto the savannas of Africa. Homo Sap has only been around for a finger-snap in our planet's history, and we might easily have vanished into extinction a century ago before the invention of radio. The vast distances involved within the perceptual universe makes contact very unlikely. To cross even inter-stellar distances for us would involve time spans that are prohibitive using our current technology and life-span. Perhaps, creatures with longer lives and forty-league boots might find even inter-galactic travel possible, but the probability of their visiting our little planet circling a so-so star at the edge of our galaxy is pretty remote. Radio and other electronic transmissions can signal the existence of a civilization at least as developed as we are. Our earliest transmissions traveling at the speed of light, still haven't reached most of the stars in our own neighborhood of Milky Way Galaxy. Though there have been some efforts to detect intelligent signals from off the earth for a number of years, so far there has been nothing.

What sort of signal should we be looking for? A search from some other civilization for other civilizations, or just some old rerun of Father Knows Best? How would we recognize the signal? If we weren't looking in just the right way, we might not even recognize that old re-run as a signal and it would be lost in the background clutter. A single, repetition of a simple pattern on a radio frequency would be proof of an intelligent source, but only so much information could be inferred from it. Say, we received such a signal, instantly recognized it and transmitted a reply. Now we sit back and wait for several hundred, if not thousands of years for our audience to receive our message. Then we have to wait for them to respond. The whole kit is hardly worth the effort.

So yes there are probably many civilizations within our perceptual universe that have lived, now live, or may live in the future. However, we are unlikely to ever have meaningful contact beyond assurance that "we are not alone".

It has occurred to me that maybe we think too small when it comes to the universe. Maybe our perception of the universe, as immense as we know it is to be, is only one of billions? So the parts of our universe are expanding from the 'big bang' core while other universes may be doing the same. There's always the chance that one of the others will come crashing into ours.

It's just something to think about.

Right. I've always thought about the similarities between an atom, the solar system, galaxies. It could be that our galaxy is sort of just relatively someone else's electron, revolving around their respective atom.

TCIS, Please read my post immediately above re. "It could be that our galaxy is sort of just relatively someone else's electron, revolving around their respective atom".

Foxfire, There is a theory that there are an infinite number of universes occupying other dimensions along side of ours. The universe are never able to interact directly, but so the theory goes, the motion of the neighbors sets up a rythum in a thing designated a "brane" (short for membrane) that can affect the unseen neighbors. The "brane" should not be thought of as a physical thing. I'm sorry I can't be more clear about this, but it isn't a field that I'm "up on". Can't even bring to mind the mathematician whose idea it is, but you can probably google it.

An interesting news item is 'afoot'; Stephen Hawking has, is, or is about to deliver a paper, on his new musings, and theory, relative to the actual workings of a black hole (this week, i think).
I will try to search out futher details, and see what unfolds.............

"Nature" - news:
"Hawking has always stuck resolutely to the idea that once information goes into a black hole, there is no way out. Until now. When [email protected] asked about his change of heart, Hawking smiled and wrote: "My views have evolved."

The remarkable about-face is the result of Hawking's attempts to combine quantum theory with general relativity in a powerful new theory of quantum gravity. Hawking is due to present his latest ideas at the 17th International Conference on General Relativity and Gravitation, which runs from 18 July to 23 July in Dublin, Ireland. But he gave a preview of the talk at his department in Cambridge University last month.

He has been using a mathematical technique called the "Euclidean path integral". The technique is extremely complex as it lumps all the possible histories of a system into one equation. First used by quantum physicist Richard Feynman, it has generally been applied to subatomic particles. But Hawking has been working for several years to apply the idea to black holes.

"The view seems to be forming in his mind that there isn't a black hole in the absolute sense, there's just a region where things take a very long time to escape," says Gibbons. This suggests that black holes do not actually narrow to a singularity at all."

[The Whole Story]

I think i should call Stephen, and say "we should talk!"

I read an article that stated: "Two leading physicists from U. of Chicago and U. of British Columbia sat in the front row, shrugging their shoulders and shaking their heads as Hawking spoke. One said 'He's turning his back on everything we still believe.'"

So, it appears even the leading physicists like to debate these issues...

this topic is hardly philosophical...it should be discussed in the scientific forum.