Is the Universe Infinite?

Yes, get that science stuff out of here. This forum is reserved for serious philosophy topics like strip clubs, circumcision, and pot vs. alcohol debates.

tcis, i think ethical debates are the heart of philosophy. i looked up the definition of philosophy and I guess I always considered it to be just a persons belief system...but it turns out that is much father down on the list, and the main thing is that hilosophy deals with using logic and principle to solve problems, whereas science uses observations. so i guess i was wrong the topic can stay

Hi BoGoWo, re your post of Jul 19, 10:15PM

Perhaps it's because that the scales that we observe are all that exist. And I think that there are some reasonable mechanical assumptions that support the "this is all there is folks" theory

As far as "inverted universes" go I can find no place to put them where they would have no influence upon this one. I suspect that such an influence would be noticeable.

Personally I surmise that there is no formative body larger than a Galaxy, or smaller than one either, but I have no intention of trying to prove it. (I have already spent the better part of four years trying to outline the problems relating to the "red shift" as part of the "expanding universe" theory) in some sort of concise manner.

Tain't as easy as it looks, Have a good evening,

Finite
The problem most people have with the idea that the universe is finite is that they can not imagine nothingness (myself included.) Most of these people would subscribe to the theory that the universe is made of atoms and particles. What i would ask these people is what is between the chemical bonds of these atoms? The obvious answer would be nothing, personally I'm not sure if I beleive this but if you can beleive in nothingness between atoms why can't you imagine an infinite dimension of nothingness.

Guys a few observations for your consideration.

Black holes form when matter or energy concentrations exceed a certain density rather than absolute mass/energy content. Of course the easiest way for this to form naturally is a gravitational well like a big star. But nothing stops a lesser mass from forming a black hole if it were crushed enough. Crush the Earth to a 1 inch ball and you'd have a black hole. Or fire the equivalent amount of energy 10^30 * 9*10^16 as a laser into a one inch standing wave and you'd have a black hole.

Black holes may or may not be singularities within their event horizon. The theories that avoid singularities are several and consistend: 1) the matter collapsing is rotating too fast to be infinitely crushed - its angular momentum is preserved so you do get a gravstar but not with a singularity at its core or 2) as you crush energy / matter to such levels - above 10 ^19 GeV you create the conditions to re-combine the four forces back to one unified force acting on super heavy particles, once you do this you aren't dealing with gravity so you don't need to consider a singularity.



The likeihood that conditions for intelligent carbon (or silicon or germanium) based life existing elsewhere in the Universe is extremely small, less than 1 in 10 ^ 20 for our galaxy of 100 billion suns against if I recall correctly. If you desrie knowing why I suggest you read

http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=20276&postdays=0&postorder=asc&start=120

about 10 posts down, taken from my inagural post here asking why is the Universe so big - a pretty good thread I think. The exact reasoning system for calculating life bearing planets is here:

http://www.konkyo.org/english/seti.html

i think it is infinite, because, if we assume it is finite, thus, this assume entail the corolloary that there is something out of the universe. but according to the concept of the universe, if there is something, there is part of the universe, so the aforementioned assumption is not correct, then we can get its counterposition, i.e. the universe is infinite.

eh? Did that even make sense to you?

Our membrane of existence has a topology, outside this membrane is something different, maybe null space, maybe other membranes, maybe a null membrane to which ones like ours can be painted on and washed off (membrane / membrane interactions that sometimes create new membranes).

Maybe if our space streches and expands too far it will dilute to nothingness - perhaps there is a fundamental quantum level of density that if you go beneath our reality starts dissappearing.

This is the focus of M-theory. As I said before careless handling of infinities lead to strange assumptions and conclusions based on rather dubious psuedo science.

I could more realistically say if space were infinite it could have never fitted into the Big Bang way back 13.8 billion years ago, because not only would the energy levels be infinite then - they would still be infinite today! A finite expansion of space wouldn't dilute an infinite starting mass / energy well down to what we have today! An infinite expansion to dilute your infinite energy / mass concentration would break all the laws of relativity (like the speed of light limit on moving mass) too and the cosmic background radiation would look way different. If you try and escape this corner by saying are but maybe time was infinite well you run out of luck as well - firstly galaxies including our own would still be travelling too fast, be too far away to ever be seen and we couldn't say with great accuracy the universe is 13.8 billions years old (and the cosmic background radiation would be far lower too!). You might desperately say space is infinite - not starting mass or energy - but this still leaves you with infinite time, breaking the speed of light and the fact the vaccuum itself has a non zero energy (due to virtual particle / anti -particle pairs (cosmic foam) at a quantum level) so if space is infinte today you had infinte starting mass/energy again sorry!

This is a trivial example of the dangers of infinities. I could come up with many other examples of how your assumptions sound reasonable but break down on closer inspection (like an infinite Universe with infinite number of finite big bangs in disjoint hubble spheres - but using your what's outside argument this would break down). I'd play my hubble sphere card and your infinite would have to dissappear or become irrelevant to our frame of reference.

Infinites are dangerous and frequently mis-managed - leave them out!

You can rule out infinite time, mass and energy - so what does that leave you with?

g_Day,

If the universe is finite, as you argue, then the arguement for God becomes almost irresistable. I'm not convinced. Yet.

I may not be around much for a bit. We are having thundershowers almost daily in Albuquerque for the first time in a long time. Last night a leak started in a corner of the dinning room. I can't stand to have two floods in two years living in the desert. Last year the whole bottom of Corazon flooded when a water softner/filtering system failed and the repairs were over $46,000. We need to be on this roof thing.

We'll miss you Asherman so hurry back. I imagine an infinite universe and the existence of God is compelling for me. But then He is an infinite God.

I think it is possible that our piece of the universe is finite and, as we have discussed, there may be many levels of parallel universes that are endless. But the problem of the effectiveness of the big bang is solved if it applies only to a piece of the universe.

Ash; good luck with the repairs ( i am voting for infinite, which minimizes the 'god' thing; therefore less chance of your having to become 'Noah'! ) wishing you sun!

g-day; another scenario, which perhaps would soften your "big bang/infinity" problems would be the 'infinite universes model', where beyond our universe, in proportion to other galaxies beyond our Milky Way, there are other universes like ours, and unlike ours, expanding and contracting away, oblivious to one another, off as far as the 'mind' can 'see', and beyond (for ever!).

Oblivious until they start colliding with each other.

Velikovsky 'II' - the movie!!

g__day, there did not have to be an infinite starting mass/energy before the big bang since the net energy of the universe is thought to be zero - positive mass/energy is exactly equal to the negative energy of gravity. You can split zero into an infinite amount of positive and negative quantities.

While we cannot see anything farther than light has traveled since the big bang, there is no reason to think that the universe ends at that horizon. An observer at the edge of the universe currently visible to us would see 13+ billion light-years beyond what we can see, and someone at the edge of their universe would see another 13+ billion light-years of space. As far as we know, every point in space appears to be at the center of the big bang (from the perspective of an observer at that point) and there is no actual center, edge or limit to the universe.

AlexKenni, space around the nucleus of an atom is not empty - it is seething with virtual particles.

BoGoWo, infinite universes beyond ours, parallel universes, branes in M-space, or an infinite expanse to our own universe are all possibilities that we cannot rule out. I can't think of any reason why the multiverse would be limited in size. If you can have a universe of X mass, why not one of X+1 mass?

Or X + (infinity - 1) mass; but not infinity + X mass!

[a relatively minor consession.]

G_day, et all. What a pleasant thread this has turned into

Referring primarily to G_days post of Jul 24, 6:39 AM

Sorry, I have some doubts as to the validity of the "Big Bang" theory. I have rather an inclination to view both the "Big Bang" and "The Expanding Universe" as optical illusions. (Thanks Asherman )

In other words "The Big Bang Never Happened", a book by Eric J. Lerner, Vintage Books, 1992.

So one at a time this is what puzzles me, (Other than intelligent women, good moonshine, and pleasant conversation)

1. If space were infinite then it never would have fitted into the "Big Bang". So the Big Bang probably never happened. No prob bro.

2. We cannot say with great accuracy simply due to the nature of light. At some point, different from the observers, the frequencies and wave length of light shifts so much that it cannot convey any meaningful information. (A mechanical limitation perchance )

3. I do not "believe"; clearly delinated as such; that you can rule out any infinities at this point. (One might be able to do something with relative densities though)

4. I suspect that at longer and longer wavelengths (antenna to the moon perhaps) we will find "background emissions" similar to the CMBR which will merely be light "red shifted" to a point somewhat less than infinity.
We should live so long as to be able to put "Fraunhofer lines" to a spectrum with a thousand billion mile long wave length.

Please disabuse me of these notions if you can. I have oft been sorely disappointed relating theories to observations. Even with Mr. Lerner

First and foremost Asherman - good luck with the rain and hope all escapes damage at your end.

As you say a finite Universe lends support to an infinte God, but as BoGoWo and Foxfyre later say infinite, but distanced finite Universes also are a plausible model - I'll come to them later but its a good idea to study, a very good one!

Foxfyre - An infinite number of finitely distanced, finite sized, finite total matter/energy universes that don't collide or ever interact because of a mindboggling seperation distance is a real possibility, from Scientific America last year - this model supposes universe that are seperated by far, far, far more than the diameter of our entire universe itself.

To me this is one variant of M-Theory, which has stacked membranes (possibly infinite - sigh) seperated not by immense distances but by different dimensions meaning each reality can't easily interact. So in M-Theory two membranes might be seperated from each other by nanometres (distance wise). Both M-Theory's and superstring theory's s-particle and hidden dimensions premises may be tested in 2007 by the Large Haldron Collider capable of reaching the energy levels needed to study part of these states of matter and energy. If we can show energy / matter leaks away into somewhere unrevealed in their bubblechambers we are showing hidden dimensions actually exist!

This is all very theoretical - but both models allow you to partially discount God in explaining our existence. Both models help answer a puzzling question - why is gravity so weak. Particularily with M-theory - gravity can leak across extremely similar membranes.

Terry - the net zero mass / energy sum argument - a good one!

I started accepting this one initially but then found a few problems with it and decided M-Theory holds more fruit. But my take on this argument:

1. Gravity is an energy - not a negative energy source - so it doubles your problem. Negative energy and or dark matter aren't merely anti-matter or anti or s-force carriers - there are something we aren't sure how to theoretically model yet. Hawking uses the constructs in the Universe in a Nutshell as a device to hold open a ring of blackholes to create wormholes - and talks about construction materials needed to project negative energy - an interesting read.

2. Split zero in +X and -X where X is very large - even infinite and you still have zero - everything is conserved. The challenges here are 1) what negative force and matter carriers are quantised to meet the positive ones (its not simply anti-quarks or s-quarks or anti-s-quarks - its much more exotic) and 2) what caused the incredible useful splitting - God or another mysterious force?

The light we see from 13 billion years ago now shows us points that may be physically 78 billion light years away (thanks to the universe expanding whilst the light is travelling to us). So yes we are observing a finite hubble sphere and scientists are say ah ha - the Universe is finite and this big - how do they do it? Well by measuring the background cosmic radiation very carefully and calculating distance and speed (redshift of Celephoid variables) in distant galaxies and comparing this to measure of its age. Terry I don't think we can say there is no centre to the Universe, that's sort of correct layperson's imprecision. Rather I would offer 'no inhibitant of any Hubble sphere can determine the origin point of the big bang - and whether it is in their Hubble sphere or not - but the point of origin or suspension of the Universe does still exist today - but it has different relevance and meaning in a causally disconnected universe'.

This thinking gives the Universe a centre (but yes its disconnected under General Relativity) and an edge (that is unreachable under GR again from the centre).

But the instead of God argument - I would say the alternatives with their embeded infinities that are most credibly are those that postulate either infinite or a very, very large number of finite Universe seperated either by space or by dimensional differences.

My view is rather than infinite space (alone) we have infinite (or very large numbers of) membranes as the dominate contender. But actually I think both or possibly all three are true. We have God as a traveller and influencer across membranes - possibly the one and only inter-membrane dweller and influencer - an intelligent catalyst if you like. So my God is not merely an elevated uber scientist that holds the keys to manipulating membranes (a role we may one day inspire too) - I see God as a true dweller within and between membranes - perhpas trying to create a race that can do some of what he can. So within select membranes you can have intelligent life that can observe and question its own existence.

So these are my out there views, held together my a mixture of pure faith and the most valid scientific reasoning I can muster.

So Terry my model of reality is different from your - but has the same underlying hidden infinity challenge nested somewhere else - i.e. - why do we have infinite membranes or do we have X positive membranes and X negative membranes that summed together would give zero mass and energy etc total and God did the seperation for us?

akaMechsmith

Glad you like it, I am throwing (theoretical) science around with faith fairly freely (but to the best of my honesty) here.

I obivously accept the best interpretation of the data and underlying scientific framework supports a Big bang, expanding Universe and its all finte - fine!

1. Agree but my view is finite - otherwise Hubble data is really mis-interpreted - it woud require us to really not understand Celephoid Variabel stars and their incredible usefulness in determining age, distance and recession speed of a distant star.

2. Don't understand your criticism of redshift limiting us some way. Either we detect a photon with a minimum quanta of energy or we don't. Or detection equipment is binary (apart from possible ghost photons - CCD failures every once in a billion readings). In my view too much distance simply means the photon can never reach us - a Hubble Sphere - but if it does reach us we should be able to read and amplify it!

3. True - agreed. But I believe we should derive all the alternative theories we can - build a framework of understand and test it as much as we can - then rank them by probablities.

4. The very large telescope array (2014) and LIGO gravity wave detectors - looking for still resonating semic gravity waves of the big bang itself should present us data quite soon.

So guys lets keep this interest discussion going, its been quite excellent up to here!

No one showed up to work on the roof today. Looks like Monday or Tuesday before they get around to us. Forcast is for thunderstorms daily over the next five days, but so far nothing yet today. Furniture moved, plastic sheeting down and a VLA of pans to catch the cosmic rain.

It will take some pretty persuasive stuff before for I abandon infinite models in favor of finite ones. That Hubble thing has long been troublesome, but in the immortal words of Rosanna Dana "Eets always someting". You can have finite within infinite, but not infinite within finite. The problem with much of where our thoughts carry us these days in re. cosmology is that it isn't so easily experimentally tested, or even observable. I'm afraid that you fellers are going to leave me in the dust shortly because my math skills just aren't up to the challenge of the latest thinking. Damn its frustrating. Now I wish I had put more effort into mathematics when I was a pup.

You gotta do what I do Ashmerman and just pretend the math makes sense

We have a leak too following the recent rains....so we'll be calling a roofer come Monday as well.

Asherman - actually the maths isn't too bad - we can leave most of it out and rely on commonsense type analysis.

The hard maths / physics is deep in M-Theory and string theory and we aren't really touching that in depth - so hang on!

Mech, what puzzles you about intelligent women?

1. Space did not have to "fit" into the big bang. Space-time simply did not exist prior to the big bang which created it. There could have been an unlimited amount of pre-bang "stuff" such as n-dimensional membranes, quantum foam, or whatever.

2. Yes, the frequency of light changes during its travels through the cosmos, but that is taken into account: cosmic clumping