Is the Universe Infinite?

g__day, gravity can be seen as the deformation of space-time caused by mass. Think of mass stretching an elastic membrane with the negative gravitational energy that is tied up in keeping it deformed being equal and opposite to the mass involved.

Of course anti-particles have positive energy since they have mass, but I see no reason why negative energy could not exert force by means of gravitons or other force carriers.

I don't know what caused nothing to initially split into something, but it happens all the time as pairs of virtual particles are created and annihilate each other. Prior to the big bang the pre-universe would have been at equilibrium until some random fluctuation in the quantum foam or a collision of branes unbalanced things and the discontinuity propagated. Perhaps a bubble of lower density formed in which time could begin to flow as some of the 9-10 spatial dimensions became unconstricted.

The general consensus is that there is no single point in the universe that is the center of expansion, and no edge (a finite but unbounded universe curves in on itself; an infinite and unbounded universe could be flat). Remember the balloon analogy? All points on the surface were once at the center and have equal claim to being the center of expansion. The actual center of expansion of the 2-D balloon surface is in a higher dimension.

What is the point of inventing a God with magical powers to travel between membranes? Why would he create a species with such limited abilities that we cannot even observe most of the universe, let alone travel through it? I simply do not see any role or need for a God in the grand scheme of things.

But then if you could really comprehend God, he wouldn't be much of a God would he, Terry?

Nothingness is infinite, and what we perceive to be, mass, is finite. Doesn't if follow that mass is ultimately illusory? God only becomes a possible factor in finite systems.

Th thing is I can see that the fundamentals must eventually take us down into Strings, membranes, and N-dimensions at the Planck scale. My mathematical skill aren't really up to that, and I don't expect many other people have the math skills, much less the undertanding, for thoat level of conversation either. A couple of you guys just might be heading that direction, and it makes me nervous to be in such company.

Aw you just need to be more devious Asherman and nod at the right times like I do.

Foxy,

Condolences on your leak. I imagine there are quite a few with leaks in Albuquerque this week.

Yeah and ours is less serious than yours because so far it is restricted to the garage. My husband is something of an expert when it comes to roof leaks and points out that flat tar & gravel roofs shrink and contract during prolonged dry weather. Then when the rains come again, many of them will leak like sieves. Unfortunately, the moisture does not cause the roof to again swell and close up the leaks.

But all things considered, I much prefer the rain to the drought. And if God thinks a roofer needs the money more than I do, who am I to complain.

Terry in response to - Yes agreed, but run your clock backwards from today to just before the big bang. If you say we have infinite stuff now (either matter, energy or empty space with non null point energy) and you transition backwards towards the big bang singularity - then at some point (actually at all points) you are trying to squeeze an infinite amount of energy / matter into a finite area.

Around 10 ^ -33 seconds after the big bang relativity kicked in and the universe had a very finite and small area, there is no system - certainly not relativity - that allows this if it had an infinite energy density.

On your second point gravity whether spread by the graviton, the Higgs Boson and Higgs field or another mechanism its still a positive energy - not dark energy.

Negative energy can't use the four positive force carrier particles - or any other yet theorised boson (the force carriers) to achieve accelerated expansion - that what is puzzling top scientists - if it exists it fits into a new framework that interacts with relativity- if it exists. And this framework isn't even postulated yet.

The big bang could have been a massive resonance of anti-partilces / particles split yes - as a spectulation!

The no centre or edges of creation explanation you are quoting as consensus as I keep saying is the scientists dumbed down, incorrect explanation to lay people rather than explain Hubble spheres, inflation and quantum disconnects in relativity. Its a simple way of thinking but technically its hard to call it correct. The best way to describe it is its relative to a single Hubble sphere - not the whole universe.

The God part - well there is my infinity, and connection for why we exist given the odds against it are a staggering 10 ^ 42,000 against - a number to make google look small! I recall Scientific America I believe last year saying those odds are about the same as a Kansas tornado hitting a junkyard and constructing a fully fuelled, wired and serviced 747 ready for take off - picturesque but expressive!

I have my own theory about our universe. In all people there is an imagination capable of producing phenomenons which cannot be explained by conventional science. The mind is the most powerful tool possible. Therefore, the universe is merely an idea widely accepted. This is for a sense of security that ALL humans desire. The universe is as big as you say it is, or as small as your neighbor says it is.

__________________________________________________
To fear nothing is to be afraid of everything.

Very Platonian Carbon

Really at best I think we can throw around big ideas here, because the detail if you want it is complex. If you want the discussions to get technical you are going to end up talking SuSy with details like "The Lagrangian has local SU(2)xU(1) invariance (this is then called the gauge group of the electroweak theory). The field content consists of (massless) vector fields in the adjoint representation of the gauge group (therefore, there are four of them) and two massive scalar fields (vector representation of SU(2)). Due to gauge invariance, one can transform the doublet of scalar fields from (a,b) to (0,v). Thus, there is only one *physical* massive scalar field. This is the Higgs boson. At lower energies, the doublet of scalar fields gets a non-zero vacuum expectation value (a phase change of the vacuum) and appear to be massless in this vauum. In this vacuum, the gauge invariance is now only U(1). The gauge field of this U(1) is the photon field. The massless scalar fields become the zero helicity states of the other 3 massless vector fields...thus we have 3 vector fields each with 3 spin states. This means that they are massive vector fields. These are the W+, W-, and Z bosons seen in weak interactions. In other words, at low enough energies, three of the original massless vector fields propagate in a vacuum that makes them massive"

But I expect that at the advanced physics forums (quite a great forum by the way - a typical quote from Uequals0 BTW above), its lovely and correct - but most people won't understand what the hell it is discussing or how or if it is relevant. If you want discussions like this I suggest visit http://www.advancedphysics.org/index2.php

The Philisophy section of Able2Know I expect to argue the big picture, and with all respect our framework of science is evolving and full of theoretical proposals. But I'll leave you with this point:

Folk seem to feel that saying space - empty space is infinite, is less of a drain on our senses or on our physics. But science's sharpest minds feel that every cubic metre of empty space has a miniscule energy content caused by the chaos of the cosmic foam underpinning our Universe. And energy is equivalent to mass, so infinite space means infinite mass and infinite energy. Our physical reality just doesn't lend itself to that picture, so I'd hazard a guess and say now, and in the past the total sum energy / mass of the universe is around 10 ^ 90 protons, arrived at by multiplty three estimates - number of stars in Universe (10 ^ 26), average star Mass (10 ^33) kgs, and number of protons in a Kg (10 ^ 27) * amount of dark matter / energy assumed to get a first guess total estimate to how much matter / energy was present in the big bang. This would tell us the Big Bang released an energy around 10 ^ 106 Joules - WoW!

All very fanciful maths I know!

Terry,

Something which I find very interesting is always puzzling, and vice-versa.

Seriously, if one can understand enough of a problem (in this case an infinite-eternal Universe versus a finite temporal one) to understand that it may be a problem that perhaps can be solved definitively but at best have only an inkling of how it may be solved then it becomes interesting True of Universes and intelligent women IMO natch

G_day,

My problem in which red-shift acts as an absolute limit seems to stem from the dual nature of light. It seems to be transmitted as a wave but percieved as a particle (photon).

If it was transmitted as a particle the State Police would have to go back to a "radar gun" as the "doppler guns" which they are now using as speed sensers depend on sensing the differences between the emitted wave length and the recieved (observed) wave length.

If it was percieved as a wave then our telescopes and microscopes wouldn't work. (And a Mechanist has to make things work or he is not happy; or well fed)

This has been a little "tongue in cheek" comment but I am fairly sure that the increase and decrease in wave length under the influence of gravity and time has been theorized and shown to occur. Einstein, DeSiter, and the Harvard Tower experiment, along with the techies involved with Voyager and the Saturn probe.

BUT as Terry once pointed out to me, essentially the wave length of light also varies with "the speed of time". (Incidentally Terry I independently corroborated that.) I am a suspicious old man , Sorry

She kept me awake several nights puzzling over that, which is much more than can be said for Farah Fawcett or J.Lo.

Interesting- yep; Puzzling- certainly

Asherman and G_day particularly. Everytime I try to make this Universe work as a mechanical device I come smack dab up against an infinity unless it is defined in such a way as to make it finite. That's easily done but IMO not necessarily valid. The concept of sin for instance may easily be defined by a priest or imam but it is not necessarily valid for a social worker or economist. I expect this Universe to work for everybody here. Obviously not an impossibility but I don't KNOW that yet :wink:

I just spent two days playing with the sailboat at Deep Creek Lake, Md U.S. I find the vagaries of wind and angles interesting also

Have a good evening, M

Wow, everybody is here tonite. My post is practically obsolete already

Just to humans.

For now (define time) humans (define human) are the only ones counting(define count). M

Can an immortal being (suspend disbelief for the sake of argument), who has always existed and who always will exist, confine him or her self to a limited space (Yankee Stadium perhaps) forever?

If you can get that idea, then: Can the universe be temporally infinite but be finite as to the space it occupies?

Hmmm...Are you saying that the universe is infinite in time (always existed), but finite in the space it occupies?

See page 2 of this thread post 788787

Infinity is a mathematical concept, not a real physical characteristic. Because the universe is everything, it cannot border on anything, and therefore must be without borders. This would mean that it must curve on itself (the "if you keep going long enough you get back to where you started" thing.) The universe is finite in extension, but infinite in direction (like going around and around the circum. of a circle.)

john/nyc,
Got it. Hmmm...
so are you saying nothing happened before the Big Bang? Time did not exist prior to the big bang?

Thalion,
I understand the concept of curved/globe shaped universe. However, what is "outside" the globe? Nothing? Are you saying the globe encompasses all that exists? I am still seeing, in my mind, this area outside the globe...

No. I am saying that this big bang is just one of an infinite series of bang bangs that have been going on forever and will continue to do so.

The universe expands and then contracts only to expand again.