Is the Universe Infinite?

Actually, one can intellectually think about infinity and the nature of the universe. It helps if you are used to thinking in a "purer" language than we use in our daily lives. The purest language we have available in higher mathematics. Even without that language we can think and conceptualize reasonably well, its just that it's devilishly hard to express ourselves well, or to understand clearly what others try to tell us about the nature of things.

There is another way do approach Ultimate Reality, and that is through direct experience that transcends the mundane. The Awakening experience is most common, I believe, in those who are seriously following Buddhist doctrines and discipline. A couple of thousand years of experience and thought have gone into what we can do to increase the likelihood of having the experience, and in exploring what it means. However, even outside Buddhism the awakening experience is probably not all that uncommon. One may be doing any mundane thing with focused mindfulness, and suddenly time, space and their egos dissolve and collapse. What is left is Ultimate Reality. People who have this experience often have trouble describing it to others. The explanations are most often cast into existing cultural terms already familiar to the audience. These folks are often described as Mystics, and if their underlying cultural/religious roots are rigid, they may find themselves punished for their experience. Artists and creative types seem also to have a greater than usual number of Awakening experiences.

Foxfyre, interesting HYPOTHETICAL exercise. But that is none other than a "mind game". In the actual universe not one planet or even one blade of grass on that planet can be actually subtracted at any "point" in time. You r exercise resembles a thought experiment which can be intellectually useful in thinking about theoretical relationships between abstract(ed) variables. I'm only making an ontological (metaphysical) observation, a distilnction between abstract and concretel aspects of physical reality.
I just saw Asherman's post. The mystical experience transcends both of the above options and need not contradict them.

That's true JL. It was simply an exercise so that infinity might be imagined or even experienced in a metaphysical sort of way.

The 'awakening experience' Asherman describes is perhaps foolishness to some, intriguing and/or enticing to others. Christians have reported similar experiences to the phenomenon he describes. And to explain these to one who has not experienced them is as difficult as imagining anything to infinity. Time and space, I think are more easily conceptualized than mathematical components.

When I think of consecutive numbers beginning at numeral one and continuing to infinity, at some point in my imaginations the numbers become more and more distance until I can no longer see them beyond an imaginary horizon. For me, the numbers stop when I can no longer 'see' them. Time and space, however, do not seem to present any such psychological barrier, and, in that respect, are the only concepts of infinity that can be concretely experienced.

Is the Universe infinite? Is the Infinite universal?

These are big questions, the answer to which, for any rational intelligent person has to be "I dont have a ****ing clue"

Steve, interesting question. One might think of the infinite applying to all things, i.e., its universality. But then we consider the existence of a tree (the form, "tree", not its atomic and subatomic infrastructure) and we consider it to be finite. This follows from our observation that all trees eventually disappear, but their essential substance (not their form) may be infinite and universal. Apologies for my obscurity.

Foxfyre, I agree. it does seem that mathematical infinity (finitude?) is no more than the opposite of finity. A finite series of numbers has an end; an infinite series is "without end"--they simply go out of sight, as you say, and do so non-problematically. This does not bother us as much (because, as you put it, it is a kind of concrete experience) as does the unbearably problematical idea of unending time and space.

I Kind of vote with Foxfyre. That little mind experiment works pretty well in my "mechanical universe"

JL, I have indeed spent some time trying to differentiate beliefs from observations. And I find that I hold a lot more "beliefs" than a self respecting athiest ought to be happy with

Thalion, But it is the age and size of the globe that we are concerning ourselves with. No body here doubts the existence of the "Universe" or even doubts that we are resident therin. (or theron).

Mechanically I opt for infinite and evolving. So lets take a quick tour.

Time is always sequential. Cause always preceeds effect.

Matter and energies are interchangeable (with some simple mechanical processes).

It probably never began, presumeably it will never end.

It just "IS". And it isn't to bad a place for intelligent beings. Actually my sheep seem to enjoy most of also.

infinite in ALL directions
I truly believe the Universe to be infinite but my beliefs tend to blow away even the most open-minded folks. I submit that there is the Universe with a capital U that is infinite and has no center, no beginning, no end, no first second of existence and no last second of existence. I submit that there is our known universe with a lower case u that is finite (although expanding) and has an approximate center, an approximate beginning and end relative to a frame of reference external to our known universe, it has a first second of existence and will eventually have a last second of existence as a unique self contained collaboration of galaxies.

I further submit that if you were at the outermost boundary of our known universe and traveled in a straight line in any direction you would eventually encounter another universe similar in structure to our own. I submit it is impossible to go in a straight line in any direction away from our known universe and not eventually hit another universe similar to ours.

I further submit that infinity goes infinitely outwards but infinitely inwards as well. There is no smallest unit of time. You can take one minute and divide it in half forever. There is no smallest unit of distance. You can take one meter and divide it in half forever. There is no smallest unit of energy. You can one volt or joule and divide it in half forever. There is no smallest unit of matter. You can take any point particle and find that it is made of smaller and smaller subparticles of matter.

The limitation of our knowledge of the Universe and our universe both inwards and outwards is directly proportional to the scientific precision of the instruments we have available to measure the large and the small. Deductions made to date about the structure of the atomic world and the cosmic world suffers from 2 main downfalls. One is the fact that we try to fit the observations into the existing paradigm instead of examining alternative paradigms to fit the observations.

The other is that the complexity and shear unimaginable vastness of infinity turns our known universe into a point in time and space. A massless, timeless, energyless point that in the grand scheme of things does not exist long enough to be of any consequence. So if our 13 billion year old universe is a point in time and space and our sun is one of 70 sextillion stars in our tiny little insignificant universe then our fleeting and fragile lives are an even smaller point in time and space. So to accept infinity is to accept our own insignificance. That is why we force the observations to fit paradigms that make us more significant than we really are.

Just my 2 cents, rebate forms available upon request.

I need to get more sleep. I actually followed that Nipok. And way to go. I love to think outside the box

To infinity and beyond ...
Once you've absorbed the previous post then 1 of a few things will happen. It will make sense right off the bat, it will grow on you to the point that it becomes conceivable, it will overwhelm you and prevent you from conceptualizing this possibility, or you will be able to conceptualize it but it will flat out go against everything you believe.

If it overwhelms then only time and a true desire to enlighten oneself may prevail but reading past this sentence may cause your head to explode.

If you flat out don't buy the previous post at all then you probably will not find any value to reading past this sentence.

If however the previous post makes sense or your mind is open enough to accept the possibility that there is underlying truth in what I said then continue reading. It is my goal here to build a house of cards. The house starts with a foundation and layers can be built upon the previous layer and the goal is to see if we can knock over this house of cards. I have not had any luck knocking down the house of cards in the last 20 years so maybe some enlightened folks can find the cards that are not strong enough to hold the support above them. If that happens and I can't put a stronger card in its place then the house falls down and we learn something.

So layer 1 is the concept that there are no smallest units or largest units of time, distance, or energy. Secondly, all measurements can be viewed from 2 frames of reference. Inside the unit looking at the smaller and larger units or external and removed from the unit looking at the unit as a fixed representation of a measurement. Lastly there is no first second of time and can be no last second of time. There is no edge or boundary to space. Even a pure vacuum must exist in the 3 dimensions of height, width, and length. We can use universe with a lower case u to represent all that we know about our universe going inwards and outwards limited by the current scientific precision of our instruments and Universe with an uppercase U to represent an infinite never beginning and never ending
Space Time continuum that has always existed and will always exist.

If that makes sense then I submit that our known universe as one of an infinite number of universes of similar size most likely revolves around another universe that is somewhat larger and much more dense. It is possible that multiple universes about the size of ours may also revolve around this larger denser universe. This structure that is hard to imagine has a diameter of the outermost orbit of the outmost universe circling the large dense center. This entire structure is revolving around another similar multi-universe that itself is much more dense and therefore more powerful. Angular momentum, inertia, centripetal and centrifugal forces, gravity, and electromagnetic attraction bind these structures together the same way our solar system galaxies hold themselves together. (the argument people usually make here is that the galaxies are all moving away from each other and our universe is expanding and there is no central mass holding it all together) . I submit what we see is because we are inside the frame of reference we are trying to observe and have not observed it long enough to make a fully qualified analysis of the data we have received. Step outside our known universe and watch it evolve for 14,000 trillion years not just 14 billion and see what happens. Or monitor it with precise accuracy for the next 1,000 years and see what the results of the data tell us.

So, I submit that this chain of larger and larger universes circling more dense universes do so in a chain of succession. But there is a catch. At some point this large universe finds itself mixed up with more universes of its own size and density and there is no central large mass universe to orbit around. So instead they bounce off each other in a state of flux much like the way atoms bounce off each other in a state of flux.

If there is an infinite progression of smaller and smaller subatomic particles then when 2 atoms bounce off each other the nucleus does not really touch each other just the outermost electron in the outermost electron shells. And if these electrons are in fact made up of smaller particles then it is those two smallest particles that actually collide. And if those particles are made of smaller particles then so on and so on. So two electrons spin around their atoms at pretty high rates of speed compared to their own size. If these are made up of smaller particles in orbit around a denser mass then the speed of these particles is even greater than the speed of the electrons relative to each other. So every single atomic collision is actually an infinite progression of collisions between smaller particles of matter that happens in our frame of reference in a nanosecond but to the frame of reference 1 trillion times smaller than a lepton maybe this takes what seems like a week or a year. And at a septillion times smaller maybe it seems like a billion years ?? We may never know. My point is that our big bang could have been a collision between two atoms in normal flux.

Ok, that's the next layer in the house of cards. The house has a bunch more but before we go much further I'm ready to respond to pot shots at knocking down the house of cards and if after a little while the house is still standing we can start building on it again.

That's my 2 cents, rebate forms available upon request,

Nipok; welcome to the fray;

your presentation is fully understandable, and if you would check back to my earlier posts, you will find our concepts of universality, and infinity mesh quite well; i see this as the only rational possibility (with some unimportant details varying somewhat).

one suggestion, though; at the end of your post, your attention to continuity flags a bit, and some thoughts become a challenge to make out; i would recommend your use of the 'edit' button, and that you check the grammar, and intent of your final phrases.

[your two cents is worth at least a nickel!]

Re: To infinity and beyond ...


nipok,

Welcome. Listening, listening...sounds good so far. Keep building the house, no one is taking pot shots!
We'd rather wait til you finish building the entire structure, then tear it all apart in one fell swoop. Just joking...I think.

I'm impressed with the general ability shown here to persist with the question "Is the universe infinite?" I can't begin to consider the nature of the universe (as if it were a bounded "thing") or infinity (a condition of spatial and temporal boundeddlessness). The proper posture for examining this issue is paralysis. If there is a universe, it is finite by definition, but if the WORD, universe, violates the nature of that to which we misapply the word exists, to say it is infinite implies we know something about it. Aggh.

We all seem to have been able to get our minds around concepts of time and space. Once we can get our mind around a concept of infinity and decide that in all probability the universe extends into it, then the next thing to get our minds around is whether time travel--we all agree that sooner or later time travel will be possible, yes?--will time travel also extend into infinity and how will that affect time as we know it?

nipok,

I am sorry that we won't be able to argue overmuch as you have described a Universe that I have been living in for several years now.

BoGoWo may remember my comment ("Big Bangs" twinkling on and off all over the place) two or three years ago.

Since that time though I have become more convinced that PROBABLY the "Big Bang" Never Happened. (Also a book title by Eric J. Lerner) and IMO the most likly explanation for the "Red Shift", the Cosmic Microwave Background Radiation is that they are simply optical illusions that result merely because "light" in the presence of mass, time, and distance acts like we observe it to act. I hate to point out that a rainbow is a difficult thing to catch for similar reasons, and our beautiful blue sky is another thing that does not exist outside of our perceptions and imaginations.

So welcome to the club. There are probably an infinite number of us scattered around throughout space-time.

And some of us don't think that we are here at all.

There are some perfectly good reasons to believe in a "Big Bang" scenario. Unfortunetly I am afraid that pecuniary interests have reigned supreme. Not an unusual state of affairs in the histories of the philosophies of humans. Good Evening, M

Foxfyre,

I have noticed that "the speed of light" being an absolute speed limit is is required to make relativity theory work. There fore there is still some reason to hope for time travel.

Mechanically speaking I see no reason why it should not be possible to travel faster than light thusly allowing long distance trips. But I have some doubts as to whether we would get younger

However if one traveled faster than light then one would no longer be in "Our Observable Universe" so there for as per Mr. Einstein nothing in the universe can travel faster than light (and still be in our universe :wink: ). It seems to me that that is more a matter of definitions than good hard mechanics, although there is little doubt that if one can unlock an atom then one can release a tremendous amount of energy which presumeably was available as some point to pack it in there. E=Mc squared or the reverse and other perimutations of the equation.

What is actually being said is that we cannot observe anything that is exceeding the speed at which light propagates.

Sounds a bit "lawyerlike" to me..

<I> to infinity and beyond </i> (and back again
It is a sincere pleasure making your acquaintances. I do apologize if I am re-stating what to each of us and hopefully many others seems clear as day and may have already been posted before in this thread or another one. Although I asked for an argument, it's much more of a relief to find some similar thinking folks to bounce ideas off of just as much. The three of you seem able to grasp that inside of every quark and every lepton is an infinite chain of smaller particles that at some point most likely contains conscious self-aware life forms on them. Thus the deduction that evolution has the ability to be an infinite process capable of expanding outwards from inside the atomic layer into our known significant universe and beyond. Given a sustainable environment life could evolve forever. (not to get too far off track but the meaning of life that seems to elude so many of us for so many years seems pretty simple. Bond together as a species and provide for the greatest quality of life for the largest number of living organisms with the overall goal of allowing the largest number of living organisms created on this planet to escape this planets inevitable destruction.) But we digress ….

False. That result is derived from Special Relativity. It is not a postulate from which Special Relativity is derived.


The reason is that it would take an infinite amount of energy to accelerate any matter, even one single electron, to the speed of light.


No, it is a derived mathematical result from the equations of Special Relativity. In the century since Einstein's paper appeared, relativistic mechanics has been tested and verified, and the theory studied by countless scientists all over the world, and it is still the accepted theory. Particle accelerators use relativistic mechanics to determine how strong the fields that bend the particle beam need to be. They would not work if the equations were not obeyed to many decimal places.


What is being said is that as a material object is accelerated, its mass increases so that it would require an infinite amount of energy to accelerate anything to the speed of light.

Since you are asserting that some of the basic underpinnings of Physics are incorrect, may I ask what your qualifications are in this area? This is neither philosophy nor art criticism. Theories in Physics are never revised by people who know nothing about them.

<b>Basically we can not with any certainity say what happens to objects as they closely approach and surpass the speed of light (in respect to the same frame of reference). Time dialation (the equation that has been proven by experiment and is the basis for time travel theories) would relagate time for an object moving faster than the speed of light to be the square of a negative number. 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. (there is also no reason to assume that it is even possible to move an object faster than the speed of light so time travel could very well be a fanciful yet mute point)</b>

Brandon writes


But Brandon, that is assuming that we have all the mathematics and physics that are available to have. I don't accept that. We have come as far as we have because brave people, many at the risk of their very lives, dared to color outside the lines, dared to think outside the box. There is no way that I can accept that the Starship Enterprise or particle transporters or time warps are beyond the scope of human ingenuity. The ones who dare to imagine are the ones who will spur science to keep pushing the envelope. If we limit ourselves to what we know now, we're going to miss out on all the best stuff.

There may well be a way around the restriction, Foxy, but it would have to be a way around it. The fact remains that Einstein started with two very simple postulates and derived the rest with math, and that in the 99 years since, (a) countless tests confirm the theory, (b) after generations of physicists have inspected the theory, it is utterly accepted in the physics community.

There may be a way around the theory, but I doubt there's a way through it. I was originally and for many years a physicist, and I am annoyed when people (not you) who have no familiarity whatever with my former profession state confidently that basic features of it are incorrect in posts that clearly indicate a lack of familiarity. It's just a pet peeve sort of thing.