Is the universe infinite?

[riversol]

After taking an astronomy course, I contest that the Universe is finite in linear size. Begin with the fact that the OBSERVABLE Universe IS FINITE in size due to the limitation of the speed of light, which gives us a sphere equalt to c*T where T is the age of the Universe.

 

Current theory supports a UNIFORM distribution of matter supporting a Big Bang which initiated simultaneous everywhere beginning the accelerative expansion of the universe. It seems cosmologists jump to an assumption that because there is no OBSERVABLE edge that the FULL Universe needs must be INFINITE in size.

 

The fallacy is that the same observation could be made if the Universe was finite but relatively large compared to the OBSERVABLE Universe. (think of an atom in the middle of an ocean--the odds that the atom are close to the edge are extremely low relative to the atom's size).

 

Simply, since the linear spatial size of the Universe is outside of our observable Universe, we cannot know if it is finite or infinite. It seems more likely that the total Universe is finite. Add in the idea of UNOBSERVABLE multiverses and it seems much more likely that there is potentially an infinite progression leading to an Infiniverse of sorts. (i.e. a finite number of atoms in a finite number of drops in a finite number of oceans on a finite number of earthlike planets in a finite number of star systems in a finite number of galaxies in a finite number of multiverses in a finite number multi-multiverses...etc.)

 

So one must be clear in what we're calling the capital U Universe. This progression would seem to be infinite, but I think it is specious to assume too much about the universe outside our sphere of observation. Perhaps one day a hole will appear in the cosmic backround radiative edge of the Universe...until then it is all conjecture.

[snoopdogg]

I think the real question I proposed is wither Time is infinite. Again if there is a multiverse and we are in a finite universe that is part of this multiverse, this would imply that one universe came before or after another. This cannot be the case since time itself is Space-Time and is a function of our universe. We cannot possibly observe the outer edges of our universe because the limitation of light speed and time. To look into a region without time is not possible. Even if there were to be an edge and we lived right next to it, we could not observe it. The wave of time would only allow us to see ourselves and everything around in a central location. It is very hard for us to understand what time is, nobody knows. Although we do theorize that time is relative and that time IS space. Since space can be moved so can time. This in tern creates an allusion of infinite. We always want to know what came before or after. The question is, is what is before and after.

[modest]

...It seems cosmologists jump to an assumption that because there is no OBSERVABLE edge that the FULL Universe needs must be INFINITE in size.

 

The fallacy is that...

 

Cosmologists do not use such an argument.

 

Actually, that the CMB does not repeat itself across the sky (which might be loosely stated as there being no observable size) only gives the conclusion that the entire universe is greater than 78 billion lightyears in diameter. This was established in Cornish et al 2004.

 

That the universe is possibly spatially infinite is implied by a different argument. Namely, that the Robertson Walker metric is spatially infinite if space is flat or if curvature is negative. One rather clever way of testing this is to use a really big triangle and see what the angles add up to. If it is 180 or less then space is flat or negativly curved which implies infinite spatial extent. Such an experiment has come to fruition showing that space is flat at large scales. A sparse description is.... here...

 

How Do We Know the Universe is Flat? : EveryJoe - Sports News – Tech Reviews – Entertainment – Life Tips for EveryJoe

 

While this implies infinite spatial extent, we really don't know the geometry of the universe beyond our local visible bubble, so the argument gives no certainty.

 

~modest

[snoopdogg]

You are correct if we measure the universe it appears to be expanding at an accelerated rate and does seem to be flat. So just by measurement we are unable to answer the question wither or not the universe is infinite. But there is the problem with measurement itself, (the two slit experiment). Our results are going to be skewed just by perceiving results. However we can find these answers using other means besides measurement. We can use thought. If the universe is infinite, this means that the probability of any one object, thought or energy (all being the same thing), will repeat itself an infinite amount of times and it has to. Yet we know from conscious thought that our existence and place here is singularly unique... There is not an infinite you's and infinite me's. Even if we are in a finite universe within the multiverse (which we are not), the reoccurrence of everything being infinite would still happen. It has to be finite, with INDETERMINATE properties.

[modest]

If the universe is infinite, this means that the probability of any one object, thought or energy (all being the same thing), will repeat itself an infinite amount of times and it has to. Yet we know from conscious thought that our existence and place here is singularly unique.

 

You've made this claim a couple times without explaining why infinite spatial extent necessitates human recollection of something... non-unique... and it seems quite a strange conclusion to me. Do you have a link or any sort of scientific source that would support this argument? I'd be very curious to read about it.

 

~modest

[snoopdogg]

You've made this claim a couple times without explaining why infinite spatial extent necessitates human recollection of something... non-unique... and it seems quite a strange conclusion to me. Do you have a link or any sort of scientific source that would support this argument? I'd be very curious to read about it.

 

~modest

 

It is pretty well accepted that Space and time are the same. Read Einstein’s papers on relativity. And most quantum physics will agree. There is no need to send a link, for any research you do will show this (look any wear). I am clearly not stating that if we were infinite we would be able to recall it. I am saying that instinctually and intuitively most people would agree that our experience in this existence is unique. If spactime were to be infinite (mind experiment) the probabilities that earth and all its glory, would have to be infinite as well.

 

Here’s a way to see it; if you take all the colors of the rainbow you would have an infinite number of colors because you could always break them down. However when you look at all the colors at once displayed randomly you only have one color (probably grey). That's the answer 1. 1/1 = 1 .. Infinite/Infinite = 1 . One is a finite number.

[Boerseun]

However when you look at all the colors at once displayed randomly you only have one color (probably grey).

When you see all the colours at once, you see white.

 

In an infinite universe, anything is possible, provided it follows the laws of nature. For instance, you can find a terrified duck in a sealed refrigerator slowly orbiting a lead banana somewhere in space. But there is no ways the laws of nature as we know it can permit this to happen spontaneously, so if you were to find such a strange setup, it would be a 99.99999% sure indicator of a planet with a few bored nerds closeby - not because space is infinite and ducks and refrigerators just pop into empty space by themselves.

[modest]

It is pretty well accepted that Space and time are the same. Read Einstein’s papers on relativity.

 

Space and time are both dimensions in relativistic spacetime, but they are not the same. If you look at the signature of Minkowski's metric you will see that time carries an opposite sign from the spatial dimensions. Put succinctly,

 

...even in Relativity the dimension of time is not exactly the same as the dimensions of space. That is the most intuitively obvious in the "separation" formula: [math]\Delta s^2 = \Delta t^2 - (\Delta x^2 + \Delta y^2 + \Delta z^2)/c^2[/math]. Here the Pythagorean formula for changes in spatial location, divided by the velocity of light squared, is subtracted from the change in time squared, to give the spacetime "separation" in units of time. Thus time is not treated as simply another spatial dimension. Thus we must consider the differences between space and time...

Non-Euclidean Geometry

What Minkowski did was to combine space and time into a single manifold—an idea Einstein embraced in general relativity. But, combining these two things into a single manifold is distinctly different from saying the two concepts are the same thing. Time is not the same as space.

 

Standard cosmology is based on the FLRW metric which is an exact solution to general relativity. In that metric, and in standard cosmology, the universe can easily have a finite age and be spatially infinite. In fact, according to standard cosmology if the universe is infinitely old then it must be spatially finite. This is easiest to demonstrate with a plot of the Omega terms of the Friedmann equation,

-

source

Everything above the line marked "closed/flat/open" is a spatially finite universe. The area marked "no big bang" is an infinitely old universe. The area is entirely above the line meaning that infinite age can only be claimed in a spatially finite universe according to standard relativistic cosmology.

 

There is no need to send a link, for any research you do will show this (look any wear).

 

You might want to take a look at the site rules regarding the supporting of claims.

 

I am clearly not stating that if we were infinite we would be able to recall it.

 

That's very good, because that is the part I take issue with. Even if space were infinite and there were an exact copy of me out there some infinite-ish distance away, I don't see how the rest of your conclusions follow. There is no expected causal connection between the other me and I given the large distance. So, my lack of experience regarding the other me, or my feeling of uniqueness, should tell me nothing scientific about spatial extent.

 

I am saying that instinctually and intuitively most people would agree that our experience in this existence is unique.

 

While I appreciate that you might feel this way, it would be inappropriate to use such reasoning in the empirical sciences.

 

~modest

[snoopdogg]

I know the rules, and appreciate your interest in these ideas. We need to give proofs as not to just say you can't prove me wrong. That would be a cop out and pointless. I did not join this sight to try to sound smart. I want to learn and expand on ideas I have had for many years. Quoting physics is a lot like one who quotes the Bible. It only requires a good memory. We need to go beyond current physics and take a leap to find answers. The only way we can do this is through thought, that's my proof. If modern physics had all the answers than we would already have a GUT, but we don't. However we can use the current accepted ideas and expand on them, through thought. Outside of Newton’s laws most of the math in current physics has been tweaked or flawed to represent one scientist belief over another’s. Or we could always spend another 40 years barking up the wrong tree.

 

First I will talk about time and why it is the same thing as space. In all your proofs the equations are based on a measurement of time. You know that this measurement of time cannot be correct, because of the measurement problem. For us to say that one moment will follow the next in a straight arrow of time is just flawed. And then to make more assumption of space and time based on this straight arrow is wrong. We can however make assumptions that time is curved, given that on the micro level particles SEEM to follow whatever time line they like. It is very risky to separate the two. This is probably the reason why we cannot find the GUT. Since all measurement rely on time. Further more simplicity is the key. Quantum theory shows us that the four major forces are probably just one force, but we cannot make the connection. Gravity just won’t behave. I think it is strange that we use space and time as a medium for energy to react on or in. Could it not be the other way around? Time does not happen without motion and motion does not happen without space.

 

Now let’s talk about infinite. Suppose we had a quantum computer capable of changing simple on and off switches to colors. We could then have almost infinite memory and computing abilities. Now take this computer and create a virtual universe. The information stored within that virtual universe would appear infinite from inside. Yet outside the program there are finite and set boundaries (say the on/off switch). We are in such a program and it does appear to be infinite from our perspective, but there is only one program and one is finite.

[snoopdogg]

I know the rules, and appreciate your interest in these ideas. We need to give proofs as not to just say you can't prove me wrong. That would be a cop out and pointless. I did not join this sight to try to sound smart. I want to learn and expand on ideas I have had for many years. Quoting physics is a lot like one who quotes the Bible. It only requires a good memory. We need to go beyond current physics and take a leap to find answers. The only way we can do this is through thought, that's my proof. If modern physics had all the answers than we would already have a GUT, but we don't. However we can use the current accepted ideas and expand on them, through thought. Outside of Newton’s laws most of the math in current physics has been tweaked or flawed to represent one scientist belief over another’s. Or we could always spend another 40 years barking up the wrong tree.

 

First I will talk about time and why it is the same thing as space. In all your proofs the equations are based on a measurement of time. You know that this measurement of time cannot be correct, because of the measurement problem. For us to say that one moment will follow the next in a straight arrow of time is just flawed. And then to make more assumption of space and time based on this straight arrow is wrong. We can however make assumptions that time is curved, given that on the micro level particles SEEM to follow whatever time line they like. It is very risky to separate the two. This is probably the reason why we cannot find the GUT. Since all measurement rely on time. Further more simplicity is the key. Quantum theory shows us that the four major forces are probably just one force, but we cannot make the connection. Gravity just won’t behave. I think it is strange that we use space and time as a medium for energy to react on or in. Could it not be the other way around? Time does not happen without motion and motion does not happen without space.

 

Now let’s talk about infinite. Suppose we had a quantum computer capable of changing simple on and off switches to colors. We could then have almost infinite memory and computing abilities. Now take this computer and create a virtual universe. The information stored within that virtual universe would appear infinite from inside. Yet outside the program there are finite and set boundaries (say the on/off switch). We are in such a program and it does appear to be infinite from our perspective, but there is only one program and one is finite.

[snoopdogg]

While I appreciate that you might feel this way, it would be inappropriate to use such reasoning in the empirical sciences.

 

~modest

 

Einstein relied on these methods constantly, who's to say what is appropriate or not when dealing with theory. Should we box ourselves in and not use all the tools available to us. Einstein after all believed in a creator. A creator would imply a finite existence.

[Little Bang]

Snoop, Albert believed the creator was the Universe. That was his God.

[snoopdogg]

Snoop, Albert believed the creator was the Universe. That was his God.

 

It’s irrelevant who Einstein believed was the creator.

[pamela]

The thread has wandered off topic and the OP has been thoroughly answered. The staff is, therefore, closing the thread.

 

Ideas of new physics can, of course, be explored in the alternative theories forum while issues of philosophy and theology are best-kept in their respective forums.