Why can't the universe be Infinite?

[Nixalot]

I have been reading several articles and papers by Stephen Hawking and, the two new noble prize winners, Smoot and Mather, and simply don't understand how by radiation and old light the universe can be given an age. I am a personal believer that the Universe is infinite and has always existed and that the reason that many people cannot see this is because it is impossible to imagine infinity. I know that there are many articles out there that say that there is no such thing as infinity, but why? Why is it that we think we must put an age, a label, some theorem on everything? If for centuries people could believe that God is there and has always been, then why not apply that to the Universe? And if the Big Bang theory is true, then what is past the extending universe… nothing? But if infinity can’t exist then nothing can’t exist… something else to talk about in another forum: What is Nothing? Anyway, I know that there is no definite answer out there but I just want to spur some ideas…

 

Peace

*NIXALOT*

[Buffy]

You would seem to be advocating for Hoyle's Steady State model, which is no longer fashionable, and this link has a very quick overview of why the evidence seems to show that the Big Bang is better supported. "Fear of the infinite" is not something even Hoyle would have posited as supporting his theory though...

 

If you're looking for models that celebrate the infinite, you may want to look into the various "multiverse" theories that theorize about other universes beyond our own. The main problem with these of course is that there's no way to show any evidence for them!

 

Infinitely curious,

Buffy

[C1ay]

It's entirely possible that the Universe is infinite but the observable Universe is finite. It should be clear that we will always be limited to a finite view in any direction from our observation point. No one will ever be able to show that anything does or does not lie beyond our observable range.

[hallenrm]

Why is it that we think we must put an age, a label, some theorem on everything? If for centuries people could believe that God is there and has always been, then why not apply that to the Universe? And if the Big Bang theory is true, then what is past the extending universe… nothing? But if infinity can’t exist then nothing can’t exist… something else to talk about in another forum: What is Nothing? Anyway, I know that there is no definite answer out there but I just want to spur some ideas…

 

Peace

*NIXALOT*

 

That's the method of science, dear Nixalot, Take it or leave it that's your choice!;) It does not encourage us to believe in the permanance of any concept, how so ever long it may have been in vogue, say that of God, or in any theory whether it is the Theory of relativity or that of Big Bang. Everything is taken as susceptible to change and future scrutiny.

 

In its attempt to explain phenomena, science has to introduce concepts, like infinity, which may not be easily assimilated by the brains of some people, but then the science marches on in its conquest :)

[durgatosh]

Nixalot

But if infinity can’t exist then nothing can’t exist… something else to talk about in another forum: What is Nothing? Anyway, I know that there is no definite answer out there but I just want to spur some ideas…

 

I would partly agree with you. I too believe that the universe is infinite and ever-existing. I have raised the issue of "zero (nothing)" and "infinity" in the thread I started, "The Origin of Universe: Solving the mystery". Take a look at it.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/astronomy-cosmology/8344-origin-universe-solving-mystery.html

 

In short, the sum total of the universe is zero (which explains that it does not need an origin). But, zero can't exist on its own and therefore exists as a vast multitude of positives and negatives, the sum total being zero. Zero represents the entire range of negative to positive infinity.

 

DP

[niin]

I am a personal believer that the Universe is infinite and has always existed

I think you are right. let's try some simple logic.

 

1) The universe exist

2) You can't get something from nothing

 

So the universe must always have existed.

 

Anyway, I know that there is no definite answer out there but I just want to spur some ideas

My answer seem kind of definite to me.

 

Don't let yourself be too impressed (or bullied) by mainstream science. Popularity does not prove anything

[quadrapod]

have you heard of the new energy they have found said to make up a huge percentage of the energy in the universe it is made by a minute form of nuclear fission and is apparently pulling every thing away from a center and in a sense the over all fate of our galaxy is worse than ever pictured before. we will drift forever until we are lonely and desolate without any chance of even sighting another galaxy or planet or anything ever again. hmmph truly sad. of course it will take so much time for that to happen that our galaxy is more likely to collide with a neighboring one first. which reminds me. this energy also holds together galaxies because it was before accepted that gravity held them together despite the fact gravity is far from strong enough to do this. This just proves that we like to convince ourselves of answers no matter how wrong they obviously are.

[InfiniteNow]

Specific terms, or cited evidence might help, but after reading this I am

[quadrapod]

I agree that some specifics may help

 

universes outward acceleration was found by measuring the "red shift" of many type 1a supernova. the "red" is the degree to which the electromagnetic waves that make up light have been stretched. from the start all type 1A supernovae have a uniform light signature. all the same color and brightness. using the degree of the red shift it is possible to determine this distance of galaxies and then the acceleration.

 

the energy is known as dark energy

the degree of "red" is also known as red shift

i found all this using

wikipedia.org

universe.nasa.gov/press/2003/031010a.html

agile.gsfc.nasa.gov/docs/swift/about_swift/redshift.html

[ronthepon]

Here is my personal (somewhat lame) attempt to explain the issue. I know that it has very obvious and apparent stupidities, but I think that it could have some effect.

 

Second law of thermodynamics:read: :

In an isolated system, the total entropy can only increase with time.

 

Observation:

The universe is not in a state of infinite entropy.:doh:

 

Assumption:

The universe is an isolated system.

 

Conclusion:

The universe has not been existing for an infinite amount of time.

 

I place it in a very simple, and crude form. I'm not even sure if the thermodynamics I'm using here is correct or not.

I need this to be analysed by someone who knows.

[quadrapod]

as a matter of fact the universe is in entropy. dark energy is the breakdown of minute sums of matter into energy. the universe is basically destroying itself by using up matter to fuel its very existence. so while the universe is theoretically infinite it will eventually meet with a point were it no longer contains matter

[Harry Costas]

Hello Quadropod

 

Mate, you got it wrong.

 

The universe is endless and yet has the ability to recycle.

 

Matter transorms to other phases of matter.

 

Some see it matter to energy and energy to matter.

Does not matter how you see it , its all matter of fact.

[Buffy]

Mate, you got it wrong.

 

The universe is endless and yet has the ability to recycle.

So Harry, are ya gonna clue us in as to why the issues mentioned in the link in post 2 above are all hogwash and steady state (or whatever your favorite alternate theory is) is correct? We'd love to hear! Its certainly better than having you just say "you got it wrong"....

 

Alternadata,

Buffy

[Pyrotex]

...But if infinity can’t exist then nothing can’t exist…

To start off with, we have to make sure we know what "infinity" is, don't we?

 

It took me years of higher level math and some philosophy to acquire a solid understanding of the concept of "infinity". Statements like the one you made at the top, tend to make me think your grasp of the concept is still pretty vague and fluffy. After all, we DO know that a finite (but VERY large) number of things actually DO exist; we can observe them.

 

"Infinity" on the other hand, cannot be said to "exist". It is not a thing. It is not even a number. It does not obey the rules of even simple arithmetic. It literally means "without end" or "without boundaries".

 

The universe *could* be "infinite" in that last sense if it were curved into a closed geometry with at least four spacial dimensions. Like say, a 4D "hypersphere". It would have no boundaries, no edges, no walls--just like the 2D surface of a 3D sphere. But the universe would still have a finite volume--just like the 2D surface of a 3D sphere.

[kmarinas86]

The claim that the universe is or is not infinite is a matter of feeling or opinion.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/9505-deriving-statements-scientificness-its-claim-structure.html

 

The claim that "matter is being recycled" depends on what must be done to to recycle matter and whether it is being done at all. When matter is being used up to release energy into space (which increases entropy), one must imagine that if the energy from space was retrieved by the matter again that it would be a decrease in entropy. In fact, what absorption of radiation does is to decrease the binding energy of materials. Enough radiation can turn elements with the greatest binding energy such as iron into elements with lower binding energy such as uranium or (especially) hydrogen.

 

 

What must be done in this case is the return to basic elements. The flow of radiation in our solar system and galaxy is divergent, therefore more radiation is being emitted at the solar system and galaxy than is being absorbed there. What must exist at the time of convergence of radiation is an attractor radiation. But this must occur when radiation is going down potential well(s). Since the radiation is spreading out so much, these potential wells must be very encompassing. Even black holes, as we usually think of them, are not broad enough to catch all the light from galaxies, because they are far to small in radius!

 

 

The image above shows electric field lines going from positive to negative.

 

A group of galaxies emitting a particular amount of radiation must have its radiation returned to matter in a consistent fashion. There must be a potential well to which the radiation is attracted whether that well forms in the future, or whether it exists somewhere else in space. In the context of the big bang, this implies a negative hubble constant. In the context of a fractal universe, this implies very large potential wells (wells billions of light years in diameter) situtated at other places in the universe. However with Hoyle's steady-state model, no very large potential wells are proposed, and the majority of radiation will seep endlessy in the steady-state expanding vacuum, while matter, created by the C-field, will emit further radiation.

 

Steady state theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

I have been reading several articles and papers by Stephen Hawking and, the two new noble prize winners, Smoot and Mather, and simply don't understand how by radiation and old light the universe can be given an age.

 

From states (e.g. redshifts) other states (e.g. co-moving distances, angular diameter distances, luminosity distances, and age of light) are deduced. Deduction of state(s) from other state(s) is characteristic of the thought process of feeling. Unfortunately, these kinds of deductions in and of themselves are unfalsifiable.

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/9505-deriving-statements-scientificness-its-claim-structure.html

 

I am a personal believer that the Universe is infinite and has always existed and that the reason that many people cannot see this is because it is impossible to imagine infinity. I know that there are many articles out there that say that there is no such thing as infinity, but why?

 

To answer this question about the status (state) of these articles, one can only give either a feeling or opinion. In my opinion, it is because people write these articles thinking that there is no such thing as an infinity. To explain that, I can only give a justification or revelation. I do not know in response to what events these people say these things, because experiences are varied. One could only then give you justifications for the opinion, and we are left without a revelation.

 

Why is it that we think we must put an age, a label, some theorem on everything?

 

To answer this question about our thinking, one can only give either a justification or revelation. We could ask the ourselves then, "why do we put an age, a label, some theorem on everything?". Again, this can only be answered by a justification or revelation. If the reason is because "we feel this way about it", then it is a justification. If, instead, the reason is, "because I learned from others the act of putting an age, label, or theorem on everything for some purpose", then it is a revelation.

 

If for centuries people could believe that God is there and has always been, then why not apply that to the Universe?

 

To answer this question about an act of reasoning, one can only give either a justification or revelation. If our reason is, "God and the universe are not the same thing", then we are making a justification, not a revelation. If our reason is, "it leads to an endless begging of the question", then we are making a revelation, not a justification.

 

And if the Big Bang theory is true, then what is past the extending universe… nothing?

 

If the answer was "nothing", the answer would only be a matter of feeling, because he we have a state (the purported truth of the Big Bang theory) implying another state (nothing past the extending universe). Any other possible answer to this question would be a matter of feeling or opinion.

 

But if infinity can’t exist then nothing can’t exist…

 

This is a statement of feeling.

 

something else to talk about in another forum: What is Nothing? Anyway, I know that there is no definite answer out there but I just want to spur some ideas…

 

Yes, there is no definite answer, or revelation associated with the question "What is nothing?". Only feelings and opinions:

 

http://hypography.com/forums/philosophy-humanities/9505-deriving-statements-scientificness-its-claim-structure.html

 

Peace

*NIXALOT*

 

Peace

*kmarinas86*

[ryan2006]

I believe the universe has an infinite signature. Some people on this site have asked me whether or not I have a way to test infinity. To me when they first said the earth was flat has lead us to find that we are not in the center of the cosmos (Briefly) I had proposed a much more infinite universe in my own isolated theory. However, I find no reason to believe that it is not this way. In high school math they teach you the infinity signature which is a figure eight set on it's side with Positive to reach in one direction and negative to reach in the other. In some theories it has been proposed that if you threw a ball into space it would eventually come back to you. This to me signified curved space and time. At closer inspection of tree life I noticed how they spiraled up into space. If you took cross sections of the rings I also been discussing that you would find a spiral signature, even in evergreens. This has considerable weight in how our universe operates. Our galaxy is spiral (the milky way) knowing this is key. Why? Because in a perfect circle nothing could seem to be infinite since we run into the problem of boundaries. Boundaries are important when considering two things 1)whether or not we can witness a galaxy colliding with it and 2) why the stars do not reflect a mirror effect as light might bounce off a crust. So a snail is very important because a circle is 360 degrees around while a spiral has a flux. I have actually tried to come up with a way to figure out inequalities of a spiral given the quadrants and the greater or lesser factors of the given shape of various snails may give an indication of the possibilities of not only how the universes light unravels not in a wave pattern but in a spiraling fashion. These are clues we can use to master our instruments to allow for flux. Flux is not a perfect circle it is the differences of inequalities of a spiral. This is important when factoring in the space time continuum because if you extend an arc into space such as an arc of light it will either be a perfect circle or an extension of an arc that is in flux which mean that is light travels like the corkscrew you use to take off the cork on a wine bottle. Furthermore I had written a little on taking specific measurements of the heat radiating from say a tangent of space at the most outer regions. Analyzing the scope of landscapes of a spiraled or unraveling universe may give further clues as to what the space time continuum is expanding into. Because honestly it can not expand into nothing if it is nothing doesn't exist. Therefore something (space and time) exists beyond what we believe to be the our understanding of the infinite.

[ughaibu]

Ryan2006: I cant understand what you're trying to say, could you sum it up in two or three sentences, please.