Why can't the universe be Infinite?

[ryan2006]

Have you ever taken highschool trig? You learn about quadrants and inequalities. Greater or less thans. 1 is greater than .001 5 is less than 8. Well we study calculus to find porabolas or the trajectory of a spaceshuttle entering earths orbit. What I am saying is that the flux capacitator please laugh the FLUX is spiraled inequalities of that shape or design.

[ughaibu]

Is this a demonstration of infinity?

[ryan2006]

Demonstrations do set out to prove something. Since I realize that I am not the Alpha and Omega I refuse to comment further. I will say that putting a 1 in front of ten kazillion zero's is not even close to infinitity if you have the time to count that high. What do you see over your horizon if you have never been there?

[Pyrotex]

Infinity is not just a big number you can throw around. If the universe is "infinite" in the common sense of being "bigger than any biggest you can think of", then we must conclude that the universe has infinite volume, infinite mass, infinite energy. For this to be distributed as thinly as we observe, we may have to conclude the universe is infinitely old.

 

But the observable universe is NOT infinitely old, and certainly is not infinite in any other respect as well. We have lots of excellent evidence that the observable universe is about 13.7 Billion years old, and originated from a single "point" source. (I use the word "point" very loosely here.)

 

What we know about the laws of the universe (physics, etc.) tells us that a Big Bang having infinite mass and energy simply does not make any sense. It does not fit AT ALL with such observations as the background microwave radiation as measured by the COBE probe. It becomes totally impossible to explain how an infinitely massive universe became so thinly distributed as we see now.

 

We could assume that the Big Bang was only one (finite) piece of a much larger (infinite) multi-verse. But then we are neck deep in pure speculation. As far as I know, there is no way to test that. Not just because we don't have the technology, but IN PRINCIPLE, there appears to be no way.

 

So, we are left with a conundrum. And notice how that "feelings" never entered the picture even once. :shrug:

[ryan2006]

Infinity is a tough subject. But I doubt nothing exists unless it is hell.

[Harry Costas]

Hello All

 

Pyrotex said

 

But the observable universe is NOT infinitely old, and certainly is not infinite in any other respect as well. We have lots of excellent evidence that the observable universe is about 13.7 Billion years old, and originated from a single "point" source. (I use the word "point" very loosely here.)

 

Where do you get the evidence from.

 

Its just a theory that people acepted as truth. L:ike the chinese whisper.

 

The universe is endless and agless because the cyclic process rejuvinates the dating process.

 

In with the new out with the old.

 

The question is: How does the recyclic process works.?

[ryan2006]

Here is a way to test infinity. Take a yard stick it equals 3 feet o.k. Then use your mind to extend both ends. Probability says you can imagine infinity without measuring it. Infinity is your imagination. When life on earth eventually dies I am sure there will be another life form somewhere based on probability that it is possible. O.K. so if we have a recycling universe process life will eventually come back so consciousness is a constant.

[Pyrotex]

...Where do you get the evidence from. It's just a theory that people acepted as truth. Like the chinese whisper.

Sorry, Harry, but that is not true. Just because you haven't come across the evidence and the reasoning, doesn't mean it doesn't exist. Read a few books on Cosmology. Science does not work on the "chinese whisper" process. Now I have heard many preachers say that from the pulpit, but they couldn't tell a fossil from a pinecone. The Universe is far stranger and more complex than any one person can understand or even imagine.

The universe is endless and ageless because the cyclic process rejuvinates the dating process....

These things are easy to say and easy to understand, but they amount to little more than folklore. It's like saying the world is just an island in a bowl of water balanced on the back of an elephant standing on a turtle, standing on a turtle, standing on more turtles all the way down. It's a pleasant image, something even a child could appreciate. It has a "completeness", a warm and fuzzy comfort. But it doesn't "explain" anything.

[quadrapod]

The conclusion that I seem to see in this mess it that nothing but a number line is infinite and then there are even values out of that grasp. The square root of negative one for instance. So based on that conclusion nothing could be infinite because nothing could ever meet the expectations of infinity. For something to truly be infinite it must be infinite in all respects. While the universe may extend outward forever it is composed mostly of nothingness. So in some respects the universe may have infinite attributes in other ways it is not infinite at all.

[coldcreation]

But the observable universe is NOT infinitely old, and certainly is not infinite in any other respect as well. We have lots of excellent evidence that the observable universe is about 13.7 Billion years old, and originated from a single "point" source. (I use the word "point" very loosely here.)

 

The entire above concept hinges on interpretation of observations. Would you care to tell us about the boundary condition at the horizon of this universe. Shed some light (no pun intended) if you will, on the "point" source at time t = 0 for the laymen amongst us.

 

What we know about the laws of the universe (physics, etc.) tells us that a Big Bang having infinite mass and energy simply does not make any sense. It does not fit AT ALL with such observations as the background microwave radiation as measured by the COBE probe. It becomes totally impossible to explain how an infinitely massive universe became so thinly distributed as we see now.:cup:

 

The mass need not be infinite.

 

We could assume that the Big Bang was only one (finite) piece of a much larger (infinite) multi-verse. But then we are neck deep in pure speculation. As far as I know, there is no way to test that. Not just because we don't have the technology, but IN PRINCIPLE, there appears to be no way.:umno:

 

Good call.

 

So, we are left with a conundrum. And notice how that "feelings" never entered the picture even once. :tongue:

 

I think the James Webb Space Telescope should make or break the different alternatives. Alternatives? There are no alternatives. QSSC died, along with Hoyle. Arp isn't far behind. Plasma is still lurking the halls of some lower echelon university dormatories. We appear stuck with a standard model that needs new physics (something that is not science, dark matter/energy etc), and more and more of it, everytime new observations present themselves.

 

Why can't the universe be infinite? It certanly can be.

Why can't it be finite. That is impossible (in my opinion). Because it leads to gross paradoxes where time and space curle in on themselves at the boundary at a time where no physical principle is capable of withstanding the mass-energy density or temperature.

 

Observations to determine unambiguously this question are not available. Only are interpretations. Conceptually, the finite universe seems untenable.

We'll have to wait a few more years for disproof to enter the arena in the form of old stellar populations near the horizon, some of which have already been discovered. That will be observationally based, not a theory-based, or a faith-based initiative.

[Pyrotex]

The entire above concept hinges on interpretation of observations. Would you care to tell us about the boundary condition at the horizon of this universe. Shed some light (no pun intended) if you will, on the "point" source at time t = 0 for the laymen amongst us.

Trick question and I won't take the bait. :weather_snowing: We do not know the boundary conditions at time t=0. We have some evidence for the state of the universe at t= a million years or so: the cosmic background radiation. There's some good speculation for it going back to years or even seconds after the Big Bang. There are even plausible models ("Inflation") going back to the first few nanoseconds, BUT, we are short on the 'cause-and-effect' and 'how-come' connections.

 

I would say we are at a point with the Big Bang NOW, that scientists were at with the photo-electric effect in 1900. They could fit math curves to the data and wave their hands over this or that conjecture, but the under-pinning physics escaped them -- until Uncle Albert's seminal paper, which won him the Nobel Prize in physics.

The mass need not be infinite.

I'm going to try to use math again. For all the good it will do me. :)

 

Assume a universe of infinite volume BUT assume a finite mass. What is the average mass density? Mass/Infinity = Zero. Do we observe a universe with mass density = zero? No.

 

Okay, most of the universe can be zero density, with only our part of the universe having non-zero density. What volume fraction of the total universe is our observed universe? Our volume/Infinity = Zero.

 

Let's try again. Assume a very very low density, d, of the universe. What is its mass? Infinity * d = Infinity. You can't get around it. (Unless you want to claim that math is so "obsolete".)

 

So, how can you have an infinite volume universe with finite MASS without assuming that our observable universe is a "special" place, a unique infinitesimally vanishingly teensy dot from the vast vastly vast infinitely vastly vast remainder of the universe? There is matter here and nowhere else for all infinity? Not tenable.

 

Bizarre answers demand bizarre evidence.

I think the James Webb Space Telescope should make or break the different alternatives.... We appear stuck with a standard model that needs new physics (something that is not...dark matter/energy etc....

I agree. More evidence is required. And there will still be a problem that has never been solved:

 

When we "look" at the distant universe, are we seeing an undistorted image? What effects do GigaLYears and the purported "non-flatness" of the universe -- on scales larger than our observable universe -- have on our observations???

 

There may be "forces" or "curvatures" or "fields" or "grymphimoggins" that exist across such vast scales of volume that we simply cannot detect them. Except for the unfortunate fact, that they distort our observations, rendering our estimates of distance and mass and brightness futile.

 

Perhaps the accellerated expansion of the universe that we "see" is only an image in a funhouse mirror!!!!!!!!! (DAMN those grymphimoggins!)

 

Could a single bloodcell understand "gravity" by observing its surrounding capillaries on a scale of, say 1 millimeter??? No.

 

It is my opinion (and only an opinion) that we are not very close at all to understanding the geometry of our universe and the boundary conditions of our Big Bang.

[coldcreation]

Trick question and I won't take the bait. :( We do not know the boundary conditions at time t=0. We have some evidence for the state of the universe at t= a million years or so: the cosmic background radiation. There's some good speculation for it going back to years or even seconds after the Big Bang. There are even plausible models ("Inflation") going back to the first few nanoseconds, BUT, we are short on the 'cause-and-effect' and 'how-come' connections. .

 

Trick question, not. The big bang theory used to be about an initial explosion, as the name implies. Then, due to mounting critique (no one knew what the heck it was), the idea moved away from an initial event to a time thereafter. It seems to me, the event itself is (or at least should be) an important part of the theory. Now, the event itself has been relegated outside of science. This is exactly what displeases me with current mainstream cosmology. It's built itself an entire edifice. The closer one gets to its "point" origin, the further one moves away from physics, until finally, the entire edifice falls to ruin. That would be at t = 0 of course.

 

The CMB is proof only that the local universe has a thermal blackbody radiation. That the CMB is a relic (a fossil soup) of a state (or event) that cannot be described using physics is a gross extrapolation.

 

Inflation plausible? I think not. The new physics (something again outside of science) involved is far to damning, especially the false vacuum, to be absorbed into the standard model. The problem is that without inflation (or some other version of the theory that can flatten the early universe: new inflation, chaotic inflation, open inflation, eternal inflation) the standard model is in deep trouble.

 

I would say we are at a point with the Big Bang NOW, that scientists were at with the photo-electric effect in 1900. They could fit math curves to the data and wave their hands over this or that conjecture, but the under-pinning physics escaped them -- until Uncle Albert's seminal paper, which won him the Nobel Prize in physics.I'm going to try to use math again. For all the good it will do me. :santa:.

 

This is extremely optimistic. I like that Pyrotex. I don't see another Her Einstein anywhere in the local universe, though.

 

Just for the sake of argument, if a new Einstein did materialize, what would you expect of him to shed light on the big bang, as used in your remark above, i.e., what should soon emerge? A theory of quantum gravity, a unified theory, a final theory, a physical solution linking string theory to nature somehow, M-theory along with prediction that could be tested? All of the above? None? Other?

 

Assume a universe of infinite volume BUT assume a finite mass. What is the average mass density? Mass/Infinity = Zero. Do we observe a universe with mass density = zero? No.

 

Okay, most of the universe can be zero density, with only our part of the universe having non-zero density. What volume fraction of the total universe is our observed universe? Our volume/Infinity = Zero.

 

Let's try again. Assume a very very low density, d, of the universe. What is its mass? Infinity * d = Infinity. You can't get around it. (Unless you want to claim that math is so "obsolete".).

 

I thought there where always problem whenever infinities and zeros popped up in mathematics. You sound like you control them very well. Though, you will not be surprized, I disagree with the reasoning behind it. It sounds like you neglect zero-point energy, when stretching a finite amount of mass to infinity. I assume you mean mass-energy. Usually one speaks of the mass-energy density of the universe.

 

So, how can you have an infinite volume universe with finite MASS without assuming that our observable universe is a "special" place, a unique infinitesimally vanishingly teensy dot from the vast vastly vast infinitely vastly vast remainder of the universe? There is matter here and nowhere else for all infinity? Not tenable..

 

Recall, according to observations (thanks to the speed of light c) we are in a very special place and time in the history of the universe. We are in the present, and the rest of the universe is in the past, to some extent or another. Because of that, we should be able to detect any evolution in the lookback time, presuming the evolution occurs on timescales compatible with the horizon (say 10-15Gyrs or so). In short, your "Not tenable..." used above is not reasonable. The answer really depends observationally on when the light was emited, or where we consider. Example: If there were a dark-age just near the horizon as predicted by the big bang BB, preceeded by infinite curvature as you tend toward the BB, then your statement above is not valid.

 

Or, there could exist a universe (it might even be this one) where much of the hydrogen and other light elements formed, say, 600-250Gyrs ago. In that case, we would see and live in a matter dominated epoch (here and now), whereas the etremely distant universe (spatiotemporally speaking) would be virtually empty (granted there would still be ZPE and ZPF).

 

Any infinite universe where matter is created progressively there will be a present time from where beyond that (in the lookback time) the mass density tends toward zero, ad infinitium. Tenable.

 

[

When we "look" at the distant universe, are we seeing an undistorted image? What effects do GigaLYears and the purported "non-flatness" of the universe -- on scales larger than our observable universe -- have on our observations??? .

 

This can easily be interpreted, calculated, determined.

 

 

snip...

 

It is my opinion (and only an opinion) that we are not very close at all to understanding the geometry of our universe and the boundary conditions of our Big Bang.

 

True, good call again.

 

Cosmology is fun.

[coldcreation]

Conclusion from my previous post:

 

It seems to me, the concept of a flat, finite universe (13.7 Gyrs old) is as archaic, short-sighted, jovial as when it was beleived the Earth was flat, and that the Galaxy was all there was in a vast sea of empty space.

 

The interpretation of the so-called evidence for a finite universe is not substantiated. It is at best speculative, and at worst, one of the greatest blunders ever engaged by the scientific community. Why?

 

Because the three mighty pillars of modern cosmology are built on sand: redshift z, CMB origin, light element abundance.

 

There is another viable interpretation for redshift z that does not lead to the collapse of thermodynamics, all the natural laws and fundamental theories of the 20th century (GR and QM).

 

The abundance of light elements observed requires, according to Hoyle and Burbidge (I have the full referrence if anyone would like it), 100 billion years to produce by stellar processes: fusion, novae and SNe etc.

 

According to my back-of-the-envelope calculations, the figure should be closer to 250 Gyrs. No need then for premordial creation in an extremely short timescale.

 

The CMB is predicted by all cosmology theories. The original prediction of BB cosmology was around 20 K. Later it was lowered to fit observations (I do not have the latter referrenced, but I'm quite sure to find it somewhere).

 

I won't go into Olbers paradox here, just to say that the other interpretation for redshift z renders it irrelevant just as the expansion of space did.

 

What we have is an infinite universe that is nonexpanding, noncontracting.

And most importantly, it is not is conflict with observational evidence.

 

Big bang cosmology used to be avant-garde, like abstract art used to be avant-garde, but today, both are surpassed by something altogether more radical.

 

Joviality is not just a game for children.

Merry Xmas, and happy Chanukah to all you future Einsteins.

 

Don't fight the chill.

 

Coldcreation

[kailas_knight]

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*

 

 

Hello, NIXALOT i'm a new member in this forum...

 

So in ur concept this universe is infinite,,,ok.... First of all let me remind u that we live in a four dimensional universe.... Length , Breadth ,Height and Time..... ie, we live in a universe that has the dimension of time... A universe in the dimension of time has to have had a begining and also it'll have an end... it cant be infinite , because time is not infinite.... Time represents change in something....without time there is no change ,ie, a static universe...A static universe is what that fits into ur concept ie, it had no starting , no change in state and never ends ...ie, an

infinite universe...

 

 

The most widely accepted theory about the origin of the universe is BIG BANG .... But i'm not a believer of BIG BANG....still , there are thousands of evidences like cosmic background Radiation to prove it's true...

 

A new theory has been developed ,it's called : EKPYROTIC theory of the origin of the universe...

 

Now let me answer ur questions as best as i can...

 

QUESTION (1)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.

 

 

Ans: The distance taken by a light or radiation to get to earth is measured in Light Year. EG: if a radiation reaches us from 200 light years away,,then it means that ,that light or radiation was emitted 200 years ago ,so the universe had to be there at the time that radiation was emitted....ie 200 yrs ago...actually the universe is much much old....

 

QUESTION (2): I know that there are many articles out there that say that there is no such thing as infinity, but why?

 

Ans: As i have said above we live in the dimension of time, so in this universe everything has a begining and everything will end...even this universe..

There are theories about parrallel universes and multiple universes.......

 

Ur concept of infinite universe is applicable to a hyperdimensional or lower dimensional universe only .ie, a universe outside of time...

 

We cant imagine infinity coz , we wont know what's infinity coz, we age and we die...that's the simplest explaination...

 

QUESTION (3):If for centuries people could believe that God is there and has always been, then why not apply that to the Universe?

 

Ans: God is our creator and so he is a hyper dimensional being ,ie, he is in a higher dimension.... God is outside of time ,so God always existed and will exist for ever.... But God can only build universes that is lower than his dimension ie , God can only build universes with lower no of dimensions than his own ......

there is also a formula for this...

 

if there are " n " elements then degrees of freedom is "n-1"...

 

EG : consider a+b+c=3 , here we can freely assume values for only any 2 variables

 

ie if a=2 and b=4 , then the value of the third variable has to be "-3"... ie

the value of the nth variable is automatically determined according to the values of the other "n-1" variables..

 

what i meant to say is that GOD can only create universes with lesser no of dimensions than his own. GOD cannot create an infinite universe inside the dimension of time.. if that universe has time, then it will end at some point in time.. His abilities are limited too..

 

QUESTION(4):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…

 

Ans: No one can say that there is nothing past the extending universe..

but can only say that there is possibly a world with higher dimensions than our universe...which is beyond our wildest imaginations...According to STRING theory and SUPER STRING theory there are 10 dimensions....alltogether ,but the rest of the six dimensions are curled up into a microscopic ball that can't be detected, but it's present everywhere..

 

There is no such thing as absolute nothing ,there has to be something ,can u imagine a place with nothing , if u can imagine a place like that , it wouldn't be nothing coz, that place itself is something ... get it???

the BIG BANG theory says that time and space began with BIG BANG , then

if space began with BIG BANG, then before the BIG BANG where did that COSIMC ball responsible for the BIG BANG , stand ..it had to be contained in something ..COZ emptiness can't contain anything , so there had to be something..... So "nothing" doesn't exist....

 

 

 

I hope atleast some of your doubts are cleared....

 

if u have any doubts in anything i said , u can mail it to me

my address is [email protected]

[coldcreation]

Hello, NIXALOT i'm a new member in this forum...

 

snip... A universe in the dimension of time has to have had a begining and also it'll have an end... it cant be infinite , because time is not infinite.... Time represents change in something....without time there is no change ,ie, a static universe...A static universe is what that fits into ur concept ie, it had no starting , no change in state and never ends ...ie, an

infinite universe...

 

Welcome to the forum.

This is going to be fun.

Where did you get this information? It makes no sense. Can you provide a referrence?

 

The most widely accepted theory about the origin of the universe is BIG BANG .... But i'm not a believer of BIG BANG....still , there are thousands of evidences like cosmic background Radiation to prove it's true...

 

Thousands? Try three. One down two to go.

There is no proof, only evidence to be interpreted.

 

A new theory has been developed ,it's called : EKPYROTIC theory of the origin of the universe...

 

The author of the theory you mention has abandoned the idea himself. I don't think anyone is even thinking about it anynore, let alone Steinhardt.

It was a no-braner. (:().

 

Ans: As i have said above we live in the dimension of time, so in this universe everything has a begining and everything will end...even this universe..

There are theories about parrallel universes and multiple universes.......

 

The end of the universe. I can imagine what knind of movie that would make.

 

 

Ur concept of infinite universe is applicable to a hyperdimensional or lower dimensional universe only .ie, a universe outside of time...

 

Outside of time. Hi hi hi.

 

Ans: God is our creator and so he is a hyper dimensional being ,ie, he is in a higher dimension.... God is outside of time ,so God always existed and will exist for ever.... But God can only build universes that is lower than his dimension ie , God can only build universes with lower no of dimensions than his own ......

there is also a formula for this...

 

A hyper dimensional being. Hi hi. You are a perfact candidate for reading Thus Spoke Zarathustra.

 

 

what i meant to say is that GOD can only create universes with lesser no of dimensions than his own. GOD cannot create an infinite universe inside the dimension of time.. if that universe has time, then it will end at some point in time.. His abilities are limited too..

 

I noticed you write god and big bang in capitals as if superior to man. I don't think so.

 

You may have noticed that there is a theology section here at Hypography, especially for this type of discussion. Though it could be argued that since science is discussed there too, why not discuss HE here. Good Point. And if HE is equal to BB then this is the right place to discuss both HE and the BB.

Are there any objections?

 

My person view is the HE has nothing to do with anything related to cosmology, but does have much to do with the human psyche (that then enters the domain of science, albeit, throught the back door).

 

Ans: No one can say that there is nothing past the extending universe..

but can only say that there is possibly a world with higher dimensions than our universe...which is beyond our wildest imaginations...snip

 

HE?

 

There is no such thing as absolute nothing ,there has to be something ,can u imagine a place with nothing , if u can imagine a place like that , it wouldn't be nothing coz, that place itself is something ... get it???

the BIG BANG theory says that time and space began with BIG BANG , then

if space began with BIG BANG, then before the BIG BANG where did that COSIMC ball responsible for the BIG BANG , stand ..it had to be contained in something ..COZ emptiness can't contain anything , so there had to be something..... So "nothing" doesn't exist....

 

HE?

 

I hope atleast some of your doubts are cleared....

 

Hmm

 

if u have any doubts in anything i said , u can mail it to me

my address is [email protected]

 

Why an email, why not just come back here and read the posts.

 

Merry Xmas

[coldcreation]

see next post

[coldcreation]

hi it's me kailas_knight ,

 

I read ur reply , and i see ur pretty sceptic .... if u need evidence about the things i said about time , consider searching it in the web....

 

Even scientists have agreed that if there is God out there , god would be

a hyperdimensional being...... and the concept of white hole has indeed

been specified in the theory of relativity..

 

consider searching the web for "Einstein-Rosen" bridge or worm hole or

"white hole" itself and u'll get ur answer......

 

In my reply to NIXALOT ,i specified the existence of god coz,

in his thread , he wanted to knw y god can exist for eternity and y not apply it to universe .......and not coz i wanted to involve god in science....

 

 

Really ,do u think that all the explanation i gave as reply to that post

is perfect non sense..?

 

Has the EKPYROTIK theory really been abandoned by it's author..? and

 

please tell me y do u think that go is not superior to us..?

 

 

kailas_knight ...

 

 

Please answer questions, and reply in the correct thread. The Redshift z thread, where I found the above text, has nothing to do with what you wrote. I took the liberty to move your text here where it belongs.

 

I am still waiting for a referrence...