Is the universe finite or infinite?
- Thread starter 12sec. Civic
- 87 comments
- 3,216 views
- 2,281
scientists believe for the most part that the universe is infinite....i think that its a question of the way we think, in order to answer this question we will have to change the way we think....
everything we know, our entire life is based on our relationship with our world, but outside our world is the vastness of infinite space, ....i cant explain what i mean exactly...
anyway, scientists say that the universe is expanding,
Q1. How can something that is infinite expand?
Q2. What is space expanding INTO? there must be some 'space' beyond space to accommodate our expanding universe and therefore infinity has its boundaries?
....juxtaposing statements from people who have studied this all thier lifes...
i think the universe is a matter of conciousness, and conciousness is indeed infinite....(apparently)
everything we know, our entire life is based on our relationship with our world, but outside our world is the vastness of infinite space, ....i cant explain what i mean exactly...
anyway, scientists say that the universe is expanding,
Q1. How can something that is infinite expand?
Q2. What is space expanding INTO? there must be some 'space' beyond space to accommodate our expanding universe and therefore infinity has its boundaries?
....juxtaposing statements from people who have studied this all thier lifes...
i think the universe is a matter of conciousness, and conciousness is indeed infinite....(apparently)
- 2,281
there is a credible theory that the universe is toriodal...
a 3d donut shape...and like you say if to leave from one point you'll eventually travel round and meet yourself again...
- 1,695
SHAPE. I have a problem with any theory that gives the universe a shape. The only way we can understand a shape is that is takes up a finite amount of space. For their to be shape, you need to differentiate the areas where the shape exists within, or does not exist in. Well, whats happening in the area where the universe doesnt exist in? Whats their.
It is very true that we must change the whole way we think to even begin to come up with possibilities that dont propose such conundrums and contradictions.
Here we are, the proverbial dog chasing its tail. For now; but one of us could be the person that comes up with the next widely accepted theory.
- 5,716
to say that something is expanding (like many of you here have stated) sugests that the universe is indeed finite, for how can something so vast that it has no boundaries expand it's boundaries?
or
Is it that more that it is expanding within its boundaries?
but then that begs the question: If the universe is indeed finite, what lays beyond the universe?
I dont think this will be answered in OUR life time. we have barely explored our own solar system.
or
Is it that more that it is expanding within its boundaries?
but then that begs the question: If the universe is indeed finite, what lays beyond the universe?
I dont think this will be answered in OUR life time. we have barely explored our own solar system.
- 2,281
yeah well, for as long as mankind continues to wrestle with this conundrum, the toriod theory is just a difficult to disprove through theortcal, empirical or practical measurement as any other theory....and therefore just as valid.
we could be stood here dicussing what colour God's coffee table is.....you could asrgue its mahogany but i have heard a credible theory its pine, however some radical thought believes its teak (obviously radical)....
we just dont know yet...
- 10,832
Exactly. I wonder to what extent individual's opinions on this subject are nothing more than their personal wish. The sciences that examine "the universe" are continually befuddled, and every discovery, more than anything else, begs ever more questions (this is, of course, the beauty of science).
I detect at least a little irony in the fact that the creator of this thread is a self-proclaimed atheist while remaining insistent on one coneption of "the universe" that defies logic and phenomenological observation. Anyone with an iota of knowledge on the subject is able to argue for either an infinite or finite universe, and frankly, both are plausible. But when one answer, finite or infinite, becomes a conviction, one is no longer entitled to the distinction, "atheist".
- 8,191
- Southern Louisiana
- GTP_Kent
Im a nut... edited post to have no content... sorry.
Of course, I am also well grounded in reality and know that all of my rantings are crap. I do not have a PHD. and I do not have any previous experience with in-depth _________ . (what is this subject anyway, something crazy like "astro-phisics" ?
)
Of course, I am also well grounded in reality and know that all of my rantings are crap. I do not have a PHD. and I do not have any previous experience with in-depth _________ . (what is this subject anyway, something crazy like "astro-phisics" ?
)
- 267
I agreed with the 2nd person to post because as I read it I understood none of it and by the time I got to the end of it I was cross-eyed and drooling? So there is my reason!
- 327
In reading this thread, I have realized that we are still not in accord about what the definition of the question really is. It asked about the universe, and to some, it is defined as the group of matter that takes up volume and can be studied physically. To others, the universe is defined as space. For one to define the universe as matter requires that person to conclude that the universe is indeed finite. For the other to define the universe as space requires that person to conclude that the universe is infinite. The latter is due to the fact that space is a concept of nothingness, of unoccupied volume, omnipresent, and neverending, until it is interrupted by matter. Even when matter interrupts space, space is still what it was before anything was introduced. So to answer the initial question, it must first be agreed upon what the meaning of universe is. True, it has been given a dictionary definition, but we must still come about a unanimous decision about how to answer "what is the universe?"
Being one who has involved himself in science all his life, I have come about Einstein's theories that require the assumption of a finite universe. The common laws of physics that we all learn about in high school and on public television programming requires the assumption of this finite universe. Be informed, however, that this use of the term universe is, to us, still undefined. To my understanding, the classical use of the term encompasses all space. It is also true that these theories include the explanation of a finite, geometrically toroidal universe, which uses the analogy if traversing Earth in relation to space and time--if one travels north for a very long time, he or she will eventually pass the north pole and turn out to be travelling south. This analogy applies to the Big Bang in terms of space-time, where if one were to traverse through time for a very long period, he or she would reach the space-time equivalent of a south pole, end up traveling backwards through space-time, and replay the Big Bang in reverse. Once that is achieved, he or she will then hit the space-time equivalent of the north pole and replay the Big Bang once more in a type of Mobius strip of space-time, where in travelling, one will eventually return to his or her original location, in the same original direction. Now, this theory requires for us to assume a finite space and a finite time. Should you believe it? That is up to you. Do I believe it? Not without more evidence.
So what is my verdict about the containment of the universe? I would like to say that it is infinite, but not because of the aforementioned theories. As had been described, my "wish" seems to be that I want the universe to be finite, where answers lie beyond our capacity of knowledge and understanding. As a student of physics, I am used to finite spaces and finite matter; I am exposed to laws of gravitation, of thermodynamics, and of other common laws that govern our everyday lives. Because I am used to these laws, per se, I desire to expose the boundaries and limitations of their effectiveness. It was posted before that if the universe had a physical end, it must be true that the laws that we have all taken for granted are broken beyond those boundaries. As a matter of opinion, I say that that is true.
It has always been a mystery to myself why the laws of physics break down and are invalid in the very microscopic levels. To be more specific, I have wondered why a new physics must be applied to subatomic particles, such as the everyday electron. To me, if the laws of physics become null and void at such a level of examination, unthinkable to our classical scientists of ancient times, I believe it true that the same laws must be broken at macroscopic levels unthinkable by our minds today.
Physics Major at the University of California in Riverside
Being one who has involved himself in science all his life, I have come about Einstein's theories that require the assumption of a finite universe. The common laws of physics that we all learn about in high school and on public television programming requires the assumption of this finite universe. Be informed, however, that this use of the term universe is, to us, still undefined. To my understanding, the classical use of the term encompasses all space. It is also true that these theories include the explanation of a finite, geometrically toroidal universe, which uses the analogy if traversing Earth in relation to space and time--if one travels north for a very long time, he or she will eventually pass the north pole and turn out to be travelling south. This analogy applies to the Big Bang in terms of space-time, where if one were to traverse through time for a very long period, he or she would reach the space-time equivalent of a south pole, end up traveling backwards through space-time, and replay the Big Bang in reverse. Once that is achieved, he or she will then hit the space-time equivalent of the north pole and replay the Big Bang once more in a type of Mobius strip of space-time, where in travelling, one will eventually return to his or her original location, in the same original direction. Now, this theory requires for us to assume a finite space and a finite time. Should you believe it? That is up to you. Do I believe it? Not without more evidence.
So what is my verdict about the containment of the universe? I would like to say that it is infinite, but not because of the aforementioned theories. As had been described, my "wish" seems to be that I want the universe to be finite, where answers lie beyond our capacity of knowledge and understanding. As a student of physics, I am used to finite spaces and finite matter; I am exposed to laws of gravitation, of thermodynamics, and of other common laws that govern our everyday lives. Because I am used to these laws, per se, I desire to expose the boundaries and limitations of their effectiveness. It was posted before that if the universe had a physical end, it must be true that the laws that we have all taken for granted are broken beyond those boundaries. As a matter of opinion, I say that that is true.
It has always been a mystery to myself why the laws of physics break down and are invalid in the very microscopic levels. To be more specific, I have wondered why a new physics must be applied to subatomic particles, such as the everyday electron. To me, if the laws of physics become null and void at such a level of examination, unthinkable to our classical scientists of ancient times, I believe it true that the same laws must be broken at macroscopic levels unthinkable by our minds today.
Physics Major at the University of California in Riverside
- 1,695
No, you mean, agnostic.
An Atheist is sure there is no God.
An Agnostic does not have proof for either the existence or absence of God, so they remain un-convinced.
But, of course, any label is a general statement, to help people communicate easier.
I don't think many people are the exact archetype of a certain label.
I don't believe in God: Call me what you will.
I believe the universe is infinite: Call me what you will.
Try and avoid, arbitrary labels. Language is a vague thing.
Words are slippery.
- 1,695
Take the word frustrated.
I have feelings that go with the word. You have feelings, that go with the word. How do we know if we share the same feelings attached to that word.
This is well known, it has nothing to do with peoples laziness.
Words, are dead in a sense.
I have feelings that go with the word. You have feelings, that go with the word. How do we know if we share the same feelings attached to that word.
This is well known, it has nothing to do with peoples laziness.
Words, are dead in a sense.
- 10,081
- WFG9
I dunno. I think the question should be is it infantile.
- 3,194
Yup,... finite
Actually, they've come to the conclusion that the universe has passed it's half-way point for expansion and is currently contracting back to where it originally began
Actually, they've come to the conclusion that the universe has passed it's half-way point for expansion and is currently contracting back to where it originally began
- 3,194
From what I understand,.. the universe is FLAT......
- 3,194
Originally posted by Shadow
can there be more than 1 universe in existance?
yes..... becuase it's finite
- 1,695
Red Eye Racer:
The universe is NOT flat. Whoever told you that is your enemy. Maybe a single galaxy LOOKS flat from a distance. But the universe is not flat.
There is the possibility of there being other universes.
To explain it to you I will pretty much have to copy chapter 9 of "Brief History of Time". Universes that exist as singularities all over the place that "pop" in and out of existence. Our universe is one of these as well.
When, I say universe, I mean the matter and energy that is inside of it.
What (most sientists, including Stephen Hawking) think, is that our universe goes in EXTREMELY long cycles, between, being a singularity, expanding to a point where gravity overpowers the expanding, then it all crunchs back after a very long time, and becomes a singularity.
A singularity is bassically a black hole. But instead, of it being a collapsed star, it is the collapsed universe. A singularity, is defined as something that has enough mass that it will collapse in on itself, and the remaining mass will be infinitely dense. There is still all of the gravity, but just in the area the black hole takes up. Nothing can escape a black hole.
Black holes do die, because it is constantly exchanging particles for antiparticles. After a long time, it will slowly die.
So, if our universe expands a little longer, and then slows, and then falls back in on it self. Another one of these "baby" universes that is now existing as a singularity will expand out to take up some room.
Now, I am reffering to the clumps of mass as universes. But there is another term for universe. The space that exists around these universes. Stephen Hawkings says that this empty blackness would theoretically be infinite, and the mass of our "universe" keeps spreading out into the blackness as far as it needs.
Eventually all of the mass is going to clump together as a bigger and bigger singularity. Expanding and contracting, until maybe it stays as a singularity.
The universe is NOT flat. Whoever told you that is your enemy. Maybe a single galaxy LOOKS flat from a distance. But the universe is not flat.
There is the possibility of there being other universes.
To explain it to you I will pretty much have to copy chapter 9 of "Brief History of Time". Universes that exist as singularities all over the place that "pop" in and out of existence. Our universe is one of these as well.
When, I say universe, I mean the matter and energy that is inside of it.
What (most sientists, including Stephen Hawking) think, is that our universe goes in EXTREMELY long cycles, between, being a singularity, expanding to a point where gravity overpowers the expanding, then it all crunchs back after a very long time, and becomes a singularity.
A singularity is bassically a black hole. But instead, of it being a collapsed star, it is the collapsed universe. A singularity, is defined as something that has enough mass that it will collapse in on itself, and the remaining mass will be infinitely dense. There is still all of the gravity, but just in the area the black hole takes up. Nothing can escape a black hole.
Black holes do die, because it is constantly exchanging particles for antiparticles. After a long time, it will slowly die.
So, if our universe expands a little longer, and then slows, and then falls back in on it self. Another one of these "baby" universes that is now existing as a singularity will expand out to take up some room.
Now, I am reffering to the clumps of mass as universes. But there is another term for universe. The space that exists around these universes. Stephen Hawkings says that this empty blackness would theoretically be infinite, and the mass of our "universe" keeps spreading out into the blackness as far as it needs.
Eventually all of the mass is going to clump together as a bigger and bigger singularity. Expanding and contracting, until maybe it stays as a singularity.
- 1,695
Excuse me, philosophers? I believe they would be the first to say this. I can't think of a philosopher that hasn't talked about the "deadness" of language.
Shakespeare touches on the indefinite meaning of words in some of his plays. But he is not talking about what the philosophers are talking about.
- 1,695
What you've said is true, but what I've said is also true.
Many of the words we use, have a seperate meaning to everyone. The only words that are definite are ones used to describe an event or physical act. i.e. A ballon is in the sky.
Words that are dead, would be used like: basically any emotion, like love or frustration or even happiness. They all have a different meaning to us all.
Just because there is little we would be able to accomplish as a species with out language is true; has nothing to do with what I said.
However, it is quite obviously not all that allows us to live. Maybe, wouldn't let us live the way we are. Or let as many of us live.
Milefile, you seem to always play devils advocate with me, which is very helpful. However, your arguments are just speedbumps. Nothing you've said, has changed what I think. Now that could be either of our problems, admittedly, because I am very stubborn. But, I think what you've said has only helped to reinforce my thoughts.
Thanks, Milefile. The scientific community needs more people like you.
After re-reading this, I think it would be possible for you to pick up some sarcasm. I assure, there isn't supposed to be any there.
- 10,832
I don't buy this either. If you say "I am happy" I understand that you are happy. I understand that for you to be happy some good thing(s) must be going on and that these good things have been deemed so by personal values that have developed over the course of your life.
There is a gap, perhaps better called a chasm, between two individual's understandings of happiness, and happiness could appear very different for them. But everybody knows what is meant by "happiness". For instance, everybody wants to be happy. Happy is good. Similarly, nobody wants to be frustrated. Frustration is bad. Nobody argues with this. How is it that there is universal agreement on that? -- Because we all know what these words mean, and because it is difficult, inexact, and the domain of living in time, of being there, to reveal their meaning to us. This is the great stimulans of human creativity, to bridge these gaps with words and descriptions, to fill the world with the sound and chatter, to read books and make friends and forge understandings, to have conversations and arguments. Socrates never wrote a word in his life, he walked around talking to people.
I will grant that some words are ambiguous and more context dependent than others. This difficulty is what makes them more alive, not less. They are the audible expressions of the most real things, the things we know best of all.
They are not dead. Quite the opposite.
- 1,792
What about an elastic band? That has no start or end. Making it a fact that not everything has to have a start and an end. So i think it is infinite
- 3,194
http://physicsweb.org/article/news/4/4/14/1
The universe is flat - official
26 April 2000
An international team of astrophysicists has taken the most accurate ever photograph of the cosmic microwave background radiation, and confirmed that the universe is flat to within 10%. The new high-resolution maps of the cosmic microwave background (CMB) - the radiation left over from the big bang - also lend support to the theory that the universe underwent a period of massive inflation just a fraction of a second after the big bang. The maps were recorded by the Boomerang experiment, a collaboration between astrophysicists from Italy, Canada, the UK and the US (Nature 404 955). "It's a tremendously exciting result," said Peter Ade of Queen Mary and Westfield College in London and a member of the Boomerang collaboration. "[It] will mean rewriting the text books on the history of the Universe."
Hmmmmm,.... looks as if REAL scientists are my enemy
- 2,281
now that the subject of religion and the universe has come up, what do people think about the creation of the universe? we know the age of the earth and when and how it was created but what about the big bang theory?
the universe was created this way some believe but surely if space is infinite there must be some ending, if not in its physical borders then surely in time...the universe will expire...or will it? will there be another big band and then its lights out for us all?
what was here before the big bang?...can something infinite actually be created or destroyed?
i believe personally that space and the universe is finite beause after all i believe that the WHOLE universe is governend by the same rules set out by newton and follow his laws of motion...
i simply cant imagine newtonian theories being extinguished by some abstract set of rules that apply in some corner of the universe that dont apply on earth....and therefore the earth is a microcosm in the face of infinite space but just an equal part of it, the universe and its behaviour holds true to these same rules
obviously i am guessing but if i were to try and rationalise this discussion that is how i would do it...
btw...happy new year folks...
the universe was created this way some believe but surely if space is infinite there must be some ending, if not in its physical borders then surely in time...the universe will expire...or will it? will there be another big band and then its lights out for us all?
what was here before the big bang?...can something infinite actually be created or destroyed?
i believe personally that space and the universe is finite beause after all i believe that the WHOLE universe is governend by the same rules set out by newton and follow his laws of motion...
i simply cant imagine newtonian theories being extinguished by some abstract set of rules that apply in some corner of the universe that dont apply on earth....and therefore the earth is a microcosm in the face of infinite space but just an equal part of it, the universe and its behaviour holds true to these same rules
obviously i am guessing but if i were to try and rationalise this discussion that is how i would do it...
btw...happy new year folks...
Similar threads
