Is the universe finite?

If you had to make a definitive choice, would you say the universe is finite or infinite? The only qualification allowed is your answer has to relate to an 'ABSOLUTE' mode of finite or infinite, not a partial one. Go for it - its your universe.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The Universe is a currently a Paradox where Infinite and Finite exist at the same time until a point where a decision is made. You see we humans have the capacity to think, the capacity to imagine, the capacity to make the universe infinite. We could choose to participate in making it infinite or take the simpler and somewhat lazy approach of just leaving it the way it is. If we do the latter, then the universe becomes finite, it becomes an environment we might discover but will never be able to control.

It (metaphorically) would much like being scientists that build a maze for laboratory rats and then during an paradox iteration (or technically absence of paradox) of difference between universes we neglect to identifying what type of maze we built, we become the lab rats lost in a maze that we no longer understand as architects.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

Yes, one can select and imagine whatever one wants to here - this is a most sublime human attribute. But the universe and everything in it, including our imaginative thoughts, changes - depending on what we decide and conclude. The difference between a finite and infinite universe changes everything - including our most state of art science, math and beliefs. I want to get away from the grey areas - thus I seek an ABSOLUTE conclusion. Apples and oranges apply.

 

Log in or Sign up to hide all adverts.

The universe began as the Big Bang 13.7 billion years ago. Initially, it was (many scientists think) a singularity. Since light speed is the fastest thing that can travel, and since the universe has been expanding at the speed of the photons emitted by the original Big Bang, then the universe can today be a size of 13.7 billion light years times two, as diameter.

This implies it is finite. Enormously large, of course, by any human standard, but finite.

Of course, the shape of the universe is something else. We think of it as a 3 dimensional sphere, but this reflects our human limitations more than limiting the universe. We do not really know what shape it is, or even how many dimensions make up its existense.

However, even taking this into account, my vote is for a finite universe.

 

The notion of size, shape, space and light does not apply for me - I see these as post-universe products. The enigma is, without any inference on religious notions of a Creator intended - how can an action happen with the BB - namely the BANG part which indicates an expansion by heating impact - if the BB refers to a first entity?

I mean, at one time there was no light, space, heat, energy or anything which is now contained in the universe - else the finite factor is violated. Here, even para- and multi-universes cannot apply [the finite factor].

No credible answer is at hand from science, yet amazingly the only one which satisfies me is one found in Genesis: that the original first entity [BB?] was a duality, not a singular entity - this is logical because no action can occur with one entity per se. This also says it is impossible for the universe to contain a pure, pristine silgular entity which is indivisable and irreducible. Of note is that life itself is a result of a pre-programed duality - so why not the universe?

If the above has any credence, it involuntarilly points to a creator or an independent, transcendent and precedent entity. Yes/no; why so?

 

if the universe started with a big bang and it's expanding, then it's more probable that it's finite. you can't say something is infinite
when you are constant observer from one fixed position. something that expands has nothing to do with infinity. even though many things expand but what if the universe stops expanding at some point and blows up or who knows what, then what will cosmologists say? oh, retract their supposition based on current observation.

ridiculous analogy. it has nothing to do with laziness or nonlaziness. your reasoning is no different than an assumption that god exists and justifying it's lazy to assume it doesn't because there is no evidence to support right now.

 

We may be in one fixed position, but the human mind is not also fixed or a constant as a fixed observer. The mind can fathom far away galaxies and extend beyond our fixed positions. Humans are the most superior beings in the known universe - the math and science says the universe 'MUST' be finite. Does a finite universe have any impact on currently accepted science - that is the question. E.g. does it effect the BBT?

 

speculaton and conceptual ideas are important and necessary to test as well as fathom possibilities but we don't know that the universe is infinite. that is just impossible. we don't even know why the big bang occurred and even that is a theory.

 

An idea that is slowly gaining credence in physics is that our universe is just a part of a much larger multiverse. While this idea is currently not testable, and thus remains speculative, it permits for a number of possible 'origin' scenarios.

For example : our universe may be the result of a black hole in another universe. Perhaps two universes collided, creating the Big Bang. Perhaps Big Bangs are the normal way of spawning new universes. We do not know. I hope that we will gain knowledge sufficient to confirm or deny some of these ideas.

If there are many universes, then Joseph's need for a duality disappears.

 

if this were the case, it may explain the duality in this universe too.

 

Fraggle Rocker said :

"So what the cosmologists say is that the stars themselves are not violating relativity, but their positions in space are moving faster.

Don't ask me to explain that, it sounds like a bad 1930s science fiction story."

The ultimate speed limit was expressed in a New Scientist article as the greatest speed that a cause and effect relationship can be propogated.

This makes sense. The speed of light is the speed limit for matter, energy, or information. However, if space is expanding at a greater rate, there is no cause and effect action operating at a speed greater than light. That is; nothing about the expansion of space is having an effect somewhere else. With no cause and effect, the high speed of expansion is permitted.

 

of course, until hypothetically it runs into something. then we may not survive to understand what happened. then a new universe may emerge with lifeforms who will again have the same conundrum as us wondering what happened.

being in or part of something can only glean so much information and what is excluded is the knowledge of being an outside observer.

 

'sigh'

Why hasn't this thread been moved to pseudoscience?

 

I agree more with Birch's acknowledged honest science. The multi-uni scenario is escapism of what appears a stumbling block. All observable and emperical indicators say the uni is finite, and the escapism cannot assist with any answers other than more brick walls further down the track.

In fact the duality factor only becomes more viable. I gave the analogy of life - it could not have emegred as one singular entity, whereby interaction here is not possible. Contrastingly, two pre-programmed entities does answer the emergence of life. This scenario agrees with all entities, including non-biological ones. If correct, then it KO's the BBT on fiundamental scientific premises: the BB could not have occured by a singular entity.

 

Correct, and there is nothing wrong in starting at a point which allows a path of thought and progression, with the idea the unknown may fall in place later - ToE also employs this methodology, namely of marking out only the observable facts. However, the reason we start at an after the fact point is because the origin does not incline with the after the fact observable and empirical premises. We have an enigma here which is outside the premise of lack of knowledge. It is as if science does not apply. Here, perhaps science, math and thought per se are after the fact scenarios. The only scenario which appears credible is that the BB was not and cannot be a singular entity - else all of science collapses. Because all science is based on interacting entities.

I did give scientific analogies. Consider that a life is not a result of a singular entity. Consider that nothing in the universe can be derived from a singular entity. This is an observable, scientific fact - not a theory. So why should it apply in accepting the BBT? The observable science says a singular entity cannot perform an action. Thus I asked up top to state your answer whether you are in a finite or infinite universe - then let all else you say align with your preamble. Please state which universe you see yourself in.

Yes, but both the assessment and conclusion are deficient. There is a difference in not claiming the zero point [based on observation] - and not being able to claim it from the premise of interacting entities [based on observation]. The BBT and ToE are based on the observation of interacting entities, while the zero point allows no such construct. There can be no interaction at the zero point - observable or unobservable. At the very east, we can say the path must be wrong - even where the correct path is not knowable or observable.

 

Not possible in a finite realm: there is nothing else to run into - even hypothetically.

Space is nothing other than physical matter in a rarified form, while physicality is a denser lumping of the same stuff. Further, space operates on possessed attributes, which comes under the premise of 'laws' - namely a directive program.

The only concievable premise here is that the law [program] would precede the result. Here, both cause and effect become subordinate to the program directive. It asks the question, which came first - gravity, or the law of gravity? Water, or a pre-program law which says that only H and 2 X O parts combined will produce water?

 

Joseph

Not much of science in your posts. What do you mean by needing several entities?

Your other threads show that you believe an all-powerful deity 'magicked' the universe into being. This is just as speculative as anything anyone here has said, and leaves just as many unanswered questions.

Science has the virtue of admitting when data is missing, and hence when explanations cannot be given immediately. Those of us more wedded to science, rather than religion, will readily admit we do not know what the universe consisted of at time zero, or whether there was a cause before time zero, or whether there is something outside the universe.

I have considerable confidence in the innovative abilities of humans, and especially of those few humans who end up as super-genius physicists. Sadly I am not one, but I know that the ones that exist and are working with cosmology, will expand and increase our knowledge. I am prepared to wait for answers. Like the true followers of good science, I do not need to fall back on superstition for my answers.