Why universe can be infinite

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by rcscwc, Dec 27, 2011.

  1. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    I observe a light bulbs orbiting my Christmas tree, but no light bulbs ever move around my Christmas tree.
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. Motor Daddy ☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼☼ Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    5,105
    What? Step away from the crack pipe.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Besides thinking of the universe as infinite in extent, is the idea that it may comprise an infinity if infinitesimals. So even finite objects, like the period at the end of this sentence, could hypothetically be described as an infinity of some sort.

    Another idea that intrigues me is that there are some absurd yet interesting corollaries to the model that suggests that spacetime was created in the Big Bang.

    First is the idea of an expanding bubble of (literally) astronomically huge volume yet having no surface area, at least as we might imagine looking at a sphere from the outside. I think this was the idea popularized by Dr. Who's time-traveling police call box ("It's larger on the inside than on the out.")

    Another absurdity is the idea that time is created. If so, then there is a temporal position we can call timelessness, which is a static condition that persists forever, and is therefore eternal. But if the singularity is eternal, it must necessarily coexist with the bloom of the Big Bang. This gives the universe the flavor of a wave function, that is, it mysteriously coexists ambiguously as both the static singularity and the dynamic bloom of the unfolding continuum. I suppose you could go even one step further in the analogy, to speculate that we only observe the bloom because observation exists in spacetime, so the ambiguity settles on a visible bloom and an invisible twin, the static singularity.

    Futhermore, if I were to maintain that the hypothetical outer sphere has zero surface area, and zero time, then it must coincide with the singularity, which is roughly like saying the singularity is imploding. This fits with the idea of space expanding by fractal growth of infinitesimal inner nested subvolumes. That phraseology is a bit awkward, but I think it conveys the idea.

    Another absurdity is the notion that the coexistence of an eternal twin with a temporal real universe gives rise to an idea of negative time. Causality vanishes in the eternal domain. But the absence of causality is generally associated with non-causality, or negative flowing time. This could even be regarded as a third state of the ambiguity function, one that simply needs a reverse-traveling observer to pop into existence*.

    And then if that were true, collisions between these oppositely flowing streams of time would crop up all over space. This has the absurd connection to the reason for matter. For example, wherever a positive moving trajectory intersects a negative moving trajectory, then two kinds of observations have been made on the same quantum of space, and something weird happens: at this point a simultaneity of causality non-causality arises within some infinitesimal volume, a quantum singularity opens, connecting this point to the "outer" singularity, and a string is born (or something like that).

    Following this a little further, matter can be viewed as the bubbling up of the "outer surface" singularity within the continuum, in the manner of involution, but only on a case by case basis as these colliding trajectories occur. By the same token, energy would have a causal/non-causal equivalent definition. And then we can link this causal/non-causal junction to the basis for the First Law of Thermodynamics. This conjures up the idea of cosmic foam, and if we assign to observation a stochastic character, then it may be possible there is a connection. I'm not trying to prove anything, so I wouldn't even try to go there, but it comes to mind as another interesting coincidence.

    This would cover my exploration of a particularly absurd interpretation of the creation of spacetime. I'm not propounding it as a theory or even as personal speculation. I'm merely giving it from a position of reasoning, but one that allows for paradoxes and chugs ahead anyway.

    Having said all of that, is the universe infinite? Probably to some extent, but there is no way to do more than speculate. Which I thoroughly enjoyed doing just now. Apologies to those of you who may have felt you were suffering through another rant. No harm intended.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

    eace:


    *Let me say it before you do:

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
    Last edited: Feb 2, 2012
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. Aqueous Id flat Earth skeptic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,152
    Now I know why it's so hard for me to understand you. You're addressing me in February from your temporal outpost in December.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  8. Pincho Paxton Banned Banned

    Messages:
    2,387
    My theory includes propagation, so nothing really moves, but is recreated by space-time at very tiny distances.
     
  9. ughaibu Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    224
    I meant exactly what I wrote.
     

Share This Page