If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere?

[Richard87]

If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere, besides obviously impossible things like a star that contains oxygen but doesn't contain oxygen or a 4-sided triangle?

[mgb_phys]

It would if it was but it isn't

[Chalnoth]

If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere, besides obviously impossible things like a star that contains oxygen but doesn't contain oxygen or a 4-sided triangle?
Well, consider this by way of analogy.

The set of all even numbers is infinite. I can go on counting even numbers for ever and ever and never reach an end.

But clearly the set of all even numbers does not include all possible numbers. It doesn't include, for instance, the number pi.

So even if the universe is infinite (we don't know whether or not it is), then that doesn't necessarily mean that all possibilities are realized.

However, there may be other reasons to believe that all possibilities are realized, mainly stemming from quantum mechanics, where we find, for instance, that if there is the possibility of matter inhabiting a region of space, then particles of that sort of matter will necessarily pop in and out of the vacuum. Another way of saying this is that in quantum mechanics, there mere possibility of existence forces existence. So it is not unreasonable to suspect that perhaps all possibilities must actually be realized.

This doesn't mean that anything and everything we can imagine occurs, of course. We can imagine quite a lot of impossible things, as you mention above. But we can also imagine a great many things that are not obviously impossible, and yet may turn out to be upon deeper inspection.

[Entropee]

Well so far we think that the Universe is finite, but with no boundaries. I really hate the word infinity >.< It's so unbelievably unfathomable, and people just toss it around as if it's just a large number. Good thoughts on the subject though.

[Chalnoth]

Well so far we think that the Universe is finite, but with no boundaries.
I don't know who this "we" is, but so far as I am aware there is no consensus on this. Currently there just is insufficient evidence to say anything more than, "the universe is very, very big."

[JnWaco]

So there might not be another Earth where I'm dating Jennifer Aniston? Dang.

[Chalnoth]

So there might not be another Earth where I'm dating Jennifer Aniston? Dang.
Well, just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it's possible. Consider, for a moment, how many opportunities you have had to get to know a beautiful actress. Probably not very many.

If, in this parallel world, you were the sort of person that had a life where you were in at least occasional contact with beautiful actresses, would your life be so different that that person even count as being you in the first place?

[Entropee]

I don't know who this "we" is, but so far as I am aware there is no consensus on this. Currently there just is insufficient evidence to say anything more than, "the universe is very, very big."

Okay okay.. by "we" I mean Stephen Hawking haha

And if our anti particles formed anti people on an anti earth we could have identical twins down to the last particle...maybe... ;P

[Chalnoth]

Okay okay.. by "we" I mean Stephen Hawking haha
I'm pretty sure if you asked him straight up he'd say basically the same thing I just did. He did, of course, present the no boundary proposal (where the universe has no boundary either in time or in space), but that doesn't mean he would go so far as to claim that he knows it's true. He may think it likely (it's his idea, after all), but I doubt he'd go that far.

And if our anti particles formed anti people on an anti earth we could have identical twins down to the last particle...maybe... ;P
Well, we don't have anti-particles. That's one of the requirements of our cosmological observations: that early-on, there was a very small breaking of the symmetry between matter and antimatter.

[Entropee]

Well yes I agree with you thats why i said its what he "thinks" not knows, and would YOU go so far as to say that you "know" we dont have anti-particles? There may not be symmetry between matter and antimatter but It's still somewhere.

[Chalnoth]

Well yes I agree with you thats why i said its what he "thinks" not knows, and would YOU go so far as to say that you "know" we dont have anti-particles? There may not be symmetry between matter and antimatter but It's still somewhere.
Yes, because we've actually looked for them. They're not out there. Basically, if the matter and anti-matter were physically separated, then you'd occasionally get clumps of matter running into clumps of anti-matter, causing rather large explosions. We don't see any of that.

Furthermore there's the problem that around the time of the emission of the CMB, our universe was extremely uniform, so that there was no way that normal matter and anti-matter could have been out of contact with one another.

[Entropee]

Thats true, but why then was the early universe so hot?

Also an unrelated question maybe you can answer for me, if most of the universe is hydrogen, why didnt all the hydrogen undergo nuclear fusion when the universe was as big as a baseball? Was it because the particles were different at the time?

[Chalnoth]

Thats true, but why then was the early universe so hot?
It appears to be a result of the end of inflation. Basically, whatever it was that drove inflation had to have a whole lot of energy. When it decayed, it reheated our universe to a tremendous temperature.

Also an unrelated question maybe you can answer for me, if most of the universe is hydrogen, why didnt all the hydrogen undergo nuclear fusion when the universe was as big as a baseball? Was it because the particles were different at the time?
Right, if the expansion rate would have been slower then, it would have. It would have progressed all the way to producing iron and that'd be the most common element.

But this takes time. First the protons and neutrons condense out of the quark-gluon plasma, so you have hydrogen right away. Then you start to make helium from the hydrogen. Then you start to make heavier and heavier elements.

As it turns out, the expansion rate was such that the universe cooled to where the nuclear fusion basically stopped by the time there was only around 25% helium sitting around, and long before more than trace amounts of anything else formed. Incidentally, this is even faster than it sounds, because much of the helium stemmed from the neutrons that were around early-on (when you have nothing but protons around, fusion takes a heck of a lot of energy, as you have to convert protons to neutrons, and because they repel one another, but when you have lots of neutrons sitting around it's much easier).

[Entropee]

O.o I thought we didnt have protons and neutrons in the early universe, wasn't there lots of particle decay so they would be different now?

[Chalnoth]

O.o I thought we didnt have protons and neutrons in the early universe, wasn't there lots of particle decay so they would be different now?
Oh, well, in the very early universe there weren't any. But when the quark-gluon plasma cooled, well, protons and neutrons were the particles they condensed into: they're the lightest baryons. Heavier baryons are unstable and would have quickly decayed into protons and neutrons.

[Entropee]

About how long did it take for the quark-gluon plasma to cool?

[Chalnoth]

About how long did it take for the quark-gluon plasma to cool?
Well, either way I don't know off the top of my head and you might be able to find it yourself as quickly as I could off of Google, but what specifically do you mean by this?

That is, are you asking how long the process of nucleosynthesis took, from the time the protons/neutrons condensed out of the plasma to the time that fusion stopped? Or are you asking how long after the end of inflation that this occurred?

[Entropee]

How long after the end of inflation is more what i meant. But yeah i could google it lol.

[Chalnoth]

How long after the end of inflation is more what i meant. But yeah i could google it lol.
Hehe :) Yeah, I actually looked it up to. It's about three minutes ;)

[Entropee]

Wow nice haha, did you see my post on your profile?

[JnWaco]

Well, just because you can imagine it doesn't mean it's possible. Consider, for a moment, how many opportunities you have had to get to know a beautiful actress. Probably not very many.

If, in this parallel world, you were the sort of person that had a life where you were in at least occasional contact with beautiful actresses, would your life be so different that that person even count as being you in the first place?

lol, you sure know how to pour water on a nice thought!!!!!

just kidding

[Chalnoth]

lol, you sure know how to pour water on a nice thought!!!!!

just kidding
Haha, well, I think that it still can be extremely interesting.

Imagine, for a moment, just walking down the street. If we just take the part of your wave function that you know about today, and imagine all of the future parts (using the many worlds interpretation, of course), then those future parts will likely follow nearly the same but slightly different trajectories, for a while. I imagine it like a blurring of myself, some parts slightly ahead, some slightly behind. Some slightly to the left, some slightly to the right, etc. So the different parts of my wave function are slowly, very slowly dispersing. It might take many trips outside the house before anything interesting happens.

But then something interesting does happen: a car, going too fast, almost hits me. Well, it almost hits the "me" that I see, but there are other me's that were in slightly different places: some of them were just a little bit too close to the car, and got smacked. Suddenly, what were once very similar worlds become very different.

In another situation, something very similar is happening, but the event that causes the divergence is, say, I'm not paying attention to where I'm going, and I almost run into a pretty girl. I manage to apologize for the incident, strike up a conversation, and we start dating. Of course, that's just the "me" that I observe: some of the me's in other worlds either are far enough away that they don't almost run into her, or are close enough that they actually run into her and just end up pissing her off. In some others, the conversation takes a slightly different turn and we never see each other again. Etc. etc.

So there might well be people out there who, when I was a child, were still part of my wave function, the part that I remember, but who today have extremely different lives.

[Axuality]

If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere, besides obviously impossible things like a star that contains oxygen but doesn't contain oxygen or a 4-sided triangle?


You must define the word 'infinite' before you can validly ask this question, and before anyone can validly answer it.

Does that make sense?

And if you're able to define it to your satisfaction, then you'll have answered your own question, I believe. :)

[Chalnoth]

You must define the word 'infinite' before you can validly ask this question, and before anyone can validly answer it.
That's easy: if the universe is infinite in space, then even if one could travel much faster than the speed of light, one could travel forever without ever crossing one's path.

Another way of saying it is that if you could write down coordinates for the entire universe, then you'd never reach a number in those coordinates that was "beyond" the universe.

[JnWaco]

Haha, well, I think that it still can be extremely interesting.

Imagine, for a moment, just walking down the street. If we just take the part of your wave function that you know about today, and imagine all of the future parts (using the many worlds interpretation, of course), then those future parts will likely follow nearly the same but slightly different trajectories, for a while. I imagine it like a blurring of myself, some parts slightly ahead, some slightly behind. Some slightly to the left, some slightly to the right, etc. So the different parts of my wave function are slowly, very slowly dispersing. It might take many trips outside the house before anything interesting happens.

But then something interesting does happen: a car, going too fast, almost hits me. Well, it almost hits the "me" that I see, but there are other me's that were in slightly different places: some of them were just a little bit too close to the car, and got smacked. Suddenly, what were once very similar worlds become very different.

In another situation, something very similar is happening, but the event that causes the divergence is, say, I'm not paying attention to where I'm going, and I almost run into a pretty girl. I manage to apologize for the incident, strike up a conversation, and we start dating. Of course, that's just the "me" that I observe: some of the me's in other worlds either are far enough away that they don't almost run into her, or are close enough that they actually run into her and just end up pissing her off. In some others, the conversation takes a slightly different turn and we never see each other again. Etc. etc.

So there might well be people out there who, when I was a child, were still part of my wave function, the part that I remember, but who today have extremely different lives.


I'm a layman, just getting into physics, but that makes sense. So are there infinite universes, or just one universe that is infinite. I saw a special on the Discovery channel where they said there were an infinite number of universes in the "multiverse".

How was that proven (or derived)?

[Axuality]

That's easy: if the universe is infinite in space, then even if one could travel much faster than the speed of light, one could travel forever without ever crossing one's path.

Another way of saying it is that if you could write down coordinates for the entire universe, then you'd never reach a number in those coordinates that was "beyond" the universe.

You're a smart guy/girl obviously, and thanks for your post.

But he didn't SAY 'infinite in space', like you did. He said just 'infinite'.

But despite that, no matter how fast you travel, you would never cross your own path in a FINITE universe, if the universe was constantly creating itself faster than you could get there.

And as to your second definition, you can't write down the coordinates for an entire infinite universe. And even if you tried, you might never reach a number outside the universe because the universe may be growing faster than you can chart it...- while still remaining currently finite.

So again, like the original poster, you can't really use the word infinite even in a phrase such as 'infinite in space', until you define the word infinite. As soon as you do, then you'll realize that infinite has but one definitive meaning. All others are derived for context.

Not to mention after all, that you gave descriptions of 'infinite in space', not a definition of 'infinite in space'.

So my proposal remains- You must define 'infinite' before you use the term.

[Axuality]

If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere, besides obviously impossible things like a star that contains oxygen but doesn't contain oxygen or a 4-sided triangle?

Yes Richard87, if the universe is TRULY infinite, it means that it contains all things real.

And if you're wondering if you're dating Jennifer Aniston somewhere, I can tell you 'yes, you are', and tell you how to find that "part" of the universe, but don't ask please. :)

[Chalnoth]

You're a smart guy/girl obviously, and thanks for your post.
Guy, actually :)

But he didn't SAY 'infinite in space', like you did. He said just 'infinite'.

But despite that, no matter how fast you travel, you would never cross your own path in a FINITE universe, if the universe was constantly creating itself faster than you could get there.
True, but that's usually what people mean. And that's why I said, "even if you could move at arbitrary speed" :) Perhaps a better way of stating it is that if you could freeze the expansion, then you could travel forever without crossing your own path in an infinite universe.

And as to your second definition, you can't write down the coordinates for an entire infinite universe. And even if you tried, you might never reach a number outside the universe because the universe may be growing faster than you can chart it...- while still remaining currently finite.
Well, in general this is true, you can't. But in special cases it's entirely possible (because the real numbers are also infinite). A flat, uniformly-expanding universe would be one example, where simple co-moving coordinates work just fine. The infinite extent actually doesn't affect this.

Mathematically, infinity is quite well-defined. See the extended real number line here (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Extended_real_number_line).

[JnWaco]

I was reading about infinity - and aren't there differing orders of infinity, and even sets of infinite numbers that still exclude other numbers?

Like the set of all even numbers is infinite. But it does not include the number 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. So even if the universe was infinite, there could still be an "everthing" that doesn't exist?

Perhaps this is more of a philosophical question.

[Chalnoth]

I was reading about infinity - and aren't there differing orders of infinity, and even sets of infinite numbers that still exclude other numbers?

Like the set of all even numbers is infinite. But it does not include the number 1, 3, 5, 7, etc. So even if the universe was infinite, there could still be an "everthing" that doesn't exist?

Perhaps this is more of a philosophical question.
Well, there could be an infinite number of possible things that still don't exist. However, I don't think that would count as "everything".

[JnWaco]

Well, there could be an infinite number of possible things that still don't exist. However, I don't think that would count as "everything".

Well, I was referring to the original poster's question - poor choice of words on my part- I just meant that an infinite universe could still not have everything exist, and in fact there could be an infinite number of things that wouldn't exist.

[SpaceTiger]

However, there may be other reasons to believe that all possibilities are realized, mainly stemming from quantum mechanics, where we find, for instance, that if there is the possibility of matter inhabiting a region of space, then particles of that sort of matter will necessarily pop in and out of the vacuum. Another way of saying this is that in quantum mechanics, there mere possibility of existence forces existence. So it is not unreasonable to suspect that perhaps all possibilities must actually be realized.

This has been my increasing feeling as well; that is, that there is no actual difference between possibility and actuality. It even negates the necessity for "meaning" or an "origin" -- things are simply because they can be. To my knowledge, however, it's still not the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics in the physics community (still Copenhagen?), though it's not clear how useful a "mainstream" stance on philosophy is.

Anyway, so that I don't venture too far off-topic, to address the original question... we still can't say whether the universe is infinite or finite and it's possible we'll never know. If the universe is finite, it's likely that our particle horizon back to inflation (the largest comoving distance we can possibly observe) is a good deal smaller than the full extent of the universe. If inflationary theory is correct, the rapid expansion of the scale factor in the early universe would have caused our effective horizon to contract from its pre-inflation size and render much of the universe unobservable.

[Chalnoth]

This has been my increasing feeling as well; that is, that there is no actual difference between possibility and actuality. It even negates the necessity for "meaning" or an "origin" -- things are simply because they can be. To my knowledge, however, it's still not the mainstream interpretation of quantum mechanics in the physics community (still Copenhagen?), though it's not clear how useful a "mainstream" stance on philosophy is.
So far as I am aware, among people that have actually thought about this in depth, the many-worlds interpretation is predominant. I think the Copenhagen interpretation is just a result of the "shut up and calculate" school of thought, where a large number of physicists just don't want to bother with these sorts of details, and would rather just get to work learning other things.

More recently, however, quantum computing research has forced many physicists to look in more detail at the specific nature of collapse, and so I expect that the "shut up and calculate" school won't last very long, as the Copenhagen interpretation doesn't actually say what happens at the boundary of collapse. It doesn't say when collapse happens, or how it happens.

There are also a few other schools of thought, but as far as I know they are strong minority views.

Anyway, if you're interested in reading a bit more on the "anything that can happen does happen" possibility, you may be interested in this paper by Max Tegmark:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646

It's highly speculative, and would be extremely difficult to find any evidence in favor of it, but I find it quite the intriguing idea.

[SpaceTiger]

Anyway, if you're interested in reading a bit more on the "anything that can happen does happen" possibility, you may be interested in this paper by Max Tegmark:
http://arxiv.org/pdf/0704.0646

Thanks for the link. I knew that Max was vocal on these issues, but hadn't seen his paper.

[oldman]

If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere

No, of course not.

Some infinities are bigger than others, and the infinity of distinguishable configurations of things is a factorial kind of infinity that is always much, much bigger than the infinity of the number of things.

Think of building a universe as a collection of things, starting with a just a few. As your universe grows the number of ways the things can be arranged differently grows very much faster than their number. So all possible configurations (everything) is something that can never be realised. You needn't even struggle with the impossibility of imagining infinity. And that old idea of monkeys typing Hamlet, given enough time, is nonsense for much the same kind of reason.

[Chalnoth]

And that old idea of monkeys typing Hamlet, given enough time, is nonsense for much the same kind of reason.
Not really, because that idea is based upon simple probability, and assumes that the monkeys are typing in a purely random fashion. If that's the case, then as time gets large enough, the probability that they successfully type hamlet will approach one. Of course, the time required to do that is unbelievably large.

[Freeman Dyson]

In an infinite universe, anything above zero probability happens an infinite amount of times. If the universe were infinite it would take an infinite amount of time to figure that out. The finite hides the infinite.

[Chronos]

About 3 minutes after the big bang the universe was cool enough for elementary particles [e.g., protons] to begin to form.

[ViewsofMars]

I'm going to play around with what you said Freeman. :biggrin: (I'm in one of those kind of moods today. I hope you don't mind. )

In an infinite universe [with dark energy], anything above zero probability happens an infinite amount of times [due to dark energy].

I've inserted within your thoughts my thoughts noted within the brackets.

If the universe were infinite it would take an infinite amount of time to figure that out. The finite hides the infinite.

Interesting. Two comments:

1. "However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever." (From NASA, Is the Universe Infinite?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html)

2. "Since light travels at a finite speed, distant objects are seen as they existed in the past. We see the Sun not as it is now, but how it was eight minutes ago. (The Sun is eight light minutes away from the Earth). We see the nearby stars as they were several years ago. We see Andromeda, the nearest spiral galaxy as it was roughly 2.5 million years ago. Thus, the most distant objects that we see are the oldest objects that we can directly detect.

" Quasars are the most distant distinct objects that astronomers have been able to detect. In a region smaller than our solar system, a quasar emits more light than our entire Milky Way galaxy. Quasars are believed to be supermassive black holes, whose masses exceed that of a million Suns, and whose pull is swallowing gas and stars from their host galaxies. They shine brightly by converting the gravitational energy of the infalling material into light. The most distant quasars are seen at a time when the universe was one tenth its present age, roughly a billion years after the Big Bang." (From NASA- When Did the First Cosmic Structures Form?
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/rel_firstobjs.html)

[Dmitry67]

No, of course not.

Some infinities are bigger than others, and the infinity of distinguishable configurations of things is a factorial kind of infinity that is always much, much bigger than the infinity of the number of things.

Think of building a universe as a collection of things, starting with a just a few. As your universe grows the number of ways the things can be arranged differently grows very much faster than their number. So all possible configurations (everything) is something that can never be realised. You needn't even struggle with the impossibility of imagining infinity. And that old idea of monkeys typing Hamlet, given enough time, is nonsense for much the same kind of reason.

Max Tegmark does not agree with you:

http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/multiverse.html

How many parallel universes are there?
Why must we have duplicates?

From Richard Reeves, valueprint@earthlink.net, April 18, 2003 14:23:31
Q: Given infinity, why isn't it equally plausible that the worlds within it would express infinite variety, rather than repetition
The answer is that there are only a finite number of possible states that a Hubble volume can have, according to quantum theory. Even classically, there are clearly only a finite number of perceptibly different ways it can be.

How rigorous is this?

From Bert Rackett, bertrckt@pacbell.net, Sat Apr 19 22:22:13 2003
Q: I very much enjoyed reading your Scientific American and Science and Uitimate Reality papers, but I am entirely befuddled about your estimates for likely distance of an identical environment. You claim that the volume may be completely defined by a (very long) list of binary values denoting the presence or absence of a proton, but this of course oversimplifies things.
A: Although classical physics allows an infinite number of possible states that a Hubble volume can be in, it's a profound and important fact that quantum physics allows only a finite number. The numbers I mentioned in the article, like 10^10^118 meters, were computed using the exact quantum-mecanical calculation, and the classical stuff about counting protons in a discrete lattice arrangement was merely thrown in as a pedagogical example to give a feel where the numbers come from, since that turns out to give the same answer.

Why must all regions have duplicates, not just one?
From Jeffery Winkler, jeffery_winkler@mail.com, Oct 13, 2003, at 0:58
Q: Just because something is infinite, does not mean that all possibilities are realized. The number pi is infinitely long, pi = 3.14159... and in that case, all combinations of digits are realized. However, the number 1/3, converted into a fraction, is also infinitely long, 1/3 = .33333... and in that case, all combinations of digits are not realized.
A: That's correct: infinite space alone guarantees only that SOME Hubble volume will have a duplicate, not that our own will. However, if (as in the current cosmological standard model) the cosmic density fluctuations originate from quantum fluctuations during inflation, their statistical properties DO guarantee that our (and indeed every) Hubble volume has a duplicate.
Is there a countable or uncountable infinity of universes?

Is it countable even with continuous wave functions?
From David Fotland, fotland@smart-games.com, August 3, 2003 21:09:49
You argued that the total number of possible states in a universe is finite, so if the total of all universes is infinite, then every possible universe must exist. I understand that quantum states have discrete vales, but the wave function is a continuous function. Can't the probabilities that give the possible locations of particles have any real value?
Interestingly, they can't: you can prove that in a finite volume, there's only a discrete number of allowed quantum wavefunctions. If the energy is finite, it's even a finite number.
But even a hydrogen atom has infinitely many states!
From Attila Csoto, csoto@matrix.elte.hu, Wed Mar 17 12:59:29 2004
Q: You say in your papers that the number of possible quantum states within the Hubble-volume is finite. I understand your argument, but there is a problem which puzzles me. If we single out one hydrogen atom in our Hubble volume, it has itself an infinite number of different bound states. So one could imagine a Hubble sphere next to ours which is the same as ours except that this hydrogen atom iis not in its ground state but in the next excited state, and in the next sphere in the next higher state, etc. These universes differ from each other by a tiny amount of energy but I don't think that this should matter. So, my question is: how can we have a finite number of possible quantum states in our sphere, if one hydrogen atom already has an infinite number of possible bound states?
A: There's infinitely many bound states if only space is truly infinite. There's in fact a beautiful old paper by Erwin Schrödinger deriving the exact solutions for a hydrogen atom in a closed finite Universe, showing that in this case, the number of bound states is finite.

[ViewsofMars]

Dmitry67, you have presented Max Tegmark whose last publication was from 2003, Richard Reeves (2003), Bert Rackett (2003), Jeffery Winkler (2003), David Fotland (2003), Attila Csoto (2004).

The year is 2009.:biggrin: We have come a long way since 2003-2004. You may wish to review the topic “offshoot from 'Theoretically how far can one see in the universe'” p.g. 3, and look at my contributions (msg’s 40 and 42) that have the most current evidence (2008 and 2009) that continues to support the Big Bang Theory, which is the standard model. I've provided the link below for you and others to explore.

I should also mention that Steven Weinberg on July 7, 2009 gave a lecture at CERN. He talked about inflation. Near the end of his presention he did say, "The world is really what we've always known, the standard model plus relativity." He wasn't trying to discourage string theorists yet he knows as a scientist that observations are essential if you are going to call it SCIENCE. :smile:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=338032&page=3

[Dmitry67]

It appears that you are not familiar with the most important article: http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 - really genious!
and year is 2007 - not 2003. Do you have any other arguments against his logic except the year of publication?

[ViewsofMars]

It appears that you are not familiar with the most important article: http://arxiv.org/abs/0704.0646 - really genious! and year is 2007 - not 2003.
Don't be curt or snippy with me. Dmitry67, I was going off the first link you gave when mentioning Max Tegmark. I didn't see this abstract you are now presenting on his website. The *abstract* by Max Tegmark is entitled, "The Mathematical Universe". As we know, math isn't science. :smile: Futhermore, it is a hypothesis of his.

Do you have any other arguments against his logic except the year of publication?

The year of publication is important as you will note with WAMP. I think it is important to see the current information. I've earlier provided you a link to another topic for you to review.

I know now that Max Tegmark's has a *hypothesis* that has been submitted to Cornell University. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a fan of his "consciousness" and "parallel universes". I don't find his hypothesis in NASA. Also, hypothesis don't make it into internationally known peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Nature.:smile:

[Dmitry67]

At first, could you clarify what do you mean by "math isn't science"? Do you mean that we cant prove self-consistency of any axiomatic system, or something else?

[Chalnoth]

Dmitry67,

Yes, I've heard this argument about "copy universes" before. I don't think it necessarily holds.

Here is the problem, as I see it: quantum mechanics doesn't guarantee that absolutely everything happens. It just says that many things happen. For instance, let's say I take a simple harmonic oscillator, and prepare it in the following state:

\mid \psi \rangle = \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mid E_1 \rangle + \frac{1}{\sqrt{2}} \mid E_2 \rangle

Here we have a system in a mixture of two states. If I take a measurement of the energy at t=0, I will obtain with 50% probability E_1, and E_2 with 50% probability.

Now step back and consider what I might be able to conclude if I didn't know how the state was prepared, but only am aware of my measurement of the state. For instance, if I measure E_2, what can I conclude about the original state? Can I conclude that E_3 was also represented? That some other "me" observed E_3 while I observed E_2? Certainly not! I do know that whatever state the system was in, it was in a specific state, and my measurement of E_2, while not ruling out the possibility of a component of the wavefunction inhabiting E_3, there is no reason to believe that E_3 was represented (or E_1, for that matter).

Therefore I claim that even with taking quantum fluctuations into account, I don't see why all possibilities need to be represented. Regions of the universe are still due to unitary evolution of a quantum mechanical wave function. They are still deterministically dependent upon the initial conditions. And so even though many things surely do happen, we can't say with confidence that all possible things do.

However, that said, I do think that it is entirely possible that all possible things do happen. I particularly like Tegmark's "mathiverse" idea, for instance. I just don't think we can conclude from what we know today that it's actually true that all things possible do happen.

[rasp]

If the universe is infinite, does that mean that everything exists somewhere, besides obviously impossible things like a star that contains oxygen but doesn't contain oxygen or a 4-sided triangle?

The answer to your question depends on what you mean by everything. If by everything you mean all that is, then everything fits into a finite Universe, an infinite Universe is not needed. If your definition of everything is what is existent and also on what doesn't exist but could exist, then an infinite universe doesn't help you, you need either a many world interpretation, or a Hilbert Space in QM.

[xantox]

Therefore I claim that even with taking quantum fluctuations into account, I don't see why all possibilities need to be represented.
Do you mean, by questioning the assumptions of ergodicity and equilibrium of the inflationary patches?

[Chalnoth]

Do you mean, by questioning the assumptions of ergodicity and equilibrium of the inflationary patches?
I'm pretty sure those are taken to be approximating assumptions.

[xantox]

I'm pretty sure those are taken to be approximating assumptions.
Yes, they are just assumptions – just making sure whether you agree that if they are true then "copy universes" would hold too, or if your argument was another one. Although those assumptions are supported by unitarity, quantum gravity effects such as backreaction on the metric could indeed subtly change the picture.

[Entropee]

I'm not sure anything in our universe at all can lead us to believe anything at all about a "different" universe. Just my opinion.

[Chalnoth]

I'm not sure anything in our universe at all can lead us to believe anything at all about a "different" universe. Just my opinion.
As long as we believe that the laws of physics are invariant of where you happen to be, yes, we can say some things about regions which are outside of our observable bubble.

[ViewsofMars]

Replying to Dmitry67, we have Math teachers and Science teachers. The two are distinctly different. Science is based on the scientific method, whereas Mathematics is not.

[Entropee]

As long as we believe that the laws of physics are invariant of where you happen to be, yes, we can say some things about regions which are outside of our observable bubble.

Yes inside our "observable bubble". I just meant that we have to reason to believe our universes laws of physics hold true in a different universe (whatever that means).

[Freeman Dyson]

"'the universe must go through a calculable number of combinations in the great game of chance which constitutes its existence . . . In infinity, at some moment or other, every possible combination must once have been realized; not only this, but it must also have been realized an infinite number of times."

-nietzsche

[Chalnoth]

Yes inside our "observable bubble". I just meant that we have to reason to believe our universes laws of physics hold true in a different universe (whatever that means).
Typically it just means something outside of our observable bubble. And while we may have reason to believe that there are different effective low-energy laws of physics, there are good reasons to believe that the fundamental laws remain the same no matter what.

[sokrates]

What are those good reasons to believe the laws of physics are the same outside our bubble?

I have a feeling whatever you'll argue is going to be exclusively about "observable" bubble, almost by def.

[Chalnoth]

What are those good reasons to believe the laws of physics are the same outside our bubble?
One way to look at it is that if there is stuff outside our observable universe (which there almost certainly is), then it was at one point connected to our observable universe. If it didn't follow the same fundamental laws when it was in contact, then you'd have a contradiction.

[Dmitry67]

I know now that Max Tegmark's has a *hypothesis* that has been submitted to Cornell University. I'm sorry to disappoint you, but I'm not a fan of his "consciousness" and "parallel universes". I don't find his hypothesis in NASA. Also, hypothesis don't make it into internationally known peer-reviewed journals such as Science and Nature.:smile:

Of course there is no proof for his hypotesis. But compare it to the Smolins evolving law: while Max Tegmarks works is quite strict and logical (and in his article he gave answers to most of the questions I found here, so it was enough just to quote his original work) Smolins evolving law is a pure handwaving.

Also, Max Tegmarks hypotesis has several falsifiable predictions so it can be testes in a future. I think this is the best we have for now.

[Dmitry67]

Dmitry67,
Here is the problem, as I see it: quantum mechanics doesn't guarantee that absolutely everything happens.

Yes, definitely, it is interpretation-dependent. In a local region "everything happens" only in MWI.

But interestingly enough, an argument about our distant 'copies' does not depend on MWI and even more, even if you insist that some possible configurations are never realized then there are even MORE copies!

Because if you fill the infinite void with all possible configurations, you will soon ran out of distinct ones (check Max Tegmarks Q&A I posted before). If you insist that only a subset of possible configurations is used, then you will run out of configurations even sooner!

[Dmitry67]

Replying to Dmitry67, we have Math teachers and Science teachers. The two are distinctly different. Science is based on the scientific method, whereas Mathematics is not.

You had probably bad teachers.
You agruments are strange: year of publication, your personal bad luck with teachers.

Can you point an exact place in max Tegmark's logic (in Q&A) which is wrong, as you believe? And explain, why do you think so?

[Dmitry67]

One way to look at it is that if there is stuff outside our observable universe (which there almost certainly is), then it was at one point connected to our observable universe. If it didn't follow the same fundamental laws when it was in contact, then you'd have a contradiction.

Yes.
It is more tricky in an accelerating expanding universe with consmological horizons. In such universe some places will NEVER be in causal contact with each other.

However, still you can define a sequence of intersecting bubbles B0...Bn, so if laws are different in B0 and Bn, there must be a bubble Bx (0<=x<=n) where both laws are effective at the same time.

The same argument applies not only in space but it time, law can not 'change' in time, for that reason I believe that Smolin's evolving law is a nonsense.

[Chalnoth]

Yes, definitely, it is interpretation-dependent. In a local region "everything happens" only in MWI.
No, I'm speaking purely in terms of MWI here. Even in that case, not everything necessarily happens. MWI just takes the unitarity of the wavefunction seriously: it evolves forward in time according to the equations of motion, with no collapse. This doesn't indicate that everything happens, just that many different things do.

I don't think you can take currently-known quantum mechanics and conclude that everything happens: you still have to add it in as an additional assumption.

Because if you fill the infinite void with all possible configurations, you will soon ran out of distinct ones (check Max Tegmarks Q&A I posted before). If you insist that only a subset of possible configurations is used, then you will run out of configurations even sooner!
Ah, yes, well, if the universe truly is infinite in extent, then obviously there will be an infinite number of copies. However, we don't know that the universe is infinite in extent.

[Chalnoth]

Yes.
It is more tricky in an accelerating expanding universe with consmological horizons. In such universe some places will NEVER be in causal contact with each other.
In the future. But in the past they would have been in contact (this would have been during the inflationary epoch for the most distantly-separated components of our universe).

The same argument applies not only in space but it time, law can not 'change' in time, for that reason I believe that Smolin's evolving law is a nonsense.
Well, I'm pretty sure that all serious considerations of evolving or otherwise changing physical laws are actually just talking about the effective low-energy physics. They tend to still rely upon an underlying fundamental theory that is quite invariant. But this isn't really saying something profound about our universe: Andy Albrecht and Alberto Iglesias showed a couple of years back that if you take a random, time-varying Hamiltonian, and simply invoke the clock ambiguity, you can always find a trajectory in this space that leaves the Hamiltonian time-invariant. That is to say, just the fact that we can change coordinates means that it's always possible to write down time-invariant laws of physics.

Here's one of their relevant papers:
http://arxiv.org/abs/0805.4452

[Dmitry67]

1
No, I'm speaking purely in terms of MWI here. Even in that case, not everything necessarily happens. MWI just takes the unitarity of the wavefunction seriously: it evolves forward in time according to the equations of motion, with no collapse. This doesn't indicate that everything happens, just that many different things do.

I don't think you can take currently-known quantum mechanics and conclude that everything happens: you still have to add it in as an additional assumption.

2
Ah, yes, well, if the universe truly is infinite in extent, then obviously there will be an infinite number of copies. However, we don't know that the universe is infinite in extent.

1 Agreed if everything = everything which does not violate any laws
So, everything does not mean that e can dacay, because it would violate the conservation of charge. However, if we monitor a single neutron then it can decay on the 1st second, 2nd, 3rd, ... So MWI insist that there MUST be copies observing a decay on any Nth second. If you say, "decay was possible on 55th second but that branch is actually missing" then you are adding something new, some 'branch scissors' and Ocamm is against you

2 What are the latest observational results?

[Chalnoth]

1 Agreed if everything = everything which does not violate any laws
So, everything does not mean that e can dacay, because it would violate the conservation of charge. However, if we monitor a single neutron then it can decay on the 1st second, 2nd, 3rd, ... So MWI insist that there MUST be copies observing a decay on any Nth second. If you say, "decay was possible on 55th second but that branch is actually missing" then you are adding something new, some 'branch scissors' and Ocamm is against you
Well, right, I'm not saying that. But I think my post #45 makes it clear what I'm talking about. Basically, whatever the latter configuration of the wavefunction is depends upon the former configuration, but as we only have information about our own component of the wavefunction, and don't necessarily have information about the former configuration, we can't necessarily say which other things happen.

2 What are the latest observational results?
Well, basically it comes down to the observed flatness and homogeneity of our universe. The observed homogeneity means that the universe extends significantly beyond what we can see (if it stopped, we should see some effect of that). This is brought down to something more objective with the average curvature, as with that we can make an approximate lower bound on the overall size of our universe. If we make the assumption that our universe is a sphere, for example, then measuring the curvature gives us limits on the size of that sphere. If it isn't a sphere, then it's likely much larger (though not necessarily). So we can get at least a rough lower-limit on the size by constraining the curvature, and so far we've constrained it to within about 1% from flat. From this we can get a very rough lower bound on the size at somewhere in the range of two orders of magnitude larger than our observable region.

[ViewsofMars]

Backing up Chalnoth's observations.

The Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) is a NASA Explorer mission that launched June 2001 to make fundamental measurements of cosmology -- the study of the properties of our universe as a whole. WMAP has been stunningly successful, producing our new Standard Model of Cosmology. WMAP continues to collect high quality scientific data.

WMAP's Top Ten

1. NASA's Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy Probe (WMAP) has mapped the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB) radiation (the oldest light in the universe) and produced the first fine-resolution (0.2 degree) full-sky map of the microwave sky

2. WMAP definitively determined the age of the universe to be 13.73 billion years old to within 1% (0.12 billion years) -as recognized in the Guinness Book of World Records!

3. WMAP nailed down the curvature of space to within 1% of "flat" Euclidean, improving on the precision of previous award-winning measurements by over an order of magnitude

4. The CMB became the "premier baryometer" of the universe with WMAP's precision determination that ordinary atoms (also called baryons) make up only 4.6% of the universe (to within 0.1%)

5. WMAP's complete census of the universe finds that dark matter (not made up of atoms) make up 23.3% (to within 1.3%)

6. WMAP's accuracy and precision determined that dark energy makes up 72.1% of the universe (to within 1.5%), causing the expansion rate of the universe to speed up. - "Lingering doubts about the existence of dark energy and the composition of the universe dissolved when the WMAP satellite took the most detailed picture ever of the cosmic microwave background (CMB)." - Science Magazine 2003, "Breakthrough of the Year" article

7. WMAP has mapped the polarization of the microwave radiation over the full sky and discovered that the universe was reionized earlier than previously believed. - "WMAP scores on large-scale structure. By measuring the polarization in the CMB it is possible to look at the amplitude of the fluctuations of density in the universe that produced the first galaxies. That is a real breakthrough in our understanding of the origin of structure." - ScienceWatch: "What's Hot in Physics", Simon Mitton, Mar./Apr. 2008

8. WMAP has started to sort through the possibilities of what transpired in the first trillionth of a trillionth of a second, ruling out well-known textbook models for the first time

9. The statistical properties of the CMB fluctuations measured by WMAP appear "random"; however, there are several hints of possible deviations from simple randomness that are still being assessed. Significant deviations would be a very important signature of new physics in the early universe

10. Since 2000, the three most highly cited papers in all of physics and astronomy are WMAP scientific papers.
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw
Page Updated: Tuesday, 04-07-2009
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

I've been taught by the most brilliant scientists! :biggrin: I'm done with this topic.

[rasp]

At first, could you clarify what do you mean by "math isn't science"? Do you mean that we cant prove self-consistency of any axiomatic system, or something else?

Can I jump in and say that it is my understanding that infinity is a mathematical concept which doesn't exist in the real world of science, but which may possibly exist (according to mathematical theories).

[Entropee]

One way to look at it is that if there is stuff outside our observable universe (which there almost certainly is), then it was at one point connected to our observable universe. If it didn't follow the same fundamental laws when it was in contact, then you'd have a contradiction.

I think maybe I didn't explain myself very well. I don't mean the laws might be different for things outside our observable universe, I mean outside our ENTIRE universe. Like I said before, "(whatever that means)". There may not be anything outside our universe, just an infinite number of dimensions we cant perceive.

[Chalnoth]

I think maybe I didn't explain myself very well. I don't mean the laws might be different for things outside our observable universe, I mean outside our ENTIRE universe. Like I said before, "(whatever that means)". There may not be anything outside our universe, just an infinite number of dimensions we cant perceive.
It's just a matter of describing things in the right way, then. Even if things vary, it's always going to be possible to describe them based upon some rules that do not. A good example here would be Tegmark's mathiverse: different universes based upon different mathematical structures are unified by the rule that all mathematical structures exist.

[Entropee]

Im gonna look that up that sounds really interesting.

[Chalnoth]

Im gonna look that up that sounds really interesting.
Here is his webpage on the subject, if you're interested:
http://space.mit.edu/home/tegmark/toe_frames.html

Includes links to the more in-depth treatments of this idea.

[Freeman Dyson]

Can I jump in and say that it is my understanding that infinity is a mathematical concept which doesn't exist in the real world of science, but which may possibly exist (according to mathematical theories).

Right. Infinities exist in math. This was debated throughout history for a while but now math is considered to have infinities. I recently read a good book on infinity.

The Infinite Book: A Short Guide to the Boundless, Timeless and Endless

http://www.amazon.com/Infinite-Book-Boundless-Timeless-Endless/dp/0375422277

It covers nearly everything discussed in this thread. From my understanding, when infinities pop up in the physical world, scientists tend to think of them as a flaw in the theory/measurement. Like how the Big Bang shows infinite properties, it is thought that maybe when a proper theory of quantum gravity is applied to the Big Bang, the infinities will be smoothed down to the finite. Scientists generally don't like infinities in the physical world from what this book says. Infinities don't really exist, they are markers of error in our methods.

[ViewsofMars]

It looks like I need to return to this topic. :rofl: This is common knowledge known by reputable scientists. The Big Bang Theory (the new standard model as mentioned in my previous post) often noted as "Cosmic Evolution" (Professor Chaisson (scientist), Wright Center for Science Education - Cosmic Evolution - http://www.tufts.edu/as/wright_center/cosmic_evolution/docs/splash.html) is based on Science! Thank goodness for that! :)

I'm going to add onto my previous posting to this topic, since it now appears to me that more is needed in understanding what is *science*. I don't wish to get into a debate with people here. Hopefully, people will be able to read, understand what they are reading, and learn. :)

I'm providing three quotes from TalkOrigins that apply to our discussion, though I recommend a thorough reading of the article for possible future discussions on various topics in physicsforums.com.


[snip]
What is meant by scientific evidence and scientific proof? In truth, science can never establish 'truth' or 'fact' in the sense that a scientific statement can be made that is formally beyond question. All scientific statements and concepts are open to re-evaluation as new data is acquired and novel technologies emerge. Proof, then, is solely the realm of logic and mathematics (and whiskey). That said, we often hear 'proof' mentioned in a scientific context, and there is a sense in which it denotes "strongly supported by scientific means". Even though one may hear 'proof' used like this, it is a careless and inaccurate handling of the term. Consequently, except in reference to mathematics, this is the last time you will read the terms 'proof' or 'prove' in this article.

[snip]

Now, to answer the question "What is the scientific method?" - very simply (and somewhat naively), the scientific method is a program for research which comprises four main steps. In practice these steps follow more of a logical order than a chronological one:

1.Make observations.
2.Form a testable, unifying hypothesis to explain these observations.
3.Deduce predictions from the hypothesis.
4.Search for confirmations of the predictions;
if the predictions are contradicted by empirical observation, go back to step (2).
Because scientists are constantly making new observations and testing via those observations, the four "steps" are actually practiced concurrently. New observations, even if they were not predicted, should be explicable retrospectively by the hypothesis. New information, especially details of some process previously not understood, can impose new limits on the original hypothesis. Therefore, new information, in combination with an old hypothesis, frequently leads to novel predictions that can be tested further.

Examination of the scientific method reveals that science involves much more than naive empiricism. Research that only involves simple observation, repetition, and measurement is not sufficient to count as science. These three techniques are merely part of the process of making observations (#1 in the steps outlined above). Astrologers, wiccans, alchemists, and shamans all observe, repeat, and measure — but they do not practice science. Clearly, what distinguishes science is the way in which observations are interpreted, tested, and used.

[snip]

In contrast, Newton's scientific theory of universal gravitation makes specific predictions about what should be observed. Newton's theory predicts that the force between two masses should be inversely proportional to the square of the distance between them (otherwise known as the "inverse square law"). In principle, we could take measurements which indicated that the force is actually inversely proportional to the cube of the distance. Such an observation would be inconsistent with the predictions of Newton's universal theory of gravitation, and thus this theory is testable. Many anti-evolutionists, such as the "scientific" creationists, are especially fond of Karl Popper and his falsifiability criterion. These cynics are well known for claiming that evolutionary theory is unscientific because it cannot be falsified. In this article, these accusations are met head on. Each of the evidences given for common descent contains a section providing examples of potential falsifications, i.e. examples of observations that would be highly unlikely if the theory is correct.
[snip]

http://www.talkorigins.org/faqs/comdesc/sciproof.html



The following should be helpful. It is from the United States National Academy of Sciences (Advisors to the Nation on Science, Engineering, and Medicine).

Is Evolution a Theory or a Fact?

It is both. But that answer requires looking more deeply at the meanings of the words "theory" and "fact."

In everyday usage, "theory" often refers to a hunch or a speculation. When people say, "I have a theory about why that happened," they are often drawing a conclusion based on fragmentary or inconclusive evidence.

The formal scientific definition of theory is quite different from the everyday meaning of the word. It refers to a comprehensive explanation of some aspect of nature that is supported by a vast body of evidence.

Many scientific theories are so well-established that no new evidence is likely to alter them substantially. For example, no new evidence will demonstrate that the Earth does not orbit around the sun (heliocentric theory), or that living things are not made of cells (cell theory), that matter is not composed of atoms, or that the surface of the Earth is not divided into solid plates that have moved over geological timescales (the theory of plate tectonics). Like these other foundational scientific theories, the theory of evolution is supported by so many observations and confirming experiments that scientists are confident that the basic components of the theory will not be overturned by new evidence. However, like all scientific theories, the theory of evolution is subject to continuing refinement as new areas of science emerge or as new technologies enable observations and experiments that were not possible previously.

One of the most useful properties of scientific theories is that they can be used to make predictions about natural events or phenomena that have not yet been observed. For example, the theory of gravitation predicted the behavior of objects on the moon and other planets long before the activities of spacecraft and astronauts confirmed them. The evolutionary biologists who discovered Tiktaalik predicted that they would find fossils intermediate between fish and limbed terrestrial animals in sediments that were about 375 million years old. Their discovery confirmed the prediction made on the basis of evolutionary theory. In turn, confirmation of a prediction increases confidence in that theory.

In science, a "fact" typically refers to an observation, measurement, or other form of evidence that can be expected to occur the same way under similar circumstances. However, scientists also use the term "fact" to refer to a scientific explanation that has been tested and confirmed so many times that there is no longer a compelling reason to keep testing it or looking for additional examples. In that respect, the past and continuing occurrence of evolution is a scientific fact. Because the evidence supporting it is so strong, scientists no longer question whether biological evolution has occurred and is continuing to occur. Instead, they investigate the mechanisms of evolution, how rapidly evolution can take place, and related questions.
http://www.nationalacademies.org/evolution/TheoryOrFact.html

We should also be mindful of this from NASA.

Tests of Big Bang: Expansion
NASA Official: Dr. Gary F. Hinshaw (scientists)
Page Updated: Tuesday, 10-14-2008

The Big Bang model was a natural outcome of Einstein's General Relativity as applied to a homogeneous universe. However, in 1917, the idea that the universe was expanding was thought to be absurd. So Einstein invented the cosmological constant as a term in his General Relativity theory that allowed for a static universe. In 1929, Edwin Hubble announced that his observations of galaxies outside our own Milky Way showed that they were systematically moving away from us with a speed that was proportional to their distance from us. The more distant the galaxy, the faster it was receding from us. The universe was expanding after all, just as General Relativity originally predicted! Hubble observed that the light from a given galaxy was shifted further toward the red end of the light spectrum the further that galaxy was from our galaxy.

The Hubble Constant

The specific form of Hubble's expansion law is important: the speed of recession is proportional to distance. The expanding raisin bread model at left illustrates why this is important. [Please view the "expanding raisin bread model" by clinking on the link below.] If every portion of the bread expands by the same amount in a given interval of time, then the raisins would recede from each other with exactly a Hubble type expansion law. In a given time interval, a nearby raisin would move relatively little, but a distant raisin would move relatively farther - and the same behavior would be seen from any raisin in the loaf. In other words, the Hubble law is just what one would expect for a homogeneous expanding universe, as predicted by the Big Bang theory. Moreover no raisin, or galaxy, occupies a special place in this universe - unless you get too close to the edge of the loaf where the analogy breaks down.

The current WMAP results show the Hubble Constant to be 73.5 +/-3.2 (km/sec)/Mpc. If the WMAP data is combined with other cosmological data, the best estimate is 70.8 +/- 1.6 (km/sec)/Mpc.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/bb_tests_exp.html

A review of my mgs. 39 might be helpful. A segment from that post was from a "scientist (physicist) -" from NASA, Is the Universe Infinite? Here is a quote from him, but please review the entire website.

"However, the results of the WMAP mission and observations of distant supernova have suggested that the expansion of the universe is actually accelerating which implies the existence of a form of matter with a strong negative pressure, such as the cosmological constant. This strange form of matter is also sometimes referred to as the "dark energy". If dark energy in fact plays a significant role in the evolution of the universe, then in all likelihood the universe will continue to expand forever." http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Also, "Mathematicians" are not scientists. "Physicists" are scientists that know mathamatics. :)

Have a good day,
Mars

[Entropee]

Thanks Chalnoth I actually couldnt find it on my own lol