Could there be an edge to the Universe?

SpaceTiger

Please see my posts for cited evidence for inflation:

http://www.physicsforums.com/showpos...3&postcount=61

If you need me to expand or clarify anything, please say so rather than pretending it was never posted. It took several nearly identical explanations of Occam's Razor before you stopped trying to use it in your arguments.


I'm glad you found their posts useful, they are among the more helpful and knowledgable members here and there is much to be learned from them. Certainly many of my posts were addressing the tone of the discussion, as it is my responsibility to moderate these forums as well as to contribute to them. If you're not finding my posts helpful, then perhaps I'm not communicating myself well, and If you have more questions, I can assure you that I will address them as directly as I can.

Dozent100

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I got to go with Space Tiger on this one. I think your questions have been adequately answered several times over. Some very smart people, myself not included, have looked at your problem from several different angles. Cosmology is a not a hard science. There are not a lot of hard facts around to base assumptions on. And we can talk till the cows come home, but if you reject all explainations offered, what are we accomplishing?

My experience is more on the nuclear Engineering side, but I try to keep up with what is going on. I will caution you that There is a lot of Pseudo Science running around and I wonder if this where you are coming from. Psudo-Science attempts to make the science fit the desired outcome, rather than the other way around. And where the facts don't support the theory, the facts are ignored.
There has been a lot of that going around since the Clinton Years.



s

KingOrdo

I can't make things any clearer to you on this matter. Regarding Occam's Razor: You apparently still don't understand it. It's not: The simplest theory is the best. It is: Do not multiply entities without need. There is a subtle, but important, difference there. You are the one making a positive claim; the burden of proof is on you, not me. You believe that X? Great: adduce some evidence in support.

I'm not interested in your pet theories, conjecture, poetic impressions, etc. I'm interested in evidence. I'm interested in someone saying: 'Hi, KingOrdo: We know that the Universe is infinite because satellite A measured b. We already know because of law Y that b if and only if c. But if c then d. Therefore d.'

Are you talking about pseudo-science in the Popperian sense? It's not clear to me what you're saying here. I am asking questions about the structure of the Universe.

I don't know what you're saying here. I don't see what politics, or my liberalism, has to do with anything.

Wallace

I think we are getting somewhat off track in this discussion! No one is suggesting that we can conclusively prove the Universe is infinite but I'm curious to know why you think 'the burden of proof' rests on the 'case for infinite' side of the argument? It could equally be argued that if one was to suggest the Universe is finite, then evidence for this must be presented.

However, neither of the above arguments I just made are reasonable. Clearly we do not have conclusive evidence either way. What we do know is that we have not reason to doubt that the cosmological principle applies for the extent of our observable universe, for this we do have hard evidence such as the isotropy of the CMB (the anisotropies are of course of great interest, but are very small in agreement with the cosmological principle), and the general isotropy of galaxies and QSO's seen in large redshift surveys.

Given this data then, we can see that if the Universe is finite, it is clearly at least much bigger than the observable Universe, and for all intents and purposes is infinite. Assuming the Universe is infinite makes the equations easier to deal with, since there are less parameters.

I'm not sure how to discussion got to the point of demanding conclusive evidence for the infinite nature of the Universe? Surely this is impossible! We can only ever say that was haven't observed something, we can never have proof that is doesn't exist. To make a whimsical example, it is not reasonable to demand that someone who says that talking monkeys with tea-pots for hands do not exist provide evidence for their non-existence. All you can do is point to the evidence that we have not observed such things, and it makes evolution a simpler model if it does not have to explain why monkeys should have evolved tea-pots in place of their hands. To further the silly analogy, we could make theoretical predictions about the problems monkeys would face with tea-pot hands, just as we can make predictions about the problems an edge to the Universe would introduce. In both cases our theories may suggest the non-existence of something but to prove with evidence the non-existence is clearly impossible.

Theories are constructed based upon what is observed, and are made to be as simple as possible given those observations. This is why we assume the Universe is infinite, in full knowledge that this is not absolutely neccessarily the case.

pervect

Regardless of whether or not there is an edge to the universe, there is a definite edge to this thread. A rather unpleasant one.

So, let's all try to be nice to one another, and get the thread back on track (as Wallace ha noted, it's started to drift).

Otherwise, I'm going to get grumpy and start doing grumpy things....

One thing that pushes my buttons is Ordo's idea that SpaceTiger should have unlimited amounts of time to answer his (Ordo's) questions. In an ideal world, this would be nice, but people have to be able to live with the fact that moderators and mentors may actually have other things in their life other than PF, hard as it may be to believe....

cristo

Thanks

KingOrdo

Because that's a positive claim: 'The Universe is infinite.' Okey, fine: Maybe you're right. Why is that so? What empirical evidence do you have in support?

Indeed. And in a previous post I made precisely this point. If I were prepared to make a rigorous claim that the Universe were finite, the onus would be on me to defend it.

Thanks for this response. But why isn't the onus on you to justify your claim: 'The universe is isotropic from Earth. Therefore, the universe is isotropic from every point in the observable universe.' That's a leap that does not seem to be entailed by the empirical evidence. The Bedouin would be wrong to say, 'The world looks desert-y in all directions to me. Therefore, the world looks desert-y from all spots on the Earth.' How does going from local isotropy (observationally true) to the cosmological principle not make the same mistake?

But here's a technical question I asked earlier that has not been answered: Is there any amount of matter that would halt the expansion of the Universe (that is, such that the Universe asymtotically approaches a maximum volume)? If so, the Universe is identical to the observable universe (right?) and if there's a boundary, we could eventually find it (our progeny, that is). Other than the cosmological principle and (your) intuitions about simplicity, is there anything that weighs against a finite universe?

Okey. Our inuitions just differ on this point. Thanks again for your very clear and informative reponse.

-----

Are you talking about someone else here? I never claimed any such thing; in fact, I've asked SpaceTiger to stay out of the discussion. Part of being a good scientist--indeed, a good human being--is honesty in argument, pervect.

Valjean

It may be that condidering the edge of the universe is like considering the edge of time. Many advances in knowledge have come at the expense of contradicting current accepted conclusions. Maybe a different look at the basis would help answer some of the questions...most likely not but maybe. Consider, from the same starting place as the bang, formation of strings and such...nothing. Then a contraction of space into bits of compressed space each surrounded by expanded space, both created by the same action, like a teeter, totter. Just as a compressable spring with equal alternate sections compressed it will expand the other sections and they will pull beteen the compressed sections but not move them if that pull is equal in both directions. Equate that to space, multi-dimensional, spherical. The likeness stops there but it could help understand how the expanded space is necessary to produce attraction between the compressed bits of space. Under this scenario the area we consider an empty vacuum of nothingness is not. It is near infinitely flexible expanded space. It would be the conduit that transfers energy fluxuations from bit to bit and the ever larger units they combine to form. Compressed space (energy) surrounded by expanded space (energy) Some combine to form units around which other individual or smaller units of bits orbit in regular frequencies and amplitudes, increasing and decreasing the level of attraction strength between them and others comensurate with the changing distance. Those we can detect with our instruments. The ones who do not move in regular patterns we can detect would still retain their attraction component (dark matter). And if units combine into large accumulations their attraction increases accordingly and could be the source of what is considered "warped space". This would violate and contradict many currently held notions. But one of the frequenct comments shared by most scientific disciplines is something akin to "Because of this we're going to have to reconsider our conlusions about...". It's those rethinkings that produce progress.

SpaceTiger

Okay, I think it's time to lock this thread. It's clear that the OP isn't going to accept the answers given to them, so for the sake of everyone's time, the discussion should probably stop. Other folks with lingering questions (about eternal inflation, or whatever) should feel free to start another thread. Thanks to everyone who took the time to respond.