Is the universe infinite?

QuantumJG

Ok so me and a few of my physics (& Maths) friends were arguing this.

I argued that it must be finite in size, since the universe contains a finite amount of matter and since no space is truly empty, how could the universe be finite.

My friend who's a mathematician said that in her geometry subject this question was actually brought up. She said that the universe may be a 3-manifold (3D surface?) and it depends on the curvature (negative or positive) as to whether the universe is finite or not.

I just want to know what the consensus is.

Chalnoth

There is no consensus. Basically, our vision is limited in time and space, so we can't exactly say anything about whether or not distances are infinite. All we can say for sure is that our universe is many times larger than our observable region. But how much larger is currently up in the air.

brerabbit

What is the/a universe?? Scientists suggest that there many universes emanating from their own "big bang". Space is infinite but a universe is bounded.

universe11

The size of the Universe: the speed of light multiplied with 13.7 billion years...

-1/12

lol no

universe11

if the matter that originally emitted the oldest CMBR photons has a present distance of 46 billion light years, then at the time of decoupling when the photons were originally emitted, the distance would have been only about 42 million light-years away...

TungstenX

Assumption: mass creates space, right?

If space were finite, then just by standing at the edge of space will create more space?

HallsofIvy

What evidence do you have of this?

What evidence do you have of this?

darkside00

space is infinite, energy/matter has a maximum value

TungstenX

Checking my assumptions:
1. Matter create space?
2. Matter expanse space?
3. Matter needs space to exists?

Tanelorn

Space can create particles i.e. matter and energy seemingly from nothing? And the reverse?

Deuterium2H

Answers to your assumptions:

1) No, matter does not create space. Matter exists in space.
2) No, matter does not expand space. At the earliest epoch of the Universe, there was no matter, per se, but rather pure radiation. The expansion of space is an intrinsic property, set by the initial conditions (Big Bang). Technically, the expansion of space would still occur even if there was absolutely no matter.
3) As physical matter has spatial extension, then I guess yes, matter "needs" space within which to exist.

TungstenX

Ah, thank you Deuterium2H

mrspeedybob

How can we say that for sure? What in our observable universe would be different if the universe were 1.1 times larger then the observable universe versus 1,000,000,000,000,000 times larger?

Chalnoth

Well, there are a number of possibilities that have to be considered. But let's just consider one where the universe wraps back on itself. If the universe wraps back on itself based upon its spatial curvature, then current measurements place the spatial curvature to be within 1% of zero, which makes the radius of curvature at least 10 times the Hubble radius, which is a factor of a few larger than the observable universe.

If the universe is flat but still wraps back on itself, then this induces anisotropies, which we should be able to see in the CMB. But we don't. Thus if it does wrap back on itself, it would have to do that very, very far away (again, a factor of a few times the observable universe).

afennah

[QUOTE=I argued that it must be finite in size, since the universe contains a finite amount of matter and since no space is truly empty, how could the universe be finite.[/QUOTE]


I thought that 'Oblers Paradox' proved that the universe could not be infinite. If it was...the night sky should be brilliant white (caused by the starlight from an infinite number of stars).

Brain Dwarf

You got that wrong, the paradox you mention was more to do with a static universe.
Since our universe is all that there is (that is after all the definition of universe), it must then extend forever - yet it is still expanding!