How do we know space is not infinite?

Oldfart

Oh, I can get my head around that equation OK. The hard part is ascribing meaning to it. Like, what's the point? Can infinity be increased? Or is infinity plus 1 senseless?

My problem, not yours.,,

Imax

CMB radiation is almost homogeneous, but it has small differences. If you build models were space can be infinite or can be compact, it turns out that compact space models can explain those small differences better that infinite space models.

phinds

How "compact" are we talking about here? I'm assuming that you are not implying small here, just not infinite.

Imax

Billions of light years across, but it’s not static. Space seems to be expanding, and that expansion seems to be accelerating.

phinds

"Billions" could be smaller than the diameter of the observable universe. I assume you DON'T mean that, but I now assume that you ARE talking about VERY small --- that is, not much bigger than the observable universe. I certainly can't argue persuasively that this is impossible, but I believe the consensus is that it is MUCH bigger than that at the very least.

Imax

It depends on whether or not we can identify ghost images. If space is compact, then light from a distant galaxy can travel in two directions, towards us or it can circumnavigate the universe and appear somewhere else as a ghost image.

phinds

I completely understand this concept, but would be astounded if it ever turned out to be the case. I DO believe it possible that the universe has the topology that you suggest but even if it does, the thought that it could be small enough that the light would actually reach us from both directions just strikes me as so unlikely as to be silly.

Imax

It’s not small. Light from ghosts can take billions of years to reach us

Chronos

The observable universe is finite. Given that is the only part observationally accessible, the rest is scientifically irrelevant until an observationally detectable effect on the observable part is confirmed.

phinds

since the current diameter of the observable universe is pushing 100 billion light years, I consider "billions" to be QUITE small.

Naty1

Like oldfart, I too had a misconception about infinity....turns out there are dozens of different infinity concepts discussed and easily accessible in Wikipedia...

One is enough to occupy my brain for the time being.

phinds

Chronos, I have seen you make this exact point numerous times, including one in a thread when I first joined many months ago. I was quite taken aback at the time because it seemed then, as it seems now, that you wish to shut down all discussion of the possibilities of what might exist outside the observable universe.

I have been very encouraged since then to see that your point of view is decidedly in the minority and I now find your point of view tiresome.

I do not mean that I think there is anything wrong with the technical accuracy of your point of view, but it strikes me as identical to a hypothetical critic of Columbus wanting to sail around the world because after all, our current experience says hey Chris, there's nothing out there.

I DO understand that this is a very flawed analogy since the earth is observable and outside the observable universe is not, but my fundamental point is that it seems to me that you want to shut down discussion and have us hunker down in ignorance.

Since it seems to bother you that most of the rest of us have an interest in discussing the existance of things outside the OU, why don't you just ignore these threads, write us all off as willfully ignorant, and go about your merry way?

Calimero

Completely true. No use debating things that cannot be verified in any way, and infiniteness is inherently such thing.

chrisbaird

You don't have to think about infinity as some eternally inaccesible twilight zone. You can get a very good feel for what infinity means by going large compared to the system, but still small numerically. For instance, x + 1 = x becomes very close to true when x = 1 million.

Oldfart

Whoa there! What's this "we" stuff, white man? (Tonto to the Lone Ranger, as they find themselves surrounded by hostile indians.)

I actually don't admit to having a misconception, at least relative to the real world/universe, but am fine with infinity being an useful mathematical concept.

zeffur7

I did not think I made such an assertion.

Visible objects in solar systems obviously have orbits and the contents of galaxies appear to be accelerating away from each other, but how can we be certain that the explanation for those galaxies moving away from each other is caused by space expanding? Consider the conjecture that the big bang was a singularity that began to expand at some position and after ~14 billion years it has increased in volume to all that we are able to perceive now.

zeffur7

Excellent points!

If the big bang originated as a singularity (which some theorize) can we estimate the volume of the observable universe at 1 billion year increments since the beginning?
If yes, what was the rate of expansion? Did 90+% of it expand in a nanosecond or how did it expand, if we know.

It seems to me that we should have been receiving light from the moment light was being created--which should include the light from the wall of light that you essentially describe as the barrier that we cannot see past. Light from points closer to us should arrive in shorter periods of time than light from points further from us. If the light we are now receiving is 14 billion years old, how can we be certain it is from the beginning of the big bang? Or do we make our estimate of the age of the universe based on the light wall barrier that you have described?