## 10^80 particles in observable v unobservable universe

Here is a chart showing the unobservable universe

The green lines indicates the part we can see. My question is that figure that gets thrown around, there are 10^80 particles in the universe, is that for observable or the unobservable universe.
 PhysOrg.com science news on PhysOrg.com >> King Richard III found in 'untidy lozenge-shaped grave'>> Google Drive sports new view and scan enhancements>> Researcher admits mistakes in stem cell study
 Recognitions: Homework Help Science Advisor 10^80 is for the observable universe, as the unobservable universe is probably [maybe?] infinite.
 that the unobservable universe is not infinite is something i feel very strongly about. it's quite simple: the universe began at a definite time in the past and it is bounded by the present, so there is a boundary on the past and the present, hence finite. Second argument: in an infinite universe there is an infinite amount of matter which would overwhelm the cosmological constant thus causing the universe to implode into a big crunch. third, you can't do any measurements in an infinite universe because all quantities are infinite, thus there is no way to determine if space is flat. fourth, although this is an argument from authority, take a look at the graph, it clearly shows the unobservable universe to be not infinite but finite at roughly 46 billion light years. fifth, you can't calculate probabilities in an infinite universe, the odds of all events happening are infinite. sixth, as olbert demonstrated in the 1830's in an infinite universe the sky would be filled with light from every angle.

Recognitions:
Homework Help

## 10^80 particles in observable v unobservable universe

 the universe began at a definite time in the past and it is bounded by the present, so there is a boundary on the past and the present, hence finite.
A timelike boundary does not imply a spacelike boundary.

 Second argument: in an infinite universe there is an infinite amount of matter which would overwhelm the cosmological constant thus causing the universe to implode into a big crunch.
Plainly false. The Friedmann equations show that the big crunch only results in universes with positive curvature (i.e., finite universes)

 third, you can't do any measurements in an infinite universe because all quantities are infinite, thus there is no way to determine if space is flat.
Just do your measurement in some local patch. Why does the rest of the universe matter?

 fourth, although this is an argument from authority, take a look at the graph, it clearly shows the unobservable universe to be not infinite but finite at roughly 46 billion light years.
You are way off-base here. 46 Glyr is the size of the **observable** universe.

 fifth, you can't calculate probabilities in an infinite universe, the odds of all events happening are infinite.
I don't think this makes any sense.

 sixth, as olbert demonstrated in the 1830's in an infinite universe the sky would be filled with light from every angle.
This is true for an infinitely old universe, but is solved by a finite age universe. If the universe is of finite age, there we can only have received light from so far away, so the sky will not be filled with light from every angle, regardless of whether or not the whole universe is infinite.

 Quote by nicksauce A timelike boundary does not imply a spacelike boundary.
Sure it does. Go back to first year physics. Take the following equation:

D = RT, distance equals rate times time. You're arguing the D is infinite. How do you get D to be infinite? Either R or T has to be infinite. What's the R of the universe? It's the Hubble constant, 75 km/s/MPc. What's the T of the universe. It's 13.75 by. Hence D is finite.

 Just do your measurement in some local patch. Why does the rest of the universe matter?
That's ridiculous. I have a feeling that you're talking about the multiverse for which there is no evidence. It's the universe as a whole that matters. Let's say my local patch was the solar system and someone else's local patch was the system of Alpha Centauri, clearly our measurements would be in disagreement.

 You are way off-base here. 46 Glyr is the size of the **observable** universe.
Look at the chart again. It's that curved green line that represents the observable universe.

 I don't think this makes any sense.
What is the probability that I'm a random word generator? How do you determine the probability of something? You take the number of events divided by the probability space. in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of random word generators, moreover, the space in which it can happen is infinite, so you can't determine the probability of something happening.

 Quote by robertjford80 What is the probability that I'm a random word generator? How do you determine the probability of something? You take the number of events divided by the probability space. in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of random word generators, moreover, the space in which it can happen is infinite, so you can't determine the probability of something happening.
Yes you can.

While it is probably true that, in an infinite universe, all things that can happen will happen, so what? our cause and effect is still limited to our own light cone.

Show me one example where something that happens 1030 light years away has any effect on our calculations or physical universe here.

Recognitions:
Gold Member
 Quote by robertjford80 that the unobservable universe is not infinite is something i feel very strongly about.
Yes, but the universe really doesn't care what you think, and as nicksauce has pointed out, your logic is seriously flawed.

Your inability, or unwillingness, to accept that the universe might have STARTED OUT infinite (weird as that does seem), is your limitation, not the universe's. Just because it was a lot smaller 14+ billion years ago does NOT imply that it was finite.

 Quote by DaveC426913 Yes you can. While it is probably true that, in an infinite universe, all things that can happen will happen, so what? our cause and effect is still limited to our own light cone. Show me one example where something that happens 1030 light years away has any effect on our calculations or physical universe here.
Probability at least can be debated. The following however cannot:

Take the following equation:

D = RT, distance equals rate times time. You're arguing the D is infinite. How do you get D to be infinite? Either R or T has to be infinite. What's the R of the universe? It's the Hubble constant, 75 km/s/MPc. What's the T of the universe. It's 13.75 by. Hence D is finite.

I would like an answer to the above.

 Quote by phinds Yes, but the universe really doesn't care what you think, and as nicksauce has pointed out, your logic is seriously flawed.
I'm not saying: I feel strongly about X therefore X is true. I'm saying that X is true, I think it's important. A lot of people think it's false, and I care deeply about this misconception.

For you as well, phinds, I would like an answer to this:

D = RT, distance equals rate times time. You're arguing the D is infinite. How do you get D to be infinite? Either R or T has to be infinite. What's the R of the universe? It's the Hubble constant, 75 km/s/MPc. What's the T of the universe. It's 13.75 by. Hence D is finite.

 Your inability, or unwillingness, to accept that the universe might have STARTED OUT infinite (weird as that does seem), is your limitation, not the universe's. Just because it was a lot smaller 14+ billion years ago does NOT imply that it was finite.
This is just a bald assertion. You've got no reason for this statement of faith.

 Quote by robertjford80 You're arguing the D is infinite.
I'm not. I'm simply poking holes in the flawed logic that's been presented.

 Quote by robertjford80 This is just a bald assertion. You've got no reason for this statement of faith.
As is yours. "It is finite" is a statement of faith. You can't apply things like D=R/T to the universe.

More correctly, we think it's probably finite.

 You take the number of events divided by the probability space. in an infinite universe there is an infinite number of random word generators, moreover, the space in which it can happen is infinite, so you can't determine the probability of something happening.
This betrays an ignorance of basic probability. You can certainly calculate probabilities that way when dealing with a finite sample space, but calculus allows us to deal with infinite (or uncountable) probability spaces very easily. The normal distribution itself is, of course, defined over the reals...

 Sure it does. Go back to first year physics. Take the following equation: D = RT, distance equals rate times time. You're arguing the D is infinite. How do you get D to be infinite? Either R or T has to be infinite. What's the R of the universe? It's the Hubble constant, 75 km/s/MPc. What's the T of the universe. It's 13.75 by. Hence D is finite.
You're assuming here that the universe began with radius zero and that expansion involves the increase in radius over time, but this isn't true. Expansion, in the context of the bang bang, refers to metric expansion, which is very different.

 Quote by robertjford80 Sure it does. Go back to first year physics. Take the following equation: D = RT, distance equals rate times time. You're arguing the D is infinite. How do you get D to be infinite? Either R or T has to be infinite. What's the R of the universe? It's the Hubble constant, 75 km/s/MPc. What's the T of the universe. It's 13.75 by. Hence D is finite.

 Quote by Number Nine You're assuming here that the universe began with radius zero and that expansion involves the increase in radius over time, but this isn't true. Expansion, in the context of the bang bang, refers to metric expansion, which is very different.
You're going to have to show how metric expansion implies an infinite space.

Also an infinite universe conflicts with standard inflationary cosmology. Here's a quote from Lisa Randall

 The universe doubled in size in a fixed time and then doubled again in that same time and then kept doubling at least 90 times in a row until the inflationary epoch ended and the universe was as smooth as we see it today. This exponential expansion means, for example, that when the universe’s age had multiplied by 60 times, the size of the universe would have increased by more than a trillion trillion trillions in size.
You can't double the size of the universe if it is infinite.

I also want to get back to the density parameter. You can't calculate the density of an infinite universe. Such statements as the universe is 4% ordinary matter, and 24% dark matter are meaningless because in an infinite universe there is an infinite amount of matter.

 Quote by DaveC426913 As is yours. "It is finite" is a statement of faith. You can't apply things like D=R/T to the universe.
You're just asserting that you can't apply things like D = RT to the universe. You're going to have to provide some reason why our common sense intuitions should be suspended. If you look at the chart above, it clearly asserts that the size of the universe is 46 billion light years. It doesn't require faith to believe that a finite number times a finite number equals a finite number.

 More correctly, we think it's probably finite.
If it's more probable that the universe is finite then we're in agreement. Of course there's always a small probability that the universe is infinite but that's not what we're arguing and that's not what nicksauce asserted.

 You're going to have to show how metric expansion implies an infinite space.
No, you're completely missing the point here. Your argument was as follows: the expansion of the Universe involved the Universe beginning with finite size and increasing in radius over time, therefore the current size of the Universe must be finite. You grossly misunderstand the notion of inflation in Big Bang cosmology; and your argument fails utterly when expansion is understood as metric expansion.

 I also want to get back to density parameter. You can't calculate the density of an infinite universe. Such statements as the universe is 4% ordinary matter, and 24% dark matter are meaningless because in an infinite universe there is an infinite amount of matter.
Brilliant! It's incredible that a century's worth of physicists and mathematicians have simply overlooked this fact. If only we had a mathematical framework that allowed us to deal with infinite processes; it's a shame that Isaac Newton didn't think of one...

 If you look at the chart above, it clearly asserts that the size of the universe is 46 billion light years.
No, it doesn't. That chart very obviously describes the radius of the observable universe as 46 light-years. It even has a nice caption saying "visibility horizon" above the bar reading 46 light-years. How have you failed to notice this?
 Hey OP, imagine a (infinite) plane. Next, imagine the plane stretching evenly. If you drew two points on it, they would recede from eachother. So would any two arbitrary points. Did the size of the plane increase? Next, imagine two distant points and a light signal emanating from the first one towards the second one. If the points are sufficiently far apart, the distance between them would increase by more than the distance traverseed by the light. In this fashion, we arrive at an observable region around each point. Does this region increase?