10^80 particles in observable v unobservable universe

[nicksauce]

Correct me if I'm wrong but from the orders of magnitude -33 up to 25 it is right, so why should the 26th be any different. In any case 10^26 meters is a lot different than infinity. You haven't put forth any reason either for why you think the universe's size is infinity. All you've done is calculate the Friedman equation to show that the observable universe is 46 bly across.

The point was to correct your misconception that the total universe was 46 Glyr in radius, when in reality it is the observable universe that is 46 Glyr. I proved this that this is the case. Apparently now you are moving on to the misconception that the total universe is 93 Glyr across. Again, this is just 2x the number which is the radius of the observable universe.

 

[Dickfore]

Hey OP, would you agree that the Universe is infinite if it is flat?

 

[robertjford80]

Hey OP, would you agree that the Universe is infinite if it is flat?

I realize Hawking believes that but it doesn't make sense. It's a straight-up contradiction. If you believe the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 seconds 90 times then you can't believe the universe is infinite. Moreover, if the expansion rate is finite, even if it is metric, and the age of the universe is finite, then the size of the universe is finite.

 

[robertjford80]

The point was to correct your misconception that the total universe was 46 Glyr in radius, when in reality it is the observable universe that is 46 Glyr. I proved this that this is the case.
Apparently now you are moving on to the misconception that the total universe is 93 Glyr across. Again, this is just 2x the number which is the radius of the observable universe.

Yes I understand that now. But I do not accept the claim that the universe is probably infinite. Here's a quote from wiki

A 2004 paper by Cornish et al claims to establish a lower bound of 24 gigaparsecs (78 billion light-years) on the diameter of the whole universe, meaning the smallest possible diameter for the whole universe would be only slightly smaller than the observable universe (since this is only a lower bound, the paper leaves open the possibility that the whole universe is much larger, even infinite)

As I've already stated roughly five times I see no reason why anyone would think the universe is infinite when they believe that it was finite at 10^-34 seconds.

 

[Number Nine]

I realize Hawking believes that but it doesn't make sense. It's a straight-up contradiction. If you believe the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 seconds 90 times then you can't believe the universe is infinite. Moreover, if the expansion rate is finite, even if it is metric, and the age of the universe is finite, then the size of the universe is finite.

This has been very clearly explained to you several times, by several different people. The fact that you are still repeating this nonsense about the Universe growing in size suggests that you either aren't interested in learning anything about cosmology, or that you just aren't ready to been taking an interest in physics, because you clearly aren't understanding the very basic explanations that people are putting forward. Personally, I think you're just a crank. The reason you're a crank is that you seem to genuinely believe that you have discovered some sort of trivial logical argument (finite times finite equals finite!11!) that every physicist and mathematician in the world has simply overlooked, and that, by this argument, you have undermined all of the work that has been done in cosmology over the last hundred years. This honestly reminds of the classic creationist talking point whereby every scientist in the world has simply failed to notice that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

Metric expansion refers to the fact that, on a large scale, the distances between objects in the cosmos is increasing. It does not, and I repeat this for the fifth time, it does not mean that the radius of the Universe is is increasing, or expanding out into something. You should consider the possibility that the entirely of the scientific community, which seems to have no problem with the notion of an infinite Universe, may know a tad bit more than you do.

As I've already stated roughly five times I see no reason why anyone would think the universe is infinite when they believe that it was finite at 10^-34 seconds.

Where has anyone argued that the Universe began with finite radius and has since become infinite? The authors establish a lower bound for the diameter of the universe at 10^-34 seconds; so what? What does that have to do with your argument?

 

[robertjford80]

This has been very clearly explained to you several times, by several different people. The fact that you are still repeating this nonsense about the Universe growing in size suggests that you either aren't interested in learning anything about cosmology, or that you just aren't ready to been taking an interest in physics, because you clearly aren't understanding the very basic explanations that people are putting forward. Personally, I think you're just a crank. The reason you're a crank is that you seem to genuinely believe that you have discovered some sort of trivial logical argument (finite times finite equals finite!11!) that every physicist and mathematician in the world has simply overlooked, and that, by this argument, you have undermined all of the work that has been done in cosmology over the last hundred years. This honestly reminds of the classic creationist talking point whereby every scientist in the world has simply failed to notice that evolution violates the laws of thermodynamics.

All this is a long winded ad hominem attack and it demonstrates you're inability to understand what rational argument is. It also proves that you are unable to understand any other point of view than you're own.

The only reason why you threw out those insults is because you've realized you have no evidence that the size of the universe is infinite and you're afraid to admit you're wrong. Instead what you do is say something like the following:

Metric expansion refers to the fact that, on a large scale, the distances between objects in the cosmos is increasing. It does not, and I repeat this for the fifth time, it does not mean that the radius of the Universe is is increasing, or expanding out into something.

We've already dealt with this issue. You've admitted that metric expansion does not imply an infinite universe so this point is now moot. At issue here is whether the size of the universe is infinite not whether the radius of the Universe is is increasing.

You should consider the possibility that the entirely of the scientific community, which seems to have no problem with the notion of an infinite Universe, may know a tad bit more than you do.

This is another irrelevant statement and demonstrates your inability to understand what reason is.

Where has anyone argued that the Universe began with finite radius and has since become infinite? The authors establish a lower bound for the diameter of the universe at 10^-34 seconds; so what? What does that have to do with your argument?

You wrote:

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.

In other words, you're taking the contrary view and you're asserting that metric expansion refutes my argument. You then proceded to fail to back up your assertion with any rationale which again demonstrates your inability to understand the basics of logical argument. You're only capable of bald assertions and begging the question.

I'm through with you Number Nine. All your posts in the future will be ignored. I have ample evidence to conclude that I have nothing to learn from you. Other people on this forum are 100 times more helpful than you such as nicksauce and isometricpion.

 

[Dickfore]

Hey OP, would you agree that the Universe is infinite if it is flat?

I realize Hawking believes that but it doesn't make sense. It's a straight-up contradiction. If you believe the universe doubled in size every 10^-34 seconds 90 times then you can't believe the universe is infinite. Moreover, if the expansion rate is finite, even if it is metric, and the age of the universe is finite, then the size of the universe is finite.

So, do you agree or do you not agree with my question? Because your response has nothing to do with my query?

 

[phinds]

So, do you agree or do you not agree with my question? Because your response has nothing to do with my query?

You are SO wasting your time. This guy is clearly not listening to anything anyone is saying. He just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over.

 

[Dickfore]

You are SO wasting your time. This guy is clearly not listening to anything anyone is saying. He just keeps repeating the same nonsense over and over.

Yet, I would like to get a straight answer from him (her).

 

[micromass]

If this is true, then what are they? You can't tell because you're just guessing that the odds of a prime below 9 digits is more or less similar to the odds of a prime above 9 digits.

I asked you to go ahead and calculate the probability of a number being prime and you didn't but said that someone else has done it.

If we define for A\subseteq \mathbb{N}

d(A)=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{|A\cap \{1,...,n\}|}{n}

as our "probability", then the prime number theorem gives us that the probability that a number is prime is exactly 0.

You can't get an exact number with infinity. Infinity divided by infinity equals infinity.

Wrong. Check this FAQ about the use of infinite in mathematics: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507003

 

[WannabeNewton]

If we define for A\subseteq \mathbb{N}

d(A)=\lim_{n\rightarrow +\infty} \frac{|A\cap \{1,...,n\}|}{n}

as our "probability", then the prime number theorem gives us that the probability that a number is prime is exactly 0.
Wrong. Check this FAQ about the use of infinite in mathematics: https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=507003

You are wrong. Hawking is wrong. Science is wrong. Since the universe has a finite age the prime number theorem, although independent of the universe's age, is wrong. Also, Infinity / Infinity = Infinity because math.
/sarcasm

 

[micromass]

You are wrong. Hawking is wrong. Science is wrong. Since the universe has a finite age the prime number theorem, although independent of the universe's age, is wrong. Also, Infinity / Infinity = Infinity because math.

You're right. Science is just a theory.

 

[Pengwuino]

I have a feeling that the OP doesn't know what differential geometry is so what exactly is the point of this kind of argument? It's like arguing the finer points of QED with someone who seems like they just learned trigonometry and claims they can calculate cross-sections using similar triangles.

 

[robertjford80]

So, do you agree or do you not agree with my question? Because your response has nothing to do with my query?

Just make your argument.

 

[Dickfore]

Just make your argument.

My argument is contained within this article. Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia article

 

[micromass]

This thread is becoming silly. Locked.