Dismiss Notice
Join Physics Forums Today!
The friendliest, high quality science and math community on the planet! Everyone who loves science is here!

B How can the Universe grow if it is infinite?

  1. Feb 27, 2017 #1
    Our general understanding of the universe is that it is infinite, so how can it be growing? If the universe is everything then what is it growing into?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. Feb 27, 2017 #2

    PeroK

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member

    "Growing" or "expanding" can also mean simply that the distances between points is getting larger with time.

    If you know a little mathematics, you could imagine an infinite plane (the x-y plane, say) and a mapping that expands the distance between any two points over time. The x-y plane is simply mapped to itself by this process. There is no outside to grow into and no outside is needed.
     
  4. Feb 27, 2017 #3
    As far as we are able to realize for the moment... Who knows...
     
  5. Feb 27, 2017 #4
    Ever hear of the balloon analogy?
     
  6. Feb 27, 2017 #5
    That we don't need any 'outside' (mathematicaly) is a fact.
     
  7. Feb 27, 2017 #6

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    That yours is a common question can be seen if you look at the similar thread "Infinite vs. Expanding" just above yours, and the answers there.
     
  8. Feb 27, 2017 #7
    I'd suggest, Sen, that the question you put forward here may strictly belong more to philosophy than to physics. It arises because the finite (i.e. 'us'; at least in how we observe and think of ourselves) can have no realistic comprehension of 'infinite'. I.e. we can only possible think in terms of limitation. Thus since we have no prospect of defining (at least) one of the terms of the question, it is rendered meaningless. Sorry, I don't mean to be a killjoy.
     
  9. Feb 27, 2017 #8
    Sen is not asking about how it's infinite (or how to comprehend it), but rather how something infinite can expand. This can be explained easily through the balloon analogy, as long as one does not begin to think that the universe is on a curved 2 dimensional plane, such as the balloon.
     
  10. Feb 27, 2017 #9

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    @Sen Turner , google "Hilbert Hotel". "growing" and "infinite" are fully compatible.

    I also recommend the link in my signature
     
  11. Feb 27, 2017 #10

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    Personally, I think the problem stems from taking our concepts, like "finite" and "infinite", too literally. They are both merely tools for understanding, with their various benefits and limitations. They are both mathematical notions, attributes of models. I'd say they are more like templates we hold up to our observations to make sense of them, so the question "but how can it really be like that" is always answerable by "of course it's not actually like that, but this is a useful way to think about it, our best current model." That holds just as much for a finite model as an infinite one. If we had detected positive curvature, and modeled the entire universe as a finite sphere with no boundaries, wouldn't people ask "how can a finite universe expand, what is it expanding into if it is already everything?" So it goes. Any "how can it really be" question is like that, they can be used to stimulate new thinking, but they never actually have an answer.
     
  12. Feb 27, 2017 #11

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Not true at all. His question is very clear and has a definite answer. Google "Hilbert Hotel"
     
  13. Feb 27, 2017 #12
    Hi Phinds

    I looked at 'Hilbert's Hotel' as you suggested and I see that the idea uses as its basis a never ending series of numbers, extending, then, naturally, into infinity. But the question that occurs to me is, is a uni-directional 'infinity' plausible? I.e. can you have a viable idea of infinity that possesses, yet, a start point?
     
  14. Feb 27, 2017 #13
    But if in the course of inflating my 'balloon' the one-way air valve should fail, where does all the 'universe' end up then? Presumably in the same 'space' it was in the process of 'moving into' anyway(?).
     
  15. Feb 27, 2017 #14

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    What "start point" ? If the universe is infinite it has always been infinite and there is no starting point to the growth other than infinite. If it is not infinite now, then it did not start out infinite.
     
  16. Feb 27, 2017 #15
    Well, I was just pointing to what looks like a hole in Hilbert's 'hotel' idea. The 'hotel' has rooms of infinite numerical extension, but the numerical series starts at room #1. Therefore the particular variety of 'infinity' indicated is unidirectional. I agree with you that a unidirectional infinity is a nonsense. It's what I meant.
     
  17. Feb 27, 2017 #16
    There's no one on the other side actually pumping their carbon dioxide breath into a latex sheet. The balloon analogy is simply an analogy. And just as much as the balloon analogy is an analogy, the universe is still expanding. It isn't "failing".
     
  18. Feb 27, 2017 #17

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I just don't follow you at all. The choice of which of the existing infinite number of rooms to choose to call "1" can be arbitrary so you are setting up a strawman to knock down. How would YOU label the elements of an infinite set that has the same cardinality (Aleph null) as the integers?
     
  19. Feb 27, 2017 #18
    Thanks, Comeback city, I appreciate that it's an analogy. It's just that it's an analogy that doesn't (for me anyway) explain the 'pressure' that must surely be requisite for expansion whether or not there's a 'balloon'.
     
  20. Feb 27, 2017 #19

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    It's not supposed to. It describes the expansion rather than explains it. No on knows what dark energy is, so you're hardly alone in that.
     
  21. Feb 27, 2017 #20
    Hmmm... I see we are running into difficulty. The way I'm viewing it is from the perspective of an ongoing numerical count. I can see that the 'count' has the potential to go on forever, but at any point in time it is necessarily (as I see it) specific. So, as you rightly point out, the name of any of them is of course an irrelevance, but Hilbert is effectively forever adding 1 to infinity. The fact is, I think, 'infinity' is an un-graspable concept. Thanks for your effort with me. :)
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook

Have something to add?
Draft saved Draft deleted