Is the Universe Infinite or Finite?

[Calimero]

Incorrect. Though nothing can travel faster than c through space, the "fabric" of space is expanding. Everything past the visible universe (13.7Gly) is expanding away from us faster than c relative to us.

Correction. Everything above z=1.4 is receding now faster then light. Although that redshift corresponds to the distance now of 13.7 GLY, it is much smaller than OU, which "edges" are now at around 45 GLY from us.

 

[Calimero]

Lets suppose mankind lasts here for another million years for a second, and let's suppose at that time the deep image pictures show exactly the same material we see today. Wouldn't that debunk the notion of infinite universe? It would seem discovering additional material beyond what we currently see would be crucial proof in my mind at least if inflation faster than the speed of light can hold water at all.

Unless what we see is as far as we will ever be able to see period in every direction, that is a very depressing notion!

You shouldn't be concerned about expansion speeds exceeding speed of light. It is inevitable. The rule goes that informations can't travel faster than light, and they don't.

 

[emc2cracker]

So with that great input I'm still slightly confused, are we going to be able to see more universe in the future or not? Surely the expansion isn't constant in every single vector? There must be some of the universe out there that will be exposed? I am reading Calimero's correction to mean that we will or should.

Thanks everyone this is like the wal mart of knowledge and I'm like a kid in the toy section lol.

 

[Calimero]

So with that great input I'm still slightly confused, are we going to be able to see more universe in the future or not? Surely the expansion isn't constant in every single vector? There must be some of the universe out there that will be exposed?

Nop, future is dark for astronomers. Less and less things to observe. Some astronomer in a very distant future may very well think that his universe consists of few galaxies. They will have hard time learning that their universe isn't static, and without apparent beginning.

 

[dgtech]

What makes you say that, the radius of the observable universe is constantly increasing the last years, and chances are this trend will continue. Here is a thought - the observable region may not be defined by time, but as an even increasing value might suggest it is defined only by the immense distances and the decay of photons. Better technology, as it arrives, gives more observational power and the radius of the observable universe is increasing.

 

[Dmitry67]

Even the radius of the observable universe is increasing the acceleration might be faster. So we will never see objects behind the so called cosmological horizon.

 

[dgtech]

It is curios that mainstream theoretical cosmology deems an incredibly unexciting future, no interstellar space travel, no intergalactic travel, no discoveries beyond the horizon, and yet enjoys so much popularity. I actually think that is one of the reasons - people have been trained to only believe in the ordinary, and as much as anyone would like endless possibilities in an endless universe, people still prefer the regular, the ordinary, the view we are a random occurrence, stranded on a rock, doomed to never escape and reach even the closest systems.

Thinking outside the box is regarded as something good, but when it comes to actually thinking outside the box, the mainstream quickly acts to protect itself and only people that think inside the box get support, while others, instead of support receive ridicule, which seems to have become an official scientific method of destroying others' credentials and boosting the mainstream, blindly ignoring all its flaws

Sometimes I wonder what would Einstein have say if he was still around, would he approve of the direction science has swung due to his personal contribution? Or would he criticize the narrow path science has taken, vigorously ignoring all other possibilities? And all the censoring out of anything that might suggest the faults of the standard model, which has deeply rooted into the mainstream scientific community. It is not a good thing when science becomes 100% theoretical and dogmatic in nature

 

[Calimero]

It is curios that mainstream theoretical cosmology deems an incredibly unexciting future, no interstellar space travel, no intergalactic travel, no discoveries beyond the horizon, and yet enjoys so much popularity.

I, on the other hand, think that it is very exciting. Think of it! Completely different universe for observers, but still the same one. For example, they can build model with static coordinates, and it will work fine for them. They would never be able to identify things like dark energy, big bang or even expansion itself, things that very much shaped their universe. So, it raises question, how many things are out there that had profound influence on us, but we have no way of knowing about them?

 

[CompuChip]

But this boring mainstream theoretical cosmology, as you call it, is currently the most convenient theory we have. It works well with the theories that we already have (and which are, contrary to the popular meaning of the word "theory" well tested up to great accuracy), enables us to make predictions, do measurements and fit data. And since the goal of your average scientiest is to describe, model and predict reality - not to dream about interstellar and time travel - this is very acceptable indeed. That it is too bad that it seems theoretically impossible to ever achieve this, even with advanced technology, is a completely different story.

 

[dgtech]

I happen to think there are more appealing directions in cosmology, theories that provide much simpler answers than the mainstream, crowded with hypothetical entities and assumptions theory, and also providing much more possibilities, unfortunately this is not the place to discuss them it seems :)

Mainstream means the prevailing current of thought, not necessary the right one. Historically, as I've already said, the masses have the tendency of being wrong :)

The mainstream is being heavily insisted upon, which shouldn't be needed if it was that much of a bullet proof theory. Also, alternative research hardly gets anything besides ridicule and colorful descriptions like crackpottery and such, hardly gets any support at all, and naturally will take a lot more time to evolve into a viable option.

 

[Calimero]

I agree, simpler the better. Now it is just matter of coming up with theory that is in good agreement with the real world. If you could do that I am sure that you wouldn't be ridiculed, but praised.

 

[dgtech]

Such theory will only be granted recognition if it has practical implications, that would be something theoretical mainstream cosmology would not be able to match. For example, if a theory results in something the mainstream considers impossible to achieve, like FTL travel or singularity generator or something. The mainstream is overprotective when it comes to its integrity, and more logical theories will not be accepted for being more logical. At least my experience has taught me so.

 

[cristo]

How exactly do you know those effects are due to dark energy? You should learn the difference between hypothetical and real life science, instead of trying to convince me ;)

When most people use the term "dark energy", what they really mean is "the thing that explains why the universe is accelerating at the present time". Dark energy is just easier to say, but the jury is still out on whether this is some matter/energy content of the universe, or whether it's some modification of gravity on large scales.

I don't really agree with the idea the whole universe was once a singularity, but it is plausible if the observable universe was once the size of a theoretical singularity, or a Planck length.

Good, because that's not what the standard model says. The singularity is just an artefact of turning the clock back on the cosmological model too far, and is simply regarded as an indication that the model breaks down at some point.

The mainstream is overprotective when it comes to its integrity, and more logical theories will not be accepted for being more logical. At least my experience has taught me so.

Of course a theory is not accepted for being "more logical". The grounds for a theory being accepted into the mainstream are observations: if you have a theory which makes a prediction which is then confirmed by observations to fit closer than the current mainstream theory, then people will listen. Otherwise, the talk about

 

[dgtech]

Of course, crating a more logical theory includes adequately addressing all observations and questions, including those that the current mainstream refuses to even go into. Otherwise it won't be more logical, at least in my concepts.

 

[StandardsGuy]

Good, because that's not what the standard model says. The singularity is just an artefact of turning the clock back on the cosmological model too far, and is simply regarded as an indication that the model breaks down at some point.

I've never heard the term standard model used for the BBT. How does it start then, in your opinion? What do you base the "standard model " on?

 

[bapowell]

Of course, crating a more logical theory includes adequately addressing all observations and questions, including those that the current mainstream refuses to even go into. Otherwise it won't be more logical, at least in my concepts.

Which observations and questions do you feel the current mainstream refuses to go into?

 

[dgtech]

Like pre big bang conditions and factors that "caused" it, like attributing every illogical observation to some phantom force or energy instead of looking for plausible and simple enough to work solutions.. etc...

Just look at your answer in the "What force caused the Big Bang? The force that acted upon the singularity to expand" thread you just posted

 

[cristo]

I've never heard the term standard model used for the BBT.

It's quite a common term. See, e.g., http://cosmology.berkeley.edu/Education/CosmologyEssays/The_Standard_Cosmology.html

How does it start then, in your opinion?

In my opinion, a theory of quantum gravity is needed to tell us that.

What do you base the "standard model " on?

It's based on agreement with observation.

 

[bapowell]

Like pre big bang conditions and factors that "caused" it, like attributing every illogical observation to some phantom force or energy instead of looking for plausible and simple enough to work solutions.. etc...

Well, cosmology is unequipped to address what "caused" it. We need a UV complete theory of gravity in order to do that. Of course we'd love to have such a thing, but until that day comes, we have to be content to push our current theories to the limits of their applicability. Cosmology has been very successful in describing the earliest moments of the universe, in the regime in which general relativity can be meaningfully applied.

As for 'illogical observations', I'm not sure I follow you. How can you ascribe logic to an observation? Do you not consider the proposal of particulate dark matter (weakly interacting particles that are well accommodated as thermal relics in standard cosmology and arise naturally in modest extensions of the standard model of particle physics) to be plausible and simple?

As for dark energy, I can't scarcely think of something more simple than sticking a cosmological constant into Einstein's Equations. If you accept that the universe is undergoing accelerated expansion (ie you accept the observations to be true), then you are faced with really two options: change the gravitational theory or change the energy content of the universe. Both programs have been vigorously explored and continue to be stringently tested. I'm interested in hearing how you think these programs could be improved, or, if you think a different explanation is called for, what that might be.