Is the mass of the universe finite (collection of objects)?

AI Thread Summary
The discussion revolves around the question of whether the mass of the entire universe, including unobservable regions, is finite. Participants note that while the observable universe's mass can be estimated, the total mass remains uncertain and potentially unknowable due to the limitations of current cosmological models. The cosmological principle suggests a homogeneity in mass distribution, but this assumption is debated, especially regarding distant regions. Some argue that if the universe continues to expand indefinitely, it could imply an infinite mass, while others counter that mass may be finite depending on the universe's ultimate fate. Overall, the complexities of relativistic effects and the nature of space-time challenge definitive conclusions about the universe's mass.
King Solomon
Messages
48
Reaction score
1
Whenever I attempt to research this question, my search results yield "Is the Universe Infinite" where the question ALWAYS refers to the volume of the universe. This question is usually answered along the lines of: "If the universe is closed, than it's volume, aka it's 3D surface area in 4-space, is finite, otherwise if the universe is 'flat' or 'open' it's volume is infinite." And yes, I'm aware that's a crude nutshell version of the answer.

The question I've always wondered is: "Is the mass of the universe finite."

I've come across statistics that measure "how many atoms are in the universe," but upon further inspection they always mean "in the observable universe."

Do we in fact know whether or not the mass of the entire universe (including the unobserverable universe) is finite?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
No, I am pretty sure this is unknowable even in principle.
 
Why are you not satisfied with the answers regarding volume? They answer the question about mass too. In each unit volume there is some mass. Under the cosmological principle the average amount of mass per unit volume is constant. So, whatever you read about spatial extent (volume) applies to mass as well.
 
The cosmological principle, if meant to imply a universe homogeneous at any scale, is a pretty big assumption though and not something we know as a fact - nor is it even particularly likely imho but that is just an opinion - or rather, a speculation about something we cannot know.
 
I think it's been validated pretty well so far. Sure it's still just an assumption, but looks like a good one. One needs to always keep in mind that our views on the structure of the universe as a whole must by definition be based on the patch that we can observe.

Of course, in principle it is unknowable, and that's no different to the question of whether the universe is spatially open or closed, finite or infinite - after all, these predictions assume that the laws of physics don't change across the universe, under the same cosmological principle.
 
It's been validated for the observable universe, and the assumption that this is part of a (much) larger homogeneous region sounds reasonnable (very much so even, otherwise this would imply an extrordinary coincidence), but as I understand it (admittedly vaguely) even within standard models of inflation, homogeneity of the observable universe is related to the possibility of information exchange within a certain radius, and they do not as far as I know assume homogeneity at all scales if the universe is infinite.

The farther we go beyond the observable, the weaker the evidence supporting any assumption becomes. At 10^100 Hubble radii away? Metaphysics only can answer.
 
Last edited:
King Solomon said:
"If the universe is closed, than it's volume, aka it's 3D surface area in 4-space, is finite...

I wonder about that...

- the further the object we observe, the faster it is receding
- these receding objects would be subject to length contraction
- where these objects' recession velocity approaches c relative to us, their thickness along the radial direction of line of sight approaches contraction to zero
- approaching the limit, there is "room" for an indefinite number of these "thin" objects
- this looks like a curved space where within a finite radius (where recession approaches c) there is an infinite internal volume
- there is "room" within this space for an indefinite quantity of expanding objects subject to length contraction
- for any observer, most of this "room" in this space is "close to the edge"

If all that is coherent, it seems that a closed expanding universe whose recession limit approaches c at a finite radius from an observer may support an infinite expanding space with an infinite number of objects.

The observable universe actually includes a region slightly beyond this limit, so one might wonder if the mass of the observable universe is already infinite, and if so, so be the universe as a whole.

But maybe here is a flaw in this picture?
 
I think there is a flaw. The relativistic effects are taken onto account when estimating local densities far away. Also, observing something length contracted does not change its proper dimensions, and the assumption of homogeneity is, for distant regions, that they have on average the same density in their proper frame (well, in comoving frames actually) - not that they look the same.

But inhomogeneous models have been proposed (what I've seen in this respect seemed rather ad hoc, but this is indicative of my limits, not theirs), I don't know how well they do with recent observations.
 
Last edited:
wabbit said:
I think there is a flaw. The relativistic effects are taken onto account when estimating local densities far away. Also, observing something length contracted does not change its proper dimensions, and the assumption of homogeneity is, for distant regions, that they have on average the same density in their proper frame (well, in comoving frames actually) - not that they look the same.

If I'm understanding you, I'm not in disagreement with those three points, but I don't see how they suggest a flaw. Can you explain?
 
  • #10
I'm not sure I understood you actually : )
But you say
it seems that a closed expanding universe whose recession limit approaches c at a finite radius from an observer may support an infinite expanding space with an infinite number of objects.
I'm not sure what "closed" means here, I think usually it means spatially finite. But to me it sounds like what you are describing is a relativistic Achille's Tortoise - you are dividing space into thinner and thinner slices as you go further out, and these happen to look equally thick because of relativistic perspective. But a given object also occupies more depth in these coordinates, the perspective distortion does not create more space, and the sum of all these slices is still a finite amount of space.

Hmmm... I have a vague impression I'm missing your point entirely.
 
  • #11
bahamagreen said:
I wonder about that...

- the further the object we observe, the faster it is receding
- these receding objects would be subject to length contraction
- where these objects' recession velocity approaches c relative to us, their thickness along the radial direction of line of sight approaches contraction to zero
- approaching the limit, there is "room" for an indefinite number of these "thin" objects
- this looks like a curved space where within a finite radius (where recession approaches c) there is an infinite internal volume
- there is "room" within this space for an indefinite quantity of expanding objects subject to length contraction
- for any observer, most of this "room" in this space is "close to the edge"

If all that is coherent, it seems that a closed expanding universe whose recession limit approaches c at a finite radius from an observer may support an infinite expanding space with an infinite number of objects.

The observable universe actually includes a region slightly beyond this limit, so one might wonder if the mass of the observable universe is already infinite, and if so, so be the universe as a whole.

But maybe here is a flaw in this picture?
All of this is predicated on the utterly incorrect belief that recession speed can be treated the way local speed is treated. Recession speeds are just "things getting farther apart". Things at the edge of our observable universe are ALREADY receding from us at 3c.

Google "metric expansion" for more information and/or check out the link in my signature.
 
  • #12
Well, it depends on whether you think the Universe will continue expanding forever or not. If it does continue expanding forever then the mass of the universe is infinite because it can keep gaining mass but if it doesn't continue expanding then the mass is finite.
 
  • #13
William Henley said:
Well, it depends on whether you think the Universe will continue expanding forever or not. If it does continue expanding forever then the mass of the universe is infinite because it can keep gaining mass but if it doesn't continue expanding then the mass is finite.
And where does it gain this mass from? I think what you have here is an unsupportable personal theory.
 
  • #14
William Henley said:
Well, it depends on whether you think the Universe will continue expanding forever or not. If it does continue expanding forever then the mass of the universe is infinite because it can keep gaining mass but if it doesn't continue expanding then the mass is finite.
I don't think that's true. If you're talking about the mass of the whole universe then it's either always infinite or always finite (if defined) - for the observable universe what you say may be true in some cases but not in general, and not in the presence of a cosmological constant which if I am not mistaken limits the ultimately observable universe to a finite comoving region.
 
  • #15
William Henley said:
If it does continue expanding forever then the mass of the universe is infinite because it can keep gaining mass but if it doesn't continue expanding then the mass is finite.

Why do you think the universe is gaining mass if it is expanding? Can you give a reference for where you got this?
 
  • #16
bahamagreen said:
- the further the object we observe, the faster it is receding
- these receding objects would be subject to length contraction

This is not correct; SR does not apply over cosmological distances. It only applies within a local inertial frame.

bahamagreen said:
- this looks like a curved space where within a finite radius (where recession approaches c) there is an infinite internal volume

This is not correct. What you are talking about is our observable universe, and our observable universe has a finite spatial volume.
 
  • #17
PeterDonis said:
This is not correct; SR does not apply over cosmological distances. It only applies within a local inertial frame.

So length contraction applies to objects receding "near by" but not when they are far enough away (in an expanding space)? If I monitor the contraction of a nearby spaceship eventually catching up with a distant comoving object, what would that plot of the magnitude of contraction look like? It sounds like you are saying that the comoving object will not appear contracted, and so the spaceship catching up to the comoving object would also not appear contracted, but then what of the spaceship between here and there? Initially contracted, but then what happens? Does the spaceship "decontract" as its relative velocity to me approaches the distant point at which this velocity is the comoving velocity? It it this portion of the relative velocity between me and the spaceship that becomes comprised of the comoving component that indicates the extent of the local inertial frame beyond which SR does not apply?
 
  • #18
bahamagreen said:
So length contraction applies to objects receding "near by" but not when they are far enough away (in an expanding space)?

It's not a matter of which objects it "applies" to; it's a matter of in what coordinates you can apply it. You can only apply the standard length contraction formula in standard inertial coordinates in an inertial frame. There is no inertial frame that covers the entire region from Earth to the Hubble radius.

bahamagreen said:
If I monitor the contraction of a nearby spaceship eventually catching up with a distant comoving object, what would that plot of the magnitude of contraction look like?

If you use "comoving" coordinates, the spaceship will never be contracted at all, because those coordinates are not inertial coordinates in an inertial frame. If you use standard inertial coordinates centered on the Earth, they won't be valid all the way; the spaceship will very soon leave the region in which those coordinates are valid, so you won't even be able to make the plot in the first place.

bahamagreen said:
what of the spaceship between here and there? Initially contracted, but then what happens? Does the spaceship "decontract"

Initially contracted in inertial coordinates centered on the Earth. In comoving coordinates, the spaceship is not initially contracted; it's never contracted at all. Length contraction is a coordinate phenomenon. The spaceship itself never notices anything, so there's nothing to "decontract".

bahamagreen said:
as its relative velocity to me approaches the distant point at which this velocity is the comoving velocity?

Its velocity is never the comoving velocity, because by hypothesis it is moving from Earth to some distant comoving object, hence it is moving relative to both Earth and the distant comoving object. An object with the comoving velocity never moves relative to any comoving object.

I think it would be very helpful to you to reframe your question in terms of some invariant measurement that you think shows "length contraction". Then we could discuss how that measurement would change during the spaceship's trip (or whether it would even be valid for the entirety of the spaceship's trip).
 
  • #19
Bandersnatch said:
Why are you not satisfied with the answers regarding volume? They answer the question about mass too. In each unit volume there is some mass. Under the cosmological principle the average amount of mass per unit volume is constant. So, whatever you read about spatial extent (volume) applies to mass as well.

I don't care about the answer concerning volume. I am satisfied with those answers, but it's not what I care about.

This is stated in the OP.
 
  • #20
Bandersnatch said:
I think it's been validated pretty well so far. Sure it's still just an assumption, but looks like a good one. One needs to always keep in mind that our views on the structure of the universe as a whole must by definition be based on the patch that we can observe.

Of course, in principle it is unknowable, and that's no different to the question of whether the universe is spatially open or closed, finite or infinite - after all, these predictions assume that the laws of physics don't change across the universe, under the same cosmological principle.

Basically this is they type of answer I'm looking for. Thanks. So the CC implies that the density of the universe if generally homogeneous, and density is a function of both mass and volume.

Though that does beg the question:
If the universe is expanding, is its density decreasing?

If the density is not changing, then mass is being added to the universe?
 
  • #21
bahamagreen said:
I wonder about that...

- the further the object we observe, the faster it is receding
- these receding objects would be subject to length contraction
- where these objects' recession velocity approaches c relative to us, their thickness along the radial direction of line of sight approaches contraction to zero
- approaching the limit, there is "room" for an indefinite number of these "thin" objects
- this looks like a curved space where within a finite radius (where recession approaches c) there is an infinite internal volume
- there is "room" within this space for an indefinite quantity of expanding objects subject to length contraction
- for any observer, most of this "room" in this space is "close to the edge"

If all that is coherent, it seems that a closed expanding universe whose recession limit approaches c at a finite radius from an observer may support an infinite expanding space with an infinite number of objects.The observable universe actually includes a region slightly beyond this limit, so one might wonder if the mass of the observable universe is already infinite, and if so, so be the universe as a whole.

But maybe here is a flaw in this picture?

Sounds like a Poincere disc. It's not that farfetched.
http://theiff.org/oexhibits/oe1c.html

I used to scribble on the board in junior high about "bounded infinity" and one day a substitute math teacher (Mr Hammel, who became a mentor) showed me that I was describing a rudimentary form of a Poincere disc and that I was describing a projective Reimann Sphere went I went into 3 dimensions.

http://theiff.org/oexhibits/oe1c.html
 
  • #22
King Solomon said:
If the universe is expanding, is its density decreasing?
yes

If the density is not changing, then mass is being added to the universe?
meaningless, since the density IS changing.
 
  • #23
phinds said:
yes

meaningless, since the density IS changing.

A false statement is never meaningless, since it implies the truth of its negation.

In fact the majority of certain knowledge is proved through contradiction (proving the negative false).
 
  • #24
King Solomon said:
A false statement is never meaningless, since it implies the truth of its negation.

In fact the majority of certain knowledge is proved through contradiction (proving the negative false).
I don't follow you. The fact that the universe IS expanding does not in and of itself prove that the density is not changing, so I don't see what you think is a "proven negative".
 
  • #25
phinds said:
I don't follow you. The fact that the universe IS expanding does not in and of itself prove that the density is not changing, so I don't see what you think is a "proven negative".

If the volume of the universe is increasing, then the density must be decreasing, unless mass is being added to the universe.

D = M/V
 
  • #26
King Solomon said:
If the volume of the universe is increasing, then the density must be decreasing, unless mass is being added to the universe.

D = M/V
I disagree completely, but I am arguing about logic, not physics. Physically, I agree w/ you, but logically your original statement lifted directly from the post I was responding to "If the density is not changing, then X" is, when the density is in fact not changing is equally true whether X = "mass is being added" or "mass is not being added". That is, in logic, a false premise validates any conclusion you like.

If you now expand your statement to the above (If the volume of the universe is increasing, then the density must be decreasing, unless mass is being added to the universe) that's a different statement and not only accurately reflects the physics of the situation but also is logically correct.
 
  • #27
King Solomon said:
If the volume of the universe is increasing, then the density must be decreasing, unless mass is being added to the universe.

The density of matter and radiation in the universe is decreasing as it expands; for a closed universe, with a finite spatial volume, the density of matter varies as the inverse of the volume (i.e., the inverse of the scale factor cubed). For a flat or open universe (as best we can tell, our actual universe is flat), the spatial volume is infinite, so your argument does not apply as it stands; but it turns out that the density of matter still varies as the inverse cube of the scale factor.
 
  • #28
PeterDonis said:
Why do you think the universe is gaining mass if it is expanding? Can you give a reference for where you got this?

When I said this I meant to say the observable universe not the whole universe
 
  • #29
wabbit said:
I don't think that's true. If you're talking about the mass of the whole universe then it's either always infinite or always finite (if defined) - for the observable universe what you say may be true in some cases but not in general, and not in the presence of a cosmological constant which if I am not mistaken limits the ultimately observable universe to a finite comoving region.

I agree with what this says because when I made my original comment I meant to say the observable universe because in some cases the observable universe is gaining mass.
 
  • #30
phinds said:
And where does it gain this mass from? I think what you have here is an unsupportable personal theory.

It's not unsupportable or personal because what I meant to say was the observable universe, and in some cases it is expanding.
 
  • #31
William Henley said:
I agree with what this says because when I made my original comment I meant to say the observable universe because in some cases the observable universe is gaining mass.
To be clear, the only way the observable universe is (sometimes) gaining mass is when we see farther and discover previously hidden regions. This "mass gain" if just the reflection of its "volume gain" which is strictly a result of perspective, not something "happening to the universe".
 
  • #32
William Henley said:
It's not unsupportable or personal because what I meant to say was the observable universe, and in some cases it is expanding.
William Henley said:
It's not unsupportable or personal because what I meant to say was the observable universe, and in some cases it is expanding.
The amount of matter gained as the observable universe increases slightly over cosmological time scales is something on the order of a rounding error in maybe the 4th decimal place, so while you are technically correct, it's a rather trivial nitpick and it's not clear to me that the reality of the situation is really what you had in mind. I got the impression from your statement that you believe there is some significant amount of matter being added.
 
  • #33
William Henley said:
When I said this I meant to say the observable universe not the whole universe

The OP's question was specifically about the whole universe, not the observable universe. Please try to keep this thread on topic; if you want to discuss the observable universe, please start a separate thread.
 
  • #34
Perhaps an interesting would be: Suppose the mass of the entire universe was infinite, what implications would this at the moment of the Big Bang?
 
  • #35
PeterDonis said:
The OP's question was specifically about the whole universe, not the observable universe. Please try to keep this thread on topic; if you want to discuss the observable universe, please start a separate thread.
Oh yeah ok
 
  • #36
phinds said:
The amount of matter gained as the observable universe increases slightly over cosmological time scales is something on the order of a rounding error in maybe the 4th decimal place, so while you are technically correct, it's a rather trivial nitpick and it's not clear to me that the reality of the situation is really what you had in mind. I got the impression from your statement that you believe there is some significant amount of matter being added.
I agree that it's not that significant but it is still relevant
 
  • #37
wabbit said:
To be clear, the only way the observable universe is (sometimes) gaining mass is when we see farther and discover previously hidden regions. This "mass gain" if just the reflection of its "volume gain" which is strictly a result of perspective, not something "happening to the universe".
Yes I agree but the observable universe is still appearing to gain mass.
 
  • #38
King Solomon said:
Perhaps an interesting would be: Suppose the mass of the entire universe was infinite, what implications would this at the moment of the Big Bang?
The implication would be that at the time of the singularity, things were already infinite and since the belief is getting stronger all the time that the universe IS spatially infinite, that IS the belief (but not confirmed)
 
  • #39
William Henley said:
the observable universe is still appearing to gain mass.

If the expansion of the universe continues to accelerate (which, as far as we can tell, it will), this will not always be true; there will come a point when the acceleration moves objects out of our observable universe faster than the passage of time moves them in, so to speak. Again, if more discussion is desired on this, please start a new thread.
 
  • #40
King Solomon said:
Suppose the mass of the entire universe was infinite, what implications would this at the moment of the Big Bang?

None. The Big Bang is not a "moment"; correctly used, that term just refers to the hot, dense, rapidly expanding state of the early universe, not to an "initial singularity". The initial singularity is present in highly idealized models, but all that really tells us is that those models break down if we extrapolate them too far backward. The best answer to what came before the hot, dense, rapidly expanding state is that we don't know for sure; we have a number of hypotheses, but no conclusive tests to choose between them. An "initial singularity" is not one of them.
 
  • #41
King Solomon said:
Perhaps an interesting would be: Suppose the mass of the entire universe was infinite, what implications would this at the moment of the Big Bang?

Seems to me that a more interesting question would be what an infinite universe would mean. Infinity isn't big, but beyond bog. In fact, it is so far beyond big that finity itself is more interesting IMO.
You doubt that?
Think of the biggest finite prime integer you can, expressed explicitly in some convenient positive positive integer base >3. Decimal or hex would be fine, but suit yourself. Get a few friends to help you think of bigger ones (none less than say 1000 significant digits need apply. Choose n numbers, n> 3, the more the merrier, but no prime that you choose is permitted to contain any digit smaller than three, or any string of more than thirty identical adjacent digits). Take them in some sequence and call them V1, V2...Vn and calculate P=V1^V2^V3^...Vn.
Long before this time you have an answer too large to fit into the volume of the observable universe even if the universe were filled solid with protons and each proton somehow held one digit. Now raise P to the P, and repeat that process P times. Next add the first P decimal digits of Pi, taken as expressing an integer. Multiply the result by the same number of decimal digits of the decimal expansion of the 23rd root of e, taken as expressing an integer. Call the result P'.
With negligible exceptions every FINITE number, in fact starting with P'+1, is larger than P', whose value you don't know because you ran out of observable universe to store your calculations in before you got past the first few steps. In fact, long before you got to the final P' you did not know a single digit of any of the numbers you were working with, let alone the final value of P'.
There is in fact very little you know about P' EXCEPT that P'<P'+1.
And that no one could tell you more because we have not world enough and time. We don't even know how long it would take light to reach our planet at the centre of our globularly packed number, starting from the outside.
Now, you will no doubt be asking what all this runaround is supposed to deliver, right?
Because asking about any REAL infinity is meaningless from a whole swadge of points of view. What attribute of an infinite (not just finitely large) universe could affect us where we are? Light from more than say 1e41 LY couldn't even reach us because of red shift, and even if it could, it would take too long to be of interest. Nor could any other physical signal. But a sphere of 1e41 LY filled with proton-sized numeric digits is vanishingly tiny compared with anything like P' or a brain large enough to read or calculate any number on such a scale.
And packing space so densely would be waaayyy beyond any kind of gravitational collapse, but my mind boggles at trying even to guestimate how far we'd have to expand our P' if we wished to prevent collapse.
And P' is negligibly small, remember...
Now, if you are not yet sick of that game, have fun playing it for as long as you like, but for my part I fall off the bus just trying to imagine what a modestly large finite universe would be like if P' is so tiny.
How could we even in principle tell the difference between our tiny P' notional universe and a modestly large one, let alone an infinite one, whatever that might mean?
In such terms just what do you see an infinite universe meaning, let alone existing?
 
  • Like
Likes wabbit
  • #42
I too have the same thought.

A universe comprising a finite set of objects would indeed be intriguing.

As mathematicians we know that there is no "Set of all Sets" so if our universe is finite, then there exists infinitely many finite proper supersets of our universe...!
 
  • #43
King Solomon said:
I too have the same thought.

A universe comprising a finite set of objects would indeed be intriguing.

As mathematicians we know that there is no "Set of all Sets" so if our universe is finite, then there exists infinitely many finite proper supersets of our universe...!
Surely you mean an infinite universe would be intriguing. Having infinitely many proper subsets is equivalent to being infinite

In any case an infinite universe can only be speculative, since we are finite beings and can only know a finite amount of information.
 
  • #44
wabbit said:
In any case an infinite universe can only be speculative, since we are finite beings and can only know a finite amount of information.
Hey, speak for yourself rabbit ! :smile:
 
  • Like
Likes wabbit
  • #45
Indeed :)

But against infinity even bigger creatures like dogs or humans are no match.
Even if we relax "knowing" to just "holding information somehow", using all the spin states of all the electrons in all the atoms inside us for starters, then the quantum states of the nuclei, and even the degrees of freedom of the gravitational field, my understanding is that quantum gravity puts a specific number on the maximum amount of information we can hold - more than what can fit in a hare's brain but less than an infinity:wink:
 
  • #46
Well, shucks. That's disappointing. I was looking forward to maybe knowing as much as @Drakkith someday. :smile:
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Likes Drakkith
  • #47
wabbit said:
Surely you mean an infinite universe would be intriguing. Having infinitely many proper subsets is equivalent to being infinite

In any case an infinite universe can only be speculative, since we are finite beings and can only know a finite amount of information.

No, finite. I said "SUPERsets" not "subsets." There are a finite amount of subsets for any finite set (the power set).

And that itself is interesting, the Power Set of a Finite Universe would represent all possible collections of objects in this universe ( I assume that elementary particles are only things that qualify as an object), which implies that there are a finite amount of references for our universe (if our universe is finite).

Consider this (using the Power Set of a finite universe): There are (n2 - n)/2 distinct relationships between individual pairs of objects (if universe consists of n objects), and there are 2n distinct shapes within the universe at all times (2n is the cardinality of the Power Set). Woah!
 
Last edited:
  • #48
King Solomon said:
No, finite. I said "SUPERsets" not "subsets." There are a finite amount of subsets for any finite set (the power set).

Consider this (using the Power Set of a finite universe): There are (n2 - n)/2 distinct relationships between individual pairs of objects (if universe consists of n objects), and there are 2n distinct shapes within the universe at all times (2n is the cardinality of the Power Set). Woah!

I don't buy that, KS.
It assumes that there is a single relationship between any two objects, whereas I see no simple limit to the number of possible relationships between two objects.
To me it seems perfectly conceivable that either the number of possible mutual (though not necessarily symmetrical) relationships between two arbitrary objects could be physically large, possibly even mathematically large, or even not uniquely (or precisely) definable. Furthermore, the power set members also are entities and therefore have mutual relationships that may not be limited to their component part sub-relationships.
It does not follow of course that the thus inflated power set would be infinite; In fact I believe that if none of those variables were infinite, the entire entity set very likely might be finite, even if inconveniently large to characterise or quantify.
However, if the volume of our space is finite, then I do not believe that the number of those possible relationships is infinite,because it seems to me that this would imply infinite information, and I do not believe that you could fit infinite information into a finite space. (Gravitational collapse and all that... )
 
  • #49
Jon Richfield said:
I don't buy that, KS.
It assumes that there is a single relationship between any two objects, whereas I see no simple limit to the number of possible relationships between two objects.
To me it seems perfectly conceivable that either the number of possible mutual (though not necessarily symmetrical) relationships between two arbitrary objects could be physically large, possibly even mathematically large, or even not uniquely (or precisely) definable. Furthermore, the power set members also are entities and therefore have mutual relationships that may not be limited to their component part sub-relationships.
It does not follow of course that the thus inflated power set would be infinite; In fact I believe that if none of those variables were infinite, the entire entity set very likely might be finite, even if inconveniently large to characterise or quantify.
However, if the volume of our space is finite, then I do not believe that the number of those possible relationships is infinite,because it seems to me that this would imply infinite information, and I do not believe that you could fit infinite information into a finite space. (Gravitational collapse and all that... )

Sure, I don't buy it either given the way you interpreted it. Let me clarify what I had originally intended to say:

Given any particular type of relationship, such as velocity, there exists (n^2 - n)/2 distinct relationships of that type between all pairs of objects in a finite universe.

If we take any group (Group A) from a power set and find its average position and velocity relative to some other group (Group B) from a power set, then there exists 2n-2 distinct relationships between the average positions and velocities of all other groupings of objects in the power set to the average position and velocity of the Union of Group A and B (the average position of Group A and B becomes the relative center of the universe, such that we can make Group A a single object and Group B an empty set, making a single object the relative center of the universe with 0 average velocity relative to itself).

Also, let's consider another implication of a universe of finite objects. If we let the set S represent the positions of all objects in the universe, then the universe's shape can always been reduced to a single polyhedron in accordance to Grunbaum's 1994 concerning the polyhedronization of S.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925772112000727

If the universe is a finite collection of objects, then question of "is the universe open, closed or flat" no longer applies. The answer would always be a polyhedron.
 
Last edited:
  • #50
King Solomon said:
...

Also, let's consider another implication of a universe of finite objects. If we let the set S represent the positions of all objects in the universe, then the universe's shape can always been reduced to a single polyhedron in accordance to Grunbaum's 1994 concerning the polyhedronization of S.

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0925772112000727

If the universe is a finite collection of objects, then question of "is the universe open, closed or flat" no longer applies. The answer would always be a polyhedron.

Hmmm... I hadn't thought of that polyhedral thing, though it has a certain attraction. Mind you, It is not clear to me that universal shape means much in a closed universe, especially if we are speaking of more than three dimensions. It seems to me that in a closed and finite universe, most plausible views would suggest a universe full of dirty space (the dirt including things like hydrogen, stars, and planetary dust particles like Earth and their world lines, time being one of the dimensions, etc etc) much as a balloon would be full of gas, irrespective of its pressure.

Talking about universes is an activity fraught with flypapers for the unwary intellect, I am tempted to reflect...
 
Back
Top