Is the Universe Finite or Infinite?

[afennah]

What do you mean by the universe? Do you mean everything within a radius of 10 parsecs of Earth? Everything within a radius of 20 parsecs of Earth? Everything within a radius of 40 parsecs of Earth? What do you mean?

In your comment you appear to be putting the Earth at the centre of your universe. I'm not sure that is a good idea but, your questions are relevant to what we are debating! Is the universe infinite or not. Some think yes others think no. I personally, do not believe it is infinite (Surely something infinite can't expand?... because it's infinite to start with! Ugh...Someone give me a headache tablet). I am finding the various stances on this subject fascinating. The PDF on ',Big Band misconceptions' was a good read.

I await with trepidation further posts informing me that I am talking Bol*@ks. lol.
Regards,

 

[Nordic]

(Surely something infinite can't expand?... because it's infinite to start with! Ugh...Someone give me a headache tablet)

I await with trepidation further posts informing me that I am talking Bol*@ks. lol.
Regards,

If that is the only fact that supports your position on this, then I don't think you know the topic well. Don't get me wrong here, I'm just curious. The matter in the universe is expanding, yes, but not the SPACE of the universe. I think you should re-check your that though :)

 

[afennah]

If that is the only fact that supports your position on this, then I don't think you know the topic well. Don't get me wrong here, I'm just curious. The matter in the universe is expanding, yes, but not the SPACE of the universe. I think you should re-check your that though :)

Nordic, I think you'll find you have that the wrong way round. Matter is not expanding!
It is 'space' which appears to be expanding. If it was matter expanding then our galaxy would be getting bigger (which it's not). Matter is being 'carried' along with the expansion of space which is why everything we see appears to be moving away form everything else. Hey... maybe I know a little more than you think! lol.

So, my point still stands...How can the universe be infinite if it's expanding? Cheers,

 

[darkhorror]

Nordic, I think you'll find you have that the wrong way round. Matter is not expanding!
It is 'space' which appears to be expanding. If it was matter expanding then our galaxy would be getting bigger (which it's not). Matter is being 'carried' along with the expansion of space which is why everything we see appears to be moving away form everything else. Hey... maybe I know a little more than you think! lol.

So, my point still stands...How can the universe be infinite if it's expanding? Cheers,

Look at the set of numbers 1, 10, 100, 1000,... that is infinite
now look at the set 1, 5, 10, 50, 100, 500, 1000,... that is also infinite

Now there are more numbers between 1 and 1000 than there were in the first set.

 

[mrspeedybob]

Here is a different argument. Feel free to poke holes in it.

I will begin with 6 postulates...

1. The universe is finiate in age
2. The universe is infinite in space
3. The universe began with a big bang at which time all mater began to exist and space began to expand.
4. The above 3 are true for all observers.
5. On a large scale the universe is homogenious.
6. General relativity is accurate.

There was a time when all the matter in the observable universe was compressed into an inch radius. (postulates 1 and 3) that time was within a fraction of a second after the big bang. This was not the only matter in existence but this super dense soup must have extended infinitly in all dirrections (postulates 2, 3, and 5). All this mater came into existence simultaniously or there would have been pressure waves which would have made the universe non-homogenious. (postulate 5). If 2 different observers were observing the big bang a fraction of a second after it happened they could disagree on wether the matter at point A in the universe was the same age as the matter at point B if points A and B were separated by more distance then light could have traveled in the age of the universe. If the 2 observers are in wildly different frames of reverence A and B could be simultanious for 1 but separated by billions of years for the other. (postulate 6)

It would seem to me that not all 6 original postulates can be true. I'm inclined to through out #2 and suppose that the universe was not infinate at inception and therefore the entire universe at a point and could therefore come into existence simultaniously from all points of view.

Sorry about my horendsous spelling. I'm on a computer without spell check.

 

[mrspeedybob]

Put another way, it looks like the whole universe began simultaneously but if it were infinite at inception then you have to decide what "simultaneous" means for widely separated points in space and GR makes that very difficult.

 

[Chalnoth]

Well, we know that 6 is wrong on some level, so I'm not sure that this argument gets you anywhere.

 

[GODISMYSHADOW]

In your comment you appear to be putting the Earth at the centre of your universe. I'm not sure that is a good idea but, your questions are relevant to what we are debating! Is the universe infinite or not. Some think yes others think no. I personally, do not believe it is infinite (Surely something infinite can't expand?... because it's infinite to start with! Ugh...Someone give me a headache tablet). I am finding the various stances on this subject fascinating. The PDF on ',Big Band misconceptions' was a good read.

I await with trepidation further posts informing me that I am talking Bol*@ks. lol.
Regards,

Einstein got rid of the notion of "absolute now." So by infinite Universe, you can't mean "everywhere right now," can you? I'd rather think about something finite so I won't lose my mind. Our Milky Way galaxy is othen referred to as an "island universe."

 

[darkhorror]

Put another way, it looks like the whole universe began simultaneously but if it were infinite at inception then you have to decide what "simultaneous" means for widely separated points in space and GR makes that very difficult.

Very very shortly after the big bang would a lot of the GR not really work the way we have it work now? Could you have two frames of reference that were very close to each other but moving away from each other at huge speeds due to the rapid expansion of space that don't really go with what relativity would say in normal space like around the Earth now? Also what about that spacetime only existed for a short time how does that work along with the finite speed of light.

Now I am sure this stuff has already been solved, I am going to have to look some of this stuff up but it seems like it may be interesting.

 

[nlsherrill]

I haven't read the whole thread so excuse me if this has already been brought up, but has anyone thought about the universes expansion as possibly being "driven" by an outside force?

By outside I mean literally outside of our universe...kind of like outside the membrane that may contain everything that lies inside it(stars, gas, etc). Its hard to explain but think about a bunch of bubbles clustered together. Now think of those bubbles as being individual universes. We see that when a lot of bubbles are near each other, they tend to burst and combine into larger bubbles right? What if all of these bubbles were universes, and they were "combining" to make bigger and bigger universes, such that the universe as seen from someone INSIDE one of the bubbles kept getting larger and larger because it was always combining with other bubbles?

The above probably sounds insane, and drug related, but has anyone else thought of something like that? In a way, that could also work with black holes. Maybe black holes are "holes" in the bubble that is our universe, and our matter is leaving and being contributed to another bubble universe.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, just speculation.

 

[Nordic]

I haven't read the whole thread so excuse me if this has already been brought up, but has anyone thought about the universes expansion as possibly being "driven" by an outside force?

By outside I mean literally outside of our universe...kind of like outside the membrane that may contain everything that lies inside it(stars, gas, etc). Its hard to explain but think about a bunch of bubbles clustered together. Now think of those bubbles as being individual universes. We see that when a lot of bubbles are near each other, they tend to burst and combine into larger bubbles right? What if all of these bubbles were universes, and they were "combining" to make bigger and bigger universes, such that the universe as seen from someone INSIDE one of the bubbles kept getting larger and larger because it was always combining with other bubbles?

The above probably sounds insane, and drug related, but has anyone else thought of something like that? In a way, that could also work with black holes. Maybe black holes are "holes" in the bubble that is our universe, and our matter is leaving and being contributed to another bubble universe.

I have no idea what I'm talking about, just speculation.

As you've already said, it's not from a scientific point of view. It's more of a philosophic statement, but I don't think that'll do us any good now will it? But anyways, I like the way you're thinking.

 

[goya551]

As I understand the expansion of the universe, space itself is expanding in every direction with no central point from which it is expanding. Two objects, both seemingly static in the space they exist, are receding from each other at an accelerating rate. The farther away the object, the faster the recession. For objects outside the Hubble Sphere (from Earth) they are receding faster than the speed of light and will never be observed from Earth. This easily shows the possibility of an infinite universe and a black sky at night.

The speed of expansion becomes immense when we talk of large distances. But what of shorter distances such as those within our solar system? Has the expansion of space been measured closer to home?

 

[marcus]

...
The speed of expansion becomes immense when we talk of large distances. But what of shorter distances such as those within our solar system? Has the expansion of space been measured closer to home?

Hubble Law expansion is not supposed to affect gravitationally bound systems, like planetary systems, star clusters, or galaxies. Even clusters of galaxies, if they are stable, would not be expected to show expansion.

Percentagewise, expansion is so slight too---the current Hubble rate amounts to only about 1/140 of one percent per million years. So you need a very large distance in the first place for such a small percentage to be detectable (within a reasonable time period).

To some extent it is up to you how you imagine the Hubble Law expansion of distances.
It is unintuitive because based on our earthbound experience we expect distances not to change--we expect geometry not to be dynamic---but GR says geometry is dynamic.

My own way of accommodating it is to think of a far-flung network of observers all of whom are at rest relative to the the CMB (the ancient light from the early universe era when the hot gas was more or less uniform).
Being at rest relative CMB just means that there is no doppler dipole. No motion means there's no hotspot ahead or coldspot behind---roughy the same temperature.

I think of them as all measuring the same CMB temperature, and estimating the same age of the expansion process---so they are contemporaries in that sense. So at an agreed-on moment (in their common "universe" time) the widely separated stationary observers all measure the distances between them and their neighbors. And find them increasing, percentagewise, at the rate I mentioned.

And why not. We have no right to expect that distances between stationary observers will not change. Geometry is dynamic.

It's a simple story, hardly even a story at all. You can make up your own.

 

[goya551]

Interesting. Has there been any insight into how gravitationally bound systems halted the expansion around them?

 

[goya551]

A little research shows that it is believed that the forces of a gravitationally enclosed system are simply stronger than the forces involved with expansion.

 

[Chalnoth]

A little research shows that it is believed that the forces of a gravitationally enclosed system are simply stronger than the forces involved with expansion.

It's not just believed: this is the way General Relativity (and Newtonian gravity) works.

 

[Chronos]

Gravity is much stronger than dark energy over 'short' distances, much as nuclear strong and weak forces are more powerful than gravity over really short distances. The effects of dark energy are only apparent over cosmological distances.

 

[Deuterium2H]

Interesting. Has there been any insight into how gravitationally bound systems halted the expansion around them?

Gravitationaly bound systems (e.g. galaxies) have a critical density high enough to prevent local expansion of space. Hence, galaxies do not expand with the Universe, but are carried along in the generalized expansion of space. Since gravity is the weakest force, yet it is strong enough to hold galaxies together...it is even more obvious why matter itself doesn't expand with space. The electro-magnetic, strong and weak forces are much stronger then gravity.

In response to an earlier post regarding why we know that the Universe has no "center" of expansion...this follows not only from observational evidence, but also is a direct consequence of the Cosmological Principle (all places are alike). A central tenant of Cosmology is that our Universe is isotropic (the Universe looks the same in all directions, from our vantage point) and homogeneous (at any given time, all places in the Universe are alike). If there existed a "center" from which the Universe is expanding from, then this would violate isotropy. Observers in different parts of the Universe would see differences (anistropies) depending on which direction they were looking.

Another way of thinking about "where" the Big Bang took place is that it took place everywhere. There is no special location.

 

[Chalnoth]

A little research shows that it is believed that the forces of a gravitationally enclosed system are simply stronger than the forces involved with expansion.

Well, for the most part, that isn't really the case. It's the exact same force governing the expansion as governs the behavior of galaxies: gravity. In fact, you don't even need General Relativity, as you get the exact same answer on these large scales with Newtonian gravity (except that Newtonian gravity doesn't tell you how radiation responds to gravity...you do get the same expansion behavior for matter, though).

So it isn't so much a matter of local forces overriding the expansion for galaxies, clusters, and other gravitationally-bound objects, but just that the same gravity keeps those systems bound together that governs how the universe as a whole expands. The only difference is that the universe as a whole behaves like a smooth, nearly-uniform fluid that expands, while local overdensities tend to behave like orbiting systems.

 

[Radrook]

Ok so me and a few of my physics (& Maths) friends were arguing this.

I argued that it must be finite in size, since the universe contains a finite amount of matter and since no space is truly empty, how could the universe be finite.

My friend who's a mathematician said that in her geometry subject this question was actually brought up. She said that the universe may be a 3-manifold (3D surface?) and it depends on the curvature (negative or positive) as to whether the universe is finite or not.

I just want to know what the consensus is.

I personally have always considered anything infinite or boundless as impossible because anything that exists appears to require bounderies or a perimeter to delineate or give substance to it's existence. A building of infinite foors-for example would have no shape unless it has bounderies. No bounderies =no shape =no building. Unless of course we simply add floors or cause bounderies to expand forever. But bounderies of course are incompatible with infinity.

Here is part of an article dealing with the concept of infinity in relation to reality in harmony with what I just said.

>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>




Excerpt:


Naturally in mathematics we can have infinity, numbers go on for ever, but numbers are not real, they are abstract. I cannot imagine anything 'real' that we could apply an infinite number to. The only thing I can imagine that could be really infinite is nothing, the 'nothing' I described earlier in Where did the universe come from? and we have no idea if that exists.



The concept of infinity is a puzzling one. For example: imagine a standard pack of playing cards that consists of just one of each card but two jokers. Imagine that the packs of playing cards are infinite in number (A thought exercise only of course). We therefore have more jokers than any other card in each pack, so do we have more jokers in total? You could reply that as the packs are infinite in number they can't be counted so it would be impossible to know. However, as the ratio of jokers to other cards in each pack is fixed, then at any number of packs there will always be more jokers. This would appear to indicate, that mathematically, we can have degrees of infinity. Sounds odd doesn't it? It is a valid mathematical argument though.


We have a theory for black holes that describes infinite density. See Exploding Black Holes? What does it mean, other than an unresolvable equation that occurs in mathematics? Exactly what is infinite density? Taking a rather simplistic view it could be argued that if one black hole has infinite density then nothing else can have ANY density. Clearly though in this sense we can have lots of infinite density, so the term obviously carries a meaning in mathematics that does not have the same meaning outside of it. Is the term used in the theory only because that is the way the sums work out, regardless as to its significance in the real world, or is it real?


Strictly speaking, according to Einstein's Theory of Relativity, a singularity does not contain anything that is actually infinite, only things that MOVE MATHEMATICALLY TOWARDS infinity. A black hole is formed when large stars collapse and their mass has been compressed down to a very small size and the powerful gravitational field so formed prevents anything, even light, from escaping from it. A black hole therefore forms a singularity at its centre from the concentrated mass of the collapsed star itself and from the accumulated mass that is sucked into it. A singularity's mass is therefore finite, the 'infinity' refers only to the maths.
Can we have an infinite universe for example? The answer is no, the universe is finite. Stephen Hawking in 'A Brief History of Time' (1989 page 44) describes the universe as being "finite but unbounded".



The simplest answer is that as the universe is known to be expanding, it cannot possibly be infinite. To be precise, the dictionary definition of the word universe is "all that is. The whole system of things." In this sense the universe is not expanding into anything other than itself, for whatever it is expanding into is part of the universe, there being nothing else but the universe. However, for the sake of simplicity, I am referring only to our Big Bang expanding universe as 'the universe'. (Even if you happen to disagree with the Big Bang theory, the term 'universe' will still have the same meaning here, as it refers to 'our' universe only, and does not include whatever may or may not exist outside of it.) I will try and explain a finite universe as some people understandably have problems with it.


A good place to start is to understand the very real difference between infinity and a large number.


For example, imagine an ordinary size diamond, as you would expect to find set in a typical lady's engagement ring. Now imagine a super-being armed with super-tweezers, picking out atoms from this diamond one at a time, one every second, since the creation of the universe, some 13 billion years ago. How much of the diamond would by now have been removed? The answer is you couldn't tell without looking through an electron microscope, less than a millionth of the atoms would have been removed. Try and imagine how many atoms there are in that diamond. Now try and imagine how many atoms there are in the entire universe. It is a very large number, but it is finite, and is 10 followed by 80 zeros, (maybe a few more zeros, maybe a few less), expressed as 10 to the 80th. If you want to see what it looks like...
100,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.
0r written as - One hundred million, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion, billion. billion, billion


Even this very large number would count as nothing when compared with infinity, because infinity is NOT A LARGE NUMBER be absolutely clear on this point, IT IS NOT A LARGE NUMBER, infinity is ALL THERE IS, it is NOT a number. You could keep counting (or measuring) for ever, and never reach infinity, it is only a description. Infinity describes a thing as having no end, no limit, no boundary or edge, it literally goes on FOREVER, ad infinitum.


Because infinity is not a number, large numbers are no 'nearer' to infinity than small numbers. Number 1 billion for example is no nearer to infinity than number 1, because the two, numbers and infinity, are in no way related. It is then impossible to approach infinity, a thing is either infinite and immeasurable, or finite and measurable, it cannot be part way towards infinity. Imagine running up a 'down' escalator, never moving forward. If you run for a week you are no nearer reaching the end of the escalator than if you run for a minute, you cannot get any closer to something that has no end.


An infinite universe for example would exist in every direction forever, there could be nothing else, ONLY the universe. It is then very easy to understand why our universe cannot be infinite, it is because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, that is a contradiction in terms, and we do know it is expanding. For an explanation of the Big Bang and why we know the universe is expanding.


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What is infinity.htm

 

[brerabbit]

The universe is limited in mass and energy by the Big Bang constituents. Space goes beyond the expanding universe to a shell limited by the boundary created by God. God has no bounds and looks from beyond infinity inward.

 

[Chalnoth]

The universe is limited in mass and energy by the Big Bang constituents.

No, it actually isn't. Energy isn't conserved in an expanding universe, and mass can be both produced and destroyed.

 

[brerabbit]

No, it actually isn't. Energy isn't conserved in an expanding universe, and mass can be both produced and destroyed.

thanx, Chalnoth

The question was "Is the universe infinite".

I think we agree that it is not infinite. The mass and energy is limited by the fixed amounts produced in the big bang. Mass and energy reduce by enthalpy increases but change among each other as Dark Matter, Galaxies and black holes are formed. Energy is conserved as the Universe as it expands but entropy reduces it and thus mass also.

 

[Chalnoth]

The question was "Is the universe infinite".

I think we agree that it is not infinite. The mass and energy is limited by the fixed amounts produced in the big bang.

Except as I pointed out, this just isn't true. Why did you repeat it?

There's also no reason to believe that the universe was ever finite. It may be finite, it may be infinite. We just don't know.

 

[brerabbit]

Except as I pointed out, this just isn't true. Why did you repeat it?

There's also no reason to believe that the universe was ever finite. It may be finite, it may be infinite. We just don't know.

Chainoth:

You say, "Why did you repeat it?" . ...I didn't repeat anything. I did try to help you along and pointed to the thread theam. ... but alas you seem to avoid the question by skirting the premis if the Big Bang spewed out an infinate amount of mass and energy or not. ...

brerabbit

 

[Deuterium2H]

Chainoth:

You say, "Why did you repeat it?" . ...I didn't repeat anything. I did try to help you along and pointed to the thread theam. ... but alas you seem to avoid the question by skirting the premis if the Big Bang spewed out an infinate amount of mass and energy or not. ...

brerabbit

Chalnoth is correct. Energy is NOT conserved in an expanding Universe. Space can be both infinite and expanding.

 

[Deuterium2H]

Even this very large number would count as nothing when compared with infinity, because infinity is NOT A LARGE NUMBER be absolutely clear on this point, IT IS NOT A LARGE NUMBER, infinity is ALL THERE IS, it is NOT a number. You could keep counting (or measuring) for ever, and never reach infinity, it is only a description. Infinity describes a thing as having no end, no limit, no boundary or edge, it literally goes on FOREVER, ad infinitum.

An infinite universe for example would exist in every direction forever, there could be nothing else, ONLY the universe. It is then very easy to understand why our universe cannot be infinite, it is because it is expanding. It cannot be both infinite and expanding. It could be infinite OR expanding, but CANNOT possibly be both, that is a contradiction in terms, and we do know it is expanding. For an explanation of the Big Bang and why we know the universe is expanding.


http://www.thekeyboard.org.uk/What is infinity.htm

Radrook, the link/source you cited appears to have a rather naive (incorrect) view of the mathematical concept of infinity. Infinity is not a "number" in the sense that it is not a member of the Natural Numbers, or the Reals, for that matter. However, both Analysis and Set theory deal with infinite numbers ALL THE TIME. The extended Reals, as well as the Hyperreals and especially the Surreal Numbers include infinite (and infinitesimal) numbers. Foundationally, the first infinite ordinal number is omega (w), which is the order type of the set of Natural Numbers. All Natural numbers are finite ordinals. The first infinite ordinal number "w" is followed by w+1, w+2,...w+n = w x 2,...w x 3,...w^2, etc. In fact, there is an uncountable number of "countably" infinite ordinals before we reach the first "uncountable" infinite ordinal (w₁).

 

[laaylowww2]

there has to be equation for why the universe has a end...it has to and let's all agree that the univese is expanding at whatever speed what is it expanding into hummm

 

[Deuterium2H]

there has to be equation for why the universe has a end...it has to and let's all agree that the univese is expanding at whatever speed what is it expanding into hummm

There is an equation (FLRW metric), and when it includes a cosmological constant term, which fits within observational parameters, yields a homogeous, isotropic Universe that is accelerating in it's expansion.

As to your final question...the Universe isn't expanding into anything. Expansion of the Universe (and its global geometry) are intrinsic properties of the Universe, itself. Just as there is no "center" to the Universe, there is no "edge".

 

[laaylowww2]

that we know off... or is it so big that nobody has an explanation so the attach to word like infanity isn't that another word for we don't no the number so big the space so large...bringing it back down to my level...it just seems to me that something has to be in something now that my go on forever ,,,,just can't wrap my brain around that

 

[brerabbit]

Chalnoth is correct. Energy is NOT conserved in an expanding Universe. Space can be both infinite and expanding.

thanx, deuterium

The Universe or possibly the many Universes each with its own Big Bang all reside in Space at the same time. IMHO, Space is quite different, and can be finite and both expands and contracts. Energy is conserved but degrades as Entropy within the Black Holes dominate. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1847

 

[Chalnoth]

thanx, deuterium

The Universe or possibly the many Universes each with its own Big Bang all reside in Space at the same time. IMHO, Space is quite different, and can be finite and both expands and contracts. Energy is conserved but degrades as Entropy within the Black Holes dominate. http://arxiv.org/abs/0801.1847

Please read this before continuing:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

 

[brerabbit]

Please read this before continuing:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

Will do, thanx. Would you give us the URL s on the sciences and academic credentials that they have in astro sciences, I can't find any other than Baez is a mathematician in Riverside and has an interest in protesting as did his relatives.

brer

 

[Deuterium2H]

Please read this before continuing:
http://math.ucr.edu/home/baez/physics/Relativity/GR/energy_gr.html

The link Chalnoth provided is excellent, and it shows that the question of "energy" and "energy conservation" is both complicated and subtle in GR. Depending on the conventions or model one chooses may yield a different answer to the question of "energy conservation", especially in a global context. The easiest (and I think the correct) interpretation is simply this:

Question: If a photon is red-shifted due to the Cosmological expansion of space, it loses energy. Where does the energy go?

Answer: It doesn't go anywhere...because in expanding space, energy is not conserved.

 

[brerabbit]

The link Chalnoth provided is excellent, and it shows that the question of "energy" and "energy conservation" is both complicated and subtle in GR. Depending on the conventions or model one chooses may yield a different answer to the question of "energy conservation", especially in a global context. The easiest (and I think the correct) interpretation is simply this:

Question: If a photon is red-shifted due to the Cosmological expansion of space, it loses energy. Where does the energy go?

Answer: It doesn't go anywhere...because in expanding space, energy is not conserved.

The link is only as good as its author. Red-Shift energy is a phenomena of prospective differences in velocities and wave lengths. We are discussing an atom's mass and energy after it passed thur the "Big Bang". Then looses energy due to entropy particularly in the working Black Holes. ... thus the Universe and Universes are finite.

brer

 

[Chalnoth]

The link is only as good as its author. Red-Shift energy is a phenomena of prospective differences in velocities and wave lengths. We are discussing an atom's mass and energy after it passed thur the "Big Bang". Then looses energy due to entropy particularly in the working Black Holes. ... thus the Universe and Universes are finite.

brer

This does not follow.

 

[Deuterium2H]

The link is only as good as its author. Red-Shift energy is a phenomena of prospective differences in velocities and wave lengths. We are discussing an atom's mass and energy after it passed thur the "Big Bang". Then looses energy due to entropy particularly in the working Black Holes. ... thus the Universe and Universes are finite.

brer

Huh?? I don't even understand what you are trying to say.

But as a possible correction, do not confuse a doppler red-shift (which IS a measure of relative velocity between two objects in space), and Cosmological Red-Shift, which is NOT a measure of relative velocity, but is a result of the expansion of space itself. They are goverened by two very different formulas/equations.

 

[ilsley]

I have read that, if the universe is flat or hyperbolically curved, then it must be infinite. I've also read that all observations to date suggest that the universe is flat. Would that make it infinite? If it is indeed flat, then to be finite, it would have to have an edge and this would seem to contradict quite a few well accepted ideas in cosmology. If the universe is infinite now, then, looking back towards the big bang, it must always have been infinite - you can never halve the size of an infinite object and make it finite. It seems to a simple mind like mine, therefore, that the big bang didn't start with an infinitely small infinitely dense single point, but with an infinitely large infinitely dense affair. Is there any reason why that can't be the case? It would mean of course that the universe isn't actually getting bigger - it's just spreading out.

 

[Chalnoth]

I have read that, if the universe is flat or hyperbolically curved, then it must be infinite. I've also read that all observations to date suggest that the universe is flat. Would that make it infinite?

No, not quite. There are two problems with this:
1. Even if the universe is flat, it can still be finite as it is entirely possible for a flat universe to wrap back on itself. An example of this type of universe is displayed in the old arcade game Asteroids, which is entirely flat, but move the ship off one side of the screen and it appears on the other. This is known as a toroidal topology, and it is entirely possible for our universe to be flat and finite in this way. I'm reasonably sure that you can do similar things with a negatively-curved space-time as well.
2. Unfortunately, our vision is limited both in time and space. We cannot observe the whole of the universe. And in practice, our local, observable region can easily have a curvature that deviates somewhat from the average curvature of the universe. So measuring some curvature or no curvature actually doesn't say much of anything about the curvature of the universe as a whole: the curvature we measure could just be a local feature.

However, let me just end with a little statement. As far as we know, our universe will expand forever into the future. This means that at least in one dimension, our universe is infinite: the time dimension. So if our universe is infinite in one dimension, why can't it be infinite in the other dimensions as well?

 

[phinds]

space is infinite, energy/matter has a maximum value

That is unsupported speculation on your part and should be stated as an opinion, not a fact.

 

[Deveno]

i understand very little of cosmology. i am given to understand that the conclusion that "the fabric of the universe is stetching apart" is based on the cosmic microwave background, which is (as far as we know so far), "too uniform" to support the notion that space existed first, and that just the stuff expanded later into it. better data collection efforts may substantiate, or revise this idea.

but as a mathematician, i feel i must point out that there is a difference between "infinite" and "unbounded". a circle is bounded, but i don't think anyone would claim it consists of only a finite number of points.

if space is a continuum, then it is infinite, even if it is embedded in a bounded manifold in some n-dimensional ambient space. it is not possible for us to tell, at the moment, if this bound is just very large (compared to us), or non-existent. it is my understanding that the basic assumption in cosmology is that the universe is (relatively) uniform, so "local" measurements of curvature should tell us about the universe in general, but of course, this assumption may be wrong (the energy content of "our corner of the park" may somehow influence its geometry).

on the other hand, if space itself is quantized in some manner, then it's conceivable our universe is "absolutely" finite (it is a discrete structure). i think this unlikely, but some have suggested that a finite-dimensional lattice could propagate instructions in such a way as to create the illusion of states evolving over time (the universe itself could be some form of complex-behavior automaton).

it is difficult to tell how many dimensions we "need" for our (perceived) space to exist inside "a larger one". if certain algebraic relationships hold, the choices are not entirely free, as some numbers work better than other ones (4, for example, is a better choice than 3, and 8 is better than 7...there are good reasons for believing it should be an even number).

of course, the very idea of our universe existing in some larger structure, sounds very much like saying: "the universe isn't the (whole) universe", but it's still possible that the "enveloping universe" somehow leaves evidence in our discoverable universe that tells us it's there (or rather; if we hypothesize such a universe, we may be able to "explain" things that have predictable value, that might be borne out by experiment. this isn't really "proof" per se, but if it works in practice, we are likely to adopt this view).

there isn't any pure logical reason, that i know of, for thinking the universe is finite, or non-finite. my guess is, is that since the universe exhibits similar levels of complexity across all the scales of resolution we have; it is infinite in depth, as well as breadth. it's possible this question may never be answered, due to our limitations.

 

[josewrivera]

if the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something, isn't that something also part of the universe, if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun, the big bang was just one more explosion in the universe, one of billions and billions of explosions happening as we speak, if we are moving or expanding we are just looking to occupy a different location in the infinite universe, there is no beggining or end because there is no beggining to time, and if there is no beggining to time, there is no beggining to the universe, and if there was no beggining. there was no creation, no matter how you diced or sliced, by the way I am no scientist and forgive my spelling

 

[Chalnoth]

if the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something,

Not at all. The expansion simply means stuff within the universe is getting further apart. It is, in a very real sense, just a change of shape of the universe. There is no reason whatsoever for there to be any "outside" at all. In fact, in General Relativity, the very concept of an outside doesn't work very well.

if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun,

Because the expansion is a large-scale, average phenomenon. Overdense regions, such as our own galaxy or solar system, are quite stable within an expanding universe.

 

[skydivephil]

if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun,

I think this impression is created by poor explanation of what the expansion means. We measure disatnt galaxies as receeding away from us at a speed proprtional to their distance. The important point to note is that this only applies to distant galaxies. Why only distant galaxies?
Becuase for nearby obejct they are gravitationally bound and the expansion of the universe is not strong enough to unbind them. It might be in the future, google "big Rip" for this possibility, but it is not now.
Hence gravitationally bound strucutres do not see any expansion. The solar system is grvaitiationally bound, so is our galaxy and so are nearby galaxies. For example Andromeda is on a collision course with the Milky Way. If everything felt the expansion this could not be the case.
Bottom line: for local structures, think nearby galaxies and closer , the expansion of the universe is irrelevant.

 

[skydivephil]

, if we are moving or expanding we are just looking to occupy a different location in the infinite universe, there is no beggining or end because there is no beggining to time, and if there is no beggining to time, there is no beggining to the universe, and if there was no beggining. there was no creation, no matter how you diced or sliced, by the way I am no scientist and forgive my spelling

We don't know whether or not the universe is infinite. We do know there was a big bang event, but whether there were others and how far back they go back is currently unknown. Perhaps you are referring to certainly interesting models such as eternal inflation, CCC, ekpyrotic and bounce cosmologies that imply our big bang was not a unique event. But we have to be honest and say none of these models have been experimentally veirified yet. So I think a "we don't know" attitude is best. We should wait for the data to tell us the answeres and until that happens we should not presume anything.

 

[Deuterium2H]

if the universe is expanding, it must be expanding into something, isn't that something also part of the universe, if it is expanding how come we keep the same distance from the sun, the big bang was just one more explosion in the universe, one of billions and billions of explosions happening as we speak, if we are moving or expanding we are just looking to occupy a different location in the infinite universe, there is no beggining or end because there is no beggining to time, and if there is no beggining to time, there is no beggining to the universe, and if there was no beggining. there was no creation, no matter how you diced or sliced, by the way I am no scientist and forgive my spelling

Jose, I encourage you to read the FAQ section of this forum (listed at the very top of this section). Many of your questions are answered in descriptive, non-rigourous and very accesible explanations.

As has already been explained (e.g. Chalnoth), the known physics of our Universe does not require an additional "dimension" within which to expand. The shape/curvature of our Universe is an intrinsic geometric property, and does not require a higher dimension in which it is embedded. That is to say, our Universe can be infinite, open, and expanding...but it is not expanding into any "external" pre-existing volume. This fact is precisely why thinking of the Big Bang as a single "explosion" IN Space is misleading and incorrect. The correct concept is to understand the Big Bang as occurring everywhere, and to imagine it is an explosion OF space. The Big Bang occurred simultaneously in the space now occupied by the current position of your belly-button, as well as any (and all) arbitrary points in the Andromeda galaxy.

According to the Standard model of Cosmology, there was a definite beginning of "time", which was the instant of the Big Bang. The Big Bang created our Universe which contains space and time, and our Universe does not exist "in" space and time. This is part of the "Containment Principle", which is an integral aspect of modern Cosmology.

 

[skydivephil]

Jose, I encourage you to read the FAQ section of this forum (listed at the very top of this section). Many of your questions are answered in descriptive, non-rigourous and very accesible explanations.

As has already been explained (e.g. Chalnoth), the known physics of our Universe does not require an additional "dimension" within which to expand. The shape/curvature of our Universe is an intrinsic geometric property, and does not require a higher dimension in which it is embedded. That is to say, our Universe can be infinite, open, and expanding...but it is not expanding into any "external" pre-existing volume. This fact is precisely why thinking of the Big Bang as a single "explosion" IN Space is misleading and incorrect. The correct concept is to understand the Big Bang as occurring everywhere, and to imagine it is an explosion OF space. The Big Bang occurred simultaneously in the space now occupied by the current position of your belly-button, as well as any (and all) arbitrary points in the Andromeda galaxy.

According to the Standard model of Cosmology, there was a definite beginning of "time", which was the instant of the Big Bang. The Big Bang created our Universe which contains space and time, and our Universe does not exist "in" space and time. This is part of the "Containment Principle", which is an integral aspect of modern Cosmology.

Everything you say may be true but I think the picture is more nuanced than that. I think most comslogigst that work on the very early universe would agree that "The Standard Model" is not to be trusted as we get v close to the Planck scale. Hell all of my textbooks say that too, so this is nothing new. In order to say there was a beginning of time at the big bang we need to trust the mdoel all the way to the Planck scale which i think very few people would say is wise.

 

[josewrivera]

we have trouble undestanding events that ocurred only a couple thousand years ago, but we think we have the answer to what happened 5 billion years ago, the big bang didnt create the universe nothing no matter how big can affect a infinite universe in its totallity some time in the future humanity is going to come to this conclusion no beggining no end and there was time before the big bang, and is not possible to reach the beggining because there is always a second before, and a minute and an hour.

 

[phinds]

we have trouble undestanding events that ocurred only a couple thousand years ago, but we think we have the answer to what happened 5 billion years ago, the big bang didnt create the universe nothing no matter how big can affect a infinite universe in its totallity some time in the future humanity is going to come to this conclusion no beggining no end and there was time before the big bang, and is not possible to reach the beggining because there is always a second before, and a minute and an hour.

You really need to read some basic cosmology before posting such nonsense on a forum where people take science seriously.

"big bang" has two meanings

1) the singularity / t=0 and nobody pretends to know what this was all about, it's just the place where the models break down.

2) everything since one Plank time after the singularity. This is remarkably well understood, although there are still puzzles. I recommend you read "The First Three Minutes" by Weinberg.

 

[Chalnoth]

we have trouble undestanding events that ocurred only a couple thousand years ago, but we think we have the answer to what happened 5 billion years ago,

This is really sad. Why not try learning a little bit about how we have learned these things before throwing out blanket condemnations of science you know nothing about?