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

Is the universe finite or infinite?

  1. May 10, 2012 #1
    Does the universe has boundaries?, is it finite?
     
  2. jcsd
  3. May 10, 2012 #2

    mathman

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Universe does not have a boundary. Finite or infinite is an open question.
     
  4. May 10, 2012 #3
    But there is no such thing as infinity in physics !!!
     
  5. May 11, 2012 #4

    haruspex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Probably, but it's hard to be sure. Certainly the visible universe is finite and bounded. According to the inflationary theory of the big bang, space expanded faster than the speed of light for a while, so there are regions from which the light will never reach us.

    But more interesting is what mathman said about the finite case. The universe can be finite in volume yet have no boundary. It depends on the topology. Imagine space as a cube, but in which each point of the left side is the same place as the point straight across from it on the right side. Similarly top/bottom and back/front. If you wander off through one face you just reappear out of the opposite face. And you wouldn't notice anything special, because where you choose the faces to be is arbitrary. Every point is as good as any other. (Topologically this would be a 3D torus, I think.)
     
  6. May 12, 2012 #5

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    Oh? Can you prove that? Do you have an accredited references to back up such a categorical statement?
     
  7. May 12, 2012 #6
    I believe there is a simple solution to this problem and it is based on behavior all through the Universe so I do not believe it is an inappropriate stretch to apply it to the entire Universe: we observe phenomena in the Universe having critical points in their dynamics. Breaching such a point often causes the dynamics of the phenomenon to change qualitatively and by doing so, the rules change. For example asking what does swimming mean beyond the critical point of freezing? What happens to a hydrogen atom beyond the critical point of fussion? In a small section of the ground it looks flat, even my whole yard. But it's not always flat, beyond the horizon the rules change and asking whether the earth is infinitely flat or we just fall off is simply not following the new rules of a spherical earth in a gravity field.

    Therefore, in regards to a "size" of the universe, I do not think it is unreasonable to suggest at some large "size", a critical point is reached, the rules change, the concept "volume" loses meaning, and asking for a "size" of the Universe beyond that point is simply not following the new rules.
     
  8. May 13, 2012 #7
    I think the big bang "Theory" can proves it, however I still don't know what do we mean by "universe", is it the space that we know, or it also inclues beyond space "Vacume !!!". What do you call the "No Space/No Time" before the big bang???!!!
     
  9. May 13, 2012 #8
    Very logical explanation....Thanks.
     
  10. May 13, 2012 #9

    Astronuc

    User Avatar
    Staff Emeritus
    Science Advisor

    "Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist's, but that's just peanuts to space, listen..." - Douglas Noel Adams, Chapter 8, The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy, Earth Edition, 1979


    Paraphrased - "The Universe is Big. Really big. It may seem like a long way to the corner chemist, but compared to the Universe, that's peanuts."
    http://astro.gmu.edu/classes/a10695/notes/l01/l01.html [Broken]


    The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy offers this definition of the word "infinite".

    Infinite: Bigger than the biggest thing ever and then some. Much bigger than that in fact, really amazingly immense, a totally stunning size, real "wow, that's big," time. Infinity is just so big that, by comparison, bigness itself looks really titchy. Gigantic multiplied by colossal multiplied by staggeringly huge is the sort of concept we're trying to get across here.
    http://www.acc.umu.se/~ola/hitchhik.htm


    The challenge for one is not to let the vastness of the universe boggle one's mind.
    :biggrin:
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 6, 2017
  11. May 13, 2012 #10

    phinds

    User Avatar
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I did not ask what you think, I asked what you can support by science.

    So you are making a definitive statement about something you can't even define. Now that's REALLY scientific.

    I don't call it anything since there is no evidence that there was such a thing and it is not part of the big bang theory
     
  12. May 13, 2012 #11
    Infinity is a really very very large number no one can reach. Its a concept used in math and physics. Nobody knows the real size of the universe. It is really really large. Like mathman said finite or infinite is a open question.
     
  13. May 13, 2012 #12

    Drakkith

    User Avatar

    Staff: Mentor

    One cannot probe anything tangible is infinite in size, extent, or count. It would take an unending amount of time. However the concept of infinity does exist.
     
  14. May 27, 2012 #13
    the big bang does not prove that there is no boundary to the universe. the expansion of space isnt the physical expansion of acquiring more territory that we experience here on earth. the big bang occurred everywhere at once.

    and there can be an infinity. if you follow these two patterns you will notice that they will go on forever
    1 2 3 4 5 6 7...
    2 4 6 8 10 12...
    divide them and you still get a number yet they are both infinitely large.

    to add to the idea of no space or time before the big bang, well you pretty much said it. there was no time. kind of a hard thought for human logic but time started at t=0 so yes, time does have a beginning.

    plus... at the end of the day, the big bang is still a theory =P
     
  15. May 27, 2012 #14

    haruspex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

    I can't find a post claiming it does. OTOH, does anyone think it does have a boundary?

    But those are not infinities in the physical world, just in mathematical theory.
     
  16. May 27, 2012 #15

    Chronos

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Gold Member

    Er, maybe. That's my answer and I'm sticking to it.
     
  17. May 27, 2012 #16
    No offense, but thats not helping at all.

    Acc. to me, since light is the fastest thing, then you can define an 'energy & mass' boundary, beyond which only those things lie which existed before the big bang (if anything did). But you can't define a boundary, neither to space, nor to the universe.

    There is a logic behind the beginning of time. Any events which occurred before the big bang does not affect us or the universe today. There is no need to assign these useless and unknown events with a time. Thats why we have BIG BANG occurred at t=0;
     
    Last edited: May 27, 2012
  18. May 27, 2012 #17

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    I think there is even some confusion here about the kinds of questions that science is able to answer. We actually don't use science to answer questions like "is the universe finite or infinite", we just use it to address questions like "is the universe finite." The answer to that question is, "we have no scientific evidence that the universe is finite." That's it, that's all we can use science to say. This is not evidence that the universe is infinite, such a thing is not likely to even be possible to obtain. Since absence of evidence is not evidence of absence, we simply cannot use science to say anything at all about whether or not the universe is finite in size (in comoving coordinates, etc.), we can only say we have no evidence that it is finite. Why must we always try to use science for more than it is intended or appropriate?
     
  19. May 28, 2012 #18

    haruspex

    User Avatar
    Science Advisor
    Homework Helper
    Gold Member
    2016 Award

     
  20. May 28, 2012 #19
    The universe is finite but with no boundary. It is similar to a bubble or sphere
     
  21. May 29, 2012 #20

    Ken G

    User Avatar
    Gold Member

    It's not terribly relevant, but that doesn't follow. Space could curve back on itself, have finite volume, and still have no boundaries. But the real issue here is, despite looking very hard (and quite possibly as hard as we can ever look), we have no evidence that it does have boundaries, nor do we have any evidence that it does not have boundaries, nor do we have any evidence that it curls back on itself, nor do we have any evidence that it does not curl back on itself. All we know is, what we see looks flat, and we have no idea how long it stays looking flat. That's it, that's the scientific evidence in its entirety.
    But making and testing models has nothing to do with answering the OP question. The models we make are intended as idealizations, and the standard idealization is that of a flat infinite universe. That model works quite well. Is that evidence that the universe really is flat and infinite? Of course not. If I am digging a foundation for my house, I'm certainly going to use a model that the surface of the Earth is flat and infinite (in that I will certainly not model any curvature of the Earth), and it will work great for digging my foundation, but I'm never going to conclude that any of this is evidence that the Earth really is flat and infinite.
     
Know someone interested in this topic? Share this thread via Reddit, Google+, Twitter, or Facebook




Similar Discussions: Is the universe finite or infinite?
  1. Infinite universe (Replies: 87)

  2. Finite Universe! (Replies: 7)

  3. Infinite Universe? (Replies: 16)

Loading...