Was the universe is infinitely large at the big bang?

  • Context: High School 
  • Thread starter Thread starter Green dwarf
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Big bang Universe
Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the nature of the universe at the time of the big bang, specifically whether it was infinitely large or not. Participants explore concepts related to the universe's flatness, the observable universe, and the implications of an infinite universe in both mathematical and physical contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Debate/contested
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Mathematical reasoning

Main Points Raised

  • Some participants propose that if the universe is currently spatially infinite, it must have always been infinite, even at the time of the big bang.
  • Others argue that the common depiction of the big bang as starting from a point smaller than an atom is a misconception, clarifying that the observable universe was indeed very small at that time.
  • One participant notes that the universe's flatness does not necessarily imply it is infinite, suggesting the possibility of exotic topologies, such as a torus, which can be flat yet finite.
  • Another participant emphasizes the distinction between the observable universe, which has a definable size, and a spatially infinite universe, which has a density but is always infinite in size.
  • Some express difficulty in visualizing the concept of an infinite universe and its implications, noting the paradoxical nature of space and matter extending indefinitely.
  • Mathematical concepts related to infinity are discussed, with some participants finding them straightforward while others find them daunting, particularly in relation to physical models of the universe.
  • Concerns are raised about paradoxes that arise in an infinite universe, such as the Boltzmann Brain, which may complicate the understanding of infinity in a physical context.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants generally do not reach a consensus, as multiple competing views remain regarding the nature of the universe at the big bang and the implications of its potential infinity.

Contextual Notes

Limitations include the dependence on definitions of infinity and flatness, as well as unresolved mathematical concepts that may affect interpretations of the universe's structure.

Green dwarf
Messages
55
Reaction score
5
My understanding is that the universe seems quite likely to be flat, and therefore infinite. Following an infinitely large object back in time to the big bang, it would never become finite. (However many times you divide infinity by 2, it is still infinity.)
We tend to picture the big bang as something starting smaller than an atom. But that would be just our observable universe. The whole universe, (the totality of matter, the omniverse?) would have to have been infinitely large always.
Am I misguided here?
 
Astronomy news on Phys.org
Green dwarf said:
We tend to picture the big bang as something starting smaller than an atom.

No we don't. It's a common misconception. The answer to your question is yes, if Universe is spatially infinite now, then it was during the BB.
 
Thanks weirdoguy. Could you enlarge on the 'No we don't', because that surprised me. Was our observable universe not at some time very small?
 
We have tracked universe's evolution back to a very hot, very dense volume many, many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. Our physics is consistent back to that point, yes.
 
Green dwarf said:
My understanding is that the universe seems quite likely to be flat, and therefore infinite
This does not necessarily follow, in case the universe has some exotic topology. For example, a torus is intrinsically flat, but finite.
Other than that, you're not misguided - as weirdoguy said, if the entire universe is infinite now, then it must have been infinite always.

weirdoguy said:
No we don't. It's a common misconception.
If you read the sentence that immediately follows, you'll see the OP was referring to the observable universe only. Which is correct.
 
Bandersnatch said:
If you read the sentence that immediately follows, you'll see the OP was referring to the observable universe only. Which is correct.

Yes, of course. I misunderstood the OP :sorry:
 
DaveC426913 said:
We have tracked universe's evolution back to a very hot, very dense volume many, many orders of magnitude smaller than an atom. Our physics is consistent back to that point, yes.

I cannot equate that with still being spatially infinite, am I missing something?
 
pinball1970 said:
I cannot equate that with still being spatially infinite, am I missing something?

It's just the difference between the observable universe (which can be given a size) and the spatially infinite universe, which can be given a density, but it's size is always infinite.
 
  • Like
Likes   Reactions: pinball1970
PeroK said:
It's just the difference between the observable universe (which can be given a size) and the spatially infinite universe, which can be given a density, but it's size is always infinite.

Thanks Perok. Not the simplest concept in the world for me to try and visualise.
 
  • #10
pinball1970 said:
Thanks Perok. Not the simplest concept in the world for me to try and visualise.

Mathematically it's quite straightforward. But, physically, it does seem paradoxical. Not just the expansion, but the concept that space, matter, galaxies go on for ever.
 
  • #11
PeroK said:
Mathematically it's quite straightforward. But, physically, it does seem paradoxical. Not just the expansion, but the concept that space, matter, galaxies go on for ever.

Mathematically straightforward to you fresh 42 Dale Phinds and others is a tad daunting to me. That's why I'm here though.
 
  • #12
pinball1970 said:
Mathematically straightforward to you fresh 42 Dale Phinds and others is a tad daunting to me. That's why I'm here though.

##\mathbb{R}^3## shouldn't be too difficult a concept, mathematically. After all, if the number line is not infinite, then there must be a largest number. But, how can some number ##N## be the largest? You can always add ##1##, surely, to get ##N+1##.

So, ##\mathbb{N}, \mathbb{R}, \mathbb{R}^2, \mathbb{R}^3## must all be infinite in size.

In that sense, an infinite flat universe shouldn't be a particularly difficult concept.

But, these infinite mathematical sets have certain properties that make them conceptually difficult as a model for the physical universe. You get ideas like the Bolzmann Brain, for example, which may be a paradox; or may be sheer nonsense! But, in an infinite universe, these paradoxical issues are difficult to ignore.
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 20 ·
Replies
20
Views
2K
  • · Replies 65 ·
3
Replies
65
Views
9K
  • · Replies 22 ·
Replies
22
Views
1K
  • · Replies 17 ·
Replies
17
Views
3K
  • · Replies 12 ·
Replies
12
Views
2K
  • · Replies 3 ·
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • · Replies 25 ·
Replies
25
Views
4K
  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
7K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
948
  • · Replies 46 ·
2
Replies
46
Views
5K