Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Not-Quite-Science Forum What is the latest consensus

Of the Scientific establishment.

Is the Universe Infinite in nature? Or is it finite in nature?

1) to answer this would demand the ability of a god. (notice the small g)

2)we cant know if its physically finite until we find the edge. we cant know if its temporally finite unless we can defined time beyond the boundaries of what we know.

3) we will be able to fully defined the universe only when we fully understand the universe. until then the question cant be accurately answered. we dont even know if there are more dimensions than we already know of.

Turak:

You expect too much.

Science does not even know the size of our Solar System or what may be found at the farthest edge.
jjw

Turak asks:
"Is the Universe Infinite in nature? Or is it finite in nature?"

We do not know. It is, however, possible, to have infinite complexity in finite space. So the question may be meaningless in the sense that it is meaningless to ask who would I be if I'd been born to different parents.

That is not logical. It is mathematically impossible for any finite thing to have an infinite number of things inside it. That would be like trying to stuff an elephant into a single seed of grain. Or tying to stuff an infinite number of seeds into one seed.

You cannot have an infinite Universe that is finite.

You cannot have a finite Universe thatis Infinite'

PERIOD.

The Universe is either finite, or Infinite.

What surprises me is that you are not even interested in the question, When it is the most crucial question of all.

why is the question critical. it will take many billions of years before it matters if the univere is finite or not.

heres is an example of how it is so varible.

a monkey approaches a banana tree. lets say there are 4 ways he can get to the bananas. there are 4 variations of how he can get to them. now, when hes there, he has a choise of a couple dosen bananas. now he picks one and then has to decide where to eat it. lets say he has 5 choises. In this one small senerio there are 240 possible outcomes. most of these will effect the future in no way, but there might be. say one of the paths he takes is bad and he falls and breaks his neck. or he picks a banana that has a virus in it. it kills him. the banana might have gone bad and that virus disappeared from the earth, but now its in the monkey population. or one of the spots he choises to each might have a snake hiding there.

no difference to the future right. now what if that monkey had was the first to have a mutation that would eventually lead to humanity. or perhaps a variation in humans. say one that causes some humans to have blue hair. he dies and no human every has blue hair. at least not naturally.

I don't know if that's neccaceraly true. I'm no mathametician, but there are infinite series that have finite sums. The solution to Zeno's paradox is good example (Geometric Series). The square root of two is also an infinite sum.

Is that what Stephan Hawking's Book talks about?

Turak wrote:
"That is not logical. It is mathematically impossible for any finite thing to have an infinite number of things inside it."

Didn't your mother tell you that the problem with opening your mouth is that it often removes all doubt?

"Infinite complexity in finite space" is just another way of saying 'fractal'. Very logical and pure mathematics.

For those interested in actual science and education: http://www.gpc.edu/~mnunes/COMPLEX/LIMITS.HTM
and also look up mandelbrot sets, julia sets, quaternion julia sets, and koch snowflake at google.com.

Turak I really don't know what middle school you attend but you are in way over your head trying to bluff your way here. Unless you are striving for public embarrasement you might want to reconsider your modus operandi.

I have to point out that the universe need not have an edge in order to be finite.

Consider the surface of the earth, I think you'll agree it is finite in area, and yet it has no edge.

Simply upscale from a two dimensional surface curved into a third dimension to a three dimensional volume curved into a fourth and voila! Finite yet unbounded space.

Though if one looked at even a small portion of the earth's surface, say a beach, and asked how long the beach is, the fractal nature of the beach would render its length to be infinite.

This is the interface where the English langjuage and the language of Mathematics breaks down.

actually the earth has an edge. its called space.

Well you just keep walking and let me know when you get there.

I can only assume that the words 'non-Euclidean' mean nothing to you.

Its weird to think that this thing has an infinite length. I had to do the math to convince myself.



plus.maths.org

dehammer wrote:
"actually the earth has an edge. its called space."

Really? Can you touch it? Measure its location? Take a photograph of it? Perhaps write your name on it?

Think harder.

TwoSheds wrote:
"Its weird to think that this thing has an infinite length. I had to do the math to convince myself."

That's why I said English and mathematics are not the same language. The length of a beach changes increases as the length of the measuring device is made smaller and smaller.

This may well be a dumb question, but what happens when the measuring device reaches the Planck length?

Well measuring this purely mathmatical fractal, say after every iteration your measuring device is the length of the shortest line. You start with one line


After the first iteration, the shortest line is L/3 and there are 4 of them so the total length is 4/3*L

Generalizing now there are 4^n lines each of length L/(3^n). n is the number of iterations. below is n=2.


As you do each iteration the length of each segment gets smaller, but the total length of all of them combined is greater. If you do an infinite number of iterations then the length approaches infinite. Assuming the starting length is 1 meter, the number of iterations you would have to do for the lengths of each segment to reach the planck length would be about 73.


So our physical limit can never get smaller than the planck length. At that point the total length will be about 1.3 billion meters[L*(4/3)^n]. Keep in mind that's with L=1meter to start with, and just with this snowflake thing called a Von Koch island.

This website has some info on fractals and some cool pictures that were created using fractals.
plus.maths.org

Sure, as soon a I can learn to walk on air, Ill show you the edge. Just because you cant walk to it does not mean it does not exist. I cant hold a photon, but that does not mean the photon does not exist. I cant touch a magnetic field, but that does not render it nonexistent.

edit:nice find, TwoSheds.

Can you personally touch the moon? Can you measure the location of a photon? Can you photograph a magnetic field? Perhaps you can write your name on the wind?

I would also refer you to Steven Tyler of Aerosmith who's song "Living on the Edge" seems to suggest that Tyler may have discovered the edge along with the rest of the members of Aerosmith. haha sorry I couldn't help myself.

dehammer you are confusing English and mathematics. And I might point out to you that you have already stated, on numerous occassions, that you are good at math ... so why the sudden inability to discuss basic math concepts.

Do you even know what the word "EDGE" means in mathematics? If not please look it up.

there are two discussions going on, one uses math, the other plain english. the point where the discussion of the edge came it, had nothing to do with math, only english. therefore the mathematical definition of edge is not required for this part of the discussion. please pay attension.

Like I've said before I'm no mathematician, but according to This Website amoung others "For an undirected graph, an unordered pair of nodes that specify a line joining these two nodes are said to form an edge"

Also per wikipedia : "In graph theory, a graph consists of a set of connections between objects. Each object is a vertex. Each connection, between two vertices, forms an edge, or arc "

So wouldn't a line connecting two vertices on a sphere be considered an edge or arc?

Of course does this mathematical definition of an edge have any meaning in reference to the "edge" of the universe?

The universe having an edge is all about mathematics. No one seriously believes that if you go in a straight line far enough you will run into a wall that can be tagged with grafitti.

No, there is no wall (as far as we know), but there is a theory that there is nothing outside of the universe, that space expands to hold the universe. If this theory is correct, there is someplace that there is no space at all. Seems like someone recently told me that there was nothing outside of the material of the big bang, that that was all of existance as space expanded for the big bang. Wonder who told me that. If the universe is actually finite physically, then there is an edge to it. if its infinite, then there is no edge. There is nothing mathematical about that.

Oh, OK we are talking theoretically, not real beaches, planets or universes.
Thanks anyway I did kinda get the concept but that clears it up.

Why go to all that bother? Just explain where the edge of the surface of a sphere is and I'll be happy. Come up with a half decent answer to this and I'll forgive all your previous misdemeanours.
Hint...remember not to leave the surface.

D.A.,
"It is, however, possible, to have infinite complexity in finite space."

Elaborate please. While it's not neccessary to
go to fractals to make the point with regard to
the mathematical concepts, (there are an infinite
number of points on a line of any length), doesn't the term 'complexity in finite space` imply that
something other than non-material concepts are
under discussion?.

actually from the surface its impossible to find an edge except perhaps in some high level math formula. from inside the sphere, OTOH, the edge is the surface. Since our earth includes the atmosphere, we are inside the greater earth sphere. granted most people only think of the earth's hard material surface as the globe, but this is not the airless moon.

actually the same can be said of the universe if its a physically finite entity. If space only exist where it has expanded the universe to, then there would be an edge where there is nothing beyound. It would be physically impossible to go into this place as there is nothing there to go into. Ive read several sf books that used that as their primise. quite interesting reading, if a little on the farside.

dehammer wrote:
"but there is a theory that there is nothing outside of the universe"

Your words are correct but I'm not sure you understand what they mean. This is not in any way infer an edge.

Pragmatist asks:
"doesn't the term 'complexity in finite space` imply that something other than non-material concepts are under discussion?."

Not as I was intending it when I wrote what I did. My point was that it is possible to have infinite complexity within a finite universe. Nothing more.

well done dehammer, you're getting there.

A one dimensional line curved into a circle has no end.
A two dimension plane warped into a sphere has no edge.
A three dimensional volume (or universe) warped into a hypersphere has no edge.

I'm not saying that's how it is, just that it is possible for a universe to be finite in volume and have no edge.

Da, please explain, if space is expanding and there is no edge, where does it expand into.

ed, the circle may have not end, but from having stood inside of one, i can tell you the circle is the edge.

Who said it has to expand into anything?

It is expanding in the same way a balloon expands when you blow air into it.

The circle is the edge of what?

Not the line that's for sure, the circle is the line.

The balloon expands into the air surrounding it. There is air inside and there is air outside, the balloon is the edge of it.

try looking at a circle from the center of that circle. what do you see? a line that seperates you from what is outside of it. If that circle is your home (imagine a two d world) and the circle separates you from empty space, that line is the edge.

dehammer wrote:
"Da, please explain, if space is expanding and there is no edge, where does it expand into."

The error in your thinking is wholly contained within your question. It IS NOT expanding INTO anything.


What is changing is the space-time metric. The apparent distance between objects that are not gravitationally bound.

Now how dehammer do we measure distances between galaxies? We measure how long it takes light to get from point A to point B.

If the time increases we say the space is larger.

If the speed of light slow down we say the space is larger.

There is no difference between the two statements. Expansion is not expansion in the sense that the public thinks of it when talking about their waistlines. It is an entirely different concept. And one I wish you would make a good faith effort to understand.

dehammer wrote:
"The balloon expands into the air surrounding it. There is air inside and there is air outside, the balloon is the edge of it."

You just wrote "air outside."

Look up there at your sentence and see it. That is exactly what you wrote.

We are talking about the universe.

There is no outside.
There is no outside.
There is no outside.

Will it help you if I say it a few more times?

There is no outside.
There is no outside.
There is no outside.

Your analogy is meaningless.

dehammer here's an explanation of what I think Morgan is talking about in reference to the universe not expanding into anything via wikipedia :

"In the analogy, the two dimensions of the balloon do not expand "into" anything since the surface of the balloon admits infinite paths in all directions at all times. There is some possibility for confusion in this analogy since the balloon can be seen by an external observer to be expanding "into" the third dimension (in the radial direction), but this is not a feature of metric expansion, rather it is the result of the arbitrary choice of the balloon which happens to be a manifold embedded in a third dimension. This third dimension is not mathematically necessary for two-dimensional metric expansion to occur, and the ant that is confined to the surface of the balloon has no way of determining whether a third dimension exists or not. It may be useful to visualize a third dimension, but the fact of expansion does not theoretically require such a dimension to exist. This is why the question "what is the universe expanding into?" is poorly phrased. Metric expansion does not have to proceed "into" anything. The universe that we inhabit does expand and distances get larger, but that does not mean that there is a larger space into which it is expanding."

Not sure that I entirely grasp it though, can someone tell me what "surface of the balloon admits infinite paths in all directions at all times" means?

that is one theory, but there are others, and it is only a theory.

There are no other theories if you ask 99% of all astrophysicists. I know that because I have one in the family that just finished working at the Gemini Observatories (Cerro Tololo Inter-American Observatory in Chile and WM Keck in Hawaii).

And while I won't compromise her privacy her picture is on page 46
http://www.noao.edu/noao/noaonews/jun06/pdf/86news.pdf#search=%22%22Anne%20Sweet%22%20and%20%22Hawaii%22%20and%20%22observatory%22%22

You care to disagree with her feel free to use a search engine and produce some links that support your belief for this elistist extremist and the rest of those at SAGG that care about science. But do understand that anything I can't answer ... I will send her way ... so please not puff or bluff.

dehammer, I shall say this only once...
you might find this hard to believe...but...
I like you... I like that you question things...
but please ... listen... listen to what people say...we are not fighting you ... we are trying to show you the way...

im just saying that scientist, even want to be scientist should not totally block out the unusual ideas and views simply because they are different.

It is a theory, it is a well accepted theory. it fits all the known data, but there is a lot of data we dont have yet. Why close the idea out just because it does not fit what you expect it to be.

heres an idea, perhaps a little out there. they say the universe is made up mostly of dark matter, yet this dark matter does not clusters of matter like galazies. It is also not drawn to the galaxies like matter is. What if the dark matter is repelled by matter, but gravity. Its own gravity would keep it from forming things like rocks and planets and suns. It would repell and be repelled by matter. If this is true, space is not expanding, galaxies are being push farther away by the dark matter. This would explain why the fartherest galaxies are moving faster since there is dark matter behind them, but little in front. This may be a wild theory, but its there. can you say its not possible?

dehammer wrote:
"im just saying that scientist, even want to be scientist should not totally block out the unusual ideas and views simply because they are different."

We aren't. What we are telling you is that you either intentionally or unintentionally don't read what is written. Either when we write it or we post links to it. I don't mean to insult you but it is so common it makes me wonder if you have a learning disability. And I am being serious. Your ability to misinterpret is world-class.

dehammer wrote:
"It is a theory, it is a well accepted theory. it fits all the known data, but there is a lot of data we dont have yet. Why close the idea out just because it does not fit what you expect it to be."

We don't. I personally hope to live long enough to see Einstein put in the place where Newton is today. I take great pleasure in watching theories replaced. But one can not put the present reality on hold waiting for the perfect dataum.

dehammer wrote:
"heres an idea, perhaps a little out there. they say the universe is made up mostly of dark matter, yet this dark matter does not clusters of matter like galazies"

Except that it is and we have proof that it is. The simple fact is that the only reason we even know it exists is because it is.

There is a time and place for "what if" and this isn't it.

you have proof that there are dark matter galaxies? the last i have heard of is that they have proven that dark matter exist because of the effect it was having on two galxies that were colliding. Last i had heard there was no proof that it was clustering together, because there was no way of finding it.

this is a forum for debate. If this is not the place for "what if" then where does that place exist.

The thing is you act as if the expansion theory is a proven law of nature. You dont state "according to the accepted theory", you proclaim "it is (my emphasis) this way (period), no debate allowed".

the original discussion was about if there were limits on the universe.

If the space is expanding, then the universe is finite. the boundaries may be expanding, but there is nothing else there, merely more nothingness between the galaxies. Its all the same.

If the universe is moving into new space, wheither from pressure within or from momentum, then the universe is infinite.

we will not know until we find the boundaries.

dehammer wrote:
"you have proof that there are dark matter galaxies?"

No. I have proof that our galaxy contains dark matter. That the Andromeda galaxy contains dark matter. In fact that most galaxies contain dark matter.

dehammer wrote:
"If this is not the place for "what if" then where does that place exist."

This is certainly a place for speculation. But if you speculate something clearly proven to not be true ... expect someone to point it out: I did!

dehammer wrote:
"If the space is expanding, then the universe is finite."

No ... No ... and No. One does not follow from the other.

dehammer wrote:
"If the universe is moving into new space,"

I keep telling you this and you keep repeating it incorrectly. Is it intentional or do you truly have a learning disability. There is no new space and the universe is not moving into anything.

Please try to repeat this accurately. Please! If you don't understand it ask questions or use google but don't keep repeating it back incorrectly again and again and again.

If the universe was as simplistic as the mold you try to force it into we wouldn't need the likes of Einstein and Heisenberg to help us understand it.

Once and for all ... THERE ARE NO BOUNDARIES. No. There aren't. Get over it.

how do you know there are no boundaries, have you been there? until someone can prove it, it will not be known for a fact. Untill then its simple one of several possible theories. Show me a link that proves that dark matter is in the galaxies. I know there is a theory that there is some in the middle of Andromeda, but its also a theory that there is a black hole or even two black holes there.

Im wondering if you have a learning disability myself. IT IS NOT A PROVEN FACT. Therefore its impossible to say that there is no space there for the galaxies to be moving into. IT IS ONLY A THEORY that space is expanding. Therefore its impossible to say that its not happening.

As far as Einstein and Heisenberg, we need people like them to understand things no matter how simple it is. Even if they are wrong, (not saying that they are even close to being wrong) they would still be needed to prove things that are what they appear to be, to make things understandable that cant be understood. There is a very good probablity that one or both of them will have all of their theories proven to be partially wrong at some point. would it matter if at some point they were proven to be completely wrong. With the data they had that was the best that anyone could hope to do, but that does not mean they are totally right. IF they are wrong it gives the next ones to come along something to work on to make the next level of understanding.

Please explain how the universe could not be finite phsyically, if the boundaries are alway the same. If space is expanding behind the galaxies, but they are not moveing, neither is the boundaries. Either there is no limits or there is a boundary. Call it what you want, use math to describe it, what every. either there is no limit or there is. the limit would be the boundary.

dehammer asks:
"how do you know there are no boundaries"

Because any boundary conceived so far by the human mind has been shown to not exist by observation.

Speculate about the unknown ... not the known. You can speculate that you were really born on the fourth planet orbiting Canopus if you wish. But that will never make it so.

dehammer wrote:
"IT IS ONLY A THEORY that space is expanding."

If you are ready to stand up and say that Hubble was wrong. Einstein was wrong. And every other notable physicist and astrophysicist is wrong you are welcome to do so ... but you will be labelled a crackpot and I will join the chorus.

dehammer wrote:
"Please explain how the universe could not be finite phsyically, if the boundaries are alway the same."

As Ronald Reagan used to say ... "There you go again."

Look at your sentence. Do you see where you wrote "if the boundaries are"? I was just a paragraph earlier I asked you if you had a learning disability? Is repeating your mistake yet again your answer to my inquiry? Because if that is the case you are incapable of understanding the answer to your question. And I think that the case as I have explained this very same point to you numerous times already and you keep asking the same question again and again.

every hear of the theory of relativity. Ive never heard of the law of relativity, have you? How can I say Einstien was wrong when all he did was create theories. the theories may possibly be wrong, but that does not make him wrong. Show me where they have proven any of these to be more than a theory. Your great at telling others to give links (not that you pay any heed when they are given) yet you rarely give them yourself. I think Rose is the only one that has been able to make you give any.

Now as to the boundaries, as you will note (if you would ever be bothered to read), i gave two different scenerios. one was an infinate universe, where there is nothing to prevent galaxies from moving beyound where they are, and one with boundaries that is the limit of where galaxies can go. IF there is a limit, then the only way galaxies can be seperating is for the space bewteen to be expanding. If there is no limit (as you pointed out, we cant find that limit) then there is still space to be filled by the galaxies.

your defence that we cant discover the boundaries by observation is rather amusing. we are constantly trying to see beyound what we can see now, and there are still more galaxies in all directions. That means there is no way we could observe the boundaries if they are there. Tell me, can you see an electron? does the fact that we can observe them mean they dont exist? Can you see observe a quark? does that lack of viewability mean its not there? can you see a black hole? does the fact that you cant observe it directly mean that its not there?

as to repeating something, its an old trick to make someone see something that is important. You keep ingoring it and coming up with things that dont mean much. so I keep repeating it, when you stop acting like the theory is a law, then ill stop repeating that its only a theory. When you admit that there is a possibility that the theory of expansion may possibly be wrong and there is a possibility that the galaxies are moving (note that has been proven in regard to galaxy clusters) then ill stop demanding that you accept it as a possibility. Once you admit that there is things science does not have the full data on, ill stop shoving that down your throat. im not talking about merely stating these facts, im saying accept them. It is only theory, that is why Einstien name his works, "theory of relativity"

Are you aware that your answer is an exact paraphrase of the Bible Myth of Genesis?

Your sebconscious is screaming at you that understanding our oorigins is crucial to our existence. Those who do not understand the past are doomed to repeat it.

Understanding the basic nature of our Universe is a million ti,es more crucial than understanding anything else.

If you do not understand the root of something: you will never understand the symptoms.

Do you have any understanding of how superficial your post is?

I'm glad you agree that all finite boundaries have an edge. But the Universe does not have an edge. Ergo: it is not finite. By definition.

Please do not ever refer to me as an adolescent. I am much older than you are.

As to your inane pompous attitude: I am not interested.

The fact that there are indeed a DUAL infinite set of fractals in Mandelbrot's equation: proves that this Universe is indeed INFINITE.

If this Universe were not infinite: it could not contain any set of infinite fractals.

If this Universe were finite. Then there would BY DEFINITION necessarily be only FINITE sets of fractals in it. Not infinite. Can you get this through your head?

You already proved what I said by agreeing that anything that is finite must have an edge to it.

Well: MAndelbrot's fractals do NOT have a finite edge to them. They go on INFINITELY; WITHOUT END.

Or are you so dense that you do not understand this?

Mandelbrot's fractals go on infinitely without end becuase this universe also goes on infinitely without end.

Try to grasp this simple fact.

do you have any understanding of how little this made sense?

you should add, "..that we know of", to your statement. personally i believe its infinite, but there is no proof either way.

As to complexity, why go to fractals?
It is axiomatic that there are an infinite number of
points on a line. One dimension, no waiting.
As to Dehammers "edges", well this one is more
for D.A.,
At this point I have to ask some possibly foolish
questions.
Long ago I had the oportunity to ask a question regarding
the Big Bang, and was told it was thought to have
origionated as "a fluctuation in the quantum field".
There were other questioners, and I did not get to ask the
next question:
If there is a field, it must be defined in a "SPACE",
(not neccessarily similar to what we call space), and
for a fluctuation to occur requires "TIME", (not
neccessarily.......etc.).
If the field & fluctuation are described, don't the
descriptions entail minmum conditions for a frame,
(at least so many dimensions, etc.), for the
"SPACE" / "TIME" in which they are presumed to have
existed?
Would the universe continue to be definable within
that frame?
Would it have a shape within that frame, and boundaries?

Thank you, Pragmatist, you said in scientific terms what ive been trying to say in nonscientific terms.

Pragmatist wrote:
"If there is a field, it must be defined in a "SPACE", (not neccessarily similar to what we call space), and for a fluctuation to occur requires "TIME", (not neccessarily.......etc.). If the field & fluctuation are described, don't the
descriptions entail minmum conditions for a frame,
(at least so many dimensions, etc.), for the
"SPACE" / "TIME" in which they are presumed to have existed? Would the universe continue to be definable within that frame? Would it have a shape within that frame, and boundaries?

I'm not sure what you mean by "Would the universe continue to be definable within that frame?" I just can tell what you intend by the question.

But frames of reference are human inventions and thus we might define the boundaries of our frame of reference as being those of us on the planet earth ... as we observe other objects moving at different speeds with different acceleration in the presence of different gravitational fields.

So the boundary condition is what we define ... it is not a physical boundary. HTH.

If there is no physical boundaries what prevents the galaxies we cant even see yet, from moving past that point from the inertia that they got from the big bang? If there is nothing there that prevents them, then maybe the theory that they are not moving is not quite accurate. Any boundaries that exist are beyound our ability to find.

Is there in any theory or reasonable conjecture a basis to conclude the universe has an edge after which there is somethung not of this universe. This, to me, appears to be a subject designed to avoid the fact that we do not as yet even understand the Solar System, right here.

Mike Kremer in another post replied that the Universe was infinite and I thinks he is right.
jjw

dehammer wrote:
"If there is no physical boundaries what prevents the galaxies we cant even see yet, from moving past that point from the inertia that they got from the big bang?"

What inertia. You've got to embrace science as it is. You can not kludge it into some "car traveling down the highway at 60mpg" paradigm.

jjw wrote:
"Is there in any theory or reasonable conjecture a basis to conclude the universe has an edge after which there is somethung not of this universe."

No. The closest to this is the multiverse. But that is a theory based on zero experimental information.

You are correct that the universe it seems in infinite. But then it seems it is fractal. And fractal equates with infinite variety in finite space. So the jury is still out on this one. There may, in fact, be no difference, at all.

inertia is a proven scientific fact. Show me where they have proven that the galaxies dont have inertia. Or is that an opinion?

Out of curiosity - has anyone in this thread (besides me) actually *read* Mandelbrot's book on fractals?

I see you have POINTEDLY avoided answering my rebuttal to your inane idea that the Universe is finite...

Again... you have covered your face with egg, and are DESPERATELY tring to make sure that nobody realizes that you have screwed up: BIG TIME!...

You have stated that anything that is finte has an edge. By definition anything that does NOT have an edge must be INFINITE in nature... because it goes on and on without end, and no finite edge to mark its finite ending

all of you are arguing to no purpose. The Universe is obviously infinite, and most scientific journals will say that IN PRINT

If you want a REFERRED journal that states that: simply go to the NASA web page: and look up the Universe...

And do not EVER try your sneering condescension with me. I do not tolerate people who disrespect other people's honest truthful statements.

What I DO disrespect: are liars and con artists posing as scientific fakes... like you for instance.

Fractals are mathematical abstractions, not real things. They might be analogous to physical things, but they are not physical things themselves. Their existence or lack of existence doesn't prove anything about the physical universe.


"Mandelbrot's fractals go on infinitely without end becuase this universe also goes on infinitely without end."

The argument is invalid, because the conclusion is not an implication of the premise.

Turak wrote:
"I see you have POINTEDLY avoided answering my rebuttal to your inane idea that the Universe is finite..."

I didn't see a rebuttal. It seems no one else did either. If you get to college I'd recommend you take a class: statistics.

Turok,
Can you find us an edge on the surface of a klein bottle? - Or an end to a mobius strip?

D.A.,
I realize that our frame of reference is interior
to our observable universe.
It is possible that the "a fluctuation in the quantum field",
answer I recieved was the astrophysical equivalent of
"go way kid, you bother me".
My question was meant to explore what we may infer from the theory about a possible 'overspace`,
exterior to our own, and unreachable by any
means now, or likely to become, available.
My thought was that if a field is defined, then
we know something about the space in which it existed:
minimum number of dimensions, their shapes, etc.
It seems that this information would have to be
inherent in the definition of the field.

As our time is bound up with C, the 'Time` required for the fluctuation to occur would probably also be different, but I dispair of there being much information there.
Is this the case?
I appologize for the lack of clarity in this post,
this is the best I can do in english and
I simply don't have the math.
Pragmatist.

Pragmatist wrote:
" I realize that our frame of reference is interior
to our observable universe."

I'll quibble about the word "interior" but I do get your point.

Pragmatist wrote:
"is possible that the "a fluctuation in the quantum field", answer I recieved was the astrophysical equivalent of "go way kid, you bother me"."

Not at all. It was a serious answer founded on serious mathematics and references the Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle.

Pragmatist wrote:
" My question was meant to explore what we may infer from the theory about a possible 'overspace`, exterior to our own, and unreachable by any means now, or likely to become, available."

By your definition ... it does not exist and you are engaging in a game of semantics as I do with my invisible purple rhinoceros. Obviously invisible and purple are a contradiction.

In your case it is claiming something exists and in the same breath stating it will never by reachable or available.

Pragmatist wrote:
" My thought was that if a field is defined, then
we know something about the space in which it existed: minimum number of dimensions, their shapes, etc. It seems that this information would have to be inherent in the definition of the field."

As we know of nothing other than our four dimensional space-time we are incapable, so far, of knowing anything about what other dimensions may exist and how they may or may not impact anything. I think we need to be humble and plead ignorance of the facts here. But again I get your point. We just aren't quite there yet. The information is unquestionably inherent in the field. But we still don't understand any field completely ... not even the electromagnetic ... though we do know a lot about it.

Pragmatist wrote:
"I simply don't have the math."

No one does ... yet. And if they did they'd be standing on Einstein's and Newton's shoulders and getting a Nobel Prize in Physics.

Keep in mind that the vast majority of the "known" universe (note the quotes around known) is dark matter and dark energy of which our sole point of knowledge is that they APPEAR to exist. Hardly a point of view that should lead anyone to self-congratulations.

Personally I expect it will all come down to zeros and ones (binary math), a fractal formula, and a recursive engine of some type. But perhaps that is just the fact that history has time-and-time again shown us that somehow there is an element of elegance and beauty in it all.

It is not that it is too complex for us to understand ... rather it is too simple.