Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Physical space is infinite

Physical space is infinite

There could be an infinite physical space of which we know only a
finite part.
So far, mathematics have been applied successfully to physics,
remain, among other theories, the actual infinite of set theory.
We already assumed that time could be infinite in "An idea about
time in cosmology" in ASL Annual Meeting 2004.
We also assumed an infinite number of locations in "About space and
time of elementary particles" in ASL Annual Meeting 2005.
We assumed that physical space is Dedekind infinite, which is some
model to explain things such as the movements of particles.
The energy-matter does not have to be infinite and because of the
Big Bang, I can see no way it can be, but what is around
energy-matter could be infinite.
I think we went from no space in the Big Bang to an infinite
physical space.
AS we find further and further part of the physical space, we can
assume reasonably that we will go on doing so.
In such a case, only the brain could see the whole physical space
and neither the eyes nor devices.
Space can exist without matter, as empty space can be obtained in
laboratories.
Does that really fit the physical space to use a mathematical
infinite universe ?
A finite physical space would have a boundary with no space and
no space would be surrounding space.
But in "About space being not a continuum" in Logic Colloquium
2005, we have seen that no space (the void set) can be reached only
in an infinite number of steps, at the level of the elementary
particles.
Thus, physical space is infinite at the level of the elementary
particles and therefore at our level.
Except for a finite part, physical space is completely empty.
Adib Ben Jebara.
http://www.freewebs.com/adibbenjebara

As usually, I've nothing against it - but how can we define the finite part of space? And which testable prediction can we derive from the above post of yours?

As usually, I've nothing against it - but which testable prediction(s) can we derive from the above post of yours? And how we can define the "finite part of space"? Is it an "observable part of space"? If yes, why to postulate something, which cannot be observed and verified by its very definition? Such hypothesis doesn't fall into realm of physics, but metaphysics. It's like daydreaming about God, which cannot be observed as well - by another words, it's sort of religion.

The test is the occurence of the Big Bang, it could not have
occured with a finite space.
The consequence of space being infinite is that we cannot reach
a detailed map of the universe but only part of it, the part where we are.
Adib Ben Jebara.

I've no problem with unlimited space-time concept, but I still don't understand, why the Big Bang (providing such event has really occurred, indeed) couldn't appear in limited space.

But the more substantial problem is, we haven't introductory concepts well defined yet, so we are discussing a tautologies. For example, by contemporary physics the Big Bang event didn't occurred in space-time, it has created the space-time instead. And because the Universe is of limited age, it couldn't expand into infinite space.

Of course, if we consider the Big Bang as a phase transition, which has occurred in some outer hyper-universe, then such outer space can be virtually unlimited. The problem is, these perspectives are mutually dual and I don't see any useful reason, why to dispute them at all - until you propose some testable prediction, based on the ideas of yours.

There are mainly two ways my ideas could be useful :
-to correct how and from where the universe is coming into existence, certainly not from a speck coming from nowhere.
-to explain entanglement of particles which comes from the properties of space and time.
There is also a science fiction consequence : as the Big Crunch will occur after an infinite time, human kind can in a very far
future spread into the stars.
That is science fiction, not religion.
Adib Ben Jebara.

The stringy uncertainty relations, and corrections thereof, were explicitly derived recently from the new relativity principle that treats all dimensions and signatures on the same footing and which is based on the postulate that the Planck scale is the minimal length in nature in the same vein that the speed of light was taken as the maximum velocity in Einstein's theory of Special Relativity. A simple numerical argument is presented which suggests that quantum space-time may very well be infinite dimensional. A discussion of the repercussions of this new paradigm in Physics is given. A truly remarkably simple and plausible solution of the cosmological constant problem results from the new relativity principle: The cosmological constant is not a constant, in the same vein that energy in Einstein's Special Relativity is observer dependent. Finally, following El Naschie, we argue why the observed D=4 world might just be an average dimension over the infinite possible values of the quantum space-time and why the compactification mechanisms from higher to four dimensions in string theory may not be actually the right way to look at the world at Planck scales.
------------------------
Jenilopaz

Viral Marketing

What is infinity?
Abstraction or Reality?
Speculation or Fact ?
Does infinity have any physical parameters?
================..

The concept of infinite/ eternal means nothing
to a scientists. They do not understand how they could
draw any real, concrete conclusions from this characteristic.
A notions of "more", "less", "equally, "similar" could not
be conformed to a word infinity or eternity.
The Infinity/Eternity is something, that has no borders,
has no discontinuity; it could not be compared to anything.
Considering so, scientists came to conclusion that the
infinity/eternity defies to a physical and mathematical definition
and cannot be considered in real processes.
Therefore they have proclaimed the strict requirement
(on a level of censor of the law):
« If we want that the theory would be correct,
the infinity/eternity should be eliminated ».
Thus they direct all their mathematical abilities,
all intellectual energy to the elimination of infinity.

Is this way correct?
=========..

The Universe is Infinite Vacuum in the state of T=0K,
at first of everything. Why? Because it is visual fact.

The Universe as whole is Kingdom of Coldness.
Now the physicists think that this Kingdom of Coldness
in a state of T=2,7K ( after big bang).
But this state is limited and temporary.
Why can it be limited and temporary ?
Because in the Universe astronomers found enormous spaces
without any material mass or energy it means these spaces in state
T=0K. Only mass and energy can warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
But the detected material mass of the matter in the Universe is so small
(the average density of all substance in the Universe is approximately
p=10^-30 g/sm^3) that it cannot “ close “ the Universe and therefore
the Universe is “ open”, endless and this small mass can warm up the
Kingdom of Coldness only in it some limited and local points.
Therefore astrophysicists search for “ dark matter” because it will save the
“ law of gravitation “ as a first law of the Universe and it will
warm up the Kingdom of Coldness.
#
The cosmological constant of Universe is zero or near to it.
This physical quantity cannot “ close” the Universe therefore
the Universe is endless.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmological_constant

==============..
P.S.
If somebody belief in “ big bang”, he must take in calculation
that T=2,7K expands and therefore T=2,7K is temporary
parameter and with time it will go to T=0K.

=================…
Questions from this article:
http://www.physorg.com/news141317146.html

1.
what happened BEFORE the big bang,
2.
whether there was a "before."
3.
what may have happened in a "pre-big bang."
4.
"What banged? Where did it come from?"
5.
"Is ours the only universe? If so, how did it come to exist?"
6.
What are :
“the big bounce," "the multiverse," "the cyclic theory,"
"parallel worlds," even "soap bubbles."………
7.
What is: "Endless Universe: Beyond the Big Bang."
8.
……
particle smasher might discover extra dimensions
…
What are the extra dimensions: 4-D...etc ?
9.
“ shadow”……
travel between parallel universes ………..( !!! )
and cast a "shadow" that scientists might be able to detect. ……..
The shadow might take…….

/ one more scientific fairy - tale /
10.
Last August, ground and satellite observations revealed
what appeared to be an enormous "hole in the universe,"
a mostly empty region of the sky, 900 million light-years
wide - about 5 billion trillion miles -…………

Where are the gravitational waves here ?
=========================..
Many questions and the answer is one: T=0K.
!!!
==============================…
Best wishes.
Israel Sadovnik. / Socratus.
http://www.socratus.com
http://www.wbabin.net
http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
http://www.wbabin.net/physics/sadovnik.pdf

===========================..

MAY I HAVE YOUR ATTENTION
=========================
I have no objection, whatsoever, to scientists talking about the universe as being endless, eternal and infinite.

But, IMO, when they begin to do so they are no longer talking as just scientists; they are talking as philosophers and theologians--which, as I said, is OK by me. They are talking about what I call GOD.

BTW, it could also call it the NOW--Nature and Nurture, at One within the Now, under guidance of Will. We could call it a NOWTOPIA (More on this later).

If we (as individuals, or communities) allow ourselves to use immoral and unethical willpower--as in the current world financial crisis--we will get pain. If we use good will, or love, the result is freedom from pain.

THE PROCESS OF BUILDING HEALTHY & PROSPEROUS COMMUNITIES
=======================================================
NOW, here is what I propose: Let all moral, ethical and truth-seeking philosophers, scientists and artists take action, in a secular and non-sectarian way to promote the idea of healthy and prosperous community building. Non-dogmatic, open-minded and freedom-loving religions, willing to play by the secular rules of democracy, could also be included as partners.

We could work together to get this concept accepted as part of all our families, communities and the educational systems, at all levels, near and far.

Any one interested?

A brief comment - we really do not have a solid understanding of infinities in cosmology because we lack any real understanding of the role infinities play in resolving the conflicts between relativity and quantum theory. Please look at the links on our spacetime website for more information www.ws5.com/spacetime

I have a problem with the idea of physical space (which I take to refer to the "universe" of the Big Bang). If it is indeed infinite, then it necessarily was infinite from the very beginning. You can't make something infinite from something finite.

I'm not sure there is anything logically wrong with the idea of an infinite Big Bang, but it sure would render talk of the universe originating from some limited (usually seen as very small) object as misleading, at best.

Another thing: if the physical universe really is infinite, then how would we ever know it? If it is finite, we could theoretically come to know this by finding its curvature. If it is infinite, however, we can never be sure its flatness extends forever--curvature could always be just beyond our ability to measure. Do I have that right?

If space is "completely empty" how can it be described as physical?

The physicality of the word "Empty" is applied to the physicality of the word "Space".

AWT assumes, the Universe is infinite, we are just observing some portion of it due the dispersion of light. It's analogous to observation of landscape in fog, the scope of our view is limited by visibility, not by physical size of landscape.

The main argument for such view is, the Universe appears very uniform, event the most distant Hubble field is full of fully fledged and separated gallaxies, which doesn't differ very much from gallaxies in proximity. This is somewhat strange, because by contemporary cosmology the most distant perspective should correspond Universe age just some 400 mil. of years after Big Bang - so we should observe some evidence of stellar and galaxy evolution there allready.

Such perspective makes a Big Bang rather product of observational illusion, then the real event. We could observe it in every place of such infinitely large Universe, when we look at sufficient distance. From close perspective such Big Bang appears similar to common stage of stellar evolution, i.e. the formation of collapsars.

Possible - a lot of people feel that the big bang disproves this as there would have to be a central point in physical space to support the big bang as it would not just appear randomly in an area of infinite phsical space - but in the centre of an area of actual finite physical space .

I theorised in another post that the elements of the big bang bang actually sit in a pocket of subspace outside of physical space - this would also i believe help support the theory of infinite physical space as it would allow the location of the big bang to happen anywhere within infinite space without destroying the integrity of other models which require the previous theory .

I do however believe there are physical boundaries around our universe at different distances - perhaps caused by other big bangs - maybe all across infinte space - each creating their own universe .

So for me - i agree infinite space is certainly possible

So, Silverfox, you think the Big Bang happened in space?

"I theorised in another post that the elements of the big bang bang actually sit in a pocket of subspace outside of physical space."

Subspace mate - a term loosly given to an area outside of space / time - although the term space may need not apply . - as always though the big question is - how did matter or even a spec appear from nowhere.

Okay, thanks. Do you see your Subspace as the 10 spatial dimensions of M-Theory, or the 26 of bosonic string theory, or are you at odds with both of those?

Against both principals at the moment - since its undecided wether there are 4 or eleven dimensions and then with string theory its supposed that all strings terminate within a black hole - which to me weakens the hypothesis that the strings account for every single item in the universe - its just too neat that they terminate in a black hole.

Bosonic is way too imaginery for me - we have ghost and no ghost theories with 25 and 26 dimensions applicable - once we have more data we can hopefully construct a solid probable model that most can settle on .


At the moment these theories are a little too vague and have not been bugshot enough - hopefully through time with more data and proof they can really give us all something to think about though.

Physically speaking, when I think of "infinite space" I can also think of GOD--all that is Good, Orderly and Desirable. Though I have some university physics, I make no claim to being knowledgeable in the subject, but I do have an interest. I note that many of those who speak as though they are knowledgeable of physics are often agnostic about what they know--a stance common to all fields of knowledge, including theology.