Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Quantum of Light and my Parrot.

Now lets deal with the stupidity in this thread.

There is no and can never be a zero frame under big bang theory it's stupid to even talk about it. Put your hands out and frame a piece of space under BB theory that piece of space was there at the big bang as was every other piece of space around you. It is all moving at a substantual fraction of the speed of light. Our belief but certainly we have no proof is the matter stuff stays fixed in size whilst the space gap expands we could all be stretching a bit how would we know.

The explicit point is no point on the space manifold is not moving so to talk about a zero frame is ridiculous.

As they say imagine a ballon slightly inflated glue small coins all over the ballon now blow it up more. The coins all move away from each other as the ballon gets bigger this is the typical representation of a simple space manifold. Now find a spot on the ballon surface which is our space that isnt moving for your zero frame there isn't one the only zero frames are outside space itself.

Now lets talk about infinite space. The space manifold itself definitely has a finite size at it's simplest make it a sphere or square page. The point here is you will never get to see that size or be able to confirm it.

If you want to make it a ball we believe it to be something like 100 billion light years across (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe). That is it has a finite size if you were outside space.

The current expansion rate estimate of the universe is 73.8 ± 2.4 (km/s)/Mpc or for every million parsecs of distance from the observer, the rate of expansion increases by about 74 kilometers per second is the other way around.

The speed of light is around 300,000 kilometers per second any two points separated by around 4,200 megaparsecs (130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) will be therefore moving away from each other faster than the speed of light. Hence the question comes down to a simple one do we know if the universe is greater than 130,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 kilometers) across.
Answer yes we do hubble recently seen a galaxy 13 to 15.5 Billion light years away at 1 light year = 9.4605284 × 10E12 kilometres thats or 1 light year = 0.30659458 Parsecs whichever way you like that distance is alot more than 4,200 megaparsecs and those two points are moving apart faster than the speed of light.

Thats the infinity part of space because we say we can't travel faster than the speed of light even if space is a simple ball you can never get back to your start point because the expansion of the surface area of the ball is greater than your speed around the circumference.

I opened a thread on discussion of space manifold shapes and how one might test shapes before.

So in this context is not a number or an abstract concept that Soratus wants to dribble on about its a absolute reality based on a very simple expansion of a ball or manifold. If the universe is a simple ball and the speed of light is fixed you can never do a circumnavigation because the expansion is faster than your speed it's like trying to run on a jogging machine thats going faster than you can run.

See things can be finite and yet infinite because it's a concept and very simple.

To then even discuss an infinity frame in that context is beyond retarded it's as stupid as a zero frame actually no I would say more stupid.

The question is:
How can our located World appear from the Infinite Universe?
============…

I saw the original - great!

I have to say this came to mind when I saw the tittle of this thread.

How's this for a guess?

The cosmos is infinite. Our apparently finite Universe is just our interpretation of what we are able to see with our restricted vision/understanding.

Hey, Bill, since you're accommodating the idea of an infinite universe, you could move on to Brian Greene's speculations about nine flavours of multiple universe in his recently published book 'The Hidden Reality: Parallel Universes and the Deep Laws of the Cosmos'. If you follow the links below, be sure to listen to the audio.

http://www.npr.org/2011/01/24/132932268/a-physicist-explains-why-parallel-universes-may-exist
http://www.npr.org/2011/03/04/134265287/brian-greene-on-em-the-hidden-reality-em

And since you asked a sensible question for a change I will answer.

The universe is most definitely finite if you use the standard model version it is only infinite because the expansion is faster than the fastest speed you can travel.

It really is that simple it's the expansion that makes it infinite not the universe itself.

You can play all the word games you like around the term infinity but unless you can travel faster than the speed of the expansion the universe really is infinite.

That leads into several problems not the least of which is the rubbish Socratus is dribbling about.

But at some point if you are going to believe the big bang the universe pretty much had to be a very small BB theory tells you that so the universe at that point had to be finite. If it was finite then how does it become infinite.Even under you energy is everything theory Bill S there had to be a definable energy at the start.

To try and have the universe born as some infinite thing is a big ask.

See the modern interpretation gives you a finite start but the fast expansion rate and the fixed speed of light then gives you an infinite universe.

Red brings up the only other way to have an infinite universe which is the string theory way in which space is continually creating new universes as per discussion by Brian Greene who I agree is totally worth reading.

My person dislike of the multiverse is the QM argument I gave you (http://www.science20.com/alpha_meme/many_world_interpretation_splitting_wiener_sausage-80042). QM expicitly wants to describe the setting as fock space (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fock_space) which does not ressemble any 3D actual space.

I want to go back to my message
‘Does an Absolute Infinite Frame of Reference exist?’
and understand the situation better and deeper.
===========..
1
‘ 90% or more of the matter in the Universe is unseen / dark’
and the % of the visual matter in the Universe is few.
In other words: we have two (2) parallel Worlds –
Vacuum and Material / Physical.
Question:
What is interaction between these two ( 2) different Worlds?
2.
In the early existence of Universe its temperature was
T=2,7K -- > T=0K. We live on the warm planet Earth.
Question:
How from the Kingdom of Coldness (T=2,7K -- > T=0K )
the beautiful Earth was created?
3.
The Vacuum is not empty space.
Dirac wrote that ‘ virual particles – antiparticles ‘ live there.
The astrophysics write that ‘ dark matter/ energy’ exists there.
Question:
How can the ‘ virual particles – dark antiparticles ‘ become real?
4.
According to QED Electron in interaction with vacuum has
infinite parameters ( energy, mass …etc ).
First : it means that the Vacuum also has infinite parameter
or parameters.
Second: How in the Nature this infinite electron can have
real local physical parameters?
5.
In 1928 Dirac wrote that every elementary particle with
positive energy (+E=Mc^2 ) has its antiparticle with
negative energy (–E=Mc^2).
But in my opinion the first man who wrote about antiparticles
was Sommerfeld. In 1916 he wrote two ( 2 ) formulas for electron.
The formula of electron as: -e=h*ac and the formula of its
antiparticle as: +e=h*ac.
Question:
What is interaction between +e=h*ac and : -e=h*ac ?
What is interaction between +E=Mc^2 and –E=Mc^2 ?
Why sometimes E= Mc^2 can behavior as a ‘rest’ particle
and sometimes can be ‘active’ and can destroy cities like
Hiroshima and Nagasaki ? Why E= Mc^2 is so strange?
My conclusion:
The answers to these questions can be get only through
understanding the Vacuum.
===.
I.S.
=====================…

Orac

Thanks for the clear explanations. I see no way to contradict your reasoning regarding the definition of 'infinite' that you apply to our 'universe'. Yes, if time did not originate at the Big Bang then there would be no grounds to assume that the real universe - i.e. the totality of existence, not just the geometry with which we are familiar - is less than infinite and eternal; and that would infer that an infinity of sub-continuums should have arisen just as ours did.

This has, of course, nothing to do with Everett's 'Many Worlds'.

Correct Red there are only two ways to view an infinite universe depending on your "flavour" of how you view it.

It's nothing like our word games of stupid little troll above.

Look at this rubbish

>>>>
positive energy (+E=Mc^2 ) has its antiparticle with
negative energy (–E=Mc^2).
<<<<<<

It doesn't even make sense mathematically or notionally just because you reverse the charge suddenly the mass and therefore energy reverses and we know it's not correct because a matter-antimatter anilation would there cancel each other out rather than produce energy.

But this is feeding into the troll.

Israel Sadovnik Socratus posts on almost every physics board that exists. He is a religious extremist his only reason for posting is to derail any meaningful discussion because it is the work of the devil in his view.

http://www.wbabin.net/comments/sadovnik.htm
(http://www.socratus.com/)



Try any of the other countless sites he posts on
http://www.psyclops.com/hawking/forum/printmsg.cgi?period=&msg=83312
http://www.natscience.com/Uwe/Forum.aspx/relativity/17360/Genesis-and-Evolution
http://lofi.forum.physorg.com/The-Structure-of-Nothing-.-Socratus._2548-100.html
http://www.physforum.com/index.php?showtopic=23624&st=15
http://www.astronomytoday.com/forum/about1067.html


Same garbage over and over again ... he just cuts and pastes the same text.

Reason because he wishes to derail us talking about the devils work.

He even posts on the Dalai Lama's site in comments because he probably views that as the devils work as well check out the comments section.

http://www.openculture.com/2009/06/_the_dalai_lamas_introduction_to_buddhism.html

Orac, I'm sure you are right about Socratus, but I have a sneeking admiration for anyone who can write so much and say nothing. Its an "art form" which I enjoyed using during my college days, studying social science - which I always argued was not really a science, much to the annoyance of my fellow students. I guess if the term "trolling" had been coined in those days, I would have been a troll.

Clever move there Orac. The suggestion that any definition of infinity that does not agree with yours amounts to playing word games could be quite off-putting. 8/10 for deviousness.

Seriously, though; your argument provides an example of why in other threads I have maintained that our usage of the word "infinite" can lead to confused thinking.

The Universe you describe is boundless. In theory it could continue to expand for ever, but as you (I think rightly) point out, if it is finite, it can never become infinite. You can have it both ways only if you use "infinite" to mean two different things.

This is almost exactly the point I tried to make on this forum nearly a year ago. Other posters countered by saying that, even at the point of the BB, the Universe was infinite. I had difficulty getting my head round that then, and I think I am no nearer now. This seems to suggest that, at some level, we are on the same side. Could it be just the use of "intinite" that causes the schism?

The problem Bill S is one of frame of reference its the same as observers differing on passage of time.

If we stick to the standard model not a multiverse

From outside space ... space is definitely finite even now .. unfortunately we can never go outside space its a thought process. From inside space where we have a speed of light speed limit space is infinite.

It's a paradox of frame of reference.

Lets break this down to a simple example:

I am on a running machine which extends via hydrolics infront of me.

I can run at 10Km per hour and the machine expands in front of me at 15km per hour. See the problem I can never get to the end of the running machine its expanding faster than I can run.

Now lets turn it into our universe problem.

Our running machine is now a circular band from where I am standing it will expand 7.5 km/hour and it expand 7.5km/hour behind me.

Now I can run and appear to be moving forward against the expanding machine but I can never get back to where I started because at some point around my lap I will run into the problem what was growing behind me is now what is front of me and the relative motion returns to the original problem I am running at 10Km the expansion rate is 15km/hour. Ergo I can never make it back.

My running track is infinite no matter how long I run I will never return to the start.

Hence you were correct your detractors were wrong something can be both finite and infinite depending on what your frame of reference is. We have just proved it with a relatively simple thought experiment.

Where they were correct even at the point of BB where we agree space actually has a size and assuming the expansion rate is what it is now you still wouldn't have been able to do a lap of it because of expansion. Go back to our running track does it matter how big it starts? Absolutely not even 10m long at start it's combined motion is 15km/h which is faster than our 10km/h.

Infinity in regard to space is almost definitely a point of reference thing. In another thread you were discussing faster than light partciles and assuming we are talking alot faster then the universe is definitely not infinite.

Infinity in classic space theory is born of the fact even if we could go at the speed of light the universe is infinite.

Here is an image for you which says alot (http://postimage.org/image/5xhh7ozes/)

This is alot different under multiverse theory but thats a whole different story.

Thanks Orac, your imagery is great, I have no problem with that.

There is still a problem with the terminology, though. Clearly, what you are describing is boundless, but not necessarily infinite.
My inability to run at more than 10km/h. does not physically influence the nature of the running machine, nor does our inability to exceed the speed of light influence the nature of the Universe, only our perception of it.

Something that is finite can never become infinite, whatever the occupants of that something might do.

It's a perception thing .. if you were on the running machine from a movement along the belt it is most cerainly infinite.

The thing about space is there is no way we know to get outside it. So to every perception it is infinite .. yet if you could get outside it most certainly is not infinite.

Orac, if you had said that space is effectively infinite I would probably have agreed with you. But the concept of infinity involves quantities that are uncountably large. As such the universe is not infinite. There have been some estimates of the size of the universe, but not very good ones. One I ran across said it was about 150 billion light years. So I don't much think the universe is really infinite.

Bill Gill

What is the difference between effectively infinite and boundless?

This figure arose from misreported research about 8 yrs ago. The research paper was titled "Constraining the Topology of the Universe". The researchers (Cornish et al) stated that their data "ruled out the possibility that we live in a universe with topology scale smaller than 24 Gpc". They didn't measure the size of the universe. However the popular press, being what it is, took a diameter of 24 Giga-parsecs, doubled it, converted it to lt yrs, and told everyone that we now know how big the universe is.

http://arxiv.org/abs/astroph/0310233
_____

Interesting reads:

Is the Universe finite or infinite? An interview with Joseph Silk [2001]
http://www.esa.int/esaSC/SEMR53T1VED_index_0_iv.html

Will the Universe expand forever? [2011]
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

Boundless means there is no edge. And that is all it means.

Effectively infinite means it is so large that we can't measure it, so it might as well be infinite, even if it isn't.

Bill Gill