Science a GoGo's Home Page Forums General Discussion Physics Forum Is_the_Universe finite or infinite?

http://www.esa.int/Our_Activities/Space_...ith_Joseph_Silk

There are a few points in this that might be worth talking about.

We have done this before it's just a repeat.

Different disciplines say different things and that is pretty much the standard cosmology view of things there is very little new in it.

There are a couple of other disciplines that would call rubbish on that view.

Perhaps with some justification.

“…you can take a sheet of paper [an 'infinite' sheet of paper] and you can roll it up and make a cylinder, and you can roll the cylinder again and make a torus”.

So, how do you role up an infinite sheet of anything? Surely, to do that you would have to bring two edges together, and past each other. How do you find the edges of an infinite sheet? If you could do this, would it still be infinite when you had rolled it up?

Energy can not die
Energy joust change form

Infinity and never ending process !!!

Other problem is that we can exchange all energy to Work
Work = Energy neutralizator

Orac plese not use Your brain you wasting energy

That to me is a very weak argument a finite anything can be infinite it's just in the word definition which is what the above plays on. Running on a treadmill can be infinite yet the treadmill is most definitely finite.

What is really happening is Cosmology probably had 40 or 50 years of time when they dominated science and developed lots of theory that was only testable with other cosmology observations. Now with the discovery of the Higgs and the installation of the Standard Model and advances in QM many of those theories are now running into problems with hard lab based results.

Dark matter is a prime example where the moment you install the standard model there really isn't a huge number of ways for Dark Matter to come about and most end in results that look nothing like our actual universe.

Tommaso did another fine report on the latest CMS results showing just how well the standard model is holding.
http://www.science20.com/a_quantum_diaries_survivor/new_cms_results-147752

I’m not clear as to which part of that quote you consider to be a weak argument. If you mean “a finite anything can be infinite” is a very weak argument, I’m right there with you.

As for “Running on a treadmill can be infinite”. No way! :P

Stepping back to Bill's question about rolling up an infinite sheet of paper. You can roll an infinite sheet of paper without finding an edge. If you take a sheet of paper and slide a long fork over it you can roll it from the middle without reference to the ends. However, if it is an infinite sheet of paper then when you have rolled an infinite amount of it up there is still an infinite amount that is still spread out. I just realized this is one of the problems with string theory and its tightly rolled dimensions. I never did care for string theory any way.

But then on to the quote from your (Orac's) reply. You start out talking about infinity, then switch to cosmology and then to dark matter. I'm not sure what any of those have to do with whether the universe is infinite. Well, cosmology does include the question of whether the universe is infinite. But you seem to be saying that everything that cosmology has discovered is at fault. This seems to me to be more of the fact that you really don't believe in GR, although you say you do. You are still beating on the fact that GR and QM don't play well together under certain conditions.

You jump all over dark matter because cosmologists don't have a good answer as to what it is. Well, QM doesn't have a good answer either. There are plenty of observations that tell us there is something there and everybody is still trying to figure out what it is.

Don't run down cosmology just because there are things that it can't, at present, explain. After all there are plenty of things that QM can't explain either.

Bill Gill

As you must very well know, Bill, Orac would have you believe that he knows all about QM, whilst evidently knowing nothing more than can be gleaned from a persistent yet superficial home study on the internet. On that basis he makes pronouncements of prodigious piffle with the assumed airs of someone with real knowledge. That you gentlemen allow yourselves - particularly in the light of his generally unintelligent responses - to be sucked in and spat out by all his baloney, can only be attributable to extraordinary graciousness.

Regarding cosmology, about which he also displays very little knowledge, allow me to remind you that, for several decades, the knowledge bases of astronomy, cosmology, astrophysics and particle physics have been merging. It is no longer possible to regard oneself as an expert in one of those fields whilst being ignorant of the others - at least, not to the gross extent that the above mentioned grandstanding wannabe is.

Poor rede still can't actually string an intelligent argument together and is all bent out of shape about it. Really the best you can do is do personal ad-hominem attacks on me ... poor baby get over it

My evaluation of you is some a student from a third world country school system supplementing there education with glossy science magazines and on this forum because it is the only one low enough in science content to understand. All of that is however not relevant to the discussion

So try and impress us with your immense intellect, magnificent logic and precise science because you are the educated genius we wait for your edification. Otherwise if you have nothing intelligent to add to a discussion it might be best policy to take your own advice because we can draw only one conclusion

We did this dance is your memory going with your age ?

So go and read the dark matter FAQ and expanding universe again and it requires energy not to be conserved.

Got it now ENERGY HAS TO BECOME INFINITE for an expanding universe that is what lack of conservation means. So it's not some garbage argument about whether infinity exists it is a fundemental requirement of the theory. It is one of the few in science I know of that makes that requirement most work with and require conservation laws.

Now if you want to argue you can have Dark Matter and an ever expanding universe in a finite universe and conservation of energy please lay down your argument because it is not the standard science view.

That is what makes it the most relevant science theory when discussing infinity because it is one of the few that demands it.

So I thought you physics geniuses might like to discuss a science-demanded infinity rather than play word games with pseudo-science garbage .. care to take up the challenge


I don't just Run down cosmology, I run down every section of science including QM because you need to constantly check and consider alternatives.

I know there are plenty of things QM doesn't explain. The major one is what the hell drives it since we are all thinking string theory is on the outer. That is the massive problem with QM at the moment there are no other options. Even really strong opponents of string theory like Peter Woit note and voice the problem when he was given the question about alternatives.


So I am the poster boy for QM even though I think there are just as many problems with it as there are the cosmology and that about sums up your logic. Perhaps you would like me to add I don't like QM to my byline tag as well .... will that help? (Done)

For the record I hate QM every bit as much as I hate GR and cosmology until it all makes sense as one consolidated theory.

If the sheet is infinite it is, presumably, infinite in all directions, which might make rolling it up quite difficult.

The next step is to form this rolled up (infinite) sheet of paper into a torus. That might be very difficult with an infinite amount still spread out.

The only easy part would be finding the middle – everywhere must be the middle.

Okay, Bill S, you ask: Is_the_Universe finite or infinite? A GREAT QUESTION!!!

So, which individual, or group, has the answers to your question? The astronomers? Or the astrologers? Philosophers? Maybe it is the theologians. That would be Has the Vatican astronomer offered any response to this kind of question?
=============================
GEORGE COYNE, SJ IS THE VATICAN ASTRONOMER
Check out the following:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Coyne

I guess that closes that subject. :P

Bill S, I sent him to never-never land. Please feel free to continue with the discussion at hand.

Peace.

Thanks Rose, I'm not sure how much more there is to be said on this topic.

For some strange reason, discussions about infinity seem to follow me around; I can't think why.