Date: 7/02/2015 19:54:03
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673338
Subject: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Planck’s CMB studies indicate the Big Bang was 13.8bn years ago
The CMB itself can be thought of as the ‘afterglow’ of the Big Bang
It spreads across the cosmos some 380,000 years after the Big Bang
This is when the conditions cool to make neutral hydrogen atoms
The period before the first stars is often called the ‘Dark Ages’
When the first stars ignite, they ‘fry’ the neutral gas around them
These giants also forge the first heavy elements in big explosions
‘First Light’, or ‘Cosmic Renaissance’, is a key epoch in history
=======================================
While reading the above it got me thinking.

I find it impossible to imagine an infinite universe with infinite matter of infinite mass.
Can the boffins do a mathematical model of an infinite universe from, one would suppose an infinite big bang.
Does the current received wisdom even entertain an infinite universe?

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:07:48
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673345
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

yes, GR models the Universe. there are 3 types of universe open, closed and flat. open and flat are infinite according to theory. whether they actually are or just really big in another matter.

Curvature

The curvature of the Universe places constraints on the topology. If the spatial geometry is spherical, i.e. possess positive curvature, the topology is compact. For a flat (zero curvature) or a hyperbolic (negative curvature) spatial geometry, the topology can be either compact or infinite. Many textbooks erroneously state that a flat universe implies an infinite universe; however, the correct statement is that a flat universe that is also simply connected implies an infinite universe. For example, Euclidean space is flat, simply connected and infinite, but the torus is flat, multiply connected, finite and compact.
In general, local to global theorems in Riemannian geometry relate the local geometry to the global geometry. If the local geometry has constant curvature, the global geometry is very constrained, as described in Thurston geometries.
The latest research shows that even the most powerful future experiments (like SKA, Planck..) will not be able to distinguish between flat, open and closed universe if the true value of cosmological curvature parameter is smaller than 10−4. If the true value of the cosmological curvature parameter is larger than 10−3 we will be able to distinguish between these three models even now.

Universe with zero curvature

In a universe with zero curvature, the local geometry is flat. The most obvious global structure is that of Euclidean space, which is infinite in extent. Flat universes that are finite in extent include the torus and Klein bottle. Moreover, in three dimensions, there are 10 finite closed flat 3-manifolds, of which 6 are orientable and 4 are non-orientable. The most familiar is the aforementioned 3-Torus universe.
In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero. With dark energy, the expansion rate of the Universe initially slows down, due to the effect of gravity, but eventually increases. The ultimate fate of the universe is the same as that of an open universe.
A flat universe can have zero total energy.

Universe with positive curvature

A positively curved universe is described by spherical geometry, and can be thought of as a three-dimensional hypersphere, or some other spherical 3-manifold (such as the Poincaré dodecahedral space), all of which are quotients of the 3-sphere.
Poincaré dodecahedral space, a positively curved space, colloquially described as “soccerball-shaped”, as it is the quotient of the 3-sphere by the binary icosahedral group, which is very close to icosahedral symmetry, the symmetry of a soccer ball. This was proposed by Jean-Pierre Luminet and colleagues in 2003 and an optimal orientation on the sky for the model was estimated in 2008.

Universe with negative curvature

A hyperbolic universe, one of a negative spatial curvature, is described by hyperbolic geometry, and can be thought of locally as a three-dimensional analog of an infinitely extended saddle shape. There are a great variety of hyperbolic 3-manifolds, and their classification is not completely understood. For hyperbolic local geometry, many of the possible three-dimensional spaces are informally called horn topologies, so called because of the shape of the pseudosphere, a canonical model of hyperbolic geometry.An example is the Picard horn, a negatively curved space, colloquially described as “funnel-shaped”.

Curvature: Open or closed

When cosmologists speak of the Universe as being “open” or “closed”, they most commonly are referring to whether the curvature is negative or positive. These meanings of open and closed are different from the mathematical meaning of open and closed used for sets in metric spaces and for the mathematical meaning of open and closed manifolds, which gives rise to ambiguity and confusion. In mathematics, there are definitions for a closed manifold (i.e. compact without boundary) and open manifold (i.e. one that is not compact and without boundary,). A “closed universe” is necessarily a closed manifold. An “open universe” can be either a closed or open manifold. For example, the Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker (FLRW) model the Universe is considered to be without boundaries, in which case “compact universe” could describe a universe that is a closed manifold.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:11:08
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673346
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ours, to all intents and purposes, is flat.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:13:03
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673347
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Closed
Open
Flat

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:22:09
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673348
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

http://www.space.com/24309-shape-of-the-universe.html

it should be added that with the discovery of Dark Energy the flat model is slightly different. the universe will continue to expand but at an accelerating rate rather than slowing down over time.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:28:32
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673350
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Is the concept of infinity the same in GR as it is in Eucledian?
Can the geometry be infinite but the mass/matter be finite?
Cant see the yoyo theory of the univers being possible with an infinite amount of matter.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:30:53
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673352
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Peak Warming Man said:


Is the concept of infinity the same in GR as it is in Eucledian?
Can the geometry be infinite but the mass/matter be finite?
Cant see the yoyo theory of the univers being possible with an infinite amount of matter.

yoyo? If you mean oscillating or cyclic universe, those models are closed (and thus finite).

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:32:42
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673353
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


Peak Warming Man said:

Is the concept of infinity the same in GR as it is in Eucledian?
Can the geometry be infinite but the mass/matter be finite?
Cant see the yoyo theory of the univers being possible with an infinite amount of matter.

yoyo? If you mean oscillating or cyclic universe, those models are closed (and thus finite).

OK, we’ll put that to one side then.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:33:52
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673355
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Is the concept of infinity the same in GR as it is in Eucledian?

yes

Can the geometry be infinite but the mass/matter be finite?

dunno. i guess not if you take it that flat=infinite. but as i said we don’t know for sure how big the universe actually is.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:35:14
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673356
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>i guess not if you take it that flat=infinite

Theory says flat is infinite. It’s not a question of whether flat is infinite, but whether the universe is flat.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:37:05
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673357
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

yes i know, that was in response to that particular question. if the universe is infinite then the mass would be too i guess.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:37:43
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673359
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


yes i know, that was in response to that particular question. if the universe is infinite then the mass would be too i guess.

Aye.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:44:18
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673362
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>Does the current received wisdom even entertain an infinite universe?

Many cosmologists think the universe is “probably infinite”, but we may never know. The overall geometry and size of the universe is derived from studies of the cosmic microwave background radiation, but it seems the limits of resolution attainable via such don’t enable us to distinguish between a very large universe and an infinite one.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:45:16
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673363
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>>In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero.

So as time since BB approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity and expansion approaches zero.
All nice and tidy.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:45:19
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673364
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

via such don’t enable us = via such studies don’t enable us

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:47:05
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673366
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Peak Warming Man said:


>>In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero.

So as time since BB approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity and expansion approaches zero.
All nice and tidy.

But what of mass/matter, was it at infinity from the start?

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:48:10
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673367
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Peak Warming Man said:


Peak Warming Man said:

>>In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero.

So as time since BB approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity and expansion approaches zero.
All nice and tidy.

But what of mass/matter, was it at infinity from the start?

Yes.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:50:05
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673368
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


Peak Warming Man said:

Peak Warming Man said:

>>In the absence of dark energy, a flat universe expands forever but at a continually decelerating rate, with expansion asymptotically approaching zero.

So as time since BB approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity and expansion approaches zero.
All nice and tidy.

But what of mass/matter, was it at infinity from the start?

Yes.

I need a stiff drink.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:56:21
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673369
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

So as time since BB approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity and expansion approaches zero.

with the dark energy component expasion wont go to zero but accelerate. so our universe will get bigger and bigger and matter will get more and more spread out.

the hard part to get your head around is an infinite universe getting bigger. and the point that if it is infinite now then it always has been.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 20:57:34
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673370
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

dunno how you are with maths

http://burro.astr.cwru.edu/Academics/Astr328/Notes/Metrics/metrics.html

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 21:02:53
From: Peak Warming Man
ID: 673371
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


So as time since BB approaches infinity the universe approaches infinity and expansion approaches zero.

with the dark energy component expasion wont go to zero but accelerate. so our universe will get bigger and bigger and matter will get more and more spread out.

the hard part to get your head around is an infinite universe getting bigger. and the point that if it is infinite now then it always has been.

Yes, I can understand the possible geometric concepts of an expanding universe (I think we can take an expanding universe as a given), that’s fine but it’s the mass/matter component that is hard to grasp and that’s why I’ll be contacting the World Physicists next week and tell them to stop this infinite poppycock.

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 22:13:27
From: wookiemeister
ID: 673377
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

I like the fisiks

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 23:23:16
From: mollwollfumble
ID: 673384
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

> Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

It not only “can be”, it “is”. Or, to put it another way, given all the data we have about the universe it has to be infinite.

There’s another infinity associated with the universe. At the time of the birth of the universe, its temperature was infinite (by the definition of the word “time”). I find this more difficult to imagine that the fact that the universe is infinite in spatial extent. How could the universe have an infinite temperature when it was too small to contain even one subatomic particle?

Reply Quote

Date: 7/02/2015 23:35:57
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673386
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 00:34:26
From: diddly-squat
ID: 673401
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

infinite volume implies infinite mass

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 05:37:09
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673408
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

mollwollfumble said:

How could the universe have an infinite temperature when it was too small to contain even one subatomic particle?

Would infinite temperature in this instance equate to infinite friction?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 06:02:26
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673410
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


Postpocelipse said:

mollwollfumble said:

How could the universe have an infinite temperature when it was too small to contain even one subatomic particle?

Would infinite temperature in this instance equate to infinite friction?


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Absolute_hot

I would associate hagedorn temperature with cessation of exponential expansion over planck temperature. AFAICT this would postulate that the first stable elements were atomic particles with escape velocity and a low entropy factor such as helium. It is when friscosity is lowered that hydrogen stabilises and reionization can occur.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 06:05:23
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673411
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

diddly-squat said:

infinite volume implies infinite mass

The former supposition also implies that Hagedorn temperature defines volume while planck temperature defines mass.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 06:11:28
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673412
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Postpocelipse said:


diddly-squat said:

infinite volume implies infinite mass

The former supposition also implies that Hagedorn temperature defines volume while planck temperature defines mass.

The argument to provide to this is that GR causality would not have been a factor until reionization. Before this only SR causality could be available.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 06:47:21
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673413
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Peak Warming Man said:

I find it impossible to imagine an infinite universe with infinite matter of infinite mass.
Can the boffins do a mathematical model of an infinite universe from, one would suppose an infinite big bang.
Does the current received wisdom even entertain an infinite universe?

Me too.

But the answer to your question is yes.

But then maths can do an infinite number of impossible things before breakfast, so that doesn’t really mean much.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 06:50:22
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673414
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>i guess not if you take it that flat=infinite

Theory says flat is infinite. It’s not a question of whether flat is infinite, but whether the universe is flat.

There is no reason why a flat universe could not be finite.

It’s just an assumption that flat = infinite.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 07:35:55
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673415
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Bubblecar said:

>i guess not if you take it that flat=infinite

Theory says flat is infinite. It’s not a question of whether flat is infinite, but whether the universe is flat.

There is no reason why a flat universe could not be finite.

It’s just an assumption that flat = infinite.

I’d have thought finite would only be a regulation of volume to mass.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 07:51:03
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673416
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Postpocelipse said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>i guess not if you take it that flat=infinite

Theory says flat is infinite. It’s not a question of whether flat is infinite, but whether the universe is flat.

There is no reason why a flat universe could not be finite.

It’s just an assumption that flat = infinite.

I’d have thought finite would only be a regulation of volume to mass.

Identifying whether the universe is finite or not relies on identifying if the universe ends in a big rip or continues expanding indefinitely, AFAICT.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 08:13:17
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673418
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Bubblecar said:

>i guess not if you take it that flat=infinite

Theory says flat is infinite. It’s not a question of whether flat is infinite, but whether the universe is flat.

There is no reason why a flat universe could not be finite.

It’s just an assumption that flat = infinite.

It can be flat and finite when modelled with certain kinds of odd topology (but they are topologies that our universe is not expected to have).

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 08:43:57
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673419
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>I find it impossible to imagine an infinite universe with infinite matter of infinite mass.

It’s intrinsic to the definition of infinity that it can’t be imagined, for the same reason it can never be directly seen :)

We don’t have to worry about such exercises. All that matters is that it can be modelled mathematically and is compatible with the evidence.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:06:40
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673420
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Postpocelipse said:


I’d have thought finite would only be a regulation of volume to mass.

I don’t know what that means.

Finite means it has a boundary, outside which is another univers, a meta-universe, or a non-universe.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:08:22
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673421
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


It can be flat and finite when modelled with certain kinds of odd topology (but they are topologies that our universe is not expected to have).

It doesn’t need an odd topology, it just needs a boundary.

And any musings about the actual topology of the universe (out of those that are possible) is pure conjecture.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:10:52
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673422
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Postpocelipse said:

I’d have thought finite would only be a regulation of volume to mass.

I don’t know what that means.

Finite means it has a boundary, outside which is another univers, a meta-universe, or a non-universe.

What I mean is that ratio of volume to mass limits how much can be observed. It doesn’t define the limit to which that regulation extends

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:13:02
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673423
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>
We don’t have to worry about such exercises. All that matters is that it can be modelled mathematically and is compatible with the evidence.

The same can be said of an infinite number of other conjectures.

Potentially infinite anyway. We haven’t had time to make an infinite number of conjectures yet.

Unless the universe is infinite, and populated by an infinite number of intelligent entities that make such conjectures, in which case there really are an infinite number of them.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:15:17
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673424
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Postpocelipse said:


What I mean is that ratio of volume to mass limits how much can be observed. It doesn’t define the limit to which that regulation extends

How does density limit how much can be observed (unless you mean the mass that can be observed?).

Anyway, I wasn’t talking about what can be observed.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:16:14
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673425
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>It doesn’t need an odd topology, it just needs a boundary.

I seem to remember having this discussion before, and pointing out that you need to specify what this “boundary” is in physical terms, and then fit it in compatibly with known physics. You’re saying “You could use this model…” but then not producing a model.

>And any musings about the actual topology of the universe (out of those that are possible) is pure conjecture.

Not just conjecture, but models that are compatible with the observations.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:16:50
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673426
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Postpocelipse said:

What I mean is that ratio of volume to mass limits how much can be observed. It doesn’t define the limit to which that regulation extends

How does density limit how much can be observed (unless you mean the mass that can be observed?).

Anyway, I wasn’t talking about what can be observed.

That would be the correct assumption. I didn’t intend to misdirect the question.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:19:13
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673428
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Unless the universe is infinite, and populated by an infinite number of intelligent entities that make such conjectures, in which case there really are an infinite number of them.

So ironically:

We have a large number of equally likely conjectures, n.

The probability of any one of them being correct is 1/n.

If the universe is infinite, n is infinite, so 1/n = 0.

So the hypothesis that the universe is flat and infinite is only correct if the probability of this hypothesis is zero.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:20:46
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673429
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>The same can be said of an infinite number of other conjectures.

Physicists are actually trained to keep the number of conjectures under sensible control :)

The simplest models that fit the evidence well tend to be favoured.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:23:49
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673431
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>It doesn’t need an odd topology, it just needs a boundary.

I seem to remember having this discussion before, and pointing out that you need to specify what this “boundary” is in physical terms, and then fit it in compatibly with known physics. You’re saying “You could use this model…” but then not producing a model.

>And any musings about the actual topology of the universe (out of those that are possible) is pure conjecture.

Not just conjecture, but models that are compatible with the observations.

Yes, we have had this discussion before.

We have no observational evidence of conditions at any hypothetical boundary, so there is nothing to be consistent with. There are any number of conjectures that would be consistent with things we can observe, even if we assume that physics works the same that far away, which of course quite likely it doesn’t.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:25:17
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673432
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>We have no observational evidence of conditions at any hypothetical boundary, so there is nothing to be consistent with.

There you are then, no need to worry about such notions.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:26:16
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673433
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>The same can be said of an infinite number of other conjectures.

Physicists are actually trained to keep the number of conjectures under sensible control :)

The simplest models that fit the evidence well tend to be favoured.

There are a potentially infinite number of equally simple conjectures.

We just have no evidence, and no possibility of getting any evidence, so I really don’t see the point of talking as though one particular conjecture is favoured.

I have to go and investigate some beams now.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:28:53
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673434
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>We have no observational evidence of conditions at any hypothetical boundary, so there is nothing to be consistent with.

There you are then, no need to worry about such notions.

My point exactly :)

We really should say that if the universe is flat then we have no idea how big it might be, rather that stating as fact that flat = infinite.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:29:43
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673435
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>We just have no evidence, and no possibility of getting any evidence, so I really don’t see the point of talking as though one particular conjecture is favoured.

Cosmologists are happy to work with the evidence we have, and base their models on that. Once they’ve exhausted their empirical reach and their means of testing competing theories, the simplest models will still be favoured (and they won’t include stuff like boundaries for which we have no evidence).

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:32:58
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673436
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>We just have no evidence, and no possibility of getting any evidence, so I really don’t see the point of talking as though one particular conjecture is favoured.

Cosmologists are happy to work with the evidence we have, and base their models on that. Once they’ve exhausted their empirical reach and their means of testing competing theories, the simplest models will still be favoured (and they won’t include stuff like boundaries for which we have no evidence).

No doubt some will, but the thinking Cosmologist will say that we have no information on this subject, and very likely our limited theories for our own tiny speck of the universe are not applicable.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:35:26
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673437
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

i thought pm2ring had put all this to bed ages ago?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:37:05
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673439
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>We just have no evidence, and no possibility of getting any evidence, so I really don’t see the point of talking as though one particular conjecture is favoured.

Cosmologists are happy to work with the evidence we have, and base their models on that. Once they’ve exhausted their empirical reach and their means of testing competing theories, the simplest models will still be favoured (and they won’t include stuff like boundaries for which we have no evidence).

Wouldn’t mechanical factors like planck interval, ‘c’ and vacuum constancy provide boundaries for the outer limits of the universe? ie; ‘the physical’ extends as far as these factors are relative.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:37:37
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673440
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


i thought pm2ring had put all this to bed ages ago?

Just because pm2ring says something doesn’t make it right!

I have not seen a single convincing argument to favour the flat = infinite hypothesis.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:40:19
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673442
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

but you didn’t counter any of his points rev. none. and here you are again going on about the same stuff without answering PM points. that is bad science rev.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:41:44
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673444
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


No doubt some will, but the thinking Cosmologist will say that we have no information on this subject, and very likely our limited theories for our own tiny speck of the universe are not applicable.

No information on what subject? If you have no information relating to boundaries, you don’t need to consider them, unless you’re just enjoying an exercise of “making stuff up” :)

Cosmologists are aware that human cosmology will always be limited by what’s empirically accessible. They’re not looking for a perfect model, just the best models within the limits of what can be achieved.

And who knows, there might be more surprises to come from what is empirically accessible (e.g., particle accelerator experiments).

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:43:44
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673448
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


but you didn’t counter any of his points rev. none. and here you are again going on about the same stuff without answering PM points. that is bad science rev.

But I did counter his points, all. At least all that I saw.

For one thing they were all based on the cosmological principle being correct, which is nonsensical when you are talking about something potentially infinite.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:46:19
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673452
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


No information on what subject? If you have no information relating to boundaries, you don’t need to consider them, unless you’re just enjoying an exercise of “making stuff up” :)

“Making stuff up” is precisely what I am saying people should not do.

But I must go and investigate my beams full of heavy old fashioned steel.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:51:12
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 673453
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

C’mon kiddies, let’s just say it is both? finite AND infinite?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 09:55:36
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673455
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

C’mon kiddies, let’s just say it is both? finite AND infinite?

we just say what the models say. whether it is or isn’t doesn’t matter. as long as the models allow us to make predictions that can be tested. and by saying “can be tested” i don’t mean that that have to be physically tested but they can be tested in theory. we may never have the means to actually test them but that doesn’t matter.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:04:49
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 673456
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


C’mon kiddies, let’s just say it is both? finite AND infinite?

we just say what the models say. whether it is or isn’t doesn’t matter. as long as the models allow us to make predictions that can be tested. and by saying “can be tested” i don’t mean that that have to be physically tested but they can be tested in theory. we may never have the means to actually test them but that doesn’t matter.

“I know, I know, (thrusts hand in the air many times) it’s polymegga finite!

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:15:36
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673462
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


C’mon kiddies, let’s just say it is both? finite AND infinite?

we just say what the models say. whether it is or isn’t doesn’t matter. as long as the models allow us to make predictions that can be tested. and by saying “can be tested” i don’t mean that that have to be physically tested but they can be tested in theory. we may never have the means to actually test them but that doesn’t matter.

I disagree.

Science relates to how things are.

Where we don’t know, we should say we don’t know.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:19:15
From: btm
ID: 673464
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Einstein thought the universe is (was?) finite but unbounded. Even Shakespeare thought so:
Hamlet: “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space” – William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:25:26
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673468
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Just because pm2ring says something doesn’t make it right!

and he wasn’t saying that. he was showing where you were wrong. two completely different things. and why i said that you hadn’t countered anything he said. you are just repeating the stuff that was shown to be not the correct way to look at this.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:25:59
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673469
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

btm said:


Einstein thought the universe is (was?) finite but unbounded. Even Shakespeare thought so:
Hamlet: “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space” – William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2.

Nice quote btm.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:30:53
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673472
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


Just because pm2ring says something doesn’t make it right!

and he wasn’t saying that. he was showing where you were wrong. two completely different things. and why i said that you hadn’t countered anything he said. you are just repeating the stuff that was shown to be not the correct way to look at this.

You are still saying “x said you were wrong”, so you are wrong.

I don’t recall pm2ring saying anything that shows my current line of argument to be incorrect. Perhaps you can remind me.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:44:31
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673486
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>Science relates to how things are.

…which is derived from the available evidence. It’s just a matter of adding “as far as we can tell” to the end of cosmological statements.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:48:52
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 673488
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


btm said:

Einstein thought the universe is (was?) finite but unbounded. Even Shakespeare thought so:
Hamlet: “I could be bounded in a nutshell and count myself a king of infinite space” – William Shakespeare, Hamlet, Act 2 Scene 2.

Nice quote btm.

An American was asked what he thought of Shakespeare after attending his first Shakespearian play, said that it was just a collection of famous sayings strung together to make a play.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:49:17
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673489
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>Science relates to how things are.

…which is derived from the available evidence. It’s just a matter of adding “as far as we can tell” to the end of cosmological statements.

Or “we have no information on this subject”, as the case may be.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:51:03
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673490
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Bubblecar said:

>Science relates to how things are.

…which is derived from the available evidence. It’s just a matter of adding “as far as we can tell” to the end of cosmological statements.

Or “we have no information on this subject”, as the case may be.

But we do have information on this subject (cosmology). There’s no point worrying about information we don’t have – it’s not actually “information”.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:53:53
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 673491
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Science relates to how things are.

…which is derived from the available evidence. It’s just a matter of adding “as far as we can tell” to the end of cosmological statements.

Or “we have no information on this subject”, as the case may be.

But we do have information on this subject (cosmology). There’s no point worrying about information we don’t have – it’s not actually “information”.

>>>>it’s not actually “information”.

Can we call that “unformation”?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 10:55:34
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673492
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

Bubblecar said:

>Science relates to how things are.

…which is derived from the available evidence. It’s just a matter of adding “as far as we can tell” to the end of cosmological statements.

Or “we have no information on this subject”, as the case may be.

But we do have information on this subject (cosmology). There’s no point worrying about information we don’t have – it’s not actually “information”.

But people do make statements about aspects of cosmology as though we did have information about them, even though we don’t.

You are saying “if the universe is flat then it is infinite”, which is a statement about something which we have no information about.

I am saying “if the universe is flat then it may be infinite, but it may not be, we have no way of knowing”.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 11:00:48
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673493
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

>You are saying “if the universe is flat then it is infinite”, which is a statement about something which we have no information about

I’m saying “if the universe is flat then it is infinite” according to what’s currently the most favoured model (based on CMBR measurements, GR & inflation theory). This model might stand the test of time, or be replaced by other favoured models. I’m happy to let the qualified people sort it out :)

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 11:02:28
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673494
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

bob(from black rock) said:


Can we call that “unformation”?

Good idea.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 11:07:53
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673496
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


>You are saying “if the universe is flat then it is infinite”, which is a statement about something which we have no information about

I’m saying “if the universe is flat then it is infinite” according to what’s currently the most favoured model (based on CMBR measurements, GR & inflation theory). This model might stand the test of time, or be replaced by other favoured models. I’m happy to let the qualified people sort it out :)

But “the currently favoured model” has absolutely nothing to say about the extent of the universe.

It only relates to things we can observe.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 11:21:07
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673498
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

In the end you can choose from extrapolation from what’s known (which enables you to build speculative cosmological models derived from the evidence), or assume that everything’s different outside our observable universe, in which case you’re free to make anything up. I don’t find it surprising that cosmologists take the first approach more seriously.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 11:50:33
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673503
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


In the end you can choose from extrapolation from what’s known (which enables you to build speculative cosmological models derived from the evidence), or assume that everything’s different outside our observable universe, in which case you’re free to make anything up. I don’t find it surprising that cosmologists take the first approach more seriously.

Extrapolation has some limited validity, but extrapolating current models to the limits of the universe is just making stuff up.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 13:57:57
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673527
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:

Extrapolation has some limited validity, but extrapolating current models to the limits of the universe is just making stuff up.

With the data accumulated thus far I believe that if no evidence can be provided for a finite universe it must be assumed to be infinite, not the other way round. That would be the point of what I have posted previously to this thread.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 15:40:26
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673541
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Postpocelipse said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

Extrapolation has some limited validity, but extrapolating current models to the limits of the universe is just making stuff up.

With the data accumulated thus far I believe that if no evidence can be provided for a finite universe it must be assumed to be infinite, not the other way round. That would be the point of what I have posted previously to this thread.

We have zero data about the possible maximum extent of the universe, so there is no reason to assume anything.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 15:50:32
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673543
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Extrapolation has some limited validity, but extrapolating current models to the limits of the universe is just making stuff up.

With the data accumulated thus far I believe that if no evidence can be provided for a finite universe it must be assumed to be infinite, not the other way round. That would be the point of what I have posted previously to this thread.

We have zero data about the possible maximum extent of the universe, so there is no reason to assume anything.

A finite model is substantially more complex than an infinite one. As minimal complexity is so far the rule rather than the exception, an infinite model will automatically be the preferred to a finite one. Possibly, if an area of study could be found that required idemtification of the extent of the universe, it would be through that subject that any boundary might be distinguished. Without an academic context that demands this then it is only a subject of speculation anyway.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 16:02:08
From: bob(from black rock)
ID: 673553
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


Postpocelipse said:

The Rev Dodgson said:

Extrapolation has some limited validity, but extrapolating current models to the limits of the universe is just making stuff up.

With the data accumulated thus far I believe that if no evidence can be provided for a finite universe it must be assumed to be infinite, not the other way round. That would be the point of what I have posted previously to this thread.

We have zero data about the possible maximum extent of the universe, so there is no reason to assume anything.

It is the Universe, it can be anything it wants to be, a bit like a Flea, contemplating the dog it has infested.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 16:09:14
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673555
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:


We have zero data about the possible maximum extent of the universe, so there is no reason to assume anything.

Data about the maximum size of the universe can be obtained by feeding the data we have regarding its minimum size into various theoretical models. That data is conjectural, but that’s cosmology for you.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 16:11:25
From: ChrispenEvan
ID: 673558
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

and in the end Bubblecar they realise that they are just models and not reality.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 16:12:25
From: Bubblecar
ID: 673559
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


and in the end Bubblecar they realise that they are just models and not reality.

Aye.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 16:16:46
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673560
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Bubblecar said:


ChrispenEvan said:

and in the end Bubblecar they realise that they are just models and not reality.

Aye.

aARRRR!!

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 17:14:30
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673589
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

ChrispenEvan said:


and in the end Bubblecar they realise that they are just models and not reality.

Oh what a smug little smart-arse we are today.

How does saying that our current models provide no information about non-observable reality imply that I did not realise they were just models, until you so graciously informed me?

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 17:18:03
From: The Rev Dodgson
ID: 673596
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

bob(from black rock) said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

Postpocelipse said:

With the data accumulated thus far I believe that if no evidence can be provided for a finite universe it must be assumed to be infinite, not the other way round. That would be the point of what I have posted previously to this thread.

We have zero data about the possible maximum extent of the universe, so there is no reason to assume anything.

It is the Universe, it can be anything it wants to be, a bit like a Flea, contemplating the dog it has infested.

That’s near Postpoceliptic in it’s obscurity.

But the universe is what it is, not what it wants to be.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 17:21:59
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673598
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s near Postpoceliptic in it’s obscurity.

But the universe is what it is, not what it wants to be.

:D That is a description I don’t mind at all. On the second point, what evidence do you have that the universe is without preference? Apparently the slightest fluctuation one way or the other is some evidence for the other argument, even if it is a Planck minimum portion.

Reply Quote

Date: 8/02/2015 17:23:40
From: Postpocelipse
ID: 673600
Subject: re: Mathematically Can the Universe be Infinite?

Postpocelipse said:


The Rev Dodgson said:

That’s near Postpoceliptic in it’s obscurity.

But the universe is what it is, not what it wants to be.

:D That is a description I don’t mind at all. On the second point, what evidence do you have that the universe is without preference? Apparently the slightest fluctuation one way or the other of the vacuum, is some evidence for the other argument, even if it is a Planck minimum portion.

fixed

Reply Quote