A layman's questions about universes

I am just wondering if there is a possibility of an infinite universe? What does science say? I really don't know much about this, and doubt I can grasp any technical input.I am guessing most would agree that this is a finite universe? Big Bang and all. Don't laugh.Q1. Could this universe ever become infinite? (Your laughing again.) I heard something about an implosion once? Or something about losing gravity??...Q2. If other possible universes existed with a Big Bang beginning, does that mean there would be no infinite universes?Q3. If there is possibly an infinite universe, would our universe reside inside that infinite universe?Q4. If these continuous Big Bangs happened, where would they be happening? Would they be happening in another infinite universe, or would they be coming from "nothingness"? How could nothingness be "outside" an infinite universe?Q5. Would nothingness be infinite? Could our universe reside "inside" another universe?You may answer any question/ no questions.

Thread moved here from the Proposed New Topics forum.

This Universe could or could not be infinite. This is a question with no current definitive answer.A1. If it currently is not infinite then it cannot become infinite.A2. YesA3. YesA4. a) Impossible to answer
b) Meaningless question
c) It cannot - but really a nonsensical questionA5. a) Meaningless
b) Our "observable" universe couldThis message has been edited by Eta_Carinae, 06-19-2004 09:03 PM

Interesting.You ask... Bunch of questions in there. If our Universe is currently bounded then it can't become infinite. It can keep getting bigger and bigger but that is not infinite. Just big.Then you jump to implosion. That's the other direction. That is a collapse, compression. There was a question, still is, if there is enough energy to keep the Universe expanding (infinitely). Right now it looks like it might be, but jury is still out. By the way, even if the Universe kept expanding infinitely, it wouold still not be infinite.Then, you jump to something about losing gravity. Not sure where that came from.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

To be honest I have no conclusions whatsoever yet Jar. Just questions. Oh yeah, I never thought of that. Clever boy. I am wondering though, if there are "other universes", then are we in an infinite one? Can't wrap my brain around it you see.

My position on this has always been that the universe is infinite in area with no bounds and I believe I am being more scientific in this position because most scientists/physicists believe and teach that the universe includes all space/area. Most of these same scientists and physicists, however, also believe that the universe has bounds and is finite. I believe they are being inconsistent in their thinking in this regard. Likely some notable said it way back when, it sounded good and educational institutions preached it until it has become scientific established thought. An infinite universe by definition cancels out the possibility of more than one universe either in or out of that infinite universe/everything existing. Space, void of anything including no rays of any kind, elements of any kind, etc would be existing area/empty space into which things such as rays or matter, etc could become to exist either by the work of a creator or by expansion of existing things such as rays, matter, etc. If everything in the universe were somehow removed, absolutely everything, a universe of infinite empty area/space would still exist into which an infinite amount of things could be put. For this reason, imo, scientists and physicists, would have to exclude space in their definitition of universe[/i] as being considered part of the universe. Then they would have the problem that space exists so it would be inconsistent to call our universe, by definition a universe.People of the Bible believe God is eternal which means for us the universe has eternally had things in it, God being "the same yesterday, today and forever," as the Bible states.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-19-2004 10:30 PM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

is still an idiot. After all these months I thought you might have clued yourself in a little.Still pushing the science is a conspiracy nonsense?

.......And alas, poor Eta, the brainwashed who's still brainwashing brainwashees and who's only response to truth, common sense and sensible logic is to belittle the messenger. True to form. Hi Eta. The last I read of you here in town is that you were leavin town in a huff. Honestly though, I'm glad you're still here. Maybe this ole fart with the HS degree can spar a few pages again with the great Eta, the high and mighty town physisist someday. After all, you're the guy ole man logic and common sense here backed in the corner proving the sun to have had to have appeared to have progressed at least 30 million years from infancy, to modern earthlings, showing age even if it were actually created a few thousand years ago instantly. This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-20-2004 10:58 AM

---

The immeasurable present is forever consuming the eternal future and extending the infinite past. buz

And you ignored that fact that it has an "appearance" of age much greater than that. Much greater than necessary. So much greater your ideas are shown to be wrong. You aren't able to "back down" when you have misunderstood something or forgotten something or just plain don't know what you are talking about.You do seem to exhibit a hostility to education. You don't like the idea that there really are people who know a heck of lot more than you do and, in the case of Eta, more than you have the capacity to understand.

What I remember is that you completely confused even yourself with your prattlings about the Sun.You categorically failed to understand not only the basic stellar physics but also the observations themselves.

Nope. There are infinities within infinities, and infinities that contain infinities.

Well 30ml years PLUS is a whole lot more than the few thousand years that Eta was arguing it would look. He wasn't wanting to admit that the protstar phase should be factored in and how long it took after that to look as it looks and heats today. No human, of course was an eye witness to tell us all the unknowns. Smobbish secular humanist academia thinks they know it all, but if the truth were known, there'd likely be some real surprises. None of us were around millions to billions of years ago and really don't know all the factors involved with how things were in the universe and particularly in our galexy and solar system, especially if one factors in a creator. A lot of conjecture is not being admitted, imo.I don't mean to run off topic, but Eta came in on this thread with insults rather than substantive responses to my posts and imo, the meanspirited insults needed a response.This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-20-2004 10:39 PM

I'm posting a reply to my own post so as to add to the above statement that though I believe this to be true, many of my fellow Christians believe and teach that the universe is only 6000 years old. Imo, they need to be more logical and stop reading things into Genesis one that really aren't there.

mike the wiz asks various questions.The problem is that you haven't defined what you mean by "infinite." And in the process, you have equivocated among many possible definitions.The big one seems to be that you have confused "infinite" with the idea of "bounded." A mathematical example:We can say that there are an "infinite" number of numbers between 0 and 1. But what would be considered the "largest" number? That very much depends upon if we have bounded the interval or not. That is, when we say "between 0 and 1," do we include 1 or do we not? If we do include 1, then yes, there is a "largest" number in that interval: 1. Every other number in the interval is necessarily smaller.But what if we don't include 1 in that interval? Then there is no such thing as a largest number. The interval is "unbounded" and even though we know there is a line it cannot cross, it never manages to reach that line. No matter what number you give me, I can always find another number that is bigger.How does this relate to the universe? Well, it means we have to define what you mean by an "infinite" universe. Are you talking about the stuff inside, the boundary, or what may exist beyond the boundary? For example, if one is talking about the stuff inside, there is a reasonable claim that there is an "infinite" amount.Given the fact that universe is expanding (and for the moment, we will not worry about what it is expanding "into"), there is another reasonable claim that it is "infinite" in the sense that were you to start on a journey toward the "edge" of the universe, you would never reach it.So depending upon what you mean by "infinite," the answer to your first question could be no or it could be it already is. A better question would be, "Is the universe bounded?"Regarding your second question, that would depend upon the geometry of the "universe space," and I am using that in a mathematical sense, not a physical sense.Suppose we could model our universe as a line and similarly, any other universe as another line. Do those lines necessarily need to intersect? No, not really. If the geometry of the "universe space" is like a plane, it is quite easy to have a set of parallel universes that never intersect.But suppose our "universe space" were spherical. Then every single "universe line" would necessarily intersect with all the others.So the answer to your second question is, "It depends." Currently, we have no idea. There is an aspect of quantum physics that does hypothesize about what it may be like. A universe is embedded in what is called a "brane" (like a "membrane") When branes collide, the energy released creates a universe within the brane.This somewhat relates to your third question: Universe don't exist within universes. Instead, there would have to be a larger structure that contains universes.Your fourth question again is an equivocation as to what is meant by "infinite." It does not mean "unbounded." There can easily be an "outside" to an infinity depending upon what is meant by "infinity." If, indeed, brane-theory is correct, these Big Bangs are happening in a much larger structure than the universe.Regarding your last question, that also requires a definition of what you mean by nothingness. To get into it requires a great deal of mathematical abstraction and I'm not saying that it is inappropriate or beyond you, but it requires a fair amount of prep work and I'm not sure this specific post is the right place to do it. If you're interested, I will go into it. For now, I'll just say that just as "infinite" is a tricky concept where it can mean a whole bunch of things, each of which perfectly reasonable yet different (and even more problematic, something can have many of those characteristics at the same time) "nothingness" is right there alongside it.As for the idea that our universe is "inside" another universe, it doesn't seem that way. Rather, our universe seems to be inside a larger structure...something that isn't a universe (but that is only if we accept something like brane theory.)

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

I'll bet Mike is sooo glad he asked.Thanks for that though Rrhain. Those are very good points and demonstrate how careful you have to be when trying to think about some of these concepts