Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Universe - Size . . . something doesn't compute !
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 1 of 69 (54401)
09-07-2003 10:01 PM


I just thought I'd throw something out there for comments and/or debate.
I hear so often, people talking about the "size" of the universe, and that it is expanding/contracting etc.
People talk about the possibility that there "may" be life on other planets in the universe - even going so far as to estimate the numbers of planets which could sustain life.
I have a great deal of trouble with these theories and questions - especially with regard to the size of the universe. My question is this, if the universe has boundaries of any kind, what is outside those boundaries ? Some have mentioned that at the "end of the universe" there may be a wall of some kind, but wouldn't that wall have a thickness ? If it did have a measurable thickness, what is on the other side of it? Indeed, what is outside the "estimated" boundaries of the universe? Wouldn't that count as "space" as well, no matter what the density of material or matter?
By estimating the size of the universe, we display our complete ignorance, in my view. There are indeed an infinite number fo life-sustaining planets in our univers, if only people could get their minds around the "infiniteness" of the universe - I'm not holding my breath, however !
The universe according to MarkSteven simply goes forever - how can it end ? Simple answer, it can't.
I would be interested to hear the views of others on this . . .

Replies to this message:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2003 10:45 PM MarkSteven has replied
 Message 16 by Rei, posted 09-09-2003 3:31 AM MarkSteven has not replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 2 of 69 (54407)
09-07-2003 10:45 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by MarkSteven
09-07-2003 10:01 PM


Actually if the universe was closed in the fourth spacial dimension - as a globe is closed in the third dimension - the universe could be both finite in volume and have no boundary in the third dimension. Then it would never be possible to travel to to the boundary of the universe, because you could never get there - just as you can never get to the end of the line when you're travelling on a circle.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by MarkSteven, posted 09-07-2003 10:01 PM MarkSteven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2003 10:52 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 4 by MarkSteven, posted 09-07-2003 11:04 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 3 of 69 (54408)
09-07-2003 10:52 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
09-07-2003 10:45 PM


Indeed, our physcial 'inution' that permits space-tIMe interchange appears to me to be a if not tHE culprit.
The arrow of time is not the time of the arrow (the books with King David excluded). I for one AM NOT convinced that Einstein Causality and Simultaneity actually applies to informatin transfer across generations (biologically) but now I write things that I can not back up at all.
[This message has been edited by Brad McFall, 09-07-2003]

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2003 10:45 PM crashfrog has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 5 by MarkSteven, posted 09-07-2003 11:05 PM Brad McFall has replied

  
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 4 of 69 (54410)
09-07-2003 11:04 PM
Reply to: Message 2 by crashfrog
09-07-2003 10:45 PM


hmmm, interesting ! If a globe is closed in the third dimension, does that also mean that nothing exists outside the globe ?
If I am understanding your reply correctly, you are suggesting that the 3rd dimension infinite "universe" resides within a finite 4th dimension . . . this to me seems like a refusal to accept the infinite nature of the universe - a way to quantify and measure something which is immeasurable. Don't get me wrong, I am not discounting your reply, I am just interested to hear some responses from some minds more scientific and educated than mine ! !
You sound like someone who has done a bit of research into the dimensions etc, do you have any recommendations on reading material - preferably on the net - on the fourth dimension.
My understanding of the 4th dimension is limited, as I have no real scientific background, other than seeing a model of a cube floating within a cube, when I was in high school, which was very badly explained ! I would say the teacher didn't really have a clue what he was talking about to be honest !
Perhaps your proposal of the universe being closed in the fourth dimension would be a little clearer to me upon further research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 2 by crashfrog, posted 09-07-2003 10:45 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2003 12:13 AM MarkSteven has replied
 Message 7 by Mike Holland, posted 09-08-2003 6:00 AM MarkSteven has replied

  
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 5 of 69 (54411)
09-07-2003 11:05 PM
Reply to: Message 3 by Brad McFall
09-07-2003 10:52 PM


brad, you totally lost me there my friend . . . perhaps I stumbled across a site which I shouldn't have stumbled across ! lol !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 3 by Brad McFall, posted 09-07-2003 10:52 PM Brad McFall has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 09-08-2003 8:42 PM MarkSteven has replied

  
crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 6 of 69 (54417)
09-08-2003 12:13 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by MarkSteven
09-07-2003 11:04 PM


If a globe is closed in the third dimension, does that also mean that nothing exists outside the globe ?
If you're an organism limited in experience to two dimensions, then for all practical purposes, yes, there's nothing outside the globe. You'll never know what's out there, anyway.
If I am understanding your reply correctly, you are suggesting that the 3rd dimension infinite "universe" resides within a finite 4th dimension
No, I'm saying that the universe is finite in volume, but has no boundary in three dimensions. So that if you took off in one direction in a straight line, eventually you'd return to your starting point, even if you never turned.
this to me seems like a refusal to accept the infinite nature of the universe - a way to quantify and measure something which is immeasurable.
I don't think the universe is infinite. I don't see how an infinte space could be expanding. But that's just me. (We assume space expands, but it could very well be that it's matter that's shrinking at an incredible rate. Who knows?)
You sound like someone who has done a bit of research into the dimensions etc, do you have any recommendations on reading material - preferably on the net - on the fourth dimension.
On the net? Not really. But if you stop into your local bookstore's science section, you'll likely find any number of books on hyperspace and higher dimensions, etc.
I would say the teacher didn't really have a clue what he was talking about to be honest !
Yeah, it's hard to talk about higher dimensions except through analogy. What he was trying to show you was probably a hypercube. Just as a cube has a square for every face, a hypercube has a cube for every face.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by MarkSteven, posted 09-07-2003 11:04 PM MarkSteven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 9 by MarkSteven, posted 09-08-2003 7:30 PM crashfrog has replied

  
Mike Holland
Member (Idle past 483 days)
Posts: 179
From: Sydney, NSW,Auistralia
Joined: 08-30-2002


Message 7 of 69 (54438)
09-08-2003 6:00 AM
Reply to: Message 4 by MarkSteven
09-07-2003 11:04 PM


MarkStephen, if you try to visualize this, you will go nuts. Some modern cosmologies go up to 10 dimensions, and we can only try to visualize a 4th by analogy with two dimensions curved into a third!
You can only get an idea of how it hangs together by going deeply into the maths.
I cannot imagine infinite space, but I cannot imagine an end to space, either. A finite universe in an infinite space means that the emptiness just goes on and on and on and... Horrors! But a curved space does not help - does the fourth dimension go on for ever? String theory tries to fold up dimensions into microscopic strings which may be light years long! You can read the books, but don't hope to understand it.
I have a problem with a finite universe expanding into empty space, because then it would have started off as a black hole, and expansion would have been impossible. But the general (?) view is that space is expanding, taking the universe along with it, and this is supposed to get around the problem somehow.
Don't worry about infinite spaces expanding. You can double the size of infinity, and you still have infinity.
By the way, time is usually regarded as the fourth dimension, so space would have to be curved in the fifth dimension.
Feel confused? Join the club.
Mike.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by MarkSteven, posted 09-07-2003 11:04 PM MarkSteven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 10 by MarkSteven, posted 09-08-2003 7:53 PM Mike Holland has not replied

  
Beercules
Inactive Member


Message 8 of 69 (54461)
09-08-2003 1:17 PM


Remember that both an infinite or finite universe is possible with current models. In an infinite universe, you obviously have no edges nor boundaries to worry about. Easy enough, right? But you can also have a finite universe with no boundary. You don't need to imagine time as 4th spatial dimension either. Recall that in GR spacetime can be curved, and is in the presence of mass. However space can also be curved, so that you end up with a volume that is curved in the same way the surface of a globe or balloon is curved. Start out in one direction in search of an edge, and you'll eventually end up back where you started. No edge.
Also keep in mind that a finite universe need not be embedded in any larger space. A finite universe by definition, would have no outside at all. What it comes down to is that while an infinite universe is easy to imagine, there is nothing that requires the real universe to actually be as such.

Replies to this message:
 Message 11 by MarkSteven, posted 09-08-2003 8:10 PM Beercules has replied

  
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 9 of 69 (54478)
09-08-2003 7:30 PM
Reply to: Message 6 by crashfrog
09-08-2003 12:13 AM


Hiya Crashfrog . . .
I have been thinking about your reply overnight, and have trouble dealing with a couple of the points you made:
1. "If you're an organism limited in experience to two dimensions, then for all practical purposes, yes, there's nothing outside the globe. You'll never know what's out there, anyway".
Just because you'll never know what's outside the globe, how can that possibly mean that there isn't anything outside the globe? I personally don't know what's 20 metres under the ground below my house, but that doesn't mean that nothing exists there . . .
2. "No, I'm saying that the universe is finite in volume, but has no boundary in three dimensions. So that if you took off in one direction in a straight line, eventually you'd return to your starting point, even if you never turned".
Is there any solid evidence to support this theory ? This seems to me like another way of saying "hey, we don't really know this to be true, but it would make it a lot easier to comprehend, in terms of the size of the universe". And, at what point do you hit "the edge" and return to the point from where you started? The edge of the universe?
My reasoning, albeit and uneducated one, would suggest that if you were to travel in an exact straight line, taking into account space and physics (again from an uneducated point of view), there would be absolutely no way that you could possibly end up where you started. Yes, I can see how you could travel around the outside of a circle and return to the same point, but aren't we talking about a straight line here ?
I am really enjoying this discussion crash, I live in NZ and don't get the chance to discuss my views with anyone who has any real desire to think about the universe. I feel very passionately about my views, but am also very receptive to the views of others. Your message, making me think deeply about it, is greatly appreciated ! !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 6 by crashfrog, posted 09-08-2003 12:13 AM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 20 by crashfrog, posted 09-10-2003 12:10 AM MarkSteven has replied

  
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 10 of 69 (54480)
09-08-2003 7:53 PM
Reply to: Message 7 by Mike Holland
09-08-2003 6:00 AM


Hi Mike,
Well, I'm already nuts, so I should be fine ;-)
Personally, as I have never seen any solid proof of anything higher than the third dimension (that's not to say that I don't belive that a 4th dimension, or higher, could possibly exist - if someone shows me how it works in real life, I'll believe it), I can only base my assumptions on what I know to be true and factual. Therefore, I don't think personally that bringing higher dimensions into the discussion would assist us in understanding the infinite nature of the universe.
My view is that, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into ?
If we can't see the edge of the universe, how do we know it has an edge? From what I understand, yes, the planets, galaxies etc are moving outward (as far as we can see), but couldn't the simple explaination for that be aligned with the Big Bang theory, only in matter rather than space ? If the universe is, as I believe, infinite, it stands to reason that that outward force dies out at some point - I can't feel an earthquake in Peru from here in New Zealand, because the shockwave would have run it's course before it reaches our shores.
I personally don't have any problem comprehending the infinite nature of the universe, in fact I remember quite clearly when I made the discovery in my own mind, that it was quite a liberating feeling to know that there are an infinite number of weird and wonderful life forms scattered around the universe, and that there are some amazingly beautiful planets which unfortunately we'll never get to see. Again, just because we have no hope of getting to some of these places, doesn't mean that they don't exist.
I would prefer not to try and measure something that is infinite, it seems like a futile exercise to me ! That would do more to drive you nuts than to foster an understanding and an acceptance of infinity.
Thanks for your input Mike !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 7 by Mike Holland, posted 09-08-2003 6:00 AM Mike Holland has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 14 by John, posted 09-09-2003 12:43 AM MarkSteven has replied

  
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 11 of 69 (54483)
09-08-2003 8:10 PM
Reply to: Message 8 by Beercules
09-08-2003 1:17 PM


Ok then, has there ever been any successful experiment in forcing space to curve? As I understand it, you could contain space within a curved "container", but there would still be space existing outside that container. This is the crux of my argument. The universe is not a container - it is the space around, and including the container - surely?
We can try with all our might and limited human knowledge to measure and quantify, but if we go by proven facts, realities which have been scientifically and PHYSICALLY PROVEN, we must conclude, surely that infinity is the only possible "real" explaination.
Any hypothetical or mathematical equation which uses long-held human "understanding", again peppered with imagined boundaries, with the purpose again of measuring or labelling the universe as being a set size is simply our inability to grasp the fact that earth is literally nothing in the whole scheme of things.
Thanks for your response ! ! !

This message is a reply to:
 Message 8 by Beercules, posted 09-08-2003 1:17 PM Beercules has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 15 by John, posted 09-09-2003 1:02 AM MarkSteven has not replied
 Message 18 by Beercules, posted 09-09-2003 6:47 PM MarkSteven has replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5032 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 12 of 69 (54487)
09-08-2003 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 5 by MarkSteven
09-07-2003 11:05 PM


biological downward causation
Every astronaut we know is of human kind.
When then was this exploration will then become part and a part of humanity as we only know life on Earth so close.
so far it may not be possible as to "Noncommutative Rings" by S. Montgomery, L. Small eds Springer Verlag 24 1992 where it is findable when when may not be so discovered in this time while there still may be some future space of currents today to than that reproduction noncommutatively takes ALL LIFE on a differnt plannable path @PaGE 116, yet yes-- You read: "The crucial axiom which gives the theory its flavor is Einstein Causality, which asserts that measurements made in two space-like seperated regions can not influence each other, so that two observables which are measureable in two space-like seperated (spelled sepArated in the original) are simultaneously observable. But this simultaneous observability is encoded exactly by having the corresponding elements of A commute."
I dont know if this is your wall or not?

This message is a reply to:
 Message 5 by MarkSteven, posted 09-07-2003 11:05 PM MarkSteven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 13 by MarkSteven, posted 09-08-2003 9:58 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
MarkSteven
Inactive Member


Message 13 of 69 (54494)
09-08-2003 9:58 PM
Reply to: Message 12 by Brad McFall
09-08-2003 8:42 PM


Re: biological downward causation
Brad, this is a wall for me, but a different kind of wall I'm afraid ! ;-) Perhaps I should read Einstein's causality so that I can comprehend your angle . . .

This message is a reply to:
 Message 12 by Brad McFall, posted 09-08-2003 8:42 PM Brad McFall has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 14 of 69 (54501)
09-09-2003 12:43 AM
Reply to: Message 10 by MarkSteven
09-08-2003 7:53 PM


quote:
Personally, as I have never seen any solid proof of anything higher than the third dimension
Sure you have, the fourth dimension is called time. Think of it like this. Imagine that you live on a dot. You can't move at all. You live in zero dimensions. Now imagine a line. You can now move in two directions or one dimension. A cube allows six directions of movement, or three dimensions. But wait, in order for you to move at all, you must be able to move through time. Movement is impossible without time-- it is defined as a change of position through time. Einstein envisioned time as a dimension just like the other three. That is the nutshell version of space-time. Moving through time is just like moving left or right, but the motion is through the fourth dimension.
quote:
Therefore, I don't think personally that bringing higher dimensions into the discussion would assist us in understanding the infinite nature of the universe.
It could possibly explain why gravitational attraction decreases with the square of the distance, but I guess that is another thread. The point is, extra dimensions aren't thrown into the mix for the hell of it.
quote:
My view is that, if the universe is expanding, what is it expanding into ?
If the universe is everything that is, how does this question even make sense?
quote:
If we can't see the edge of the universe, how do we know it has an edge?
As far as I know, we don't know that it has an edge.
quote:
but couldn't the simple explaination for that be aligned with the Big Bang theory, only in matter rather than space ?
Like a really big grenade throwing shrapnel in all directions? That won't work. Think about how a shrapnel pattern would look-- a loose shell of material flying away from the point of detonation, an egg with a hollow core. That isn't what we observe. Imagine yourself as one of those shrapnel fragments. Objects directly in front of you would be moving the same speed as would objects next to you, almost. However, if you were to look at an object directly behind you and on the other side of the point of detonation, it would be moving away from you at twice the speed you are moving. We observe nothing remotely like that. Nearly everything is moving away from us at speeds which fairly smoothly increase with distance from us.
quote:
I would prefer not to try and measure something that is infinite, it seems like a futile exercise to me !
You are, of course, assuming the universe is infinite.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 10 by MarkSteven, posted 09-08-2003 7:53 PM MarkSteven has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 17 by MarkSteven, posted 09-09-2003 3:39 AM John has not replied

  
John
Inactive Member


Message 15 of 69 (54504)
09-09-2003 1:02 AM
Reply to: Message 11 by MarkSteven
09-08-2003 8:10 PM


Any hypothetical or mathematical equation which uses long-held human "understanding", again peppered with imagined boundaries, with the purpose again of measuring or labelling the universe as being a set size is simply our inability to grasp the fact that earth is literally nothing in the whole scheme of things.
------------------
No webpage found at provided URL: www.hells-handmaiden.com

This message is a reply to:
 Message 11 by MarkSteven, posted 09-08-2003 8:10 PM MarkSteven has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024