Is the universe "finite" or "infinite"

Which does NOT imply that the universe is infinite, as I explained.

 

ok, if you have "infinite" nothingness, and in 1 spot in that infinity, there is a universe, then that means that it's only a matter of time going threw nothingness till you find more stuff. If it can exist once in an infinity, then it exist infinitly.

 

Sorry. That was someone elses's argument.

My argument was only that the universe could be finite and unbounded (like the surface of a sphere) such that there is no edge and yet it's still not infinite.

Look up "finite but unbounded."

 

How can only "x" amount of things exist in an infinity? An infinity goes of forever. If it can exist once, it's only a matter of time till you find it again. Infact, it's directly related to how "complex" or the "odds" of it existing.

 

If the universe is finite then where does it exist? I under stand the implications of traveling in one direction infinitely (as with a sphere like the Earth) but, the Earth exists in a larger realm. Where does the universe exist if it is finite?

 

It exists within a medium (the void) that is infinite.

Imagine being a point inside a sphere going outward...if the sphere is expanding at the same rate that you are moving, you could travel forever and still remain within the sphere, even if the sphere itself is finite.

The sphere (the universe) is finite and expanding, and you travel in a straight line forever.

I thought scientists had conclusively proven that the universe's geometry is flat...meaning that two parallel lines going in any direction will never meet. Space is not curved.

I dont mean this sarcastically...I thought they had done some kind of test recently to prove this conclusively.

 

Thanks...I guess my problem is getting my head around 'infinite.' Like I said, I do understand the concept of circular infinity but that can only exist upon object or convoluted entity. If the universe is like parallel lines that never meet to me that is the same thing as the theory that things (for lack of a better word) get infinitely smaller and infinitely larger as viewed from a certain perspective. Naturally, one cannot actually see into infinity, we are limited in our own dimension (perspective).

I find these questions fascinating and appreciate the input.

 

So after 9 pages I hope it has been agreed that the answer is "both" right?

 

I also find this a fascinating question and have thought about it quite a bit...though it must be admitted the question is not really answerable.

Here's another question. Is the universe infinitely grainy or not? I have heard somewhat convincing arguments on both sides. I'll state both arguments very simply.

The Yes side is based on plasticity. When you hold a piece of plastic and bend it, you are not actually bending a solid object. Plastic is bendable (has the property of plasticity) because the molecules of which it is composed are not static. Now extend this logic all the way down. Molecules would not be plastic unless their atoms were plastic. Atoms would not be plastic unless their subatomic particles were plastic, etc.

The No side takes Xeno's paradox seriously. In order to take a step, one must traverse the distance of half a step. In order to take a half step one must traverse a quarter step. Thus a single step is composed of an infinity of steps. Since it is impossible to traverse an infinity, it is impossible to take a step. But... we clearly can take a step, hence space is not infinitely divisible. Space must be grainy and quantized or else motion would be impossible.

...

 

Atoms themselves are largely empty space. Presumably, they could be scaled quite easily by simply increasing or decreasing the orbit of the electrons. You could do that without altering the subatomic particles at all.

I dont know if there are physical laws that would prevent this. I'm not a scientist. If you put atoms under enough pressure, they do fall apart into their subatomic components.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/QCD_matter#Natural_occurrence

 

Your description of the atom is sort of old-fashioned and all current descriptions are highly idealized.

Last I heard, there is no good evidence of a subatomic division beyond the quark level. Of course that doesn't mean that quarks do not in fact have components.

Quark confinement is an interesting problem. As presently understood, it's impossible to isolate and "look at" a single quark because the amount of energy it takes to separate quarks is more than enough to create quarks.

 

Well, there was a time when we didnt know about quarks either.

Putting matter under high enough pressure does cause the atom to cease to exist as an atom. There is an upper limit to how much you can compress atoms.

 

Quarks are only detected by their 'footprints.' Some have different attributes called 'colors.' My hypothesis is that we have gone as far as we can go in detecting sub-atomic particles only because of the our detection equipment. It is possible that anything smaller than the smallest quark could only be detected dimensionally.

 

How did it poof into existence? Matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, which exposes a fatal flaw in the Big Bang Theory. The Big Bang doesn't explain the creation of the universe, only its expansion. The fact that it expands also proves that it cannot be infinite.

 

Mathematically, all parallel lines intersect at the point of infinity (Boyai?).

 

Some modern theories, such as the 11 dimensional membrane theory, that was developed out of the 10 dimensional string theory, are designed to deal with explaining how the Big Bang came to be. The lemmas used include that time did exist before the Big Bang, and that a number of universes can exist, in 4 types, exhaustively. According to this theory, the Big Bang is a consequence of inter-universe collision. Another interesting theory is that unlike other laws of coresonance, gravity is a force introduced into our universe by a neighboring universe. Multiverse pre Big Bang experiments are conducted in British universities, these type of experiments can be conducted safely.

(Disclaimer: I don't work in this field, my knowledge is simply a noncritical collection of literature.)

 

With quark confinement, it would be difficult to see any deeper. But I won't say "never." As soon as we say never, somebody'll find a way.

 

That depends solely on how you define the system.

 

How is that possible if the lines stay parallel to each other infinitely as well?

 

Its all a hoax.

 

Yeah, if you accept that the universe is flat, parallel lines should stay parallel forever. This is what I brought up before...I think they did prove this conclusively in the last few years, but I dont know the details.

 

"Recent measurements (c. 2001) by a number of ground-based and balloon-based experiments, including MAT/TOCO, Boomerang, Maxima, and DASI, have shown that the brightest spots are about 1 degree across. Thus the universe was known to be flat to within about 15% accuracy prior to the WMAP results. WMAP has confirmed this result with very high accuracy and precision. We now know that the universe is flat with only a 2% margin of error."

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

This does not prove that the universe is unbounded, but it does imply that if the universe is bounded then the portion we can see of it is a VERY small part indeed.

 

Non-Euclidean projective geometries ... . For the purposes of measurements, space IS considered a non-Euclidean non-Orientable object. But even if it was Euclidean, an infinitely stretched Euclidean triangle would present 2 of its sides as parallels, intersecting as per the a-priori knowledge of the intersection.

Since the measurement accuracy is ultimately bounded by the wavelength of our probes, there is no physical telling whether the intersection at infinity exists or not. HOWEVER all observations behave as if it did, as they all must under the Heisenberg uncertainty.

 

If both sides stay parallel forever how can they intersect?

 

Likewise, assuming Euclidean axioms, you cannot stretch a triangle to infinity without violating them.