This is a question I spend alot of time pondering, I have posted it on many boards, so let's see what comes up here. I think this question will be the question the eventually destroys religion in general or makes it stronger over time...
The question is: Do you believe the universe is Finite or Infinate?
For those of you who haven't followed this debate, many scholars lately have brought up the idea that the universe may truly be infinate. Let me briefly describe both sides before I put up my ideas.
Finite: This means that the universe has a SET size, and that either
A) Some higher power created it, or
B) It was a random phenomonon(sp?).
I tend not to believe in a higher power of any kind, as I study universal physics deeply, and it seems to come apart from religion more and more over time. I don't dislike religion, I think it is amazing, but not taken literally. I think that all religions are the same, just a story to get accross the point that all we want is self-happiness, however we should go about achieving that.
As for the Infinate universe, and this is harder to explain:
It basically means that the universe was NOT created, and therefor there are NO origins...it has always been there and always will be there. Most people who support this theory state that if we lived in a infinate universe, EVERYTHING is possible, and EVERYTHING happens, somewhere, sometime, and somehow. It can be as small as just in a diffrent world, 1 milisecond a dust particle moves half a centimeter left instead of right, and it changed the world forever(butterfly effect, though this is just my understanding).
The main downside to this is that, if everything is possible, then the law of physics are not true, unless you follow string theory, which believes time can bend, and therefor physics as we know them could be right, though i doubt complete.
My main question is: If the universe is finite OR infinate, what is the point of life? IMO, in a finite universe, some kind of higher power is MUCH more probable, and therefor life can be understood to an extent. In an Infinate universe, we would be so minute, it almost seems as if there is no point, and this can lead down a very pessimistic road...which isn't good for your health
I say that the universe is infinite but the things inside of it are finite. The empty space counts as the universe, too.
Also, I believe the creation was probably a random phenomenon that also happened many more times in many more places before and after us.
Our universe is finite and expanding. Our plane is infinite in size. I am really not that knogledgeable about wierdo string theory and other advanced phsics that are about the size and way things that are beyond human comprehension work.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"But then are we most in order when we are most out of order."-Jack Cade
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Our universe is finite and expanding. Our plane is infinite in size.
Well then, that leads to the definition of universe. Do you believe that the universe is ALL encompasing, AKA it is everything, everywhere? If so, Do you believe in a "blank space" outside of our universe, and if so how can that be classified? It has to be something, or else our laws of physics are VERY wrong. If there can be something that literally is nothing, and therefor not a part of our universe, can anything else exist that is nothing(yes, i realise the irony of asking if something that is nothing exists ><)? I mean, I could see how multiple dimensions could exist, without taking up matter, if anything adding to them, but that would completley contradict all that physics teaches. Basically, what we call dimensions could also be called "antimatter", in other words when the universe was formed, if everything had an opposite as we believe, then matter would not be excused. This antimatter, if it does exist, could make our universe infinate, just by existing. So I guess the point is, do you believe everything has to have an opposite? If so, this could be a serious + to religious scholars, as it could prove the existance of good/evil in all things.
Thoughts?
Squirels, for someone who studies 'Universal Physics' (a pretty odd subject... I assume you mean the physics of the universe which is.. Physics, or maybe Astrophysics) you ignored the most widely accepted theory since Hawking published his Black Holes and Baby Universes papers.
Black Holes (at their event horizon) contain a point of theoretical infinite gravity. Infinite gravity will distort time infinitely (and send matter/energy back through time, theoretically), and will squash matter infinitely, into a point.
The basic theory goes that matter sucked into black holes in our time is quashed to the infinitely small point that everyone assumes existed the moment before the big bang, sends it back through time and BANG. When it escapes the gravity of that black hole it is now infinitely compressed matter with no gravity holding it (and you get the antithesis of what brings about a black hole, a gravity field remaining when the matter burns away. In this case the matter is released without the gravity that compressed it, so it expands rapidly, following the various modern Big Bang theories).
Time is only linear because that is how our minds can possibly percieve it. We have the same problem with this theory of cyclical time for the same reasons we cannot truly envision the infinite. Our minds physically CANNOT embrace such an idea, but cyclical time through a Black Hole allowing the Big Bang to repeat itself over and over, each particle (be it space dust, a Big Mac, whatever) is infinitely compressed into that 0D point where it loses it's various 3D characteristics, then is released into a plane that should be 3D but has no matter in it. And of course, 3D begats 4D, so the moment the matter is released time begins and we start the merry-go-round again.
Squirels, for someone who studies 'Universal Physics' (a pretty odd subject... I assume you mean the physics of the universe which is.. Physics, or maybe Astrophysics) you ignored the most widely accepted theory since Hawking published his Black Holes and Baby Universes papers.
Black Holes (at their event horizon) contain a point of theoretical infinite gravity. Infinite gravity will distort time infinitely (and send matter/energy back through time, theoretically), and will squash matter infinitely, into a point.
The basic theory goes that matter sucked into black holes in our time is quashed to the infinitely small point that everyone assumes existed the moment before the big bang, sends it back through time and BANG. When it escapes the gravity of that black hole it is now infinitely compressed matter with no gravity holding it (and you get the antithesis of what brings about a black hole, a gravity field remaining when the matter burns away. In this case the matter is released without the gravity that compressed it, so it expands rapidly, following the various modern Big Bang theories).
Time is only linear because that is how our minds can possibly percieve it. We have the same problem with this theory of cyclical time for the same reasons we cannot truly envision the infinite. Our minds physically CANNOT embrace such an idea, but cyclical time through a Black Hole allowing the Big Bang to repeat itself over and over, each particle (be it space dust, a Big Mac, whatever) is infinitely compressed into that 0D point where it loses it's various 3D characteristics, then is released into a plane that should be 3D but has no matter in it. And of course, 3D begats 4D, so the moment the matter is released time begins and we start the merry-go-round again.
There's a couple points about black holes that I think you have mixed up.
The point of infinite gravity of a black hole would be at the singularity, not the event horizon (at the event horizon, gravity is finite, but strong enough to prevent light from escaping).
The matter in a black hole has not "burned away." It's known as a black hole not because it's empty, but because it can emit no light. The matter is still there, in the center, highly dense, but not (generally) condensed to a point and certainly still matter.
The only "naked" singularity, in which the laws of physics (and time) are observably irrelevant are allowed by Hawking's Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis is the Big Bang.
You preface it with an "of course," but I have absolutely no idea what "3D begats 4D" is supposed to mean...
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Quote from morgan_coke »
not to be overly picky, but do you mean "weird" to be "wierd"? I'm just trying to figure out if thats a type or if they're just being wierd by making a creature type thats really wierd because its a misspelled wierd.
The point of infinite gravity of a black hole would be at the singularity, not the event horizon (at the event horizon, gravity is finite, but strong enough to prevent light from escaping).
*groan* That's embarressing. Thank you, it's too late to be talking physics..
The matter in a black hole has not "burned away." It's known as a black hole not because it's empty, but because it can emit no light. The matter is still there, in the center, highly dense, but not (generally) condensed to a point and certainly still matter.
I'm not saying, nor did I say, that matter is burned away. I said compressed, which is true, and that the infinite gravity within the singularity would theoretically bring about time travel. That's how I see it.
The only "naked" singularity, in which the laws of physics (and time) are observably irrelevant are allowed by Hawking's Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis is the Big Bang.
So Hawking's other theories on things such as time travel just don't apply, arbitrarily, here? Gravity warps time. Infinite gravity does so infinitely. From A Brief History of Time, 10th Anniversary Edition page 88
In order to understand what you would see if you were watching a star collapse to form a black hole, one has to remember that in the theory of relativity there is no absolute time. Each observer has his own measure of time. The time for someone on a star will be different from that for someone at a distance, because of the gravitational field of the star. Suppose an intrepid astronaut on the surface of the collapsing star, collapsing inward with it, send a signal every second, according to his watch, to his spaceship orbiting about the star. At some time on his watch, say 11:00, the star would shrink below the critical radius at which the gravitational field becomes so strong nothing can escape, and his signals would no longer reach the spaceship. As 11:00 approached, his companions watching from the sapceship would find the intervals between successive signals from the astronaut getting longer and longer, but thjis effect would be very small before 10:59:59. They would have to wait only very slightly more than a second between the astronaut's 10:59:58 signal and the one that he sent when his watch read 10:59:59, but they would have to wait forever for the 11:00 signal. The light waves emitted from the surface of the star between 10:59:59 and 11:00, by the astronaut's watch, would be spread out over an infinite period of time, as seen from the spaceship. The time interval between the arrival of successive waves at the spaceship would get loinger and longer, so the light from the star would appear redder and redder and fainter and fainter. Eventually the star would be so dim that it could no longer be seen from the spaceship: all that would be left would be a black hole in space. The star would, however, continue to exert the same gravitational force on the spaceship, which would continue to orbit the black hole.
He goes on to explain the obvious problems with this experiment.
You preface it with an "of course," but I have absolutely no idea what "3D begats 4D" is supposed to mean...
The 4th dimension cannot exist (or if it can, it cannot be measured in any way we know) without a 3rd dimension, and (at least in the Big Bang theory creation of our universe), the moment that 0-dimensional point expanded into 3 dimensionality we had time, a set of rules by which we measured the intervals of expansion. Something existed in three dimensional space, so time existed.
Just a quick point; an infinite universe does not necessarily contain all possible things. This is a common misconception.
A quick proof:
Over the set of real numbers, there are an infinite number of different numbers between the numbers 1 and 2.
It should be obvious, however, that none of those numbers is 3. An infinite set can *happily* not contain all objects, even those which are physically possible or even reasonable objects of that time.
Just a quick point; an infinite universe does not necessarily contain all possible things. This is a common misconception.
A quick proof:
Over the set of real numbers, there are an infinite number of different numbers between the numbers 1 and 2.
It should be obvious, however, that none of those numbers is 3. An infinite set can *happily* not contain all objects, even those which are physically possible or even reasonable objects of that time.
A question though Verbal, isn't that a limited infinite, however? Are you saying an infinite universe might actually be an 'infinite universe given _____'? Because the infinite numbers between 1 and 2 are just that, infinite but CONFINED by the parameters of 1 and 2.
The problem with asking questions like these is that as soon as a real issue or dilemma that affects us pops up, we stop caring about how big the universe theoretically is.
It's the flaw of scientific abstracts.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Originally Posted by Green Arrow Yes I did, I wouldn't fully disagree with chronoplasam. Perhaps I do deserve toture. But who amongst us besides myself has what it takes to toture me?
Originally Posted by Highroller
Compared to what? I think compared to chocolate ice cream, women, unicorns, and kung fu, the state pretty much sucks.
stax: that was rather my point. In his original post, s.o.firewas saying that if the universe is infinite, everything imaginable must exist somewhere. My point was that is not true. It isn't even true that evenrything possible must exist in an infinite sequence.
Heck, even everything possible within the bounds doesn't have to be there for the set to be infinite ( a perfectly rational infinite sequence is 'all the numbers between 1 and 2 except for 1.5')
I have a question for anyone who can answer it. Can planes(ala astrophysics, not as in MTG) collapse slowly, or do they istantly cease existing when they collapse. Since it is belived that gravity can somehow move between planes, does the collapse release energy or matter creating a domino effect of collapses from sudden infusion of energy and matter in infinite amounts? Or is the energy and matter annihilated totaly creating an infinite empty space that technically does not exist? I am very confused now...
I do not know why I even try to figure this stuff out, as I am only in the 9th grade.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
"But then are we most in order when we are most out of order."-Jack Cade
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Please don't double post. Next time is a warning. - sen
Quote from Stax »
Black Holes (at their event horizon) contain a point of theoretical infinite gravity. Infinite gravity will distort time infinitely (and send matter/energy back through time, theoretically), and will squash matter infinitely, into a point.
I'm not sure where you got that from, but a black hole won't make things travel in time. Time will distort, yes, but all that means is that from an outside observer's perspective, an object falling into a black hole will slow more and more down, and take an infinite amount of time to pass the event horizon. We currently have no theory that can even describe what is going on past the event horizon.
Quote from Stax »
The basic theory goes that matter sucked into black holes in our time is quashed to the infinitely small point that everyone assumes existed the moment before the big bang, sends it back through time and BANG. When it escapes the gravity of that black hole it is now infinitely compressed matter with no gravity holding it (and you get the antithesis of what brings about a black hole, a gravity field remaining when the matter burns away. In this case the matter is released without the gravity that compressed it, so it expands rapidly, following the various modern Big Bang theories).
The matter that gets sucked into a black hole doesn't go anywhere. It will stay there until the end of time (figuratively speaking), or until the black hole evaporates. If there was no matter inside the event horizon of a black hole, it would not have any gravity.
Quote from Squirels.on.fire »
Well then, that leads to the definition of universe. Do you believe that the universe is ALL encompasing, AKA it is everything, everywhere? If so, Do you believe in a "blank space" outside of our universe, and if so how can that be classified?
You can have a finite but unbounded universe. Perhaps you've heard of the old skin on a balloon metaphor? Also, there does not need to be anything "outside" the universe, even if it is finite.
Quote from Squirels.on.fire »
I mean, I could see how multiple dimensions could exist, without taking up matter, if anything adding to them, but that would completley contradict all that physics teaches.
I sure hope you could see how multiple dimensions could exist, as you can see three of them with your own two eyes. But I'm not sure what you mean by completely contradicting all that physics teaches.
Quote from Squirels.on.fire »
Basically, what we call dimensions could also be called "antimatter",
You seem to be using some *very* nonstandard terminology. In science, a dimension is just a characteristic of an object that you can measure. Here are some examples of dimensions: length, width, height, duration (i.e. time), mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge.
i really think the universe is infinite, however the universe as we know it consisting of physical matter is in a finite amount of space, expanding and pushing the infinite universe outward. hmm im really not sure if that came out right, some things are hard to put in words.
Well then, that leads to the definition of universe. Do you believe that the universe is ALL encompasing, AKA it is everything, everywhere? If so, Do you believe in a "blank space" outside of our universe, and if so how can that be classified? It has to be something, or else our laws of physics are VERY wrong.
I don't there's a necessary contradiction here. The laws of physics are remarkably flexible, especially in a field as [intuitively] baffling as cosmology. For instance, it is widely agreed that the universe itself expanded at speeds far faster than the speed of light moments after the Big Bang. I don't pretend to understand how that doesn't contradict well demonstrated principles such as the constant speed of light, but the evidence is there and it should give you a sense of how screwy our universe is. That's the nature of physics.
Quote from Stax »
'Universal Physics' (a pretty odd subject... I assume you mean the physics of the universe which is.. Physics, or maybe Astrophysics)
The question of whether the universe will continue to expand forever and increase in size or if it will eventually decrease its expansion and collapse in on itself (the "Big Crunch") remains an open question in cosmology, though I believe more recent evidence suggests that so-called "Dark Energy" (i.e. unknown reasons) are causing its expansion rade to increase.
I have no idea if the universe is truly infinite or not, and am perfectly willing to metaphysically accept whatever answers science finds.
Also, an interesting related point is that while it is possible to have relative sizes of infinities, there is not an infinite number of possible contents that can be, say, inside of a box or in the known universe. Quantum mechanics dictate that there are a finite number of possibility in a given space. I believe the estimate of the number of possible contents of the known universe (i.e. as far as we can see out 15 billion light years or somewhere around there) was something around the order of 101080 possibilities. That's astronomically huge, but finite.
hmm, i thought from the theory of reletivity that nothing could move faster than light, therefore, i dont quite understand how the limits of our physical universe could expand faster than light, if nothing can, or is it that no physical matter can exceed the speed of light, and if the limits of our universe are non-physical, they can expand faster. im not saying your wrong at all, cow, but id like to undersand with a deeper explanation if you dont mind.
also, you said something about dark energy causing the rate of expantion to rapidly increase, if this happens, wont something like a big freeze be the result whats your take on that?
hmm, i thought from the theory of reletivity that nothing could move faster than light, therefore, i dont quite understand how the limits of our physical universe could expand faster than light, if nothing can, or is it that no physical matter can exceed the speed of light, and if the limits of our universe are non-physical, they can expand faster. im not saying your wrong at all, cow, but id like to undersand with a deeper explanation if you dont mind.
Well, let's see if we can google something up, because it baffles me, too. Try reading on Wikipedia about the Big Bang:
"As the universe can be described by such coordinates, the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe; what is expanding is spacetime itself. It is this expansion that causes the physical distance between any two fixed points in our universe to increase."
This is the explanation I've heard before and it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Oh well, I'm taking astrophysics next semester so hopefully I'll get a bit of a better grasp about this stuff :).
Quote from cyb3 »
also, you said something about dark energy causing the rate of expantion to rapidly increase, if this happens, wont something like a big freeze be the result whats your take on that?
I think that's right... in the far future entropy takes over and the universe starts to gradually burn out. Every other galaxy flies away from us and the Milky Way is left all alone.
The question is worded in such a way to heavily favor an objectivist or material-only understanding of "existence." The truth is that the material universe is far larger than I could ever experience within my lifetime; how much bigger it is than that is strategically irrelevant.
The universe that is far more important is the universe of knowledge one maintains within one's consciousness. Compared to it, this debate is just so much hot air... kind of like asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
billking, even if this debate is "hot air" compared to the bigger picture, it is still a human question. we dont know the awnser and human curiosity dictates that we wonder about it, no matter how relevant to us it really is. this is a human question, and its worth debating.
What this here means is that right now it takes x time to go from point a to point b, however becuase the universe is expanding it will soon take x+1 time to go from point a to point b, then x+2, ect.
I have no problems with the universe expanding, my problem is with Black Holes. Will at somepoint their gravity will be such that they merge with other black holes and eat up everything until their gravity is at such magnitude that it reverses the expansion?
Or would the black holes not gain enough gravity to effect the expansion?
The universe can expand faster than light. As the above poster said, it is spacetime that is expanding. The light-speed limit applies only to matter/energy moving through spacetime, not spacetime itself.
Here's the thing about that, though: Even if the universe were to be finite, there are places we will never interact with. As the expansion of the universe is speeding up, information from the farthest places has an ever-increasing distance to travel to reach us. It's kinda like trying to walk up the down escalator. Sure, you're covering a lot of ground, but it's all getting replaced by "new" ground.
EDIT: Black holes are just too far apart for them to be able to merge together. It would likely take trillions of years for that to even possibly happen, but black holes don't last forever. They dissipate over trillions of years.
I have no problems with the universe expanding, my problem is with Black Holes. Will at somepoint their gravity will be such that they merge with other black holes and eat up everything until their gravity is at such magnitude that it reverses the expansion?
Or would the black holes not gain enough gravity to effect the expansion?
Black holes don't "gain gravity." There is a common misperception that black holes routinely "eat up" other stars and such. Generally, that doesn't happen. Hypothetically, if the Sun instantly changed overnight into a black hole, the only difference we would notice is that the sky is dark. The Earth would continue to orbit sun in the same way it always has.
Just having a strong gravitational force does not mean that they merge with other stuff. Much, much more common are normal orbits. For instance, at the center of this galaxy are some super-massive black holes. Everything in the Milky Way orbits around them.
Also, even if black holes did merge with others and become really really supermassive, they wouldn't create anymore mass than existed before. Accordingly, the force of gravity, as examined externally to the system, would be no stronger than before. For instance, to a reasonable approximation we could transform the entire Milky Way into one giant black hole and its movement through the universe would be the same as before. Merging black holes would not effect the overall expansion of the universe because since the same amount of mass already exists, the force of gravity as a whole would not change.
Private Mod Note
():
Rollback Post to RevisionRollBack
Fallen from grandeur.
To post a comment, please login or register a new account.
The question is: Do you believe the universe is Finite or Infinate?
For those of you who haven't followed this debate, many scholars lately have brought up the idea that the universe may truly be infinate. Let me briefly describe both sides before I put up my ideas.
Finite: This means that the universe has a SET size, and that either
A) Some higher power created it, or
B) It was a random phenomonon(sp?).
I tend not to believe in a higher power of any kind, as I study universal physics deeply, and it seems to come apart from religion more and more over time. I don't dislike religion, I think it is amazing, but not taken literally. I think that all religions are the same, just a story to get accross the point that all we want is self-happiness, however we should go about achieving that.
As for the Infinate universe, and this is harder to explain:
It basically means that the universe was NOT created, and therefor there are NO origins...it has always been there and always will be there. Most people who support this theory state that if we lived in a infinate universe, EVERYTHING is possible, and EVERYTHING happens, somewhere, sometime, and somehow. It can be as small as just in a diffrent world, 1 milisecond a dust particle moves half a centimeter left instead of right, and it changed the world forever(butterfly effect, though this is just my understanding).
The main downside to this is that, if everything is possible, then the law of physics are not true, unless you follow string theory, which believes time can bend, and therefor physics as we know them could be right, though i doubt complete.
My main question is: If the universe is finite OR infinate, what is the point of life? IMO, in a finite universe, some kind of higher power is MUCH more probable, and therefor life can be understood to an extent. In an Infinate universe, we would be so minute, it almost seems as if there is no point, and this can lead down a very pessimistic road...which isn't good for your health
Ideas on the matter are most welcome
Also, I believe the creation was probably a random phenomenon that also happened many more times in many more places before and after us.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
Well then, that leads to the definition of universe. Do you believe that the universe is ALL encompasing, AKA it is everything, everywhere? If so, Do you believe in a "blank space" outside of our universe, and if so how can that be classified? It has to be something, or else our laws of physics are VERY wrong. If there can be something that literally is nothing, and therefor not a part of our universe, can anything else exist that is nothing(yes, i realise the irony of asking if something that is nothing exists ><)? I mean, I could see how multiple dimensions could exist, without taking up matter, if anything adding to them, but that would completley contradict all that physics teaches. Basically, what we call dimensions could also be called "antimatter", in other words when the universe was formed, if everything had an opposite as we believe, then matter would not be excused. This antimatter, if it does exist, could make our universe infinate, just by existing. So I guess the point is, do you believe everything has to have an opposite? If so, this could be a serious + to religious scholars, as it could prove the existance of good/evil in all things.
Thoughts?
Black Holes (at their event horizon) contain a point of theoretical infinite gravity. Infinite gravity will distort time infinitely (and send matter/energy back through time, theoretically), and will squash matter infinitely, into a point.
The basic theory goes that matter sucked into black holes in our time is quashed to the infinitely small point that everyone assumes existed the moment before the big bang, sends it back through time and BANG. When it escapes the gravity of that black hole it is now infinitely compressed matter with no gravity holding it (and you get the antithesis of what brings about a black hole, a gravity field remaining when the matter burns away. In this case the matter is released without the gravity that compressed it, so it expands rapidly, following the various modern Big Bang theories).
Time is only linear because that is how our minds can possibly percieve it. We have the same problem with this theory of cyclical time for the same reasons we cannot truly envision the infinite. Our minds physically CANNOT embrace such an idea, but cyclical time through a Black Hole allowing the Big Bang to repeat itself over and over, each particle (be it space dust, a Big Mac, whatever) is infinitely compressed into that 0D point where it loses it's various 3D characteristics, then is released into a plane that should be 3D but has no matter in it. And of course, 3D begats 4D, so the moment the matter is released time begins and we start the merry-go-round again.
There's a couple points about black holes that I think you have mixed up.
The point of infinite gravity of a black hole would be at the singularity, not the event horizon (at the event horizon, gravity is finite, but strong enough to prevent light from escaping).
The matter in a black hole has not "burned away." It's known as a black hole not because it's empty, but because it can emit no light. The matter is still there, in the center, highly dense, but not (generally) condensed to a point and certainly still matter.
The only "naked" singularity, in which the laws of physics (and time) are observably irrelevant are allowed by Hawking's Cosmic Censorship Hypothesis is the Big Bang.
You preface it with an "of course," but I have absolutely no idea what "3D begats 4D" is supposed to mean...
*groan* That's embarressing. Thank you, it's too late to be talking physics..
I'm not saying, nor did I say, that matter is burned away. I said compressed, which is true, and that the infinite gravity within the singularity would theoretically bring about time travel. That's how I see it.
So Hawking's other theories on things such as time travel just don't apply, arbitrarily, here? Gravity warps time. Infinite gravity does so infinitely. From A Brief History of Time, 10th Anniversary Edition page 88
He goes on to explain the obvious problems with this experiment.
The 4th dimension cannot exist (or if it can, it cannot be measured in any way we know) without a 3rd dimension, and (at least in the Big Bang theory creation of our universe), the moment that 0-dimensional point expanded into 3 dimensionality we had time, a set of rules by which we measured the intervals of expansion. Something existed in three dimensional space, so time existed.
A quick proof:
Over the set of real numbers, there are an infinite number of different numbers between the numbers 1 and 2.
It should be obvious, however, that none of those numbers is 3. An infinite set can *happily* not contain all objects, even those which are physically possible or even reasonable objects of that time.
A question though Verbal, isn't that a limited infinite, however? Are you saying an infinite universe might actually be an 'infinite universe given _____'? Because the infinite numbers between 1 and 2 are just that, infinite but CONFINED by the parameters of 1 and 2.
It's the flaw of scientific abstracts.
now begins the thousand years of REIGN OF BLOOD!
Heck, even everything possible within the bounds doesn't have to be there for the set to be infinite ( a perfectly rational infinite sequence is 'all the numbers between 1 and 2 except for 1.5')
I do not know why I even try to figure this stuff out, as I am only in the 9th grade.
"That is not dead which can eternal lie, And with strange aeons even death may die."
- H.P. Lovecraft
I'm not sure where you got that from, but a black hole won't make things travel in time. Time will distort, yes, but all that means is that from an outside observer's perspective, an object falling into a black hole will slow more and more down, and take an infinite amount of time to pass the event horizon. We currently have no theory that can even describe what is going on past the event horizon.
The matter that gets sucked into a black hole doesn't go anywhere. It will stay there until the end of time (figuratively speaking), or until the black hole evaporates. If there was no matter inside the event horizon of a black hole, it would not have any gravity.
You can have a finite but unbounded universe. Perhaps you've heard of the old skin on a balloon metaphor? Also, there does not need to be anything "outside" the universe, even if it is finite.
I sure hope you could see how multiple dimensions could exist, as you can see three of them with your own two eyes. But I'm not sure what you mean by completely contradicting all that physics teaches.
You seem to be using some *very* nonstandard terminology. In science, a dimension is just a characteristic of an object that you can measure. Here are some examples of dimensions: length, width, height, duration (i.e. time), mass, energy, momentum, spin, charge.
I believe it is expanding and will never contract.
^--Nex3
___---___--'''''..,,//:¯----____--.>>>>>>>>>
¯ ____---_-\\../----___''--____///// ¯¯--__-¯---/\/\/--||--¯¯>>>>>
¯-(¯`'·.¸Cyb3rp4r4n0i4¸.·'´¯)--¯¯_¯--¯¯_---01001<<->>>
¯¯--¯\\\/¯ ¯¯-/..\\¯ ¯¯''---¯¯¯_--¯¯
Legacy:
U Solidarity
RW Burn Mk.3
W Mono White Life
To be precise, it's Cosmology :teach:.
The question of whether the universe will continue to expand forever and increase in size or if it will eventually decrease its expansion and collapse in on itself (the "Big Crunch") remains an open question in cosmology, though I believe more recent evidence suggests that so-called "Dark Energy" (i.e. unknown reasons) are causing its expansion rade to increase.
I have no idea if the universe is truly infinite or not, and am perfectly willing to metaphysically accept whatever answers science finds.
Also, an interesting related point is that while it is possible to have relative sizes of infinities, there is not an infinite number of possible contents that can be, say, inside of a box or in the known universe. Quantum mechanics dictate that there are a finite number of possibility in a given space. I believe the estimate of the number of possible contents of the known universe (i.e. as far as we can see out 15 billion light years or somewhere around there) was something around the order of 101080 possibilities. That's astronomically huge, but finite.
also, you said something about dark energy causing the rate of expantion to rapidly increase, if this happens, wont something like a big freeze be the result whats your take on that?
^--Nex3
___---___--'''''..,,//:¯----____--.>>>>>>>>>
¯ ____---_-\\../----___''--____///// ¯¯--__-¯---/\/\/--||--¯¯>>>>>
¯-(¯`'·.¸Cyb3rp4r4n0i4¸.·'´¯)--¯¯_¯--¯¯_---01001<<->>>
¯¯--¯\\\/¯ ¯¯-/..\\¯ ¯¯''---¯¯¯_--¯¯
Legacy:
U Solidarity
RW Burn Mk.3
W Mono White Life
"As the universe can be described by such coordinates, the Big Bang is not an explosion of matter moving outward to fill an empty universe; what is expanding is spacetime itself. It is this expansion that causes the physical distance between any two fixed points in our universe to increase."
This is the explanation I've heard before and it still doesn't make a whole lot of sense to me. Oh well, I'm taking astrophysics next semester so hopefully I'll get a bit of a better grasp about this stuff :).
I think that's right... in the far future entropy takes over and the universe starts to gradually burn out. Every other galaxy flies away from us and the Milky Way is left all alone.
The universe that is far more important is the universe of knowledge one maintains within one's consciousness. Compared to it, this debate is just so much hot air... kind of like asking how many angels can fit on the head of a pin.
Spock is not portrayed correctly. If Vulcans are above petty emotions, what motivates him to join the most elite starship crew in the galaxy? I, on the other hand, have transcended the weakness of emotion and achieved a blissful lack of caring. Apathy is my strength, our strength, which prevents us from being all-to-human. In this spirit, may Meh be with you, always.
Apart from that, I would like to point out that "universal questions" are questions that many people have, and not "questions about the universe".
These are the decks that I have constructed, and are ready to play:
01. Ankh Sligh to be exact.
^--Nex3
___---___--'''''..,,//:¯----____--.>>>>>>>>>
¯ ____---_-\\../----___''--____///// ¯¯--__-¯---/\/\/--||--¯¯>>>>>
¯-(¯`'·.¸Cyb3rp4r4n0i4¸.·'´¯)--¯¯_¯--¯¯_---01001<<->>>
¯¯--¯\\\/¯ ¯¯-/..\\¯ ¯¯''---¯¯¯_--¯¯
Legacy:
U Solidarity
RW Burn Mk.3
W Mono White Life
I have no problems with the universe expanding, my problem is with Black Holes. Will at somepoint their gravity will be such that they merge with other black holes and eat up everything until their gravity is at such magnitude that it reverses the expansion?
Or would the black holes not gain enough gravity to effect the expansion?
Boston Magic: The Gathering Examiner - Please read my articles!
Here's the thing about that, though: Even if the universe were to be finite, there are places we will never interact with. As the expansion of the universe is speeding up, information from the farthest places has an ever-increasing distance to travel to reach us. It's kinda like trying to walk up the down escalator. Sure, you're covering a lot of ground, but it's all getting replaced by "new" ground.
EDIT: Black holes are just too far apart for them to be able to merge together. It would likely take trillions of years for that to even possibly happen, but black holes don't last forever. They dissipate over trillions of years.
Like the banner? Click it to visit Topher's Shop.
Just having a strong gravitational force does not mean that they merge with other stuff. Much, much more common are normal orbits. For instance, at the center of this galaxy are some super-massive black holes. Everything in the Milky Way orbits around them.
Also, even if black holes did merge with others and become really really supermassive, they wouldn't create anymore mass than existed before. Accordingly, the force of gravity, as examined externally to the system, would be no stronger than before. For instance, to a reasonable approximation we could transform the entire Milky Way into one giant black hole and its movement through the universe would be the same as before. Merging black holes would not effect the overall expansion of the universe because since the same amount of mass already exists, the force of gravity as a whole would not change.