Is the universe "finite" or "infinite"

If you do not understand physics, yes, it is ridiculous.

 

Thought this thread could use a bump. Anyone still believe the universe is finite?

 

I think as far as we can comprehend, the Universe always was and always will be.

 

i agree

 

It depends on what you define as "the universe".

 

My understanding is that over the vast distances the universe could actually fold in on itself. Much like Pac Man.

 

i define the universe as "reality" in general. If I travel in x direction at y speed, will i hit a wall? will I end up back at x somehow magicly (meaning the universe is finite). If the known finite "universe" can poof into existance at point x, on that fateful day 14 billion years ago, why can't a finite "universe poof into existance at point y. If nothingness is infinite and can spawn finite "universes" magicly, then the universe as a whole must be infinite, consisting of an infinite amout of finite "universes"

 

Then u believe the universe is finite. There is only x amount of matter that poofed into existance and thats it. When you reach the boarder, you magicly apear on the other side, like pac man

 

Yes, essentially that is how it was explained in Fabric of the Cosmos.

 

So if infinite nothingness can spawn a finite universe magicly at point x. Why can't that same infinite nothing be spawning finite universes all the time at all different points? Is this point special somehow?

 

Hmmmmm..... no. I have not read any work that would suggest that our local in space is special in anyway, everything I have read points very much in the opposite direction.

 

In that context, yes, it is infinite. Whatever we can see exists within something else.

Whether you did or not would not matter. Space can be curved. If the structure of "our" universe curves back on itself everywhere, it would have no walls but would still not be infinite. And it would still be contained within something else.

And it would be the same if it had walls as well.

That is pretty much the scientific consensus right now.

 

The only way I can define the Universe is that it just 'is' and what we comprehend about it is only what we can observe which might be the release of energy. That is, unless energy is released it will not become observable to us.

An example...look at a book in a bookshelf. It's energy is not evident to us. Take that same book and throw it through a window. The book's 'latent' energy (in the form of weight and mass) is then revealed.

 

You left out the speed factor. Depending on the book, its weight, and its mass, there is a likelihood that the book could impact the window and not penetrate the window. However, when enough speed is applied then it will penetrate the window.

Question: If weight and mass were the only factors, then how is it possible for light to penetrate a window and pass through that window without causing the window to shatter? According to the scientific community, there is far less mass and weight in a photon than there is in a book, yet some photons bounce off the window while holding the same weight and mass and speed as the photons which penetrated the window.

 

True but, in any case, the book will most certainly cause a percussive reaction which is the 'signature' of a release of energy by that book which will be detected by a nearby observer. In that way, the book reveals a facet its latent (previously unobservable) energy.

My book example was meant to show that until an energy is released, we cannot observe it. The book has kinetic energy potential however, sitting on a bookshelf it does not exhibit that form of it's potential energy. We may know that it does have potential kinetic energy however, that is only because we can conduct experiments. (Like attempting to throw it through a window).

Elements in the Universe that do not reveal their potential energy in a form readily observable to us are therefore completely unknown.

That is an excellent point and there is hypotheses that light is at once a particle and a wave. A laser experiment I read about where a laser was split into 2 beams, and each beam reduced to photons then each passed through a separate 'mask' with a slit in it revealed a projection of 3 slits on a screen in back of the two slit 'masks'. When light detectors were placed next to each beam BEFORE entering each slit, the screen then showed what one would expect...2 slits projected.

This seems to suggest that observation alone can change the way light reacts. My hypothesis is that BEFORE the detectors are placed the beams are depicting a wave-form (Possibly interacting with each other before the projection screen) but, when observed (detectors placed) the beams then depict a particle form.

The possibilities are many....Could it be that by experimenting and testing we are actually affecting change? OR...Could it be that 'reality' is actually what we CAN'T observe?

 

it was thought that our universe was expanding from the time of the big bang and gravity would pull it all back again to repeat another big bang...but for that to happen the galaxies need to be slowing down in their rush from the center, observations/measurements show the opposite, the galaxies in our universe are speeding up rushing away from each other and that means as they burn out our galaxy willeventually become cold dark and lifeless...none of that makes any sense ultimately unless we consider a new hypothesis, the Multi-verse...an infinite number of universes continually appearing and dying, on a scale so vast we will never see/know of another universe, only through mathematics will their existence be verified ...

 

I don't really have a preference. It's all purely guess work right now.

If it's truly infinite then great. If it's finite and there's some kind of "walls of nothingness" then great. Whatever. I won't live to see that discovery (if ANY humans will). Wish I did...

The hardcore theoretical sciences and astronomy really depress me because I love them so much but I won't live long enough to see real answers.

 

that depends on how old you are, time estimates I've heard for figuring all this out is 30yrs...I might be around for that...

 

Even mathematics cannot verify that which cannot be physically measured. Subsequently, mathematics only expresses the imagination. Nothing more, when that which is being considered cannot be physically measured.

 

of course it can...2+x+4=8... you don't need to measure x to know it's there, the other factors and solution confirm it...to confirm a multiverse the equation needs to be found that when the known factors are plugged in it equals multiverse...

 

So you are now saying that the universe =x and according to your mathematical calculation, the universe is a total of 8? Eight what? Then please explain why you are adding the universe (x) with an arbitrary 2 and then adding an arbitrary 4. What is the significance of the 2 and the 4 with regard to the universe (x)? What are the KNOWN FACTORS pertaining to the universe (x)? Who has physically measured the universe? How was that physical measurement made?