Problems with an Infinite Universe

Yes and yes. Why don't you begin with your definition of space?This message has been edited by buzsaw, 06-23-2004 09:58 PM

---

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

Let's start with a definition of space being everything that we can sense including both matter and energy.Can we use that as a start?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

One reason I don't really like these discussions is that they get over the heads of almost all of us pretty quickly (eta being a probably exception).My guess (and I want to emphasize GUESS) is that space proves to be the tensors in Einstein's GR equations. ( I did try to read an advanced text on GR once but got lost less than a quarter of the way through). I think your definition of it being "everything" is too broad and not useful.Space-time is the backdrop upon which energy-matter does it's thing. I can't even hope to do much better than that.It may prove to be the 4D part of the full 11 dimensions that the "real" universe operates in but it's so wild, so speculative and so laden with difficult math that I think we have to leave it untill we have someone who can explain it available.Once again, at the edges, "I don't know" is a necessary answer sometimes. What I, personally, don't know is if anyone knows the answers in this area. Or if they do would we understand the answer anyway .This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-23-2004 10:11 PM

I agree that so far much of the answer is "I don't know". That is why I asked if that would do as a starting point?That is whay I asked if expansion had to be into something?That's why I asked if expansion had to displace something?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

I'm pretty sure it doesn't have to displace anything.I'm not sure if it has to expand into anything. If it does that anything certainly isn't "in" our universe and it's 4 dimensions.

Space-time is the medium in which massive objects exist in our universe. That probably isn't a satisfactory description, but keep in mind that no definition will be as what I posted is all we really know.Space does not have to expand into anything or displace anything. Objects in space that expand in a vacuum do not even have to displace anything, although they do expand into space. But keep in mind that you cannot conclude that a thing has all the characteristics of its constituents. Just because things within the universe have to expand into something does not mean that the universe itself has to expand into something. Metonymy works in poetry, not logic.

---

You're like an Okizaki fragment - you're lagging.

You need to read Flatland by... what the hell is his name?Anyway, it gives a very enlightening explanation of why 3 dimensional beings like us have such a hard time understanding what the other dimensions beyond time look like.When you ask the question "what did it expand into and what did it displace?" it shows me that you are still thinking 3 dimensional. You want to to be able to visualize space expanding and displacing other 3 dimensional-like "stuff". You want to be able to visualize what the 5th, 6th, 7th, and so on dimensions look like. The truth is not a single person on this planet can imagine what those dimensions look like. Mathematical calculations and years of research have shown that there are at least 10 dimensions in our universe, yet we can only perceive 4 (depth, width, height, and time).So, right now I don't believe anyone has an answer for you. I have heard of some rather wild theories out there though.By the way, if you can demonstrate what the other dimensions look like, you will probably win a nobel prize. If that happen, don't forget to mention my name, the one that gave you the idea.

---

The Laminator

​

This is hardly at the state of "shown". It is a very promising lead into advances in our understanding. But we aren't there yet.

Should it?Correct me if I'm wrong but in quantum mechanics particles appear and disappear in space all the time without a cause. There isn't some set exact time for individual atoms to decay, or a cause that sets it off. So perhaps the absence of causality really isn't "unnatural". Mabye it only seems that way due to our perspective of a life full of causes and effects.Does anyone have further info on this?

We don't know for sure how or why these atoms pop into existance though, at least I don't think we have an answer so far. So, you can't really say yet with assurance that there is no cause for it.This message has been edited by Mission for Truth, 06-24-2004 11:03 AMThis message has been edited by Mission for Truth, 06-24-2004 11:05 AM

I think Einstein would have agreed with you. However, he turned out to be wrong on a number of issues in QM.This message has been edited by NosyNed, 06-24-2004 11:24 AM

True. I probably chose the wrong word to describe it. After all, we are talking about something that is so beasty and theoretical that only a hand full of people claim to have an idea of what's going on.

---

The Laminator

​

in case anyone wants to read. Flatland

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Can you ever really find out "with assurance" though? If something truly has no cause then you'll never find a cause, but always wonder if there is a cause.Kinda sucks, eh?So far no one has even come close. Here is a very interesting interview between talk radio host "Infidel Guy" and the astrophysicist Dr. Michio Kaku. In it he talks about QM, M-theory/string theory and some other stuff. Really is fun to listen to.

Haha, thanks Ned, build me up by comparing me to Einstein then break me down! Haha. Sorry, but when I read that I actually did laugh out loud.