Universe - Size . . . something doesn't compute !

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 . . .

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.

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

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 ! !

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 !

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 ! ! !

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 . . .

Hey John !Thanks a lot for your reply - I am learning a great deal here !My main point at the beginning of this thread was to put forward my supremely uneducated view that the universe is infinite. A couple of your replies to my previous post seem to suggest that I was trying to put forward the opposite argument. Just to clarify, I do believe that the universe is everything, and both of my questions were asking for others to give me their thoughts on this. ;-) This point is very fair, although again, the shrapnel has to have somewhere to fly through. My suggestion was in response to the theory that the universe is expanding, and that somehow this was derived by observing that from the center of the "big bang" matter was/is travelling outward. I kind of don't get the relation here between time and the attempts of mankind to comprehend the infinite nature of the universe (or shall we call it space). Just because we aren't travelling anywhere in our pursuit of understanding the universe, again doesn't mean that it doesn't exist, or that it doesn't go on forever. We don't surely need to travel into infinity to grab the notion of it or to try and quantify it. Again, I feel that this argument is pointless.Man, I can see that I'll be doing my head in for another night thinking about this ;-)Thanks again John . . .

I will definitely be looking up some information on space-time. As I have said previously, I am an uneducated thinker, so a bit of a read-up on this wouldn't hurt I think ! In fact if anyone could suggest some good reading material on the subject I would greatly appreciate it ! This is difficult for me to put into words (my meaning) - I don't believe that space is "contained" at all, if fact quite the opposite is what I am trying to put across. That there is no boundary, or "container" - this was in response to the theory that space was curved. Again, I will need to read up on space-time in order to understand your reply fully with regard to the curvature.I have read in other threads that the universe started with a "singularity" or, for want of a better term, a "dot". Again, if indeed this was the case, surely this singularity (or the beginnings of the universe) would have had to reside within something? Otherwise it wouldn't have been a "dot" at all, it would have been an all-encompassing infinite mass. If the "singularity" theory is actually accurate, and this singularity went through a massive expansion creating the universe as we know it (or don't know it;-) this expansion would have had to have somewhere to expand into ??? infinite space perhaps ?Perhaps my understanding of the term "universe" would be better directed if I were to call it "space" or "nothing" . . .I don't know, perhaps I really am a nutcase, but I can't fathom the suggestion that space, or the universe actually has an end - or is finite in nature. If it has an end, I would really appreciate it if someone could explain to me what is on the outside of the boundary. This is the crux of my argument. Because I see no point in conjecture. We can't see the "end" or the "edge" of universe - or should I call it "space" . . . all we know from physical evidence is that space is unlimited - ie. no space probes or telescopes are able to see an end, so why would we speculate that there is one ?

Hey Crash,Yes, you're right, I am having a great deal of fun ! Finally I can get these thoughts down somewhere and out of my head. And it is great to bounce these ideas off people who obviously are a great deal more educated in these matters - I am learning ! I did a bit of research on Occam's Razor, and I came up with this translation of the original theory -"Of two competing theories or explanations, all other things being equal, the simpler one is to be preferred."So that to me would indicate that, as I find the theory of an infinite universe simpler to comprehend than the theories put forward in this discussion, I should simply accept my theory, and be a happy boy . . . ;-)Although I am grateful to hear the perspectives of others at the same time . . . what a predicament I find myself in ! ! ! See, this is where I have a real problem. Because I am of the opinion that the universe is infinite, it couldn't possibly have any shape to it, spherical or otherwise. A spherical universe would indicate to me that the universe was finite, or that it has a boundary. Hence a straight line wouldn't end up at it's starting point - hey, we're talking dead straight here !Perhaps again this is just my lack of knowledge in space-time theory. Note to self: find some material on space-time and read it !Again Crash, thanks for the feedback, I am enjoying it immensely, I just hope that you're not getting too frustrated trying to explain this to a layman I promise to do some research, and then I won't be annoying you with my un-educated ramblings

Thanks John, Forgive me if I am wrong, but this comment seems to be contradictory. You are saying that the dot is an all-encompassing infinite mass/energy, but at the same time you are saying that something that is infinite can be expanded ?? Now I am confused. I really like your analogy here of the brilliant white night sky ! Awesome ! Although, when we look at the night sky, that is one snapshot in time. Could it then be possible that over billions and billions of years with stars forming and dying out, if we were to take snapshots at regular intervals and super-impose them over one another then yeah, sure, that image could very well eventually be a blanket of white. Stars are obviously of varying distances from us. Could it be that we are presently unable to see "all" of them because of the distances involved ? Sure, if we were stuck inside a finite "spherical" universe, then the blanket of white could be true, but in a finite universe, the number of stars would also be finite, and we may not completely cover the sky . . . wow, that has opened up a complete other angle Thanks for your reply John . . . much appreciated

My brain hurts . . .

Now my brain hurts even more I think though that I am getting close to understanding your point of view. I know that I have some serious research to do in order to understand it completely, but I am starting to understand your argument . . .However, that still doesn't explain to me how the universe, or space can be finite . . . . I know that my theory is going against everything that is "known" to us, but hopefully with a better understanding of the physics etc that are currently taken as being true, I will be able to either change my point of view or strengthen it I'm going for a trip to the chemist for some painkillers, and the library for some books . . .Thanks dude

Hi NosyNed,Thanks for your reply, as many perspectives as possible is what I wanted to achieve, and that is certainly coming forward ! !I have noticed that in the forum, people tend to misunderstand points, and so I agree with you that a forum like this is probably not the best place to talk it out. For me however, it is a great starting point. As you may have read throughout this topic, I am not educated in any of this stuff, so yes, I may have some misconceptions. From my current viewpoint, it is very difficult to imagine any other theory. Obviously I'm not going to remain close-minded about it however - I'm totally open to learning ! This point you have misunderstood - I do not believe that the universe is expanding at all - rather, I believe it to be infinite, and therefore not able to expand. If space itself is expanding, what is it expanding into ? This is the theory which I find hard to agree with. How could it be possible that space expands say, between two galaxies, and yet at the same time the galaxies remain the same distance apart? If there is more space between galaxies, surely that means that they are further away from each other ?? This I do understand, of course if something is finite, by expanding it, it is never going to become infinite, just bigger . . . what I believe at this point in time is that the universe was never finite. It has always been infinite, therefore it can't actually get bigger - or smaller for that matter.I am perfectly open to the fact that I could be completely wrong on this, but to my way of thinking, there doens't seem to be an alternative. What would you consider to be useful? Calling the universe finite and then establishing theories and mathematical equations to try to measure it and prove it to be so? I would much rather subscribe to the previously mentioned Occam's Razor and pick the simplest, most obvious theory. No matter how much number crunching and heavy thinking is done, the nature of the universe doesn't change, whether it is finite and expanding, or infinite. Science can have all the fun it wants in pursuit of measuring something, but again, is it possible to measure or try to put boundaries on something that cannot have boundaries?I am going to do some serious reading on the theories which have been introduced to me here. I really appreciate your input, as it helps me to a) understand the views of the scientific community, and b) evaluate my own personal perspective.Thanks Ned

Bingo ! This is exactly how I envisage things to be, although I could understand why the scientific community would have serious problems with this theory. I was talking to a friend last night regarding this forum, and mentioned exactly this to him - strangely enough, when I explained to him my (uneducated ) theory, he could see how this could be possible. My "truly" infinite universe basically means that everything inside it (for want of a better description - in order to be an inside, there has to be an outside) is also infinite, including the number of stars, planets and galaxies, the life forms in the universe - everything . . . Yes. I agree, it probably is fruitless because there is no way that we will, in our lifetimes anyway, be able to prove it one way or the other. Again, I would stress that my position is that the statement "what's outside the universe" is void. Because I believe the universe to be infinite, it cannot have an outside Hey, thanks again Crash I might conclude my posts soon, as I'm sure I'm annoying some who are more educated than myself with my simplistic views ! Hehehehe ! We'll see how we go, although I'm having trouble keeping myself away from it