Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 64 (9164 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,840 Year: 4,097/9,624 Month: 968/974 Week: 295/286 Day: 16/40 Hour: 0/1


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do We Live in an Infinite Universe?
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 2 of 60 (334514)
07-23-2006 12:54 PM
Reply to: Message 1 by GDR
07-23-2006 11:56 AM


2cents
What does infinity actually mean in this context?
Is it just a mathematical solution to the question ...
um ... yes. sort of. mostly maybe ... ish ....
Consider a straight line and a circle. Both are mathematical concepts, and the mathematical concepts involve non-dimensional points anywhere along either -- each has an infinite number of points, but one is "bounded" and the other isn't (you can't even conceive where a "line" ends).
But in reality there are no circles or lines that have infinite points -- you can only go so far as the {discrete} subatomic particles -- nor are there any real "straight" lines.
Our concept of "infinite" is inevitably intertwined with our concept of math. Sometimes it is difficult to separate the concept from the math ...
Certainly our concept of cosmology (big bang to big crunch) is a mathematical concept that may or may not represent reality (whatever model you choose, it ends up with a {known universe} being a fraction of the {theoretical universe} ... a small fraction).
The universe is normally considered "infinite but bounded" - so it is conceptually closer to a circle than a line. An expanding circle if you will.
Of course by the mathematical concept the surface of the earth is an infinite surface (has infinite non-dimensional points on it), the "surface" of the sun could be considered an expanding and contracting envelope with an infinite number of non-dimensional points on it, but we have no trouble with considering their boundaries, nor to consider that the total number of sub-atomic particles that make up either (or the whole body in question), while being astronomical in number, are not infinite.
The mathematical concepts fail to depict the reality. They can assist our thinking and obstruct it.
If we live in an infinite universe would it be reasonable to think that what existed at T=0 was infinite energy?
Not necessarily - it could be zero {energy\matter}, and that everything we see is a temporary differentiation of {original null state} into {+/-energy and +/-matter ... (including gravity as -energy IIRC) where sum=0}
Or sum = ~0 ... and the original {cause} involved {part} of {something} and we cannot {see\touch\feel\smell\hear\conceive} the rest.
my 2cents worth.
It will be interesting to see Cavediver, Son Goku, et al with their responses.
Enjoy.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 1 by GDR, posted 07-23-2006 11:56 AM GDR has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 5 of 60 (334520)
07-23-2006 1:22 PM
Reply to: Message 4 by cavediver
07-23-2006 1:11 PM


I would go with EVERYTHING, ...
A comedian (Bill Cosby?) once defined infinite as
"Everything ... plus a whole lot more ... "

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 4 by cavediver, posted 07-23-2006 1:11 PM cavediver has not replied

  
RAZD
Member (Idle past 1432 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 22 of 60 (335313)
07-25-2006 8:49 PM
Reply to: Message 21 by GDR
07-24-2006 10:28 PM


I read this and would like your opinion. It is short.
Page not found | American Institute of Physics
5% what we know
25% {matter} we know nothing of
70% {energy} ...
But the equations balance ...
An interesting side is what Einstein thought about "ether"
404 | TYPO3 Doku TUHH
He concludes:
Recapitulating, we may say that according to the general theory of relativity space is endowed with physical qualities; in this sense, therefore, there exists an ether. According to the general theory of relativity space without ether is unthinkable; for in such space there not only wonld be no propagation of light, but also no possibility of existence for standards of space and time (measuring-rods and clocks), nor therefore any space-time intervals in the physical sense. But this ether may not be thought of as endowed with the quality characteristic of ponderable inedia, as consisting of parts which may be tracked through time. The idea of motion may not be applied to it.
He has also IIRC said that we cannot disprove that an ether exists.

Join the effort to unravel {AIDSHIV} with Team EvC! (click)

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
RebelAAmericanOZen[Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 21 by GDR, posted 07-24-2006 10:28 PM GDR has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 07-26-2006 4:30 AM RAZD has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024