Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do We Live in an Infinite Universe?
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 24 of 60 (335405)
07-26-2006 8:52 AM
Reply to: Message 23 by cavediver
07-26-2006 4:30 AM


cavediver writes:
Yes, and this is why I always jump in if someone says that there is no ether, no space-time background. Einstein found the ether in the form of the metric of General Relativity, it is just of substantially different character to the usual concept of ether held at that time.
RAZD's introduction of ether into the discussion seems to arrive out of the blue, so this comment may be off-topic, but anyway, the Einstein quote notwithstanding, this "ether" is of such a dramatically different character that to call it ether seems misleading and confusing. It's like after asking someone, "Did you find that inexpensive apartment in the city close to commuter lines you were looking for?" they reply with the answer, "Sure did! Although actually it's not in the city, it's in the country. And it's not an apartment, it's a house. And it's not close to any commuter lines, we'll have to buy a car and drive. And it's not cheap, it's costing us a bundle. But yeah, we found what we were looking for."
As most would put it, there is a fabric to space/time, and it is of a wholly different character than the mythical ether that was at one time imagined to exist. Given the prominence of this ether in the history of physics, to put the ether label on the modern concept of space/time could only be confusing.
So if someone (me, for example) were to say that the Michelson/Morley experiments demonstrated there was no ether, I definitely am not saying there's no space/time.
Just a layperson registering my two cents for non-confusing terminology...
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 23 by cavediver, posted 07-26-2006 4:30 AM cavediver has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 28 of 60 (335654)
07-27-2006 7:14 AM
Reply to: Message 25 by nwr
07-26-2006 9:50 AM


nwr writes:
So if someone (me, for example) were to say that the Michelson/Morley experiments demonstrated there was no ether, I definitely am not saying there's no space/time.
The MM experiments did not demonstrate that there is no ether. At most they demonstrated that the ether drift is too small to measure.
Too long a digression into the subject of the once-hypothesized ether would probably be off-topic, so I'll just say that I think you're seeking more precision than is appropriate in a statement that I specifically crafted to be as a layperson would be expected to say it.
My point had nothing to do with the specifics of the ether and experiments directed at detecting it. My point was that I think it would be confusing to interpret comments about the ether as also being about the modern concept of space/time. It was intended as a response to this from Cavediver in Message 23, quoting more specifically this time:
cavediver writes:
Yes, and this is why I always jump in if someone says that there is no ether, no space-time background.
All I was saying is that if I were to say there is no ether, I definitely should not be interpreted as claiming there is no space/time background. I think ether should keep its historical definition as distinct from modern concepts of space/time, and that it would be confusing to do otherwise.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 25 by nwr, posted 07-26-2006 9:50 AM nwr has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 30 by nipok, posted 07-29-2006 6:17 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 32 of 60 (336876)
07-31-2006 9:56 AM
Reply to: Message 31 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-31-2006 9:43 AM


tice_baked_taters writes:
Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case.
There is no conclusive evidence either way for an infinite universe, but more cosmologists than not believe it is infinite.
The idea of the "fabric" of space/time has never worked for me.
Not a problem, unless you're trying to actually solve problems in cosmology or that are related to relativity.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 31 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-31-2006 9:43 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-31-2006 9:40 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 36 of 60 (337148)
08-01-2006 6:26 AM
Reply to: Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters
07-31-2006 9:40 PM


2ice_baked_taters writes:
There is no conclusive evidence either way for an infinite universe...
Yes, That is my point...Since all we will ever know is finite we can never prove an infinite universe. We can only guess or believe. It will never be scientifically provable.
Science can never prove anything. I think what you're trying to say is that we'll never find strong evidence for an infinite universe. Perhaps you're right.
But even if that's what you meant to say, I still think it's important to point out that I was responding to what you actually said:
2ice_baked_taters in Message 31 writes:
Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case.
I was only pointing out that science seems to have no problem accepting the possibility of an infinite universe.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 35 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 07-31-2006 9:40 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 39 of 60 (338369)
08-07-2006 11:50 AM
Reply to: Message 38 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-07-2006 11:33 AM


Re: infinite universe
2ice_baked_taters writes:
This snippet simply illustrates my point. We know so little and always will. If the nature of the universe is infinite it can never be proven and certainly not tested. It is permanently beyond our abilities.
Just as I did earlier in this thread, RebelSnake responded to what you said in Message 31, not what you later explained you meant. What you said in Message 31 was:
Science does not work well without limits. Science would never accept an infinite universe even if it is the case.
Of course, this isn't at all true. Science has no problem accepting the possibility of an infinite universe.
You then went on to explain that what you actually meant was that science can never prove an infinite universe. Let me explain at greater length this time why using the word "prove" is not the correct way to express your thoughts.
Because of its tentative nature, nothing is ever really proven in science. When scientists say they can prove something or have proven something, what they really mean is that they can gather or present strong supporting evidence.
So when you say that science will never prove an infinite universe, what you really mean is that science will never gather sufficient supporting evidence. And perhaps you're right. But your rationale, that there is no way to completely test something infinite, is incorrect. That's because science is inductive and never requires complete testing. Science believes that all water molecules made up of the same isotopes of hydrogen and oxygen have the same properties, but arriving at this conclusion does not require testing every molecule in the universe.
In the same way, evidence for an infinite universe, if it is indeed infinite, can be gathered from the portion of the universe we can observe. There may, for example, be properties unique to an infinite universe that could be apparent and measurable locally.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 38 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-07-2006 11:33 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 40 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-08-2006 1:13 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 43 of 60 (338477)
08-08-2006 7:36 AM
Reply to: Message 40 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-08-2006 1:13 AM


Re: infinite universe
2ice_baked_taters writes:
Yes. So based upon a limited knowledge one can form an assumption that can never be proven.
I agree with Sidelined's response, so I'll focus on your use of the words "assumption" and "proven". An assumption is something that is assumed without evidence, so a tentative model supported by evidence cannot be labeled an assumption. Depending upon the detail and quality of the evidence, you can call it an hypothesis or a theory or a tentative proposal, but you can't call it an assumption.
If you are using the word "proven" in the same sense as a mathematical proof, then you are using the word incorrectly. Nothing is ever proven in science. All that can be done is to provide supporting evidence of interpretive models.
But if you are using "proven" in the sense of "possessing strong supporting evidence," then you have no way of knowing whether we'll ever gather strong supporting evidence for an infinite universe. Perhaps you're right, perhaps you're wrong. You don't know what evidence we'll find in the future.
The problem you're running into is that you're trying to predict the limits of our knowledge. Such efforts have an extremely poor track record.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Cavediver => Sidelined

This message is a reply to:
 Message 40 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-08-2006 1:13 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-10-2006 2:08 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 45 of 60 (338914)
08-10-2006 10:10 AM
Reply to: Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-10-2006 2:08 AM


Re: infinite universe
2ice_baked_taters writes:
Evidence that we will not is stronger that evidence that we will.
You have evidence that allows you to predict how much evidence we'll find in the future? I don't think so.
As I said before, the history of predicting the limits of human knowledge has a very poor track record. No one a hundred years ago could have predicted that one day we would be able to gather evidence showing we live in an expanding and accelerating universe. In the same way, no one today can predict the extent of our cosmological knowledge a hundred years from now.
We will never detect all there is...One can never know infinity. It is an idea.
As explained earlier, science is inductive and does not require that we "detect all there is". There may be properties unique to an infinite universe that can be detected locally and then generalized. Just as science assumes from the measurements we've made locally on the common isotope of hydrogen that it has the same properties throughout the universe as it does here, science will conclude that the measurements we make of the observable universe extend to those parts of the universe beyond our reach. Just as science does not require that we observe all hydrogen atoms to verify their properties, neither does it require that we observe the entire universe to understand its properties.
My evidence is quite strong and is a far more likely scenario than banking on humanity's ego. Legends in our own mind. lol
You have no evidence, just an opinion which you've supported through invalidated arguments involving, among other things, proofs (which science doesn't do) and assumptions (which theories based upon evidence are not).
And ego isn't an issue. The history of science is one of progress, and there seems to be no evidence that that progress is at an end. The assumption that we'll know more tomorrow than today is just a reflection of the scientific experience from the past few hundred years, not an expression of arrogance.
In that vein, there's a recent book that might interest you, The End of Science by John Horgan, in which he argues that we *are* reaching the limits of knowledge. As I've already said, such predictions have a very poor track record, and Horgan is just the latest of the breed. Over a hundred years ago many scientists believed the same thing. The famous physicist Michelson expressed a common sentiment of the day in a speech in 1894 when he said, in effect, that science had already discovered all the significant knowledge and that future physicists would be spending their time just extending the number of decimal places of accuracy. Sure, there were a few problems, like black body radiation for one, but those would likely all be tidied up within a few years.
In 1894 they could have no idea that they actually sat on the doorstep of a scientific revolution whose seeds were already planted and that would explode onto the scene in 1905 with Einstein's famous papers. In other words, while history cannot be relied upon to always repeat itself, the evidence of history is that Horgan, and you, are likely wrong.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 44 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-10-2006 2:08 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 46 by cavediver, posted 08-10-2006 11:45 AM Percy has not replied
 Message 47 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-17-2006 6:30 PM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 49 of 60 (341021)
08-18-2006 8:42 AM
Reply to: Message 47 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-17-2006 6:30 PM


Re: infinite universe
Ah, I see. People like Horgan are saying we won't learn much more because there's not much more to learn. You're saying we will not learn much more because of our inherent limitations.
I'll have to disagree again, and it's because of specialization. As we delve ever deeper into the mysteries of the universe we might have to divide this knowledge into more and more specialties and sub-specialities and sub-sub-specialties, and among more and more specialists, but I don't believe we'll ever reach an inherent human limit where we're simply unable to analyze and model it any further.
But that's all beside the point. Your original comment was that "We will never detect all there is...One can never know infinity. It is an idea," and the reply was that science is inductive and does not require that we "detect all there is." There may be properties unique to an infinite universe that can be detected locally and then generalized. Just as science assumes from the measurements we've made locally on the common isotope of hydrogen that it has the same properties throughout the universe as it does here, science will conclude that the measurements we make of the observable universe extend to those parts of the universe beyond our reach. Just as science does not require that we observe all hydrogen atoms to verify their properties, neither does it require that we observe the entire universe to understand its properties.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-17-2006 6:30 PM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 50 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-18-2006 9:57 AM Percy has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 51 of 60 (341045)
08-18-2006 10:32 AM
Reply to: Message 50 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-18-2006 9:57 AM


Re: infinite universe
2ice_baked_taters writes:
You have ignored my very clear point. The human species will likely cease to exist long before we learn a tiny fraction of what there is to learn. There will be no one to specialize.
While I didn't address it in my reply, I wouldn't say I ignored it. I definitely read it and thought about it. I decided that since no one has any way of knowing the lifetime of our species, discussions about it seem pointless. Maybe you're right, maybe you're wrong, who could ever know?
So, working on the assumption that our species continues to survive for a good long time, I was addressing your other point about gathering evidence for an infinite universe.
This will be a problem. One has to find a physical property that
indicates infinity.
Many current theories in quantum physics and cosmology have infinities dropping out all over the place. They actually have the opposite problem of too many infinities.
Then it will have to be tested and of course can never be proven. As I said before...the best that can ever be achived with this question is an "edjucated" guess.
I'm left wondering what part of "science is inductive and does not require that we 'detect all there is'" didn't you understand?
I am saying we will cease to exist as a species long before this.
I think you're now oscillating between two different reasons for doubting we'll ever gather evidence of an infinite universe. This one about the impending extinction of our species can't really be discussed in any informed way.
The problem you're having is that you're trying to place limits on what we can know. If your reason for those limits is just that we'll go extinct as a species before we've had time to surpass those limits, then this really doesn't seem worth discussing. But if you believe that there are properties inherent in our comprehension abilities or in the nature of the universe that prevent us from ever developing evidence for an infinite universe, then as I've said before, the history of such predictions is fairly sorry.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 50 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-18-2006 9:57 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 52 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-18-2006 3:36 PM Percy has replied
 Message 60 by nipok, posted 08-31-2006 3:33 AM Percy has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 53 of 60 (341143)
08-18-2006 4:25 PM
Reply to: Message 52 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-18-2006 3:36 PM


Re: infinite universe
2ice_baked_taters writes:
When has there ever been such a prediction as I have made? There is no prediction in history of that nature that I am aware of and if there has been it still holds true.
You mean the specific prediction you made about ever finding evidence for whether or not the universe is infinite? I have no idea if anyone else has ever made that specific prediction.
Or do you mean predictions of the general type as you have made that places limits on what we can know? In this case, the answer is legion. It's a whole field of philosophy. Type "limits of knowledge" or "epistemology" into Google.
You may continue to believe in the pipe dream if you wish.
You mean believing in an infinite universe? I don't believe one way or the other about an infinite universe - there's insufficient evidence at this time.
Or do you mean believing it is possible that one day we'll uncover strong evidence one way or the other for an infinite universe? This isn't a dream, just an attitude reflecting the history of consistently improving scientific knowledge.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 52 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-18-2006 3:36 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 55 by nipok, posted 08-23-2006 4:34 AM Percy 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