Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
4 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 Hour: 0/0


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Do We Live in an Infinite Universe?
cavediver
Member (Idle past 3643 days)
Posts: 4129
From: UK
Joined: 06-16-2005


Message 46 of 60 (338939)
08-10-2006 11:45 AM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
08-10-2006 10:10 AM


Re: infinite universe
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
So very true. Even Hawking (amongst others), back in 1980, thought that it was all sown up with N=8 Supergravity. The naivity is astounding in hindsight, but shows we can all get caught out...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 08-10-2006 10:10 AM Percy has not replied

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 47 of 60 (340891)
08-17-2006 6:30 PM
Reply to: Message 45 by Percy
08-10-2006 10:10 AM


Re: infinite universe
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.
This is precisely why I cited ego. I made no mention that man has reached a limit where all is understood and things are "sewn up"
This will never happen.
The advances in science are only impressive to us. That is the ego at work again.
I have place a practicly applied limit based on our likelyhood of survival as a species. Our capacity to understand is limited to our existance. This is inescapable fact one cannot avoid.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 45 by Percy, posted 08-10-2006 10:10 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 48 by ramoss, posted 08-17-2006 9:19 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 8:42 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
ramoss
Member (Idle past 612 days)
Posts: 3228
Joined: 08-11-2004


Message 48 of 60 (340931)
08-17-2006 9:19 PM
Reply to: Message 47 by 2ice_baked_taters
08-17-2006 6:30 PM


Re: infinite universe
People have been predicting we are getting to the 'end of science' for over 100 years.
Somehow, I don't take that claim quite seroiusly. Such statements are
1894 Albert A, Michelson on the dedication of the Ryerson Physics Lab, at the University of Chicago.
quote:
The more important fundamental laws and facts of physical science have all been discovered, and these are now so firmly established that the possibility of their ever being supplanted in consequence of new discoveries is exceedingly remote....Future discoveries must be looked for in the sixth place of decimals."
Simon Newcomb, 1888 on astronomy "We are probably nearing the limit of all we can know about astronomy."
1900 Lord Kelvin There is nothing new to be discovered in physics now. All that remains is more and more precise measurement."
Maybe someday we will get there, but I suspect that our civilization will end , by self destruction or natural disaster, long before we get to the point that we are at the 'end of science'. We might get to the end of what WE will learn, but not the end of what we potentiall could know.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 47 by 2ice_baked_taters, posted 08-17-2006 6:30 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 50 of 60 (341037)
08-18-2006 9:57 AM
Reply to: Message 49 by Percy
08-18-2006 8:42 AM


Re: infinite universe
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.
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.
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.
This will be a problem. One has to find a physical property that
indicates infinity. Good luck with that. 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 am saying we will cease to exist as a species long before this.
As I said the odds are in favor of my position. An edjucated guess with eventual extinction. I would not put my money on that.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 49 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 8:42 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 10:32 AM 2ice_baked_taters has replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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

  
2ice_baked_taters
Member (Idle past 5851 days)
Posts: 566
From: Boulder Junction WI.
Joined: 02-16-2006


Message 52 of 60 (341124)
08-18-2006 3:36 PM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
08-18-2006 10:32 AM


Re: infinite universe
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.
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 may continue to believe in the pipe dream if you wish.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 10:32 AM Percy has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 4:25 PM 2ice_baked_taters has not replied

  
Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


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

  
obvious Child
Member (Idle past 4116 days)
Posts: 661
Joined: 08-17-2006


Message 54 of 60 (341264)
08-19-2006 1:55 AM


wait a minute. That's not how the eternity circuit works. It is a infinite number of consecutive universes, not a infinite universe. Now the repeating events and actions part, I don't agree with.
Edited by obvious Child, : No reason given.

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 55 of 60 (342661)
08-23-2006 4:34 AM
Reply to: Message 53 by Percy
08-18-2006 4:25 PM


Re: infinite universe
There are a few ways we will eventually be able to prove the actual infinity of the universe. I can think of three off the top of my head but I sure there are others. Tinnitus is one way. Every person I know actually has it in one degree or another. Almost anyone can sit in a quiet room and concentrate very hard on listening to silence and almost everyone can attest that there really is no true silence. But when a pattern can be detected in one ear or the other then the noise is no longer just noise. And when the pattern can originate in one ear then in the matter of minutes be heard in stereo (with or without harmony) well that would say something.
Or lets say by chance we manage to beat the odds and are still here in 20,000 or better yet 100,000 years. The increase in scientific precision both inwards and outwards let alone the number of different directions we would be mapping we could eventually find that there is a point on the outer shell of our universe where every few thousand years new matter crashes in and at the other direct end of the outer shell of our universe we find matter being lost and determine that the shell we can detect, our little pocket of space time, is in fact moving and has velocity. And once we can determine that our pocket of space time has velocity we can then prove its existence inside a larger pocket of space time thus invalidating the false conclusion that all time and all space came from a single cosmic event. We could then likewise conclude with a much greater certainty that our big bang is not a sole occurrence but an infinite number of such occurrences.
Or lastly from a closed environment known to contain no possible life yet provided with sufficient resources to maintain a habitable environment, someday our scientific precision might let us see the life that is being created an infinite number of times each second evolving into our known universe, known solely because of the scientific precision that could not detect life or matter from that which was just previously beyond the realm of our detection.
There is no smallest distance or largest distance. There is no smallest amount of time and there is no largest amount of time. There is no end in any straight line moving away from any point. There is no smallest amount of energy or largest amount of energy. Everything in the universe is significant to everything else based on its associative degree of relativity to each other. That does not mean that there is nothing larger or smaller, just that we have yet to develop the means to detect them.
If we can find some way to join together as a species for the sake of providing the optimal habitable environments for the greatest percentage of sentient beings for the longest possible length of time then that must be the true meaning of life.
... nipok

This message is a reply to:
 Message 53 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 4:25 PM Percy has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 56 by nipok, posted 08-23-2006 5:16 AM nipok has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 56 of 60 (342664)
08-23-2006 5:16 AM
Reply to: Message 55 by nipok
08-23-2006 4:34 AM


Re: infinite universe
Lets say two atoms collide but in reality the two outer most electrons are likely to absorb the bulk of the impact. We see atoms bouncing off each other. When heated they bounce faster and when cooled they bounce slower. The sum of separate mass and separate energy is maintained but the intricacies of the atomic collision deserve much more attention. Electrons themselves travel in a high rate of relative speed around the nucleus so when two atoms collide and two electron shells make contact there is a large likelihood that two electrons are actually traveling at an even higher rate of relative speed to each other than the speed of their respective orbits. But electrons are no where near the smallest known particles of matter anymore, fermions, and bosons, leptons, quarks, and a whole mess of other particles are now documented but these elementary particles are a just a ruse.
They are only elementary because of scientific precision. It is idiotic to assume they are the smallest particles of matter and to be so arrogant as to think that our level of current detection is the best there can ever be. We must accept that someday we will find all the little things that are building blocks that make up the building blocks that make up fermions and bosons.
But back to crashing elementary particles for a moment. When two atoms collide it is the most elementary of particles that are actually colliding and if one subscribes to the common sense deduction that these collisions are made of smaller and smaller particles and within each subset of smaller particles the collisions are occurring at much greater relative velocities to each other to a point where I dare say that the relative velocities of two particles approach their relative speed of light and BANG
All matter relative to each distinct atom is intermixed and to us the atoms part as whole but what really happens? Would it not make more sense to conclude it more logical that parts of each atom no matter how small must have interchanged and as the atoms parted the relative electromagnetic attraction that binds atoms together pulled the matter back into one atom or the other (at a much much much much lower level I would venture to say then we may ever be able to detect with the greatest level of scientific precision we could hope to obtain in a trillion years of consecutive evolution ????)
What our tiny little insignificant brains need to grasp is that we are mere specs of cosmic dust and our time as both an individual and a species is fleeting. That’s why things like an infinite number of collisions of smaller particles of matter seems too impossible for us to comprehend. If there is no smallest particle of matter and all matter is in fact made up of smaller particles of matter each acting as its own pocket of space time, its own self contained pocket of energy then every atomic collision must occur for an infinite number of sub collisions. To us it passes in a nanosecond but to each smaller particle of crashing matter time becomes relative to the pocket and thus an infinity of time can exist in our every fleeting moment.
And as life evolved from within the Atom to populate this planet so should our species strive to be the life form that is able to harmonize the huge number of species within our known outer significant universe to become the life force capable of evolving out of our shell and not just another one of the 99.9999 percent of other similar universes that never evolve to that level and perish as an evolutionary chain only to start anew back at the relative beginning. But lets be realistic. Look at our planet. We will more likely be one of the other 99.99999999 percent of planets that reach our stage of evolution and come so close to overcoming our differences only to falter and throw away a habitable environment for all to prosper much sooner than the natural extinction our sun will eventually cause. Only a species that bonds as a planet with one world government truly working for the betterment of every living creature could ever hope to disperse itself far enough into the heavens to hope to provide a evolutionary process that exceeds the life cycle of our sun.
... nipok

This message is a reply to:
 Message 55 by nipok, posted 08-23-2006 4:34 AM nipok has not replied

  
Joman
Inactive Member


Message 57 of 60 (342763)
08-23-2006 12:57 PM


Infinity?
In my opinion, whenever mathematical formulas, in being applied to finite things, results in infinities, the outcome is the proof of the error of attempting any application to finite things past or present.
Joman.

Replies to this message:
 Message 58 by Chiroptera, posted 08-23-2006 1:17 PM Joman has not replied
 Message 59 by Brad McFall, posted 08-23-2006 1:52 PM Joman has not replied

  
Chiroptera
Inactive Member


Message 58 of 60 (342766)
08-23-2006 1:17 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Joman
08-23-2006 12:57 PM


Re: Infinity?
That might be true. It seems to be true in the cases that I can think of, off the top of my head.

"These monkeys are at once the ugliest and the most beautiful creatures on the planet./ And the monkeys don't want to be monkeys; they want to be something else./ But they're not."
-- Ernie Cline

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 12:57 PM Joman has not replied

  
Brad McFall
Member (Idle past 5033 days)
Posts: 3428
From: Ithaca,NY, USA
Joined: 12-20-2001


Message 59 of 60 (342770)
08-23-2006 1:52 PM
Reply to: Message 57 by Joman
08-23-2006 12:57 PM


Re: Infinity
I would want to make sure that the place the formula is supposed to cover is not mistakenly taken to be geometric ( a community of articulations organized or not) while it was (if) algebraic instead, as in a rule of thumb derived say from:
quote:
(color filled in) Noncommutative Rings by S. Montgomery, and L. Small, Spinger-Verlag 1992
.
So for instance any biological form in the universe that survived the big bang and exists in present cosmology as related to quantum groups via some algebra of rings (this is the strech that I have not shown justified by current consensus but seems to show that the language used could be in error rather than the math itself (coming in infinite as the out-comes)) as denoted by Gouldian exemplarification with the sentence,
quote:
"Thus, even the simplest and universal geometries of filling space must generate a host of spandrels to accompany any basically adaptive style of growth or biomechanical form" by SJ GOULD in THE STRUCTURE OF EVOLUTIONARY THEORY page 1259
could be a conceptual problem with the USE of the word "spandrel" rather than even the SPAN the place spaces. This might be particularly an error of application rather than an error of math if said binaries "filled" by rule algebraically rather than geometrically as recieved so far cognitively are and were.
Of course if the adherent thing was applied instead of a-lacking-deep-inguistic-recognition that this was not the cognitive reality then you could be correct but that is a rather trivial case of slight rather than outright mistake or error even if that was mathematical. To suggest that these things might not live for ever fails to appreciate that there is a symbolic issue that is differnt than a math one... in what Kant for instance sought to find with the word "metaphysics."

This message is a reply to:
 Message 57 by Joman, posted 08-23-2006 12:57 PM Joman has not replied

  
nipok
Inactive Member


Message 60 of 60 (345342)
08-31-2006 3:33 AM
Reply to: Message 51 by Percy
08-18-2006 10:32 AM


Re: infinite universe
2ice_baked_taters you are 100% correct. The probability of our species evolving long enough to then learn enough to get us where we need to be to escape our self-destruction is slim. I propose that if we as a species could be smart enough to grasp the true nature of just our tiny little universe we could get past our stupid insignificant differences and bond as a species for the betterment of all living beings on this planet. That is the meaning of life.
But sorry not to stray too far...
I propose that our known universe very likely has (as a whole) its own relative velocity to a central point of denser relative gravity and is in fact most likely in some orbit. I propose that our pocket of space time exists inside of a larger pocket of space time. I propose that our pocket of space time is one of an infinite number of such pockets of space time.
My question is simple. (I know I am the last person on this site that you might think of discouraging theoretical physics) BUT taking theoretical physics out of the mix and solely relying on the accepted physics that have moved from theory to law can anyone tell me with any degree of certainty that all of current quantum mechanics disproves the possibility of particles we can’t detect that are acting on the particles we can detect? As soon as your mind can open the door to this likelihood you can then begin to attempt to understand what an infinite universe really means. To be so bold as to assume we have reached the farthest possible scientific precision capable is arrogance unbefitting of a scientist.
Who is so bold or arrogant on this site to say with any certainty that our reliance on our current scientific precision to build the foundation that makes up our current house of cards is beyond the realm of doubt. Answer: Very Few. Reason: Because our current house of cards (string theory and/or membranes) is not beyond the realm of doubt. It is only when one really thinks outside the box and can visualize or accept the likely infinite nature of the universe (which even I agree is very hard to do) that we can begin to question the foundation. Because to move from theory to law you must have an unbreakable foundation. Once there are cracks in the foundation the stability of the rest of the house is then in question.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 51 by Percy, posted 08-18-2006 10:32 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