A layman's questions about universes

quote:

---

......and alas, I'm afraid your inability to think for yourself, using good ole logic and common sense has been hampered by the stuff you've had programmed into your young impressionable minds in the classroom when you were in school.

---

And you still haven't shown us why common sense within a 3d, normal world should apply to a 4d hypersurface. Again, you fail to understand that "good ole logic and common sense" does not always apply.

No, it's not psuedoscientific doublespeak, but it isinadequate to convey the reality of the situation. For that you need to learn the math. Only the math can convey it correctly.Your ravings are, sad to say, psuedoscientific doublespeak about a subject about which your are ignorant. Nothing inherently wrong with that; most people lead perfectly happy lives being ignorant of cosmology. But before you attempt to comment on or criticize cosmology you should learn somehting about it rather than just making stuff up as you go along. You shouldn't put words in other people's mouths, especially when you are so far from understanding the argument. It's an analogy, and a valid one ... but (like all analogies) it doesn't have a one-to-one correspondence between all aspects of the ball and all aspects of the universe. Sigh. Space itself is expanding, there's no need for anything to "expand into". Ah, yes, the standard response of those who refuse to believe that their "common sense" is not the be-all and end-all of all knowledge. What do you know of my education and abilities? It's in some ways analogous to a ball, but in more dimensions. It's not a ball. Almost certainly false. It's virtually certain that the the Universe does not have a surface, and the concept of taking a picture of the universe from a great distance from it is meaningless becasue there's no such thing as "distance away from the universe". Reality is not affected by your inability to comprehend it. "There are more things in heaven and earth, Buz, than are dreamt of in your philosophy" (with apologies to W. Shakespeare).

Didn't you ever play Asteroids, Buz? Didn't you ever notice how the game area was finite but unbounded, in other words, it was impossible to hit an edge that you couldn't go past?The game represented that space by having you leave the screen on one edge and come back in on the opposite one. That's what we're saying the universe is like - it's curved in higher dimensions in such a way that if you travel far enough in a straight line, you wind up back where you started.There's no need to call us idiots because this makes sense to us and not to you.

Agreed ... but I'm not sure it really makes sense, in a down-deep-gut-feeling-visualizable-and-explainable kind of way, to anybody. I understand (or at least once understood) the math, and I understand its implications, but I'm not positive it makes sense.Of course, why should the Universe make sense? Feynman said (referring to QM, but I think it's apropos here):

quote:

---

Do not keep saying to yourself, if you can possibly avoid it, "But how can it be like that?' because you will get "down the drain" into a blind alley from which nobody has yet escaped. Nobody knows how it can be like that.

---

In the ball analogy...I think our universe is the rubber the ball is made of. We don't know what lies outside it or what's filling it only that it's constantly inflating and has been for 13.7 billion years......only I liken it to a bubble skinand it seems no one knows enough about it to say that it could not possibly be true...

quote:

---

That's what you may consider a subpoint to my point. Space/area is nothing but that, space/area into which things can be created or expand into.

---

This is not correct as far as modern cosmology is concerned. One of the insights of Einstein's theory of gravity is that spacetime and the gravitational field are equivalent. If you were somehow able to switch off the gravitational field, "space" would disappear as well. The absolute background space of Newton simply does not exist as far as cosmology goes.

quote:

---

There's gotta be more space/area beyond any imaginary bounds humans like to conjure up in the mind. We are temporal creatures who tend to think in terms of what we see on earth -- boundaries, and up in the sky, -- things/stars, etc. Modern science, imo, is trying to have it both ways. It wants all space/area to be inclusive in the term, "universe," but wants to call it a closed system which has bounds. By the nature of space/area, you can't have both.

---

First of all, no one claims the universe (if finite) has boundaries. Your assertion that space must be infinite is merely an assertion. To be taken seriously you'll need to provide an actual argument for that claim.

quote:

---

How do you know it works

---

Because it conveys the idea of curved spaces without the need for mathematics to reasonably intelligent people. That success in conveying the idea is how we know it's a useful analogy. This isn't rocket science here.

quote:

---

What proof does science have that curves somehow need to be involved an any theory about the universe??

---

Science doesn't deal with proof, and it never has been. Shall I post a link that explains the scientific method? Scientists deal with models that have been very successful at making testible predictions about the observable universe. One such model is Einstein's theory of gravity, which is the basis of modern cosmology. This is the source of the curved universes being discussed in this thread.

quote:

---

You use the phrase, "finite, unbounded universe." Say what?? How can an unbounded universe be finite??

---

Again, this isn't rocket science and I just finished explaining this. The universe can be finite and unbounded in the same way a 2D surface can be finite without a boundary if it is curved enough. Oh wait, there's that tricky analogy again. Sigh.

quote:

---

How can there be a surface to space?

---

It's an analogy. Jesus Christ.

quote:

---

I know modern physicists have this disdain for logic and common sense

---

What a silly thing to say. Internal consistency is one of the minimum requirements a scientific hypothesis must have.

quote:

---

They remind me of the dark ages when the bishops and popes of Vatican City insisted that the laymen couldn't be trusted with the Bible or to interpret it via their own common sense and the words in it. They MUST be explained by the educated and established heirarchy clergy. Thus the dark ages. Imo, we're there again when it comes to modern scienced in areas of origins and the universe, in spite of all the sophisticated equipment. As the Bible puts it for our time, "ever learning and unable to come to the knowledge of the truth."

---

You are making the above comparison because you do not know the difference between theology and the scientific method. This is obvious when you post comments like that. Do a search on Google to learn about what science actually is. Otherwise, you simply cannot expect to contribute any intelligent discussion in threads about any field of science.

quote:

---

I don't see how this pleudo analogy explains anything sensible or logical. Yah, it's something to throw out there to gullible folks who don't stop to analyze space itself. Yah, it's easy to say there's an end to space, a boundary if you will to it, but no model or analogy is going to make any sense when you hunker down and think about it's implications.

---

That's funny, because the individuals who have spent the most time thinking about "space" have come to the opposite conclusion you have. That isn't to say that cosmologists claim the universe has a boundary (they don't, which a number of posters have explained to you), but they certainly won't insist the universe must necessarily be infinite.

mike the wiz responds to me:

quote:

---

As surely there is only evidence of this universe. The "bigger structure" and multiple Big Bang's, I'm guessing there's no evidence for.

---

Yep. String theory is an absolutely wonderful and elegant set of equations for describing the nature of the very big and the very small. It holds the promise of the Holy Grail of Physics: Tying gravity into quantum theory and providing a "theory of everything."But it has no experimental evidence. Strings are so small that they cannot be detected by any method we can conceive of for the moment. The reason it is taken seriously is that it is such an elegant solution to the questions that we have and most other paths of inquiry have proven to be disastrous. There does appear to be work that can be done that holds the promise of being able to create experiments that could help us test the concept, but we aren't there yet.I think you would agree that if someone is trying to talk about the how of the creation of the universe and wanting to make sure every i is dotted and every t is crossed, "god did it" really isn't satisfying. It's too simplistic. It's too reduced. We need much more detail and to really treat that detail right, it requires a great amount of theological study. I'm not talking about the faith that "god did it"...I'm talking about the process by which god did it.Well, scientific inquiry into the physical universe is just as complicated. It can be reduced to some very simplistic phrases that, when you know a bit about the process, are quite helpful in visualizing what is going on, but are absolutely worthless when trying to explain it in detail. You can have the faith that "strings are kings," but it's going to take a lot of work to really understand it well.I'm sure if we were all to knuckle down and delve into the subject, we'd all manage to come out a lot more knowledgeable about the subject, but I'm not qualified to teach it (I'm a mathematician, not a physicist) and this isn't really the place to do it.

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

buzsaw responds to me:

quote:

---

But in your cube model you already begin with/assuming bounds exist.

---

You're missing the point. I am not "beginning with/assuming bounds." I am simply showing you a method by which the shape can be constructed.You asked about how you could have infinity in a finite object. And I showed you. The sponge has a finite volume but an infinite surface area.

quote:

---

With your cube model you have visible surfaces, but with space/area you have none.

---

Only because you are incapable of viewing them. When I was in my prime as a mathematician, I had no problem visualizing four-dimensional surfaces and if I tried hard enough, I could get fleeting glimpses of five-dimensional ones, too. We live in a three-dimensional world and it is hard to conceive of what a 4D space looks like.Do not confuse your inability to visualize something with the idea that it cannot be done.

quote:

---

If you could somehow travel all the way out to the end of space

---

But that's just it: You can't. No matter how fast you try to go, the universe will always have more for you to traverse.You are also assuming a spatial geometry as if it were a simple sphere. Why? On the surface of a Mobius strip, traveling in a single direction will bring you back to the same spot you started at...and reversed.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Why not? Why can't it have both? You're trying to use a "common sense" definition where it doesn't apply.

---

​

Mmmm, but common sense makes a whole lot more sense!

---

That's why it's so appealing. But as someone wiser than I said, "common sense" is neither common nor sensible.

quote:

---

Imo, you hadn't oughta have let the ejukaters talked you outa all that money you spent to replace yours with sofistikated theerees.

---

Why not? It's because of them "ejukaters" that you have that computer sitting in front of you.Why on earth would I cling to something that was proven to be false? The mathematical description of the universe is not as you think it is. As another wiser man said, the universe is not only queerer than we imagine, it is queerer than we can imagine.Why on earth would there be a speed limit to the universe? Why is it no matter how much energy you pour into it, you can never go faster than the speed of light? Everything about our "common sense" tells us that if I am on a train going 50 miles an hour and I throw a ball at 50 miles an hour in the same direction of the train, that ball is going 100 miles an hour with respect to the ground because 50 + 50 = 100.But it isn't. It's going a little bit slower than that. The universe isn't linear but relative.Or do you deny relativity, too? One of them "ejukated" things?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Have they changed the definition of 'space' since I was in school? How do you define space so as for it to have the capacity to disappear? I'm sure you've read and reread my statements that it is the area into which things can be created or expand into and nothing but just that, area. If area should disappear, what displaces the space area it occupied besides more space/area?? Big, big problem here! Actual argument? Maybe you need to reread my arguments already posted in that regard. Again, how can space/area curve if it is nothing but area? To curve it must have something in it to define the curvature. But since nobody knows how immense the universe and the things in it are, how can one be so sure it curves. What part of the universe man can observe is likely, imo a partical of the universe. Puny little men on a tiny round dot in a round galexy of billions of stars, the galexy being itself a dot among the billions of galexies in the observable part of our universe, I say, puny men have established in their little minds that what the little human mind sees and comprehends of the universe has gotta be it and if every thing else is curved, the whole thing must be curved. How do we know what is beyond what is observable? The more powerful our instruments get, the more comes into view! Yes, my friend, I'm afraid there's that rabbit in the hat tricky analogy. "Sigh." Ditto. Herein, imo, lies the lie modern science perpetrates. From what I can see this bogus analogy isn't for the layman. It's for the physicist who knows it's the only aliby to somehow support the conjured up theories and to convince himself that he's right, so he scraps logic and common sense and devises textbooks full of theorims, equasions and math to get around the logic. The logical is that space/area has no end, boundary, characteristic, dimension, etc and nothing in it to suggest it is capable in itself of curving. Only the things which come to exist IN IT can show curvature, etc. So if all space is to be included in the term, universe, the universe is an "open" dimensionless system which may or may not have areas in it of existing things which may show curvature and an outer boundary where noting but endless infinite space itself begins to be all there is. Again, my contention is that something with a surface is not analogous to something with no surface. In 2d, your curvature argument works, but the universe is dimensionless if all space is included so a straight edge unbendable rod with the ability to extend forever, would, if extended in one direction protrude from any point in the universe forever out into endless boundless infinite space with the protruding end of it moving constantly further away from the beginning of it.Even if scientists would allow some common sense a little say in explaining their concept of a circular 3d universe, they could easily figure out with a simple rubber ball and a straight darning needle protruded into it (the darning needle analogous to the third dimension of their ball which would be analogous to their 3d universe,) and the darning needle was unbendable as a straight edge with the ability to extend forever after disecting/crossing the surface of the 3d ball it would protrude out into space from there for ever with the with the protruding end going further and further away from the other end of the rod sticking into the ball. Why do they reject this model? Because their bogus theories about curvature in relation to their universe calls for a 2d explanation, working only on the surface of the ball. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- The sillier thing to do is to block off and disallow common sense and logic in trying to understand the universe, complicating the complicated, if you will, in so doing. Heh heh. Yah, that's funny! Boundless, but finite!

buzsaw responds to Beercules:

quote:

---

The sillier thing to do is to block off and disallow common sense and logic in trying to understand the universe, complicating the complicated, if you will, in so doing.

---

(*blink!*)You did not just say that, did you?Are you seriously saying that we should maintain this "common sense" view of the world even when it's WRONG?The "common sense" and "logical" view of the world says that the universe is linear. Velocities add through a simple addition.The universe, however, laughs at that concept. If you were to try to use it for things like GPS, you'd fail miserably. That's right...the calculation required to determine your position on the earth...something that can be done by a tiny little box in your car...cannot be done with your "common sense" view of how things are supposed to be.They simply aren't.We're sorry that this now means you have to learn calculus in order to understand how the universe works, but the universe doesn't care about you.Don't you think that "common sense" would tell you that if the model you are using isn't working, you should discard it for a more accurate model, even if that means you have to make it much more complex?I find it amazing that you are saying that this simplistic, naive "common sense" should prevail over actual reality for no other reason than it's hard for you to understand the real thing.That computer sitting in front of you could not function if it weren't for that anti-"common sense" physics you are railing against. How can you possibly claim that it is a crock when it's staring you right in the face?

quote:

---

Yah, that's funny! Boundless, but finite!

---

Yep.(0,1)Unbounded, yet finite. There are definitely numbers that are not in the interval, but no matter what number you choose in the interval, you will always find another number that's just a little bit closer to the boundary.What on earth do you think the terms "bounded" and "finite" mean?Why is it millions of mathematicians can understand this concept and actually use it to create real-world applications? Why does your incredulity get to trump reality?

---

Rrhain
WWJD? JWRTFM!

Hi again, Rrhain. I just want to commend and thank you and the others also for bearing with me quite patiently, for I am fully aware that my logical arguments are to you very contrary to what you've been taught and sincerely believe. And btw, Rrhain, my former appreciative comment to you was not meant to imply you have ever been anything but respectful and courteous in your manner of posting. It was after being labeled an "idiot" and some implications of support by one or two others to the one for saying it that your refreshing manner of posting appeared. If nothing else, hopefully my persistent input here may apprise you all that there are still a lot of us logical laymen out here who still see merit in logic and common sense and who believe in some areas like this some mistakes are being made in the thinking of main stream science and how theories are formed concerning them. Computers are one thing they are great at, they being what you can handle, see and minipulate mecanically, but theories about space and the unseen way out yonder, quite another. 1. Here again, logic and common sense says anything having finite volumn capacity must needs have also bounds inclusive of a finite surface and is in no way analogous to 2d.2. Using a sponge analogy seems to be adding a new dimension to our discussion about an alleged 3d universe isn't it?Gotta hit hay for now. Thanks to all for your patience and indulgence to ole Mr Logic's intrusion here into your lab.
Been busy elsewhere too, and my apologies for not responding to everything that's been addressed to me.

quote:

---

Have they changed the definition of 'space' since I was in school?

---

When did you ever study physics, really?

quote:

---

How do you define space so as for it to have the capacity to disappear?

---

Who said it could disappear?

quote:

---

I'm sure you've read and reread my statements that it is the area into which things can be created or expand into and nothing but just that, area. If area should disappear, what displaces the space area it occupied besides more space/area?? Big, big problem here!

---

It's only a problem for those who rely on intuition and refuse to put any serious thought into the matter whatsoever. The universe (the gravitational field for simplicity) can exist without occupying any pre-existing background space. If you disagree, you must show how that stament suffers from self inconsistency.

quote:

---

Actual argument? Maybe you need to reread my arguments already posted in that regard.

---

I haven't seen arguments, I've seen assertions. The above claim about space is a perfect example.

quote:

---

Again, how can space/area curve if it is nothing but area? To curve it must have something in it to define the curvature.

---

There is much more to the gravitational field than area (which is 2D BTW, you're thinking of volume), but that's irrelevant because you're asking a question of geometry. Asking how it's possible for space to be curved is no more meaningful than asking how space can be Euclidean.

quote:

---

But since nobody knows how immense the universe and the things in it are, how can one be so sure it curves. What part of the universe man can observe is likely, imo a partical of the universe. Puny little men on a tiny round dot in a round galexy of billions of stars, the galexy being itself a dot among the billions of galexies in the observable part of our universe, I say, puny men have established in their little minds that what the little human mind sees and comprehends of the universe has gotta be it and if every thing else is curved, the whole thing must be curved. How do we know what is beyond what is observable? The more powerful our instruments get, the more comes into view!

---

The finite, unbounded universe is one possible solution when Einstein's theory of gravity is applied to the universe as a whole. No one is claiming we know whether this is correct, or if the universe is actually infinite. You on the other hand, seem to be arguing against the concept itself, no whether or not we know it to be true. But you haven't provided any arguments against the model - you've just made assertions.

quote:

---

Yes, my friend, I'm afraid there's that rabbit in the hat tricky analogy. "Sigh." Ditto. Herein, imo, lies the lie modern science perpetrates.

---

Your opinion doesn't mean shit if you can't even be bothered to learn what science is in the first place. Not understanding the actual physics also prevents you from forming an educated assessment of the situation. It would be like asking a shoe salesman his opinion about neuroscience.

quote:

---

Again, my contention is that something with a surface is not analogous to something with no surface.

---

I already pointed out 2 ideas that are successfully conveyed by the 2D analogy. If this goes over your head, I don't think we have much to discuss. Go to church.

quote:

---

In 2d, your curvature argument works, but the universe is dimensionless if all space is included so a straight edge unbendable rod with the ability to extend forever, would, if extended in one direction protrude from any point in the universe forever out into endless boundless infinite space with the protruding end of it moving constantly further away from the beginning of it.

---

That is simply incoherent.

quote:

---

Even if scientists would allow some common sense a little say in explaining their concept of a circular 3d universe, they could easily figure out with a simple rubber ball and a straight darning needle protruded into it (the darning needle analogous to the third dimension of their ball which would be analogous to their 3d universe,) and the darning needle was unbendable as a straight edge with the ability to extend forever after disecting/crossing the surface of the 3d ball it would protrude out into space from there for ever with the with the protruding end going further and further away from the other end of the rod sticking into the ball. Why do they reject this model?

---

The above demonstrates that you have completely misunderstood the point of the 2D analogy. As pointed out by others, the analogy only involves the surface, not the volume of the balloon or embedding space. Maybe the problem lies deeper? Perhaps an undertstanding of basic geometry would help.This message has been edited by Beercules, 06-23-2004 12:34 AM

but a general question for all. Way back when I was in high school we had to have Plane Geometry, Analytical Geometry, Eucledian and Non-Euclidian Geometry as requirements for graduation. Are they still normal high school requirements?

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion

Where did you go to school?

A little Church School in Maryland.

---

Aslan is not a Tame Lion