davidm

Hi, RW, I may be talking out of my hat here, as I am not a physicist, but it seems this expansion problem and infinity issue are misconstrued. So far as I understand it, there is no necessity for the universe to be expanding "into" anything at all. A hyperspace into which the universe expands would be superfluous. The volume of our spacetime is simply increasing along the time dimension. Put another way, the entire universe, with all its spacetime locations, is simply "there." If you could "step outside" the universe (which of course you can't), all particles (as well as all human histories) would be perceived as unchanging world lines in a static 4D manifold. The manifold is more compressed (less volume) in the direction of the big bang, and less compressed moving away from it. The manifold is all that there is.

Also the conservation laws dictate that the amount of energy and matter in the universe is always the same. Hence the amount was the same at the big bang as today. Hence there is no need (or possibility) of a "creation" event as such, since matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed. To me this means that the universe is effectively infinite in backward duration, since it is meaningless to speak of "time" before the big bang, as time came into being in the big bang. The conservation laws imply that a creator is superfluous. There is nothing to create, since matter and energy have always been, albeit in radically different forms.

If the universe expands forever (as I believe the current evidence strongly indicates it will) it is effectively infinite from our point of view. This also means, however, that heat death will eventually overtake all complex structures, including, of course, life.

If the universe is closed on itself and contracts, this would only mean that if we traveled in a "straight" line through space, after many billions of years we would return to where we started, much like a journey on the surface of the earth. So the universe could be finite but unbounded.

I am aware that there are many speculations that our universe is but one bubble in a greater "metaverse," but I am not aware that any of these theories are testable or even make predictions. In any event, hyperspace is superflous in explaining our own universal expansion, and would therefore seem to be ruled out by Occam's Razor. This is my layman's understanding.

The physicist Victor Stenger has an article in the library demonstrating that even with the big bang, the universe need not have had a beginning. It is here

The fact that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that the same amount of matter and energy existed in the big bang as today, and that the big bang and the expansion of the universe does not imply a beginning to the universe, would, collectively if not individually, rule out any role for God.

rainbow walking

rw: Because, my dear, with the universe we have something to work with. With claims of a god we have no such luxury. Perhaps if you could persuade him, her or it to be a little more forthcoming with something capable of "opening our minds" a bit, I might have cause to change my position...yes?

HelenM

Ok, ok, I was just asking...

love
Helen

Liquidrage

No body known whether the universe is finite or infinite. That includes RW.

At least RQ was honest enough to post in the philosophy section.
Making up a bunch of crap isn't science.
Cosmology is.

This is just another collection of crap.
Too many of these "proofs" have been popping up lately.
They amount to nothing more then preaching. Can't these be bannable?

I mean look at Points 1 and 4. He places limitations on the universe as if it were a real balloon.

Point 2 is absurd. If is just as likely that expansion is a necessary property of the universe as it is unlikely. What right and more imporantly, evidence, do you have to make that claim?

Point 3 and $1.25 will get you a cup of coffee at Borders.

Point 5 is a bunch of made up nothings.

Point 6 expands upon the bunches of made up nothings from Point 5

I'm just gonna stop there.

rainbow walking

Hi, RW, I may be talking out of my hat here, as I am not a physicist, but it seems this expansion problem and infinity issue are misconstrued. So far as I understand it, there is no necessity for the universe to be expanding "into" anything at all.

rw:I’m not clear on what you mean by “expanding into anything”. If you mean as in expanding towards a change into something other than it now is, I would have to dis agree, knowing that the universe is constantly changing. If what you mean by expanding into anything is the question of what exactly the matter being hurled through space in every direction is being hurled into I would say the answer depends on an adequate unified theory of the under-lying fabric of this event horizon.

I too am uncomfortable with the balloon or bubble analogy. A better analogy, in my opinion, would be one equivalent to the various life forms currently living beneath the ocean. It is highly likely that the sensory perception evolved in these life forms renders the fluid, or salty water, in which they reside, an invisible substance to them. Similar to the way our own senses make it impossible for us to see the air or atmosphere in which we reside. The ocean has currents and so does the atmosphere in which we live. All we can see are the effects created by those currents. Extrapolating from this analogy I would postulate the material of the universe also resides in a substance, (perhaps an aether), that exists in a different dimension totally invisible to our sensory preceptors. But the effects are still observable. As it now stands we only recognize this substance as “space”.

A hyperspace into which the universe expands would be superfluous.


rw: Why is that?

The volume of our spacetime is simply increasing along the time dimension.


rw: Something must account for the increase.

Put another way, the entire universe, with all its spacetime locations, is simply "there." If you could "step outside" the universe (which of course you can't), all particles (as well as all human histories) would be perceived as unchanging world lines in a static 4D manifold.


rw: Particle decay renders this model less than satisfactory. There would be many trace strings that observation alone would not be able to determine so there remains a question of just how far these lines would project as un-changing. Archaeology is a classic example. How accurate and far back we can trace a human history is contingent on the artifacts discovered and their condition.

The manifold is more compressed (less volume) in the direction of the big bang, and less compressed moving away from it. The manifold is all that there is.

rw: The model is inadequate in addressing the question of infinity.

Also the conservation laws dictate that the amount of energy and matter in the universe is always the same. Hence the amount was the same at the big bang as today. Hence there is no need (or possibility) of a "creation" event as such, since matter/energy can neither be created nor destroyed.

rw: I never addressed a “creation event” in this thread. The model I’ve articulated also accounts for the regulation of matter to energy ratio. The fluctuation in the ratio causes the “expansion” effect as well as the increase in velocity as particles escape the vortex of the universal gravity field. The flux created by this field would have the same effect as the sling-shot method of increasing velocity accomplished by flying along the edge of the gravitational field of a planet.

To me this means that the universe is effectively infinite in backward duration, since it is meaningless to speak of "time" before the big bang, as time came into being in the big bang. The conservation laws imply that a creator is superfluous. There is nothing to create, since matter and energy have always been, albeit in radically different forms.

rw: You do understand that matter/energy could not have always existed if time only recently came into existence. Without the time to exist, matter/energy would not. That is why the BB cannot be considered the beginning of time. It can, however, be considered the beginning of time for this event horizon. But if matter/energy existed prior to the extrapolated BB model, time must also have existed. Hawking uses the “imaginary time” postulate to address these concerns.

If the universe expands forever (as I believe the current evidence strongly indicates it will) it is effectively infinite from our point of view. This also means, however, that heat death will eventually overtake all complex structures, including, of course, life.

rw: That does seem to be one of the only two intuitive predictions available based on current cosmological models. I am postulating a third. Division.

If the universe is closed on itself and contracts, this would only mean that if we traveled in a "straight" line through space, after many billions of years we would return to where we started, much like a journey on the surface of the earth. So the universe could be finite but unbounded.

rw: This would require that our journey be instantaneous and require absolutely no time to make. Since the universe is expanding and all heavenly bodies are drifting, unless we return to the precise event horizon in our journey I fear when we do return we’ll find that the time it took to make the journey will leave us hopelessly confused and lost in the kaliediscope of shifting star positions.

I am aware that there are many speculations that our universe is but one bubble in a greater "metaverse," but I am not aware that any of these theories are testable or even make predictions. In any event, hyperspace is superflous in explaining our own universal expansion, and would therefore seem to be ruled out by Occam's Razor. This is my layman's understanding.

rw: The Razor has little to do in this field of modeling as it appears logic lags far behind reality as more and more is discovered about the relative relationships between time and space. As I said in my closing statement, I’m not comfortable using the “bubble” analogy either.

The physicist Victor Stenger has an article in the library demonstrating that even with the big bang, the universe need not have had a beginning. It is here

The fact that matter and energy can neither be created nor destroyed, that the same amount of matter and energy existed in the big bang as today, and that the big bang and the expansion of the universe does not imply a beginning to the universe, would, collectively if not individually, rule out any role for God.

Rw: It is not a fact that the “Constant State” model is a fact. As I said I’m not even addressing a beginning of the cosmos in this thread. All such explanations are attempts to Finitize the infinite.

rainbow walking

[QUOTE]Originally posted by Liquidrage:
[QB]No body known whether the universe is finite or infinite. That includes RW.[/b]

rw: Then the universe isn't expanding?

At least RQ was honest enough to post in the philosophy section.
Making up a bunch of crap isn't science.
Cosmology is.

rw:

This is just another collection of crap.
Too many of these "proofs" have been popping up lately.
They amount to nothing more then preaching. Can't these be bannable?

rw: Censorship? Apparently you don't know the difference between postulation from evidence and preaching.

I mean look at Points 1 and 4. He places limitations on the universe as if it were a real balloon.

rw: And made the qualification that I was only using this example because it had been used earlier by someone else.

Point 2 is absurd. If is just as likely that expansion is a necessary property of the universe as it is unlikely. What right and more imporantly, evidence, do you have to make that claim?

rw: Yeah, we see it everyday. Matter just expands of its own volition. Brilliant response there.


I'm just gonna stop there.

rw: Best idea you've had yet.

Liquidrage

It is not matter that is expanding it is space. We do observe space to be expanding. At the most fundamental level it is possible that they are the derived from the same process.

You have not shown (nor has anyone) that only an infinite universe can expand. All you do is claim it.

You can make cute little rolling eye's all you want. It doesn't make your points valid.

Ready?

Point 1. It is physically impossible to climb inside a completely sealed balloon and blow it up or cause it to expand. There must be a point or points of entry to allow the introduction of something to create the “expanding” phenomenon, as well as a place to "climb inside".

Does this have anything to do with our universe? No. In this case the balloon and universe are not related. So why do you even bring this up?

Point 2. This necessitates a sufficient supply of something from somewhere to facilitate the phenomenon of “expansion”.

You have not even attempted to prove this claim of yours. You just posit it as if it is some bastion of truth. It most certainly does not.
This is where is becomes obvious you lack understanding beyond the obvious classical physics. Expansion might not need any *something* to occur. Again, you are treating the universe as a balloon.


Point 3. A finite amount of material inside a closed system cannot cause an “expansion” effect and be “cooling down” simultaneously. Only heat causes expansion of matter. Our universe is not “heating up”. In fact, its continued existence depends on it "cooling down".

More balloons. The universe is not a balloon.

Point 4. A balloon cannot be indefinitely inflated without creating the danger of rupturing.
So what? This has nothing to do with the universe.
Did you prove or even cite any evidence that the universe would rupture by expanding?

Point 5. The rupturing of the universe is prevented by relief vents or “black holes”. This necessitates that there must be something outside the confining parameters of the universe where all excess matter is ejected, hence Hyper-space

Show me your evidence that balck holes are vents.
Further show me evidence that the universe needs vents.


Point 6. If pressure in hyper-space is greater at some points then it must be less at others. This would allow for both "injection" and "ejection" to occur as a phenomenon of the universe. Since pressure is created by heat, super heated pressure points would allow "injection" of energy into this universe with the effect of immediate Particalization as it comes into contact with a much cooler dimensional phenomenon thus the transferance of energy into material particles. Quarks and other sub-atomic phenomenon are evidence of this particalization. Likewise, to maintain super-heated status requires material to transform into energy thus the "ejection" of matter thru black holes feed hyper-space with this matter. Matter ejected into hyper-space is again super-heated into energy to continue the process of expansion.


So me any evidence for your grand claims.

You, my friend, are just making crap up and have not demonstrated any understanding of cosmology or the underlying physics.

Automaton

I believe the universe is infinite, but that your points are weak. The curved topology of spacetime causing expansion in a flat void and the application of internal pressure to a hollow elastic sphere causing stretching are obviously very different things. What use is your analogy? A balloon is not an accurate universe model, and the use of balloon allegory in popular literature is meant to be simply illustrative of the expansion itself.
No, relativity requires that any curved spacetime will indefinitely expand given a surrounding flat spacetime.
Matter is not "expanding" (and heat is not really expanded matter, it just means the individual particles of matter will take up more positions, thus giving the macroscopic illusion of the substance as a whole getting bigger), spacetime is.
There is no elastic material boundary around the universe.
Black holes do not make matter vanish (meaning they would be getting less dense and massive, instead of more), they are simply supermassive, superdense objects with high gravitational fields. They are no more mystical than mundane stars. You might be thinking of the speculative "worm holes", for which no good case has been made.
Pressure applies to matter, not to spacetime.

rainbow walking

It is not matter that is expanding it is space. We do observe space to be expanding.


rw: And “space” is?

At the most fundamental level it is possible that they are the derived from the same process.

rw: And that process is?

You have not shown (nor has anyone) that only an infinite universe can expand. All you do is claim it.

rw: Place a pot of water on a stove and turn the burner on high. As the water turns into steam and rises into the surrounding atmosphere, eventually you’ll run out of water, as matter progresses through the cycles of solid, liquid, gas, and plasma via heat transfer and chemical reactions. On a cosmic level either there is a finite amount of matter that is too great to assign a value to in this universe, (infinite material) or there is a cyclic process whereby the matter/energy transfer is regulated and fluctuates, (infinite time).

You can make cute little rolling eye's all you want. It doesn't make your points valid.
Rw: Neither does your attitude make yours valid. Where, exactly, is YOUR evidence to refute my claims?

Does this have anything to do with our universe? No. In this case the balloon and universe are not related. So why do you even bring this up?

rw: As I’ve already stated, because it was used by someone else, so I decided to use it in reference to the question to develop the evidence for infinity. It was not my intention to define the geometrics of the universe with this example.

You have not even attempted to prove this claim of yours. You just posit it as if it is some bastion of truth. It most certainly does not.

rw: Expansion does not occur without a reason. True or false?

This is where is becomes obvious you lack understanding beyond the obvious classical physics. Expansion might not need any *something* to occur. Again, you are treating the universe as a balloon.

rw: Then you can provide us an example where expansion just arbitrarily occurs without a cause?

More balloons. The universe is not a balloon.

rw: Never said it was. If you had read the post with some effort towards comprehension you wouldn’t be stuck on this criticism. I only used this analogy to demonstrate the cyclic process necessary to show infinite time and material.

So what? This has nothing to do with the universe.
Did you prove or even cite any evidence that the universe would rupture by expanding?

rw: Never said it would. I said a “balloon” would. I said this to demonstrate the fallacy of assigning the universe any finite parameters, again towards supporting my assertion of infinity.

Show me your evidence that balck holes are vents.
Further show me evidence that the universe needs vents.

rw: Do you know anything about black holes? Nothing escapes its flux. Not even light. If this phenomenon merely acted as a magnet it would eventually accumulate enough material to re-ignite as a dwarf star. This hasn’t been observed. If, however, it is a port or vent that causes the process or cycle of matter/energy transfer it would explain the law of Conservation and go towards demonstrating the fluctuations in time and energy that have been observed in the study of universal expansion.


So me any evidence for your grand claims.
You, my friend, are just making crap up and have not demonstrated any understanding of cosmology or the underlying physics.

Rw: I have a better idea. Show me some evidence to refute the postulates instead of whining like a spoiled brat.

davidm

RW, a very simple Q & A from Sten Odenwald, who is an astronomer at NASA and the author of various books and articles on space/cosmology subjects:

Question:What is the universe expanding into?

Answer: "If it is infinite, it has no boundary in space so it is not expanding into anything. If it is finite, like the surface of a ball, then space is closed upon itself and again it is not expanding into anything that is space-like. This all sounds like a bunch of contradictions, but it is not, and the mathematics are pretty clear about this process. The problem is that our intuitions are not a valid basis upon which to frame the correct question and to understand the answer. Space stretches, and galaxies get further away from each other, but this happens without displacing something else."

In other words, RW, there is NO necessity to posit a "hyperspace" into which our 4D spacetime universe is expanding. Spacetime simply stretches, that is all. The balloon analogy is valid if you consider that unlike a balloon, there is no "inside" or "outside" to the universe. The surface of the balloon/universe is simply all that there is. I do not even understand the relevance of the question, "is the universe infinite?" What are you trying to prove? The fact is, the best scientific evidence we have suggests that the universe could plausibly be infinite or finite, but either way, spacetime is expanding, but not "into" any hyperspace.

Also, the fact that the universe is bounded by an apparent singularity at the big bang does not imply that matter and energy had to be created at that boundary.

By the way, your understanding of black holes is completely off-base. They could never "reignite as dwarf stars," whatever that means. All matter and energy sucked into the hole is lost to us beyond the event horizon. The matter and energy terminates at a singularity, though we do not yet have a comprehensive theory to indicate what that implies. Hawking showed, however, that all black holes will eventually radiate away, in spite of the event horizon barrier. This is too complicated to explain and you ought to do some research into this.

The Stenger article in this library, "On the Other Side of Time," goes into great depth on many of these subjects. Everyone should give it a read. I tried cutting and pasting the link out of Dreamweaver but somehow it did not take. Let me try again:

<a href="http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html" target="_blank">http://www.infidels.org/library/modern/vic_stenger/otherside.html</a>