Shadowy Man

Oh.. and the current cosmological theories do suggest that the universe is infinite. I bet that will cook your noodle!


Edited to add: Nice response Jesse... I admit to not having been patient enough to put together such a nice post. Kudos to you.

MartinM

It's a little early to tell, isn't it?

Shadowy Man

And why's that?

MartinM

...because there's insufficient data either way?

eh

Flat universes can be finite as well as infinite. Infinity is just much harder to stomach.

Cozmodius

Thank you Jesse...thank you! Finally a well put and NON-condescending reply to my query...I always did love physics!

You have hit on the point I was driving at EXACTLY!

"And if you think curved spaces need a higher-dimensional euclidean space to sit in, what is so special about euclidean spaces that they themselves don't need to sit in a space of a higher dimension? Would you accept the idea of a perfectly flat 2-dimensional universe, or would you think there must be some 3-dimensional space around it? If so, why wouldn't a flat 3-D universe need to be sitting in a flat 4-D space, which would need to be sitting in a flat 5-D space, etc.?"

I do think this! In fact...LOGIC DEMANDS IT!!!

The problem our fellow posters are having is that they are trying to attack my position without 1st finding out what it is...I may be a layman...in that I have no physics degree...but I am not stupid and am far from ignorant.

And, as far as the universe being infinite...it all depends on your definition of "The Universe". I'm willing to go along with any definition that you guys like.

MartinM

With respect, simply making the claim doesn't advance the debate any. Can you explain why logic demands this?

Actually, it depends on whether spacetime is simply or multiply connected.

Jesse

Cozmodius:
I do think this! In fact...LOGIC DEMANDS IT!!!

So you're saying you think that reality must "logically" be infinite-dimensional? What is your reasoning? At an ultimate level "space" may not even be fundamental. Think of a computer simulation of a 3-dimensional universe...inhabitants of the universe would believe they live in a "space" of three dimensions, but the computer could equally well simulate a universe of any dimensionality (or perform computations that don't involve any notion of space at all, like factoring numbers), the seemingly fundamental fact of three-dimensional space would just be a result of the rules of that particular computation, its causal structure, the way events are programmed to affect each other within it. Some approaches to quantum gravity suggest that the dimensionality of space might be "emergent" in a similar sense.

In any case, do you agree that if a theory involving spacetime being embedded in a higher-dimensional space made absolutely no new predictions beyond standard general relativity, that it would make no difference in terms of the events within spacetime itself, then the question of whether such a higher space exists must be a purely metaphysical one?

braces_for_impact

I also am a father of two, I am not self employed and I am a single dad. I coincidentally also have a ged. In my spare time I do study cosmology (among other subjects) but I am far from understanding as much as I'd like to learn.

But I do know bs when I see it.

I can use my mystical powers of clairvoyance...

I see a website. A creationist website. The website prompts it's readers to ask certain people certain questions, thinking it will stump them to 'prove' certain areas of science are on the same intellectual ground as "faith".

All hail me, I am psychic!

Shadowy Man

Jesse definitely gave the best response so far. The reason you got some condescending responses was your initial reaction to what was given to you was that you didn't want to have to read about the theory or look up any big words. Then used sarcastic remarks like "ye bastions of knowledge". Then you continued to be bothered that people were telling you that you were misinterpreting the theory without making an attempt to understand what the theory really says.


This is demonstrably false. Jesse told you about a logically formed mathematical theory that does not need any higher dimensions in which an expanding space must be embedded.

Having no physics degree and being a lyman does not imply that you are stupid or ignorant. However, your statements have shown that you are ignorant of the intricacies of the theory. And it is these intricacies that you are asking about. "What is the universe expanding into?" is not a novel question. It has been asked many, many times of physicists and cosmologists and they have answered those questions with explanations of what the theories really say and what the implications are, etc. etc.

My point about having a physics degree is that there are whole courses taught on the subject of gravitational physics and cosmology. I.e. it is a complicated theory that may require a detailed knowledge of mathematics and physics to fully understand. That doesn't mean you are incapable of understanding it, but it does mean that if you don't want to read about it and don't want to look up big words and just want a quick and dirty answer you probably won't get a good appreciation or understanding.