Is the universe infinite or finite?

[photonaholic]

that post seemed infinite.

one thing to remember, it's all theory.

One reason science fiction is so popular with science fact fans. The "what if" factor draws us in.

 

[daguin]

Isn't it amazing how quickly that "scientific"attempts at explaining the unknown begin to sound like religious dogma?

In the beginning every thing just "was."

In the beginning, "God."

Peace,
dave

 

[MrGreenJeans]

Isn't it amazing how quickly that "scientific"attempts at explaining the unknown begin to sound like religious dogma?

In the beginning every thing just "was."

In the beginning, "God."

Peace,
dave

Dave, you kill me. I've read many of your posts. Of course it sounds like religious dogma as even in science an attempt to explain everything at once has to be boiled down to taking some things on faith. The difference, however, is science can demonstrate that which they claim as truth using those, so grad student reviled, mathematical proofs. :yh:

For others: As for "just theory", keep in mind theory is just shy of law and forms the basis by which most science operates. If you wish to use a dismissive term use hypothesis as a hypothesis tends to be more a work in progress. An even more dismissive term is "it's all academic." That's a good one if you are in industry wondering why the latest ideas have not resulted in some marketable product. :na:

 

[daguin]

Dave, you kill me. I've read many of your posts. Of course it sounds like religious dogma as even in science an attempt to explain everything at once has to be boiled down to taking some things on faith. The difference, however, is science can demonstrate that which they claim as truth using those, so grad student reviled, mathematical proofs. :yh:

I am just facinated by the similarity of the verbiage used whenever the human mind tries to explain an unknown. One of the things I study in intercultural comm. is the "stories" invented by different cultures to explain some human universal. It becomes quickly obvious that there is some underlying "hard-wired" concept (like fear of the dark). However, the explanation for that "feeling" is culturally influenced and distinct.

Whenever the "test" for some truth is designed by the group that is trying to prove that truth, the results of that test are suspect.

Peace,
dave

 

[MrGreenJeans]

I agree wholeheartedly. Science is indeed a religion of sorts with all the trappings of circumstance found in traditional religions. Even the interpretation of scientific dogma varies in science. I guess you could say that science is the religion all other religions aspire to be even if they openly reject certain scientific conclusions. Humans have an innate need to seek the truth but an irrational aversion to the truth when it challenges the status quo. Fortunately, for science, the proof of truth is not limited to the group seeking the truth, which, of course, is the basis for experimental validation. You don't see that process between the various religions.

 

[daguin]

I agree wholeheartedly. Science is indeed a religion of sorts with all the trappings of circumstance found in traditional religions. Even the interpretation of scientific dogma varies in science. I guess you could say that science is the religion all other religions aspire to be even if they openly reject certain scientific conclusions. Humans have an innate need to seek the truth but an irrational aversion to the truth when it challenges the status quo. Fortunately, for science, the proof of truth is not limited to the group seeking the truth, which, of course, is the basis for experimental validation. You don't see that process between the various religions.

For me, that is the main difference between "science" and "religion." Although both are based in an "original leap of faith", science is willing (no matter how grudgingly) to change its mind when empirical proofs show a belief to be incorrect

Peace,
dave

 

[photonaholic]

 

[Hemlock_Mike]

Infinity, n. The ability of government to spend and then tax everyone.:na:
"To Serve Man"
HMike

 

[photonaholic]

"To Serve Man"
HMike

sounds like this guys cookbook....

I like taxes just as much as you do Mike.

 

[nikokapo]

Here's a tidbit: Some scientists believe they will be able to create their own universes in accelerators given enough energy. The universes will experience their own big bang and expand into full fledged universes every bit as complex as our own. The neat thing is these universes will not expand in our universe, they will be creating their own space in their own universe never to affect us. If that ever happens we will know the multiverse is infinite as you can create more if you can create one.

How? How do you create space?

It'd be cool if they somehow did it, since it would downright explain a multiverse hypothesis.

 

[Meatball]

If they make one, how can they know that they did it?

If it does not affect us, or our universe, does that mean it is undetectable by modern instruments?

 

[MrGreenJeans]

My best guess is some of the energy used in the experiment will not be accounted for but I haven't looked into the claim too closely. I'm pretty sure the claim is based on theoretical analysis of string theory and of course, at the time, the firing up of the LHC at CERN.

@Niko - From cosmology, space is creating itself. This is often called vacuum energy. It's from a theory used to explain the expansion of the universe, particularly the anomaly of the age of the universe versus the size of the universe. Based on the expansion of the universe the age should be about 15 billion years old but it's not it's only 13.7 billion years old. Thus there was some period where the universe expanded very quickly, much faster than it possibly could, in order to explain the discrepancy. Furthermore, red shift observations conclude the expansion of the universe is accelerating. Common sense suggests the expansion should be slowing due to gravitation but it's not so there must be some force pushing the acceleration. Every object in the universe is moving away from every other object. The only way this can be accomplished is if the very fabric of space-time were growing. This is why scientist conclude a newly lab created universe would expand as ours has.

 

[kevinmassey]

like many have said before me in this thread if the universe is "infinite" then there are an infinite amount of galaxies just like ours. an infinite amount of solar systems just like ours, and an infinite number of ourselves having the exact same conversation on the exact same forum because infinity / anything(other than infinity) as a probability will yield an infinite amounts of everything we know and dont know....:thinking: gives me chills to think about.

Steve Hawking has proposed that black holes eventually dissolve. Where does the energy and matter go to? Is the gravitation sufficient to pass it to another place and time or is it returned as sub-atomic matter?

-mike

someone correct me if im wrong but i think you must have missed the other part of his theory. Hawking theorizes that black holes emit a type of radiation(IIRC "Hawking radiation") that has a mass and energy which eventually, after theyve eatin every bit of matter within range, causes them to dissolve...

 

[Hemlock_Mike]

Exactly what I asked... Where does this mass / energy go? I don't think we have detected it yet.

HMike

 

[MrGreenJeans]

Exactly what I asked... Where does this mass / energy go? I don't think we have detected it yet.

HMike

The LHC should solve that problem. They expect to create sub-atomic black holes due to the density of matter at the point of impact of near light speed protons. It should produce tiny singularities. If Hawking is right, and by all accounts he is on this issue, those little black holes will evaporate out of existence under a spray of hawking radiation.

 

[photonaholic]