1. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '16 09:584 edits
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    If our universe started with the big bang then how could it be infinite? Wouldn't it need to be infinite to begin with?
    Perhaps if the universe is now infinite, it was at least once 'finite' when hypothetically 'viewed' from 'outside' it but was always 'infinite', i.e. never 'finite', when hypothetically 'viewed' from 'inside' itself i.e. from within it?
    (This would imply that the singularity it came from can be 'infinite' in size when hypothetically 'viewed' from 'inside' itself but not from the outside)
    -something like the TARDIS being larger on the inside than the outside except infinity involved?


    ANYONE; does that above make any sense at all in conventional physics/cosmology theory?
  2. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '16 14:31
    Originally posted by humy
    ANYONE; does that above make any sense at all in conventional physics/cosmology theory?
    Not to me. The universe doesn't have an outside nor can it be viewed from outside whether or not it is finite or infinite. I realize you put the words in quotes, but they must mean something and I can't think of a meaning for which they would make sense.
  3. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '16 14:34
    What the universe was like 'at the beginning' is unknown - hence the moniker 'singularity'.
    It is not even known whether or not it had a beginning. The best we can say at present is that it was most likely very very dense - this tells us nothing about its finiteness.
  4. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    10 Apr '16 18:02
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Not to me. The universe doesn't have an outside nor can it be viewed from outside whether or not it is finite or infinite. I realize you put the words in quotes, but they must mean something and I can't think of a meaning for which they would make sense.
    couldn't another (hypothetical) universe other than our own be considered to be 'outside' of our own thus imply there is an 'outside' of our own?
  5. Standard memberlemon lime
    itiswhatitis
    oLd ScHoOl
    Joined
    31 May '13
    Moves
    5577
    10 Apr '16 18:421 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    The 'big bang' is a misnomer.
    Okay, then how about we call it The Little Universe That Could...

    "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can... become infinite!"
  6. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '16 19:55
    Originally posted by humy
    couldn't another (hypothetical) universe other than our own be considered to be 'outside' of our own thus imply there is an 'outside' of our own?
    Its a tricky problem. I suppose so, but it must be very clear that it would not be outside in terms of spacial dimensions but be in a completely other dimension.
    If you look at a numberline on a piece of paper you are outside the numberline, and you could draw other numberlines also completely disjoint form the first one. All the numberlines are theoretically infinite.
    What you mustn't do is imagine the universe as a sphere with other universes being spheres in a larger space. That is not the case.
  7. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    10 Apr '16 19:57
    Originally posted by lemon lime
    Okay, then how about we call it The Little Universe That Could...

    "I think I can, I think I can, I think I can... become infinite!"
    Call it whatever you like. I prefer just plain old 'the universe'.
    If the universe is infinite, it likely has always been infinite.
  8. Joined
    06 Mar '12
    Moves
    642
    11 Apr '16 06:22
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    Its a tricky problem. I suppose so, but it must be very clear that it would not be outside in terms of spacial dimensions but be in a completely other dimension.
    If you look at a numberline on a piece of paper you are outside the numberline, and you could draw other numberlines also completely disjoint form the first one. All the numberlines are theoreti ...[text shortened]... universe as a sphere with other universes being spheres in a larger space. That is not the case.
    it is impossible to visualize separate universes with no spatial dimension between them but, as usual, just because we cannot visualize something doesn't mean it isn't true.
  9. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Apr '16 06:37
    Originally posted by humy
    it is impossible to visualize separate universes with no spatial dimension between them but, as usual, just because we cannot visualize something doesn't mean it isn't true.
    When I say 'no spatial dimension', I am referring to the three spatial dimensions we know. And it isn't true, not because its impossible to visualize, it isn't true because it violates the definition of 'universe'.
    What I am saying is that the 3 spatial dimensions we know, are complete within this universe. They may be finite or infinite, but they do not have edges with a 'beyond'. If the universe is finite, you still could not travel to the edge of the universe and fall off, just as you cannot fall off the edge of the finite surface area of the earth. To view the Earth's surface you need a third dimension. to view the universe externally, you need more dimensions.
  10. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    11 Apr '16 12:051 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    When I say 'no spatial dimension', I am referring to the three spatial dimensions we know. And it isn't true, not because its impossible to visualize, it isn't true because it violates the definition of 'universe'.
    What I am saying is that the 3 spatial dimensions we know, are complete within this universe. They may be finite or infinite, but they do not ...[text shortened]... s surface you need a third dimension. to view the universe externally, you need more dimensions.
    Sounds like our definition of 'universe' is at odds with reality.

    If there was this 'big bang', as you say, a misnomer, It seems it would have to had come from a dimension outside our set of dimensions. How else would you frame the problem?

    Like the hypothesis that the 'BB' was a black hole in a parent universe squirting mass, space, and time into what becomes our universe, a white hole on this side of reality, a black hole on that other dimension.
  11. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Apr '16 15:12
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Sounds like our definition of 'universe' is at odds with reality.

    If there was this 'big bang', as you say, a misnomer, It seems it would have to had come from a dimension outside our set of dimensions. How else would you frame the problem?
    We simply don't know. The BB is a singularity.
    We do not know if there was a 'before' or a 'came from'. We simply don't know anything whatsoever about it.
    There is also no 'had to'.
  12. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    11 Apr '16 15:261 edit
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    We simply don't know. The BB is a singularity.
    We do not know if there was a 'before' or a 'came from'. We simply don't know anything whatsoever about it.
    There is also no 'had to'.
    Something squirting space into what becomes OUR dimension would seem to by definition need some other starting point, outside our existence. It didn't happen out of thin air so to speak.

    Or do you think it was the first non causal event in our universe?
  13. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    11 Apr '16 17:35
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    Something squirting space into what becomes OUR dimension would seem to by definition need some other starting point, outside our existence. It didn't happen out of thin air so to speak.

    Or do you think it was the first non causal event in our universe?
    I think we don't know.

    If time extends before the BB, then so does space as they are intimately linked. If time does not extend before the BB, then yes, it was necessarily the first non-causal event in our universe.

    I see no reason whatsoever to posit some other time-like dimension in which some cause-like events take place to create our universe. I cannot rule it out, but it would need some sort of evidence to be anything other than a wild hypothesis dreamed up because our understanding of our causally based universe makes us feel the need for causes even when there may be none.

    I see no good reason to think that it didn't happen out of thin air - or more accurately, there was never any thin air, and it didn't so much 'happen' as 'just was'.

    It seems to me that at least one brute fact is necessary for existence. We do not know what that brute fact is, or if there are others, but I see no reason why the universe's existence could not be a brute fact.
  14. Subscribersonhouse
    Fast and Curious
    slatington, pa, usa
    Joined
    28 Dec '04
    Moves
    53223
    12 Apr '16 11:09
    Originally posted by twhitehead
    I think we don't know.

    If time extends before the BB, then so does space as they are intimately linked. If time does not extend before the BB, then yes, it was necessarily the first non-causal event in our universe.

    I see no reason whatsoever to posit some other time-like dimension in which some cause-like events take place to create our universe. I ...[text shortened]... if there are others, but I see no reason why the universe's existence could not be a brute fact.
    Here is one set of such evidence:

    Levi thinks he may have spotted a clue, however. He and two NYU colleagues note another strange anomaly embedded in the cosmic microwave background: In the southern hemisphere of the sky there is one cold spot that is much bigger than the rest. Levi’s calculations show that an ancient wallop from a neighboring universe could have created this spot. “It’s tough to explain with standard cosmology how such a cold spot could have come about,” he says.

    The whole article:

    http://discovermagazine.com/2009/oct/04-will-our-universe-collide-with-neighboring-one

    When such evidence appears, cosmologists or theoretical physicists are hard pressed to come up with a scenario that would make such a large structure in the microwave background.

    It lends support to the multiverse idea. At least there IS evidence, not pure speculation.
  15. Cape Town
    Joined
    14 Apr '05
    Moves
    52945
    12 Apr '16 12:34
    Originally posted by sonhouse
    It lends support to the multiverse idea. At least there IS evidence, not pure speculation.
    I disagree. It isn't in the category of evidence yet. It is still just speculation, and in my opinion largely unjustified speculation.
Back to Top

Cookies help us deliver our Services. By using our Services or clicking I agree, you agree to our use of cookies. Learn More.I Agree