Do We Have An infinite universe

[blazinfasstt]

How can you have something infinite when the it's derived from the sum of all things finite? It's impossible.

Every tangible thing we have found to date has been both measurable and finite. If you want to call the totality if all existence a 'thing', why does it defy the rest and suddenly infinite?

because the universe is not a "thing". Space is not matter.

it is empty space that is only now becoming inhabited.



so what if we only have experience with the finite at the moment, this is a theoretical debate for god sakes.
say on topic.


let me ask you this, why wouldnt there be infinite nothingness, or space?

because you fail to comprehend that anything could be infinite?


also, since when the hell is space derived from matter?

 

[Ivy Bridge]

because the universe is not a "thing". Space is not matter.

it is empty space that is only now becoming inhabited.



so what if we only have experience with the finite at the moment, this is a theoretical debate for god sakes.
say on topic.


let me ask you this, why wouldnt there be infinite nothingness, or space?

because you fail to comprehend that anything could be infinite?


also, since when the hell is space derived from matter?

How can you seriously argue whether or not space is infinite when we have so much observational evidence that it expanded, is expanding, and will continue to do so? Can you please address the complication of how something can be expanding and neverending at the same time?

To address some of your points, you are not thinking about infinity in the correct context. Space and time are connected, that is almost irrefutable. If space is infinite, as you seem keen to claim, then time must also be infinite. About the ocean example. If you think of it in a narrow context such as put two fish in and check on them in 1,000 years, you're expecting an infinite result out of a finite amount of time. Given an infinite amount of time, which is required if you believe in infinite space, there would be an infinite amount of fish.

Just curious on your reasoning... why do you think that an infinite amount of space could only contain a finite amount of matter? What would make the idea of infinite matter so absurd if you consider the idea of infinite space?

 

[blazinfasstt]

How can you seriously argue whether or not space is infinite when we have so much observational evidence that it expanded, is expanding, and will continue to do so? Can you please address the complication of how something can be expanding and neverending at the same time?

To address some of your points, you are not thinking about infinity in the correct context. Space and time are connected, that is almost irrefutable. If space is infinite, as you seem keen to claim, then time must also be infinite. About the ocean example. If you think of it in a narrow context such as put two fish in and check on them in 1,000 years, you're expecting an infinite result out of a finite amount of time. Given an infinite amount of time, which is required if you believe in infinite space, there would be an infinite amount of fish.

Just curious on your reasoning... why do you think that an infinite amount of space could only contain a finite amount of matter? What would make the idea of infinite matter so absurd if you consider the idea of infinite space?

jesus christ, im talking about the universe in terms of occupied and unoccupied space.

sure, galaxies are expanding from the point of the big bang, that does not mean that the space they are expanding into is being created.

I am saying that, why cant infinite space and matter exist in a finite amount of time?

i am not saying it would be impossible for there to be infinite mass in infinite space, I am saying that infinite mass is NOT REQUIRED for infinite space to exist.

 

[Ivy Bridge]

jesus christ, im talking about the universe in terms of occupied and unoccupied space.

sure, galaxies are expanding from the point of the big bang, that does not mean that the space they are expanding into is being created.

I am saying that, why cant infinite space and matter exist in a finite amount of time?

i am not saying it would be impossible for there to be infinite mass in infinite space, I am saying that infinite mass is NOT REQUIRED for infinite space to exist.

I don't get why you're "jesus christ"ing, and tbh it's not good for the discussion for you to have this "holier than thou" type mentality. Just sayin. It's a discussion, not a competition.

To your question, if space and time are one in the same, how can you have infinite of one without the other? Space would be the three dimensions we know and observe, time would be the fourth. How can one dimension be infinite and not the others? Infinite space simply isn't possible without infinite time. What you're proposing sounds an awful lot like the steady state theory, which has been largely discredited by a vast amount of observable evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

 

[Emperor Nero]

Infinite mass would be required for infinite space, because space has mass.

 

[blazinfasstt]

Infinite mass would be required for infinite space, because space has mass.

just because space has mass doesnt mean mass has to be infinite.

 

[Emperor Nero]

just because space has mass doesnt mean mass has to be infinite.

Yes it does, because if there is infinite space then there would be infinite mass because that space (which in this theoretical situation is infinite) has mass and if there is infinite of it then there is infinite of the other.

 

[blazinfasstt]

I don't get why you're "jesus christ"ing, and tbh it's not good for the discussion for you to have this "holier than thou" type mentality. Just sayin. It's a discussion, not a competition.

To your question, if space and time are one in the same, how can you have infinite of one without the other? Space would be the three dimensions we know and observe, time would be the fourth. How can one dimension be infinite and not the others? Infinite space simply isn't possible without infinite time. What you're proposing sounds an awful lot like the steady state theory, which has been largely discredited by a vast amount of observable evidence: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Steady_State_theory

you say that it is the 4th dimension, and that means it has to be infinite as well, if space is infinite. i dont see the logical connection there.

also, I have proposed nothing like what you have linked me to.

why cant one dimension be infinite and not the others?


now stop telling me i believe that new mass is being created as the universe expands, i never said anything like that.



These debates full of baseless claims are the reason that only new people go in the SFA.

I have talked to numerous people and they all agree, SFA is shit.

This confirms it.

being told I dont believe in fundamental laws of physics = fail

 

[malakadang]

This debate is about whether the universe, the totality of all existence is infinite, or not.

We know that space, time, energy, mass, and matter are all contained in the universe. If anyone, or any physical thing that occupies space is infinite, then it means that the size of the universe is infinite.

Space has atoms, atoms are matter, and matter has mass. An infinite number of space means an infinite number of atoms that have a mass, and thus, an infinite number of space, mass, and matter - I don't know about energy, or time, if they are contained within space, then they too must be infinite.

However, given that we know the Universe is expanding, this means that the totality of all existence is growing in size. If the totality of all existence is growing in size then it implies that it is finite for it cannot possibly get bigger if it is infinitely large.

Everything we have observed today is finite.
The sum of all finite things is not an infinite thing.
Therefore, with our present knowledge, the totality of all existence must be finite.

Which premise do you disagree with?

Saying that 'space' could be infinite, or, the universe could be infinite is like saying faeries could exist. Since all empirical evidence shows the 'things' in the universe to be of a finite nature, postulating one thing to be different is special pleading unless you have any evidence or reasoning to support it.

let me ask you this, why wouldnt there be infinite nothingness, or space?

I can answer this multiple ways, this is the simplest:
You are asserting a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

because you fail to comprehend that anything could be infinite?

Everything we have observed is finite, it seems you are asserting the baseless claim.

You keep wanting us to say 'why can't this be', if it's logically possible, then it is a possibility that it could be true. I'm not a physicist, I don't know whether it is, or whether it isn't. You're basically asking us "Why can't this logically possible idea be impossible, or, why can't this logically possible idea be impossible. They're both silly questions. Note: can't implies impossibility.

I'm still flummoxed, what reason do you have to believe that space, or the universe is infinite?

 

[Ivy Bridge]

you say that it is the 4th dimension, and that means it has to be infinite as well, if space is infinite. i dont see the logical connection there.

also, I have proposed nothing like what you have linked me to.

why cant one dimension be infinite and not the others?


now stop telling me i believe that new mass is being created as the universe expands, i never said anything like that.



These debates full of baseless claims are the reason that only new people go in the SFA.

I have talked to numerous people and they all agree, SFA is shit.

This confirms it.

being told I dont believe in fundamental laws of physics = fail

Perhaps, and I know this is a mindblowing concept, if you were a tad bit more tactful about the way you debate your point of view, SFA wouldn't be "shit". You've done nothing to argue your point other than state "why not hurr durr" which is the equivalent of trying to prove whether or not God exists with "why not?" Honestly, you give me the impression you just want to disagree with someone.

edit: for relevant info, see malakadang's post. you're the one asserting that the universe is infinite. you must provide the proof, and "why not" does not qualify as proof, it's more along the lines of a random hypothesis you're pulling out of your ass.

 

[Emperor Nero]

This debate is about whether the universe, the totality of all existence is infinite, or not.

We know that space, time, energy, mass, and matter are all contained in the universe. If anyone, or any physical thing that occupies space is infinite, then it means that the size of the universe is infinite.

Space has atoms, atoms are matter, and matter has mass. An infinite number of space means an infinite number of atoms that have a mass, and thus, an infinite number of space, mass, and matter - I don't know about energy, or time, if they are contained within space, then they too must be infinite.

However, given that we know the Universe is expanding, this means that the totality of all existence is growing in size. If the totality of all existence is growing in size then it implies that it is finite for it cannot possibly get bigger if it is infinitely large.

Everything we have observed today is finite.
The sum of all finite things is not an infinite thing.
Therefore, with our present knowledge, the totality of all existence must be finite.

Which premise do you disagree with?

Saying that 'space' could be infinite, or, the universe could be infinite is like saying faeries could exist. Since all empirical evidence shows the 'things' in the universe to be of a finite nature, postulating one thing to be different is special pleading unless you have any evidence or reasoning to support it.

I can answer this multiple ways, this is the simplest:
You are asserting a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Everything we have observed is finite, it seems you are asserting the baseless claim.

You keep wanting us to say 'why can't this be', if it's logically possible, then it is a possibility that it could be true. I'm not a physicist, I don't know whether it is, or whether it isn't. You're basically asking us "Why can't this logically possible idea be impossible, or, why can't this logically possible idea be impossible. They're both silly questions. Note: can't implies impossibility.

I'm still flummoxed, what reason do you have to believe that space, or the universe is infinite?

I agree with your quote in his sig, he is retarded.

@Blazin
If you studied on general relativity it would explain every concept we are trying to get across to you.

 

[Jei jei KK]

I'm going to assume the Big Bang model to be true, simply because it's the best explanation so far and if anyone has better suggestions they can share the thought.

If the Universe was infinite, we wouldn't have cosmic microwave background radiation, or it would be a much smaller, possibly unmeasurable amount. As the Universe expands, the radiation left from the initial plasma stage of the expansion sort of "scatters" around the Universe. In an infinite universe, the radiation would be scattered more or less homogenously and we wouldn't be able to observe it.

But we are able to. There's a persistent amount of thermal radiation a little under 3K in warmth that we can measure. Doesn't this show that the Universe isn't infinite?

 

[Imagine]

As I said before, for all practical purposes it is infinite, but otherwise, it isn't.
If we need space for something the universe will create it, but before it creates it, there's nothing there, not even space.

 

[blazinfasstt]

This debate is about whether the universe, the totality of all existence is infinite, or not.

We know that space, time, energy, mass, and matter are all contained in the universe. If anyone, or any physical thing that occupies space is infinite, then it means that the size of the universe is infinite.

Space has atoms, atoms are matter, and matter has mass. An infinite number of space means an infinite number of atoms that have a mass, and thus, an infinite number of space, mass, and matter - I don't know about energy, or time, if they are contained within space, then they too must be infinite.

However, given that we know the Universe is expanding, this means that the totality of all existence is growing in size. If the totality of all existence is growing in size then it implies that it is finite for it cannot possibly get bigger if it is infinitely large.

Everything we have observed today is finite.
The sum of all finite things is not an infinite thing.
Therefore, with our present knowledge, the totality of all existence must be finite.

Which premise do you disagree with?

Saying that 'space' could be infinite, or, the universe could be infinite is like saying faeries could exist. Since all empirical evidence shows the 'things' in the universe to be of a finite nature, postulating one thing to be different is special pleading unless you have any evidence or reasoning to support it.

I can answer this multiple ways, this is the simplest:
You are asserting a positive claim, the burden of proof is on you.

Everything we have observed is finite, it seems you are asserting the baseless claim.

You keep wanting us to say 'why can't this be', if it's logically possible, then it is a possibility that it could be true. I'm not a physicist, I don't know whether it is, or whether it isn't. You're basically asking us "Why can't this logically possible idea be impossible, or, why can't this logically possible idea be impossible. They're both silly questions. Note: can't implies impossibility.

I'm still flummoxed, what reason do you have to believe that space, or the universe is infinite?

i was having a theoretical debate
i am not actually arguing that there is infinite mass

"An infinite number of space means an infinite number of atoms that have a mass, and thus, an infinite number of space, mass, and matter -"

i dont know where you got this claim from though?

space =/= atoms
sure, you need space for atoms to exist, but space alone doesnt guarantee that atoms exist within it.



once again, im not claiming that an infinite universe does exist, i am saying that for an infinite universe to exist, there does not need to be infinite mass.




I will put it this way


you can have infinite space without infinite mass, because you can have empty space
you cannot have infinite mass without infinite space because the mass must occupy a space.

 

[malakadang]

i was having a theoretical debate
i am not actually arguing that there is infinite mass

"An infinite number of space means an infinite number of atoms that have a mass, and thus, an infinite number of space, mass, and matter -"

i dont know where you got this claim from though?

"Outer space is the void that exists between celestial bodies, including the Earth. It is not completely empty, but consists of a hard vacuum containing a low density of particles"

IF Space has something of with mass in it, than an infinite number of mass must exist.

space =/= atoms
sure, you need space for atoms to exist, but space alone doesnt guarantee that atoms exist within it.

Does space have mass?

once again, im not claiming that an infinite universe does exist, i am saying that for an infinite universe to exist, there does not need to be infinite mass.

Even if that were the case, I don't see there would be any reason for an infinite universe to exist. Is there any special reason for it to be privileged? I know you want a theoretical debate, but surely there must be some reason for it to be the universe as opposed to any other entity.

I will put it this way


you can have infinite space without infinite mass, because you can have empty space
you cannot have infinite mass without infinite space because the mass must occupy a space.

The only thing/phenomenon I know of that has no mass are cosmic voids - they actually don't contain matter, hence, presumably, no mass.

Space has mass, a 'place' that has no mass is a cosmic void, outside of that, what the universe is expanding into could also be considered a cosmic void (I'm not sure what the difference between the two presumable 'nothingnesses' are).


Here's a question: You have a box that is 50cm x 50cm x 20 cm, it also contains a brick in it with an unknown mass. If that box is theoretically turned into a box of infinite size, do you have an infinite mass?

 

[Jei jei KK]

you can have infinite space without infinite mass, because you can have empty space

OH OH OH
Because of quantum fluctuation, "empty" mass isn't empty - the value of a quantum field and the change in it over time are in the same situation as a particle's location and speed: according to Heisenberg's uncertainty principle the more accurately we know the speed, the less accurately we know the location and vice versa. This applies to quantum fields. In a completely "empty" space, both the value of the field and the change speed (*) would be 0. If the change speed wasn't 0, the space wouldn't remain empty.

Because of the uncertainty principle, both the value of the field and the change speed cannot be known accurately, space cannot be "empty". It can have a state of minimal energy that is called a vacuum, but quantum fluctuation occurs there, with virtual particles popping in and out of existence.

In an infinite universe, with infinite space, we would obviously have infinite virtual particles with infinite energy, which would curve the universe into an infinitely small size, which it doesn't appear to be. No?

(*)I'm not sure about the terminology - the value of the field sounds correct but the "change speed" is just a fast literal translation of some parts of chapter 5 in the book The Grand Design by Stephen Hawking and Leonard Mlodinow. (it's a good book, get it or at least read it) As I'm Finnish I have a Finnish version of the book, and I couldn't find a better word for it so I just had to make do.

I've actually received no formal education with quantum physics (just used a lot of my spare time), so if I'm wrong on some parts, do correct

 

[SaintxJay]

What "How the Universe works" I bet it will broaden your mind lol