infinite universe

Hi sa, sp!

A friend learned in school that 69! is bigger than the number of
atoms in the universe. "Nonsense!" I said, "The universe is
infinite, so it has infinite atoms."

After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the universe
is finite or infinite. However, some sources claim a singularity at
the big bang where the mass of the universe was contained in a point
(or ring) with 0 volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume
can instantly explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually
possible? Hmm, if the singularity contained infinite matter and then
expanded so there was finite space between particles then it must
become infinitely big. Hmm, I guess, an infinitely heavy singularity
would be surrounded by an infinitely big event horizon. Could the
matter in the singularity spread over the infinite volume in the
event horizon?

Thanks for your wisdom. Sorry if this is a FAQ. The number of atoms
in the *observable* universe 69!.

Bernhard

Bernhard Kuemel wrote:
(or ring) with 0 volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume
can instantly explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually
possible? Hmm, if the singularity contained infinite matter and then

Wouldn't most of the matter need to travel FTL for this?

Bernhard

Bernhard Kuemel wrote:
Bernhard Kuemel wrote:

(or ring) with 0 volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume
can instantly explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually
possible? Hmm, if the singularity contained infinite matter and then

Wouldn't most of the matter need to travel FTL for this?

IMHO, actually all of it would have to travel FTL if the transition
0 volume to infinite (or even finite) volume happened instantly (0
s). But much less can I imagine the transition to infinite volume
happen in finite time - with a period of finite volume in between.
So for an infinite universe the volume of the singularity must be
infinite in the first place which is probably impossible. So maybe
there was no singularity at all. Or some weird kind of coordinate
sytem transformation must occur.

Bernhard

Bernhard Kuemel wrote:
Hi sa, sp!

A friend learned in school that 69! is bigger than the number of
atoms in the universe. "Nonsense!" I said, "The universe is
infinite, so it has infinite atoms."

After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the universe
is finite or infinite...




Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).

What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable
hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might
be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is
infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with
some repeating shape, around which light rays might
wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense
that, as in video games, something might disappear off
the left side of the screen and reappear on the right
side).

A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the
distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance
that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible
universe," and the place in deep space whence comes
the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should
show up in the microwave background.

But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.
The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring
patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of
cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of
10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish,
Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters,
upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986,
.)

No Center
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

Also see Ned Wright's Cosmology Tutorial
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm
http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmology_faq.html

WMAP: Foundations of the Big Bang theory
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni.html

WMAP: Tests of Big Bang Cosmology
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101bbtest.html

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 13:24:17 GMT, Sam Wormley
wrote:

Bernhard Kuemel wrote:
Hi sa, sp!

A friend learned in school that 69! is bigger than the number of
atoms in the universe. "Nonsense!" I said, "The universe is
infinite, so it has infinite atoms."

After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the universe is finite or infinite...


Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

(snip)
A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
(snip)
But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.

Good summary!

Earlier last year I realized that a smooth, isotropic finite universe
lent itself to simple ray tracing and led to the conclusion that it
must be an expanding hyperspherical surface embedded in 4D space.
Further,on tracing the rays, the sky would necessarily contain images
of itself and its complement from prior epochs.

Later, I learned about the pairs-of-circles observation and its null
outcome. In that context however, I find it hard to reconcile smooth,
isotropic, no-boundary universe with any topology that could result in
such circles.

Currently, I am being updated by (reading) Susskind to the effect that
this universe may be the happy (for a few of us) result of an
on-going process of creation involving myriad pocket universes, some
few of which have the critical parameters which support intelligence
and life. arXiv:hep-th/0302219, arXiv:hep-th/0408133

In the context of such a multiverse, the finite/infinite question of
the IP becomes a matter of definition--at what time? and within what
boundary of observation. IIRC older cosmologies gave the estimate
(with scant proof) of 10^50 particles in the universe. Some multiverse
advocates might give the estimate of 10^50 universes within the
multiverse.

"BK" == Bernhard Kuemel writes:

BK After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the
BK universe is finite or infinite.

Well, yes. It is difficult to imagine how one could demonstrate
observationally that the Universe is infinite. The best that one
could do is show that its size was not smaller than some amount.

Having said that, if one thinks that general relativity is the correct
theory of gravity, the current observational data are consistent with
a prediction from GR that the Universe is infinite in spatial extent.

BK However, some sources claim a singularity at the big bang where
BK the mass of the universe was contained in a point (or ring) with 0
BK volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume can instantly
BK explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually possible? Hmm, if
BK the singularity contained infinite matter and then expanded so
BK there was finite space between particles then it must become
BK infinitely big. Hmm, I guess, an infinitely heavy singularity
BK would be surrounded by an infinitely big event horizon. Could the
BK matter in the singularity spread over the infinite volume in the
BK event horizon?

This confusion arises because people are sloppy when defining
"singularity" and "Universe." A singularity can be more than simply a
point. A better way of expressing what people typically say is
something along the lines of

If one extrapolates backward in time, one reaches a time at which
the density and temperature of the Universe were everywhere
infinite (the "singularity"). At this time, the radius of the
observable Universe would have been infinitesimally small.


--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC

Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).


And how many orders of magnitude is that ? Probably within about 15
orders from 1 / (h-bar) , ya think ?



Well, yes. It is difficult to imagine how one could demonstrate
observationally that the Universe is infinite. The best that one
could do is show that its size was not smaller than some amount.


Quite. Particularly so when empiricism dictates that observability =
measureability, either directly or indirectly.

It is very difficult imagining how one would actually "measure"
something either infinitely long, or infinitessimally short. Almost
certainly impossible.

Even if you had a nice Peano curve sitting in your lab, how do you
actually "measure" that length ?


Having said that, if one thinks that general relativity is the correct
theory of gravity, the current observational data are consistent with
a prediction from GR that the Universe is infinite in spatial extent.


I disagree precisely 1/2. Observability of length is restricted. The
universe may be infinite and open in an absolute sense, but what we
experience is finite and closed. All the experimental evidence tends to
point toward a finite universe, yet this could be due to a purely
observability/measureability restriction.

It is finite, and also infinite, simultaneously.

Now everybody's happy.


BK However, some sources claim a singularity at the big bang where
BK the mass of the universe was contained in a point (or ring) with 0
BK volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume can instantly
BK explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually possible? Hmm, if
BK the singularity contained infinite matter and then expanded so
BK there was finite space between particles then it must become
BK infinitely big. Hmm, I guess, an infinitely heavy singularity
BK would be surrounded by an infinitely big event horizon. Could the
BK matter in the singularity spread over the infinite volume in the
BK event horizon?

This confusion arises because people are sloppy when defining
"singularity" and "Universe." A singularity can be more than simply a
point. A better way of expressing what people typically say is
something along the lines of

If one extrapolates backward in time, one reaches a time at which
the density and temperature of the Universe were everywhere
infinite (the "singularity"). At this time, the radius of the
observable Universe would have been infinitesimally small.


--
Lt. Lazio, HTML police | e-mail:
No means no, stop rape. | http://patriot.net/%7Ejlazio/
sci.astro FAQ at http://sciastro.astronomy.net/sci.astro.html

"Bernhard Kuemel" wrote in message
.. .
Hi sa, sp!

A friend learned in school that 69! is bigger than the number of
atoms in the universe. "Nonsense!" I said, "The universe is
infinite, so it has infinite atoms."

After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the universe
is finite or infinite. However, some sources claim a singularity at
the big bang where the mass of the universe was contained in a point
(or ring) with 0 volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume
can instantly explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually
possible? Hmm, if the singularity contained infinite matter and then
expanded so there was finite space between particles then it must
become infinitely big. Hmm, I guess, an infinitely heavy singularity
would be surrounded by an infinitely big event horizon. Could the
matter in the singularity spread over the infinite volume in the
event horizon?

Thanks for your wisdom. Sorry if this is a FAQ. The number of atoms
in the *observable* universe 69!.

Bernhard


Depends on how you see "infinite." It every point in the Universe (U) is
seen at that point to be the center of the entire Universe, and if distance
to the most distant horizon (Big Bang, speed of light, Planck.....) in every
possible direction of the observable universe (u) is seen from every point
that can witness that horizon to be precisely the same for all points --
whatever their relativity of position or velocity or time to other points,
then the Universe should be infinite.

It is presupposed that all space is one space (one space-time continuum).
Since we can't see it as being such, since it is unobservable simultaneity
(simultaneousness) incarnate, ipso facto there is no such thing as one,
single, absolute of [3-d] volume space. But there is only one, single,
absolute of distantly remote collapsed (relatively speaking (the same
horizon being universally relative to every "point") [1-d] horizon. Therein
and therefore the Universe [is] (can only be) infinite. It has no volume
(zero volume); it has finite [2-d] surface (as in the [2-d] surface of a
volume bubble (all volume bubbles (that is, all local volume universes)))
the center of which is the aforementioned "point"; and last but not least,
it (that distantly remote collapsed [1-d] horizon) cannot possibly have any
other length than infinite length.

The fourth dimension of "time" ("relative time") is nothing more than the
distance-time (measured by the speed of light (the base unit of
distance-time)) to the distantly remote collapsed [1-d] horizon from each
and every local, or foreground, or preferred frame of reference, or
relative, "point" center of the Universe. There being no actual one, single,
center point to the entire Universe, there being an endless number of point
centers totaling an infinite length in horizon, the greater Universe (now
also called "the Multiverse" (or "multiverse" (very confusing)) is an
infinite Universe.

When thinking about endless numbers of point centers to an infinite
Universe, do not(!) think only in terms of relative positions but think also
in terms of relative velocities. Though it may probably be denied that
velocity has anything to do with "rubber sheet" expansion / contractionism,
[relatively speaking] it has everything to do with it. Any one of those
endless number of point centers may become inclusive of many others of the
endless number of point centers, or conversely, exclusive of them, according
to relative velocities.

GLB

wrote:
It is finite, and also infinite, simultaneously.

Now everybody's happy.

I would be happy, if there are more than 69! atoms in the universe
. Are there?

Bernhard

"G. L. Bradford" wrote in message
news:snWNf.589964$084.500272@attbi_s22...

"Bernhard Kuemel" wrote in message
.. .
Hi sa, sp!

A friend learned in school that 69! is bigger than the number of
atoms in the universe. "Nonsense!" I said, "The universe is
infinite, so it has infinite atoms."

After some research it turned out that it is unknown if the universe
is finite or infinite. However, some sources claim a singularity at
the big bang where the mass of the universe was contained in a point
(or ring) with 0 volume. I find it hard to imagine that a 0 volume
can instantly explode to an infinite volume. Is this actually
possible? Hmm, if the singularity contained infinite matter and then
expanded so there was finite space between particles then it must
become infinitely big. Hmm, I guess, an infinitely heavy singularity
would be surrounded by an infinitely big event horizon. Could the
matter in the singularity spread over the infinite volume in the
event horizon?

Thanks for your wisdom. Sorry if this is a FAQ. The number of atoms
in the *observable* universe 69!.

Bernhard


Depends on how you see "infinite." It every point in the Universe (U) is
seen at that point to be the center of the entire Universe, and if
distance to the most distant horizon (Big Bang, speed of light,
Planck.....) in every possible direction of the observable universe (u) is
seen from every point that can witness that horizon to be precisely the
same for all points -- whatever their relativity of position or velocity
or time to other points, then the Universe should be infinite.

It is presupposed that all space is one space (one space-time continuum).
Since we can't see it as being such, since it is unobservable simultaneity
(simultaneousness) incarnate, ipso facto there is no such thing as one,
single, absolute of [3-d] volume space. But there is only one, single,
absolute of distantly remote collapsed (relatively speaking (the same
horizon being universally relative to every "point") [1-d] horizon.
Therein and therefore the Universe [is] (can only be) infinite. It has no
volume (zero volume); it has finite [2-d] surface (as in the [2-d] surface
of a volume bubble (all volume bubbles (that is, all local volume
universes))) the center of which is the aforementioned "point"; and last
but not least, it (that distantly remote collapsed [1-d] horizon) cannot
possibly have any other length than infinite length.

The fourth dimension of "time" ("relative time") is nothing more than the
distance-time (measured by the speed of light (the base unit of
distance-time)) to the distantly remote collapsed [1-d] horizon from each
and every local, or foreground, or preferred frame of reference, or
relative, "point" center of the Universe. There being no actual one,
single, center point to the entire Universe, there being an endless number
of point centers totaling an infinite length in horizon, the greater
Universe (now also called "the Multiverse" (or "multiverse" (very
confusing)) is an infinite Universe.

When thinking about endless numbers of point centers to an infinite
Universe, do not(!) think only in terms of relative positions but think
also in terms of relative velocities. Though it may probably be denied
that velocity has anything to do with "rubber sheet" expansion /
contractionism, [relatively speaking] it has everything to do with it. Any
one of those endless number of point centers may become inclusive of many
others of the endless number of point centers, or conversely, exclusive of
them, according to relative velocities.

GLB

Forgot something important. The potential to become "inclusive" or
"exclusive" is the potential to become "hyper-dimensional" or
"hyper-spatial" (whichever you prefer). Velocity, relatively speaking, has
everything to do with so-called "'rubber sheet' expansion / contractionism."

GLB