ChatterBank2 mins ago
Infinite Or Closed Universe
Can any of the scientific minds here please tell me what the current scientific understanding of the universe is at the present? (or at least the general consensus). Is it closed or infinite?
I have trouble wrapping my head around either model. Is there another one that I havnt heard about.
Thanks.
I have trouble wrapping my head around either model. Is there another one that I havnt heard about.
Thanks.
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by nailit. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
We need to differentiate between the space in the Universe and the matter within it. The matter may well have started as a big lump which exploded, but the space it occupies must be infinite. I'm uncomfortable with the concept but there can be no other explanation. Space simply goes on forever. Any other explanation (however complex or convoluted - and I've heard of the "finite but unbounded" theory) necessitates a boundary of some sort. And if there is a boundary there must be something beyond it.
"And if there is a boundary there must be something beyond it."
Too late for me to answer this as fully as I'd like -- I'll come back tomorrow. Just wanted to note, though, that while what NJ is saying makes intuitive sense this isn't actually true. There's no requirement for a bounded Universe to exist inside something else. (In a similar way, an infinite universe can still have things "outside" it, but that would mean that an extra dimension existed.)
Also note that an infinite universe can also expand, because what really changes is the distance between things. Hence, again, the idea of the Big Bang as "a Big Lump [of matter] that exploded" isn't quite right.
Too late for me to answer this as fully as I'd like -- I'll come back tomorrow. Just wanted to note, though, that while what NJ is saying makes intuitive sense this isn't actually true. There's no requirement for a bounded Universe to exist inside something else. (In a similar way, an infinite universe can still have things "outside" it, but that would mean that an extra dimension existed.)
Also note that an infinite universe can also expand, because what really changes is the distance between things. Hence, again, the idea of the Big Bang as "a Big Lump [of matter] that exploded" isn't quite right.
// but the space it occupies must be infinite. //
I find it very difficult to get my head around that - our space is expanding but isnt expanding into anything - kinda like a balloon being blown up is a two d surface expanding in 3-space. kinda not like that
but as my nephew ( Maff : Cambridge ) said - if you look at the equations - it is obvious that isnt true - he might have said - 'that isnt the case.'
that was me told then.
[ I then said: oh it is like the kidney. If the kidney worked like the physiologists say it works: it wouldnt work - and he said - no that is not helpful]
I find it very difficult to get my head around that - our space is expanding but isnt expanding into anything - kinda like a balloon being blown up is a two d surface expanding in 3-space. kinda not like that
but as my nephew ( Maff : Cambridge ) said - if you look at the equations - it is obvious that isnt true - he might have said - 'that isnt the case.'
that was me told then.
[ I then said: oh it is like the kidney. If the kidney worked like the physiologists say it works: it wouldnt work - and he said - no that is not helpful]
// Interesting to toss ideas around but since no one knows, current scientific understanding isn’t really relevant at all.//
yikes Jim you have your work cut out tomorrow in your crusade against ingrained ignorance.....
Einstein said to LeMaitre the jesuit who came up with an early big bang theory "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[14] ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.") Einstein later called this the greatest mistake of his life
I would put that as 'your maff is boodifoll but your physique, eed eez like a peeg'
Sorry readers - bit of forrin there
yikes Jim you have your work cut out tomorrow in your crusade against ingrained ignorance.....
Einstein said to LeMaitre the jesuit who came up with an early big bang theory "Vos calculs sont corrects, mais votre physique est abominable"[14] ("Your calculations are correct, but your physics is atrocious.") Einstein later called this the greatest mistake of his life
I would put that as 'your maff is boodifoll but your physique, eed eez like a peeg'
Sorry readers - bit of forrin there
naomi: "it can only be a best guess - and anyone with an interest in it can have a best guess. " - yes but the scientific community will quickly refute anything refutable. What is left us what the combined might of the scientific community cannot refute and also fits all known observations. More or less all scientific theories are the same, ie they are in a state of awaiting disproving .
It's technically speaking impossible to "know" that the Universe is infinite in space, as it's now understood to have a definite beginning, which means that you would have to wait around literally for ever to see the light from stars infinitely far away (this is a variation of what's called "Olber's Paradox", which asks why the night sky is dark if the Universe is infinite).
There are other, more exciting reasons than this. Assuming the Universe expands for ever then some parts of the Universe can never be seen because they are simply moving away from us too quickly for light emitted from them to ever reach us. That means that it will almost certainly be literally impossible to tell if the Universe is infinite or not.
The best we can do is to show, continually, that it is at least bigger than what we can see. In that sense, at least, current understanding certainly *is* relevant because the current understanding is that the question is open (but that it's probably infinite, for the moment).
There are other, more exciting reasons than this. Assuming the Universe expands for ever then some parts of the Universe can never be seen because they are simply moving away from us too quickly for light emitted from them to ever reach us. That means that it will almost certainly be literally impossible to tell if the Universe is infinite or not.
The best we can do is to show, continually, that it is at least bigger than what we can see. In that sense, at least, current understanding certainly *is* relevant because the current understanding is that the question is open (but that it's probably infinite, for the moment).
// TTT, it can only be a best guess - and anyone with an interest in it can have a best guess.//
o god this is late night AB craziness
so my best guess is that the earth is flat ( or God created it in 4004BC) and so that should be given prominence in schools along with Darwin and Lyell ? -as all theories are equally valid. Oh Dear
o god this is late night AB craziness
so my best guess is that the earth is flat ( or God created it in 4004BC) and so that should be given prominence in schools along with Darwin and Lyell ? -as all theories are equally valid. Oh Dear
Since it's late and since nobody knows the real answer it's best to keep it simple:
There always has been and always will be a set amount of matter/energy (the two being interchangeable) in the universe, although its composition and density will have varied. It has always existed in an infinite space.
There's no real need to make it any more complex than that.
There always has been and always will be a set amount of matter/energy (the two being interchangeable) in the universe, although its composition and density will have varied. It has always existed in an infinite space.
There's no real need to make it any more complex than that.
Latest Posts
Crosswords6 mins ago
Is Elon Musk An "Absolute Hero...
News7 mins ago
ChatterBank9 mins ago
Related Questions
Sorry, we can't find any related questions. Try using the search bar at the top of the page to search for some keywords, or choose a topic and submit your own question.