Question Edgeless universe?

[David-J-Franks]

You will probably get a lot of variety in replies.
I don't think you will meet yourself coming back.

I will kick off with one idea I had long ago. If you got to the edge of the Universe (whatever that may mean) there is nothing beyond. If you set off away from the Universe you would become the edge of the Universe. In other words you need a frame of reference. The 'edge' of the Universe must be defined by something. A star ? ? ? whatever. When you set off beyond, you become the new defining point.

You will get more sophisticated replies (maybe including one from me) but I thought I would kick off with a simple one.

Enjoy your visits here. Look through the topics.

Cat

I like this bit if I change the universe to our universe

If you set off away from the Universe you would become the edge of the Universe. In other words you need a frame of reference. The 'edge' of the Universe must be defined by something. A star ? ? ? whatever. When you set off beyond, you become the new defining point.

I can't agree with this

If you got to the edge of the Universe (whatever that may mean) there is nothing beyond.

Are you suggesting there's just one universe sitting in an infinite void? when put like this it seems bizarre to me. Why would there be just one thing in an otherwise infinite void, why 13.8 billion years ago and not some other age? I think whatever laws of nature allowed or gave rise to one universe must also have created an infinite number of others

 

[David-J-Franks]

When you get to the edge what do you see? Can you keep going?

If they are bright and close enough you will see some of the infinite other universes. You can keep going for as long as your space ship has fuel and food until you die Only joking, in practice, you can't get far because the universe is expanding faster than light speed beyond a certain distance (Hubble's Law)

 

[David-J-Franks]

Haven't got there yet, sorry.
My answer was a bit tongue in cheek
The point is that the Universe is complete. By definition there is nothing beyond.

How can something that has a finite age, size and expansion rate, be everything there is? If it has a finite size there must be a beyond

 

[rod]

FYI folks. How Big Is the Universe? The answer provided in this report "We can only see a tiny, little bubble of [the universe]. And what's outside of that? We don't really know," Kinney said. But by calculating the size of that little bubble, scientists can estimate what's outside of it. Scientists know that the universe is 13.8 billion years old, give or take a few hundred million years. That means that an object whose light has taken 13.8 billion years to reach us should be the very farthest object we can see. You might be tempted to think that gives us an easy answer for the size of the universe: 13.8 billion light-years. But keep in mind that the universe is also continuously expanding at an increasing rate. In the amount of time that light has taken to reach us, the edge of the bubble has moved. Luckily, scientists know just how far it's moved: 46.5 billion light-years away, based on calculations of universe’s expansion since the big bang."

My observation. The 46.5 billion LY distance comes from the comoving radial distance since the BB using z=1000 or more for the redshift of the CMBR. COSMOLOGY CALCULATORS However, David, Cat, et al. My telescopes cannot see anything that far away ---Rod

 

[David-J-Franks]

Welcome from me also.

First of all, I would like to suggest that the dictionary definition of the universe, ie "it is everything there is", is out of date, I suggest it was thought of well before the big bang model. This definition doesn't allow for multiple or infinite other universes or multiverse theories etc. So, I would like to add to this thread with some of my own personal ideas.

Our universe started with a finite size, it has a finite rate of expansion and a finite age, so it must now have a finite size. I now treat the universe as an object. Objects exist in a space, they don't create all of space. I think the space our universe is in must be infinite, I call this space 'The Infinite'. So, I now see 'The Infinite' as 'everything there is'.

I also believe nature does not allow one-off processes, if it's possible once then it's always possible. The big bang was a natural process, so, given an infinite space as in 'The Infinite', there must be an infinite number of universes.

So, my answer to your question is that the universe is expanding into the space of 'The Infinite'. Space is a tangible 'something' such as quantum field/foam/fluctuations, vacuum energy, dark energy etc, it's not a void. So as well as expanding into space, space also came out of the big bang along with its matter and energy

Forgot to mention that if our universe is to be treated as an object, then it also has a centre. Having an edge and centre now means it does not comply with the cosmological principle ie that it's the same in all directions from here and the same from any other point in space

 

[Catastrophe]

I shouted "Thank rod for that".
My wife thought I shouted "Thank god for that"
I said "Not much difference",

He frightens away the nasties.

 

[Catastrophe]

"If it has a finite size there must be a beyond"

A perfect example of anthropomorphic delusion.

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
(Old proverb).

 

[David-J-Franks]

I shouted "Thank rod for that".
My wife thought I shouted "Thank god for that"
I said "Not much difference",

He frightens away the nasties.

Last night you appear to have called me ignorant and stupid. You or a moderator has since removed it. Here is a copy of the wording from that post for all to see. It's obvious that post was directed at me because I was the only one posting at that time and it came very soon after my posts.

You said:

"There is a word for playing around with something to please one's own ignorance..

I seem to have forgotten what it is."

Also, looks like you are calling me nasty, again obviously directed at me for the same reasons as above.

If you don't agree with my ideas please say why, or direct me to better information, or suggest your own ideas, even make fun of it, as you have done with Kabones question, but please don't call me stupid, ignorant and nasty.

It would also help others by saying why you think my ideas are wrong, rather than calling me stupid in the form of a riddle.

I stayed up extra late to write my posts, so I saw your posts last thing, and so went to bed hurt and disappointed.

I got up this morning with my mind churning around thinking how to reply, only to find the post removed. Whoever removed it, shows it was out of order.

 

[David-J-Franks]

"If it has a finite size there must be a beyond"

A perfect example of anthropomorphic delusion.

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
(Old proverb).

To add insult to injury, you're now suggesting I'm deluded. Again, it would help everyone if you say why my ideas are a delusion, rather than calling me deluded.

In my opinion, it is a perfect example of arrogance to ridicule peoples ideas (again with riddles) without giving a reason.

 

[Wolfshadw]

The post was removed by the person who wrote the post.

I will caution all parties to remain respectful in your responses.

Wolfshadw
Moderator

 

[David-J-Franks]

"The point is that the Universe is complete. By definition there is nothing beyond."

Now take that on board please

One of the most mainstream ideas at the moment is the 'Eternal Inflation' model of the big bang. This has it that bubble universes are continuously popping into existence out of an eternal inflation field. OUR universe is one such bubble of an infinite number of other bubble universes.

There are many other theories which postulate multiple or infinite other universes.

According to this theory and others, and to continue in the tone of your post;

OUR universe is NOT complete it is NOT 'everything there is', so accordingly there IS a beyond.

The word now to describe 'everything there is' becomes 'The Multiverse' not 'The Universe'

Now take that on board, please

 

[David-J-Franks]

The post was removed by the person who wrote the post.

I will caution all parties to remain respectful in your responses.

Wolfshadw
Moderator

Thank you for that information, I wrote my reply to Catastrophe in the most respectful way my English would allow, for example using words such as 'appears to' and 'looks like', just in case I had misinterpreted his riddles. But I hope everyone can understand that I had to reply. For that reason thankyou for not deleting my post.

I've had great respect for Catastrophe, we've had many great conversions.

My latest reply to Catastrophe was a little acidic as I hit the reply button before I saw your post.

Anyway, back to normal now.

 

[David-J-Franks]

That article also covers the shape, and also a bit on the definition of universe, which I want to come back to later (winks at Catstrophe). Right now I’m looking for an answer to my question. If I travel towards a galaxy faster than it is moving away from me I will eventually get there. If I keep going I will pass it. In a closed universe if I keep going I will eventually catch it again. If I start out in the opposite direction eventually I will also get to the galaxy. Since I’m arriving at the same galaxy, it seems in one direction it’s moving away from me, but in the other direction it’s moving toward me. Right?

Without researching I' under the impression that the maths has several possibilities; space can be flat, or with positive or negative curvature or with enough curvature to form a closed space, which I guess you are alluding to. If you believe in this closed space, then yes you will always come back to your starting point, or see the same galaxy whichever way you go round.

To the best of my knowledge, I think the best measurements so far of the universe point to it being flat with a good degree of accuracy. The error in these readings also suggest minimum size of the Whole Universe to be 250 times the size of the Observable Universe. For if it were smaller than this then our instruments would be sensitive enough to detect an unevenness with space.

 

[David-J-Franks]

QUOTE
If I start out in the opposite direction eventually I will also get to the galaxy.
QUOTE

To put it politely. this is "blowing in the wind".

The Universe is a large place. You don't have a compass. You don't have a spacesuit. You don't have FLT. You are not immortal.

Your premise is leaking badly.

I don't think these are Kabones own premises the idea of flat, curved and closed space was dreamt up long ago by mathematicians. If he's choosing a closed universe then the weird effects he describing seem to me to comply with that view of space. Its just a consequence of his chosen geometry.

 

[David-J-Franks]

And also, according to the present accepted theories, the Universe is a sphere. And, I don't think a sphere has an "edge" if you mean it. A sphere has no vertex.

Great, yes the universe is a sphere, but we live inside it, a 3D space. We are not flatlanders walking around the surface of it. Therefore, isn't there an inside and outside to it?

I'm guessing here that Kabone means the edge of the universe is the surface of this sphere?

 

[David-J-Franks]

Good. I can be my nice friendly self

Sorry, but I still have the same problem. An edgeless Universe is directly analogous to the seamless surface on a sphere. As you say, if you accept this analogy, you start at a point, say Quito which is virtually on the Equator. Set off in a straight line, which is actually the curved Equator, and you get back to Quito. A "straight" line from Quito can now be to the Moon, but this would be an extra dimension for the flatlander confined to the surface of the sphere. Do not be confused by my analogy of the Earth. I assume we can agree all that?
Now if the Universe is the sphere in the analogy, as the Universe expands the surface of the sphere expands. We, as flatlanders, cannot get off the surface of the sphere = Universe. The distance between us increases but we are still on the "surface".
The problem is we are trying to relate mere humans to the whole Universe, about which we know next to nothing. What the Universe is expanding into, is a non-question. The big problem I have with the Expanding Universe" is that we (objects) are not expanding with it. If ALL were expanding we would not know it, since our rulers would be expanding too. That, I believe, is a flaw in the Expansion theory. By analogy, the surface of the sphere = galaxy and the "into" bit relates to the expansion of the surface. No, you will say, it is expanding "outwards". You are correct, but that is a different dimension unknown to the flatlander. That dimension is unknown to us and it is not the "into" in your question: "Into what is the Universe expanding. Your answer is: "The Universe, as a surface, is expanding. Expansion perpendicular to that surface is in a dimension we cannot detect. It is not in a space dimension familiar to us. Any attempt o make it so is anthropomorphic.

I hope that helps. I am very happy to continue the discussion

Sorry, but I still have the same problem. An edgeless Universe is directly analogous to the seamless surface on a sphere. As you say, if you accept this analogy, you start at a point, say Quito which is virtually on the Equator. Set off in a straight line, which is actually the curved Equator, and you get back to Quito.

This seems like a good description of closed space such as Kabone is enquiring about, except instead of Quito he's using galaxies. So I'm puzzled why there's a misunderstanding between you both?

Where not flatlanders, so wouldn't a more useful analogy be that we live inside the 3D space of your sphere? then we can move around inside and outside of the sphere, and the surface of the sphere becomes the edge of the universe. So as the universe expands the sphere gets bigger and things inside still move apart. Whatsmore it now gives meaning to what the universe is expanding into. Any good?

 

[David-J-Franks]

I had read somewhere, maybe in the Brief History of Time, that there is a theory that the universe is infinite. And as far as I know infinity + anything is infinity.

If our universe started with a finite size, has a finite rate of expansion and finite age, how can it be infinite now?

 

[rod]

David-J-Franks, Catastrophe, et al. I see references to eternal inflation and the multiverse. Here is a 14-May report some may find interesting. The Founder of Cosmic Inflation Theory on Cosmology's Next Big Ideas, "Physicist Alan Guth, the father of cosmic inflation theory, describes emerging ideas about where our universe comes from, what else is out there, and what caused it to exist in the first place."

The brief report has some interesting graphs. This *origin model* uses repulsive gravity force *in the beginning* and space expanding > 1E+20 c. There are those in science who live for theory, I enjoy the practical side of the scientific method. What we can observe and verify like Galileo could show others the tiny lights moving around Jupiter when debating the geocentric astronomy teachers. Quantum mechanics has verifiable observations based upon experiments conducted in laboratories, so does the heliocentric solar system astronomy. I do not consider that inflation, multiverse, and eternal inflation theories or string theory is on the same scientific level of verification (95+% confidence level for example) as particle experiments in QM or heliocentric solar system astronomy or for example, exoplanet studies.---Rod

 

[David-J-Franks]

"If it has a finite size there must be a beyond"

A perfect example of anthropomorphic delusion.

You can take a horse to water but you cannot make it drink.
(Old proverb).

I'm still puzzled why you think my statement "If it has a finite size there must be a beyond" is wrong. We live in a 3D space. If our universe started with a finite size, has a finite rate of expansion and finite age, then isn't it, as such, a finite 3D object? All 3D objects have an inside and outside or beyond (please don't mention klien bottles ). So why don't you think there is a boundary (edge) and a beyond for the universe?

 

[Catastrophe]

To: David J Franks

You should know that I am a peaceable person. I am very sorry that things went awry round about posts 30-35 and I will say publicly that I regret anything that made you upset.
If this: "Have we found the edge of the Universe? All About Space May 2020 pp 40-46 had appeared sooner, I would have pointed you to it and probably retired from the thread.
Sadly, we both got involved in IMHO silly squabbles about the meaning of inside and outside and up down and around (figuratively speaking) and completely "lost the plot".
Not wishing to spoil the tone of this post, I would ask you politely to please re-read the Quito analogy section.
I, for one, would be very happy if we can continue this thread in a positive manner, without words of war and exaggerated misunderstandings,
Wishing you health and happiness in these difficult times

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"So why don't you think there is a boundary (edge) and a beyond for the universe?"

I will now do my best to answer your question in a polite and constructive manner. By that, I am conveying that it will be polite, and I will try to answer it in an understandable way.

As you will see, there are many views in the article quoted. All about Space, Issue 104. There are unknowable things in the Universe and this may be one of them. My personal view is that there are problems of semantics. Our vocabularies (I include all humanity's) are incapable of describing certain issues. This may be one of them and, I believe this was the root of our communication difficulties. I would point you here to the science of General Semantics as introduced in Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski.

You mention straight lines and meeting yourself etcetera. I will not go back to my view that if you propose impossible starting conditions, such as being at the edge of the Universe (Who knows where that is, etc,) you will not get productive answers,. Take that off the table.

Let us assume you are at Quito. Your 'straight line' is around the Equator, governed by gravity. If you take the flatlander analogy, this means that you do return to your starting position - Quito. If you apply that to the Universe (or our universe, if you prefer - that is irrelevant in this example), and if the Universe is circular then you will return to the same place Not mentioning that there is no way whatsoever to know where that place is / was. Meeting yourself in Quito is not actually possible, but you could have left a marker saying "I was here". So your argument stands, there. Going around 'our universe' there is no way to identify that location.

Let me go back to the Quito analogy. If we were flatlanders, and all this stuff is widely discussed and available, we would behave and return exactly as you described.

Now, to the flatlander, there is no 3rd space dimension. He (or she, hereinafter assumed) has no appreciation of what we call our 3rd space dimension. There is no edge to his universe.

Whilst not engaging in the flatlander assumption, I quote from the article referenced above:

QUOTE
There is no current reason to suspect that the Universe ends with our cosmic horizon, just as we know that the Earth doesn’t end just because the rest of the planet is hidden from view by its curvature.
QUOTE



If we return to our flatlander analogy, we can say that the flatlander will know of the existence of the surface of the sphere, which will be the whole discoverable universe to him (granted it continues in a 3rd time dimension).

We know that the flatlander has no spatial sense to discover a non-existant (to him) 3rd space dimension. He may face the same dilemma that we face, namely that if his universe is expanding (as ours may be) then distances on the surface will increase, measured by his local measuring sticks.

INTERPOLATION begins
We do not know why this happens. If everything were to expand, including our rulers, then our measurements of the Universe would show no expansion. If we measure a table in our living room and it measures 4 feet and it expands x 2, our rulers tell us 8 feet. If the ruler itself also expanded x 2, then the table would measure 4 new (or x 2 expanded) feet.
INTERPOLATION ends

Now, don’t forget that the flatlander cannot perceive a dimension perpendicular to his sphere or, more correctly, to the surface of his sphere. He cannot perceive inside or outside that surface. (Leaving aside his time dimension). If we are super beings with that extra perception , we can say that his universe is expanding - the radius of his universe is increasing as well as the area of his universe. His universe has no edge. He is totally unware of expansion perpendicular to his surface.
His universe is limited to the surface of a sphere which has no edge.

If you, as a superbeing, can postulate that his universe as seen by us has an edge which is the two-dimensional surface of his world. I would not consider this assertion to be safe – others might. Please see Korzybski below.

Coming back to the flatlander, whilst we can postulate ‘an outside’ which allows expansion along the radius as well as expansion of the area (being his entire universe) he does not have the sensory equipment or understanding to operate mentally.

If you now postulate that we are living in a closed universe, we have directly analogous limitations. There may be expansion of the Universe in some postulated dimension that we do not have the sensory equipment to understand, and some super being with extra senses may say that there is ‘an outside’ into which our Universe is impinging but these observations are not open to us and we cannot perceive an edge or an outside. It is meaningless to contrive some combination of words which endeavours to circumvent this.

It is a shame that General Semantics is not a compulsory subject in schools. Its catch phrase is The map not the territory. In this case it would be immediately visible to the GS student that to use words to describe an imaginary event is futile. The map (the words, the verbal description) IS not the territory (the reality). You cannot create a reality just by wrapping words around a verbal assertion.


QUESTION
"So why don't you think there is a boundary (edge) and a beyond for the universe?"


RESPONSE
Such a thing is unknowable to any being with the limitations imposed upon us by our physical makeup.
Any such enquiry is exacerbated by introducing assumptions of conditions unattainable in reality e.g., reaching an assumed edge of the Universe and possibly returning to it.



Mr. Franks.
I hope you will agree that I have taken a lot of time writing the above, and that it contains no criticism (explicit or implicit) of your good self. My motivation has been to explain and reply to your final stated question. I hope that I have succeeded in this and that you may have benefited from my efforts. Nevertheless, if I have not achieved that result, then I am sorry for my failure and I am willing to do my best to answer any further points you may wish to raise. The offer is of course open to any other members who may wish to join in.

With sincere best wishes
Cat

 

[Kabone]

Excellent conversation aside from a couple diversions, and thank you for the replies. Mr. Franks I thank you especially because you’re the only one who answered my question.
I think I have a problem with the closed/edgeless model. The shape from the articles is a donut. But it did get me thinking. If we see a galaxy way out there and it’s moving away from us faster than we could ever catch up, perhaps they best way to get there is to go in the opposite direction where it is instead moving toward us. If the galaxy is moving at light speed and we could move at light speed then the distance would be closing at 2c. That’s just my curiosity.
The problem I think I have with the closed model is if we see a star, why don’t we see the same star we we look in the opposite direction?

 

[Catastrophe]

Kabone

" But it did get me thinking. If we see a galaxy way out there and it’s moving away from us faster than we could ever catch up, perhaps they best way to get there is to go in the opposite direction where it is instead moving toward us."

Thank you for raising that interesting point. If you look at my last post, you will see that movement away is confined to the surface of the sphere (for the closed system we are talking about). That shows no necessity to "meet itself on the way back". That becomes a meaningless suggestion

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

I am sure that there are other articles, but the one quoted above contains:

"It is possible that what we see as our universe is the remnant of a black hole forming in another universe. One of the leading proponents of this idea is a Polish theoretical physicist Nikodem Poplawski If he's right then just like the surface of Earth, our universe has no edge. "

Thank you Dr. Poplawski for that absolute vindication of what I have been posting. I already said that in the above post.

 

[David-J-Franks]

To: David J Franks

You should know that I am a peaceable person. I am very sorry that things went awry round about posts 30-35 and I will say publicly that I regret anything that made you upset.
If this: "Have we found the edge of the Universe? All About Space May 2020 pp 40-46 had appeared sooner, I would have pointed you to it and probably retired from the thread.
Sadly, we both got involved in IMHO silly squabbles about the meaning of inside and outside and up down and around (figuratively speaking) and completely "lost the plot".
Not wishing to spoil the tone of this post, I would ask you politely to please re-read the Quito analogy section.
I, for one, would be very happy if we can continue this thread in a positive manner, without words of war and exaggerated misunderstandings,
Wishing you health and happiness in these difficult times

Cat

Thank you very much for your response. I also look forward to continuing this and other threads with you.

Sorry for the delay in replying, I've been short of time lately. At first, I thought you had overlooked my question amid the distractions, but I see you've also written a long reply to it. I very much appreciate that, as too many people don't reply, but still, no time to read it yet. I'm very much looking forward to reading it as soon as possible.

In the meantime thanks for article above, however when I Googled it all I could find were paid for subscriptions, do you know of a free source, please?

I'm not a scientist so sometimes I will say unscientific things. One of my main reasons for joining this forum was to put my own personal theories up for public scrutiny. At the same time, I also like trying to pull other peoples ideas apart. These topics stretch my brain to the limit. so sometimes I've no brain power left to pay attention to the tone of my responses.

Best wishes, David