Question Edgeless universe?

[ImmortalMelvz]

We have an Infinite Universe that is continuously expanding...

 

[Catastrophe]

To: David J Franks

David,
I cannot tell you how pleased I am that we can continue corresponding on an amicable, no - I hope - friendly basis. This is by far the best way to proceed. Ask any responsible moderator.

You may not believe it but I am 81. I keep copies of all my posts using Word (Microsoft Trade Mark) on my desktop. It helps having a legal background. I mention this only because nothing is worse than losing a long post into which you have poured significant parts of your life. If I may give you a tip, keep an updated copy using any word processor.

I hope you can see how frustrated I was getting about the edge / outside etc matter. It was not helped by the fact that I was rushed to A&E (if you are USA that means Accident and Emergency) after a bang to the head, having previously had a life threatening subdural haematoma. I say this only because you also had personal problems causing delays. Back to constructive things.

I will be more than happy to help your progress in any way that I can. We must find another way to communicate other than this public platform. That is, if you want us to communicate without annoying all these good members.

Anyway, Good Night wherever you are. Here in UK it is a little after 01.09 am and I must sleep. Let us please have a happy and productive correspondence. I will copy this to you Then perhaps we can exchange emails. Please be sure to copy all of this.
Best wishes
(For the moment) Cat.

 

[10stone5]

My thoughts.
There is absolutely no edge.
Though the Cosmic Background Radiation shows a measure of uniformity on a large scale, imagine the awesome scale relative to yourself. And, I have a hard time believing inflation has slowed down any. If you could attain the many multiples of speed of light needed to remain constant relative to any presumed edge, consider all the spikiness to that edge, one minute you could be within the universe, the next moment, outside the universe. I’d have to agree with what I believe I saw from some other posters. If you could attain the desired speed to somehow exceed the expansion of the universe, you would be creating new space+time, you would be the edge of the universe ad infinitum.

 

[David-J-Franks]

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

Trying to catch up with this thread, yours is next. Thanks for bringing the eternal inflation topic up, it reminded me that in my above posts I meant to add that I do not subscribe to this theory. I think eternal inflation is one of the wackiest 'something from nothing' theories I've read. I was merely quoting it to demonstrate to Catastrophe and others that the dictionary definition of 'The Universe' - that it is 'everything that is', is not applicable for some theories. In eternal inflation and other theories, our universe is clearly not 'everything that is'. Here's a quote from that article;

"The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.

Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant."

"there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession."

This is just pure magic, if he's going to introduce such a magical material he should say something about it. Introducing magic materials like this could solve all of sciences mysteries overnight.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Edge of this universe or the beginning of the next universe?
Just 1 bubble in an endless sea of bubbles.
To get to the end of the universe look up you are at the end, beginning and middle.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Trying to catch up with this thread, yours is next. Thanks for bringing the eternal inflation topic up, it reminded me that in my above posts I meant to add that I do not subscribe to this theory. I think eternal inflation is one of the wackiest 'something from nothing' theories I've read. I was merely quoting it to demonstrate to Catastrophe and others that the dictionary definition of 'The Universe' - that it is 'everything that is', is not applicable for some theories. In eternal inflation and other theories, our universe is clearly not 'everything that is'. Here's a quote from that article;

"The theory of eternal inflation says that once inflation starts, it never completely stops. Rather, it ends in places, and universes form there. We call them pocket universes because they’re not everything that exists. We are living in one of these pocket universes. And even though the pocket universes keep forming, there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession.

Each individual pocket universe will presumably ultimately die, in the sense that it will run out of energy and cool down. But in the big picture of all the pocket universes, life would not only go on eternally, but there’d be more and more of it every instant."

"there’s always a volume of exotic repulsive gravity material that can inflate forever, producing an infinite number of these pocket universes in a never-ending procession."

This is just pure magic, if he's going to introduce such a magical material he should say something about it. Introducing magic materials like this could solve all of sciences mysteries overnight.

Mass continues in a stone cold universe.
Then a infinite dying universes eventually propagates infinite mass to all other universes.
Easier solution is a collision with the neighbors universes that stops expansion.
Return to sender
Time crunch problem on big crunch to start it again, or collision of neighbors to start it again.

 

[Kabone]

Another problem I think I have is the model projects a 3D object onto a 2D space. It seems inefficient.

 

[Kabone]

And easy way to demonstrate this is to imagine three points, A, B, and C., in a straight line, equidistant apart. From A to B is 1 billion miles, from B to C is 1 billion miles. Then, from A to C is 2 billion miles. If A is moving away from B at 1000m/s, and B is moving away from C at 1000m/s, then C is moving away from B at 1000m/s,, but moving away from A at 2000m/s. The further away a give point is, the faster it is moving relative to the observer.

To me I see A and C separating by 2000m/s. The number of intermediate points chops that number down. I don't see intermediate points increasing the speed of separation. This is another problem I think I have. A point on the exact opposite side would be moving away at only the rate at which the universe is expanding. Because on the exact opposite side any movement would be moving toward us and we see everything moving away. That would lend to the theory that I believe Catastrophe mentioned that nothing is moving. It's the distances between that are getting larger and hence has the appearance of movement.
Another problem I think I have is this idea that physics and spacetime are different on the outer reaches from us. In a closed universe, wouldn't someone on the other end be looking at us and our different physics and spacetime? But ours are 'normal', our neighbors are normal, their neighbors are normal, and so on until it wraps back around.

 

[David-J-Franks]

"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

First, can I remind you that I could only find paid-for versions of the article: "Have we found the edge of the Universe? All About Space May 2020 pp 40-46, do you know of a free source. Otherwise, I can't comment on those topics.

So onto this

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.

It wasn't me mentioning straight lines and me meeting myself, it was Kabone. I don't believe in such ideas.

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.

I fully understand your earth closed space analogy. I think you have confused my beliefs with the ideas expressed by Kabone. I don't believe in a closed or curved universe. It is an excellent analogy for what Kabone is trying to say. In fact, your descriptive use of the English language is amazing, did you study English at Oxford or something?

To make clear, Im proposing, as from posts 25 and30 that:

"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'."

and:

"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"

My original question to you, post 44, was:

"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?"

Is it know possible to answer, knowing that my perspective is for a flat universe, not a curved or closed one, and so, therefore, your earth analogy is no help in my case.

Sorry if I'm making all a bit boring and repetitive, I will fully understand if you don't want to continue.

I hope you will agree that I have taken a lot of time writing the above,

I appreciate it, It also takes me a long time to write my posts, I fully understand. So, I thought it deserved a considered reply

 

[COLGeek]

First, can I remind you that I could only find paid-for versions of the article: "Have we found the edge of the Universe? All About Space May 2020 pp 40-46, do you know of a free source. Otherwise, I can't comment on those topics.

So onto this It wasn't me mentioning straight lines and me meeting myself, it was Kabone. I don't believe in such ideas.I fully understand your earth closed space analogy. I think you have confused my beliefs with the ideas expressed by Kabone. I don't believe in a closed or curved universe. It is an excellent analogy for what Kabone is trying to say. In fact, your descriptive use of the English language is amazing, did you study English at Oxford or something?

To make clear, Im proposing, as from posts 25 and30 that:

"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'."

and:

"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"

My original question to you, post 44, was:

"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?"

Is it know possible to answer, knowing that my perspective is for a flat universe, not a curved or closed one, and so, therefore, your earth analogy is no help in my case.

Sorry if I'm making all a bit boring and repetitive, I will fully understand if you don't want to continue.

I appreciate it, It also takes me a long time to write my posts, I fully understand. So, I thought it deserved a considered reply

Cat is taking some time off. Please be patient. Thank you.

 

[Kabone]

Sorry, every time I read it I see A 2B miles from C and A moving from C at 2000m/s. If I have 9 intermediate points why isn't each one moving at 200m/s?

 

[Kabone]

"It wasn't me mentioning straight lines and me meeting myself, it was Kabone. I don't believe in such ideas. "

Just to be clear, I never had the notion of meeting myself. If I decide right now to get up and travel around the globe I do not expect to see myself sitting in my chair when I get back. I have no idea where this meeting myself came from.

 

[zzroom]

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

I have a friend (not myself, I hasten to add) that has asked me to raise this point.

QUOTE
If the Universe is defined as all that there is, then there cannot be more than one of them. If there were to be such a plurality then they would have to attract a different description. Vide the Universe would be made up of x number of 'your' galactiverses. If you (or anyone else) are going to start changing the English Language, or redefining fundamentals then it will lead to the sort of havoc displayed in this thread.
QUOTE

Don't shoot the messenger. I am only the postman.

 

[Kabone]

One more time. If A is moving away from C at 2000m/s, and you are exactly in the middle, then each is moving away from you at 1000m/s. If D is in line 1billion miles from C, and moving directly away from C at 1000m/s, then D is moving away from you at 2000m/s, not 1000m/s. The further way it is, the faster it is moving relative to you.

A <– 1 billion miles –> B <– 1 billion miles –> C <– 1 billion miles –> D

Sorry, still lost. I see it as if I'm anywhere between A and C, not just exactly in the middle, A and C are moving away from me at 1000m/s. What am I missing?

 

[Kabone]

I’ve been thinking about this a little more. How am I supposed to know how fast D is moving from C? I’m thinking all I can measure is how fast D is moving from me and how fast C is moving from me. If C and D are along the same line then the only
way I know how fast D is moving from C is the difference between the 2. And would there be a difference in your theory between a closed universe and other models?

 

[IG2007]

I’ve been thinking about this a little more. How am I supposed to know how fast D is moving from C? I’m thinking all I can measure is how fast D is moving from me and how fast C is moving from me. If C and D are along the same line then the only
way I know how fast D is moving from C is the difference between the 2. And would there be a difference in your theory between a closed universe and other models?

I would say that you can calculate your distance from A and C, if you are not exactly at B. You are somewhere near to it, you can calculate it.

 

[David-J-Franks]

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?

If the galaxy is moving at light speed and we could move at light speed then the distance would be closing at 2c.

Special relativity says nothing can travel faster than light speed in the cosmos. If you are travelling at light speed toward something coming to you at light speed you will still see it as a combined seed of 1xc, not 2xc. Also, any independent observer watching both objects approach each other will still only see a maximum closing speed of 1xc. Things such as time and length dilation come into play. I don't know much about relativity but I think the essence of what I say is about right, if not the exact details. If you want to know more, look up Einstein's special theory of relativity. the only exception to this is that the expansion of space is not restricted to light speed. Even the space of the outer reaches of our observable universe is expanding faster than light speed, I think around 3xc (needs checking). This gives the impression that the outer galaxies are moving faster than light, but they are not moving through space, it's the space between them which is expanding faster than light.

 

[David-J-Franks]

We have an Infinite Universe that is continuously expanding...

An infinite universe would be everything, there would be no empty space left, so how could it still be expanding

 

[zzroom]

"An infinite universe would be everything, there would be no empty space left, so how could it still be expanding "

Spot on. Just substitute THE infinite universe for AN infinite universe,

As you say: "an infinite universe would be everything" and I would extrapolate "there would be no empty space left" for any other universe.

Therefore:
The infinite universe would be everything, there would be no empty space left for any other universe. Semantics, semantics, nothing but semantics.

Dictated to me by a friend.

 

[Catastrophe]

I am not supposed to be spending a lot of time on PCs. This is my problem - not yours. If you would please kindly bear with me. I cannot cope with sheets of writing. If there is an outstanding question, please just ask me in a few lines. Your cooperation will be greatly appreciated. Many thanks in advance.

I hope I made one point clear. Unless there is to be a lot of chaos and confusion, there can only be one Universe. Change its name if it helps to the all. Stop using the word universe. There is the all and there are the unibits if you like. No universes No chaos. No confusion.

For clarification please see Science and Sanity by Alfred Korzybski.

 

[Catastrophe]

OK I am trying to get back on track. Edgeless Universe

From: I hope you will agree that I have taken a lot of time writing the above,
I appreciate it, It also takes me a long time to write my posts, I fully understand. So, I thought it deserved a considered reply

From post #54 DJF posted:
" I think eternal inflation is one of the wackiest 'something from nothing' theories I've read. I was merely quoting it to demonstrate to Catastrophe and others that the dictionary definition of 'The Universe' - that it is 'everything that is', is not applicable for some theories. In eternal inflation and other theories, our universe is clearly not 'everything that is'."

I clearly cannot condone jiggling around with the English language. I believe that David knows that I am not being aggressive or provocative. If we are going to start redefining our language, we need common assent. We cannot say "Joe Bloggs said last year that the £ sterling henceforth will be defined as one penny". No offence intended to whomever decided that "everything that is" is no longer applicable to some theories. but how is the population of the English speaking world going to know this and on what authority is this alleged change made?

Sorry. THE Universe is clearly everything that is by definition and it will remain so until I receive some official notification of the change

 

[Catastrophe]

Existing notification:
Universe definition
1. all existing matter and space considered as a whole; the cosmos.

Presumably this includes dark matter = dark energy

 

[Catastrophe]

Space is an infinite void.
The Universe is all of the matter that is expanding outward from a single point in Space.

Please substantiate those unfounded assertions.

Space is a word we try to relate to the input of our limited senses.
The Universe = is = followed by some verbalisation about what we know nothing whatsoever about.

Mankind (nothing personal whatsoever implied) playing around with different combinations of letters we have the cheek to call language and to which, even worse, we pretend has some relevance to our concept of "reality". Reality being some fiction governed by the limited input of our senses.

 

[Catastrophe]

In other words, our inputs are very limited. We try to make "sense" of these. It is inevitable that we fail miserably. We do the best we can to get by. We need to believe that they allow us to function well. We just do our best.

 

[Catastrophe]

I received personal criticism starting WT? (from a watcher, not from a participant) so I will try to put it simply for those I respect and would like to try to help. No criticism is implied.

In simple terms, we see over a very narrow band of visible light. We cannot interpret X-rays, infrared, ultraviolet and so on with our 'given' senses. We can now use our technology to "see" utilising these wavelengths, as we do in "X-rays" which penetrate our flesh and show our bones.
Because of the limitation of visible light, and also range of sounds we can detect (ones which dogs can, and we can't, for example) and I could go on . . . . . . we have got used to those senses we have. We do not even think of these limitations unless they are pointed out to us - as I have just done.
This post is not, of course, directed at those who already understand this.