Question Edgeless universe?

[Catastrophe]

Well, I still stand by my flatlander analogy. I know, I know. Just analogies, but they help me understand in a big way and, if you don't like them, well find your best try at understanding 'endless' and 'infinite' and all those other concepts which IMHO don't deserve more than four letters to describe them.

Cat

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

This edgeless and infinite stuff in astrophysics must come from some complex math. It, no doubt, is hard to get your hands around. So, none of it makes any sense in to us in our experience. Things can only be explained in terms of the familiar. Kind of like some of the problems in chemistry. Absorption edges approach infinity in spectroscopy. Division by zero sometimes can sort of make sense, as in calculus, until it does.

An infinite universe also= infinite mass and self collapse from it.
We can probably count out the idea that the universe goes on forever.
We can't count out the idea of we are just 1 universe in an endless sea of bubbles.
Then mass is defined in each region/universe and infinite has no meaning to each region.
Then again is the universe what you see or simply a product of quantum fluctuation or E balance of it.
The real universe might be just endless fluctuation and the waste products of it is what we see.

 

[Helio]

An infinite universe also= infinite mass and self collapse from it.

Not necessarily. The solid, mainstream view of the universe, prior to GR and Lemaitre, was that it was static, possibly infinite, with and infinite no. of stars. Olber's paradox started a debate about that idea, I think.

Even in an infinite universe, it could still expand due to, say, Dark Energy.

We can probably count out the idea that the universe goes on forever.
We can't count out the idea of we are just 1 universe in an endless sea of bubbles.

Yes, that's a great point. Where would we put all those other suppositional universes if ours is infinite?

The BBT doesn't, at present, allow infinite anything. Rewinding time in the equations gives a more finite amount of energy followed by normal mass in the first seconds then minutes. A finite amount of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are in the equations as well to produce the universe we observe, not that they aren't mysteries still to chase, especially DM and DE.

 

[Catastrophe]

Edgeless universe?

Over 150 post, and we are still seeing words like infinite.

I hope that I have shown beyond reasonable doubt that we are not equipped (despite our anthropomorphic delusions) to detect an edge to the surface of a sphere.

Failing a gentle passing in its sleep shall we grind our swords and proceed to the amphitheatre of death crushing semantics for the next 150?

 

[dfjchem721]

all those other concepts which IMHO don't deserve more than four letters to describe them.
Cat

Now that is bad French!

"Edgeless universe?

Over 150 post, and we are still seeing words like infinite. "

Did you really expect something else, cat?!

Humans have what may be an infinite interest in endless things. Objects without boundaries, no end in sight, endlessly (sorry) etc. It seems to pervade our very being. It also seems impossible to be rid of these anthro-delusions. There at least you will finally find some "truth" in things infinite.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Not necessarily. The solid, mainstream view of the universe, prior to GR and Lemaitre, was that it was static, possibly infinite, with and infinite no. of stars. Olber's paradox started a debate about that idea, I think.

Even in an infinite universe, it could still expand due to, say, Dark Energy.

Yes, that's a great point. Where would we put all those other suppositional universes if ours is infinite?

The BBT doesn't, at present, allow infinite anything. Rewinding time in the equations gives a more finite amount of energy followed by normal mass in the first seconds then minutes. A finite amount of Dark Matter and Dark Energy are in the equations as well to produce the universe we observe, not that they aren't mysteries still to chase, especially DM and DE.

IMO dark matter/energy can be explained quite easily from external gravity/other universes.Dark flow is very interesting and quite easy math from external gravity sources why it exists, not so much with dark energy or matter.

The missing matter we don't see in this universe is probably quark soup+ quantum fluctuation temp particles/temp energy.

Possible for our universe to be it and go on forever.
A creation point problem exists with infinite mass/energy at the start with no external mechanism to begin.
Far easier math to throw away the idea that the universe is what we see.
Quantum fluctuation creates a regional bubble or unbalanced energy and mass and that is what we see as our universe.

(Nothing) can go on forever and create quantum fluctuation bubbles just from an E imbalance of (Nothing).

Fun to think about a simple solution to everything from (nothing)

 

[Helio]

As interesting as that sound, voidpotentialenergy, it's suppositional. Suppositions are often the first step to get science on the right trail, but it must quickly become objective-based. The region beyond the observable universe is the unobservable universe, which makes it tough to get beyond suppositions.

I recall a list of about 24 DE theories, apparently each offering objective tests to falsify them. So we do have some ideas that are beyond supposition, though they could all be wrong.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

As interesting as that sound, voidpotentialenergy, it's suppositional. Suppositions are often the first step to get science on the right, trail but it must quickly become objective-based. The region beyond the observable universe is the unobservable universe, which makes it tough to get beyond suppositions.

I recall a list of about 24 DE theories, apparently each offering objective tests to falsify them. So we do have some ideas that are beyond supposition, though they could all be wrong.

I totally agree it's just an idea of simple math and reasons for a simple universe.
Dark flow i think is holding a big mystery that dark energy/matter can't explain.
External G source does a nice job of explaining it and the accelerating expansion of the rest of the universe.

IMO it's all supposition and best to let the math work out what is useful or probable and what is not.

 

[Helio]

I totally agree it's just an idea of simple math and reasons for a simple universe.
Dark flow i think is holding a big mystery that dark energy/matter can't explain.
External G source does a nice job of explaining it and the accelerating expansion of the rest of the universe.

Yeah, DE is just a label used to describe the acceleration aspect of the universe. They didn't see that coming, and had there not been two competing teams of scientists that discovered acceleration at essentially the same time then it may not have gotten quite the amount of attention as it did.

IMO it's all supposition and best to let the math work out what is useful or probable and what is not.

Yes, but I think it helps for us to remind one another that we must keep math and physics in their respective realms. The difference is objective evidence and falsifiability, else we get pseudoscience passing for scientific "theories", which is happening today too often, IMO.

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

Yeah, DE is just a label used to describe the acceleration aspect of the universe. They didn't see that coming, and had there not been two competing teams of scientists that discovered acceleration at essentially the same time then it may not have gotten quite the amount of attention as it did.

And that is how the world started looking for dark matter/energy to explain why it's going faster.
We might have missed the easiest solution that our universe wasn't alone and external G influence was now bigger than internal G influence.
Same result.

Yes, but I think it helps for us to remind one another that we must keep math and physics in their respective realms. The difference is objective evidence and falsifiability, else we get pseudoscience passing for scientific "theories", which is happening today too often, IMO.

Difficult to say if math can even give fantastic results if our basic understanding of the universe is wrong then we start from wrong math.

Lots of loose holes in understanding like gravity, seeing things older that the universe, infinite mass objects/black holes that don't produce infinite mass and oddities like Dark flow.

We probably have bad math at the start

 

[Catastrophe]

I really do believe that I have shown that any 'edge' is not open to our understanding.

Has the equine not really and truly expired?

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I really do believe that I have shown that any 'edge' is not open to our understanding.

Has the equine not really and truly expired?

I tend to believe it's all quantum fluctuation forever and what we think of our universe is just excess E from that fluctuation balance.
No end no start no edge, only random energy/mass bubbles

 

[voidpotentialenergy]

I tend to believe it's all quantum fluctuation forever and what we think of our universe is just excess E from that fluctuation balance.
No end no start no edge, only random energy/mass bubbles

When i drink to many beers i become a mass bubble