Customer Discussions > Science forum

Infinite Universe


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 101-125 of 289 posts in this discussion
In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:44:52 AM PDT
Doctor Who says:
"An atom need not exist in an energy eigenstate prior to measurement. You don't know a priori the amount of energy you'll measure. 'Not having the energy for something' is a rather ill-posed restriction."

True enough. The point is that the energy states and the total energy is finite therefore there are a finite number of states.

"how can you disregard the possibility that some time in the future some atom momentarily has an n=42x10^(42) energy level?"

Its possible in the infinite universe, but then you run into trouble with the isotropic and homogeneous conditions. On average every volume should have the same mass energy.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 11:36:03 AM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
-"Its possible in the infinite universe, but then you run into trouble with the isotropic and homogeneous conditions. On average every volume should have the same mass energy."

Well, keep in mind that all bound states n have an energy less than the ionization potential: less than 14 eV. That's not that much of a difference. But even if the differences were huge, it seems we just have to increase the scale of looking at the universe at large for homogeneity to reemerge.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 1:18:09 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 1:56:17 PM PDT
barbW says:
the angular separations in the perturbations in the CMB indicate that the whole universe is flat.

this finding came out quite a while ago so I don't knowing if I'm stating it correctly, af.

I think the observable universe is the smaller region which has expanded close to the Hubble rate for these 13.72 billion years since the inflationary era. The inflationary episode was very short but the expansion averaged 50 million times the speed of light. This was the general idea a few years ago, as I remember it, so I don't know if it's helpful.

http://ned.ipac.caltech.edu/level5/Carroll2/Carroll3_2.html

"one of the easiest features to measure - the location in l of the first ``Doppler peak'', an increase in power due to acoustic oscillations - provides one of the most direct handles on the cosmic energy density, one of the most interesting parameters. The first peak (the one at lowest l) corresponds to the angular scale subtended by the Hubble radius HCMB-1 at the time when the CMB was formed (known variously as ``decoupling'' or ``recombination'' or ``last scattering'') [64]. The angular scale at which we observe this peak is tied to the geometry of the universe: in a negatively (positively) curved universe, photon paths diverge (converge), leading to a larger (smaller) apparent angular size as compared to a flat universe. Since the scale HCMB-1 is set mostly by microphysics, this geometrical effect is dominant, and we can relate the spatial curvature as characterized by W to the observed peak in the CMB spectrum"

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 4:09:46 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 4:10:08 PM PDT
CDaniels says:
IS this "flatness" part of the holographic universe principle? That would be the only part of what you wrote that I might be understanding.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 4:14:13 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 12, 2012 4:14:38 PM PDT
reply to Cuvtixo's post:

no

two different concepts

and flatness is misleading since we are a ten dimensional membrane of vibrating energy

Posted on May 12, 2012 9:46:22 PM PDT
barbW says:
Hi w,
Witten showed that the integration of the many string theories at the higher energies doesn't work unless there's eleven dimensions.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 9:51:27 PM PDT
barbW says:
Flatness means that the universe won't recollapse, unless something changes with time.. If constants or field strengths drift with time then each universe might have a different end, or no end.

In reply to an earlier post on May 12, 2012 10:14:02 PM PDT
Doctor Who says:
No. The holographic principle basically recognized that there was essentially one fewer degree of freedom. Its a bit weird but basically it says that the 3D world may just be a projection from the 2D surface of the universe which is kind of like an inside out black hole.

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 12:21:47 PM PDT
Can you have a flat but finite universe? I was under the assumption that "flat" is equivalent to "open" which is equivalent to "infinite".

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 1:19:41 PM PDT
reply to arpard fazakas's post:

i would think that there are ways to describe it as finite and flat
although some equations used may require infinite

i personally doubt that it is mathematically infinite but may be close enough for engineering work for the govt

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 3:38:13 PM PDT
John Donohue says:
whomper >>i note you do not deny being a liberal arts major !!!!!!!!!!!!<<

I'm guessing you are a high school drop out.

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 6:36:12 PM PDT
reply to John Donohue's post:

guess away
you might get it right more than your illogical other approaches

fyi
i ended up as asst dean at a real uni

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 8:10:18 PM PDT
barbW says:
I don't know what infinite is except in math. How can the universe ever grow to be infinite (a math term) if it had a beginning? This universe is bounded so I'm not talking about a larger multiverse which might be infinite, or might in turn be enclosed by a still larger multiverse (which might be infinite).

I think this universe can be bounded and not closed (open) as it continues to expand.

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 9:53:06 PM PDT
reply to werranth413's post:

personally i think that the ten dim brane our universe is on could have gazillions of others just like ours but the brane is finite and the number of universes is humongous but finite and their size are all finite

along the 11th dim for the multiverses i suspect taht they are also finite but again humongously big number of them

now can there be more multiverses
i can see that too but again a very large finite number of them

i do not see anything infinite wrt anything that is physical

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 9:55:45 PM PDT
barbW says:
what would be a limiting factor?

In reply to an earlier post on May 13, 2012 10:00:40 PM PDT
reply to werranth413's post:

reality

nothing physical will be infinite in the math sense

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 10:39:08 AM PDT
barbW says:
heh, but something has to be infinite

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 11:29:58 AM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 11:45:41 AM PDT
Jack Shandy says:
-"Can you have a flat but finite universe? "

Sure: like a donut topology which is a square with opposite sides identified. Except you pick a cube and identify opposite sides.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 11:54:25 AM PDT
OK.

Next time I'm at Dunkin' Donuts I'll ask for one of those square donuts and see for myself.

:)

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 1:26:54 PM PDT
reply to werranth413's post:

why ?

infinitity is really really hard with physical things
not so hard in a math class

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:10:19 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 2:10:45 PM PDT
barbW says:
because if something that's eternal (has no beginning) isn't infinite then there's a barrier somewhere. We can't conceive of such a barrier. Something must be eternal, and that something is probably the simplest thing (maybe spacetime, maybe something more fundamental away from spacetime creating universes) that we'll ever find.

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 2:50:05 PM PDT
reply to werranth413's post:

okay

it could be infinite in one dimension
but not the others
the time dimension is infinite
but i only considered the present time since i am stuck here and now

In reply to an earlier post on May 14, 2012 5:19:02 PM PDT
Last edited by the author on May 14, 2012 5:21:46 PM PDT
barbW says:
since spacetime is created by universes, all the dimensions are connected, and can undergo transformations under the opposite conditions of the highest and lowest field strengths

I used to read that there's 9 spacial dimensions and two dimensions of time. One of the time dimensions was imaginary time, as in imaginary numbers in math, and so it was allowable for time to go backward if and when the universe was recollapsing (blue shift). Hawking gave up on this time reversal a few years back.. I haven't seen the imaginary time description recently.

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:03:04 AM PDT
I thought about your answer, and I don't get it. If the universe is flat, then its intrinsic curvature is zero, right? So how can it "curve back on itself" to close?

In reply to an earlier post on May 15, 2012 8:26:04 AM PDT
GD in NYC says:
In my latest published research "Running on Empty: Origins of the Universe" I detail the newest discoveries in physics and relativity. I define what is Matter and Anti Matter along with how Time and space is actually formed. Time and space is not the same thing. Time is a specific defined point within the confines of space. I also detail how the expansion of space undeniably surpasses the speed of light. Go to: Running-on-Empty.org
Hopes this helps a bit, Gil.
[Add comment]
Add your own message to the discussion
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Prompts for sign-in
 


 

This discussion

Discussion in:  Science forum
Participants:  29
Total posts:  289
Initial post:  May 9, 2012
Latest post:  Jan 22, 2013

New! Receive e-mail when new posts are made.
Tracked by 3 customers

Search Customer Discussions