Is Our Universe Infinite?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Hope1960
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
I suppose so, but it could be like an infinite series, for example the series of positive numbers: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5,… etc. The series will never reach an end, there is no terminating point.

An expanding universe in a non curved space could be like that, expanding with no ending point. Keep in mind that it is space that is expanding, not the matter of the universe.
 
Is that true in all the scenarios we’re talking about? I think it’s the Universe itself that’s expanded into infinity.
 
Last edited:
Materialists contend the universe is infinite because they would otherwise have to explain the big bang as a creation event with all its inexplicable questions such as what came before and still lies beyond the universe, the answer to which can only be God.

The universe emerged in the big bang from an infinitesimal object called the singularity, then expanded to the size it is presently, then at some moment near the beginning, the universe was the size of a pumpkin. It was finite when it was the size of a pumpkin, then it still must be finite because nothing can expand to the infinite, because the infinite can never be reached.

Yppop
A singularity isn’t a “thing”, in strict terms it’s where calculations cease to make sense. It means the math being used to describe a phenomenon isn’t up to muster.

And the question “what came before” may not even make any sense. As Stephen Hawking put it, asking what came before the Big Bang is like asking what’s north of the North Pole. Time, like space, may have began at that moment, so the question “What came before?” may not make any sense.
 
I’m not sure why some people keep insisting on turning the Bible into a science book. It’s not.

Keep in mind God is outisde of time and space; God created time and space. Some physicists speculate the universe might be infinite. If it is, there is currently no way to prove that, and it’s impossible in the present to even speculate how we could possibly prove it without completely new technology. In any case, since God is outside time and space, and the universe is by definition INSIDE space, I don’t see any reason that God could not have created an infinite universe.
 
What we CAN talk about is the maximum distances that two points could ever be, and that would be infinite…after an infinite amount of time.
Of course that moment of infinite time would never actually arrive. Since you could always add one more day to whatever amount of time has gone by.
 
N
“Before” is a preposition that is not restricted to time as in, “I stood before the judge”!

Math fails not at the singularity but in the Planck era and math fails simply because the modern paradigm continues to assume that space is continuous, i.e., it is infinitely divisible, a poor assumption that Aristotle intuitively made. He should have accepted Zeno’s well-presented argument that “EITHER: if space is continuous, there can be no motion ! OR if there is motion, space can not be continuous!”

Now please answer these questions:
  1. What came prior to the big bang? was it non-existence? or was it pure existence? or something else? what else?
  2. Was the universe ever the size of a pumpkin? if not, how did it get to be infinite? if so, was it finite when pumpkin size? If it was finite when the size of a pumpkin, how did it reach infinity? If it was infinite when pumpkin size, wow! how did that happen?
  3. If the singularity wasn’t a thing, what was it?
And to answer Hawking’s nonsensical question, "UP’ is north of the north pole! And if you think “UP” is nonsensical you’d better first consider what a “north pole” is.

Yppop
 
Well we don’t mean infinite in that sense here. That is more of a timely infinite. What I mean by infinite here is more of stretching from 0 to +infinity. I don’t think we have anything in nature that goes into -infinity.
If at the moment of the big bang another universe (perhaps made of antimatter) was born zipping off in a negative temporal direction, we would never know about it.
 
However, the current thinking in cosmology seems to be that the universe is flat rather than curved, in which case it would apparently end up as a spatial infinity, with the galaxies continuing to become more and more isolated as the amount of space between them increases.
It’s probably saddle-shaped with negative curvature. And the expansion seems to be accelerating. Saddle-shaped was suitable for the older sorts of models. I don’t know if it is suitable for accelerating expansion though.

Presumably, the acceleration is powered by “dark energy”.
 
What came prior to the big bang? was it non-existence? or was it pure existence? or something else? what else?
Maybe just another expanding universe made of antimatter moving in the opposite temporal direction.
Was the universe ever the size of a pumpkin? if not, how did it get to be infinite? if so, was it finite when pumpkin size? If it was finite when the size of a pumpkin, how did it reach infinity? If it was infinite when pumpkin size, wow! how did that happen?
Perhaps our observable universe was the size of a pumpkin or even smaller, but then it expanded.
If the singularity wasn’t a thing, what was it?
What sort of singularity? Was it a regular singular point? If so, then maybe the math will be more tractable.
 
Last edited:
Zeno was wrong because he had no understanding of calculus. To one accustomed to calculus, Zeno’s Paradox is not a paradox at all: since the motion is continuous, it can be described by summing infinitesimals, or as Zeno described it, summing all the negative powers of 2. That space is in fact quantized is a consequence of quantum mechanics, and indeed, it is not so much that space is quantized as that the quantum fluctuations at that scale make gravity a major factor in the calculations, to the point of forming microscopic black holes as transients. So then, it is physically impossible to construct a device to measure anything at the Planck scale, because the act of measuring anything at the Planck scale would create a black hole, thereby preventing the observer from obtaining any coherent information. In short, Zeno was right for the wrong reason: space is quantized, but this is because of gravity, not because of an intrinsic property of motion.

And no, up is not north of the north pole. While it’s true that Polaris is directly above the north pole (to within half a degree), north is defined by a spherical coordinate system, not by the North Star (indeed, Polaris hasn’t always been the North Star, nor has there always been a North Star, just as today, there is no South Star, but there has been in days past). In a spherical coordinate system, the angular coordinates become singular at the north and south poles (the north pole being defined as the point where the angular momentum vector intersects the surface, pointing outward). Up is radially outward, down is radially inward. North is decreasing colatitude, south is increasing colatitude. East is increasing longitude, west is decreasing longitude. Longitude lines converge at the axis, so east and west cease to exist there. On the axis, there is only south, up, and down in the northern hemisphere, and north, up, and down in the southern hemisphere. At the center, the radius is 0, so no angular motion is possible, and only up exists.
 
Andrew,
Your claim Zeno is wrong [about the necessity of discrete space] because he had no understanding of calculus.
Zeno must have understood that summing the negative powers of 2 involves the rational numbers and the rational numbers define discrete space, so he may not have understood calculus but he certainly understood that the only answer to his paradoxes was that the physical space must be discrete.

Then you wrote: Zeno was right but for the wrong reason: space is quantized, because of gravity, not because of the intrinsic property of motion.
So, you do think space is discrete (quantized)?

You appreciate that science explains nothing, it merely describes what God created and God created the universe from a foundation of discrete space. Discrete space is the ground of reality and it is the basic explanation of observed phenomena such as quantum fluctuation and gravity. To think the gravity caused discrete space is to put the cart before the horse. Incidentally, I love science, I have a Master Degree in Physics. My argument is with scientism.


**Stephen Hawking contemptuously pointed out that asking what caused the big bang is like asking "What is north of the North Pole? It’s logically absurd”. **

I facetiously pointed out the correct answer is “up” and you replied with, “And no, up is not north of the north pole.” Then tried to impress me with, “…. In a spherical coordinate system, the angular coordinates become singular at the north and south poles (the north pole being defined as the point where the angular momentum vector intersects the surface, pointing outward).
And that angular momentum is pointing: north? up? toward the NORTH celestial pole? Or, all of the above? Astronomers know where north is, it’s straight up.

Okay Arthur, you trapped me into a really stupid discussion so I am finished unless you can answer my question, “If the universe was once the size of a pumpkin, how did it expand to infinity when infinity is unreachable?”.

Yppop
 
infinity is unreachable?”.
An actual line (those restricted to the universe) is infinitely divisible, but not infinite in extent. Abstract lines (those in mathematics) can be infinite, but they are not actual. Only God is infinite. That is why I believe the universe is based on rational numbers (discrete space), space riddled with gaps. Filling those gaps is the spiritual substance that can be modeled with the real numbers (continuous space). This is the only structure that can explain God’s omnipresence and objective reality’s hylomorphic nature.

Yppop
 
Abstract lines (those in mathematics) can be infinite, but they are not actual.
Why isn’t a mathematical line an actual line? I thought that mathematics was actually a logical study of numerical quantities, equations and actual dynamical models, which have actual application to the real world.
 
Last edited:
“If the universe was once the size of a pumpkin, how did it expand to infinity when infinity is unreachable?”.
Because it could be that the pumpkin was only part of the universe and did not contain the whole thing.
 
Discrete space is the ground of reality and it is the basic explanation of observed phenomena such as quantum fluctuation and gravity.
Do you agree with Lorentz invariance and a minimal Planck length? Because a discrete reality supposing a minimal length would contradict the Lorentz contraction. Take for example, a boosted observer. She would see the minimal Planck length contracted.
 
Mathematical lines are, well, mathematical constructs. So they can represent things that make no “common sense” in the real world unless you realize the construct. For enample, the mathematical equation y=x represents a straight line running forever at a 45 degree angle thru the x,y axis, where x represents the horizontal axis numbers and y represents the vertical axis numbers. Yet, consider the equation y=x square - 3*x divided by x-3. Looks more complicated. Yet it also represents the same straight line, except it has a “hole” at x=3, since the denominator is zero at x=3, so the equation is undefined there. You COULD call that a non infinite line in the sense that it has a hole in it. Mathematical equations can be constructed that they can do lots of wonderful things, that are quite useful in science in engineering, but viewed in the physical plane, can make your head spin if you’re not used to the abstractions used.

Blessings,
Stephie
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top