Size of the universe

  • Thread starter Thread starter Jim_Baur
  • Start date Start date
Status
Not open for further replies.
Jim_Baur said:
I know that this was asked of edwest2.

How often do scientists say this? If they do not say this too often, it confuses us. Well, it confuses me.

As a doctor of physics, you seem to be in the minority. This is a really nice piece of information. THANKS! I do not know what the minority or majority say, I said it SEEMS as if you are in the minority. I hope you are the majority.

Joseph Ratzinger, In the Beginning, p. 50: “Now, more reflective spirit have long been aware that there is no either-or here. We cannot say: creation or evolution, inasmuch as these two things respond to two different realities…It explains their inner most origin and casts light on the project that they are. And, vice versa, the theory of evolution seeks to understand and describe biological developments.”
Click to expand...
What does your last paragraph have to do with the topic?

Peace,
Ed
 
edwest2 said:
To answer your question:
  1. The source of the matter/energy is unknown. At least one other post dismissed the necessity of explaining that one.
Click to expand...
I believe that the post you are referring to was mine. Matter requires space and time for it to exist, these two requirements did not exist until the Big Bang. So to speak of “where did matter come from in the first place” in regards to the Big Bang is useless because physics (and the rest of sciences) did not exist until the Big Bang. I could be wrong, but I do believe that logic would not have existed until the Big Bang as well.
edwest2 said:
  1. The Big Bang exploded into what? Nothing?
Click to expand...
Yes, basically. If the primordial atom expanded into something, then we would not have an accelerating expansion but a decelerating expansion. That is pretty much first-year physics.
edwest2 said:
  1. We do not know the characteristics of what exploded.
Click to expand...
We know its chemical make-up, its temperature, the time from then until now, energy density, and lots of other characteristics. To which are you referring to?
edwest2 said:
There are cases where real-world explosives can produce non-uniform effects.
Click to expand...
Right, in non-uniform regions of space. The Big Bang has no such impediments.
edwest2 said:
An explosion is generally a ball of force that moves out at a given speed. If there was a Big Bang into nothing then all particles/energy had no impediments to slow down or form bits of matter. There should be no matter at all if it was a pure energy explosion.
Click to expand...
This last sentence would be true if you suppose that there is no such thing as anti-matter and no such thing as dark energy and that the universe expanded only a short distance. Within 3 minutes the universe had expanded enough to cool to stop the fusion process. Fortunately, there is a lot more going on in the Big Bang than you give it credit or even recognize.
edwest2 said:
The fact that there is matter presupposes that the explosive energy/material, traveling at the speed of light, contained attributes or materials that allowed for matter formation.
Click to expand...
How can protons (or even atoms) travel at the speed of light? Answer: they cannot. Clearly, then, this explosion must be sub-luminal in velocity.
But yes, the precursor blob, if you will, to the Big Bang is expected to have been a mixture of protons, neutrons, and electrons.
edwest2 said:
Imagine the universe as a very large but empty room that had energy added to it. Now if heat is added to the room, the temperature is generally uniform at any point of that room, except where, in this case, some unknown force allows for or causes temperature variations.
Click to expand...
This still is a reflection of small-scale anisotropy. The observed anisotropy is, roughly speaking, human-sized, in this scenario (depends on how big you want to quantify the room as). Do you see the vast difference between the observations and your interpretation?
edwest2 said:
The theist connection has some value but I don’t need science to validate divine revelation.

Peace,
Ed
Click to expand...
Correct, you do not need such validation, but an atheist could.
 
Jim_Baur said:
Please forgive me, I have asked this before.

Also, please forgive me, I should know the answers but I do not.

Do we know the size of the universe?

Have we observed its boundaries?

How does multiple universes change our understanding of this universe and the science a but how all of this universe developed?

There are so many questions around this topic that I do not know how to start.

Thanks!
Click to expand...
This is not a science forum, it is supposed to be a philosophy forum. Nothing here involves philosophy. What exactly is your point in all these esoteric questions? :confused:
 
I can see your point. In a technical sense simply reciting astounding facts about reality is not philosophy. However, I think that such facts can fill us with awe and wonder, and that is the beginning of philosophy.
youtube.com/watch?v=KiypaURysz4
 
Speaking philosophically, I hold the idea that what controls, directs or runs the universe is reason, but using reason in an analogous sense.

It is reasonable, but in analogous sense. It far transcends our reason.

I find this to be really important if it is correct.

Philosophy and science from Pythagoras, Plato, Aristotle, Galileo, Hegel, Hawkins and Dawkins seem to teach that math or reason runs it all. They have an incomplete idea.

The design of the individual pieces of the puzzle to the orchestration of all the pieces–super reason. We can say reason, because reason can understand it to a certain and limited degree.

If this is accurate, the size of the universe would have to include the super-reasonable Being(s).
 
Think of it this way, since the universe itself is the fusion of spirit and matter (the big bang being the true “Christ” moment) could it even be possible that it is of limited size? That would imply God is of limited size.
 
You could be correct.

If creation is to be a sign of God’s being (and I am speaking in faith), I would believe it to be infinite.
This bring us back to Thomas Aquinas and Maimonides arguments, we can discern a creator, but not that the creation happened in time.
It is contingent, but it could be called into creation for all times, infinite and eternal, but still dependent.
It is a matter of faith for the Christian as to it beginning in time–I go with it began in time. But this then is faith.

Philosophically, my bet is that the cosmos is created, designed is all over the place. That is why philosophers and scientists look for the reason-ing of the cosmos. Scientists will not accept an idea unless it is reasonable.
My fundamental opinion is that from Pythagoras to Galileo to Hegel to Hawkins, they think math and logic run the world. They are correct, but only to a point. The reasonableness we discern with our reasoning is correct, but we only have an analogous grasp on it. The reasonableness far transcends our reason. The Greeks got this correct–it is a Cosmos. Each individual being is logical, and then the orchestration or Cosmos makes all things work together.

Furthermore, my observations show reason is planted in the world and we get an ability to reason.
Also, my bet in that the Being that designed it brought it into existence in a completed form.

There are probably a jillion ways that that Being brought all of this into existence, but two basic ways–all at once or slowly let it develop from “nothingness.” I BELIEVE scientifically and philosophically and with faith, it was all at once. I cannot prove it.

I cannot prove it. I believe it.
 
Linusthe2nd said:
This is not a science forum, it is supposed to be a philosophy forum. Nothing here involves philosophy. What exactly is your point in all these esoteric questions? :confused:
Click to expand...
My point: the cosmos is filled with reason and is highly orchestrated. The reason and orchestration is only an analogous concept. Our reason is the secondary analogate. The reason in the universe was made, and it is the primary analogate. The Being that made the cosmos is even greater then the reason we see with our intellect. We seem to be made in that Primary Beings Image.

If I am accurate: many scientists see math as the motor or mechanism that runs the universe.

Philosophy is scientific, at least that is the school that I was taught. From the Greeks onward, philosophy was science. Aristotle was a scientist!

Some scientists split from philosophy, but some of us still use both at the same time.

Concerning my point: on this thread we have several claiming that we do not know the size of the universe. It those several are correct–the implications are absolutely huge.

If we do not know the size of the universe–how can we formulate accurate math problems?

If we do not know the size of the cosmos, how can we know the age of it?

If we do not know the size of the cosmos, how can we know where we are in it?

If we do not know the size of the cosmos nor the age of it, how can we know the size of the first piece of matter that exploded? (Big Bang sounds like a metaphor to me.)

On this thread a poster brought up Godel, I had read about him in several books, but I totally forgot about him and even confused him with the book “Waiting for Godo.” My point with this is that the problem is absolutely huge and a jillion times more complex that we understand. Then there are some who will not admit it is a jillion time more complex than we can comprehend. They profess to tell us that they know–but do they know? If Godel is accurate–what can we know about the cosmos in terms of its origins?

All of our guess on the mass of one galaxy are really limited. How can we trust our own senses and measurement for the 100 billion other galaxies and then trust our mathematical answers?

Concerning all of the disciplines that are involved in the “Explosion” to the present–I do not know on person that has studied and researched all of the disciplines–it is impossible.

I have started about a dozen thread recently. I am trying to discern what science does not know in order to formulate our ignorance. It is solving those “ignorances” that give us light.

Also, what I am asking is what is the mechanism that runs the universe? My opinion is that we do not know–from philosophy. From my faith–I believe in One God the Creator of it all.

We also do not know when or how life came from inanimate matter–in fact, as an empiricist would say, haven’t observed it, then it did not happen.

On the last point I hold, from philosophy and science, that the order in the cosmos has a Builder of the mechanism. The Builder could have done it over 20 Billion years, are all at once–just as it is.

I am sure we could come up with a jillion over possibilities but let me limit it to two.

Design and orchestration are ubiquitous, those scientists that will not recognize it are limiting their use of reason–why? A machine needs a machinist, doesn’t it?

One cannot prove that God does not exist–it is illogical! And great scientist say that they can.

One last point, the physical scientist do not want to include any thing that they cannot observe with their senses–can weigh it, count it, measure it, tell if it is a liquid, solid, or gas, whether it is organic or inorganic. Then they use math–which they cannot measure et cetera. I find that funny. It is also huge.

Are you Linus II?

If so, greetings!
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back
Top