The Universe

[Abraham]

The universe some say itself is eternal, no beginning and no end, always. Some say matter can not be created nor destroyed. That it must always be represented by measurable fact. If both of these theories are true, then even as nothing, something exists. Nothing itself, a measure of force driving to creation. Containing within it a vacuum, a lack of so strong that enough of it alone will bring into existence that which is not, or support travel from that which is to that which is to become. So if the universe is in fact surrounded by nothing, in its expansion from the center, in theory, creation must occur. For if matter can not be created or destroyed, and is a physical representation of a force unseen, then to spread matter by force from a center should leave a need for representation by matter. So, in conclusion, I think that the universe traverses from explosion; instantaneous representation of force by materialization, to complete lack thereof and spontaneous dematerialization. Furthermore, to apply understanding of relation to the power of nothing, to travel from here to there with only nothing in between would be instantaneous no matter the perceived distance.

[BurtJordaan]

Abraham, welcome to the forum!

Your first post is about as mysterious as the universe itself. I don't quite follow what you are trying to say.

As a hint, break your post into paragraphs - it will be much easier to read.

[Abraham]

Well, the universe, being mysterious, would in truth be mysterious when described. In any case I am merely implying that the creation of matter must be instantaneous in order to adhere to the current accepted theory. So, as the universe expands from the center where the "big bang" occurs it creates the force necessary to create the big bang itself. As nothing is greater than the universe itself and is immeasurable in relation to the physical world, travel through it is supported by forces unseen. As the force grows it gives birth to the big bang, which is supported by the actual matter in existence. Hopefully you can follow.

[BurtJordaan]

I am merely implying that the creation of matter must be instantaneous in order to adhere to the current accepted theory.

Not quite. Cosmologists think that the instantaneous creation was that of energy, which inflated spacetime up to a point and then 'dumped' all that energy as matter that flew apart. But not from a point in space, but at a point in time, spatially everywhere. Present indications is that the universe started out spatially infinite.

[someguy1]

Present indications is that the universe started out spatially infinite.

This is news to me but I'm no expert. Can you provide a reference? Are you saying the universe is believed to be currently infinite? That's totally different than my understanding. Could use a reference for that too. I'm not talking about speculative multiverse theories, I'm asking about theory confirmed by experiment. The observable universe is finite and beyond that we can't know anything because we can't observe it.

[Abraham]

Rationally thinking if there is and there is not, and what is not is measurable by space, then it must be infinite. Also if what is not can be contained, in order to be contained, that which is must also be infinite. Because if the universe were finite, what would it be contained within? If that which is not is only measurable in comparison to that which is, then that which is not can be considered a constant, therefore creating the universe as finite. So, if the finite universe is expanding within an infinite space, it is both getting larger as a whole, and smaller as each individual part. If each individual part must be represented in constant in relation to energy, then as it becomes smaller, its relation to energy would become disturbed and require the creation of more matter in relation to the disturbance itself.

[Abraham]

So, if neutrons are to be considered pure mass and must remain constant in relativity to space, then as they become farther apart from each other and consume greater area in relation to themselves, then also creation of energy representation of matter in protons and electrons must occur to maintain the ratio of size to space. So as the universe increases in overall size, the creation of energy matter; protons and electrons, occurs due to relativity to size in space. And as the creation of energy matter occurs so does the creation of matter itself in relation to balance of energy in flux.

[Abraham]

So, in theory, neutrons are matter and as they consume more space and as space itself is measurable in size relative to matter then matter becomes unstable. As energy is also released upon the creation of matter toward stability the positive and negative charged matter opposes itself until the energy is exhausted. So creation seems a constant driven forth by increase in consumption of space and the energy expunged by the change in relation to matter non-matter. Like static.

[BurtJordaan]

Present indications is that the universe started out spatially infinite.

This is news to me but I'm no expert. Can you provide a reference? Are you saying the universe is believed to be currently infinite? That's totally different than my understanding.

A very nice Blog article at http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org. It gives a minimum radius for the total universe, but after the Planck satellite latest data release, it seems that it is even closer to 'flat'. 'Open' also falls within the uncertainty band and since 'open' also means infinite in size, it seems that both theory and experiment favor infinity.

Occam's razor also favors infinite, because it is the simplest interpretation of both inflation theory and modern experimental (CMB) results. We can obviously never be entirely sure that it is not just extraordinary BIG, but not quite 'infinite', whatever that may mean.

[Abraham]

The universe must be finite expanding into the non-existent. As expansion occurs matter must be created to maintain relativity. As matter comes into existence it is energized and remains in flux until paired in a stable condition. So if positive and negative are in relation to non-existent, then proton to electron equality exists as well as neutron to non-existence relativity. As matter cannot be destroyed or created and non-existence becomes greater, then matter must remain relative so it in fact is being created but is in fact not because it is merely remaining relative to the increase of non-existence.

[Braininvat]

Can this be moved to PT forum? Or Odds and Ends?

[someguy1]

A very nice Blog article at http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org.

That link most surely says no such thing and contains no such article. There's a complaint about the politics at Scientopia, and a photo of Grumpy cat playing Scrabble.

There are many articles on that blog, did you have a more specific link in that site's archives possibly?

It would make the news if anyone had evidence of actual infinity in the universe. It would be quite a stunning scientific and philosophical development. I follow the news and I haven't heard of it. We all would have heard about it. I can not accept what you've written without at least some shred of evidence.

If there's a credible scientific theory to the effect that the physical universe instantiates actual infinity, I'd be most interested to learn about it. If the universe is infinite, we can ask if it contains infinitely many particles. And if it does, then we can ask if it's a countable or uncountable infinity. In other words set theory would become an experimental science. I'd have heard about that too if there were any truth to it.

[BurtJordaan]

A very nice Blog article at http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org.

That link most surely says no such thing and contains no such article. There's a complaint about the politics at Scientopia, and a photo of Grumpy cat playing Scrabble.

Sorry, the real link that I have saved is this one: http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2012/02/27/the-minimum-size-of-the-whole-universe/. Must have been a finger slip somewhere...

I'm not a follower of that website, but its a very nice article. I will give you more recent reference as time allows.

[BurtJordaan]

Can this be moved to PT forum? Or Odds and Ends?

Yup. Odds and ends seems to be the solution. The questions about the size of the universe borders on cosmology, but the thread is a bit weird.

[BurtJordaan]

If there's a credible scientific theory to the effect that the physical universe instantiates actual infinity, I'd be most interested to learn about it. If the universe is infinite, we can ask if it contains infinitely many particles. And if it does, then we can ask if it's a countable or uncountable infinity. In other words set theory would become an experimental science. I'd have heard about that too if there were any truth to it.

The best, but most difficult to read observational paper is ESA's Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters. Para 6.2.4. Curvature (pp 38), eq. 50 (pp 39) gives the combined value for the curvature parameter as
(95%, Planck TT+lowP+lensing+BAO).

This indicates a preferred spatial flatness, but it may be on either side of flat. Only the side indicates positive curvature and a minimum cosmic radius of 14.4/(-0.0005)² ~ 600 billion light years, with the maximum radius uncountable infinity.

The present feeling is that the errors will become smaller in the future, but unless it eventually sits fully on the '+side', a very large but finite total universe cannot be ruled out.

[someguy1]

Sorry, the real link that I have saved is this one: http://galacticinteractions.scientopia.org/2012/02/27/the-minimum-size-of-the-whole-universe/. Must have been a finger slip somewhere...

Thanks for the link.

I take no position (in this thread) on whether the universe is infinite. But I can't say I think that article made any kind of case. Here's his argument:

The Universe as a whole, however, is probably infinite. This is easy enough to say, but it's a rather difficult concept to wrap your brain around when you really start thinking about it. One solution is not to think too hard about it. If you find yourself asking questions like "if it's already infinite, how can it expand?", you're not thinking properly about infinity. Infinity is a concept, not a number.

I hope you don't consider that a rational argument. I must add that when someone says, "infinity is a concept, not a number," they are demonstrating their ignorance of the last 140 years of set theory, which studies transfinite numbers. Specific ones, with specific properties that distinguish them from one aother.

But I "won't think too hard about it." Might disturb my pretty little head. What is it about that paragraph that made you think the author was referencing any credible theory of contemporary physics?

I genuinely hope that you are not personally convinced that this was an argument. The article itself calculates that the minimum size of the universe is finite, and then says, well, for all we know it's infinite.

Not a rational argument. No evidence, no theoretical basis, no consideration of the consequences.