Finite yet unbounded space?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
24-12-2013, 07:22 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(23-12-2013 04:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  
(22-12-2013 10:05 PM)Mike Wrote:  If space is finite yet unbounded, what is outside of this space/universe? More space, perhaps?

There might not be an outside. There is certainly no outside that is accessible.

Or there might be other universes.

If there are other universes out there, that's mean outside the universe there are more space.

If there are no "outside", do you mean there are infinite solid matter enclosing the universe?
Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 07:36 PM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(23-12-2013 05:32 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  On the nature of relativistic space-time:



Note that this is not mere speculation. GPS satellites would not work if the hundred-year-old predictions of general relativity do not hold. The warping of space-time predicted by general relativity is observed indirectly though things like the orbit of mercury and directly through observations of things like gravitational lensing. Playlist here[1].

I don't know the shape of space-time beyond the observable universe, 46-47 billion light years away in space and 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years in time[2]. Like I said, we know the size of the universe is greater than the size of the observable universe - but we can't really say whether it is finite or infinite, open or closed. I also don't know what if anything predates the big bang. There may be nothing before. Time may either extend infinitely backwards or could have a definite edge. It's not really known, and whichever case is accurate will make our normal concepts of causality will break down. There is no "obvious" to be had here. We can only go on what we observe and what we calculate, and both have their limits - at least for the moment.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HQAQYQ0E...BAC693237E
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Thanks for the response.

In my opinion, the whole universe, I think is infinite and unbounded while the observable universe is unbounded too but it is finite and limited. I also tend to think that space don't have any shape, such as "open", "closed", etc. because everyone agree that space is nothing.

Some people say including some of my friends, observations and experiments are biased and subjective, thus proof requires an observer to use his limited sensory system to give an OPINION of what he THINKS is the case. Science is objective, not subjective.

Evidence & proof means opinion. For example, General Relativity is a fact to you and it is not a fact to me.
Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 07:41 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(24-12-2013 07:22 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(23-12-2013 04:47 AM)Chas Wrote:  There might not be an outside. There is certainly no outside that is accessible.

Or there might be other universes.

If there are other universes out there, that's mean outside the universe there are more space.

If there are no "outside", do you mean there are infinite solid matter enclosing the universe?

No, solid matter would be something. No outside means there is no outside. There is nothing, not even a there. Truly no space, not anything.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Chas's post
24-12-2013, 07:44 PM (This post was last modified: 24-12-2013 07:47 PM by Chas.)
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(24-12-2013 07:36 PM)Mike Wrote:  
(23-12-2013 05:32 AM)Hafnof Wrote:  On the nature of relativistic space-time:



Note that this is not mere speculation. GPS satellites would not work if the hundred-year-old predictions of general relativity do not hold. The warping of space-time predicted by general relativity is observed indirectly though things like the orbit of mercury and directly through observations of things like gravitational lensing. Playlist here[1].

I don't know the shape of space-time beyond the observable universe, 46-47 billion light years away in space and 13.798 ± 0.037 billion years in time[2]. Like I said, we know the size of the universe is greater than the size of the observable universe - but we can't really say whether it is finite or infinite, open or closed. I also don't know what if anything predates the big bang. There may be nothing before. Time may either extend infinitely backwards or could have a definite edge. It's not really known, and whichever case is accurate will make our normal concepts of causality will break down. There is no "obvious" to be had here. We can only go on what we observe and what we calculate, and both have their limits - at least for the moment.

[1] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5HQAQYQ0E...BAC693237E
[2] http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Observable_universe

Thanks for the response.

In my opinion, the whole universe, I think is infinite and unbounded while the observable universe is unbounded too but it is finite and limited. I also tend to think that space don't have any shape, such as "open", "closed", etc. because everyone agree that space is nothing.

Some people say including some of my friends, observations and experiments are biased and subjective, thus proof requires an observer to use his limited sensory system to give an OPINION of what he THINKS is the case. Science is objective, not subjective.

Evidence & proof means opinion. For example, General Relativity is a fact to you and it is not a fact to me.

No, not everyone agrees that space is nothing. Probably no cosmologist thinks that. Space is something, it has a geometry, a curvature, and it is deformed by matter.

General Relativity is a model of reality. It is a very good model and it is probably a part of the truth. It makes predictions about what we should see when we look at the universe, and those are correct as accurately as we can measure.

That's as close to fact as we get in science.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
24-12-2013, 11:26 PM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(24-12-2013 07:36 PM)Mike Wrote:  In my opinion, the whole universe, I think is infinite and unbounded while the observable universe is unbounded too but it is finite and limited. I also tend to think that space don't have any shape, such as "open", "closed", etc. 1. because everyone agree that space is nothing.

Some people say including some of my friends, 2. observations and experiments are biased and subjective, thus proof requires an observer to use his limited sensory system to give an OPINION of what he THINKS is the case. Science is objective, not subjective.

Evidence & proof means opinion. For example, 3. General Relativity is a fact to you and it is not a fact to me.

1. No, in case you haven't been reading the replies, not everyone agrees that space is nothing. As a matter of fact the scientific community is convinced it is not nothing. General relativity explains gravity as the curvature of space, and it models gravity in our universe more accurately than any other theory.

'Empty space' is littered with pairs of matter and antimatter pairs.

Space is also thought to have a higher energy content than all of the matter in the universe by a factor of about 16. Which is thought to cause the accelerating expansion we are undergoing.

2. Right, which is why other groups have to confirm the results of the original research group. We don't just accept the results of any one study. For example the experiment where they thought neutrinos were travelling faster than light, it turned out to be faulty equipment. Even the LHC had two experiments running (albeit on the same accelerator, but separate detectors) which confirmed the higgs model.

3. There are no subjective facts, it is either a fact or it is not. A scientific theory either accurately models reality or it doesn't. General relativity has been known to model reality accurately since the 1920's when the bending of starlight was measured in a solar eclipse. More experiments have since confirmed the relative nature of time. An ongoing one is the gps satellites, which are calibrated to account for the change in rate of the passage of time.

2.5 billion seconds total
1.67 billion seconds conscious

Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 02:18 AM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(24-12-2013 11:26 PM)Adenosis Wrote:  
(24-12-2013 07:36 PM)Mike Wrote:  In my opinion, the whole universe, I think is infinite and unbounded while the observable universe is unbounded too but it is finite and limited. I also tend to think that space don't have any shape, such as "open", "closed", etc. 1. because everyone agree that space is nothing.

Some people say including some of my friends, 2. observations and experiments are biased and subjective, thus proof requires an observer to use his limited sensory system to give an OPINION of what he THINKS is the case. Science is objective, not subjective.

Evidence & proof means opinion. For example, 3. General Relativity is a fact to you and it is not a fact to me.

1. No, in case you haven't been reading the replies, not everyone agrees that space is nothing. As a matter of fact the scientific community is convinced it is not nothing. General relativity explains gravity as the curvature of space, and it models gravity in our universe more accurately than any other theory.

'Empty space' is littered with pairs of matter and antimatter pairs.

Space is also thought to have a higher energy content than all of the matter in the universe by a factor of about 16. Which is thought to cause the accelerating expansion we are undergoing.

2. Right, which is why other groups have to confirm the results of the original research group. We don't just accept the results of any one study. For example the experiment where they thought neutrinos were travelling faster than light, it turned out to be faulty equipment. Even the LHC had two experiments running (albeit on the same accelerator, but separate detectors) which confirmed the higgs model.

3. There are no subjective facts, it is either a fact or it is not. A scientific theory either accurately models reality or it doesn't. General relativity has been known to model reality accurately since the 1920's when the bending of starlight was measured in a solar eclipse. More experiments have since confirmed the relative nature of time. An ongoing one is the gps satellites, which are calibrated to account for the change in rate of the passage of time.

1. AFAIK, gravity is the tension attracting all the objects in the universe. Gravity is mediated by a physical medium that interconnects all atoms.

So, is it really that space is finite yet unbounded?

2. But how did they detected the Higgs Boson while we can't even see an atom, then how can we possibly have proven to detect an entity smaller than an atom?

Okay, which of these main models of the atom will you invoke to explain fusion and fission?

1. Thomson Plum Pudding (berries)

2. Rutherford Planetary Bead

3. Bohr Planetary Bead

4. Sommerfield’s Wavon which incorporates Einstein’s Relativity

5. DeBroglie's Ribbon

6. Schrödinger Wave

7. Born's Electron Cloud

8. Lewis Shell

Which is the real atom?

3. Time is a concept that necessarily requires an ALREADY living sentient being to conceive it and keep track of it via their memory, or we can say time is a man-invented concept that necessarily requires an observer to “account” for it.

time = relative motion of objects + memory of locations

Time: A scalar quantity established by an observer to relate the relative motion between two objects, where one object’s motion is referenced as a pre-established agreed-upon standard (i.e seconds, days, years).
Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 02:21 AM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(24-12-2013 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-12-2013 07:22 PM)Mike Wrote:  If there are other universes out there, that's mean outside the universe there are more space.

If there are no "outside", do you mean there are infinite solid matter enclosing the universe?

No, solid matter would be something. No outside means there is no outside. There is nothing, not even a there. Truly no space, not anything.

Hmm, can you imagine if there are no matter and space? Consider
Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 02:25 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(24-12-2013 07:41 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(24-12-2013 07:22 PM)Mike Wrote:  If there are other universes out there, that's mean outside the universe there are more space.

If there are no "outside", do you mean there are infinite solid matter enclosing the universe?

No, solid matter would be something. No outside means there is no outside. There is nothing, not even a there. Truly no space, not anything.
I'm struggling with this stuff too.

The term "universe" is ill defined.
Does universe mean a system of matter/energy that is expanding from a central point of origin?
If this is the case then IMO there are probably many, many more universes, probably an infinite amount of them.
If all these universes exist within Space, what would the entirety be called? the Multiverse, the Cosmos?

I was once thinking that Space is just nothingness other than a three dimensional coordinate system. Thus Space is infinite in all directions because it would never have a boundary, if you run out of nothing then what do you have?

But taking light as the point of reference as is done in GR, we understand that the speed of light is the fastest anything can travel at. We also know that SpaceTime is curved. e.g. the Moon travels in a straight line through SpaceTime but appears to travel in an eclipse around the Earth because the Earth warps SpaceTime. We also know that the curvature is dependent on the speed you are going. The Moon goes all the way around the Earth but a beam of light only bends slightly towards the Earth. The rate at which the Moon and a photon of light accelerate towards the Earth (at the same distance from Earth) is exactly the same.
But there is never a "straight" line in the presence of gravity. So the idea that Space is a Euclidean three dimensional coordinate system is flawed.
It may just be impossible for anything inside our universe to get outside our universe. This means that Time and spacial coordinates have no meaning outside our universe. Time and space are consequences of matter/energy, so without the presence of matter/energy then there simply is no "outside" of a universe.
This would mean that it is impossible to travel there. But of course if matter/energy does expand beyond the boundary of the universe then this matter/energy creates time and space thus the universe itself expands in volume.

If there are multiple universes, I don't know if it would be possible to travel from one to another. They might simply exist in their own bubbles of TimeSpace with no spacial path from one to another.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 08:19 AM
 
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
Space and time are two distinct abstract concepts that resolve to nothing in reality. Space and time have no boundaries for you or me to transcend. Space and time are not a house that we can transcend by walking out the front door and circling in the yard. There is NO front door to the universe. Or back door. Only objects have boundaries, and only can the internal structures of objects recede bounds. Those who irrationally assume that space is an object with a bound receding at C will have to explain that which space is receding into. Is space receding into the space of another universe? What is outside of space?

Space is that which has no shape. Space has no dimensions since it is not an object of existence with shape and internal structure. Space refers to nothing. Space is a concept referring to the static distance between two or more objects of existence. The distance between two nouns of reality is also called spatial separation. Space contours forms of existence. Our ancestors and their descendants came along and conceptualized space via associating objects in their brains. And thousands of years later the later generations discovered that their is nothing separating objects. Unfortunately some have converted space into a noun of reality with a form and so now we have to deal with people who insisting that the universe is finite but unbounded and universe's bound is expanding at an ever increasing rate of acceleration into nothing.

Time is the brain associating two or more locations of an object via the atoms or neurons responsible for memory. Location is the set of static distances from one object to all other objects. Like space, time has no bounds since it has no form. Time is all in our head. Time is a verb not a noun of reality. Humans get together and agree upon a scalar quantity to reference the motion of objects e.g. the day and then they arbitrarily divide this quantity into smaller quantities (hours, minutes, seconds, etc.). Time is a metric of motion. And it is good to note that the earliest human or previous generations have no memory of all the locations of all atoms of the universe. Some mainstream scientists are quite frankly irrational when they presume to use a tautologous system to 'predict' the time of the network of atoms.

What is gravity?

A: Gravity is not a thing, force, etc. Gravity is an action that things do, i.e. action-at-a-distance (AAAD) – they attract each other. Since gravity is a concept, the term must be defined.

Gravity : a phenomenon where objects pull each other in direct proportion to their matter and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance that separates them.
Quote this message in a reply
25-12-2013, 09:25 AM
RE: Finite yet unbounded space?
(25-12-2013 08:19 AM)Mike Wrote:  Space and time are two distinct abstract concepts that resolve to nothing in reality. Space and time have no boundaries for you or me to transcend. Space and time are not a house that we can transcend by walking out the front door and circling in the yard. There is NO front door to the universe. Or back door. Only objects have boundaries, and only can the internal structures of objects recede bounds. Those who irrationally assume that space is an object with a bound receding at C will have to explain that which space is receding into. Is space receding into the space of another universe? What is outside of space?

Space is that which has no shape. Space has no dimensions since it is not an object of existence with shape and internal structure. Space refers to nothing. Space is a concept referring to the static distance between two or more objects of existence. The distance between two nouns of reality is also called spatial separation. Space contours forms of existence. Our ancestors and their descendants came along and conceptualized space via associating objects in their brains. And thousands of years later the later generations discovered that their is nothing separating objects. Unfortunately some have converted space into a noun of reality with a form and so now we have to deal with people who insisting that the universe is finite but unbounded and universe's bound is expanding at an ever increasing rate of acceleration into nothing.

Time is the brain associating two or more locations of an object via the atoms or neurons responsible for memory. Location is the set of static distances from one object to all other objects. Like space, time has no bounds since it has no form. Time is all in our head. Time is a verb not a noun of reality. Humans get together and agree upon a scalar quantity to reference the motion of objects e.g. the day and then they arbitrarily divide this quantity into smaller quantities (hours, minutes, seconds, etc.). Time is a metric of motion. And it is good to note that the earliest human or previous generations have no memory of all the locations of all atoms of the universe. Some mainstream scientists are quite frankly irrational when they presume to use a tautologous system to 'predict' the time of the network of atoms.

What is gravity?

A: Gravity is not a thing, force, etc. Gravity is an action that things do, i.e. action-at-a-distance (AAAD) – they attract each other. Since gravity is a concept, the term must be defined.

Gravity : a phenomenon where objects pull each other in direct proportion to their matter and in inverse proportion to the square of the distance that separates them.

Space-time has reality, it has existence, it has properties.
Time does not depend on consciousness. Time passes whether or not anyone is there to experience it. It is a dimension of reality, not a construct of mind.
Gravity is the curvature of space-time by mass.

Skepticism is not a position; it is an approach to claims.
Science is not a subject, but a method.
[Image: flagstiny%206.gif]
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 2 users Like Chas's post
Post Reply
Forum Jump: