The Ur-Quan Masters Discussion Forum

Perhaps the one who created the real universe would respond to this thread just like Fred did the other one...

...and you've never heard of the Big Bang Theory?

Or, for more religious and esoteric types... The Book of Genesis?

I just flipped a few bits.

God

Don't think about it too much or your head will fall off. Big Bang/"Let there be light" is good enough for now.

I saw that one coming a mile away... har har har as the Umgah would say.

What would lead you to believe that this universe is real?

Right, no more Matrix for you....

I was thinking Alice in Wonderland, actually.

Well. It was a programing experience gone awry... sorry folkes!

No, no more -Matrix- for you.

I cannot tell you how sick I am of people using the Matrix as a reference point to theorizing that the world we live in isn't truly real. It's really not that original a concept. People have been asking themselves this since before the days of Plato and Aristotle.

Hell, I think the concept pushed by The Truman Show was a much more original concept than the Matrix, even though that's been done before too. (That you are the only person who is truly real and absolutely everyone and everything in the world around you is prefabricated specifically to fit around you in order to convince you that you are not the only truly real person.)

And I mean don't get me wrong, I love the Matrix movies. I love the concept of living in a digital world where we can bend the rules if we know how and 'manipulate' the system.

Okay, to keep this post from completely ignoring the topic of this thread..

The universe came into existence simply because there was no other option.

There could just have easily been absolutely no universe, anywhere, at all, no such thing as time, no such thing as distance, space, matter, life, thought, light, darkness, anything. There could easily have been no such thing as a universe, no such thing as non-matter within which the universe was created. There could have easily been simply nothing at all. No realities where anything existed or even had meaning.

The flip side of that coin is that there are an infinite number of possibilities in an infinite amount of space in an infinite amount of time. An infinite number of realities wherein an infinite number of possibilities can take place, and DO take place.

The vast majority haven't big-banged yet. An even more vast majority of them don't have life in them at all. An even more vast majority of them don't have Earth. An even more vast majority of them don't have life on Earth. An even more vast majority of them aren't in a frame of time where life actually has come to exist or continues to exist on Earth. An even more vast majority of them don't have -sentient- life on Earth.

So we are amongst the tiny, tiny, tiny, impossibly few minority possibilities that exist in a reality and universe that allows conditions permits us to and allows us to even contemplate our existence in the universe.

So that brings us back to the original question. How the did the universe come about? Simply because there was no option for it not to, once the 50/50 chance of -any- reality existing at all in the first place was established. So how is it that life came to exist in this universe, given the impossible odds?

Let's put it this way. If you didn't exist, or wasn't sentient, would you ever know? Of course not. The very fact that you can even ponder how you got here is because you live in one of the lucky few realities that lets you. The very fact that you exist is because you have to.

As the phrase goes, "I think, therefore I am."

I prefer the point Raymond E. Feist uses in one of his books.
"We're here because there would be no point to having any of this around if noone were here to witness it all."

well, you see, there was this sock and one day, as i went to take the trash out...

Somebody flick Kohr-Ah's rant switch off please ...  :P

No, but seriously you are right. The odds of life actually combining from the "primordial soup" are ENOURMOUSLY remote. That is not including the odds of a proper planet being in place to begin with.

If you have ever heard of the movement known as "scientific creationism" they go to great lengths to point out these statistical "impossibilities" as they refer to them.

They, however, skipped their calculus lessons. Time is infinte in the Universe... As is the size of the Universe, also infinite. An infinite number of planets, stars, and an infinite number of chances for life to be created out of the "primordial soup" that it is supposed to start from.

With that being said, it is impossible for life not to occur in the universe. But it is INCREDIBLY improbable for any sort of life to exist anywhere even remotely close to us in the Universe.

Unless of course our probability calculations are all wrong and there might be life everywhere, but based on what we know so far... that is not the case.

And on what exactly are you basing your assumption that life coming out of the primordial soup is very unlikely?  Lab tests, despite being useful, are highly limited in simulating accurately a system as complex as an entire planet.  Even with our best computers, the friggin weather report is barely more accurate then Joe the farmers "Reckon it'll rain".  All protests of 'It's so unlikely that life would form on earth' ultimately add up to zilch, squat, zero.  An extremely arrogant attempt to declare the possibilities in a mind boggling complex system based on lab tests that are even less reliable then the weather channel prediction.

I will not treat those claims of impossibility any more seriously then I would a weatherman saying it is impossible it would rain tommorow.  

Notice at the end I said, "Unless of course our probability calculations are all wrong and there might be life everywhere, but based on what we know so far... that is not the case"

They have run models of probability for life forming, many times. The results indicate that the probability of life forming is extremely low. As i said, the probability calculations could be all wrong.

Please read the entire post before replying to something in it...

In any case, it doesn't matter if the probability of life forming is 1 in 99999999999999999999999999999999999999999999
or 100%

Either way, the odds of life forming somewhere, at some time in the Universe is 100%. Here we are, hence life formed.

Now now, calm down. ;) However much you may dislike the Matrix, there are certain pros to using it... I do agree with you (well it is fact, so it'd be hard not to  :P ), the idea for the Matrix is nothing new. It's been used in any amount of books, and quite a few movies as well, and in some cases much better... However, if I quote some book or movie I saw five years ago, or even the Truman show (which was't that big over here, a lot of people aren't going to get the reference. However, I say the word "Matrix", and EVERYBODY knows what I'm talking about. It's used as a refernce point. And when one refers to something, it is usually a good thing if everyone knows what one is referring to.

Also, please note that this isn't meant to be arrogant in the I've-seen-and-know-so-much-more-than-the-rest-of-you-klutzes way. But as most of us come from different cultures, I simply feel it is easier to use big reference points rather than obscure ones. I know I hate it when someone refers to a movie/book/whatever that was only ever aired in the US or Japan...

Going back on topic I really have noting more to add. Clearly, the universe exists. So do we. While we may theoretize on how and why it started, chances are we'll never know...

this is just a little related speculation, but...
okay. suppose space is inflating at light speed or a hair under from the big zappy howevermany billions of years ago. I've forgotten and it's the morning so i don't remember. Now, by the theory of relativity, less time from an observer at the edge of inflating space has passed than from somebody at space zero, wherever that is.
Therefore, if another observer from earth could somehow teleport to the edge of the universe, would he be going back in time?
Err... well... yeah. that's about the biggest quandary my less-than-fully-physics-aware brain is capable of.

Well if it helps, I've been punished for my ranting by having my puter fall apart, and am forced to login from the public library.

Bugger.

But yes, life is here because it can't not be.
And yes, tThe universe was created because it couldn't not be, once it got over the hump of whether or not absolutely nothing exists and had no meaning and never did and never would.

And you are right Luki, I think it is just because I often feel like if I read someone typing the words 'Matrix style' even one more time in their essay, poses, stories, posts, etc...I will go absolutely raving mad. As in far beyond just-conducting-genocide-mad.

You think you're talking science here, but it's as much religion as saying $GOD made the universe.
When people find a plausible explaination, they often just assume that's the correct one (I catch myself doing it too sometimes).
I'm refering in particular to Kohr-Ah_Primate (eg. "The universe came into existence simply because there was no other option.") and The_Ultimate_Evil (eg. "No, but seriously you are right.").
Even if an explanation is plausible; it might not be the only plausible explanation. And the correct explanation may not even be the most plausible one.

That being said, let's view Kohr-Ah_Primate's religion as a theory for a moment.
She claims the universe comes into existence because there was no other option. Yet she herself mentions that there could have been no universe at all. That sounds like another option to me.

Kohr-Ah_Primate offers the choice between "No universe at all" and "an infinite number of universes". But there's also the possibility of having one or several universes. In fact, you could take together the infinite number of universes and call them "the universe".

A point both Kohr-Ah_Primate and The_Ultimate_Evil make is that, as space and time are infinite, everything that could happen will sometime, somewhere, happen. There are some problems with that.
First of all, it is unknown whether space and time are infinite.
Second, even if space and time are infinite, that doesn't mean that all infinite different possibilities will happen. Apart from the question whether it's really a matter of chance what happens, the infinities of space and time are not necessarilly of the same order as the infinities of the different possibilities. For example, if every second, somehow a random rational number is chosen (leaving aside how it would be possible to randomly pick a number from an infinite set), it doesn't matter how many seconds pass, but some rational numbers will never be chosen, because the number of rational numbers is uncountable, while the number of seconds is countable.
Third, space and time are facets of this universe, hence you cannot use them in explaining why the universe exists.

Kohr-Ah_Primate's mentioned a "50/50 chance of -any- reality existing at all". I've heard this said in a joke once. A man who claims he's got a 50/50 chance of winning the lottery; either he wins, or he doesn't. I don't think I need to waste more words on this.

A valid point that Kohr-Ah_Primate makes (at least I think that's what she's saying) is that the fact that you exist can't be used to say anything about the possibilities of you existing. Because you exist.
From your point of view at least, because I don't know for sure you do. Which brings us to René Descartes. His conclusion was that all you can really know to exist is yourself. "I think, therefore I am" is his line.

As for using the Matrix as a point of reference; does it matter that the idea is not original? Why is it so irritating to you (Kohr-Ah_Primate) that people use a popular image to bring across an idea. In the end, does it really matter who stated the idea first? The Wachowski brothers do not claim that they invented the idea.

i think kohr-ah is annoyed because the matrix is cliche.

Could it be that Fred Ford created this universe as well?

Pretty much it, Shinryuu. Too many folk just using it as a convenient description. It becomes cliche.

and meep, I was throwing in 'infinite possibilities' and 'infinite realities' and 'infinite dimensions' just to stress not just the insane size of the universe itself but the infinite number of actual universes as well.

And I stressed about three or four times that the initial hump to get over was whether or not there would be utter nothingness and oblivion (a complete lack any reference point and even the absence of any absence of anything present with which to give a non-existent universe meaning) or an infinite set of universes and possibilities and etc.

I know you say that there just might be a finite number of universes/possibilities/etc. I'm not even going to argue the issue with you because I'm not well-equipped to do so.

All I can say is that we cannot even remotely comprehend or grasp the absolute scope or variation or possibilities that exist even in this one universe let alone an infinite number of them. I think people overvalue the worth of logic or physics or even simple arithmetic in which to define the universe, for I honestly believe there are possibilities of universes where even simple math doesn't work, and the laws of these have no meaning. In this universe, at least, those methods of measuring and quanitifying everything we vainly attempt to grasp in our inadequate minds, those methods are probably the best way to go, and will probably serve us the best in the course of our lives which I doubt with utter sincerity we will ever need for other means of defining/measuring/quantifying.

You say that for every second you count a rational number, and even into infinity you will never count an irrational number. But this is considering the fact that you dwell within a universe that is consigned to these laws of physics and these laws of arithmetic and whatnot. I believe that there are other eventualities, other universes, other realities, even other times, where irrational and rational numbers will lack meaning.

I don't think of my earlier rant as religion. I think of it as a theory. An utterly unproveable, theoretical examination of an aspect of our universe, but still a theory.

If you wish to think of what I said as 'religion' then I am not going to tell you to think otherwise. But I certainly will not demand that other people believe what I say.

I just like to theorize in my spare time and challenge my mind. Everything I've said in the rant was based around my opinion and conjecture.

So I apologize if for some people it's come off as a decree.

It's not meant to.

The major problem with trying to understand this stuff is simply that the human mind is not equiped to understand the universe. Why? The human brain relates everything to do with distance and size in relative terms. If you see a picture of a featureless square block, you have no idea how big it is until you see a human standing beside it (or some other object that your brain can relate back to a human).

The human mind cannot do this when thinking about the distance from Earth to Alpha Centauri, or the distance around the galaxy, around the group of galaxies around us, and out into space for infinity. It is impossible to grasp the true meaning of that distance, and it is impossible to grasp the true meaning of infinite time.

Let me ask you something, If space is not infinite. Then what happens when you reach the limit of finite space? Is there a wall? If there is a wall, what is past that wall? There must be something...

To Meep-eep

Your logic is slightly flawed about probability. The reason why we can say that the probability of life forming sometime, somewhere in the Universe is because we have modeled the conditions of the "primordial soup" and have determined that life can form in those conditions.

The question of how probable it is for life to form will determine if we are alone in the universe or not, maybe it will take close to an infinite amount of time for another sentient race to emerge, or maybe it will take 5 seconds.

Personally I do not believe in religion, and I don't neccessarly believe in the big bang, or whatever other theory is proposed for Universe creation. I just know that it is here, and it is very likely that we will never understand it (or will take close to an infinite amount of time if we do understand it).

There is nothing wrong with believing in religious explanations, if that "does it" for you... But that is an entirely different discussion.

I want to weigh in with a little response, I hope it will be received in the thoughtful spirit in which I think it is entered.

It has always bothered me that people are so willing to accept the bounds of the mind, that is to say, we could never comprehend, then sit back and call it a useless quest.  Or, to use it as a fun thing upon which to set the mind, trying to "comprehend infinity."

The thing is, to break these arguments down, isn't it something that we even comprehend infinity?  That we can be overwhelmed in our minds, recognize limits, know boundaries and creatively posit, even the most brilliant among us, that somewhere, lying just out of reach is something else?  Every generation reaches further in trying to gain what is just out of reach and yet comes back more discouraged, seeming to understand the limits of the mind.  Haven't we gotten to the point at which we question even rational thought then?  We question the entire range of our sensory experiences and the way we process information.  Everything is an exercise in futility and lies then, basically, so many intelligent, logical people seem quite willing to accept the triumph of nihilism, nothing really exists, it is all just lies, things we have created--the horizons falling away.

Nietzsche ended up at that same conclusion, but at least he decided it was absolutely necessary, indeed it was ***the most important step in the history of mankind, in the history of the entire universe*** (and perhaps, sadly, I believe as the center of his theory, the least quotable, or pithily understandable of his thoughts) for man to go on and find the answer anyway--even to create the answer.  He felt, realized that there was a compulsion within all man to understand his bearings, to question, wonder, aspire, and truly find the answer--even in a desperate sense, not merely as sport, or assuming there is no answer, twiddling with this fun theory or that.  

I realize that his sort of compulsion is the one that often drives people into madness--I admit that understand what he was trying to say--and I believe every person understands the glimmerings of this at a basic level.  Whenever man is faced with suffering, and sometimes more rarely when faced with pleasure--the response is why--the pre-eminent question of all children, also: "why?" We are born "whying" our way into the universe--it seems so sad to me that everything tries to dull our asking, dull our seeking of an answer, or give us some low, base answer that does not befit our humanity.

I understand, it is easier to live with the dulled sense of that, it is in fact impossible to carry on always grappling and wrestling--I appreciate that so many of you, so intelligent and feeling still ask that question--but I put forward a question of my own--what is that why?  Isn't it the truly pre-rational?  Of course you can't answer that, because if it were, you would not be aware of it when it was, it is a trick question I suppose, but still--does that why ever really go away?  And even more, isn't that what truly and uniquely makes us human, now that we understand monkeys and dolphins all have rational thought?  Why the why?  

Or, in other words, in sum: don't take a low answer, and don't take no answer--otherwise, this life you live, truly you are aware you live it and you make it liveable, but you give it up for pointless, and understanding nothing else, the sheer beauty of what is about and around you and the exquisite pain of the experience should prick you to admitting that it ought not be meaningless: it is truly an opportunity of which you should avail yourself.  

Don't know what kind of response I'm expecting, it was simply something I wanted to say.

All this talk about something outside the universe is pure speculation -- by definition, we cannot percieve anything outside our existence.  If we percieve it, it is part of our universe.  Please note that I am using "universe" to include alternate dimensions we might one day contact.

As for probability:  to the best of modern scientific knowledge, the probability of life forming without outside intervention is roughly the same as the probability of a tornado going through a junkyard and forming a fully functional 747.  Or any functional machine, for that matter.  Entropy is the ovverriding principle by which our universe works; without an active force to counteract it amino acids would NOT join together and make the stuff of life.  Thus, the only logical answer is a Creator.

Of course, the problem with the entropy arguement is that it ignores that earth is not a closed system.  The law of thermodynamics dealing with entropy is meant to be applied only to closed systems.  Huge quanitities of energy are constantly coming into the earth from the sun, as well as quantities of matter from space.  Attempting to apply the principle of entropy to the earth, without accounting for the rest of the universe, is therefore an incorrect application of the law.  As long as the decrease in entropy via life is offset by a larger increase in entropy elsewhere in the universe, life does not violate that law.  Ergo, a creator is unneccessary - any decrease in local entropy that life would imply can be easily offset by an increase in local entropy elsewhere in the whole system.  Since the whole system is the entire universe, finding possible places where entropy could've increased is no trick at all.

No well that was my whole point, the odds of life forming are ir-relevant. The odds of life forming in an infinetly large Universe over an infinite amount of time is 100%.

If the odds are 1 in 100000000000000000000000000000, Repeat the experiment an infinte number of times, guess how many times that 1 will occur? An infinite number of times.

nononono, NO. Dammit, people just don't understand.

At the end of the universe is MILLIWAYS. Y'know, that's why they call it the RESTAURANT AT THE END OF THE UNIVERSE.

...or maybe just Douglas Adams. If I had to name a being with a mind deranged enough to create this universe in a single burst of divine insight, it would either be Douglas Adams, Groucho Marx, Karl Marx, or my cat.

although, conversely, it could be Keanu Reeves. You know, he can say "whoah" in such a unique and cool manner that sound may have formed our universe. Y'know, like a new-age version of the hindu "OM" sound as the beginning of everything...

I guess I see the Matrix as cliche because of the cult following. I mean, I'm okay with people running around in trench coats, leather, and big ugly boots. But when they start babbling nonsense about "the One" and "the Matrix" and go all cryptic and pseudoexistential on me I give them a well-earned dope slap.

But the universe is not infinite. It's just really, really big. There's a finite number of atoms <something to the eightieth power i believe> and it has existed for a finite length of time and is certainly quantifiable. Therefore, the chances of other life existing are NOT 100%. The Universe could expand to be infinite, after an infinite amount of time. But that doesn't change the fact that there's a finite amount of stuff in it, regardless of how much dark matter, dark energy, dark obfuscation, and dark nonsense you throw in. Now, since it's expanding at c or thereabouts, we really can't ever reach the edge without FTL. So, in a sense, it is infinite because it's too speedy for us to get to the edge.

Our section of the Universe may be finite, but how do you know an infinite distance away from us there is another "section" of the Universe with another set of a finite number of atoms.

Sorry, but the Universe is still infinite no matter how you spin it.

Also, even if that weren't true that there is only one "section" of the Universe and a definitively finite number of building materials available...

The big bang theory states that eventually the Universe stops expanding and begins contracting, all mass gets sucked into one single small space, all atoms are there where a new big bang occurs and starts the process all over again.

Hence infinite time creates the same results.

Regarding the possible infiniteness of the universe, I suggest you take a look at this article (http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?colID=1&articleID=000F1EDD-B48A-1E90-8EA5809EC5880000) in the May issue of Scientific American (http://www.sciam.com/). Essentially, the article suggests that:

• An area of space with a certain maximum energy content only has a limited (but huge) amount of possible states.
  
• Space is infinite.
  
• Thus, every possible version of Earth and its surroundings at any time exists somewhere right now in the universe.
  
• And that's without even invoking the quantum many-worlds hypothesis, which means that everything that could have happened, did.
  

I'd say the article is slightly flawed in that:

• The justification for the limited amount of states of a volume of space is unclear, to say the least.
  
• We're not really sure yet that the universe is infinite, so all of this is speculation at best. At least the article acknowledges this.
  
• Is the energy content of a volume of the universe always finite?
  

Still, it's good to hear that parallel universes that only differ slightly from ours aren't such a silly idea after all. And it makes "A long time ago, in a galaxy far, far away..." sound sensible.

Good thing UQM doesn't have parallel universes like Star Trek, that are like ours, but everyone is evil and has a funny beard. :)

A couple of quotes that sprung to mind. First, from Terry Pratchett's "Wings":

"SCIENCE: A way of finding things out and then making them work. Science explains what is happening around us the whole time. So does RELIGION, but science is better because it comes up with more understandable excuses when it is wrong."

Next, from T.S. Eliot's "Little Gidding":

"We shall not cease from exploration
And the end of all our exploring
Will be to arrive where we started
And know the place for the first time."

I really didn't have any Deep Thought to add to this conversation that hasn't been already said.

The universe could be 3 Dimensionally infinite in the way that the surface of a sphere is 2Dimensionally infinite.  Perhaps we live on the inside of a 10 dimensional torus with no space or time on the outside.  Reach the "edge" and you've really reached the center.


Hmm... I always thought that was the big crunch theory (not directly tied to the big bang theory).
Also, you might be surprised to find out that for the last two years astronomers have been thinking that the universal expansion is accelerating (can't crunch that way).


The application of infinite experiments can never increase a probability to 100%.  It can approach 100% to an extant that it is almost indistinguishable.  Each application of a random probability is independant (unless you use a psuedo-random function - which actually follows a predictable pattern).  An example:  if I flip a coin an infinite amount of times, I could get an infinite number of "heads."

yeesh, parallel universes. so I suppose its possible there's intelligent life somewhere else. it may be a problem when we expand into it.

there is theoretical evidence that there is an infinite amount of parallel universes. however, there's also theoretical evidence that some cracka named God made the world 5000 years ago. Granted, definately not as much and definately not as credible, but i think comparing the theory of creation to the theory of many parallel universes is apt; we can theorize and say "X says that the existence of parallel universes is a statistical probability" and equivelant statements. Provide me with hard evidence or observation and i'll happily bow down to the parallel universe theory. I take the same stance towards religious dogma; gimme proof and i'll convert.

meh. that's not it really; i'm all for parallel universes, it's just they seem far too much like wishful thinking to me.

Gene Roddenberry was right about all those Nazi, Communist, and Gangster planets in Star Trek!

The flaw in your reasoning is twofold:  first, I WAS referring to the entire universe, not just Earth.  Second, the Universe is NOT infinite.  All scientific knowledge points to the universe having a finite size, albiet a large and expanding one.

Dealing with the universe as a whole also fails to require a creator, for the reasons I've already listed - any entropy loss due to life can be offset by an entropy gain elsewhere.  Local decreases in entropy are quite common, and happen all the time - else water wouldn't freeze, and so forth.

I never claimed the universe was infinite, as it doesn't need to be.  All it needs to be is big enough to have an increase in entropy that would offset the decrease from any form of life, and possible sources for those are as many as there are stars in the sky.

though, isn't it theorized that, if the universe expands infinitely like it's fixin' to, energy will be spread over more and more area and thus will decrease to observers our size?

either that, or just become chronically unusable.

You do not seem to understand entropy.  There is only one way the overall entropy of a system can decrease -- an outside force.  The decrease in entropy required to create life is humoungous, and where would the energy go in your theory?  Earth does not naturally emit energy!

Scientifically, we have very little evidence either way on the universe being infinite or not. Due to the tremendous homogeneity we see, it sure LOOKS infinite - and we cannot see to any edge, nor can we see to some point far far away where it 'wraps around'. So if the universe is finite, then the edge is awfully far away from us.

As far as the expansion -- this does not require the universe to be finite. What we DO know is that the distances between things are getting larger over time. However, the distances could be expanding 'in-place' as it were. (Alternately, there is the infinite hotel solution -- you have an infinite number of rooms in a hotel, all of them full. An infinite number of additional guests arrive. You can give them all a room. How?)

Please note that much of this is not a discussion of physics, but metaphysics. Very few things can be proven in metaphysics. Many things can be disproven, but that still leaves the field wide open.

As far as the SciAm article, note that the assumption was that the temperature was lower than some threshold on average. Wavelength is inversely proportional to energy, so limiting the energy limits the wavelength, and thus the quantum information per volume.
Now, we do have things over that temperature limit, but they have very low structure  and are thus largely interchangeable -- like, say, white dwarf stars. Take the mass, charge, and the linear and angular momentum vectors, temperature distribution and modes of vibration of a white dwarf, and you have the essence of its behavior, even though the actual particles within have a LOT more meaningless information in them at their temperatures above 10^9 kelvins.

So the distance they gave was probably a little high, but basically right.

However, it doesn't mean what they often use it for -- it's simply a distance within which you have ROOM for every quantum state. This does not mean that they will all be represented, since some are, shall we say, unlikely. I am not referring to life, since we don't know about that. I am thinking of 10^50 parsecs of vacuum with a cubic light year of delicious Gouda cheese in the middle. The structure is horribly unstable; it will quickly form a black hole, in fact -- but it is a valid quantum state. Would you expect to find that within that distance? Well, how the heck would it get INTO that situation?
The same argument can apply to life, if you think that it's that unlikely; I don't think it is all that unlikely (though abiogenesis is certainly not something you should expect to have happen on alternate tuesdays)

Daily we come in pretty decent thermal contact with an object that is approximately 4,000 kelvins on its surface. That sounds like energy input to me.

Also, while the amount of energy needed to create the full biomass now present on earth is large, creating biomass is what life DOES -- so you don't need much energy to get things started. Of course, in order to get things started you're going to need to make the attempt gajillions of times, so the energy spent does add up again. Still, we have the sun.
Oh, and the nuclear processes within the earth bring it out of thermal equilibrium - it could emit energy which can be exploited by life or proto-life.

Incidentally, the Earth does emit energy, since the cosmic microwave background is cooler than it is. I do think you're meaning emit energy toward life, not away from life. But remember, cooling is important too.

But wouldn't that be like the babelfish?
"Proof denies faith, and without faith I am nothing."
Proof of God would only prove that there is no God?

Basically, the problem is that in order to give Humans choice God has to restrain his power.  If He fully revealed himself, the essence of free will would be gone in the face of His presence -- so, in order to let humanity choose evil, he hides.  One cannot prove that God exists using science.

"reason and faith are like the shoes on your feet; you can get a lot farther with both than with just one."
- Babylon 5

Strangely enough, I had a conversation on this topic not long ago --



In a later post, I went on to say that 'Many worlds' is a REALLY bad name, and the theory should be called 'uncollapsing wavefunction'.

Viewed in this way, do you find a parallel universe theory palatable? Note that you cannot get from one of these worlds to another.

actually, proof of God disproves God for Christianity. That leaves all them other religions to be proven ;). Besides, faith is overrated.

Er? We do emit energy into our surround space. Space ITSELF cannot lose energy -thermodynamics- but the STUFF in space can lose the energy into things like black holes <which render mass/energy irretrievable>. The inevitable end of the universe has something to do with crazy quantum physicists talking about evaporation of black holes <? wha?> but really, in the short long term <some hundreds of trillions of years if my less'n faithful SciAm reading i remeber correctly> most or all mass/energy will be consolidated into a number of bigass singularities. That, and space will be a buncha zillion times bigger too, stretching the size of molecules. Making existance of LIFE itself a toughie. We can lose energy <entropy- relative to us> - but relative to an objective observer we can't lose energy; you're right. It just becomes chronically unusable.

Ok this is all silly..

1) The universe is not infinite:  The universe is expanding.  This has been proven due to the combined efforts of: Einstein, Doppler, Hubble, and this priest guy (forget his name).
Everyone always thought that the universe was infinate and constant, in fact when Einstein 's math said that it wasn't, he fudged the numbers to make sure it was (called the 'universal constant' [later dubbed by Einstein to be 'The greatest mistake of my life']).  If something is expanding, how can it be infinte?  Every single nanosecond that the universe gets a little bit bigger the word 'infinite' is re-defined to be this new size?  The universe is NOT infinite, its just really really big (299,792,458.2 Meters per/sec X 16,500,000,000 years).
(Bored did the math: 15 x 10^23 km  How big is that? I have no idea, like most humans my brain cannot even begin to think about it.)

2) Entropy is a crock:  Applying it just to the Earth as we have seen doesn't work because of the sun.  But  entropy is an overall thing, saying that entropy doesn't allow the universe to create life is just silly and wrong.  Yes entropy does apply to the whole universe but its not that simple.  Life being created in the universe (earth) does not go against entropy, the Earth gets its entropy to bend the rules from the sun, the sun then loses entropy, becomes more orderly.  In the long run (read: billions of years) the universe will becomely completly orderly (big crunch??), but in the mean time certain areas will be less and less orderly due to other things becomming more orderly.  The sun becomes more and more orderly, as a side effect of this the earth is becomming less orderly (but if you averaged it out the solar system is still losing entropy).

3) Multiple Dementions: First of all its complety silly to argue, yeah there could be a 4D demontion right on top of us, or parralle dementions around us, but in all liklyhood we will never see it nor any evidence of this.  A 2 demontional being could do nothing to prove nor disprove a 3rd demontion, arguing it is just mental masturbation.


Rant: One thing I have learned from discussing creation/religion/science with many people over the years is this: Religion people should not try to use sciece for thier arguements.  Its just stupid:

1) 90% of the times its stupid hald-facts (entropy) passed around by people who have been tricked by people who designed these 'facts' just to trick and manulpulate people into beleving in religion.

2) Whenever a religion person is proved wrong (like they always are) they either A) bring out another stupid half-fact, or B) Retreat to the corner with crys of "Well thats what I belive, and you can't change it."

3) They are right, you can't change it, and that how its supposed to be.  Its called faith for a reason.  You are supposed to belive it without proof, if there was proof, whats the point? Everyone would be good for fear of god, everyone would be good, but then thats just too easy.

GOD WOULD NOT MAKE MATH PROBLEM TO PROVE HE EXSISTED.  It would defeat the point.

If you want real sceince (thats acctually understandable by non-rocket scientists) visit:
http://www.talkorigins.org

you are quite right.



You do not seem to know how weird infinity is. I will point out two things:
1) Space is, among other things, a relationship between things. The way you expand the universe is to make the distances between objects within it greater. That's all. If space redefines our galaxy cluster to be a little bit further from the next one over, it will seem to us that the universe is expanding. This is so whether or not there is infinite space or not.
2)Infinite hotel paradox redux: you have a hotel with infinite rooms, and they are all full. An infinite number of guests shows up and demand rooms.
The hotel manager profusely apologizes to his guests, and instructs them to go to the room numbered twice their current number (the guest in room 5 goes to room 10,  the one in 12 goes to 24, and so on). Then the hotel manager gives the new guests all of the odd-numbered rooms.



you have it backward. Entropy isn't order, that's enthalpy. The universe tends toward higher multiplicity states (i.e. higher entropy). If you simply reverse the meaning of those concepts, though, your argument is correct, and it achieves the end you meant it to.



Parallel realities and additional dimensions are totally different things. Just a heads-up.

Yes all expanding space means is that individual points in the uniververse are getting farther from eachother.  Yes science is still out on this one, newer quantum mechanics suggests that it might be finite, but there are plenty of thoerys all around.  If you look at space expandinging.  Everypoint in the univerese is getting farther and father from eachother.  There is a finite amout of matter in the universe (well not counting dark-matter and stuff, trying to keep it simple).  If the universe is expanding, and there is a finite amout of matter, how can the universe be infinte?
I suppose one could say if you went to the point past where light was, and matter was and so on, you could say there is 'space' there, but whats the point?  Empty, lightless, darkless nothingness?
I'm not saying that there is a boarder to space, just that the 'space' that 'anything' hasn't gotten to, should hardly be called 'space'.



Err, yep I goofed.



I'm aware of this, I'm just lumping them together for based on the fact that they are both quite unprovable and its silly to argue them (again not getting into odd thoerys such as anti-matter universes, etc).

Bravo Paxtez!

Space is technically infinite yes, but the amount of matter in it is not. Therefore, we can not state that there is a close to 100% or even major chance like 2 to 1 that there's life somewhere else in the universe.

Err I said no such thing.  I think its incredably neive to think that there isn't other intelligent life in the universe.

Pick up one handfull of sand from a beach.  There is about 20,000 grains of sand in that one handful, that is about as many stars you can see with the human eye on a clear night.
For every grain of sand on the earth (how many handfuls in a bucket?  Under your beach towel?  One mile of coast?) there are a million stars in the known universe.  Just think about it.
Just think about how many handfuls of sand are on the earth, for every single handful of sand there is 20 BILLION stars out there.

You are going to try and tell me that earth is the only one with life?  Please.

Remember how relgion people kept saying how all of those stars up there were just empty, no planets or anything? Scientists are now finding many many many stars with planets, even smaller non-gas-giant planets.  Now religion people change their opinion and say, Earth is the only planet with life.  What are they going to change it to after we find definete proof of life on Mars and later Europa (which is looking more and more likley)?

Actually I think the only thing we can say for certain is that it is impossible for us to know the size of the Universe...for a long time yet.

IF the Universe is finite, we only know about one grain of sand in an entire ocean of sand. Sure we have our little theories, because we have to theorize about something based on the little available evidence (scientific method), but I would be shocked if our theories stand the test of time.

PS

Because the Universe is expanding (based on what we know) does NOT prove that the Universe is finite, not even the slightest bit.

Thats the whole definition of infinte you see, you keep writing numbers down for eternity. We see our little corner is expanding, whoop de do. That infinity number keeps getting bigger and bigger and bigger.

"The universe is expanding" is an independant observation from this dicussion.

But infinity+1 = infinity.
Therefore infinity + 1 is not greater then infinty.
Therefore the universe is not expanding.

Of course, that's not really a problem if you're not using euclidean geometry anyway, and we have precisely no reason to believe the universe's geometry IS euclidean, so you're still right.  If anything, I seem to remember Einstein theorizing that the geometry the universe uses is altered constantly by matter.

No, actually, the mathematical definition of inifity has nothing to do with endless or continual expansion.  It just measn that a number is so large as to be unrepresentable in base 10.

also, you are right that the expansion doesn't prove anything, but then it doesn't disprove it either.

Imagine a balloon that is infinitely wide. Someone blows on the balloon so it's twice as wide.  You can't measure how big it is (it's infinite!) but you can measure how the surface of the balloon changed -- everything on the balloon is now twice as far apart.

Also, according to general relativity, matter generates space. Therefore, if there's only finite matter there is only finite space.
This is possible, but we can still tell for sure that there is a heck of a lot of matter out there.
Oh, and note that if there IS a finite amount of matter, then space should wrap around on itself.



I know of no quantum mechanical theories that deal with the size of the universe. That is principally the domain of General Relativity, which stubbornly resists being combined with quantum mechanics.



Why do you suspect so? Also, dark matter is just like visible matter, except that it neither emits nor absorbs light. Perhaps you mean dark energy?

....I am -so- incredibly lost here.
I'm not a physicist, I'm not even a science student...
I'm not even a Trekkie no less...

I'm just a bored 23 year old college dropout (and virtually a 'housewife' at this point, grrrr) who decided to stir up the brewing conversation with the sum of 4 years of idle thoughts collected from frequent moments of utter boredom.

That being said... you guys are really, really scaring me.
But you're all also really smart.

No you can't measure how the surface changed, the surface is also infinitely large, the surface NEVER ends, You cannot see the start of that surface nor can you see the end. It is impossible to judge how the shape of an infinite object changes.



And yes, infinity can mean a number that never ends.

Consider a number divded by infinity, we figure this out by taking the limit of ,say 10/x, as x tends to infinity. We keep making x bigger, and bigger, and bigger.

That answer never reaches 0! We have to keep making x bigger, and bigger, and bigger, as 10/x then gets closer, and closer and closer to 0.

This process never ends, infinity goes on forever and CANNOT be measured in any way (unless we're dealing with some expression that we can simplify). This has nothing to do with physics (which i only studied up to "phys 101") but has to do with mathematics that i work with every day.

The difference is that we KNOW that infinity never ends, it is completly unquantifiable, therefore 10 divided by infinity must equal 0.

The reason is to take this paradox (something which Newton addressed when he originally published differential calculus). Imagine you are walking towards your friend, you keep cutting the distance between you in half.

First you are 10 metres apart, then 5, then 2.5, etc... How can you ever touch your friend if the distances keep getting infinetly smaller? Because infinity goes on forever, thats why. At infinity, the distance equals 0.

Let's look at the case of a finite balloon. You blow it up to some diameter N, and draw some figure on the surface. Note that you're drawing a FINITE figure. Then you blow it up the same amount again. The difference is that the figure is bigger by a factor of 2^(1/3).

Now, take a balloon which has already been blown up to infinite size. Once again, draw a finite-sized figure on the balloon. Have the person who blew up the balloon in the first place blow up the balloon blow it up the same amount again.
The figure you drew will now be larger by a factor of 2^(1/3) -- the fact that the balloon already had infinite radius DOES NOT MATTER.

Our galaxies are the finite figures in the infinite space. As the infinite balloon of our universe expands, the galaxies are stretched more and more. Their internal gravity pulls them back together somewhat, but even so we can see galaxies that have been stretched by the expansion of the universe to the extent where they can no longer hold themselves together and will fall apart.

Infinity + 1 = Infinity
Infinity + Infinty = Infinity
Infinty^infinity = Infinity

These are all true mathematical expressions.

INFINITY IS NOT A FINITE NUMBER. YOU CANNOT QUANITFY IT. FINITE RULES DO NOT APPLY TO INFINITY.

I know. Please, calm down.

If it helps, think of the expansion of the universe not as a singular universal event, but an infinite number of identical local events happening everywhere.
Every region of the universe, regardless of size, is getting bigger. This includes all finite regions within space.

It does not include (as you keep resoundingly pointing out) that the amount of space itself is getting bigger, as that is infinite.
Nor are we using more of it.

However, it IS expanding. Since you are all comfortable with the idea of infinity * 2 = infinity, the idea that an infinite number can grow without becoming at all bigger should be very comfortable for you.

See my above post.

If the number of galaxes are also infinite (something we cannot measure) then it does not matter. You have to stop thinking as though the Universe may be finite.

You cannot prove that the Universe is finite, by "thinking" along the line of reasoning of finite math and applying that to the case of if the Universe is infinite.

I know, i was addressing this to people who keep re-uttering that the Universe has to be finite based on the fact that our local "universe" is expanding. Just trying to clear up math rules on infinity since they keep getting abused.

But The_Ultimate_Evil, the limit of science is the observable;  you can't just say there might be an infinite number of galaxies and then base your scientific theories on that assumption.

I am not attempting to prove that the universe is finite. I am attempting to explain how it is reasonable to say that an infinite universe is expanding.

(edit for grammar)

Well, one of the nice things about General Relativity is that we can pretty much say "Gee, space looks pretty flat around here." and work within that. Namely, if there IS any curvature to the universe as a whole, it's awfully small, so for our calculations we might as well say it's zero. That simplification suggests an infinite universe.

However, we could have a really big closed, finite universe. If this is so, our calculations, except for those concerning the exact matter in question - namely, the shape of the universe, are unaffected and still apply, with a tiny correction term.

Thats the whole point though, we can't observe the end or the start of something infinite.

I never said the Universe wasn't finite, I merely was arguing that you can't prove the Universe isn't infinite.

Even if the Universe is finite, our distant descendants will be the only ones to know.

Well, if the universe is finite and it wraps around like a torus or sphere, and it is small enough that light has had a chance to get more than half way around it -- well, then we could see the same exact galaxy in opposite directions, and then we'd know that the universe was finite, because clearly the light had wrapped around.

We have not seen this (though there are people looking for it). SO, we could prove it if it were true in a particular way. As time goes on, the number of ways of it being true that we can detect gradually increases. However, we can never exhaust them all. Proving an infinite universe will be spectacularly difficult.

edit: 666th post!
<voice ="evil winnie-the-pooh">
Ooh! Time for my daily satan worshipping.
Satan! Satan!
Thank you for death and despair, and plagues, and all the bad stuff that happens to people!
</voice>

erk. I suppose what i was trying to say way back on fourth page wasn't that other sentient life wasn't likely, it is that nobody can say how likely it is <as we haven't got a reasonable ratio of any-sorta-lifebearing planets to non>.

This is just a quick observation from skimming over the posts.
The problem with infinity is that it isn't a number or a quantity. Thus, operations like expansion, contraction, addition, subtraction that apply to numbers and quantities and variables and the like can't be applied to infinity. Infinity is like religion. It's a concept. Infinity can't expand, contract, add, subtract, multiply, slide, increase, decrease, skateboard, sail, comment on politics or even wear a bathrobe.

Therefore, it is actually quite silly to say that something that is infinite is expanding. Especially if that something is the universe. Lemme put it this way:
Infinity + 1=Infinity.
Infinity=Infinity.
By subtracting infinity from either side of the equation via basic 7th grade algebra, we obtain that 1=0. In other words, it tells us that we're trying to do something dumb. Because 1 doesn't equal 0.

Ahem. Read my FREAKING post. The unverse isn't expanding in the sense of the region spanned by it expanding; it is expanding in the sense that all of the bits of matter in it are uniformly getting further away from each other.

How can every point in the universe be expanding from all the other points?  Yet the surface of the universe isn't growing?  How?  I have never heard one thoery about there being an infinite amount of matter in the universe, infact I have seen calucluations of the mass and number of atoms in the universe.  In there was an infinate about of matter in the universe, there would be an infinite amout of gavitity exserted on everything.

There is not an infinte about of matter, give me even on article from a decent source that even implys that.

Since there is a finite amout of matter (and yes there is), what is beyond where there isn't matter?  What is beyond where light has been?  Before the big bang, when the universe was crunched into the size of a small moon (a guess) was there still a infinte about of space then?  Or was it created when the big-bang happened?

Consider the integers. They are evenly spaced, 1 apart.

Now, multiply each integer by 1.0001.
Look! They're all a little further apart!

As for the infinite matter -- See any cosmology text -- here.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/m_uni/uni_101shape.html

Note that paragraph 2 refers to a 'critical density', and postulate that the critical density is some normal-number value (i.e. not 0 or dV). Since they are also postulating a flat, nonrepeating universe, this implies infinite volume.
Infinite volume times some normal value for density = infinite matter.
QED that the basic cosmology 101 view is infinite matter

Incidentally, the big bang was a lot more compressed than 'the volume of a small moon' -- we can place NO LOWER BOUND on how tightly packed all the matter that we can now see was. There is no reason to suspect that all of the matter in our sphere of visibility was not compressed into the volume of a single atom, or a single atomic nucleus.

The universe doesn't HAVE a surface.  There is nothing outside the universe!  Not even empty space!

AH, yes, good point. This reminds me -- when I was giving my balloon example, I did not mean that the universe was INSIDE the balloon. I was making an analog, in which there was a universe on the SURFACE of the balloon. This universe on the surface of the balloon has no boundary - it loops back in on itself.

The example also works if you don't make the balloon a sphere but just stretch it in place as a plane (which is what I was getting at when I had the balloon blown up to infinity).

I am not claiming that there is such a dimension -- it was merely another illustration of how an infinite space can seem to grow.

Considering the finite vs. infinite debate, I once read a rather simple way of proving that the universe is not infinite:

Why is the night sky dark?

There are stars in the sky. The brightness of an object is divided by four when the distance to it is doubled. However, when the radius of a sphere is doubled, its surface area is quadrupled. Imagine the surface of the sphere is the night sky, and the radius is infinity. Therefore, if we have an infinite universe with an infinite number of light-emitting stellar bodies, the brightness if the night sky should be constant and even.

wait a minute... what's all this talk of light wrapping around? light wraps around nothing unless it is very heavy and is exerting tons of gravity upon it.

the universe expands at speed of light, so while being finite, nothing inside can ever reach the edge. And if the force of contraction got to be enough to slow down/ collapse universe, the stuff on the inside would be contracting inwards again, so nothing could ever reach the edge. i think we need to restate what we're trying to prove here, because there seems to be a little confusion. The universe has technically infinite potential to expand, but is quite easily given an approximate radius and weight. I'm saying while it COULD theoretically get so big as to be about infinite, it ISN'T.

This topic is pointless, its like 'is there other alien lifeforms out there', everone has their theorys but noone knows yet.
So I surgest you stop trying to prove things from your 'theorys' because it hasnt been proven, so it is up to you to believe what you want to... so its best if you dont try to prove other people wrong.

When the universe was young, it was SO HOT that everything was plasma. Atoms could not form. Furthermore, light couldn't go far before it hit a charged particle in open space. So all the light was bouncing around like mad.

Then, as space expanded, things cooled down via adiabatic cooling. This includes the light itself -- as space expanded, the wavelengths of the light were expanded as well. This lowered the frequency and thus the energy of the light (the energy that this sapped out ended up in the gravitational field energy).

When things cooled down enough that the average temperature was low enough that hydrogen atoms could form, they did. In the process, they emitted a very stable spectrum of light -- the emission spectrum for Hydrogen. This event is called the "decoupling". It happened everywhere at just about the same time.

One thing about hydrogen is that it's really close to transparent. Light of almost every frequency below its ionization energy will pass through it unaffected.
SO, as time went on, the light of the decoupling was gradually stretched and stretched and stretched, made cooler by the adiabatic cooling of the expansion of the universe. It was still everywhere the background, but it was getting less and less energetic.

Now, this light, which started out ultraviolet, is microwave-frequency. It is the cosmic microwave background.

So, if we could see in the microwave region, the sky would be quite bright.

The universe is pretty freaking heavy, even if it is finite.



We've been over this before. You're just rambling on and on in your own little world.
There is no edge. If there were an edge, we'd see a lot more anisotropy in the cosmic microwave background, unless we were in the exact middle of the universe.

Assuming that we're the middle of the universe has been done before (three distinct versions - terrocentrism persisting for millennia, heliocentrism presisting for two hundred years or so, and solar-system-as-center-of-galaxy that persisted for about twenty years).
(We were wrong each time)

Some theories are possible explanations. Others are not.

As a scientist, it's important to consider all the possible theories (closed finite, open infinite, flat infinite, open/flat finite of which we are the exact center), but those which make radical assumptions can be dismissed until evidence comes in their favor.
Open or closed infinite involved radical assumptions until Einstein devised his theory General Relativity which suggested that the universe is slightly non-euclidean.
Right now there is no evidence that we are at the center of the universe, and that is a rather strong condition, so it has less weight in Occam's Razor.

CERTAINLY, it's out of line to claim that there MUST be one certain way.

Mainly, I have been attempting to show the plausibility and likelihood of the infinite universe, despite the insistent claims that the universe must be finite.

Let me apologise up-front for the spontaneous contribution to the size of this thread, which while not quite infinite certainly illustrates the point about things mutually getting farther from each other.



Fair enough - subtracting infinite cardinals is notoriously bad, as you yourself point out, though "addition" usually works well enough, in the sense of providing a meaningful description of the union of two disjoint sets of given cardinalities.

I too don't know what it means to expand or contract an infinite cardinal. But I don't think anyone here has purported to know that, either.



Fair enough as well - so much of mathematics is abstract concepts. But we don't need to denegrate the work of all those highly competent individuals by calling it a "religion," no matter how much you dislike Axiom of Choice. (Sorry, no more bad math jokes.)

Let's make a distinction between infinite cardinals, which measure the size of various sets, and those sets themselves. (I sense this is the only point salient to this thread which I will make.) For example, the Cartesian plane R^2 is a set which is infinite. Yet while I already admitted ignorance on the point of stretching or contracting its size, call it aleph_1, I know plenty of ways to manipulate the plane. I can spin it around - you pick any point on the plane, and we'll rotate the whole thing around it; this amounts to changing our sense of direction. Or translate it; this amounts to changing our point-of-reference. Plenty of more fun, perfectly well-behaved tricks to play: we can shear it, kind of a skewed-stretch; or reflect it - not really a physical operation, though? But I think you'll agree it's perfectly all right to take every point on the plane and push it so that it's the same direction from the centre, but twice as far - or twice as near. Ahh, stretching and contracting.

Certainly the expanding-balloon analogy makes perfect sense. Every one of these tricks ("transformations") we can do on the plane we can do in a volume of space in R^3. So if our balloon is a spherical shell about the origin, we can push it outward. Now everything is expanding but it doesn't even look like there's anything resembling a centre of expansion, at least to those stuck in that perspective according to which there's no space, only the balloon's surface.

Even more pertinent, I guess, is that exactly the same things are true of a higher-dimensional space, like, for those who feel Euclidean, R^4; or higher-dimensional hyperbolic spaces, or your favourite slightly-well-behaved geometry. The tricks look different - for example, we don't measure distance in hyperbolic geometry the same way, or, for that matter, in Minkowskian geometry.

Ahh, I can feel my earlier apologies are wearing thin. So let me extend them again, and invite you to skip the rest, because it has nothing to do with the universe.



Yes indeed, something went horribly wrong. Naively I'd say it was the implicit assumption that, say, aleph_0 - aleph_0 = 0. In terms of limits of functions, it's easy to imagine why we have no reason to believe this: for example, let f(t) = 2t, g(t) = t; obviously their difference does not remain bounded as t becomes very large.

But I think there's a more fundamental mistake here (now my mathematical prejudices are appearing!) which is engendered by the commonplace fact that, whenever we have a real number, call it a, we have a real number b, sometimes written (-a), such that a + b = 0. b is called the additive inverse of a and we may take it as axiomatic that for any real a such a b does indeed exist.

The point here is that "subtraction" is a convenient fiction, a mechanical operation which disguises the implicit assumption about the nature of additive inverses. If we asked ourselves not what "infinity minus infinity" should equal, but rather what "aleph_0 less aleph_0" means in terms of sets, or what "the additive inverse of aleph_0" is supposed to mean, it is patently obvious that the original question is hopeless, either because it presupposes the existence of quantities which are nonsensical, or because (in the set interpretation) there are examples of pairs of sets with the appropriate cardinalities giving wildly different results.

On a completely different subject, I will remark that although I know what 2^(aleph_0) means, I do not know what (as was given in an earlier post) aleph_0^aleph_0 means. It is possible that this is a gap in my education.

Finally, "for the record," someone made an innocent typo earlier and claimed that the set of rational numbers is uncountable. Obviously they meant the set of irrationals.

I would now extemporise on why I disagree with the claim that this thread is silly and pointless, but that would clearly be overstepping the bounds of good sense and credibility of my oft-stated disdain for the long-windedness of this contribution. So in conclusion, I will add my personal cheer to the interpid souls working on the project for which this is a bulletin board.

6 pages and counting for a "pointless" topic. That's funny.

Everyone has their pet theory which has been proven in their logic so well that it's become air tight. Me, I don't know how the real universe was created. I mean, I was there, but it's been a while and I really wasn't paying attention to the details and all. Mostly it was created by the power of God, realizing that once that power is put into effect it becomes a "law" of the physical universe. But like I said, I wasn't watching the little details at the time. I was just there for the big bang.

As the one who created this thread, I must say that I am suprised my little joke turned into this huge discusssion.

 ;)

Thanks for backing me up there, SplittingField.

I find it amusing that this is your first post -- well, we have to start somewhere, eh?



OBVIOUSLY ;)
heh heh... I mean, the trick to it makes it obvious once you've been shown it, but when you only think about how the set is dense, it seems awfully uncountable.

And there's nothing wrong with long posts...

"Somewhere" -- as a shy individual I have the habit of lurking, and when a subject about which I love to talk arises (however tangentially and even inappropriately) it sort of bursts out. While I could comfortably talk about, say, the infinite for hours, personal experience has suggested to me that others are (justifiably!) not so comforted by this prospect  ;) .

I feel like I should pledge to make an actual on-topic post somewhere. Or otherwise, claim that "spaces" and "the infinite" are intrinsic to our imaginings of the universe around us and therefore are in fact on-topic. Best, no doubt, would be to forget it altogether.

And -- I did not mean to claim that "rationals are countable" is obvious :P . On the contrary, I think most people (I'll cop to this) do imagine first that there are more rationals than integers. Rather it was the nature of the typo which was "obvious."

Be proud Rain Man! Bringing life to the forum is what we want!

First of all, I agree with the RainMan... All this discussion as to wether the universe is finite, infinte, flat, donut-shaped or inside a pickle jar is beside the point. I’d like to focus again on the original question, and for that I'll try and put my clumsy thoughts into even clumsier words. One of the unavoidable factors in this discussion is the language that we use. I don’t think we are refering to the same thing when we say ‘Universe’.
To the question "How was the real universe created?", I follow it with another question, "What do you mean by 'Universe'?"
There are many many definitions for the word 'Universe'. I can think of at least 3:
a) The Geographic (or physical) explanation: In which ‘Universe’ is infinite space (and everything in it).
b) The Mathematical one: where universe is the same an infinite group (of whatever), and
c) The "perceptive" one: In which our universe is anything and everything that is within our area of perception-influence-explanation. This would mean 'Universe' is another term to mention 'Reality'. If there are things outside (and probably there are), they are not part of our universe.
Using this explanation, the obvious way to go (for me) is to answer the original question "How was the real universe created?", it's as simple as "We created it". We created it and continue to create it all the time by reaching towards the limits of our perception and observing, defining and trying to explain what we find inside. As to the things that (obviously) exist outside, they don't fit into our definition of 'Universe', so they don't need to be in the answer.

I definitely don’t feel qualified enough to talk about either physics or mathematics (or about anything alse, for that matter)

Please, someone enlighten a small ignorant man (with as few big words as possible)

I have no answer about what the universe really is.  Not good enough at physics to figure it all out.  Interested in reading the works of people who bravely go down the path of discovery, though  (like Hawkin or Brian Green in Princeton).

I am simply fascinated with the beauty, complexity, and order, with which the universe is formed.  It is amazing to be alive.

yes it is, regardless of where the hell it is exactly we live and if there's any company.

Sorry to re-touch on the infinity talk for those bored of it, but this is flawed reasoning. As is the suggestion about an infinite number of stars creating infinite graviational forces in the Universe.

The reason is that distances are also infinite. As the distance tends to infinity the "brightness" from our perspective equals 0.

Those who posted on this last page are correct, there is no way to prove the size of the Universe.

Although, company would be nice. I don't mean Ur-Quan or those acid dripping aliens from... aliens, or even those guys from independence day, or the war of the worlds, or Ming the Mercy-less, or any of the psycho badguy aliens.

I mean like the sort of drop-by-for-a-friendly-chat sort of aliens. Like the Arloo, only not so self-rightous, or Spathi, only not so freaking scared of everything, or the Bjorins, only check your emotional luggage at customs, or Alf, only not so...Alf, or the Syreen, only not so dressed. Like that.

I think the Syreen would be just fine the way they are dressed (knife included).

Actually, I don't mind the Ur-Quan-- except for the enslavement and ethnic cleansing bit, of course.   They seem like interesting people to hang out with.

Much better company than, say, the Thraddash or Umgah.  I think these guys would be annoying as hell.

What? I'd enjoy a visit from the Umgah. Extra eyes, limbs and tentacles galore!

Imagine a Yehat family on vacation here, just flying around in the Alps. It'd scare the locals witless until they got used to it, huge dinosaurs flyin around...

An infinite number of stars does create an infinite amount of light and an infinite gravitational force.

As for the gravity, well, most of the force cancels, and the rest we can't feel because it affects all parts of our body equally.

As for the light, if the universe were eternal (i.e. having no beginning or ending) and stars as far away as infinity had been pumping out light long enough ago that it got to us by now-- well, then in every direction we would find a star sooner or later, and it would shine on us. If there were interposing matter, it would eventually heat up and emit light on to us. The entire universe would become uniformly as hot as the center of a star.
Just look at the afterglow of the decoupling and that's what I'm talking about - everything really freaking hot, light cannot get far but it is immediately reemitted, and so on.

We require the stretching effect of the expansion of the universe acting on light to keep things cool. It is what decreases the energy density of the universe by increasing the volume while leaving the energy the same.

No, you don't understand.

The force of gravity is governed by the equation:

Fg = G x M1 X M2 / r^2

As radius becomes extremly large Fg = 0.

Gravity may be infinite in the entire Universe (assuming the Universe is infinite and stars are infinite) but at ANY SINGLE POINT the gravitational forces are finite.

You can only be affected by gravitational forces from relatively small finite values of radius, ie the distance between the 2 objects exerting gravitional forces.

The same goes for brightness, the light from stars at ANY SINGLE POINT only exists for relatively small finite values of the distance betwen the objects.

Huge dinosaur / *bumblebees* no less!
I bet you would enjoy a visit from the Umgah though!
They'd leave with the oceans turned into spinach jello and the skies a bizarre pink with purple polka dots on it!

Totally true, Ultimate_Evil !!!
I couldn't put that into words, but it's evident that in the long run, distance^2 (or radius^2) beats all other factors in both gravity and brightness equations.

I do understand gravity rather well, thank you.



Well, the NET gravitational force is finite, yes...
 


heh heh...  you are missing an important point: as you get further away, the amount of mass pulling also increases.
The inverse square law follows from the following principle: The field you produce is the same for any distance away from you, but is spread out over all the points that are that distance from you. The area of a sphere is proportional to the square of the radius, so the field you produce is the inverse square of the radius.

Now, consider the amount of mass in a thin spherical shell of great radius R around your position. The field that each mass in that shell applies to you has a factor of 1/R squared attached to it. However, the mass in that shell has a factor of R squared, which cancels!*(see below). So once we get into radii large enough that the density of the universe is uniform, the gravitational pull of objects on us, cumulative and not cancelled, is CONSTANT as a function of radius.
Integrate this out to infinity, and we get an infinite total gravitational force.

Inverse square doesn't beat Square.
;)

In any case, good thing for us that gravity is a vector and thus cancels!
However, all of this extended gravity, even though it cancels, does have an effect on the expansion of the universe -- it is the matter pulling itself closer together, resisting the natural expansion of the universe due to the cosmological constant.

********************

*the volume of a spherical shell of inner radius R and outer radius R+r, with r << R:
the volume of the outer sphere is 4/3 (R+r)^3 = 4/3 (RRR + 2 RRr + 2Rrr + rrr)
the volume of the inner sphere is 4/3 RRR.
Subtract this out, and we get the volume of the shell as
4/3 ( 2RRr + 2Rrr + rrr)
since we are assuming that r << R, we can short-cut this to
8/3 RRr
which has square dependence on the radius of the sphere R.