/sci/ - Science & Math

Well I THINK the universe is finite, but this idea is really based off a logical fallacy in my reasoning, so I HOPE that it's finite. Also wouldn't an infinite universe screw up the big bang theory just a bit?

I think we've all established that our current understanding of it is finite and boundless. Anything else is retarded speculation not based on facts.

>opinion about a scientific fact
>you are doing science wrong

this is like people who have an opinion about global warming

Universe is finite, apparently.
As like as all of things inside it.

The total mass and energy within the universe is finite. However, it is expanding at an ever increasing rate. We know this because of Hubble's discovery of red shift.

cyclic

If the universe is infinite in size then we will never be able to prove it.

>sadfrog.jpg

Well I think the matter and energy in the universe is finite, but the actual space to put it all in is infinite. I see no reason for there to be a boundary.

As of right now, the bets are in the scientific world that the universe will keep expanding due to pressures from dark energy. The universe will become a vast, cold place, forever expanding. It hasn't been proven yet since our understanding of dark energy is so poor, but that's what it looks like as of right now.

>>3248953
>>3248953
thanks for hat completely unrelated and irrelevant factoid.

I felt the Universe once. It was cold :-(

infinite but bounded

>>3248966
You've managed to be 100% wrong. Try again.

the universe is a nigger bullshit

That picture makes me so uncomfortable I can't look at it for too long. From that distance the stars remind me of molecules.

That alone gives me the chills.

Well, seeing as we can't prove one or the other this is a really moot point. However, I would think it would be finite.

infinite boundary but finite volume

>>3248891
Doughnut-shaped

>>3248973
prove me wrong

I believe infinite, just not full. As in matter has not reached areas yet but that it not to say the it should not be considered within the universe.

I couldnt imagine us ever finding out though because we can only see light that has traveled so far to reach us and by the time we get the technology to go exploring for "the edge", it will have traveled even further. Who knows how fast everything is traveling out there or how long a round trip would take if you could even make it.

The universe is finite, yet unbounded.

now we can forget this thread

>>3248891
According to the Friedmann-Lemaître-Robertson-Walker model space is infinite. FLRW satisfies Einstein's field equations and all data seams to fit. The quantity of mass and energy in the universe may be finite though. My suspicion is yes, because the density of matter and energy is decreasing as the universe expands.

>>3249044
But there should always be forces pushing outward. Maybe not as powerful as a big bang, but things such as solar winds and explosions of suns, although wimpy in comparison would still have a substantial affect on objects with very low friction to slow them down.

>>3249019
Arguing there is just enough water to fill the puddle?

There is no such thing as infinite.

As fun as it is to come here and watch you guys guess on theoretical physics. I have an answer, The universe is everything that is. but it is finite. Where there is no matter there is no time or space.

>>3249083
I think you misunderstood what I was saying. I dont think there is a true edge in comparing it to the rim of a pond, but more of the spot in space where matter has yet to pass.

I don't think that something that eventually will exist should be considered finite. Yes In my theory there is a finite "edge" but it is ever growing in an infinitely expanding manner.

How accurate is transcranial magnetic stimulation, /sci/? I'm looking for ways to disrupt long term memory formation in a safe-ish way, for a few hours at a time. Short term memory / consciousness / qualia should be unaffected. Is this possible?

>>3249083
If where there is no matter there is no space, there is no space between any matter, or I should say, matter is everywhere, there is no such thing as emptiness. You could be right, but I don't think this is the case.

>>3249083
To expand on my response to you, if you want to tether space to matter, you can define any point in space as a certain distance in relation to any piece of matter. Those that are saying space is infinite are saying that you can just keep going, there is no limit on the distance you can get away from any matter.

>>3248891
the universe is made up of unmeasurably big loops in the first three (and maybe the fourth) dimentions. therefore, it is both infinite AND finite depending on how you look at it: like a mobius strip, you can travel on it forever in one direction but the shape does not travel in one direction forever.
but what do i know, im just a complex chemical reaction

>>3249358
im interested in what you guys think of my theory, does anyone agree?

>>3248891
None, because there is no evidence either way.

>>3249083
>>3249044
Most actual theoretical physics treat the proposition of infinite spatial extent and infinite mass in the universe as a plausible option and consistent with the data.

I am again dismayed at Kraken's bad understanding of this topic, which is unusual as he's mostly a cool and correct dude.

It would have to be finite in order for there to be other universes, right?

>>3249379
In the other thread on this topic a few days ago, someone mentioned that your trip password is a dictionary word. Did you really pick such an easily breakable password?

>>3249363
Nope.

>>3249358
>>3249363

SAMEFAG

>>3249358
It's not a 4D mobius strip but it is loopy

>>3249379
>he's mostly a cool and correct dude

You haven't seen much of the unsound and poorly-sourced drivel he's been spewing, then.

>>3249401

That seems to be the case, and you may recall said word from near the end of 2001: A Space Odyssey.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

>we can only observe small portion of universe
>making assumptions on ENTIRE universe

thats like a frog trying to figure out whats above the clouds, when its stuck in a well

>>3249429
We have come to the conclusion that ours is not the only universe in existence and that our universe exists as a cloud bunched up against several trillions of other universes. This gives us a good idea as the our universe as a whole

>>3249421
>You haven't seen much of the unsound and poorly-sourced drivel he's been spewing, then.

Well, shit. He's slowly going off my good graces, I can say that.

>>3249439

>>3249439
sounds like your pulling random shit out of your ass

>>3249453
It sounds like I'm spending time with your dad?

>>3249439

Who exactly is this "we?"

Certainly not scientists. There cannot be any more than one universe by scientific definition. Everything that exists, including what you're erroneously calling "other universes" must necessarily be a part of THE universe.

Everyone is this thread is either trolling or dead wrong.
The universe as we think of it is infinite. By thats because we included everything including empty space. Youre not going to hit a wall.
But the universe as science tries to define is thought to be finite mass and only as large as the furthest entropy can be found.

>>3249461
Okay genius then what exists outside of inflation?

Countably infinite

>>3249469
Empty space. Not next to empty like outerspace but we dont separate them in concept. But as i said we include that as part of the universe in our vocabulary.
Science uses the observable universe.

>>3249497

EXACTLY. Other universes

>>3248891
the universe is a fractal.

>>3248914
>a scientific fact
>you are doing science wrong

You do realise that there're often disagreements within the scientific community, right?

>>3249504
No. Its one universe. It is like the number line. No matter what number you discover its still part of the number line.

>>3249509
You do realize that disagreements doesnt keep a fact from being true?

>>3249508
More like: our universe is the space/time/energy that we can trace back to the big bang. If we were to find space/energy that we couldn't trace back to the big bang, it would be in another universe

>>3249523
thats the observable universe. Not our universe.

>>3249528
Not sure if serious...

>>3249461
No such thing as empty space.

the amount of matter in the universe is finite

No matter, no space, no time.

Most everyone in this thread are painfully inept when it comes to physics 101.

>>3249528
Nope, there can be stuff in our universe that is outside our universe, but is still has a spacetime line back to the big bang. Im talking about stuff whose spacetime line does not intersect with the big bang

>>3249530
Yes its the point of science, observation. The universe is a concept.

SCIENCE!
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/10/1008_031008_finiteuniverse.html

>>3248944
>>3249019
>>3249461
>>3249497

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/nocenter.html

>>3249532
Actually, If we found energy/spacetime that does not trace back to the big bang, It would not be from our universe, but it would be, at the time we found it, in our universe.

And if we were to go to a patch of spacetime/energy that did not originate in the big bang, we would be in another universe.

If these spacetime/energy patches became to intertwined with ours, universes would merge

>>3249562
Yes because as i said science uses the definition of the observable universe. The concept of the universe does not.

>>3249554
http://www.nytimes.com/2003/10/09/science/09COSM.html

>>3249579
The observable universe is the part from which light has had time to reach us. It doesn't mean that beyond it there's empty space.

>>3249597
No the observable universe means that its an observable event. Relativity is irrelevant.

>>3249579
The ball, or whatever geometry the universe is, is the entire universe, and the observable universe is only a section (don't know how large) of that geometry.

>>3249582
Be sure to read the whole of that article. The circles that they're searching for may not necessarily appear if the universe itself is larger than what we can detect with our current equipment. Our view is blocked by cosmic radiation. Now this doesn't necessarily prove or disprove the theory, it is still up in the air and requires further testing, and most likely, new innovative methods of testing. But it is a likely possibility.

>>3249607
>Relativity is irrelevant to determining if events may be witnessed.
What the fuck am I reading?.jpg

>>3249629
Yes, you twisted it but it still holds true.
Whether i can see the ocean or you can or if no one can doesnt matter as far as the observable universe. As long as its possible to observable.

>>3249642
Because of expanding space, there is matter now which is observable now which in the future will not be observable. We will have left its light cone.

>>3249607
You are misinformed. Look up "observable universe."

>>3248891
the big bang was merely a small point in the fractal of existence diverged into trillions of trillions of trillions of different paths. You will never be able to observe what the universe was before it or even have a clear picture of what it will become. It's boundless and infinite. You can divide space up infinitely. As for matter and energy, well, that we may never know as we will never be able to interact with any energy that doesn't submit to the four fundamental forces.

>>3249650
Its seems you lack any fundamental knowledge on the matter. Study a science like physics and come back. Google isnt going to explain it properly.

infinity is not a physical quantity

/thread

>>3249627
The article still implies a finite universe, but maybe with a different shape than a soccer ball

Apparently, the Earth is located approximately in the centre of the observable universe. I guess the bible was correct all along.

>>3249659
>Assertions without proof.

>>3249659
you're right. The universe cannot be quantified. Parts of it can, though.

>>3249664

>>3249662
Personally, I think it's likely to be spherical. Planets, suns, moons, etc are all spherical, and i see no reason for the universe to have 'sides'. One can come in and out of opposite ends of a sphere if it does loop back in on itself.

>>3249666
You dont prove a concept. Science will never prove anything about math.

>>3249673
I don't mean specifically a geometry that is topologically equivalent to a sphere. I was thinking more along the lines different geometries as in sphere v. toroid v. some hyperbolic shape. not sphere v. cube

>>3249666
infinity means never ending. That is not a quantity.

finite and expanding.

>>3249655
Feel free to jog down to the library and look it up in a cosmology textbook, the answer isn't going to be any different. Or use Google Books.

>>3249711
Well of course not. But what youre talking about is a real concept. But thats not what im talking about which you wont understand without actually studying science.

>>3249717
>>3249711
Hey, how about you two consolidate your idea into one clear post. I can't tell which side you two are arguing for.

When does 1 second turn into 2 seconds?
1,1
1,5
1,8
1,9
1,999
1,999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999

FUN FUN FUN

>>3249729

2.0

>ain
>ain soph
>ain soph aur

>>3249765
able

True "nothingness" doesn't exist
Therefore the universe is both infinite and boundless

>>3249849
I don't see any connection between those two statements.

>>3249765
Your mother sucks z$&(@&% $^&%.

>>3249849
You are a complete idiot.
Don't ever post your smoked-weed-and-don't-understand-physics crap.