/sci/ - Science & Math

>>7145665
universe is not infinite

>>7145668
Well I've heard several cosmologist say it most likely is.

>>7145665
I guess that's why they're now saying the Big Bang never happened and the universe is cyclical

>>7145671
theyre dumb

3 dimensionally = not infinite because finite amount of energy
4 dimensionally = infinitely cyclical
5 dimensionally = 0<0.000000....001<infinity

>>7145679
Could you flesh that out for an idiot who's inept at physics?

>>7145676
Or you are.

>>7145679
Actually
>0<infinity<infinity+1

>>7145700
listen kid, just cuz i'm an unsertified (but past the test online, within the time limit) member of mensa, and come off as WAY more intelligent then the likes of you, doesn't mean i have autism.

This is one battle you will not win.

>>7145690
We have a set amount of energy. So there's a limit to the existence of 3d right there.
But if there was no Big Bang, time is immortal and cyclical.
Since the expansion of 4d manifold is all we tangibly can experience, 5th dimension encompasses infinity (to us) plus unknown variables

>>7145690
It's not true at all.

The universe is open and infinite. It's not a closed infinite like the surface of a sphere, but like a forever extending plane.

Within the observable at least. Outside of that literally has no effect on us though, so it is irrelevant.

>>7145703
>listen kid, just cuz I'm an unsertified member of mensa, and come off way smarter than you
>way smarter than you
>unsertified
>listen kid
m8..

>>7145706
>the universe is infinite
>even though we have a finite energy
>k

>>7145706
The only thing we know is that spatially we exist in a Riemannian 3-manifold.

>>7145705
>>7145710
This is /x/ tier gibberish.
There is finite energy in the observable universe, there is infinite energy in the universe.

>>7145711
>The only thing
We know a huge amount. Stop spouting off as if you have any idea what you're takling about.

If anyone actually cares, here are the most up to date cosmology results: http://xxx.lanl.gov/abs/1502.01582

As for the OP's actual question, the answer is that the Big Bang doesn't originate from a central point, it happens at all space.If you run time backwards you see the observable universe shrink and shrink until you are nothing but a point. This is true anywhere.

>>7145724
>there is infinite energy in the universe
No there's not. Shh

The universe is one particle of the multiverse, and is necessarily finite.

The multiverse is infinite.

>>7145735
This

>>7145665
If the universe is'nt infinite, what's outside it?

>>7145749
space itself is finite, there is no outside because there is no other space

>>7145754
>space is finite
What evidence do you have that indicates that?

Hardly anybody in this thread realizes that 4 dimensionality and "time" is merely the interaction between 3d objects.

Nobody understands yet and if they say they do theyre stupid or liars

>>7145665
someone once said "Infinity isn't an end goal, it's the journey." It is described as infinite because it never stops expanding. There can be an edge past which there is no matter or energy at all, but that edge is constantly expanding outward, infinitely (as far as we can conclude at the moment, at least)

>>7145735
A small part of infinite could still be infinite itself. Infinite plus another infinity is still infinite. I don't see a contradiction between infinite expanding universe within an infinite expansion of a multiverse.

The surface of a sphere is "infinite" in terms of how far you can travel on it. Same goes for the universe in three dimensions. It's infinite, with a couple of caveats.

>>7145888
But THERE IS A FINITE AMOUNT OF ENERGY. PLEASE UNDERSTAND THAT

>>7145984
How do you know that?

>>7145999
thermodynamics

>>7146007
conservation of energy =/= finite amount in the universe

>>7145999
Cosmological constant nigga. The energy that is, has always been, and will always be. All that will change are the forms

>>7146028
That's actually exactly what it means

>>7146028

>>7145984
You don't fucking know that, and have no way of knowing that. If you want to make claims without evidence, go to /x/, or church or something you retarded mongrel.

What happens when entropy runs to completion in the universe? Do time and space become irrelevant? Maybe it big bangs again..

>>7146154
currently unknown. Either everything will experience the "heat death", where all matter and energy is so spread out that they can never interact again, or if the edges of the universe curve in on itself like some hypothesize, then the expansion will eventually be a compression, leading to a big crunch.

>>7145665
pro-tip: the Big Bang happened everywhere

>>7146163
>something something your mum

>>7146164
what?

>>7146165
It was a poor joke. Forgive me.

>>7146170
no :D

>>7145895
>Infinite plus another infinity is still infinite
This thread, zoowee mama.

>>7145764
Yeah, /sci/ sucks sometimes.
After all it all goes down to the theory of everything,

>>7146403
...

you are the reason why it sucks

people like you who hold out for scientists to get to the theory of everything so that we can build our understanding from the top up, but can't bother to say anything besides "the theory of everything"

I bet you (were/are) a math major.

>>7146031
That's for the observable universe, nigga.

>>7145724
Are there similarities between the singularity state at the "beginning" of the universe and state of thermodynamic equilibrium at the end?

>>7146589
no

>>7146149
>believes in infinite energy despite us having seen the edge of the universe
>and I'm the retard
Please stop posting. You're dropping the collective IQ of this thread.
Jesus I thought /sci/ was smart, but even /x/ knows there is finite. That's what determines the universal wavefunction which /x/ talks about all the time.
Granted, they probably incorporate it into metaphysics, but at least they know the definition, pleb.

infinity is just a large number that is too big for us to imagine

Bump.

I hear frequently that things outside of the observable universe don't matter.

Quick question on that - if you change the point of observation, won't the observable universe change? Like for example let's say I have an alcubierre drive ship that can achieve such a strong warp that I can go to the edge of what we can see from earth, I'll now be able to see outside of what was "the observable universe" right? Or is it more complicated than that?

>>7146688
That's right. And the data you gathered from there would be incredibley useful.

>>7146688
Every point in the universe is the same distance from the outer edge... So no, you'd effectively be shifting the entire universe and your ship would be stationary.

>>7146714
>Every point in the universe is the same distance from the outer edge
This is incorrect. The question concerns the cosmological horizon.

>>7146657
Gross, fucking stop. Infinity is the name we give to any value <span class="math"> n\models\{\forall S (\| S\| =n)\not\exists m\in\mathbb{N}(\forall T (\| T\| =m (\not\exists \phi : S \rightarrow T \wedge \phi^{-1} : T \rightarrow S (\phi \circ \phi^{-1} = Id_{S} \wedge \phi^{-1} \circ \phi = Id_{T})))\} [/spoiler].

>>7146035
>>7146037
bait?
have you ever heard of casimir effect or spontaneous pair production..?

>>7147175
The second negated existential quantifier should not be negated, sorry.

>>7147175
this is why science has stopped advancing

>>7147186
So math can do its job better?

>>7147195
the pathetic attempts to feel superior via terminology instead of actually resolving issues is what is holding back everything
all those expressions are rhetoric tier anyway

>>7147211
Oh please Dr. Armchair, tell me more.

>>7147175
that doesn't even make any sense

>>7147404
n models the theory in the language of set theory where, for any set S of cardinality n, there does not exist a natural m such that for any set T of cardinality m there exists a bijective function phi from S to T. It just formally states that n is greater in size than any natural. What's not to understand?

>>7147427
It's an awful way of saying that n is "infinite", particularly since n is actually a set itself. The easiest way to formally say a set is infinite is to say that it has a proper subset with the same cardinality as itself. Much shorter than your amateur attempt.

>>7147427
>set theory

oh wait, you're serious

>>7147450
>>7147456
Alright fags, define "infinite" appropriately.

the analogy i was shown about the universe is that it's like the 3D analogue for the surface of a balloon expanding, but wouldn't such a surface have a finite amount of coordinates?

>>7147473
You could have recurring coordinates; if the coordinate system is not developed with knowledge of the topological structure of the universe, then you would have infinitely many coordinates describing each point.

>>7147481
>>7147481
but how? isn't an orientable surface incapable of infinite coordinates?

>>7147580
The trouble is that without knowing about the topological shape of the universe, a universal coordinate system could be inconsistent without us knowing.

>>7145705
>5th dimension encompasses infinity (to us) plus unknown variables

How? And what makes you think it exists?

>>7146487
>>7146403
The theory of everything is so counter-intuitive.

Since space is expanding, it could be possible to get energy from the expansion of space. So energy isn't limited.

>>7147662
All you would need to do is orient that coordinate system to a certain reference point. That reference point can be called Earth, and you've got the cosmological reference point.

The universe is round

>>7146652
>>believes in infinite energy despite us having seen the edge of the universe

>us having seen the edge of the universe

WHAT?

>>7147774
Say we have some coordinate system that assumes the universe is diffeomorphic to R^3, centered at some point. This system is in use for thousands of years, and mankind uses it to colonize the galaxy (we'll just assume FTL travel for this thought experiment). However, as we begin exploring the universe beyond our nearby galaxies, clusters, superclusters, et cetera, we realize that space is in fact diffeomorphic to a 3-sphere. This would make our coordinate system invalid at a certain point, and would necessitate an overhaul of the whole thing.

>>7147785
Cosmic microwave background radiation, pleb

>>7147175

Can someone attempt to explain this equastion in allyman's terms?

>>7147785
It's not an edge of space. It's as far back as you can look back, due to the finite speed of light.

>>7147983
Exactly, and anything beyond this light probably doesn't interfere with our physical laws

>>7147990
>probably
necessarily, else it violates causality
but it isn't an edge

As far as practical science goes, all meaningful metrics we can measure for the universe will be finite, since there is a only a finite portion of it that we can observe. The universe has a finite age and we can only see as far as the age of the universe * the speed of light. For all intents and purposes the universe is finite to us.

Mathematically, some aspects of the universe may be infinite, but I am not aware of this being shown conclusively.

>>7148056
>we can only see as far as the age of the universe * the speed of light

The edge of the observable universe is about 95 billion light years away, as you need to factor in expansion.

>>7147937
See my comment >>7147427. It's not an equation, it is a well-formed formula in the language of model theory.

>>7147469
the ratio of anything to zero

>>7148308
<span class="math">\frac{0}{0}[/spoiler]

>>7148314
nice

>>7148308
but whats a ratio :-)

>>7145703

Fucking kek.

>>7145703
Kek

>>7145665


https://youtu.be/zVSe8JZ_eag

>>7148849

There Is No Time. There Never Was and There Never Will Be
http://themindunleashed.org/2015/02/time-never-never-will.html

>>7148849

Was interesting until he started rambling about 'muh gobbermint'

The first half belongs on /sci/ the second half belongs on /pol/

>>7145703
pssh....nothing personnel kid...

>>7148862

yet. everything. is. related.

Universe is on the brink of collapse

http://phys.org/news/2015-03-universe-brink-collapse-cosmological-timescale.html

it's ogre, /sci/