[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 860 KB, 1319x1319, universe.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1482884 No.1482884 [Reply] [Original]

Why is there a limit to the amount of matter/energy in our universe?

I was lying in bed trying to conceptualize infinity spatially (hard but fun) when I came to a realization. If space is infinite and was technically created at the moment of the big bang (due to the fact that there is now a point of reference in infinity) why is the amount of energy and matter (created by coalescing energy) finite? Shouldn't the big bang hypothetically be creating matter indefinitely? Sure, we don't really know what caused the big bang or where all that initial energy came from, but it's fun to hypothesize.


I know we can measure the amount of matter around us from what we observe, extrapolate, and come up with a matter estimate, but that comes out to a static number, even if approximated.

>> No.1482888

Fuckin' hell, forgot to paste my full (and proof-read) post...

Why is there a limit to the amount of matter/energy in our universe?

I was lying in bed trying to conceptualize infinity spatially (hard but fun) when I came to a realization. If space is infinite and was technically created at the moment of the big bang (due to the fact that there is now a point of reference in infinity) why is the amount of energy and matter (matter was created by the coalescing energy) finite? Shouldn't the big bang hypothetically be creating matter indefinitely? Sure, we don't really know what caused the big bang, where all that initial energy came from, or if it even happened at all, but its fun to hypothesize.

I know we can measure the amount of matter around us from what we observe, extrapolate, and come up with a matter estimate, but that comes out to a static number, despite being approximated. Also, from background noise and echoes from the big bang, we can estimate the age of the universe. Using that same data, couldn't we figure out which way the mass clusters are going and estimate where the center of the universe is? I think that would be neat to know where in the universe we really are, and would give a universal static point of reference for navigation.

Oh, and I don't have any data to support this, but I'm pretty sure that the big bang center is not creating energy still, or else it would be constantly emitting massive amounts of energy which we would easily be able to pick up. That being said, why did it stop?

>> No.1482892

>space is infinite
No.

Expanding infinitely, but not infinite.

>> No.1482894

>>1482892

>implying space have limit, like a giant wall or the house of god

>> No.1482898

the big bang is just a theory a good one with a lot of evidence but still just a theory

try to come at from a concept other than a big explosion

you might find an anwser you might not

one theory is multiple big bang theory which states that there is a big bang going on right at this very moment billionss of billion of light years away because two super bodys of energy just collided and created new galaxys and that this happens every day

like when i fuck you mum with a group of niggers from the ghetto

>> No.1482902

>>1482892
One cannot reach the edge, as the edge would expand with them as they approached it. This continues infinitely. Because one cannot reach the edge, it essentially is infinite, therefore giving it an imaginary boundary is futile and would make it infinite.

If it is not infinite, what makes it finite and how can that be measured?

>> No.1482909

>>1482902

>therefore giving it an imaginary boundary is futile

yay, im not alone to think that

>If it is not infinite, what makes it finite and how can that be measured

you're my best friends now.

>> No.1482921

>One cannot reach the edge, as the edge would expand with them as they approached it.

Care to provide any evidence whatsoever for this claim?

>> No.1482922
File: 9 KB, 394x273, Torus.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1482922

according to /x/, space is finite and it's shaped like this

>> No.1482925

>>1482909
Yay! Another person that has thought long and hard about infinity! There are so few people that even realize what infinity really is.

Even weirder.... there can be multiple infinities within infinities!!!

>> No.1482958
File: 103 KB, 1328x824, Möbius_strip.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1482958

>>1482922

or like that.

>>1482925

another exemple, the beginning of time BEFORE the big bang is -infinite
we take the big bang for the start of all constant in the univers, its like say " there is nothing before jesus, in 0 year .. "

>> No.1482963

>>1482958
>>1482922

and the reasoning for space being shaped like either is....?

>> No.1482991

>>1482921
No evidence, just logic.

Space is nothing. It is not directly measurable in any way other than the distance between matter. The technical edge of our universe is the very farthest throes of energy and matter, as they are measurable points, and are traveling at the fastest possible speeds. Nothing can get past them, according to current physics.

However, should you hypothetically be able to get past them, you would then be the farthest point of matter, making the measurement from the opposite side of the universe. Because space is just area, you would be "creating" area simply with your presence. It doesn't matter how far away from other matter you get, your presence would be within infinite space.

>> No.1483004

>>1482991
It should be noted that the proper "edge" of the universe in that example isn't really an edge, it's simply the last possible point that can be measured. If your back was to the center of the universe, you would be facing the most perfect black. You would literally be looking at infinity.

>> No.1483035
File: 26 KB, 431x300, head_explode-779507.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
1483035

I don't blame you if you are doing this right now. This is hard but fun stuff to imagine.

>> No.1483045

>>1482963
Who doesn't like donuts?

>> No.1483053

>>1483045

true. god must just be a fat guy making donut shaped universes and eating them.

>> No.1483077

>>1482991
>making the measurement from the opposite side of the universe.

Oops, that's meant to read:
making the measurement from the opposite side of the universe larger.

>> No.1483094

One of the basic theories out there is that the big bang did not simply create matter and energy (as we observe it) but it also created space-time (as we understand it). Because of this, (if we take this idea further) space-time as we conceptualize it does not exist beyond the ever expanding edges of our universe.

This also means that the idea of space being the distance between matter or energy as stated before no longer holds.

>> No.1483114

Well, if the edge of the universe expands forever, but there is a finite amount of energy, then eventually all energy will be spread thin to a point where nothing can occur. Heat death.

That is, unless, there were infinite big bangs or origins of energy spread throughout the universe.

Wouldn't it be interesting to be observing galaxies being flung apart from the big bang, only to find other galaxies headed in the opposite direction?

>> No.1483115

>>1483094
We would be an infinity within an infinity. The first infinity would have to be a higher dimension though. Measurement is still possible as there are still points of reference. This is what I was talking about here >>1482925 with the possibility of infinities within infinities.

>> No.1483122

>>1483114
It's entirely possible that there isn't only one big bang in our 3rd dimension. The farthest throes of energy may simply have not reached us yet!

>> No.1483128

Within the observable universe, everything is finite. Outside of it though, it could literally be infinite. But it is unfalsifiable, there is no way to ever test if the universe is really infinite or not.

Feels bad man.

>> No.1483154

You're making a lot of assumptions, that there is an "edge" to the universe, and that there is a center, both of which I recall hearing to not be the case. It is simply the case that everything is moving away from everything else (or it looks that way), but if there was stuff on the other side of a center point from us, we'd see one half of our sky receeding faster than the other. As far as I'm aware there aren't such broad differences in redshift.

Also, I'd like to say I'm totally find with an infinite amount of space, I don't believe space is a stuff, I don't believe space is scaffolding that is capable of supporting particles existance, distinct from something else (which space would be "expanding into") where matter somehow can't tread. Like dots on graph paper, and you take away the paper and just have dots floating around.

Last thing, I've always thought there was a strange coincidence between a black hole, and the big bang. A singularity point of infinitely dense energy, hmmm . . a few days ago there was an article about a guy that showed the math behind how gravity inside a black hole would warp such that you could have a whole universe in there. So maybe our energy from the big bang was actually stuff that got sucked into a black hole somewhere, and all the stuff that goes into OUR black holes feed our own pet mini universes.

Lastly, I'm glad to hear I'm not the only one that likes to lay awake and think about these things, /sci/-five!

>> No.1483146

>>1483128
If you think you've got the 3rd dimension pretty well figured out, try thinking about higher dimensions! How can an infinite 3rd dimension (or any other infinite lower dimension) fit INSIDE a higher infinite dimension?

>> No.1483162

>>1483154
>black holes
>create mini universes
>we are inside such a miniverse

How can we escape and return to the original universe?

>> No.1483170

One of the problems in this thread is the idea of measurably infinite versus theoretically infinite.

We are in an "infinitely expanding" yet "conceptually finite" space that is inside an infinite space of higher dimensions. It is not a "true" infinity within an infinity.

>> No.1483185

>>1483154

/sci/-five!

>> No.1483205

>>1483154
Indeed, I am making a lot of assumptions. The only thing I think I've got pretty well figured out is the infinity part, but that is dependent on whether or not there is a big bang or central point of reference in the first place! I realize this is all unknown, but I pointed that in my first post (>>1482888 THIS one)

Using red shift and gas trails, we can determine what direction mass is going. Most of it would likely be swirling around randomly, but there should be a general pattern. With a large enough sample of general directions, we can triangulate the center of origin, though there is still a chance that it is all coincidental.

Another point to mention supporting the big bang theory is the echoes from the big bank. As scientists launch more and more sensitive equipment to find such echoes, the more they are able to really map out where the edges are. Backtracking that data should support the triangulated center of universe and thus further support the big bang theory.

But we don't know yet.

Also, /sci/-five for somebody providing non-trolling counter points! It's always good to question everything!

>> No.1483215

>>1483205
>big bank
big bang. I'm starting to type too fast...

>> No.1483224

What about virtual particles?

>> No.1483236

>>1482922
Mmmm...donuts

>> No.1483273

How bout I just kill you all and say that God is the reason everything exists and everything is a well-ordered system with an explanation and a purpose?

>> No.1483277

>>1483273
*looks at history books*
Well, that seems to have worked so far.

>> No.1483289

>>1483224
I haven't heard of them until now, but after a bit of reading, I don't see how that affects any of the topics in this thread...

>> No.1483306

Oh, and here's another head scratcher... The universe is expanding... Logically, mutual attraction between matter and gravitational pull from a central mass (remnant of the big bang) would cause the expanding matter to gradually decelerate. From what we have observed, it seems that matter is actually accelerating! WTF?

>> No.1483326

>>1483205
I agree there SHOULD be a general trend of movement in a certain direction, IF there is a "center" that we're being flung away from. BUT AFAIK that hasn't been observed. The big bang doesn't appear to have been an explosion.

>As scientists launch more and more sensitive equipment to find such echoes, the more they are able to really map out where the edges are
Link? If you're talking about the cosmic microwave background radiation, the "edge" of those pics isn't actually an edge to the universe, its just how they show spherical data collection that connects back on itself (like a globe), on a flat, bounded surface (our monitors)

>>1483224
Quiet, you! Thats for the next generation to deal with.

>> No.1483348

>>1483306
Imagine that you have two particles five feet from one another. In this five feet is an infinite number of points in space moving away form one another. As these two particles move away from one another there is even more expanding space. Basically, the effect is compounded as the space expands due to the greater amount of space space between them.

>> No.1483357

>>1483326
Yeah, I was talking about those readings. Those can be misleading to regular joes like me... I wish they displayed such things where they were really detected in 3-dimensional space... It would be awesome to cruise around a 3-D universe in a setting like Google Earth. Not as a flat star map, but rather have all stars and galaxies shown in their actual positions. That would be a metric fuck-ton of data though...

On a side note, I am nodding off, so I'm going to quit posting and go to bed. Saving this thread for further debate and theories!

>> No.1483378

>>1483162
>How can we escape and return to the original universe?
I finally have a purpose.

>> No.1483405

It seems that the laws of physics tend to violate themselves on extreme macro- or micro scales.

>> No.1483422

>>1483378
"The only limit to my freedom is the inevitable closure of the universe, as inevitable as your own last breath. And yet, there remains time to create, to create, and escape.
Escape will make me God."

>> No.1483444

>>1482921
Red shift?

>> No.1483477

>>1483357
http://www.esa.int/esa-mmg/mmg.pl?b=b&type=A&mission=Planck&single=y&start=8

This animation shows how they took in the cmb data and visualized it to arrive at the oval shape

>> No.1483483

>>1483154
/sci/-five!
I can sit and think for hours. It's as satisfying to me as having sex with a woman is. It's like having sex with a woman and cumming. I'm cumming at work, I'm cumming in the car, I'm cumming while I'm pumping iron.

>> No.1483497

couldnt it be something like the curves converge at infinity? kinda like a gaussian curve, the probability under the curve is always 1 even though it streches to infinity.

>> No.1483499

>If space is infinite and was technically created at the moment of the big bang (due to the fact that there is now a point of reference in infinity) why is the amount of energy and matter (created by coalescing energy) finite?
Why wouldn't it be? (plus, space is not infinite)
>Shouldn't the big bang hypothetically be creating matter indefinitely?
Why?

>> No.1483505

I was under the impression that the reason there is a limit to the amount of energy/matter is because it can't be destroyed or created.