[ 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: 352 KB, 1280x688, Grand_Universe_by_ANTIFAN_REAL.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6357848 No.6357848 [Reply] [Original]

Is it possible that the universe stretches on forever and ever?

>> No.6357851

No.

>> No.6357850

My dick stretches on forever and ever in your mom

>> No.6357858

No.

>> No.6357863

>>6357862
Yes, there is an edge.

You can't "jump off".

>> No.6357862

>>6357851
>>6357858

So you're telling me theres an edge somewhere

What happens if you jump off?

>> No.6357869

I was reading that there are a few models of the universe that basically say it is 'boundless' to infiniti. Think that classic video game where you go to the right of the screen you will appear on the left.

One model I really found interesting is the 'donut' shaped universe where you travel the 'surface' of the donut. Basically you will wrap around the universe back to where you started eventually, now i'm a bit inebriated right now, if someone can correct my mistakes that'd be awesome so OP doesn't get mislead

>> No.6357870

>>6357869
Yea, nah, it's flat.

>> No.6357877

>>6357869
>>6357870

wouldnt it make more sense if it was infinite in every direction, so you could go right and right but instead of appearing on the left you just keep going right

>> No.6357891

>>6357877
not by the theory i stated, but think about it this way, let's say we are on the earth and we keep going west. We are going to get back to the point we started eventually. Same idea

Personally your statement makes the most sense to me and at the same time it's rather boring and uninteresting. I guess that's why all these retarded universe theories pop up

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doughnut_theory_of_the_universe

>> No.6357915

>>6357891
>>6357877
It's flat you faggots.
http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

>> No.6357914
File: 410 KB, 1024x768, seqF_019a_half.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6357914

>>6357870
>flat
does this look flat to you? fucking kill yourself m8

>> No.6357917

>>6357915
if it was flat that would mean it has a floor

checkmate

>> No.6357919

>>6357914
>you in charge of geometry

PROTIP: "flat" doesn't mean what you think it does in this case.

Also, yes, that looks like a flat 3 dimensional space.

>> No.6357921

>>6357917
Doesn't it?

>> No.6357930

>>6357921
no

>> No.6357935

>>6357930
[citation needed]

>> No.6357943

>>6357935
burden of proof lies on you

>> No.6357952

>>6357919
ok faggot
if the universe is flat
how can the angles of a triangle always add up to °180
when there is this thing called THE FUCKING PLANCK LENGTH
meaning
there is a limit to how small an angle can be

HUH? HUH HUH HUH?

yeah
thought so m8 go kill yourself

>> No.6357956

>>6357943

The universe had a beginning.
Therefore there are finite boundaries.
QED.

>> No.6357958

>>6357952
God did it.

>> No.6357974

>>6357956
It's the other way around

Propose: There are finite boundaries
Observation: space is getting further apart
Therefor: The universe had a beginning

>> No.6357977

>>6357974
If spacetime existed infinitely it's far more likely we'd be WAY BEYOND the point that we could see other galaxies.

>> No.6357986

>>6357977
how do you know there isn't larger structures that we can't see anymore?

>> No.6357999

>>6357986
That has literally nothing to do with my point.
If space-time was infinite, it would be FAR MORE LIKELY that we would not be able to see so much as a single other galaxy.
Infinitely more likely, to be precise.

>> No.6358007

>>6357999
but space is infinite

>> No.6358008

>>6358007
[citation needed]

>> No.6358032

>>6357848
It's likely infinite in the dimensions we understand. It could be finite in others.

>> No.6358046

>>6357956
The universe wasn't necessarily finite at the beginning.

There are currently too possibilities. One is that the universe is flat, which to the best we can measure so far it is. If it is flat it is infinite in every direction. If it has a large scale curve, then it is a 4-sphere, which means it eventually loops around in every direction.

>> No.6358051

>>6357952
lul wut?

>> No.6358061

>>6358046

There are a few flat 'like' shapes, for example consider a saddle shape that stretches on to infinity. It does not loop around, it is like a flat universe in that you can go in one direction for ever and not loop around. but it has different implications about the nature of the universe and the laws of it.

>> No.6358155 [DELETED] 

Maybe space loops around like in the arcade classic, Asteroids. That way it can be finite and yet not have a discernable edge.

>> No.6358204

>>6357952
>there is a limit to how small an angle can be

Lulz, no, there's a limit to how small an angle can be measured. Coordinates of spacetime events are noncommutative below the Planck scale, so the uncertainty relationship between them dominates. Lrn2geometry you fuck.

>> No.6358218

>>6358061
Yes, but under GR the universe has to be a 4-sphere, according to Penrose. However, if the universe has no curve, it is possible that the 4-sphere is infinitely large.

>> No.6358227

>>6358218
Umm.... fuck Penrose, compatible models don't even need the same dimensionality. See AdS/CFT correspondence.

>> No.6358411
File: 29 KB, 456x304, The fuck is this.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6358411

what the fuck is this spergfest?

We don't know. The Universe might be infinite in space or not. If it's finite, there's *no edge whatsoever*.

If it really is uniform, then measurements of local curvature are measurements of global shape.

If it's flat, it's infinite, and it's R^3
If it's positively curved, it's finite, and it's a 3-sphere.

The Universe is NOT the matter it contains. In this context, it's spacetime.

>> No.6358415

>>6358411
"it's hard to figure" isn't an excuse to give up you faggot.

>> No.6358478

There is a theory about how a universe may be 4 dimensional, and that what you see in the night sky is repeated infinitely. However, they are still trying to find a repeating pattern

>> No.6358484

>>6357952
angles of a triangle don't always add up to 180.

Make a triangle on a sphere from the top points and two points on the equator and you have 3 right angles.

>> No.6358509

>>6357999
Oh, so you've figured out how to precisely quantify entropy within an expanding spacetime in absolute terms? Step up and collect your Nobel prize.

>> No.6358512

>>6358509
>implying nobel prizes aren't a jewish scam
Tell me more about how Obama is so peaceful.

>> No.6358548

>>6358512
Hitler brought peace to more Jews than anyone else, if they control the Nobel prize, why wasn't he awarded one?

>> No.6358550

>>6358548
I notice you're not even bothering to tell me how someone who's droned more people than anyone in history deserves a peace prize.

>> No.6358619

>>6358415
I haven't given up.
I just do not like when someone ask something very simple on /sci/ and all (all) the answers are completely wrong.

We haven't given up, it's just that as far* as our measurements go the constant-conformal time slices of the Universe look flat.

*in terms of precision, NOT of distance

>> No.6359560
File: 1000 KB, 245x170, 2nKtRok.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
6359560

>>6357862
Light is the edge.

>> No.6359607

>all of these people pretending to "know" anything about the universe
You will never get to actually know a single thing about reality with 100% certainty and neither will any human ever. I know this to be an absolute truth.

>> No.6359616

>>6357862
The Source wall pushes you back

>> No.6359622

>>6359607
when i drop my anvil from above your retarded head, it will fall and kill you

gravity 100% certainty, etc

>> No.6359640

>>6359622
But it's not 100% certainty and never will be. You can't possibly predict if gravity will suddenly stop, which it well might do for reasons unknown. You can't know.

>> No.6359671

If the universe is infinite wouldn't that be proof of intelligent life alone?