| Topic: |
Science > Physics |
| User: |
"Martin Johansen" |
| Date: |
17 Feb 2005 05:23:42 PM |
| Object: |
The universe has no boundaries? |
I would like to get your reaction to the following essay:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/Unbounded_Finite.htm
.
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
17 Feb 2005 08:47:38 PM |
|
|
If it started without gravity as some promote
it violates the No Boundary Proposal.
No gravity means boundaries.
The mass singularity of the BB is wrong.
Its gravity would prevent it - i.e. a black hole.
Space-time starting as a point without mass
is another story.
Mass had to be created seperated and expanding;
if you keep gravity; which also is to have no
boundaries.
.
|
|
|
| User: "Franz Heymann" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
18 Feb 2005 08:35:07 AM |
|
|
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108694858.691905.236160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If it started without gravity as some promote
it violates the No Boundary Proposal.
No gravity means boundaries.
The mass singularity of the BB is wrong.
Its gravity would prevent it - i.e. a black hole.
Space-time starting as a point without mass
is another story.
Mass had to be created seperated and expanding;
if you keep gravity; which also is to have no
boundaries.
I defy you to put your hand on your heart and say truly that you
understand what that last sentence means, and that you have conveyed
that meaning to your readers.
--
Franz
"One Galileo in 2000 years is enough."
Pope Pius XII
.
|
|
|
| User: "Nick" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
18 Feb 2005 08:44:13 PM |
|
|
Franz Heymann wrote:
"Nick" <macromitch@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1108694858.691905.236160@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com...
If it started without gravity as some promote
it violates the No Boundary Proposal.
No gravity means boundaries.
The mass singularity of the BB is wrong.
Its gravity would prevent it - i.e. a black hole.
Space-time starting as a point without mass
is another story.
Mass had to be created seperated and expanding;
if you keep gravity; which also is to have no
boundaries.
I defy you to put your hand on your heart and say truly that you
understand what that last sentence means, and that you have conveyed
that meaning to your readers.
Go for it Franz!!
You tell me
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Uncle Al" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
17 Feb 2005 06:03:48 PM |
|
|
Martin Johansen wrote:
I would like to get your reaction to the following essay:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/Unbounded_Finite.htm
You have no idea what you are babbling about. You don't even have a
conceptual grasp of "infinity."
Similarly, if one had a spaceship that was able to travel an > octillion light-years a picosecond, one would never get
to any "end" (or "edge") of existence.
Idiot.
--
Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz.pdf
.
|
|
|
| User: "Martin Johansen" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
17 Feb 2005 06:44:38 PM |
|
|
Can you please identify one wrong statement in the text and why so that I
have something to work on?
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
17 Feb 2005 10:34:24 PM |
|
|
Can you please identify one wrong statement in the text and why so that I
have something to work on?
The ideas are very interesting. The universe is very baffling. But I dont
agree that the infinite universe is neccesarily impossible.
I believe that the universe is "closed and finite relative to an observer".
However, in absolute terms, it is open and infinite. I have a very good
reason to believe this.
Openness, closedness, finiteness or infiniteness, all of these things will
be the result of _relativistic_ effects.I am convinced of this, and it is
supported by experimental evidence.
Einstein did not go far enough with relativity. His understanding of time
was radical in his day, but not quite radical enough.
.
|
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Sam Wormley" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
17 Feb 2005 11:58:35 PM |
|
|
Martin Johansen wrote:
I would like to get your reaction to the following essay:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/Unbounded_Finite.htm
You *babble* that "Since the infinite [universe] is the
impossible...", without any way to know whether the universe
is infinite or not. We can't see past our cosmic horizon.
Physics News Update -- Number 685, May 12, 2004
by Phil Schewe and Ben Stein
Ref: http://www.aip.org/pnu/2004/685.html
Our Universe Has a Topology Scale of at least 24 GPC
Our universe has a topology scale of at least 24 Gpc, or
about 75 billion light years, according to a new analysis
of data from the Wilkinson Microwave Anisotropy
Probe (WMAP).
What does this mean? Well, because of conceivable
hall-of-mirrors effects of spacetime, the universe might
be finite in size but give us mortals the illusion that it is
infinite. For example, the cosmos might be tiled with
some repeating shape, around which light rays might
wrap themselves over and over ("wrap" in the sense
that, as in video games, something might disappear off
the left side of the screen and reappear on the right
side).
A new study by scientists from Princeton, Montana
State, and Case Western looks for signs of such
"wrapped " light in the form of pairs of circles, in
opposite directions in the sky, with similar patterns in
the temperature of the cosmic microwave background.
If the universe were finite and actually smaller than the
distance to the "surface of last scattering" (a distance
that essentially constitutes the edge of the "visible
universe," and the place in deep space whence comes
the cosmic microwaves), then multiple imaging should
show up in the microwave background.
But no such correspondences appeared in the analysis.
The researchers are able to turn the lack of recurring
patterns into the form of a lower limit on the scale of
cosmic topology, equal to 24 billion parsecs, a factor of
10 larger than previous observational bounds. (Cornish,
Spergel, Starkman, Komatsu, Physical Review Letters,
upcoming article; contact Neil Cornish, 406-994-7986,
corn...@physics.montana.edu.)
.
|
|
|
|
| User: "RP" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
18 Feb 2005 12:51:00 PM |
|
|
Martin Johansen wrote:
I would like to get your reaction to the following essay:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/Unbounded_Finite.htm
An infinite set is defined as any set that is equivalent to a proper
subset of itself. So based upon this, what is infinity? Easy, it's the
cardinality of an infinite set.
In order to apply the qualifier *cardinality* to a set, it is first
required that there be distinct elements within that set, each
distinguishable from the others. So now let's take the concept
infinite expanse and break it down into manageable form. Infinite
(distinct) meter sticks laid end to end?? Sure, I think this is the
image, more or less, that most people associate with the concept of
infinite expanse.
OTOH, we could lay down sticks of any arbitrary length, end to end,
and in every case we get the same result; infinity of them are
required to span the universe. Given that there is an absolute
difference between sticks of different length, in the rest frame, then
we are left to conclude that the expanse of the universe is infinite
in the Cantorian sense, i.e. that the shorter measures constitute a
proper subset of the set of longer measures, and these two sets are
equivalent (bear a one-to-one correspondence).
OTOH, what we can't conclude is that space actually exists, that is,
there isn't necessarily any matter or energy of any sort beyond some
defined radius. What lies beyond this front is a redundant question
for those who don't assume that there is anything beyond. A physically
defined boundary doesn't present any sort of dilemma, except for those
who attempt to argue that space exists independently of matter, which
is of course the aetherists perspective. An alternate perspective is
that displacement is just a relationship between two particles, a
relationship that in turn is intimately related to the fields of the
particles rather than to a separate and wholly redundant "space"
between them. In terms of field, we cannot say that even it exists,
that is, in any capacity other than a mapping of the interactions of
particles wrt the source. IOW, the field represents just the potential
to act. What lies beyond the edge of a matter boundary and in between
interactions between particles of matter, is simply *nothing*, that
is, until some particle wanders into that relative position. The field
isn't a homogenous extension of anything.
Thus an easy way out of the perceived dilemma of spatial expanse is to
discount the aetherist viewpoint. Einstein covered some of this
territory in the development of gtr, QM covers the remaining and more
relevant aspects.
Richard Perry
.
|
|
|
| User: "Lefty" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
19 Feb 2005 03:24:10 AM |
|
|
The universe does have boundaries, and it also does not.
The universe is finite relative to an observer. However, there really is
more of it beyond that "observed" boundary.
The reason is simlpe. You cannot build a clock out of the whole universe. It
is nearly motionless relative to an observer and so time becomes
unmeasurable and unobservable on some vast scale. Time ceases to exists
relative to an observer on some very large scale, and so 4dimensional
spacetime melts somehow into a 3 dimensional manifold.
That place where the 4th dimension melts into the 3rd is the edge of the
universe relative to you. However, this is a relativistic phenomena, and in
reality the 4th dimension probably continues on into unknown territory.
This is why the universe has a boundary, and it also has no boundary. It
sounds paradoxical, but it really is not a paradox. The words make a
sentence which seems impossible, but the explanation is very simple.
And that is just the beginning.
I do not know what infinity means with respect to spacetime. I do not know
if cardinality makes sense at all. I cant even model my ideas because the
neccesary tools do not exist. There is no way that I know of to make a
smooth transition from the 4th dimension to the 3rd using mathematics.
And what does it mean anyway ?
A disk in R2 is certainly 2-dimensional. But the same disk in R3 ? Is it 2
dimensional or 3 dimensional ? I'm just not satisfied with the standard
mathematical interpretation that you can have 2 dimensional manifolds
floating around in R3. This distinction is premature.
But to answer your question - Yes it is open, and yes it is closed. Yes is
has a boundary, and yes it does not have a boundary. What's more, this is
_not_ a paradox !! Yes I believe this, and yes I cant believe my eyes.
.
|
|
|
|
|
| User: "Bjoern Feuerbacher" |
|
| Title: Re: The universe has no boundaries? |
18 Feb 2005 04:06:06 AM |
|
|
Martin Johansen wrote:
I would like to get your reaction to the following essay:
http://www.geocities.com/rationalphysics/Unbounded_Finite.htm
I read about a third. Sounds like metaphysical babbling by someone who
has little clue of what he is talking about (Riemannian geometry,
essentially).
Especially interesting I find his constant assertions that "infinities
are not possible". How does he know?
Bye,
Bjoern
.
|
|
|
|
|
Related Articles |
|
|
