# Humanities & Anthropology > Philosophy >  Universe How Big ?

## lexico

Is the universe infinite or finite ? 
In volume, density, and mass ?
Let's talk about it !
Please add relevant comments and links; what you have below is just what was readily available on the web.

Credit: Douglas Scott's FAQ page
Astronomy Group at University of British Columbia




> According to the following passage, the dimensisions are;
> RADIUS: ~10,000 Megaparsec or 3 ~ 10^26 metres
> DENSITY: ~ 10^-26kg/m3
> TOTAL MASS: ~ 10^54 kilogrammes


Q: "Do you know where I can find an estimate of the total mass of the universe?"
Submitted by [email protected] 10/00 

A: "From observations of the Universe it is possible to determine the average density. In other words the mass per unit volume (or the mass-energy equivalent per unit volume). Currently the mass-energy census of the Universe identifies at least 5 separate components: ordinary matter (baryons); massive neutrinos (a known, but ellusive particle, which may have a small mass); cold dark matter (some as yet unidentified particle); photons (mainly the CMB); and Dark Energy (which may dominate the census, even although it doesn't behave like matter at all!). It appears that the Universe has a "flat" geometry, so that =1, and estimates for the contributions from each of the 5 components are 5%, 0.3%, 30%, 0.01% and 65%, respectively. 

Coverting into density requires having an estimate of how fast the Universe is expanding, i.e. the Hubble constant (since that goes into the definition of , as described in another answer). Using a typical value for H0 the overall density of the Universe turns out to be about 10-26kg/m3. This corresponds to about 1011 times the mass of the Sun in every cubic Megaparsec of volume. This value is uncertain both because the value of isn't precisely known, and also because the value of H0 isn't precisely known either. But it's certainly the correct order of magnitude. You'd also get a proportionately lower number if you wanted only the density in baryons, for example. 

The total mass of the Universe, on the other hand, is not a very clear concept. The Universe is likely to be either infinite in volume, or so very large that it can be considered infinite for all practical purposes. That means that the total mass of the Universe is also infinite. The thing which can be well-defined though, is the mass within the observable part of the Universe. In other words we can ask: how much mass is contained within the volume that we can have observed since the Big Bang? The radius of the observable Universe is about 10,000 Megaparsec (or about 3 ~ 1026 metres). Using the above estimate for the total density this gives a total mass in the observable Universe of about 1054 kilogrammes. That's the best answer I can give for the mass of the Universe!"




> According to the following passage,
> RADIUS: ~ 300 Yotta meters or 3 x 10^26 m
> DENSITY: ~10^-26kg/m3
> TOTAL MASS: ~ 6 x 10^53 kilogrammes.


Q: "Do you know where I can find an estimate of the total mass of the universe?" 
Submitted by [email protected] 10/00 

A: "If the Universe has "flat" or "open" geometry, then formally it has infinite volume, and therefore infinite mass. Something which is better defined is the mass within the "Observable Universe", which means the part of space from which we can have received light in the history of the Universe so far. This gets bigger every day! 

The approximate answer is that the radius of the observable Universe is currently estimated to be about 300 Ym (that's "yotta-metres", or 10^24m, which is the largest SI prefix!). So you take that number, cube it, and multiply by 4/3, to get the volume of the whole sphere. 

Then you have to decide what density you want to use. Are you only interested in luminous matter, or do you want to include all the baryons (regular stuff made of protons and neutrons)? Or do you want all the particle dark matter too? And what about the dark energy? If you include everything, then the average density in the Universe today is about 10-26kg/m3. And the mass in the observable Universe can be estimated accordingly. 

There are several uncertainties and approximations here though - so don't expect your answer to be much better than an order of magnitude estimate!"

----------


## Mycernius

The universe is infinite. Try to get to the edge of it, you will not get there, as time and space are curved. The Universe is also expanding at relativistic speed, so must be able to travel faster than this to get there. The universe is also one of many. For every discission you have made, somewhere the opposite is made. If time travel is possible, in order to go back you must also move sideways into another universe. Where you originally came from you did not exist before you where born. In this alternate universe you do exist before you where born. Therefore infinite universes.
I love quantum physics, it's fun  :Wavey:

----------


## Brooker

I think infinite, but the area holding the matter within it is finite. Once you get out of that area, it's just a vast plain of endless nothing.

----------


## TwistedMac

I'm going with "honestly can't say"... but in the words of James Hetfield I'll say it's "much too big to see".

----------


## misa.j

This thread makes me think of a quote of Einstein;
"There are only two things that are infinite, human stupidity and the universe, and I'm not sure about the universe."

I love thinking about space, but it often drives me crazy. 
I have found a cool link.
http://hubblesite.org/discoveries/hstexhibit/index.html

----------


## lexico

Great links, agnostics of cosmology!


> Time and space never ending 
> Disturbing thoughts, questions pending 
> Limitations of human understanding


Is never a name for what's bigger than we can see, or will we ask forever what is beyond, or will the questions stop one day? Misa.J quotes Einstein saying "human stupidity" is surely infinite, but the universe possibly not. (paraphrase) Yet questioning is one expression of the highest form of intelligence as we know it. So will the questioning stop, due to infinite stupidity, while the upper limits of the universe, both in mass and diameter, are answered, due to the tunnel-visioned and relentless progress of science ? 


> Light from the farthest regions of the universe takes billions of years to reach Hubble. Amazingly, when we look at these most distant of all views, we see events that occurred before Earth itself existed — when the universe was merely a fraction of its present age.


They seem to have some idea of the age of the universe. But light traveling for billions of years should have a place of origin. So could that mean the universe has a boundary ? Boundary in the sense of an upper limit whithin a closed system where nothing escapes but only recurs in an infinite loop ? Or is it just an expression to be easily thown out at some point ??

For an analogy, a satelite can orbit the earth ad infinitum, but that does not mean the eath, including its effective gravitational sphere, is infinite. Or the closed electric circuit planned for power transmission or magneto-levitational trains being planned; the electric current will in principle flow infinitely, but we know that the extent of it is within bounds of the circuit.

----------


## Maciamo

it can only be infinite, as there can't be a limit without something behind it. Even emptiness is part of the universe, and if everything were emptiness, it would still be infinite.

If your definition of universe is only what contains matter and energy, what do you call the rest (if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway) ?

Likewise, some people think that a god or supreme being _created_ the universe. But does that mean that this god is not _part of_ the universe (inside t) ? If not where is it ? If it is "outside" or in a parallel dimension, why not say that this place is also the universe, as by definition the universe is everything that exists (if you have another definition, how do you call "everything that exists" ?). So forcedly, any thing that does not belong to the universe doesn't exist. As there can't be anything, the universe must be infinite and comprise all existence, including all dimensions and emptiness.

----------


## TwistedMac

> it can only be infinite, as there can't be a limit without something behind it. Even emptiness is part of the universe, and if everything were emptiness, it would still be infinite.
> 
> If your definition of universe is only what contains matter and energy, what do you call the rest (if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway) ?
> 
> Likewise, some people think that a god or supreme being _created_ the universe. But does that mean that this god is not _part of_ the universe (inside t) ? If not where is it ? If it is "outside" or in a parallel dimension, why not say that this place is also the universe, as by definition the universe is everything that exists (if you have another definition, how do you call "everything that exists" ?). So forcedly, any thing that does not belong to the universe doesn't exist. As there can't be anything, the universe must be infinite and comprise all existence, including all dimensions and emptiness.


that's all based on definitions of a word though.. what we need are more words to help us put thoughts into words :P

----------


## Shooter452

"Point in any direction. And you will be pointing at yourself."

Robert A. Heinlein,
Stranger in a Strange Land

----------


## ashuri2

wait...the question was about the actual mass and volume of the universe, right? so are we saying that the universe (the area to which it extends) itself is ifinite because it is closed, and that the mass, however, is finite because of the law of conservation?
*confused*

----------


## lexico

> there can't be a limit without something behind it.


Under a different set of premises, the limits of a closed, finite, bound system cannot be observed by its residents from the inside, the outside (as there is none), or from the boundary itself (as it is not accessible or visible like the wall of Berlin). A 1-dimensional being within a closed loop is bound in a finite world, but does not and cannot perceive the boundary except by abstract reasoning and imagination. The same goes for 2-, 3-, 4-, or 5-dimensional beings whichever we happen to be.


> Even emptiness is part of the universe, and if everything were emptiness, it would still be infinite.


Again you are reading into the text your preconceived idea; hence invalid as positive, objective argumentation, but valid only as a statement of your personal conviction.


> If your definition of universe is only what contains matter and energy, what do you call the rest (if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway) ?


In you thread of thought (under your assumptions) that part which contains matter and energy however low in density should all be considered part of the universe. The author (Douglas Scott) quoted seems to agree with you in the idea of an infinite universal space, but that's his personal conviction apart from his profession, not as a proven or proveable scientific idea in astrophysics. And that's exactly why he limits his calculation to the heavenly bodies and interstellar gas of generally low density.

As for the rest, it is non-existent. So how could you possibly expect me to name a non-entity, something that doesn't exist ? I do not wish to fall into the trap of language and promote misconception either in my head or others'.

Vacuum exists, and we can reproduce it to a degree, but never a perfect vacuum on a macroscopic scale. Hence I believe "pure emptiness" is only an abstraction of "near vacuum" that we can experience, but not a physical reality in any observable sphere that we know of, and a misleading term in the cosmological sense of the word.


> Likewise, some people think that a god or supreme being _created_ the universe. But does that mean that this god is not _part of_ the universe (inside t) ? If not where is it ? If it is "outside" or in a parallel dimension, why not say that this place is also the universe, as by definition the universe is everything that exists (if you have another definition, how do you call "everything that exists" ?). So forcedly, any thing that does not belong to the universe doesn't exist. As there can't be anything, the universe must be infinite and comprise all existence, including all dimensions and emptiness.


I am just a little concerned that some people might be offended by discussing religion here although I personally have no problem with it. Your idea of Universe looks more resembling the neo-Platonian ideas of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas less the anthorpomorphic idea. As a critical thinker of science and religion, I can only say that faith is a highly personal experience, and so is science. 

One thing about science; it has the potential of easily corrupting into a pseudo-faith assuming the air of authority by employing fashionable language, which only attempts to picture its unclear and inaccurate ideas very much like the old-world superstitions that the avant-guards of enlightenment sought to destroy. I therefore consider every person's idea of science differently, and the same goes for religion. There is no such sacred ground beyond doubt that one can be safely in the truth by claiming either denomination or a subdenomination; these are only names.

I would like to offer one question; can science as we know it ever answer the question of why? Why the four forces of nature ? Why the rules of electromagnetism exist as they are, and not otherwise ? When all the questions of chicken and egg are reduced to the first stages of chemical evolution in the primordial soup, the question yet remains unanswered; why ?

Finally we may arrive at a very clear and good explanation of how life on earth started 3,000,000,000 yrs ago, and the universe 300,000,000,000 yrs ago, but we can almost never answer the ultimate why ? Grammatically speaking the interrogative "why" only applies to beings of intelligence and having a personality whether human, beastly, or divine. I happen to find your ideas far more religious than my almost pagan Christian faith. You an anonymous believer, and me a fake ?  :Poh:  Sorry for going off topic.  :Gomen:

----------


## Mycernius

The current thought is that the universe is about 15 billion years old. What started it and what will happen to it are are question that no-one can really answer. Is the universe itself a closed loop? Expands, contracts, explodes and starts again or the heat death of the universe. Entropy take more effect and the universe eventually becomes a cold dead place with only black holes moving around it.
Douglas Adams had a good take on the universe. Once someone explains the universe completely it ends and begins with something even more confusing than the last one. he also mentions Gods as beings that came into existance a second after the creation of the universe and not before it as they claim. As a result they have gone into hiding and refusing to answer that question.

----------


## RockLee

The universe is expanding, but at a point it will stop and the reverse process will happen.So it's not infinite...I don't think infinite exists in space  :Sou ka:

----------


## Mycernius

> The universe is expanding, but at a point it will stop and the reverse process will happen.So it's not infinite...I don't think infinite exists in space


But what about the heat death. That states that the universe will not stop expanding. You seem to subscribe to the Big crunch theory.
I have seen a theory of the universe is infinite based on plasma physics saying that the universe is older because of the way string of galaxies exist. 15 billion years is not long enough for these strings to form, therefore it must be older and is in a constant state of renewal.

----------


## Brooker

I think "God/Supreme Being" (whatever you want to call it) and the universe are the same thing and both are infinite. So for me it's hard to discuss one without at least mentioning the other. The "mind" of the universe is the order that allows things to come together to form more complex things, like atoms, planets, people, stars, hamsters, etc. *Check out the quote in my sig*

----------


## lexico

> "Given half a chance, order emerges from chaos, and given optimum conditions, matter keeps on self-organizing until it can get up, crawl around, and write poetry." -David Grinspoon


I could not have said it better. (Let me say that optimum probably meant "good enough" instead of "the best possible.") 
This is probably true regardless of the magnitude of the universe or the existence of a divine being.

----------


## Brooker

> This is probably true regardless of the magnitude of the universe or the existence of a divine being.


But I believe that such an order could not exist without a designer (or, as I see it, the "designer" IS the order). If you come across a building, you can pretty much assume someone designed it. It would be pretty silly to think that the building might have come to be through a series of strange coincidences or natural trial and error. 

(Sorry for getting on a theology tangent but I can't help it. For me, the connection between space and theology is one of the things that makes it such an interesting subject.)

----------


## lexico

> Sorry for getting on a theology tangent but I can't help it. For me, the connection between space and theology is one of the things that makes it such an interesting subject.


I believe that cosmological discussions are by nature ontological, and hence naturally related to theology. Besides that you or I are not bent on proselytizing, so I don't think anyone would object so long as we keep to objectivity for the sole purpose of explicating the possible meanings of our subject question. But if anyone does with good reason, and we can stop any time. We are civilized people, aren't we ?  :Wink: 


> "Given half a chance, order emerges from chaos, and given optimum conditions, matter keeps on self-organizing until it can get up, crawl around, and write poetry." -David Grinspoon





> But I believe that such an order could not exist without a designer (or, as I see it, the "designer" IS the order). If you come across a building, you can pretty much assume someone designed it. It would be pretty silly to think that the building might have come to be through a series of strange coincidences or natural trial and error.


I interprete David Grinspoon's statement as order emerging out of chaos without a designer. As for the building, it is an artifact so the analogy seems to be skewed towards the supposition of a designer. Jaques Monod, in his _Chance and Necessity_ discussed the difference between an artifact and a natural object. A chrystal shows astounding regularity, but we know that it is a natural object. I forgot his logic and conclusion, but I remember that it had something to do with intention or design; this is not easily detected from an observation of the surface. In _Godel, Escher, Bach_, the same question is raised. I remember it said something in the following.

"Naturally regular objects such as chrystals are predictable and have a low level of complexity, whereas objects produced by a living being (such as DNA, and protein) or artificial objects (for example a Godel mathematical treatise, a Bach musical piece, and Escher artwork, a Dunhuang manuscript, a natural speech act) show higher levels of complexity or playfulness neither absolutely predictable nor totally random."

It is my understanding that certain objects in nature of the second class (living beings) have emerged out of full chaos by going "through a series of natural trial and error." The idea of chemical evolution that culminated in the first DNA/RNA's capable of replicating themselves outside any membrane, just floating in the organic ocean some 3000,000,000 yrs ago, does not require a jump of logic or a leap of faith in my opinion.

Already quite early in the 1900's Russian scientists (of course with their ideological purpose, yet objective in their methods of experiments) succeeded in generating several kinds of amino acids from all inorganic substances such as water, oxygen, nitrogen, CO2, and methane when heat and electrical energy were applied for a certain duration. Similar reasonable models and experiments have been proposed and conducted, though I am not aware of any one particular ground breaking experiment because I did not look for them. I would think the theory of chemical evolution is pretty much established, unless otherwise proven.

From inorganic substances to glucose, fatty acids, amino acids, and nucleic acids would be the first step, and from there to proteins, DNA/RNA's, fats, and sugars would be the next step. From infertile DNA/RNA's to self-replicating DNA/RNA's would be the next step. From membraneless DNA/RNA's to procaryotes, then on to eukaroyotes, then to protoplants, then to protoanimals would be the ensuing stages in the evolution of early life forms.

No plan or design was necessary for all this to happen, but only simple, common elements in nature with enough time to permute them through the possible combinations was enough. In the case of eartly life forms, it took roughly 1,500,000,000 yrs for the first life to emerge out of randomness or chaos as David Grinspoon would have it.

----------


## Maciamo

> Under a different set of premises, the limits of a closed, finite, bound system cannot be observed by its residents from the inside, the outside (as there is none), or from the boundary itself (as it is not accessible or visible like the wall of Berlin). A 1-dimensional being within a closed loop is bound in a finite world, but does not and cannot perceive the boundary except by abstract reasoning and imagination.


Now I think the problem is your definition of infinte. What you are describing is the same as the infinite to me. There are many kinds of infinite, among others: 

- 2 or 3 dimensional (one line with no end vs 3D shape extending to the infinte)
- closed infinite (the infinite line is still part of something else bigger and 3D)
- open infinite (3D infinite extending in all directions)
- limited infinite (yes, there is such a thing, eg. a line with a definite start point, but continuing to the infinite)
- circular infinite (if a 2D line goes in circle, it is infinite because you can count an infinite number of 360 degree turns, although the shape is finite)
- unipolar infinite time (time only infinite from a starting point or to an ending point)
- bipolar infinite time (time unlimited in both past and future)

What you are describing is an 3D circular infinite. My conception of the universe is more of an open infinite.




> Vacuum exists, and we can reproduce it to a degree, but never a perfect vacuum on a macroscopic scale. Hence I believe "pure emptiness" is 
> only an abstraction of "near vacuum" that we can experience


That's why I said _if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway_




> Your idea of Universe looks more resembling the neo-Platonian ideas of St. Augustine or Thomas Aquinas less the anthorpomorphic idea.


Certainly not. Of all the main Western philosophers, and I can tell you that those with whom I the most at odds are the Platonians, Neo-Platonians and Idealists (eg. Hegel). My conception of the universe is too materialist for that.




> One thing about science; it has the potential of easily corrupting into a pseudo-faith assuming the air of authority by employing fashionable language, which only attempts to picture its unclear and inaccurate ideas very much like the old-world superstitions that the avant-guards of enlightenment struggled to destroy.


Funnily enough, that's what I was thinking to tell you, as you are the one to mix science and philosophy. Science is nothing without observations and experiments. Philosophy is based on logics and reasoning (taking what we know of sciences into account, of course). In other words, science is only the practical and experimentable branch of philosophy. With our primitive knowledge of the universe, how could we give so much credit to science ? There was a time when people thought that the Eart was the centre of the universe, then the sun, the sun our galaxy... Until a few years ago, most people still believed in the theory of the Big Bang. 




> I would like to offer one question; can science ever answer the question of why?


No. In a metaphysic level (god, the universe...), this is reserved to religion and philosophy. The difference is that religion makes up nice stories just based on imagination and spiritual belief, while philosophy mostly uses reason and logics (altough the Idealistic current of philosophy is more pantheistic- like, and thus more religious). 




> I happen to find your ideas far more religious than my almost pagan Christian faith.


What ? I don't believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated by logics. As explained just above, I am not religious but philosophical. Using science (which requires experiment) to explain metaphyical problems is futile.

The difference between you and me is that you attach too much importance of science and not enough to logics. But our scientifical knowledge evolves much faster than logics and must be updated all the time (eg. reading the news today we now suppose that the first bipeds or "humans" were not 3.2m years old but 4m years old thanks to a new discovery - where will we be in 10 or 100 years from now ?). It still cannot answer questions related to the unknown and unobserved such as emptiness or infinity (which can only be grasped by logics with the help of mathematics).

----------


## Brooker

> I interprete David Grinspoon's statement as order emerging out of chaos without a designer. .


I think he intended it that way, but I interprete it differently.




> A chrystal shows astounding regularity, but we know that it is a natural object.


But I would say a chrystal is "designed" too. What is the difference really between an "artifact" and a "natural object"? If humans are created by nature, and building are created by humans, how can buildings be unnatural? How can something natural create something unnatural? I think we only see it that way because WE created it. But if a beaver creates a dam, no one calls that unnatural. When we create a building, we're taking resources found in nature and forming them into something we find useful. The beaver does the same thing. And I don't think the fact that what we've created is more "advanced" than what the beaver has created makes any difference.




> The idea of chemical evolution that culminated in the first DNA/RNA's capable of replicating themselves outside any membrane, just floating in the organic ocean some 300,000,000 yrs ago, does not require a jump of logic or a leap of faith in my opinion.


But without order, that could never happen. The only leap I'm making is attributing that order to "the force". Without that order (without "the force") I don't believe anything could ever form, just random stuff floating around, bouncing off each other, never forming into anything.




> From inorganic substances to glucose, fatty acids, amino acids, and nucleic acids would be the first step, and from there to proteins, DNA/RNA's, fats, and sugars would be the next step. From infirtile DNA/RNA's to self-replicating DNA/RNA's would be the next step. From membraneless DNA/RNA's to procaryotes, then on to eukaroyotes, then to protoplants, then to protoanimals would be the ensuing stages in the evlution of early life forms.


Yes, but WHY? What makes that happen? Mother nature? Science? The force? I think they're all the same. My beliefs are all about the unification of everything.




> No plan or design was necessary for all this to happen, but only simple, common elements in nature with enough time to permute them through the possible combinations was enough.


I think it takes a much bigger leap of faith to think that all of that would just happen on it's own. Without order and the universe's WILL (which I also attribute to "the force") to form into something more complex, that would never have happened.

----------


## Maciamo

> But I would say a chrystal is "designed" too. What is the difference really between an "artifact" and a "natural object"? If humans are created by nature, and building are created by humans, how can buildings be unnatural? How can something natural create something unnatural? I think we only see it that way because WE created it. But if a beaver creates a dam, no one calls that unnatural. When we create a building, we're taking resources found in nature and forming them into something we find useful. The beaver does the same thing. And I don't think the fact that what we've created is more "advanced" than what the beaver has created makes any difference.


The terms "natural" and "unnatural" are not suitable to discuss the evolution of the universe, life, and what is created by life. It is true that everything is in a sense 'natural", because Nature is the universe in movement, and humans (or beavers) and their creations are part of it. However, we humans normally use the word "natural" from our own point of view to describe what is not made by humans. That is why we reach such absurdities as saying that a dam built by a beaver is natural but a house built by humans is not. 

The main problem while discussing philosophical issues is the definition/meaning of the words we use. I would just drop the terms "natural" and "unnatural" altogether from this discusion, as it is obvious that from the universe's point of view, everything is natural ("unnatural" only means "unreal" or "inexistent").

So why are things in the universe organised ? Who said they were ? We humans find it organised because it fits our perception of organisation, something that matches our own structure.

To put it simply, the forces in the universe can all be reduced to "positive energy" vs "negative energy" ("neutral energy" is as theoretical a thing as "pure emptiness"). W.J. Sidis (the guy whose IQ was estimated between 250 and 300) gives his own views on the animate and inanimate here. His explanation on the theories of life match very well my views of the negative vs postive energy. He explained that life is not an anomaly, but that up to 50% of the universe could be acting the same way, i.e. trying to preserve its energy rather than consumming it and changing state.

----------


## Brooker

> So why are things in the universe organised ?


There is obviously order to the universe. Is there any such thing as true chaos? If we think something is chaotic, it probably just follows a pattern we have yet to understand. There's order in atoms, the Earth's revolutions around the sun, matter. I'm speaking very broadly here, but I don't think anything could exist without some kind of order. There's a pattern to everything around us. I challenge anyone to find something that has no form of organization.

----------


## Maciamo

> There is obviously order to the universe. Is there any such thing as true chaos?


No no, you don't understand my point. I was not implying that everything was chaos, but that the very idea or "chaos" vs "organisation" depend on our own perception as humans. It could be that other intelligent being in the universe have a different perception of what is "organised". And yet, that would still be from a life being point of view. For instance, it is logical to think that between 2 "intelligent" living creatures, the most sophisticated might have a stricter definition of organisation. Hope that make sense...

----------


## lexico

> W.J. Sidis ... gives his own views on the animate and inanimate here.


Without looking at his theory as a whole, let me only point out two details.


> the peculiarity of life is its ability to draw on more energy than the second law of thermodynamics would allow(1); that is, its ability, in some circumstances at least, to reserve that second law. 
> 
> And again, we have seen that reversals of the second law are characterized by ability to use a fund of reserve energy that physical bodies cannot use. Let us say that the mechanical efficiency of a set of bodies is 85%; the reciprocal, or 118%, is that of the same set in the reverse universe. 
> 
> But as, under some circumstances, producing special results in the way of heat, etc., not quite 85% of the energy will be used, but, let us say, only 50%, then under those special cases in the reverse universe requiring more energy, the mechanical efficiency will be not 118%, but 200%(2), thus using over five times the amount of reserve energy normally used. This excess constitutes James's "reserve energy."


It is unclear what he means by "more energy than the second law of thermodynamics would allow." 


> 2nd Law: A far reaching and powerful law, it is typically stated in one of two ways: 
> 
> It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no other effect than the subtraction of a positive amount of heat from a reservoir and the production of an equal amount of work. (Kelvin-Planck Statement) or 
> 
> It is impossible to obtain a process that, operating in cycle, produces no thermal effect than a positive heat flow from a colder body to a hotter one. (Clausius Statement) 
> 
> The entropy of a thermally isolated macroscopic system never decreases (see Maxwell's demon), however a microscopic system may exhibit fluctuations of entropy opposite to that dictated by the second law (see Fluctuation Theorem). 
> 
> In fact the mathematical proof of the Fluctuation Theorem from time-reversible dynamics and the Axiom of Causality, constitutes a proof of the Second Law. In a logical sense the Second Law thus ceases to be a "Law" of Physics and instead becomes a theorem which is valid for large systems or long times.


1. Large bodies over a non-insignifacant durarion of time do not exhibit a heat flow from the cold to the hot. Living beings are by definition a large body; even one cell is too large to be considered a small system. Heat in a living body always flows from the hot to the cold, even when it is in motion. In fact his statement (1) is in direct violation of the 1st law of Thermodynamics which guarantee conservation of energy. He most surely had a problem defining the system under observation with precision, or went with a totally different definition of the laws of thermodynamics.

2. The mechanical efficiency which is defined as (work produced from a heat engine)/(total heat energy difference) is always below 100%. Hence his statement (2) of 118% or 200% is preposterous unless he has a totally different set of thermodynamic definition and theory. Furthermore, even 85% or 50% is highly unlikely. For example, currently most advanced gasoline-based auto engines developed barely exceed 15% mechanical efficiency. 

Perhaps we can be lucky if by using bio-mechanical hybrid mechanisms break the 20% or 30% barrier in cars in the future, but even that has to be seen. Nevertheless biological systems are know to have higher (mechanical energy produced)/(heat energy cosumed) ratio, but anything beyond 100% is impossible, and most likely somewhere between 20% to 40%.

----------


## Maciamo

Lexico, I was not referring to this part of the theory, but rather tis one :




> According to the conclusions we have reached, there are in the universe what we have called positive tendencies, neutral tendencies, and negative tendencies, all of which are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles of matter. 
> ...


Now if you want to argue with the genius professor of Harvard, well you can't because he is dead !

----------


## RockLee

Why does the word 'GOD' always come up in conversations?? I don't believe in a creator...who says the universe was created by 'GOD' ?? Everytime a person can't come up with a solution or doesn't understand something it's the work of 'GOD'...give me a break please  :Okashii:

----------


## Brooker

> For instance, it is logical to think that between 2 "intelligent" living creatures, the most sophisticated might have a stricter definition of organisation. Hope that make sense...


I think I kinda get what you're saying. But I'm saying that I think EVERYTHING has some kind of organization to varying degrees of complexity. 

And to make the tree falling in the woods argument (but lets not start debating that) I think the organization would exist even if no one was around to perceive it. So the opinions of the "2 intelligent living creatures" is of little significance and has no effect of the nature of "the organization".

Rocklee wrote....



> Why does the word 'GOD' always come up in conversations??


I try to avoid using the word "God" because a lot of other connotations come with it. And usually what I'm referring to as "God" is nowhere near what the typical perception of what "God" is. Most people picture some dude with a white beard and robe and that's far from what I'm thinking of. I end up using terms like "the force" but then I sound like some weird Star Wars freak.

----------


## lexico

> According to the conclusions we have reached, there are in the universe what we have called positive tendencies, neutral tendencies, and negative tendencies, all of which are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles of matter.


Okay, sorry about the dead professor. It is only because his idea of the three universal tendencies are based on his interpretation of the physical laws of nature that I made the argument. But even here he is causing confusion by saying "the three tendencies are possible results of the reversible physical laws governing the motion of particles." 

Not all physical laws are about reversible phenomena. Some natural phenomena are indeed irreversible, such as heat flow, such as orderly systems (mechanical, kinetic, few-bodied systems, clearly demarcated division between high-temp. and low-temp.) dissipating into disorderly systems (heat energy, my room getting messy, dissolution of marriage, mental breakdown). Even if it may appear on the surface that certain disorderly systems returning to orderly states, it is only at the cost of hidden work with even greater loss of order that the system appears to be gaining order. 

A good example would be the cooling of a room with an air conditioner. On the surface, it appears that the room is gaining a higher order, and heat energy may appear to be flowing from a low region (the cooled room) to a high region (outside the bldg.). But the system under observation must include not only the room and the outside area, but also the power plant that provides the electrical power to run the air conditioner. For every calory that is pumped out of the room, several calories are wasted at the power plant, to cover the loss in the air conditioning process itself.

It therefore becomes problematic to insist on the three tendencies when many-bodied physical phenomena are known to be irreversible. Of course, he is not you, so please don't take my argument as a personal criticism; but then your idea of the three (two?) tendencies deserve definitions in their own right.

----------


## Maciamo

> Not all physical laws are about reversible phenomena. Some natural phenomena are indeed irreversible, such as heat flow, such as orderly systems (mechanical, kinetic, few-bodied systems, clearly demarcated division between high-temp. and low-temp.) dissipating into disorderly systems (heat energy, my room getting messy, dissolution of marriage, mental breakdown).


Yes, I agree with you here.




> A good example would be the cooling of a room with an air conditioner. On the surface, it appears that the room is gaining a higher order, and heat energy may appear to be flowing from a low region (the cooled room) to a high region (outside the bldg.). But the system under observation must include not only the room and the outside area, but also the power plant that provides the electrical power to run the air conditioner. For every calory that is pumped out of the room, several calories are wasted at the power plant, to cover the loss in the air conditioning process itself.


That's a good point. But justly I think Sidis implied that the total of the positive energy (disorder) and negative energy (order) in the universe could be 50-50, and that when there is more disorder in one part, it is compensated by more order somewhere else. 

I like to think of the universe in terms of + and -, where + represents the "excited energy" (heat, velocity, etc.) and - represents a force of cohesion and attraction. Scientific norms have decided that proton are +, while electrons are -, but it really should be the opposite, from my point of view. Similarily, planets are like protons attracting dust with - energy and gaining mass. But that could even work for sexual life beings. Imagine an ovum and spermatozoa. The ovum is big (like a proton, or planet) and filled with - energy, while the spermatozoa are much smaller and move at a proportionally high speed (like electrons or space dust/asteroids). You can even use this binary system for the Hindu religion, where Vishnu, the protector (order), represents negative energy and Shiva, the destructor (chaos), represents positive energy.

What I found interesting is Sidis' theory was the idea that life was negative energy ("super-order") taken a step further, so that it would behave differently to some physical laws (eg. thermodynamics) than inert matter. If that could be confirmed, then I think there could be some sort of "anti-life", which behaves the same irregular way but with positive energy ("super-chaos"). Just a hypothesis...  :Bluush:

----------


## lexico

> The "mind" of the universe is the order that allows things to come together to form more complex things, like atoms, planets, people, stars, hamsters, etc.


Somewhere in this forum there was a post on nature & the universe being a huge analog computer, doing exacting computations without much thinking. 

It is an interesting idea; something like the legend of the island where the shipwrecked landed, started a fire at which point a giant crab arose and ate all the people. Likewise, the universe could be a giant living being with us dangling onto a spec of dust for dear life. A Star Trek original had one episode where the strange nebular thing turned out to have life, a mind, emotions, and intelligence. 

Your reference to the force is also interesting; the movements of physical objects exhibit exacting quantities such as time, postion, momentum, angular momentum all related and all in a predictable fashion; as if there were a super computer planning out its entire move beforehand.

----------


## lexico

> I guess the only thing I do know for sure is that I know nothing! 
> http://www.discover.com/apr_02/featguth.html
> 
> "This also is more than theory. Observations are consistent with the idea, and calculations totaling up all the matter and all the gravity in the observable universe indicate that the two values seem to precisely counterbalance. All matter plus all gravity equals zero. So the universe could come from nothing because it is, fundamentally, nothing. "
> 
> Since the universe = nothing, so I know nothing....


Den4, incarnation of cosmic wisdom! Could you possibly dig up the broken article ? I can't exactly begin a discussion on nothing (your definition of the universe) on nothing (broken article link). The conclusion of your quote also indicates that you may know all there is to know...

----------


## lexico

> Now I think the problem is your definition of infinte. What you are describing is the same as the infinite to me. There are many kinds of infinite, among others:
> 
> - open infinite (3D infinite extending in all directions)
> 
> - circular infinite (if a 2D line goes in circle, it is infinite because you can count an infinite number of 360 degree turns, although the shape is finite)
> 
> What you are describing is an 3D circular infinite. My conception of the universe is more of an open infinite.


It would help to limit our discussion to definite measures of ininity. "Closed infinity" as you describe it is not infinite. If you are talking about an infinite number of points, then a circle of 1 cm diameter would also have an infinite number of points. But the quantity in length is only pie cms and no more. Likewise the surface of a 2 dimensional closed space (e.g. a globe) has a limited surface area, and is hence finite. A closed 3-dimensional space would have a definite volume which is also finite. So my conception of the universe is finite, not infinite as you would put it.


> That's why I said _if there is such thing as "pure emptiness" anyway_


Then you agree that there is no proof of this boundless emptiness beyond what we can observe ?


> Certainly not. Of all the main Western philosophers, and I can tell you that those with whom I the most at odds are the Platonians, Neo-Platonians and Idealists (eg. Hegel). My conception of the universe is too materialist for that.


Actually Plato and Pythagoras did not believe in infinity. Pythagoras believed that everything could be described by a finite arrangement of the natural numbers. Aristotle was the first to recognize the importance of infinity yet remained at the simple division of potential unfinity (infinite divisibility; similar to your closed infinity; number of points on a line segment) and actual infinity (such as flow of time). Pre-Augustine Christians believed that God and the Universe was nebulously infinite. Augustine adapting the Platonic philosophy to Christianity belived that God and his thoughts were infinite. Thomas Aquinas argued (in a cirlce) that it would have been impossible for God to create anything infinite. And at the end of this rather long history of philosophy I find a parallel between your logic and Thomas Aquinas'.


> Funnily enough, that's what I was thinking to tell you, as you are the one to mix science and philosophy. Science is nothing without observations and experiments. Philosophy is based on logics and reasoning (taking what we know of sciences into account, of course). In other words, science is only the practical and experimentable branch of philosophy. With our primitive knowledge of the universe, how could we give so much credit to science ? There was a time when people thought that the Eart was the centre of the universe, then the sun, the sun our galaxy... Until a few years ago, most people still believed in the theory of the Big Bang.


I am surprised that you claim yourself to be a materialist but not a believer in science. How can that be ? You too must be aware that philosophy without a sense of reality can lose validity quite easily. 

In the mean time I do not mix science and philosophy. And science is not only observations and experiments. Theres is a lot else that is going on. If you look at the history of science, there is a large-scale process that emerges, called "asymptotic knowlege." The scientific process involves much theorizing and cross examination to ever increase numerical accuracy, logical simplicity, and coherence. I believe that science is but a servant to philosophy, being devoid of a unfying world view. Still a powerful servant, so that it is important to critically see what the scientists are doing and saying.

Not being a scientist, I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory bacame outdated. What solid evidence caused its demise, are you aware ?


> No. In a metaphysic level (god, the universe...), this is reserved to religion and philosophy. The difference is that religion makes up nice stories just based on imagination and spiritual belief, while philosophy mostly uses reason and logics (altough the Idealistic current of philosophy is more pantheistic- like, and thus more religious).


As much as you consider religious explanations mythological and groundless, I find certain logical arguments employed by philosophers and mathematicians purely subjective and primitive, not fit for argument of a universal nature. Excatly which philosophy do you propose ?


> What ? I don't believe in anything that cannot be demonstrated by logics. As explained just above, I am not religious but philosophical. Using science (which requires experiment) to explain metaphyical problems is futile.


Any philosophical theory regarding ontological or epistemological matters must regard physical phenomena to avoid misjudgement, and therefore science must be referred to, not necessarily as primary evidence, but to avoid misconceptions which abounds in philosophies disregarding physical and historical reality, observation, and the learning process.


> The difference between you and me is that you attach too much importance of science and not enough to logics. But our scientifical knowledge evolves much faster than logics and must be updated all the time (eg. reading the news today we now suppose that the first bipeds or "humans" were not 3.2m years old but 4m years old thanks to a new discovery - where will we be in 10 or 100 years from now ?). It still cannot answer questions related to the unknown and unobserved such as emptiness or infinity (which can only be grasped by logics with the help of mathematics).


I don't deny that there are many holes in our historical knowledge and understanding. I agree with you in that what is not observed does not mean that it does not exist or that it is not significant. But even philosophy or mathematics are not perfect. They evolve with other knowledges, which includes the science of the physical world.

----------


## Mycernius

> Why does the word 'GOD' always come up in conversations?? I don't believe in a creator...who says the universe was created by 'GOD' ?? Everytime a person can't come up with a solution or doesn't understand something it's the work of 'GOD'...give me a break please


I know where you are coming from, but Brooker seem to implying not a god as in a religious God, but an intended or unintended designer of the universe. Maybe the universe is driven to expand and create life and planets the same way a plant is. There is no thought behind a plants life it just does what it does. Nature takes it course and that might be the underlying force of the universe. God is an invention of Man to explain things he cannot do himself. If you follow the religious side of the arguement you still end up at the same basic question: who created God? There must be a designer behind it. If Gods do exist they are a natural part of the universe and subject to it's laws. The arguement that God is timeless is usually quoted by those who don't question. As a non-believer I am put under pressure to explain the universe without a god. Why don't the religious have to do the same thing, without refering to a book 3000 years old? Man only advances by questioning the world around him. If he didn't we would still be sat in cave, afraid of thunder and eating raw meat.

----------


## lexico

> But I would say a chrystal is "designed" too. What is the difference really between an "artifact" and a "natural object"? If humans are created by nature, and building are created by humans, how can buildings be unnatural? How can something natural create something unnatural? I think we only see it that way because WE created it. But if a beaver creates a dam, no one calls that unnatural. When we create a building, we're taking resources found in nature and forming them into something we find useful. The beaver does the same thing. And I don't think the fact that what we've created is more "advanced" than what the beaver has created makes any difference.


Of course the distinction between a natural object and an artifact was based on human standards. If we wanted to get technical, I could also quote the manufactured zircon and even argue zircons as counterexamples against my own logic.

The point is that artificiality aside, levels of chaos, regularity (predictability) and higher-order chaos (playfulness) can be defined and thus measured numerically. (I believe they do that in information science, although I know very little about it.  :Blush:  ) So there's no big mystery here, but delineating objects in the universe into the three classes of 1) chaotic order, 2) regular order, and 3) regular and creative order (life, language, literature, art, music, architecture, history, science, film, libraries, the forum, etc.).


> But without order, that could never happen. The only leap I'm making is attributing that order to "the force". Without that order (without "the force") I don't believe anything could ever form, just random stuff floating around, bouncing off each other, never forming into anything.


This paragraph calls for three remarks.
1. The absolute mystery of the force (=basic, simple physical laws of nature) is undeniable, I agree
2. Attributing supranatural power(s) (e.g. life force, different laws governing life forms) in addition to the simple, basic, known laws of nature isn't really necessary as you say.
3. Randomness and natural selection at the chemical level should be sufficiient to explain the generation of the first life forms on earth, and possibly on other planets with life-fostering conditions.


> Yes, but WHY? What makes that happen? Mother nature? Science? The force? I think they're all the same. My beliefs are all about the unification of everything.


As I said above, anyone with a clear mind sould agree that the cause of the force(s) of nature is indeed the greatest mystery that science itself cannot explain. Or perhaps a super science of the future might come up with a brilliant theory; I really don't know.


> I think it takes a much bigger leap of faith to think that all of that would just happen on it's own. Without order and the universe's WILL (which I also attribute to "the force") to form into something more complex, that would never have happened.


Although I;m being repetitive let me just say simple physical laws should suffice. If the scientists didn't get it across how it could be so by now, they've been wasting research+teaching resources without clear thinking, that's all.

----------


## Maciamo

> Then you agree that there is no proof of this boundless emptiness beyond what we can observe ?


I didn't deny it. I think the difference between your conception of finite universe and mine of infinite universe is just a matter of wording and definitions.




> Actually Plato and Pythagoras did not believe in infinity. Pythagoras believed that everything could be described by a finite arrangement of the natural numbers. Aristotle was the first to recognize the importance of infinity yet remained at the simple division of potential unfinity (infinite divisibility; similar to your closed infinity; number of points on a line segment) and actual infinity (such as flow of time). Pre-Augustine Christians believed that God and the Universe was nebulously infinite. Augustine adapting the Platonic philosophy to Christianity belived that God and his thoughts were infinite. Thomas Aquinas argued (in a cirlce) that it would have been impossible for God to create anything infinite. And at the end of this rather long history of philosophy I find a parallel between your logic and Thomas Aquinas'.


I can't understand what you are trying to say. You compare me to Plato and Thomas Aquinas, although they are the one to deny the idea of an infinite universe, while I believe in an infinite universe. That's just the opposite ! 




> I am surprised that you claim yourself to be a materialist but not a believer in science. How can that be ? You too must be aware that philosophy without a sense of reality can lose validity quite easily.


Maybe I did not express myself clearly. I never said I did not believe in science. I have always been very scientific (more than literary or artistic). But like you I believe that _"science but a servant to philosophy, being devoid of a unfying world view"_. 




> Not being a scientist, I wasn't aware that the Big Bang theory became outdated. What solid evidence caused its demise, are you aware ?


several studies have shown that some parts of the universe were older than the Big Bang. Others showed that some galaxies evolved in different directions than that of the universe after the Big Bang, leading some people to think that there could have been several Big Bangs. That's for science. Now many scientists and philosophers believe that a Big Bang could just be one major explosion, but not the start of the universe, and certainly not the start of "reality". It doesn't make sense if there are more than one Big Bangs.




> As much as you consider religious explanations mythological and groundless, I find certain logical arguments employed by philosophers and mathematicians purely subjective and primitive, not fit for argument of a universal nature.


I agree. Greek philosphers were mostly primitive, because after all they didn't have much knowledge 2500 years ago. As for the subjectiveness, there are many pseudo-philosophers. I personally disliked those philosophers who try to "reconcile" science/logics and religion, like Thomas Aquinas, or the spiritual philosophers like Hegel. I certainly do not agree with _most_  philosophers (how could I when so many have incompatible ideas ?). And as you said it so well : _"But even philosophy or mathematics are not perfect. They evolve with other knowledges, which includes the science of the physical world"._

----------


## Rich303

Going off at a slight tangent;
I heard that 2 thirds of the universe is older than us (2 billion years as an example)
i.e. the stars and planets formed earlier,so evolution is at a more advanced stage.

2 billion years ago,the most advanced lifeform on Earth was a primitive worm.

Apparently, for us to comprehend something 2 billion years in advance of us might be the same as the primitive worm trying to comprehend humans.
Aliens might not be little green men after all.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Life wasn't even as complicated as a worm 2 billion years ago - it was not until 600 million year ago that multi-cellular life evolved - so it would be more like an amoeba trying to comprehend us!

I think the universe is infinite and that nothing exists outside it. If this is difficult to comprehend it is because our brains are not sophisicated enough, not because it is not possible. Actually, I believe we live in a multiverse made up of an infinite number of infinite universes.

----------


## Void

i really doubt that 'comprehend' is suitable for ameba.... therefore, we might not be that hopeless after all ;o)

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Which is exactly the point Rich was making - trying to imagine what life will be like in 2 billion years time is as much use as trying to imagine an amoeba comprehending us! Mind you, I don't agree with that, because I don't believe that evolution is necessarily progressive.

----------


## Void

ameba just can`t comprehend! it has no brain with numerous cells and even greater number of interactions among them. Cultural and social stereotypes do limit our mind, but not always. And if it happens for humans to find out that there is another life-form in the universe some of them (wouldn`t say for the whole humanity) will be able to step over bounaries of mind, reason and upbrinning. 
We are not comparable with worms and amebas on that level, we have the same 'bricks' in DNA, use carbon to constract many elements, produce 'wastes', and have common mechanism for simple nurvous reactions.... but that`s all similarity

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Cultural and social stereotypes do limit our mind, but not always. And if it happens for humans to find out that there is another life-form in the universe some of them (wouldn`t say for the whole humanity) will be able to step over bounaries of mind, reason and upbrinning.


But in an infinite universe there might be lifeforms that are so different from us that our limited experience does not allow us to recognise them as life, no matter how open-minded we are. There have been Sci Fi stories based on that idea.

----------


## Void

Sci-fi stories of various kinds, yeah. There also can be arguement that we are uncapble of understanding our human cultures, what to think then about outer world? If another lifeform will be willing to make contact sooner or later we`ll breach some differences (maybe, some already did) I am not speking about whole population of Earth.
Besides, since we share same universe, probably the differense wan`t be too deep

----------


## Void

heh, funny "Ozymandias" by Sheckley (sp?) poped up in my mind =)))))))))))

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> Besides, since we share same universe, probably the differense wan`t be too deep


Good point, as we will share the same laws of physics, same chemical elements etc. 




> heh, funny "Ozymandias" by Sheckley (sp?) poped up in my mind =)))))))))))


That's one of my favourite poems: "boundless and bare the lone and level sands stretch far away". I just loooove that alliteration!  :Love:

----------


## Void

no-no, i am not about poem by Percy, but sci-fi story by Robert Sheckley (i think that was his story), let me search
-------------

sorry, maybe i`m mixing smth up.Can`t find any. It`s short story about deserted planed whose previous inhabitants made a great storage place of different valuable staff of various civilizations. They put a robot to guard it and prevent from logical (intelligent) beings get staff away. Asking questions robot distinguished whether the being was logical and intelligent or not...

--------
let`s see if i`ll find the author and the name of the story  :Poh:

----------


## Pachipro

With our very limited human brain capacity who is to say what is infinite and what is finite? Think of the phrase I was taught in Catholic school, "God always was and always will be." Try to comprehend that in your mind. It's impossible. It'll make you crazy much the same way when someone says that the universise is infinite. You cannot comprehend it.

Take a carp in a glass pond next to the Pacific ocean (his space) for example. He lives in a small two dimensional world and he knows his boundries. Take him from his pond and throw him in the Pacific ocean (space). Now, considering he could live, he would think he was thrown into 'space' and it would be infinite as, in his lifetime, he would never reach the 'end.' He could swim forever. After a couple of years, take him out of the ocean and put him back in his pond and he would tell his fellow carp that space was infinite as he never saw the end.

We humans, on the other hand, know that the ocean is limited, but with our advanced lifetimes and technology over carp they would never know the truth unless they advanced to our level.

The same holds true for space and the universe. With our limited lifetimes and technology, who is to know whether there is an end to the universe or not? Who is to say that advanced beings, only 10,000 years ahead of us for example, do not know the boundaries of the universe with their faster than light travel or their ability to bend space and time?

I voted for infinite as that is what I presently believe based on our limited existance and technology. But for all I know the universe could be as finite as the universe of a carp in a pond.

----------


## Rich303

> Mind you, I don't agree with that, because I don't believe that evolution is necessarily progressive.


That's an interesting point. I often assume (or hope) that humans will progress a lot further, but maybe we won't

Also,I suppose there is the question of whether the evolution of life on Earth(or anywhere else)could progress far enough before it is wiped out (by itself,a natural disaster or cosmic event),and 'reset'. E.g the dinosaurs.
Who knows what life on Earth would be like if dinosaurs had been able to keep evolving.
I think eventually the human race will have to leave this planet,if we survive long enough to develop the technology to do it.

P.S sorry for my worm/amoeba mix-up - I'm a bit out of my depth here, sorry to get off topic...

----------


## Tsuyoiko

> no-no, i am not about poem by Percy, but sci-fi story by Robert Sheckley (i think that was his story), let me search


Sorry Void, I thought you just got Shelley's name mixed up. I have never heard of Sheckley.




> P.S sorry for my worm/amoeba mix-up - I'm a bit out of my depth here, sorry to get off topic...


I only know about it because I am a nerd and evolution is one of my favourite subjects - so you don't have to apologise! I like Stephen Jay Gould's theories of evolution. One of his arguments is the 'wall theory'. He suggests that the only reason creatures have become more complex is because in the beginning that is the only way evolution could go - from a wall of maximum simplicity outwards into complexity. Now that life is complex it could evolve either way. Natural selection may favour simplicity in some cases - like the simplified internal organs in the Martians from War of the Worlds. (Great book!)

----------


## Rich303

:Bluush:  


> I only know about it because I am a nerd and evolution is one of my favourite subjects - so you don't have to apologise! I like Stephen Jay Gould's theories of evolution. One of his arguments is the 'wall theory'. He suggests that the only reason creatures have become more complex is because in the beginning that is the only way evolution could go - from a wall of maximum simplicity outwards into complexity. Now that life is complex it could evolve either way. Natural selection may favour simplicity in some cases - like the simplified internal organs in the Martians from War of the Worlds. (Great book!)


Your husband is a lucky man!
Not many ladies I know are interested in this sort of thing.

I hope to one day day meet a girl who appreciates my total lack of interest in Football!

----------


## Tsuyoiko

:Blush:  Wow! I hate football too!

----------


## hakui

Infinite is an interesting concept. Is there anyone who can understand it ? 
 :Sou ka:

----------


## lexico

> Infinite is an interesting concept. Is there anyone who can understand it ?


Hmm. Interesting question Hakui.
I have heard many interesting legends about 'infinity.' First let me begin with the etymology of in-fin-it-y from M-W.

infinity (14c) n. < infinite (14c) adj. ME infinit < MF infinit < L infinitus: in+finitus 'finite'

finite (15c) adj. < ME finit < L finitus: pp of L finire 'to finish'

1a. having definite or definable limits <~ no. of possibiities>
1b. having a limited nature of existence <~ beings>
2. completely determinable in theory in theory or in fact by counting, measurement, or thought <the ~ velocity of light>
3a. less than an arbitrary positive integer and greater than the negative of that integer
3b. having a finite number of elements <a ~ set>
4. of, relating to, or being a verb or verb form that can function as a predicate or as the initial element of one and that is limited (as in tense, person, and number)

According to above definitions and the usage in mathematical/scientific contexts, there appears to be two defnitely distinquishable senses in which the notion of 'infinity' can be used.

1. counting: "There are an infinite number of natural numbers." Mathematically speaking, for whatever big natural number n one can propose, another can always beat that number by counter offering n + 1. So the statement would be identical to "There is no greatest number in natural numbers." or "That there are a finite number of natural numbers is false."

2. measurement: "The maximum value in a set of all possible natural numbers is infinite." Mathematically the argument would follow a similar pattern; but this time counting is not an issue. For any given big natural number, its magnitude can always be exceeded by the magnitude of another natural number."

A notable case where a confusion of the two have caused an interesting paradox in logic is Zeno's Paradox in which Hercules and the tortoise have a racing match of say 5 stadia, or 1,000 m; the tortoise being hard working but naturally slow, say 1/10 as fast as Hercules, is given a head start of 900 m. Let us say we take measurments every time Hercules catches up to the previous position of the tortoise.

Hercules: 0.....900..990..999....on & on
Tortoise: 900..990..999..999.9..on & on

Zeno's Paradox says, "No matter how hard Hercules runs, he can never outrun the tortoise. As can be seen in the illustration, Hercules will always be a little behind the tortoise."

What is wrong with Zeno's argument ? What can be said about infinity from this example ?

----------


## Tsuyoiko

There is not 'Hercules' race' and 'Tortoise's race', but 'Hercules v Tortoise'. Look at it this way and it will be a tie (given your numbers). In infinity there is no such thing as 'remaining distance', and half of infinity is infinity.

The interesting paradox I see about infinity is that even though we know we can never reach it we still try to get closer. There is such a thing as 'biggest useful number' - Graham's number. It is so big that even if all the material in the universe were converted into pen and ink it still could not be written down in usual notation - they had to make up a new notation for it. My favourite lecturer at university said that he got phone calls every time someone found a new prime number. This seemed significant to the (non-mathematician) caller, but not to Dr Bedford, who knows that there are an infinite number of primes.

----------


## den4

In the end, people believe what they want to believe in.
I believe that you all know more than I do. I also believe that topics like these are best left for people with the time to think about these topics...
I think there are infinite universes outside our own, and each of them is wondering what size their own universe is, except for universe #9,839,049 because they are content with their knowledge that their universe is only the size of an 18 hole golf course, so they don't worry about other trivialities that concern the other folks elsewhere, even if the grass tends to be greener in universe #101.
I also think Lexico-sama thinks too highly about my opinion...and there lies the flaw in Lexico-sama's thinking....

 :Laughing:

----------


## lexico

I must again bow my head in reverence, den4-sama, for your sophisticated criticism that not only contirubutes to original thinking, but also tickles my primal armpit of humour to the point of cerebral seizure, esp. grateful for pointing out my flaws here, here, and here.

As for my intention of beginning the thread, I realize that I have made you wonder what a retarded mind could have asked the possibly unanswerable question, 'is the universe (in)finite.' To this initial response of perplexity, nausea, and repulsion, I am sincerely pleased to see you overcome the negative emotions, perhaps stemming from your jealousy of me having so much time on my hands to enjoy 24 hr foruming, do correct me if I am wrong, and to post one of the most wonderful posts the thread has gotten since its birth.

As Mars Man aptly pointed out in "The age of conventional farming and conventional religion," there is a wild mental illness that has struck many since, to my understanding, the dropping of fat man 60 yrs and 6 days, 6 hours ago: SCIENTISM. It claims to be scientific, but it's not. It is unscientific in that it's primary force comes not from sound reasoning that is a good set of examining, questioning, analysing, and recursively interpretating natural phenomena, but in that it is primarily based on the fear and worshiping of the destructive force of the a-bomb. Without ever thinking about what classical and modern relativity and quantum effect truly means in the scientific and linguistic senses of the words, great overpowering fear and worshiping of the a-bomb and its progenitating cousins the scientific professionals...(dangling, later)

It could be said that this thread is to address this problem: the epidemic of the a-bomb worshipping madness. And I am glad to announce that you, den4-sama, are completely free of the mad mental illness !  :Cool:

----------


## den4

And here I was wondering all along if the flying spag monster was consuming the other universes all this time....it was all just a matter of Scientism to blame for the whole mess...somebody needs to get the Almight Fork to him, I guess....and skewer the irrational to make sure that any remotely controlled flying spag monsters are eliminated...
 :Doubt: 
 :Laughing:

----------


## cicatriz esp

The universe is usually defined as "anything that is matter or affects matter". Thus, the "nothing" outside of the (expanding) universe is not the universe, as it is neither of those things.

I've found that people usually have a harder time wrapping their heads around the concept of nothing than the concept of infinity. It is tough to grasp.

----------


## Tsuyoiko

In set theory you can have different degrees of infinity. For example, there is an infinite number of prime numbers, but they are only a subset of the infinite set of integers, which itself is a subset of the real numbers. So sometimes there is an infinite number that's 'smaller' than some other infinite number (sort of).  :Sou ka:

----------


## den4

There could also be an infinite numbers of Tsuyoikos in the infinite number of universes explaining an infinite number of things an infinite number of times to a single know-it-nothing den4 in those infinite number of universes, all exasperated at the end by what little a den4 knows...

----------


## Tsuyoiko

But think of it this way den4 - if there are an infinite number of me in an infinite number of universes and only one of you, you must really be an infinite being to spread yourself over all those universes. Wow. Cosmic.  :Sou ka:

----------


## den4

No, it's not like peanut butter or vegemite that you spread across the multiverse, but a single non-infinite den4 that gets punched through multiple universes everytime a particular Tsuyoiko gets tired of explaining things to the den4 at that particular time and kicks the den4 out of that universe into the next...kind of like you probably presently are feeling right now....

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Wow, I feel I must apologise for all my alternate selves.  :Sorry:  We have treated you very badly. You must be feeling very dizzy, no wonder you are always confused.  :Mad:  Please accept our humblest apologies.  :Gomen:  You deserve our utmost respect for your ability to traverse all those infinities in your singular self - even if we did push you.  :Sorry:

----------


## den4

yes, being a singularity does have its problems.....  :Laughing:

----------


## lexico

> I don't believe that evolution is necessarily progressive.


I have read that the less advanced (either extinct, marginalised, or fully integrated into modern humanity) Neaderthals had bigger brains than us. Perhaps their brains were oversized for their current needs, and hence became burdensome ? They had burial rites, and gave flowers and red pigment for the dead, so perhaps they were overly soft and emotional to be fit for survival in a competitive world with the more fierce, less emotional, and methodically murderous Cromagnon's ? In that sense bigger is not necessarily better; environment will decide what is better, and sometimes smaller can be an advantage. Of course what you mean by progress can also be relative.

----------


## lexico

> In set theory you can have different degrees of infinity. For example, there is an infinite number of prime numbers, but they are only a subset of the infinite set of integers, which itself is a subset of the real numbers. So sometimes there is an infinite number that's 'smaller' than some other infinite number (sort of).


Whatever group of numbers that can set to correspond 1-to-1 with natural numbers are all considered infinite to the 0-th degree, namely aleph-0. There's supposed to be infities of higher orders; alep-1, alep-2, ..., aleph-infinity (?).


> Infinite is an interesting concept. Is there anyone who can understand it ?


Going back to Hakui's question. If infinity is defined by natural numbers as an ordinal number group, a measure of the universe as infinite would be of a higher ordered-infinity by having irrational numbers (aleph-1 ?).

What is really interesting and paradoxical about infinity as a measure would be that an infite number of dots can be confined into a finite region of space. A medieval zen-type riddle went, "How many angels can stand on the point of a needle ?" We could say, if one angel could be shrunk into a dot, an infinite number of angels can stand on the pin point. These two infities must be differentiated. Hence Zeno's paradox becomes a play of words that share the same spelling. A finite space can have infinite points within-- going in circles forever cannot be evidence of an infinite universe.

----------


## Void

> yes, being a singularity does have its problems.....


and how will you deal with this one:

being pushed from one Tsuyoiko to another and absorbing all their explanations you`ll gain the enormous weight of information, but being a singular and limited in size beinfg (sorry for such tautology) means that to keep all this information you`ll have to increase your own density...
remember what happend to that singularity which supposed to be the cause of us all?
 :Laughing:   :Laughing:

----------


## den4

being pushed from one Tsuyoiko to another does not necessarily mean a den4 absorbs all their explanation...like some people shed their manners when they enter or leave a doorway to the house, a den4 has been known to lose all knowledge gained from one universe to another...and thus the problems of not knowing anything remains...or is it not remembering anything...the end result is the same, however...so that is a possible answer, void-san....but not necessarily the only or correct one...  :Laughing:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

I wish all we Tsuyoikos could feel bad about what we have done to you Den4, but as there are an infinite number of us we are bound to feel an infinity of emotions. So some of us enjoy pushing you around. Not me. The Tsuyoiko in this universe is infinitely sorry.  :Sorry:

----------


## Void

> being pushed from one Tsuyoiko to another does not necessarily mean a den4 absorbs all their explanation...[...] den4 has been known to lose all knowledge gained from one universe to another...and thus the problems of not knowing anything remains...or is it not remembering anything...


well, den4-sama, who says that you gain knowledge - you gain information
 :Evil:  
in case of not remembering anything
1) if you forget *everything* do you still exist?
2) what if you forget that you know nothing...does it mean then that your sig isn`t true anymore  :Doubt:

----------


## smurf

I have thought about this question many times and I still have no answer. If I really take the time to think about it I usally get a headache.  :Giggle:

----------


## den4

> well, den4-sama, who says that you gain knowledge - you gain information
>  
> in case of not remembering anything
> 1) if you forget *everything* do you still exist?
> 2) what if you forget that you know nothing...does it mean then that your sig isn`t true anymore


who, indeed, does say that den4 gains knowledge, or information  :Doubt: 
not I.
1) existence and forgetting everything seems to be mutually exclusive, but since each universe is and can be different or the same or the inverse of the current one and vice versa, that statement can also be false, although nothing has been proven. Therefore it shall remain a theory, especially for the Kansas school board as they figure out what to do with the Flying Spag Monster (FSM).

2) if forgetting about knowing nothing leads to knowing something, then it is possible the sig is no longer true. if forgetting knowing nothing leads to still knowing nothing, then the sig can still be true. if the if statement is filled with nonsense or somesense or moresense or the like, then what comes out can be more of the same.

these matters are probably best left to the brain mush eating sea squirts of the universe....

but in the void, perhaps they make better sense...  :Doubt: 

i don't know the answer, however...  :Laughing:

----------


## Void

> i don't know the answer, however...


well, who does?.. but we can speculate  :Laughing: 

den4-sama indeed gains some information - Tsuyoiko`s pushes (gomen-gomen, Tsuyoiko-san, no offence) give him some acceleration and make him move at certain direction. So, the particular state of den4-sama changes, but he might not be unaware of all the processes within himself.

another set of questions:
1) does deh4-sama distinguish different Tsuyoikos and different universes?
2) does den4-some know what singularity is?
3) if #2 is "no", then why does den4-sama say _"yes, being a singularity 
does have its problems..... "_?
4) how can void can make any sense?
5) how can void have any sense?
 :Laughing:

----------


## den4

1. deh4 must be a corrupted carbon copy of den4, so it may not distinguish the differences in the different universes...you'll have to ask deh4, since I do not know this entity.
2. came across this definition for singularity:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&h...ne:singularity
where in the top link:
http://wordnet.princeton.edu/perl/webwn?s=singularity
we get:
Noun

* S: (n) singularity, uniqueness (the quality of being one of a kind) "that singularity distinguished him from all his companions"
* S: (n) singularity (strangeness by virtue of being remarkable or unusual)

seems like both sort of fit..so, yes...den4 does understand what singularity is. Knowing is another matter, however....
4. void needs to decide for voidself what makes or does not make sense for void.
5. void is using void as a name so void must have some sense to decide that name, so there is some sense, but what those senses are I do not know...
 :Doubt:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Here are two more definitions of 'singularity':
1. A point in space-time at which gravitational forces cause matter to have infinite density and infinitesimal volume, and space and time to become infinitely distorted.
2. A point at which the derivative does not exist for a given function but every neighborhood of which contains points for which the derivative exists.

No wonder you're confused  :Mad:  

As for Void - well she's just the stuff that fills in the gaps  :Laughing:

----------


## Mamoru-kun

And what if the universe was finite? I mean, couldn't we imagine that what we call "universe" (all existing mass and energy) has limits? Not physical limits (something we could touch), but some kind of limit behind which there is no existence (I haven't said there is nothing, or emptiness. Just that speaking of something behind that limit would have no sense). What if, when the Big Bang happened from the original singularity, it created "its" own space and time? By essence, "behind it" would have no meaning, as it would be everything, without exception. In that condition, even the "where the Big Bang took place?" would have no meaning.

I personally don't believe of any supra-being or so-hidden God somewhere, but what I am deeply sure is that there is some part of the Reality that we cannot reach (or even think about), because we belong to this universe. If I may compare, I would say that we are like a baby in the center in a huge room, surrounded by a unique wall without windows or doors. Steps by steps, eventually we will arrive at a point where we'll understand the presence of the wall (perhaps even see it?), but we have nothing (and, as I believe, will never have) to cross or see through that wall.

So in short, I believe that the universe is finite, but not "in" something bigger. And don't ask, I am absolutely unable to prove anything in what I said. To tell the truth, I'm not even sure to deeply understand what is the "space" and "time", I mean, in a more global scheme...  :Wink:

----------


## Mycernius

There is one easy answer to the original question: 
Q- Universe: How big?
A- Bleedin' Huge
Nice, simple and concise  :Oops:

----------


## Tsuyoiko

Nice one Mike, very Douglas Adams!

----------


## Void

> 1. deh4 must be a corrupted carbon copy of den4, so it may not distinguish 
> the differences in the different universes...you'll have to ask deh4, since I do not know this entity.


carbone?  :Doubt:  he claimed to be binary code... i was cheated? can i readress
it to non-copy and, maybe, non-carbon den4-sama?  :Laughing: 

well, still #3 is left unanswered, how den4-sama can say (type)
"yes, being a singularity does have its problems..... "?

and taking into account Tsuyoiko`s definitions return to #2 rewording it

does den4-sama understand what singularity is?




> As for Void - well she's just the stuff that fills in the gaps


great! ;o)
Can the senses make any sense? even in the gaps?
aha, and one more - what is sense?  :Evil:

----------


## den4

seems like singularity has many meanings...I chose the one previously mentioned.
so being a singularity, it can have its problems....
GAP is a department store now found in the Marui buildings in some areas...and since what is in the GAP are clothing stuff, that is what fills the gaps...
clothing styles do have a type of sense, known as fashion...without some sense of fashion, clothing would not be sold, so yes, there are senses even in gaps...

this should answer most of void's questions  :Laughing:

----------


## Void

GAP - government aircraft plant, grant aid program, guided antitank projectile, gun aiming point  :Laughing: 
how many senses and stuffings it all might have

but, alas, unlike you, den4-sama, i can`t understand. I said it once - only see, feel and act  :Laughing:

----------


## den4

you should reserve the sama for people like Frank or others who know what they are talking about...  :Laughing:

----------


## Void

i should decide it for voidself, den4-sama  :Laughing:   :Evil:

----------


## den4

:Sad:  all them -sama suffixes going to waste on a den4  :Sad: 
the great sadness of the universe....no matter how big the universe is, there is no greater crime than a -sama wasted...  :Laughing:

----------


## Void

then don`t waste one, den4-sama  :Laughing:  ;o)

----------


## lexico

Master Laozi Vq lightens your sorrow, dear den4-sama.  :Biggrin: 

Vq chapter 5: Vnsm, ݕ䍋; lsm, ȕS䍋. Heaven is without mercy, it will take anything to make a sacrificial grass-dog effigy; the sage-king is not benevolent, taking any person to make a sacrificial grass-dog effigy to be dumped and kicked around before it is burned.

Vq chapter 79: Ve, oPl. The dao of Heaven lacks nepotism, always bestowing kindness to any man.

Therefore if people call you sama, do not fight it; just let them and turn them into a sacrificial grass-dog effigy.  :Clap: 

Vq chapter 1: , 햼. As for a name, if it can be used for naming something anew, it is not one that has been has been used for naming before. , VnVn. L, ݕV. The state of lacking a name is the time when heaven and earth was in the womb; the state of having a name is the time when the ten thousand objects were born and being nursed. 

Therefore if people give you a name, do not fight it; just let them and collect birthday presents for yourself, or a pacifier.  :Clap: 

Master Bruce Lee also said, "Be like running water," just flow with the wind, free as the wind, that is the way, you should be ~  :Wavey:

----------


## den4

Did Master Lee actually say be like Running Water? Which tribe of Native Americans is Running Water from  :Doubt:  We need to find this Running Water to see what Master Lee saw in him or her. Perhaps Flow with the Wind or Free as the Wind may be the buddies of Running Water. Maybe that's why I never know anything is because I just don't know who these people are....  :Doubt: 
Thank you, Lexico-sama for enlightening me on why I know nothing...  :Embarrassment:

----------


## duff_o_josh

creation and destruction happen all the time, its a cycle that has no end, once something is created it dies. creation its self is a mystery. we cant put a begining on something with no end. scientists who try and say the universe is such and such years old are just plugging in numbers based off of man made equations. i believe it is infinite, weather it be in a physical state or any other dimension that could exsist.

----------


## acquiredtarget

> The universe is expanding, but at a point it will stop and the reverse process will happen.So it's not infinite...I don't think infinite exists in space


That's exactly what I was thinking.  :Cool:

----------


## den4

what happens when it does exist?  :Doubt:

----------


## lexico

Are you referring to the either..or statement of duff_o_josh ?
Are you demanding the consequences of an exclusive or, or XOR in your field ?

If the answer is yes, (to the second possibility) then "duff_o_josh is saying that (among other things) the universe in not in this world."

If not, then, there are at least two universes existing in parallel. That would make the word "uni-verse" an oxymoron, demanding a correction of it as "di-verse, bi-verse, or multi-verse."

If your question is not a lexical one, but a semantic one, then I would say, wel... I'll wait until duff_o_josh has a chance to see your question.  :Blush:

----------


## den4

what happens if duff doesn't see the question?  :Embarrassment:   :Doubt:

----------


## Void

what happens if den4-sama will get the answer?  :Laughing:

----------


## mrikë

I believe in the oscillating Universe.

----------


## LeBrok

I think universe is finite in space. If it were infinite the forces would be equal everywhere, and it wouldn't expend. It wouldn't contract either.
But if we add time dimension, and if the universe expends forever, then universe might be infinite in 4th dimension.

----------


## mrikë

Seeing that we owe the belief on an expanding universe to Hubble's observations, and the Dopler effect, one cannot as of yet argue with that. However, one is led to believe that matter/energy in itself only transcends and does not tend to cease existing (because of dark matter and dark energy we are handicapped to observe everything, therefore we can only attach our reasoning and beliefs, that might after all be incorrect). Because it is yet unobservable whether the Universe is oriented towards a Big Crunch (if this were to be the case, one see the color of radiation from distant galaxies as blue, not red), then we are forced to assume the Universe is expanding. But to what? The most distant observable galaxies in their evolution of forming do not resemble "old galaxies" (as we assume they would be), they seem quite regular ones. In itself space always exists, it is not an attribute of matter, matter rather changes its pattern. So in essence space is infinite, time is an attribute of matter, and if there is a constant matter/energy on the Universe it could expand infinitely, therefore be infinite. This is only assuming there is not somewhere a constant generator of matter/energy. Regardless of all of these, I still think that the evolution of the Universe should in itself consist of a collapse and a regeneration, but an infinite one.

----------


## LeBrok

> then we are forced to assume the Universe is expanding. But to what?


There is a total nothing beyond our universe. Our space, the ether, is something, though perceived so empty. I visualize our space as a fabric made of strings. They are interconnected at the ends with other strings. This fabric of space is vast as cosmos but it has edges, beyond that there is no space, no matter, no energy, no time. We could not physically exist outside of our space. If there was something beyond our cosmos we would encounter resistance and our universe couldn’t expend. I wonder what happens to a star that reaches the end of space. Does it bounce back or splashes like a tomato on the wall, lol. 
There is some similarity of expending space to word processor program. It always starts with one blank page. You cannot write wherever on the page but only at the beginning of page. There is room for one character and cursor. But if you use space button, depress it, it will start creating a space. When you hold it all the time, it will create space on this page, then next page will popup, and so on. Now you can write anywhere you want in places behind cursor that created space. If you keep writing more pages will be generated. Now you have 4 pages, that’s your writing universe. What’s beyond it? Nothing, you have your 4 pages, that’s all there is. But if you continue using space or any characters, the space will expend to 5 pages, 10,…to infinity and beyond, lol.
We are located somewhere in the middle of universe, at least far enough from edges that we can’t see the end of space. It could mean also that space might be round, like a surface of an expending balloon. Little ant can walk around it and never find the end. Possibly space is like a toroid, it looks like a doughnut with a hole in a middle.





> In itself space always exists, it is not an attribute of matter, matter rather changes its pattern.


As I mentioned above, I see space as a fabric of interlinked strings. They are not stiff rods, they are more like elastic springs. They bend like vaulter’s pole, and if more energy is applied it can band more to create a loop, and possibly coil up like a spring. Now if we introduce a lot of energy in small place of space, many strings will coil up, sort of collapse into a small nugget. Some of these strings collapse into a stable, balanced form that we call matter. Therefore in my mind, matter is nothing more than many densely collapsed strings of space, with help of lot of energy. 
Under certain conditions strings will become unstable, matter will annihilate releasing all the energy used in collapsing it, and will leave behind unfolded space, fabric of space.

Interesting is how matter moves through space. Imagine that space is static, the strings don’t move much, they don’t change their positions. Matter is not separated from space. The strings that build matter are still interconnected with strings in surrounding space. It actually stretches surrounding strings, and condenses them around itself, creating bent space around it, that we call gravity.
So how matter can move without ripping the space, and the connected with it strings? It doesn’t move like a car through the air, cutting it and making a wind. Our little nugget of matter collapses new strings on itself in directions it moves, and unfolds them in opposite direction. The space doesn’t move, the mater moves more like wave of energy, condensing the space into matter, and unfolding it behind into space. 
Do you remember old screensaver called the lens effect? The moving lens was nothing much but a circular distortion, in shape of a lens, and only this distortion was moving through the screen.
That’s basically how I see mater and space, and how mater moves through it.

----------


## Dagne

and in addition there may well be an infinitive number of parallel universes ...

----------


## LeBrok

There is no reason why not.
Unless we are so special that the universe was built only for us...
... with 500 billion stars in our galaxy, and about trillion galaxies around us with billion of billions of billions of planets.

----------


## Dagne

and even more - multidimentional universes with different laws of physics from ours... 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nS734OF1PiI

----------


## cycle

The must be a point where nothing exists. This would be the end of the universe. If there are no atoms then nothing exists to be called a universe.
Or perhaps not. Its too deep a subject to grasp.
But then again if the universe is infinite. I can point in any direction and I am pointing to infinity. This makes me the centre of the universe.

----------


## LeBrok

No, no, I'm the center!

----------


## ACourvoisier

Well.. such a good question. I think the question here is about "our" Universe ?

I'm not sure what would be the dimension of "volume times mass", maybe were there the question of "volume times (Mass/Volume)" ?

According to the known approximation about the Universe, the majority of the astrophysicists are about to tell that the time (age) of the Universe is about**: 15 x 10^9 years.

Well, one thing done.

Now, defining literally the word "Universe", this understand all "that we know"; by this way: also a so light thing as Light/photons.

So for the radius (I am however not meaning here that the Universe would be spheric), as Einstein thought that Light couldn't be overtook (in celerity) - and now the reader guess where this purpose is going - :

the radius of our Universe would be about time x celerity :

(15 x 10^9 years) x (about 300'000 km/s),
and knowing that a year is (365 days x 24 hour/day x 3600 s/hour ), so 31'536'000 s:

this would be about**:
(4,7304 x 10^17 s) x c, ("c" for the celerity approximated to 300'000 km/s), so:

1,41912 x 10^23 km,
and "km" seem to be not relevant unity for Universe, so this would re-lead us to the first line above, knowing:
15x 10^9 Light-Years.



About different questions of density of the Universe, I don't know anything, or only that some measures are telling the astrophysicists about "a density around 1", and which one is.. ..critical for the scenarios of possibles evolutions of the Universe (knowing: eternal expansion / regression to a Big Crunch / incredible stagnation in case of a density of exactly "1".

P.S.:
Due to esoteric observations related to the unknown Black Energy, they are most thinking about an accelerated expansion.

N.B.:
A few weeks ago (as the atomic model of Bohr was overtaken in the 20's of 20th century, with the help of Schrödinger and others), 
the Light seemed not to be unsurpassable - so in other word: surpassable - here by some neutrinos
(the experiments were repeated in the European Center for Nuclear Research for six months),
it would exist a c' > c,
so the Universe could be even larger.

(But the experiment has to be verified in other laboratories for 3 years since now.)

----------


## himagain

How big is the universe? I only know what they tell me....and that
keeps changing.

----------


## ElHorsto

I wonder how the universe can have a absolute size at all, since any size measurement is defined from within the same universe. It is the same paradox as a creator of the universe must have been already part of it. I believe the size of the universe is changed as soon as we try to measure it. In quantum mechanics there is a similar phenomenon found by Heisenberg: An electron has no determined location. It only gets a definite location when we try to determine it. I hope I correctly comprehend the Heisenberg theorem.

----------


## himagain

Douglas Adams, in my opinion, was a tolerably great thinker. His writings about the universe, and travel within it, astounded me.

----------

