Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
Is This All There Is?
67 Answers
https:/
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by Marshwarble. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
It's not an infinite universe, it's a closed one. And the nothing beyond is a literal absence of anything -- not a vacuum, not the absence of matter, but the absence of anything at all, including any space to contain the nothingness. Sorry, Nj, perhaps I should try to be clearer.
The analogy you need to have in mind to start with is the Earth, only with humans as two-dimensional beings. They travel around, bound to the earth's surface. They can head in any direction they like and in principle travel for ever, with never any need to stop. But eventually, no matter how many twists and turns they take, they would discover that they have run out of new places to visit. Nor can they find an edge (for, if it did exist, it certainly does not lie "inside" the Earth, but rather 'above' it, in a dimension beyond those our 2D brethen could experience); and no centre either, for it lies below the Earth's surface and is therefore not a part of it.
The analogy breaks down a little because you might then answer "ah, but what about the sky above?" and say that this is beyond our Universe. And yes, you'd be right, but the key points are that a) the 2D beings have no knowledge of it, so for them it may as well not be there -- in the same way we would be unable to perceive higher dimensions that support our own Universe, and b) it isn't even necessary for such dimensions to exist in order for the Universe to exist, because it can be self-supporting and self-creating.
This means that my explanation is not of an infinite Universe, but of a finite one, with a geometry that defies standard intuitions. The nothingness beyond is the hardest part to grasp -- like I said, it is not an infinite void of space, filled with no matter. It is an infinite void of nothing -- no space, no time, no anything at all. I don't think it is really possible for anyone to picture this.
The analogy you need to have in mind to start with is the Earth, only with humans as two-dimensional beings. They travel around, bound to the earth's surface. They can head in any direction they like and in principle travel for ever, with never any need to stop. But eventually, no matter how many twists and turns they take, they would discover that they have run out of new places to visit. Nor can they find an edge (for, if it did exist, it certainly does not lie "inside" the Earth, but rather 'above' it, in a dimension beyond those our 2D brethen could experience); and no centre either, for it lies below the Earth's surface and is therefore not a part of it.
The analogy breaks down a little because you might then answer "ah, but what about the sky above?" and say that this is beyond our Universe. And yes, you'd be right, but the key points are that a) the 2D beings have no knowledge of it, so for them it may as well not be there -- in the same way we would be unable to perceive higher dimensions that support our own Universe, and b) it isn't even necessary for such dimensions to exist in order for the Universe to exist, because it can be self-supporting and self-creating.
This means that my explanation is not of an infinite Universe, but of a finite one, with a geometry that defies standard intuitions. The nothingness beyond is the hardest part to grasp -- like I said, it is not an infinite void of space, filled with no matter. It is an infinite void of nothing -- no space, no time, no anything at all. I don't think it is really possible for anyone to picture this.
Thanks for the detailed explanation, jim. I must say I've read something like it before but your "2D Earth" adds a useful extra dimension (pardon the pun) to the explanation.
It seems to me that scientists are uncomfortable with the notion of infinity (as indeed am I). But the explanations being put forward to cure that discomfort are obviously highly theoretical and as far as I know there is no evidence to support them (for how could there be?). I often wonder whether the fear of something like infinity produces all manner of theories which to many people seem more implausible than the problem they set out to explain (i.e. the cure is worse than the disease).
This is an interesting debate (and obviously not something that will ever be finally resolved) so I'm sticking with my "infinite universe" theory - it's far easier to understand. :-)
It seems to me that scientists are uncomfortable with the notion of infinity (as indeed am I). But the explanations being put forward to cure that discomfort are obviously highly theoretical and as far as I know there is no evidence to support them (for how could there be?). I often wonder whether the fear of something like infinity produces all manner of theories which to many people seem more implausible than the problem they set out to explain (i.e. the cure is worse than the disease).
This is an interesting debate (and obviously not something that will ever be finally resolved) so I'm sticking with my "infinite universe" theory - it's far easier to understand. :-)
"But the explanations being put forward to cure that discomfort are obviously highly theoretical and as far as I know there is no evidence to support them (for how could there be?)."
I'd disagree that there is no evidence -- you have evidence of a finite universe in the various signals left around that demonstrate that the Universe had a beginning (or at least a time when it was arbitrarily small, hot and dense), and further evidence from the fact that the Universe looks essentially the same in every direction. And you have evidence that it is well-described by General Relativity from goodness only knows how many observations now, all of which support the idea that the Universe has a geometry similar to the one I was describing -- ie, that space is closed in some sense, such that if you travel infinitely far in any direction then you will eventually run out of places to visit. None of these is 100% conclusive, of course, but they are conclusive enough that you can say with great confidence that it's the most likely truth about our Universe.
What lies "beyond" it, in the sense I was referring to, is a lot harder to determine, if indeed it's possible. Still, a return to our 2D beings on Earth can help give a clue as to how you might be able to tell. Put simply -- suppose a rock crashed into the Earth. What would these flat-earthers see? The would be aware of the interaction, but not what caused it, but the trace left and no apparent cause from within the surface of the Earth itself might lead them to guess that whatever-it-was came from "outside" their experienced Universe. In basically the same way, if there are things beyond but not a part of our Universe then there is a possibility that they may still interact with us in some way, and this might leave behind traces that could be searched for. Of course, it would also be possible for the rock to pass through undetected, or to never interact with the 2D Earth at all, in which case they'd never be able to know anything about what lies beyond. Not much to be done about that, but there's no harm in looking.
* * * * *
There's a whole other lengthy essay I could go into at this point about the discussions of infinity and how scientists respond to it. Probably a question that deserves a thread in its own right, if you'd like to ask again, but the short answer is that these concepts always sound a whole lot woollier when you can't see the technical details and calculations to back them up.
I'd disagree that there is no evidence -- you have evidence of a finite universe in the various signals left around that demonstrate that the Universe had a beginning (or at least a time when it was arbitrarily small, hot and dense), and further evidence from the fact that the Universe looks essentially the same in every direction. And you have evidence that it is well-described by General Relativity from goodness only knows how many observations now, all of which support the idea that the Universe has a geometry similar to the one I was describing -- ie, that space is closed in some sense, such that if you travel infinitely far in any direction then you will eventually run out of places to visit. None of these is 100% conclusive, of course, but they are conclusive enough that you can say with great confidence that it's the most likely truth about our Universe.
What lies "beyond" it, in the sense I was referring to, is a lot harder to determine, if indeed it's possible. Still, a return to our 2D beings on Earth can help give a clue as to how you might be able to tell. Put simply -- suppose a rock crashed into the Earth. What would these flat-earthers see? The would be aware of the interaction, but not what caused it, but the trace left and no apparent cause from within the surface of the Earth itself might lead them to guess that whatever-it-was came from "outside" their experienced Universe. In basically the same way, if there are things beyond but not a part of our Universe then there is a possibility that they may still interact with us in some way, and this might leave behind traces that could be searched for. Of course, it would also be possible for the rock to pass through undetected, or to never interact with the 2D Earth at all, in which case they'd never be able to know anything about what lies beyond. Not much to be done about that, but there's no harm in looking.
* * * * *
There's a whole other lengthy essay I could go into at this point about the discussions of infinity and how scientists respond to it. Probably a question that deserves a thread in its own right, if you'd like to ask again, but the short answer is that these concepts always sound a whole lot woollier when you can't see the technical details and calculations to back them up.
Thanks for coming back jim.
I assume you mean the “Big Bang” when you mention the “beginning of the Universe”. I always viewed that as an explosion (for want of a better word) and expansion of the matter in the Universe rather than the space it occupied. The matter was certainly hot and dense (as far as I understand) and occupied far less space than it does now. There is also definite evidence that the expansion is still ongoing. But I’m not sure that theory took on board the space in which the matter was sited. But I expect I'm wrong.
For my part I cannot grasp the concept you describe. I’m not saying it’s an incorrect description, just that my mind cannot fathom it. Rather like the weaknesses in your 2D Earth, I suspect some shortcomings may exist with the “closed” 3D Universe model.
As I said, all very interesting and it does no harm to stretch one’s mind occasionally (even if mine won’t stretch quite far enough!). Meantime I’m off to solve a far simpler problem – how to pick the winning numbers from tonight’s £50m lottery !!!
I assume you mean the “Big Bang” when you mention the “beginning of the Universe”. I always viewed that as an explosion (for want of a better word) and expansion of the matter in the Universe rather than the space it occupied. The matter was certainly hot and dense (as far as I understand) and occupied far less space than it does now. There is also definite evidence that the expansion is still ongoing. But I’m not sure that theory took on board the space in which the matter was sited. But I expect I'm wrong.
For my part I cannot grasp the concept you describe. I’m not saying it’s an incorrect description, just that my mind cannot fathom it. Rather like the weaknesses in your 2D Earth, I suspect some shortcomings may exist with the “closed” 3D Universe model.
As I said, all very interesting and it does no harm to stretch one’s mind occasionally (even if mine won’t stretch quite far enough!). Meantime I’m off to solve a far simpler problem – how to pick the winning numbers from tonight’s £50m lottery !!!
It wasn't an "explosion" and expansion of the matter in a (existing) universe. It was the universe. It's not expaning into anywhere already existing, it's simply expanding as space is continually being created throughout itself. I think that's fundamental to picturing what seems to be occurring.
It didn't so much occupy less space, it consisted of less space. It is the space as much as it is the matter.
I'd not bother with the lottery if I were you, I've decided to win it tonight.
It didn't so much occupy less space, it consisted of less space. It is the space as much as it is the matter.
I'd not bother with the lottery if I were you, I've decided to win it tonight.
I was intrigued by New Judge's comment:
"The notion of infinity does not fit well with me. As far as I know the expansion which is currently being witnessed is not of the space but of the matter within it."
I'm sure *literal* expansion of matter, involving atoms becoming larger (which we wouldn't actually be able to detect because our measuring instruments would also grow) is not what NJ meant but it would be a novel concept, nevertheless and needs to be be refuted, at some point.
Having listened to some early episodes of The Infinite Monkey Cage, I can say the Brian Cox explanation is that universe expansion is not just at the edges but everywhere all at once, viz
theuniverse.
t h e u n i v e r s e .
t h e u n i v e r s e .
t h e u n i v e r s e .
Which is why the most distant objects appear to recede from us the fastest. (The full stop, for example).
I *do* find it peculiar that the red shifts we observe are the same in all directions (so far!!). If we were notably far from the big-bang's "location" (if that word is even meaninful, in universe layout terms) we should expect to see an assymetical pattern of red shifts. The famous cosmic microwave background is spotty but, otherwise, surprisingly uniform.
"The notion of infinity does not fit well with me. As far as I know the expansion which is currently being witnessed is not of the space but of the matter within it."
I'm sure *literal* expansion of matter, involving atoms becoming larger (which we wouldn't actually be able to detect because our measuring instruments would also grow) is not what NJ meant but it would be a novel concept, nevertheless and needs to be be refuted, at some point.
Having listened to some early episodes of The Infinite Monkey Cage, I can say the Brian Cox explanation is that universe expansion is not just at the edges but everywhere all at once, viz
theuniverse.
t h e u n i v e r s e .
t h e u n i v e r s e .
t h e u n i v e r s e .
Which is why the most distant objects appear to recede from us the fastest. (The full stop, for example).
I *do* find it peculiar that the red shifts we observe are the same in all directions (so far!!). If we were notably far from the big-bang's "location" (if that word is even meaninful, in universe layout terms) we should expect to see an assymetical pattern of red shifts. The famous cosmic microwave background is spotty but, otherwise, surprisingly uniform.
Latest Posts
Quizzes & Puzzles7 mins ago
Quizzes & Puzzles18 mins ago
ChatterBank43 mins ago
ChatterBank193 mins ago
