The Speed of Light, is it a relative thing?

[Delasaurus]

Do you think the Universe is Infinite or Finite and how can we prove whether it is or not? Do we perhaps need another expression to define it's boundaries? There is the theory that the Universe is expanding but how does that reflect on how we measure it's vastness or scale. Our knowledge is also restricted to 'the known universe', ie what we already know about it. What lays outside of that expanse?

An analogy would be the recent simple mathematical statement that all whole numbers are infinite, however it changed mathematics when two subsets were realised. The 'infinite' set of odd numbers and the 'infinite' set of even numbers. A simple shift in our view and definition of number changed our perspective on how we view infinity. For instance once we could grasp the ininite set of even numbers..there was always one number bigger than the last infinite set!

As the boundaries of time/space warp and bend, do we need a non-linear measurement scale?

And since we measure the size of the Universe mathematically and generally conclude that the Universe is indeed infinite...could there be 'something larger' than infinity?

Or perhaps we need to measure its size not by mathematics but more by conception, by noun for instance?

What would be your thoughts?

 

[MarsG76]

Until we see the edge, it's infinite...

 

 

[xtreemchaos]

its both, because I wouldn't want to leave any out . I could quote many great minds but like the number graham we will never know  . charl. ps I know of a bigger number than a graham its called a gurtrude .

[andrew s]

We don't know if it is finite or infinite as we can only see our observable part of the Universe.  This is different from does it have a boundary. For example it could be finite but boundless (think surface of a ball).

On infinity, mathematically there are many infinities of different size.

Regards Andrew 

[Craney]

If it is infinite, then it may contain a Universe that is finite.....  

[MarsG76]

An infinite Universe in a finite space-time continuum...

[RayD]

1 minute ago, MarsG76 said:

An infinite Universe in a finite space-time continuum...

That would make a great tag line to a sci-fi film 

[Mr Spock]

An interesting question to which there is currently no answer. People have theories, but, that's all they are, theories. We don't have the means or the knowledge to move any of those theories to a proof.

[westmarch]

4 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Until we see the edge, it's infinite...

 

 

That is unlikely.  This is the best explanation I have come across on the limitations of how far we can see.

John

[Paul M]

My vote is for finite but unbounded. There is no edge, no centre but eventually you would return to your start point if you set out in a straight line in any direction.

Of course I have some mathematical proofs I'm currently working on. Probably a bit too technical for an amateur/enthusiast forum 

[MarsG76]

17 minutes ago, Paul M said:

My vote is for finite but unbounded. There is no edge, no centre but eventually you would return to your start point if you set out in a straight line in any direction.

Of course I have some mathematical proofs I'm currently working on. Probably a bit too technical for an amateur/enthusiast forum 

Than why hasn't light returned back on itself causing every part of space to glow brightly...

there wasn't enough time for it to return yet? that fits.

[Paul M]

2 hours ago, MarsG76 said:

Than why hasn't light returned back on itself causing every part of space to glow brightly...

there wasn't enough time for it to return yet? that fits.

 Red shift? The farthest reaches are now expanding away at greater than the speed of light.

So ok, you might not get back to your start point after setting out on your voyage. It'll be more like trying to climb an escalator that's going the wrong way.

 

[Delasaurus]

Interesting comments,

What about if it was Quantum? Like in the Hadron particle accelerator whereby scientists expect a single particle to show up at X but instead it shows up at Y, or both! So imagine the Universe composed of not many particles as we generally view it but a single particle, which leaps about forming the whole Universe. I think there have been theories on this, that electrons and protons are the same beast and that there is only one particle whizzing around that changes state and 'appears' as a single atom. In other words, it is an illusion.

Could the Universe be an illusion created by a single particle? If we then could find that particle and measure it, we would know the size of the Universe as not being gigantic but weirdly the complete opposite. A real mind bender!

And what about the units themselves that we use to measure astronomical distances. Perhaps say in measurement terms, that a mm in our world is a mm long BUT in actual fact the whole scale of the Universe in 'reality', a mm would actually be equal to one kilometre, in Universe scale measurement. On a gigantic scale, is the Universe in fact a single atom which is part of another world? The macrocosm and the microcosm being the same effigy of its self. As in fractals.

Are we living in a fractal Universe created by a single particle? Rather like a set of Russian Dolls?

[xtreemchaos]

25 minutes ago, Delasaurus said:

Are we living in a fractal Universe created by a single particle? Rather like a set of Russian Dolls

uncanny how simler, hurricains look like galaxys to me. charl.

[andrew s]

6 hours ago, Paul M said:

My vote is for finite but unbounded. There is no edge, no centre but eventually you would return to your start point if you set out in a straight line in any direction.

Of course I have some mathematical proofs I'm currently working on. Probably a bit too technical for an amateur/enthusiast forum 

While a mathematical proof would be interesting it would not apply to our Universe without some data that made it apply.

Regards Andrew 

[Delasaurus]

4 hours ago, xtreemchaos said:

uncanny how simler, hurricains look like galaxys to me. charl.

Yeah, I've noticed it a lot in my blip of a lifetime that Nature tends to replicate itself on different scales. Particles and matter seem to follow a significant pattern.

 

Which could be used to ascertain that the Universe could be fractal like, having irregular boudaries and radiating limbs perhaps?

[Delasaurus]

10 hours ago, westmarch said:

That is unlikely.  This is the best explanation I have come across on the limitations of how far we can see.

John

Is that 93,000,000,000 light years moving in a straight line or moving in a wiggly line or a curve?

[Ruud]

I think it's infinite.

Now, if it is infinite in size but finite in age, it was always infinite in size. Because in a finite amount of time things cannot grow from finite to infinite.

We don't really know. We may never.

[Delasaurus]

9 minutes ago, Ruud said:

I think it's infinite.

Now, if it is infinite in size but finite in age, it was always infinite in size. Because in a finite amount of time things cannot grow from finite to infinite.

We don't really know. We may never.

lol, I've shot myself in the foot with that answer you gave me, I'm off for a large Scotch and a handfull of Paracetamol.

[Stub Mandrel]

"Space," it says, "is big. Really big. You just won't believe how vastly, hugely, mindbogglingly big it is. I mean, you may think it's a long way down the road to the chemist, but that's just peanuts to space. Listen..."

[Alien 13]

I thought that the universe is finite and infinite at the same time and small enough to fit on a pin head photon.

Alan

[Delasaurus]

What if?

How would this change our view on linear mathematics and straight line views of the Universe?

Could Mandelbrot have stumbled on the mathematical equation of the Universe? Whereby finity and infinity are both the same and interchangeable. Infinitely finite or finitely infinite? Which is where we need another word perhaps (a graham)  to describe its nature..

 

[Delasaurus]

Here is a pic I just discovered published by NASA Science, of the Universe as a network of webs.

Does it look familiar after that Mandelbrot Vid?

 

My own hunch is that with very complicated or seemingly complicated things there tend to be very simple answers.

For instance Aristarcus calculated the distance to the moon using a couple of sticks and a small round disc, a problem which was fundamentally enormous to conceive at that time in history by his fellow philosophers and mathematicians. Is our problem in trying to grasp the size of the Universe similar to Aristarcus's time?

Is there a simple solution to an enormous question?

For instance is the Universe simply = fc(z)=f2+c?

Whereby the finite and the infinite now have no meaning.

[Some Dude With A Mak- Cass]

BRACE YOURSELVES

THE ARGUMENTS ARE COMING

but in all seriousness, i think its probably unknowable. someday, if humanity ever goes to explore the stars, this will be a question we struggle to answer. say its infinite, and we start looking. even if we could, hypothetically, move faster than light, we would never find an end. so we would keep going, and keep looking, always wondering, always searching. if we never found an end, the end could always be just a little farther. if it is infinite, we can never prove it. if it is finite, it is always possible there is more in another direction, or on another plane of reality. therefore, it is unknowable. case closed in my opinion.

[Delasaurus]

21 minutes ago, Some Dude With A Mak- Cass said:

BRACE YOURSELVES

THE ARGUMENTS ARE COMING

but in all seriousness, i think its probably unknowable. someday, if humanity ever goes to explore the stars, this will be a question we struggle to answer. say its infinite, and we start looking. even if we could, hypothetically, move faster than light, we would never find an end. so we would keep going, and keep looking, always wondering, always searching. if we never found an end, the end could always be just a little farther. if it is infinite, we can never prove it. if it is finite, it is always possible there is more in another direction, or on another plane of reality. therefore, it is unknowable. case closed in my opinion.

Do you think then that in this case, the age old problem of trying to find out who we are and how were we all to land on this planet in this vast Universe requires another name for us to grasp its significance? Like the Ancient Egyptians and Greeks just accepted that it was the work of the Gods. Unquestionable and unfathomable and so homage must be given to those that are higher in being?

With the demise of religion (in general) of the modern world, do you think that 'religion' has a place in explaining the vastness of all that exists in the modern world. Should we create 'new world' gods to celebrate the expanse of the Universal mystery if we cannot find a mathematical or rational solution that satisfies our quest?

Should we bow down at sunset to to the god iSun creater of all light?

Is there a place for the religious Gods in modern mathematics and science? I'm not talking about Jesus here and I wish no offence to anyone in their beliefs, but historically there has always been Gods associated with astronomy for eons.