Page 31 of 39

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:39 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:34 pm The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to. Infinity is the problem: it's larger than any possible thing. Yet we require it to expand; implying it was not larger than any possible thing. Also, the universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius.
Maybe, maybe not. The circular-time part that comes from the Big Bang and ends in the Big Crunch, may be just a part of an infinitely big universe. It's just a wild guess, that the entire universe comes from the Big Bang (in case there was a Big Bang at all).

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:40 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:38 pm You keep abandoning the mathematical truth and keep relying on your conceptual (instinctive) 'truth'.

If the universe is accelerating its expansion at SOME point it will be expanding faster than the speed of light.
Sooooo. That 'limit' you spoke about speed = distance/time. Is it real or....?
The fabric of the universe is allowed to expand at FTL, the contents of the universe are not.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:42 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:39 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:34 pm The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to. Infinity is the problem: it's larger than any possible thing. Yet we require it to expand; implying it was not larger than any possible thing. Also, the universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius.
Maybe, maybe not. The circular-time part that comes from the Big Bang and ends in the Big Crunch, may be just a part of an infinitely big universe. It's just a wild guess, that the entire universe comes from the Big Bang (in case there was a Big Bang at all).
I think this is a self evident axiom:

'Before every moment they must have been another moment'

If there was not, the next moment would be undefined if you see what I mean. The only topology of time that fits the axiom is a closed loop, IE circular.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:43 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:40 pm The fabric of the universe is allowed to expand at FTL, the contents of the universe are not.
What? Lol.

So the fabric of the universe is allowed to breaks its own laws?

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:44 pm
TimeSeeker wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:43 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:40 pm The fabric of the universe is allowed to expand at FTL, the contents of the universe are not.
What? Lol.

So the fabric of the universe is allowed to breaks its own laws?
Its not breaking its own laws, the law governs the contents not the fabric of the universe.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:45 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:44 pm Its not breaking its own laws, the law governs the contents not the fabric of the universe.
But you said the universe is logical!!??

So now the CONTENTS of the universe are logical, but the FABRIC of the universe is not?

You really spend a lot of time defending the indefensible.

it is SO much easier to admit ignorance....

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:45 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:42 pm I think this is a self evident axiom:

'Before every moment they must have been another moment'

If there was not, the next moment would be undefined if you see what I mean. The only topology of time that fits the axiom is a closed loop, IE circular.
Yes, but that doesn't mean that this is true for the entire universe. After all spacetime probably isn't fundamental. The entire universe is probably quantum, but spacetime may only be a local feature of the part of the universe that comes from the Big Bang and ends in the Big Crunch.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:53 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:42 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:39 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:34 pm The universe is expanding so it cannot be infinite in space else there would be nowhere to expand to. Infinity is the problem: it's larger than any possible thing. Yet we require it to expand; implying it was not larger than any possible thing. Also, the universe started with the Big Bang 14 Billion years ago and has been expanding since then; it must have a finite radius.
Maybe, maybe not. The circular-time part that comes from the Big Bang and ends in the Big Crunch, may be just a part of an infinitely big universe. It's just a wild guess, that the entire universe comes from the Big Bang (in case there was a Big Bang at all).
I think this is a self evident axiom:

'Before every moment they must have been another moment'

If there was not, the next moment would be undefined if you see what I mean. The only topology of time that fits the axiom is a closed loop, IE circular.
There are obvious problems with the idea that the entire universe comes from the Big Bang. No matter-antimatter asymmetry was found so far, so they should have perfectly annihilated each other, and we shouldn't be here. Also, cosmological inflation and early quantum fluctuations shouldn't have happened without "outside" influence.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:56 pm
Atla wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:45 pm Yes, but that doesn't mean that this is true for the entire universe. After all spacetime probably isn't fundamental. The entire universe is probably quantum, but spacetime may only be a local feature of the part of the universe that comes from the Big Bang and ends in the Big Crunch.
Space-time is a result of Special Relativity only, which relies just on two axioms (speed of light constant, laws of physics constant) both of which are very well supported empirically. So I think space-time is fundamental. QM is immature; it needs to incorporate Special Relativity to be a valid theory IMO.

I don't believe in quantum fluctuations; time is finite so 'if it can happen, it will happen' does not apply. The big bang theory is very mature. It has a few problems but mist theories do. What else could the redshift of distance galaxies indicate if it is not they are receding from us? I do not doubt the big bang.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:36 pm
devans99 wrote: Thu Nov 29, 2018 12:56 pm Space-time is a result of Special Relativity only, which relies just on two axioms (speed of light constant, laws of physics constant) both of which are very well supported empirically. So I think space-time is fundamental. QM is immature; it needs to incorporate Special Relativity to be a valid theory IMO.

I don't believe in quantum fluctuations; time is finite so 'if it can happen, it will happen' does not apply. The big bang theory is very mature. It has a few problems but mist theories do. What else could the redshift of distance galaxies indicate if it is not they are receding from us? I do not doubt the big bang.
I don't really understand what you mean by QM being immature. No prediction of QM was ever wrong and a third of the global economy is based on it. Yes of course both Relativity and QM are incomplete, I think the main question here is which one is "more" fundamental, and should more or less contain the other one.

Relativity describes the classical world we see so well that most people take that one for the main picture and try to fit QM somehow into it. I think this idea starts to fall apart once we realize that some QM effects actually ignore spacetime, so it's the other way around, we need to fit relativity into a quantum world.

Quantum fluctuations are also an established fact as far as I know, but how do we get such fluctuations from a perfectly symmetrical Big Bang? There shouldn't be anything that could fluctuate. And how could there have been an early inflation?

I didn't say that there was no Big Bang, I said that I think the entire universe is bigger than the part of the universe that comes from the Big Bang. There might even had been multiple Bangs or whatever.

Anyway, we agree on circular time as the obvious base idea. QM is timeless by default, but our part of the universe may be a loop in addition to that.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:40 pm
Atla wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:36 pm I don't really understand what you mean by QM being immature. No prediction of QM was ever wrong and a third of the global economy is based on it. Yes of course both Relativity and QM are incomplete, I think the main question here is which one is "more" fundamental, and should more or less contain the other one.

Relativity describes the classical world we see so well that most people take that one for the main picture and try to fit QM somehow into it. I think this idea starts to fall apart once we realize that some QM effects actually ignore spacetime, so it's the other way around, we need to fit relativity into a quantum world.
I think the universe is a macro-phenomenon so a macro-theory is more relevant than a micro-theory.

Quantum engagement, I admit, is a mystery to me. Maybe there is a substrate to the universe that is only usable by sub-atomic particles and it supports FTL travel? Or maybe the simulation hypothesis is right and the particles are closer in the machines memory than our simulated reality?

I think that the fact that relativity addresses time and QM does not makes QM immature. Time seems fundamental. QM should incorporate time and it should be the time of special relativity (relative not absolute) that should be in QM.
Atla wrote: Tue Dec 18, 2018 10:36 pm
I didn't say that there was no Big Bang, I said that I think the entire universe is bigger than the part of the universe that comes from the Big Bang. There might even had been multiple Bangs or whatever.
I believe that time had its origin at the Big Bang and the only things that exist are those that are in the future light cone of the Big Bang. The rest of the 'universe' has no time or space so cannot exist. Runs contrary to your position and I can't disprove your position. But you could consider empty space is not actually empty; it has vacuum energy so its definitely not the philosopher's nothing. It seems more natural to me that outside the space-time of our universe is the philosopher's nothing... absolute nothing and lack of existence...

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:41 am
devans99 wrote: Sat Dec 22, 2018 4:40 pm I think the universe is a macro-phenomenon so a macro-theory is more relevant than a micro-theory.

Quantum engagement, I admit, is a mystery to me. Maybe there is a substrate to the universe that is only usable by sub-atomic particles and it supports FTL travel? Or maybe the simulation hypothesis is right and the particles are closer in the machines memory than our simulated reality?

I think that the fact that relativity addresses time and QM does not makes QM immature. Time seems fundamental. QM should incorporate time and it should be the time of special relativity (relative not absolute) that should be in QM.
QM isn't a micro-theory, that's a common misunderstanding, it applies to the entire universe. There is no substrate to the universe and entanglement doesn't support FTL travel. There is zero evidence for the simulation hypothesis. If we live in a loop, then time probably isn't fundamental, it's only inherent to the loop. (Well it might kinda flow "backwards" outside the loop here and there, maybe? Or it might flow backwards inside black holes within the loop, maybe?)
I believe that time had its origin at the Big Bang and the only things that exist are those that are in the future light cone of the Big Bang. The rest of the 'universe' has no time or space so cannot exist. Runs contrary to your position and I can't disprove your position. But you could consider empty space is not actually empty; it has vacuum energy so its definitely not the philosopher's nothing. It seems more natural to me that outside the space-time of our universe is the philosopher's nothing... absolute nothing and lack of existence...
What does time have to do with existence? Time is about how some of the already existing parts of the universe are arranged.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:43 pm
Atla wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:41 am
QM isn't a micro-theory, that's a common misunderstanding, it applies to the entire universe. There is no substrate to the universe and entanglement doesn't support FTL travel. There is zero evidence for the simulation hypothesis. If we live in a loop, then time probably isn't fundamental, it's only inherent to the loop. (Well it might kinda flow "backwards" outside the loop here and there, maybe? Or it might flow backwards inside black holes within the loop, maybe?)

What does time have to do with existence? Time is about how some of the already existing parts of the universe are arranged.
How do you explain quantum entanglement then? (the simulation hypothesis is all I can think of).

Time seems fundamental - staring with the Einstein’s equation:

E = mc² ∕ √ (1 - v² ∕ c²)
Rearranging to:
m = E × √ (1 - v² ∕ c²) / c²

So time (in the v term) determines mass. So something in the universe must be aware of time else it could not assign mass. So time must be pretty fundamental?

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:10 pm
devans99 wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 5:43 pm
Atla wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 1:41 am
QM isn't a micro-theory, that's a common misunderstanding, it applies to the entire universe. There is no substrate to the universe and entanglement doesn't support FTL travel. There is zero evidence for the simulation hypothesis. If we live in a loop, then time probably isn't fundamental, it's only inherent to the loop. (Well it might kinda flow "backwards" outside the loop here and there, maybe? Or it might flow backwards inside black holes within the loop, maybe?)

What does time have to do with existence? Time is about how some of the already existing parts of the universe are arranged.
How do you explain quantum entanglement then? (the simulation hypothesis is all I can think of).

Time seems fundamental - staring with the Einstein’s equation:

E = mc² ∕ √ (1 - v² ∕ c²)
Rearranging to:
m = E × √ (1 - v² ∕ c²) / c²

So time (in the v term) determines mass. So something in the universe must be aware of time else it could not assign mass. So time must be pretty fundamental?
I think entanglement is simply how things actually are, it's just alien to us because the human mind constructs its experience through space and time. It needs no explanation.

I kinda arrive at the same idea when I view things from light's point of view, it travels no distance (infinite distance) in no time. The speed of light is sort of the manifestation rate of space and time. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that spacetime is merely a matter of how the universe is arranged, with mass and gravity not being all that fundamental either. Which is also why they can't really unify QM with GR.

### Re: Universe can't be infinite.

Posted: Mon Dec 24, 2018 3:29 pm
Atla wrote: Sun Dec 23, 2018 6:10 pm I think entanglement is simply how things actually are, it's just alien to us because the human mind constructs its experience through space and time. It needs no explanation.

I kinda arrive at the same idea when I view things from light's point of view, it travels no distance (infinite distance) in no time. The speed of light is sort of the manifestation rate of space and time. Maybe I'm wrong but I think that spacetime is merely a matter of how the universe is arranged, with mass and gravity not being all that fundamental either. Which is also why they can't really unify QM with GR.
Everything in existence seems to fall into the following categories:

- space
- time
- matter/energy
- motion
- information (probably emergent from the others)

What is fundamental in your view?