PDA

View Full Version : Neverending matter?



d00b
06-14-2002, 11:21 PM
(note: my brain is in "goo" mode, as it is 12:18am right now)

I was just thinking.... a lot of people are quick to say something like, "the universe is infinite", but I was speaking with my room mate, and I want to ask all of you... if you DO believe that the universe is infinite, is there a finite amount of matter in the "universe"? or is matter also infinite? Because when you think about it, if you had an infinite amount of matter in an infinite container for the matter (the universe?), wouldn't that mean.... well, er... well I don't think it makes sense.... gimmie your opinions, and tomorrow, I'll let you in on the more in-depth discussion we had.......

lightatdawn
06-14-2002, 11:30 PM
AFAIK the universe is considered to by finite. But the discussion is one of theory only as we have no current method of proving this. As all existing evidence points to the big bang theory, it would seem improbable that an infinite amount of matter would be able to fit in a finite amount of space. One could still argue that there is an infinite amount of space with a finite amount of matter inside it...

(Its late here too so excuse any large gaping holes in the previous statements. I'm not thinking clearly at the moment.)

no-one
06-15-2002, 12:28 AM
>As all existing evidence points to the big bang theory

evidence?? you mean theory... anyways thats a different topic and a lot of opinion so nevermind...

heres how it is.
first: matter cannot be created or destroyed just transformed so yes there is technically infinite matter but not infinite usable matter.

second: the universe is collapsing in on itself, thusly its not infinite.

third: time is just a system of measurement therefore it is infinite such as numbers are infinite.

>
(Its late here too so excuse any large gaping holes in the previous statements. I'm not thinking clearly at the moment.
<

ditto.

lightatdawn
06-15-2002, 12:44 AM
>>second: the universe is collapsing in on itself

This concept is just as much "theory" as the big bang. ;)

>>evidence??

I did say theory not fact. I thought I'd leave that one out of this. Evidence is a perfectly legitimate word in that context.

>>matter cannot be created or destroyed just transformed

Well, when it becomes energy its technically not matter anymore. And as we have no way of converting energy to matter, then we most definatly have a finite amount of matter. Besides even if we were able to convert energy to matter, that could just mean that we had an infinite amount of matter to play with, as opposed to actually having an infinite amount of matter in existance.

;) Just though I'd get picky at this this nasty hour of the morning. ... I should be sleepng not perusing this board.

face_master
06-15-2002, 12:45 AM
>>matter cannot be created or destroyed just transformed so yes there is technically infinite matter but not infinite usable matter.

Define usuable matter an non-usable matter for us...

Shiro
06-15-2002, 03:15 AM
>As all existing evidence points to the big bang theory

There are some facts which are measured by experiments. This is not evidence, but these facts support the big bang theory. But it still is a theory, it does not proof that the big bang theory is correct.

>the universe is collapsing in on itself, thusly its not infinite.

Also here measured facts have resulted in a theory in which the universe will finalyy collapse. There were theories saying that the universe would infinitely expand. Other theories said the universe would get stable at some point. These are still theories and it cannot be said that the universe is finite.

adrianxw
06-15-2002, 05:30 AM
>>> have resulted in a theory in which the universe will finalyy collapse.

The latest available measurements suggest that the universe is expanding, and that the rate of expansion is aactually increasing, i.e. has a cosmological constant greater than 1.

Weird stuff.

Shiro
06-15-2002, 05:51 AM
>The latest available measurements suggest that the universe is expanding,

Currently it seems to expand. But it also seems that matter is coming together at several places. And if you have matter coming together, then the mass increases in a small area which means that the gravity of such an area will grow stronger and attract more matter. This could finally result in attracting all matter in the universe to one small area which will become a black hole. It's a theory, there are lot of such theories. A different theory is that mass will spread out over the universe equally so there will be no strong attracting masses. Which implies that there will be an end on the expanding and which also implies there will be no imploding? (Don't know if that's correct English, but I mean the counter word of expanding)

ygfperson
06-15-2002, 06:36 AM
if the universe is infinite, with neverending matter, we would see no black in the night sky. just endless stars

Mario
06-15-2002, 07:07 AM
Originally posted by ygfperson
if the universe is infinite, with neverending matter, we would see no black in the night sky. just endless stars

Not really. Although it may seem at first glance. The black night we are accustomed with relates to the expansion (or whatnot) of the universe... not with its size.

In itself, the fact that we have a black night is somewhat a strong evidence that the universe is expanding. Since the movement of objects that produce light will make the visibile light shift to the ultra-violet end of the spectrum and thus render the sky black.

Also, even on a static universe (the two words are in itself a contradition), there's no guarantee that the sky will be whole blindly white. Light is a form of radiation. Just like any wavelenght on the spectrum... and as such can "loose qualities" when bouncing on objects and/or being affected by the gravity of celestial bodies while its travelling or simply by coliding with atoms on the void... any sum of these effects can end up by shifting the visible light to either side of the spectrum. Within a relatively big universe, this may as well mean most of the visible light gets shifted and thus produce a black sky.

golfinguy4
06-15-2002, 08:19 AM
no one, matter can be destroyed. Think about an a-bomb.

Dual-Catfish
06-15-2002, 08:45 AM
Matter is not being destroyed in an A-Bomb, it's being converted into energy. e = mc**2.

We have ways of converting energy to matter... rather, plants do. It's called photosynthesis.

The universe IS currently expanding. One theory is that the expansion will eventually slow down, and be pulled back into a central point. Afterwards, another big bang will occour... ad infinitum.

-KEN-
06-15-2002, 09:49 AM
>>second: the universe is collapsing in on itself, thusly its not infinite.

I was taught it was expanding...the evidence being red shifts in the light given off by stars.

no-one
06-15-2002, 11:18 AM
ok maybe i should clarify!

IM RIGHT! YOUR WRONG!

ok now that thats settled,

to my statements, theory was implied but not stated and it was my intention that they be taken as theory, sorry...

>This concept is just as much "theory" as the big bang.

so is 99% of science... though 98% has much much more evidence suporting it.

>Define usuable matter an non-usable matter for us...

its fairly self explanitory, non-usable, no longer useable... depleted maybe... im not a scientist, jeez... im just stating theory...

>The latest available measurements suggest that the universe is expanding

ok, this really depends on who you ask... because any measuremet of the universe is complete estimation, any different group will give you a different answer.

>if the universe is infinite, with neverending matter, we would see no black in the night sky. just endless stars

no, due to the destruction of stars and the rate of expansion we will never see an all white sky...

>I was taught it was expanding...the evidence being red shifts in the light given off by stars.

whose to say what this means? i saw 8 square white pixels be construed as a planet orbiting a star, and they actually went as far as to ID what type of planet it was and give details to it existance and how long it had been there, ect...ect... they even theorized on the life that could exist on it!!! thse people are MAD!!!!!

::sarcastic!!!::
oh yes, and quasars have to be made by aliens its the only explaination...
::sarcastic!!!::

any way its to early for this and i have no idea what i've just typed.

Mario
06-15-2002, 11:45 AM
>>>>The latest available measurements suggest that the universe is expanding
>> ok, this really depends on who you ask... because any measuremet of the universe is complete estimation, any different group will give you a different answer.

While it's true that measurements may differ, they don't differ so much that all of a sudden someone measures a colapsing universe and someone else a expanding one... when such big differences exist, that's because of error. Not because of estimation ;)

>> due to the destruction of stars and the rate of expansion we will never see an all white sky...

Err... no. You are wrong. Destruction of stars as nothing to do with it. You also seem to be saying now that the universe is expanding while just a little ago you were saying it was colapsing... what is it then?

Hillbillie
06-15-2002, 12:25 PM
>the universe is collapsing in on itself, thusly its not infinite.<

What exactly do you mean by the universe? Do you mean the vacuum that all matter exists in? If you do, then I think the universe 's size is infinte. The amount of matter in the universe might be a different story though...

d00b
06-15-2002, 06:19 PM
Some believe the universe is collapsing, some believe it's expanding... some say that the universe has a cyclidic property... it expands (in perhaps something like the big bang theory), then eventually it re-collapses on itself recycling all of the matter and energy into it's most compact form... then it eventually expands (bang!) and re-creates all of the matter and energy, and so on in a cycle....

time is relative... this is an important concept to keep in mind.... here on earth to us, this cycle takes trillions of years.... but in some other timeframe the cycle could be as quick as the cycle of your computer... it's all relative to what you're refering time to..

time, speed, distance... all relative, very cool to think about... especially Einstien's theorys....


btw: I don't quite believe that whole cycle thing, it's just an idea... never hurts to throw ideas at people, it sparks some good, healthy, open-minded thinking :) :)

golfinguy4
06-15-2002, 06:53 PM
Originally posted by Dual-Catfish
Matter is not being destroyed in an A-Bomb, it's being converted into energy. e = mc**2.

We have ways of converting energy to matter... rather, plants do. It's called photosynthesis.

The universe IS currently expanding. One theory is that the expansion will eventually slow down, and be pulled back into a central point. Afterwards, another big bang will occour... ad infinitum.

That's is what I meant. It was just a bad explanation.

Betazep
06-15-2002, 08:21 PM
Perhaps space is a mobius strip. It has a real form but if you are on it, there is no end.

A mobius strip is an example of a finite object that has infinite possibilities. So I do not think everything is as crystal clear as it may be. (circular logic)

Commander
06-15-2002, 08:40 PM
if the universe is infinite, what happens when u get to the "end", which dosen't exists if the universe is infinite, but how can that be? there's gotta be an end to things right? or am i wrong?

Hillbillie
06-15-2002, 09:03 PM
>there's gotta be an end to things right? or am i wrong?<

I'd humbly say you're wrong. :p Is there an end to infinty? No. Is there an end to the decimal system? No.

It makes sense to me that the universe (as in the space that everything is contained within) is of infinite size. If the big bang theory is true (which I don't beleive in) then I think the amount of matter contained within the universe is constantly growing, and is therefore infinite.

Of course, these are only my uneducated opinions. :)

vasanth
06-15-2002, 09:16 PM
If the universe in expanding or coloapsing then what is beyond the universe.. It cannot be a thick wall ofcource.. Even is it is an obstacle what is behind the obstacle.. and what is behind it.... So i think our human brains cannot comrehend all this..

golfinguy4
06-15-2002, 09:16 PM
One of my friends was saying this to me. He said that space has to be infinite. If it isn't, it has to be contained in something. And therefore, the container of space is infinite, or the container of the container is infinite. Do you catch my drift?

Hillbillie
06-15-2002, 09:51 PM
>One of my friends was saying this to me. He said that space has to be infinite. If it isn't, it has to be contained in something. And therefore, the container of space is infinite, or the container of the container is infinite. Do you catch my drift?<

Exactly. That's what I was getting at. When I said that the amount of matter is expanding, I meant the stuff that is in the infintely large space.

>If the universe in expanding or coloapsing then what is beyond the universe.. It cannot be a thick wall ofcource.. Even is it is an obstacle what is behind the obstacle.. and what is behind it....<

See my above post and this one as well.

lightatdawn
06-15-2002, 10:11 PM
>>the amount of matter contained within the universe is constantly growing

Not likely. The matter may be expanding but that doesnt make it infinite. The actual amount of matter would remain unchanged.


>> He said that space has to be infinite. If it isn't, it has to be contained in something.

Did nobody listen to Betazep? The Mobius Strip concept is one i've toyed with for years. Though only a theoretical representation, it provides an interesting concept none the less.

>>Of course, these are only my uneducated opinions.

Just think of it this way: In the practically limitless possible number of things to know in the universe, the difference between what you know, and what any leading scientist on the matter knows, is so infintesimal it is practically none. ... ;)

no-one
06-15-2002, 10:27 PM
>when such big differences exist, that's because of error. Not because of estimatio

first as i said it depends on who you ask i've seen a great many of scientists lately say its collapsing, a lot seem to believe this "conflicts with the Big Bang Theory and evolution in general so its hush hush, i don't really see it from that view.

>what is it then?

SHHHHHH!!!! your not supposed to notice. i use what suits my needs.

>
Just think of it this way: In the practically limitless possible number of things to know in the universe, the difference between what you know, and what any leading scientist on the matter knows, is so infintesimal it is practically none. ...
<

you know your not supposed to say such thing LAD.heh

lightatdawn
06-15-2002, 10:31 PM
>>you know your not supposed to say such thing LAD

Well? Think about it, its true. :D

Hillbillie
06-15-2002, 11:19 PM
>The actual amount of matter would remain unchanged.<

When I say that the amount of matter is constantly growing, I mean that the big bang is still happening. Think of it like a nuclear bomb going off. The "wave" is the points in the universe where matter is being created. The middle of the universe has been created and may appear finite to us, but the edges are newly born.

I don't base that on anything but pure sleep-deprived imagination, though. :D

>Well? Think about it, its true.<

I wouldn't be telling certain someones that around here... ;)

lightatdawn
06-15-2002, 11:41 PM
>>The "wave" is the points in the universe where matter is being created.

The theory states that all matter existed prior to the expansion, it was merely all in one incredibly small point. I'm not aware of a theory on the continued creation of matter. The expansion theory is simply stating that the existing matter is still moving out (expanding) from the central point.

The problem is that though we are obviously able to see the begining of the universe, we are not able to see the end (or farthest point) of it...

no-one
06-16-2002, 11:33 PM
>The problem is that though we are obviously able to see the begining
of the universe,

not so fast there grand-pa.

people have become so accustomed to believing whateve B.S. scientists spew at them that they don't stop to think about it.

the "Big Bang" theory or any other non creationist theory leaves out one small point! THE BEGINNING. where did the matter or energy or anything come from to cause the bang?!!?!!!?!?!?!?!! um um huh... uh what.... you got any gum?... uh uh... you cookin beans?

so anyways my point is the "Big Bang" has a "Big" hole! where di dthe bang come from!!!!!??!??!

d00b
06-17-2002, 12:43 AM
Originally posted by no-one
the "Big Bang" theory or any other non creationist theory leaves out one small point! THE BEGINNING. where did the matter or energy or anything come from to cause the bang?!!?!!!?!?!?!?!! um um huh... uh what.... you got any gum?... uh uh... you cookin beans?
I find that creationists are limited by their linear view on the universe, they view life as a beginning and death as an end... even though nothing is created and nothing is destroyed when you are born and die... So basically, imo, there is no beginning!

It's beyond human thought to accept that the universe has no beginning or end.

I laugh at "creation" as much as I laugh at "The Big Bang"... my most true beliefs on existence do go beyond words, though I have found that they lean in the direction of the Xen Bhuddists... but that's for another time....

does this mean I'm going to hell? :eek:

vasanth
06-17-2002, 04:02 AM
I completely agree with you.... The universe has no beginig oe an END.. It always existed and will continue to till eternity... I feel the big bang stuff is foolish...

novacain
06-17-2002, 06:03 AM
>>does this mean I'm going to hell?

Not if you are right, possibly if your aren't.

I still think we are guessing on the origins of the universe at the moment, given time someone will work it out, then what are we going to do?

Mario
06-17-2002, 07:46 AM
>> The universe has no beginig oe an END.. It always existed and will continue to till eternity... I feel the big bang stuff is foolish...

Actually, there is no evidence that the universe always was and always will be. The defenders of the static universe are fewer and fewer as new discoveries are being made. The so called holes in the Big Bang theory are not holes at all... they are just bad study from you guys :)

The Big Bang may as well be wrong. I agree with that. But trust me, while you can't explain why and how the Big Bang occurred, it is the only theory that, up until now, can explain most of what we see in the universe in a consistent manner. As such it remains as a theory (because it couldn't be proved yet). And theories are never foolish.

Conversely, the idea of a static universe was very popular in the middle-ages up until 1930's. Sorry to say, but I believe more in the capacity of today scientists than I believe on the past ones.

If you guys want I may try to explain a little more of what is believed to be the origins of the Big Bang and why can't we see it... and never will. But bear in mind it may be a little long post.

Mario
06-17-2002, 08:28 AM
Oh... and please do not use the term Creationism to refer to the Big Bang theory. Creationists are those scientists that try by all means to explain the origins of the Universe through the study of the Bible. Creationism, Creation Science and Creationists are terms relating to those individuals and their study.

d00b
06-17-2002, 09:24 AM
Hey, I didn't..... I said I laugh at each of them

And your comparison was insulting...

The Big Bang theory holds water, and I don't dismiss it.... however I don't think there was a singular beginning.... creation = beginning.... THE Big Bang = beginning.... A Big Bang I would be more willing to accept (not the ultimate beginning of all)

vasanth
06-17-2002, 09:24 AM
Well if the universe was just very small and exploded to create a big universe that is still expanding today.. What sorrounded the Universe when it was small ...!!!!! Was it brick walls:)

d00b
06-17-2002, 09:25 AM
Originally posted by vasanth
Well if the universe was just very small and exploded to create a big universe that is still expanding today.. What sorrounded the Universe when it was small ...!!!!! Was it brick walls:)
non-existance

vasanth
06-17-2002, 09:35 AM
well then according to you neither empty space nor any solid stuff existed.. Well thats a very wage proposition... May be our human mids cannot comprehend it.. What was there then if nothing was there.. If there was nothing then it is empty space.. I If there was no space then it was filled with something.. Well if both were not there.. Then we humans cannot understand it... I though Humans were the most intlegent creatures....

Mario
06-17-2002, 11:09 AM
>> The Big Bang theory holds water, and I don't dismiss it.... however I don't think there was a singular beginning.... creation = beginning.... THE Big Bang = beginning.... A Big Bang I would be more willing to accept (not the ultimate beginning of all)

To discuss that we would need to enter metaphysics. It's hard to even theorize about a "before the beginning" since we are still very infant on our understanding of the"beginning" itself.

But there is this one theory that is getting popular among astrophysics and especially the quantum physics scientists. It's based on the string theory and explain the Big Bang as a "stretching out" of another universe-dimension that rips its own dimension(s) and "spills" matter into a new universe it just created. It's hard to conceptualize since it's based on one of the most advanced and least logically driven physics, but imagine universes being pancakes staked on top of each other. A new universe is born when one of this pancakes growns a arm and spills pancake matter into an empty space.... But you have to agree, even that brings out the question, who was the first one and where did it came from.

The most important thing to understand is that the Big Bang explosion was not an explosion as we know it. In fact the term Big Bang was created by one of it's oppositors (Fred Hoyle) in a shady attempt to derogate the theory. Irony was that it was so catchy it stuck to our days. Poor Hoyle :p

Mario
06-17-2002, 11:43 AM
>> well then according to you neither empty space nor any solid stuff existed.. Well thats a very wage proposition...

The problem when we try to conceptualize the universe, it's birth and/or it's death, is that we are driven to create a bird's eye view of it. But this view implies an "outside" and "inside" concept that simply does not exist. The keyword here is dimensions.

The best analogy I've ever found to explain why dimensions are so difficult to grasp and why only maths seem able to explain them and which makes astrophysicists and people alike seem to alone have all the answers (which quite arguably makes us frown) was given by Carl Sagan on one of his books (I believe, Cosmos)

Imagine a 2 dimension Mr Square living on his 2 dimension world. He just comes home (4 lines forming a rectangle, mind you). Meanwhile, Ms Apple lives on a 3 dimensional world and while flying around spots this square moving about a rectangle... She finds it interesting and decides to investigate by landing inside the rectangle. Mr Square is happily watching TV (don't ask me!) when all of a sudden an hazy line pops up on his living room. Startled he gets out of his couch and trembling with fear moves to the kitchen to get a knife. To his amazement the line is the same when he moves around it and can understand it's somewhat a bad excuse for a circle. Ms apple seeing the agitation of the square tries to initiate conversation but to no avail. Meanwhile Mr. Square who can't hear Ms apple is about to run in fright crying ghost when Ms Apple gets bored and flies away leaving behind a Mr. square open mouthed at his now empty living room.

To understand what the universe is and to simulate at best a bird's eye view of the universe we have to think of it in dimensional terms. Carl Sagan also said that "The Cosmos is all there is, all there ever was and all there will ever be". There is no outside simply because the universe is everything. It expands it's dimensions. Not only space, but also time and who knows what more dimensions we may be lefting out (current theories point out as muh as 16). The concept of outside can't be applied simply because the universe exists in much more than our usually perceived 3 dimensions. "Outside" is a 3 dimension concept. For Mr Square the concept of Up and Down would be mind bogling if his cousin who is a scientist tried to explain to him what happened on his living-room.

Mario
06-17-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by d00b
[B]Hey, I didn't..... I said I laugh at each of them

And your comparison was insulting...


Sorry for not replying to this before...

You are right. I misread your post and somehow thought you were calling the defenders of the Big Bang theory, creationists. When in fact you were not.

As for my comparison, it was not meant as an insult. It was in fact in reply to another post where no-one was talking about Big Bang having holes in it... I bet I somehow stripped out the quote for that when reviewing my post and made you think I was directly replying to you. But even so it was not meant as an insult. In fact the Big Bang theory alone takes a 2,000 page book to be fully explained. The details behind it are so many and some so complex that is absolutely normal not to now everything about it. I know I don't.