How can the universe be infinite in size?

[Arch2008]

The logic that you are so pleased with is a tenet of philosophy, not physics. In philosphy by definition something infinite cannot expand to become greater. However, by direct observation the universe is expanding and from the physical evidence of WMAP may be infinite. Fortunately, this is a science forum and not a philosophy forum. BTW, I've never said that it is infinite. The observable universe may just have a flat geometry locally which would falsely indicate an infinite universe.

 

By Hubble's law, today objects far enough away are receding at the speed of light. Objects even farther away are receding at twice that rate out to a rate of a googolplex greater. If the universe is indeed infinite, then as the distance increases the rate of recession approaches infinity. So, even today very distant objects would be receding at an infinite rate. "How can the universe be infinite in size?" After the Big Bang, the universe inflated at an infinite rate.

[proximity1]

The logic that you are so pleased with is a tenet of philosophy, not physics. In philosphy by definition something infinite cannot expand to become greater. However, by direct observation the universe is expanding and from the physical evidence of WMAP may be infinite. Fortunately, this is a science forum and not a philosophy forum. BTW, I've never said that it is infinite. The observable universe may just have a flat geometry locally which would falsely indicate an infinite universe.

 

By Hubble's law, today objects far enough away are receding at the speed of light. Objects even farther away are receding at twice that rate out to a rate of a googolplex greater. If the universe is indeed infinite, then as the distance increases the rate of recession approaches infinity. So, even today very distant objects would be receding at an infinite rate. "How can the universe be infinite in size?" After the Big Bang, the universe inflated at an infinite rate.

 

Logic is an indispensible, inescapable constraining factor in language use. Whether the language being employed happens to concern a topic in philosophy or physics, or math, or any other definable field of enquiry, that language-logic is determinative--without which the sense and meaning of the terms employed is lost, made vacant.

 

As you apply them, the terms "infinite" and "rate" are utter nonsense. Logic, which language cannot dispense with, makes your usage null and voi--though you can deny that, your denials don't alter the fact.

 

RE: "BTW, I've never said that it (i.e. the universe (in its unobservable entirety) ) is infinite."

 

It's no matter that you have not. The point on which you are stubbornly insisting is logically false, whether or not the "universe" is or isn't "expanding." (It seems that your own words betray some however slight dawning recognition of the error because you're retreating into more and more hedging language--though you so far refuse to openly admit it.) And that point concerns not the truth or falsehood of the expansion per se but, rather, the incompatibility of a meaningful term, "infinite" (or "infinity") with a quantitative modifier, "rate", or any other term of the sort.

 

You have still not made the slightest effort at explaining how "rate" as a modifier term can conceivably be compatible with limitlessness, with the infinite even as you've admitted that "in philosophy", these are incompatible. Viz: "In philosphy by definition something infinite cannot expand to become greater."

 

That is true not merely or simply from a physics point of view, it's true because the meanings of these terms require that it is true. Otherwise, the terms mean nothing. And that is the crux of the problem, not the actual truth or falsity of the universe's asserted expansion.

[Airbrush]

"How can the universe be infinite in size?" After the Big Bang, the universe inflated at an infinite rate.

This is a very interesting concept. This discussion is the first time I ever heard the term "infinite rate". I wonder why those programs about the Universe, even Hawkings "Inter the Universe" never uses that term. Can you show where you heard of "infinite rate"?

[alpha2cen]

This is a very interesting concept. This discussion is the first time I ever heard the term "infinite rate". I wonder why those programs about the Universe, even Hawkings "Inter the Universe" never uses that term. Can you show where you heard of "infinite rate"?

These are references about " Inflation".

 

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/media/060915/index.html

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_dilation

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Inflation_%28cosmology%29

[Airbrush]

Thanks for the references about inflation. I scanned thru looking for "infinite rate" of expansion and the closest was "exponential" rate of expansion. Often I have heard of inflation as a moment, shortly after the big bang, when expansion exceeded light speed. Could you call our attention to the section that describes an "infinite rate" of expansion? That would be far beyond an exponential rate of expansion.

 

"In physical cosmology, cosmic inflation, cosmological inflation or just inflation is the theorized extremely rapid exponential expansion of the early universe by a factor of at least 10^78 in volume, driven by a negative-pressure vacuum energy density.[1] The inflationary epoch comprises the first part of the electroweak epoch following the grand unification epoch. It lasted from 10^−36 seconds after the Big Bang to sometime between 10^−33 and 10^−32 seconds. Following the inflationary period, the universe continued to expand, but at a slower rate."

 

No mention of infinite rate here. 10 to the 78th power is a large number, but not infinite.

Edited January 5, 2013 by Airbrush

[moth]

It's interesting how well the 3-d analogy of moving in the third dimension towards a 2-d surface making the 2-d surface appear to expand,

fits with moving through the fourth dimension making 3-d space appear to expand.

[MigL]

All models of inflation that I've read about use an extremely aggressive rate for the inflationary period, but a finite one, as Airbrush explains above.

 

Consider an infinitely long metre stick, with millimetre markings ( infinitely long I said ). Each point on this stick is one millimetre from the next, and there are an infinite number of points.

Now consider every centimetre mark, they are now all ten times farther away from their neighbours than the millimetre marks, ie you have expanded the 'space' tenfold, yet there are still AN INFINITE NUMBER of points.

Now consider the metre marks, they are now 1000 times farther away from each other as the millimetre marks were. So you've now expanded 'space' a thousandfold, yet you still have AN INFINITE NUMBER of points.

 

Do you see now how an infinite universe can expand ?

Its not the boundaries ( infinity has no boundary ) moving outward ( into what ??? ), but spaces in-between galaxies and clusters getting larger.

 

This is a science ( with math ) forum, not for philosophycal discussion, I would add.

Edited January 6, 2013 by MigL

[proximity1]

All models of inflation that I've read about use an extremely aggressive rate for the inflationary period, but a finite one, as Airbrush explains above.

 

Consider an infinitely long metre stick, with millimetre markings ( infinitely long I said ). Each point on this stick is one millimetre from the next, and there are an infinite number of points.

Now consider every centimetre mark, they are now all ten times farther away from their neighbours than the millimetre marks, ie you have expanded the 'space' tenfold, yet there are still AN INFINITE NUMBER of points.

Now consider the metre marks, they are now 1000 times farther away from each other as the millimetre marks were. So you've now expanded 'space' a thousandfold, yet you still have AN INFINITE NUMBER of points.

 

Do you see now how an infinite universe can expand ?

Its not the boundaries ( infinity has no boundary ) moving outward ( into what ??? ), but spaces in-between galaxies and clusters getting larger.

 

This is a science ( with math ) forum, not for philosophycal discussion, I would add.

 

RE: "Do you see now how an infinite universe can expand ?"

 

No, actually, I don't. You suggest an infinite series (number) of "points" on a line. Did you notice that it doesn't make the slightest bit of difference whether you "consider" those "points" in lengths of millimeters or centimeters, the "infinite" aspect is neither "more" nor "less" one way or the other. I boggle at the thought that this could have escaped your reasoning process.

 

Try a graphic representation; it may help you. Imagine that an actual meter length is "infinite"--we know that in fact this is just an excercise, but the excercise should illustrate your error. Now, lets consider this "infinite" meter in millimeter segments. Do you "see them"? Very good. Now, we're going to "look" at the meter again, this time, we're going to "notice" segements of "centimeters", all along the "infinite" length. Now, why, please, merely because our focus has shifted from "millimeter" segments" to "centimeter" segments has the "infinitely" long "meter "expanded"?

 

Please, think that over and, if you can, please explain why and how looking first at mm segments and then at cm segments changes in any way whatsoever the "reality" of the nature and character of the infinity?--making it "expand"? If you think carefully, you may come to see that your thought experiment has in fact fooled you and that, actually, nothing "expanded" merely by the step you describe (erroneously supposing that, by changing focus, you have "added" centimeter lengths where "there were none" previously). Those "infinite" cm's were always "there", whether you were focused on mm segments or not.

 

I'm flabbergasted at the simplicity of your reasoning mistake here; but it's a very illustrative mistake. Did you notice how you lectured me as though, by paying attention to a "philosophical aspect," I was somehow "losing sight of the essentials"?

 

What happened instead is that your flagrant error offers us an example of precisely how and why it is foolishly risky to suppose that in dealing with the "science" we are better off or best off leaving out the "philosophy."

 

The nature and character of the conception of "infinity" is a "philosophical issue" par excellence! And that it can be repeatedly asserted not to be so is a very striking example of how science education has very seriously failed you and others here making the same error on that count.

 

Could we now please have no more such error-ridden attempts at put-downs over the importance of "philosophy" in this discusion? It may save others from looking ridiculous.

 

RE your,

 

"but spaces in-between galaxies and clusters getting larger,"

 

then, indeed, that is "my point"!: there is simply no expansion of actual infinity--nor any "expansion" of "space," either, since--how do I tell you so sublimely elemental idea?--merely further "separating" (i.e. "moving" them apart, ) pre-existing objects (or mass) in the same preexisting "space" "expands" nothing about the overall space--nor even the "local" space.

 

But the entire thrust of the argument by those opposing the OP's point of view is that, indeed, "space", (i.e. "the Universe") is, they contend, "expanding" infinitely quickly --- that is, "at an infinite rate"!

 

I have posed the contradictory aspects of that false assertion as clearly as I know how:

 

If the Universe is "expanding" (which I grant) then it is and must be "finite", that is, bounded, and it cannot, then "expand" "at an infinite rate".

 

Conversely, If it is "infinite" then it cannot be "expanding"-- nor, it seems to me, could one ever specify "within" infinity any "locality" that means anything real.

 

On this, I grant, we are before a rather difficult concept. It does seem to take some imaginative effort to grasp that there can be, very simply, nothing, nothing whatsoever which could be properly said to be "within" that "infinity".

 

But, if one reflects a moment on the nature of the concept of "within", of being "contained," one may recognise that infinity, being limitless, is the antithesis --in the most absolute sense possibleof that term --of "within". The very nature of infinity is just that: it is impossible to be "inside" it, just as it is impossible to be outside it or, therefore, for "spaces" to exist "within it", much less "expand within it", or, exhibit anything that can reasonably be conceived of as a "rate of expansion".

 

When we try and imagine things "within" infinity, we are in that instant violating the essential assumption about what infinity is supposed to be. And therein lies the logical impossibility of such a mistaken notion.

 

I'd appreciate hearing from you on whether any of that has "reached" you.

Edited January 7, 2013 by proximity1

[PeterJ]

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/universe/uni_shape.html

 

Apparently the humans at NASA have a pretty good consciousness.

 

"We now know (as of 2013) that the universe is flat with only a 0.4% margin of error. This suggests that the Universe is infinite in extent; however, since the Universe has a finite age, we can only observe a finite volume of the Universe. All we can truly conclude is that the Universe is much larger than the volume we can directly observe." (my italics)

 

As I posted, the physics of the finite observable universe does not leave out the possibility that the whole universe is infinite. If this is the case, then an infinite universe with a finite age must have inflated at an infinite rate. That seems like a pretty short bridge to me.

I would agree with Proximity. Nasa is talking nonsense here, doing not just pseudo-science but pseudo-philosophy. If the universe is infinite then Big Bang theory is wrong. Full stop. It is incomprehensible to me that scientists should take any other view.

 

I feel that the simple wysiwyg model that science uses for the universe falls apart when we start asking this kind of question. The answer to it, in my opinion, is that the universe does not have a size, and so is finite or infinite depending on which of two wrong ways we want to imagine it. This solves the problem of the absurdity of the idea that it is finite or infinite, and explains why it is absurd.

[proximity1]

I would agree with Proximity. Nasa is talking nonsense here, doing not just pseudo-science but pseudo-philosophy. If the universe is infinite then Big Bang theory is wrong. Full stop. It is incomprehensible to me that scientists should take any other view.

 

I feel that the simple wysiwyg model that science uses for the universe falls apart when we start asking this kind of question. The answer to it, in my opinion, is that the universe does not have a size, and so is finite or infinite depending on which of two wrong ways we want to imagine it. This solves the problem of the absurdity of the idea that it is finite or infinite, and explains why it is absurd.

 

REVISED

 

Thanks. I posted here earlier but, in doing so, I'd simply misread your comment--I thought you'd written,

 

"If the Universe is finite, then the Big Bang theory is wrong. Full stop." Ooops. My bad!!!

 

But, having re-read, I now see my error in reading your comment, and, with that, I want to say, thank you, and I agree. If the Universe is infinite, then I don't see how that could be compatible with any point of origin--such as the Big Bang or any other "origin". I cannot conceive of "infinity" having had an origin in space-time, as these seem to me self-contradictory in nature.

 

So, with this re-edit, I've deleted the previously posted comment as it was based on my mistaken reading of your comment.

Edited January 7, 2013 by proximity1

[PeterJ]

Thanks for the re-reading Proximity. It's so easy to misread people. I do it all the time. But I think we agree about most of this.

 

 

 

Again in this thread I see the comment that philosophy has nothing to do with science. In this case the size of the universe has nothing to do with science.

 

It is an attitude that leads to the abandonment of reason.

 

Consider this -

"If a universe with finite age is infinite as indicated by the WMAP results, then it must have inflated at an infinite rate.

Pink elephants aside, what part of that doesn't answer the OP?"

None of it. It does not even address the question. It would be complete insanity to imagine it possible that anything could inflate at an infinite rate. Pink elephants are at least imaginable. What on earth would 'inflation at an infinite rate' mean? Better to simply call it instant inflation, since such inflation could never be observed or measured. Even better still to come up with an idea.that computes. .

Edited January 7, 2013 by PeterJ

[proximity1]

Thanks for the re-reading Proximity. It's so easy to misread people. I do it all the time. But I think we agree about most of this.

 

 

 

Again in this thread I see the comment that philosophy has nothing to do with science. In this case the size of the universe has nothing to do with science.

 

It is an attitude that leads to the abandonment of reason.

 

Consider this -

"If a universe with finite age is infinite as indicated by the WMAP results, then it must have inflated at an infinite rate.

Pink elephants aside, what part of that doesn't answer the OP?"

 

None of it. It does not even address the question. It would be complete insanity to imagine it possible that anything could inflate at an infinite rate. Pink elephants are at least imaginable. What on earth would 'inflation at an infinite rate' mean? Better to simply call it instant inflation, since such inflation could never be observed or measured. Even better still to come up with an idea.that computes. .

 

My sentiments exactly.

[Arch2008]

If the feeding frenzy is over I shall point out again that I never posted that the universe is infinite. No one else will say this either, so you can't google it to Stephen Hawking or Stevie Nicks.

 

However, we can calculate with WMAP results how an infinite universe would behave. The original WMAP results gave a flatness to about 5%. Five years later, WMAP5 gave a result of four tenths of a percent. WMAP10 may get .0000001%. We can never directly observe an infinite universe, but we can observe a local flatness to the geometry of the observable universe that would not rule out the possibility of an infinite whole universe. A universe of finite age cannot expand at a finite rate to be infinite in size. The evidence indicates that the age of the universe is finite. The evidence also indicates that the size of the universe may be infinite.

 

An "exponential rate" of inflation would approach what as a limit?

 

So you're okay with inflation creating a universe out of nothing and then expanding it to size X no matter how big X is, just as long as no one mentions infinity?

Edited January 9, 2013 by Arch2008

[Dekan]

The evidence also indicates that the size of the universe may be infinite.

 

 

Can you have an infinite object with a "size"? Isn't that a contradiction? "Infinite" means "without limit". Whereas "size" implies there's a limit to the object. So it can be compared to other objects. Like baseballs can be compared to cricket-balls.

 

So what about the theory that the Universe that we see, is "all there is" - that there are no other external objects, or balls, to compare it with - that it's complete?

 

Can't this theory be justly described as complete balls?

Edited January 9, 2013 by Dekan

[DarkStar8]

My understanding of infinite is not so much a fixed large number, but more a continually accelerating number series. Ie what ever number you think of is always less than the infinite which is always ahead of you. The universe is accelerating as fast as it can towards the infinite and infinitesimal in all directions, and no matter how fast you travel the 'limit' of percieved motion always maintains its distance away from you.

Edited January 9, 2013 by DarkStar8

[MigL]

Apparently you misread quite a few people's posts Proximity1. Re-read mine again. My arguments are not flawed but show how an infinite space can expand, using no philosophy whatsoever ( imagine that ).

 

Maybe next time read more and spout off less, as your misguided rebuttal to my post was four times longer and said the same thing.

Edited January 10, 2013 by MigL

[NaxAlpha]

If the entire universe really was smaller than a proton when it started expanding, and it has been expending at a finite rate. Even if explansion during inflation was a number of times faster than light speed, the expansion rate was a finite number. Then how can it reach an infinite size in a finite period of time?

 

Therefore, it appear that the size of the universe is finite.

 

Hi,

Check this link

Click Here

[proximity1]

Apparently you misread quite a few people's posts Proximity1. Re-read mine again. My arguments are not flawed but show how an infinite space can expand, using no philosophy whatsoever ( imagine that ).

 

Maybe next time read more and spout off less, as your misguided rebuttal to my post was four times longer and said the same thing.

 

RE: "Apparently you misread quite a few people's posts"...

 

Perhaps, but you haven't shown how I misread yours.

 

Instead, this, from you,

 

"My arguments are not flawed but show how an infinite space can expand, using no philosophy whatsoever ( imagine that )."

 

is a wholly unsupported assertion and is completely unresponsive to the points I made--which you ignore--and, so, as a "reply" to what I'd written, it is "junk."

 

Your "arugments" amount to "Everyone who agrees with me (i.e. you) will agree with me."

 

I'm not impressed.

Edited January 10, 2013 by proximity1

[Spyman]

Try to imagine that you are inside a huge building without any windows or other possibilities to look out outside. For every day that passes you seem to shrink compared to the size of the building and when you use your meterstick to measure distances for several days, you can confirm that the building is getting larger compared to your meterstick.

When space is expanding the Universe is not thought to be growing into some empty surroundings, according to the theory of Relativity it is the scale of our local meterstick that is changing. It doesn't make any difference if the Universe outside of the building is finite or infinite since it is the relation that is changing and not the walls that are moving apart.


When we assert that the universe expands, what is our
standard of constancy? There is no particular subtlety about
the answer; the expansion is relative to the standards that
we ordinarily employ. It is relative to the standard metre
bar, for example, or to the wave-length of cadmium light
which is often suggested as a more ideal standard, or to any
of the linear dimensions associated with atoms, electrons, etc.
which are regarded as "natural constants" in atomic physics.
But if the universe is expanding relatively to these standards,
all these standards are shrinking relatively to the universe.
The theory of the expanding universe is also the theory of the
shrinking atom.

Sir Arthur Eddington, New Pathways In Science (1935), page 223

[michel123456]

Try to imagine that you are inside a huge building without any windows or other possibilities to look out outside. For every day that passes you seem to shrink compared to the size of the building and when you use your meterstick to measure distances for several days, you can confirm that the building is getting larger compared to your meterstick.

 

When space is expanding the Universe is not thought to be growing into some empty surroundings, according to the theory of Relativity it is the scale of our local meterstick that is changing. It doesn't make any difference if the Universe outside of the building is finite or infinite since it is the relation that is changing and not the walls that are moving apart.

 

 

When we assert that the universe expands, what is our

standard of constancy? There is no particular subtlety about

the answer; the expansion is relative to the standards that

we ordinarily employ. It is relative to the standard metre

bar, for example, or to the wave-length of cadmium light

which is often suggested as a more ideal standard, or to any

of the linear dimensions associated with atoms, electrons, etc.

which are regarded as "natural constants" in atomic physics.

But if the universe is expanding relatively to these standards,

all these standards are shrinking relatively to the universe.

The theory of the expanding universe is also the theory of the

shrinking atom.

 

Sir Arthur Eddington, New Pathways In Science (1935), page 223

I wish that was mainstream physics.

But is this mainstream physics? look here.

[proximity1]

Try to imagine that you are inside a huge building without any windows or other possibilities to look out outside. For every day that passes you seem to shrink compared to the size of the building and when you use your meterstick to measure distances for several days, you can confirm that the building is getting larger compared to your meterstick.

 

When space is expanding the Universe is not thought to be growing into some empty surroundings, according to the theory of Relativity it is the scale of our local meterstick that is changing. It doesn't make any difference if the Universe outside of the building is finite or infinite since it is the relation that is changing and not the walls that are moving apart.

 

 

When we assert that the universe expands, what is our

standard of constancy? There is no particular subtlety about

the answer; the expansion is relative to the standards that

we ordinarily employ. It is relative to the standard metre

bar, for example, or to the wave-length of cadmium light

which is often suggested as a more ideal standard, or to any

of the linear dimensions associated with atoms, electrons, etc.

which are regarded as "natural constants" in atomic physics.

But if the universe is expanding relatively to these standards,

all these standards are shrinking relatively to the universe.

The theory of the expanding universe is also the theory of the

shrinking atom.

 

Sir Arthur Eddington, New Pathways In Science (1935), page 223

 

Very well. I hope you won't mind if I pose a few questions to see if and how much I understand of what you're saying there.

 

Let's say for the sake of argument that the analogy is valid-- i;e. we have no view "outside" the "building"-- would the "building" here be analogous to the "universe" or the "visible universe" or either or both of those?

 

Second, are you saying that "the observer" himself--and I refer there to actual human kind--is in some demonstrable way actually in fact smaller relative to the "building" with passing time (--and, isn't it indeed a very important factor just what "with passing time" is supposed to mean? IOW, aren't the relative sizes (and I mean both--"building" and "occupants"--- and the "passing time" all inextricably bound up in the "picture" we're tyring to conjure? ) but that the measures being applied, the meter sticks, or whatever it may be, including the wave-length of cadmium light or any other supposedly constant factor, are not also "shrinking relative to the "building" ? And, if not--that is, if our measures aren't also shrinking, how, I wonder would we be supposed to determine this?

 

What is it that allows us to assume that it is the relative sizes and not the absolute size of the "building" that is "expanding"--and, if its expanding relative to ourselves--the putative observers, aren't we either "shrinking" absolutely or the building is, indeed, expanding into "something" which it does not previously "occupy"?

 

I'll much appreciate your clarifications which I wait eagerly to read.

 

Thanks.

[Spyman]

I wish that was mainstream physics.

But is this mainstream physics? look here.

Are you saying that Sir Arthur Eddington which was famous for his work and interpretations on Relativity is not creditable or that there has been major changes in the basics of the theory of Relativity that makes my quoted passage from Eddington's book obsolete?

 

Sir Arthur Eddington

In the early years after Einstein's theory was published, Sir Arthur Eddington lent his considerable prestige in the British scientific establishment in an effort to champion the work of this German scientist. Because the theory was so complex and abstruse (even today it is popularly considered the pinnacle of scientific thinking; in the early years it was even more so), it was rumored that only three people in the world understood it. There was an illuminating, though probably apocryphal, anecdote about this. As related by Ludwik Silberstein, during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity#Sir_Arthur_Eddington

 

Relativity aside and since you are an architect, I would expect you to realize that if an building is ten times larger than an replica then the replica is also ten times smaller than the building, so if the building gets eleven times larger than the replica then the replica also gets eleven times smaller than the building.

 

If someone tells you differently, I think you should ask them for clarification and not me.

 

 

Let's say for the sake of argument that the analogy is valid-- i;e. we have no view "outside" the "building"-- would the "building" here be analogous to the "universe" or the "visible universe" or either or both of those?

The volume and contents inside of the building can be considered to be the inside and contents of the observable universe.

 

Second, are you saying that "the observer" himself--and I refer there to actual human kind--is in some demonstrable way actually in fact smaller relative to the "building" with passing time (--and, isn't it indeed a very important factor just what "with passing time" is supposed to mean? IOW, aren't the relative sizes (and I mean both--"building" and "occupants"--- and the "passing time" all inextricably bound up in the "picture" we're tyring to conjure? ) but that the measures being applied, the meter sticks, or whatever it may be, including the wave-length of cadmium light or any other supposedly constant factor, are not also "shrinking relative to the "building" ? And, if not--that is, if our measures aren't also shrinking, how, I wonder would we be supposed to determine this?

Depending on your definition of "demonstrable way", I would say that there is substantial observational evidence that space is expanding relative our definition of the metric length. The relation between "occupants sizes" and "space between them" is changing such that the occupants measure an increase in the distances, more meterstick length are needed to fill up the increasing distance. When all our applied measures is shrinking relative large distances, we can determine that relative sizes are changing.

 

What is it that allows us to assume that it is the relative sizes and not the absolute size of the "building" that is "expanding"--and, if its expanding relative to ourselves--the putative observers, aren't we either "shrinking" absolutely or the building is, indeed, expanding into "something" which it does not previously "occupy"?

The relative sizes between us and the building is changing whether or not it is the building that is expanding or we who are shrinking.

 

We can't distinguish an external "absolute" related to sizes, such an absolute would need a foundation outside of the Universe to relate against, what we can say is that: relative us the Universe is expanding or relative the Universe we are shrinking.

Edited January 11, 2013 by Spyman

[michel123456]

Are you saying that Sir Arthur Eddington which was famous for his work and interpretations on Relativity is not creditable or that there has been major changes in the basics of the theory of Relativity that makes my quoted passage from Eddington's book obsolete?

 

Sir Arthur Eddington

In the early years after Einstein's theory was published, Sir Arthur Eddington lent his considerable prestige in the British scientific establishment in an effort to champion the work of this German scientist. Because the theory was so complex and abstruse (even today it is popularly considered the pinnacle of scientific thinking; in the early years it was even more so), it was rumored that only three people in the world understood it. There was an illuminating, though probably apocryphal, anecdote about this. As related by Ludwik Silberstein, during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity#Sir_Arthur_Eddington

 

Relativity aside and since you are an architect, I would expect you to realize that if an building is ten times larger than an replica then the replica is also ten times smaller than the building, so if the building gets eleven times larger than the replica then the replica also gets eleven times smaller than the building.

 

If someone tells you differently, I think you should ask them for clarification and not me.

 

 

The volume and contents inside of the building can be considered to be the inside and contents of the observable universe.

 

Depending on your definition of "demonstrable way", I would say that there is substantial observational evidence that space is expanding relative our definition of the metric length. The relation between "occupants sizes" and "space between them" is changing such that the occupants measure an increase in the distances, more meterstick length are needed to fill up the increasing distance. When all our applied measures is shrinking relative large distances, we can determine that relative sizes are changing.

 

The relative sizes between us and the building is changing whether or not it is the building that is expanding or we who are shrinking.

 

We can't distinguish an external "absolute" related to sizes, such an absolute would need a foundation outside of the Universe to relate against, what we can say is that: relative us the Universe is expanding or relative the Universe we are shrinking.

I am on your side. I agree with you.

I simply linked to another thread where it seems that your (and my) point of vue is not considered as part of mainstream science.

Usually (Eddington aside) it is considered that there is an absolute dimension, that our meter stick does not change, that atoms have a size that do not change over time.

As you do, I prefer to consider everything relative: as you said, if the universe expands relative to us, that can also mean that we are shrinking relatively to the universe. That changes nothing.

 

But to quote AJB

The expansion of the universe is really a large scale phenomena that applies to clusters of galaxies. Locally we do not feel this expansion, the gravitational attraction between individual galaxies in a cluster is more than sufficient to counteract and tendency to get pushed apart.

 

 

Thus I cannot see 2(*). as being a viable explanation.

 

 

(*)2. the atoms (all elementary particles) are getting smaller and the Universe has a defined dimension.

 

 

And Swansont:

There are properties that scale with different powers of r. if atoms were changing size, these properties would be varying with respect to each other. Anyone wanting to propose this needs to present evidence for it, since it should be observable, or present arguments why it isn't observable.

[proximity1]

Are you saying that Sir Arthur Eddington which was famous for his work and interpretations on Relativity is not creditable or that there has been major changes in the basics of the theory of Relativity that makes my quoted passage from Eddington's book obsolete?

 

Sir Arthur Eddington

In the early years after Einstein's theory was published, Sir Arthur Eddington lent his considerable prestige in the British scientific establishment in an effort to champion the work of this German scientist. Because the theory was so complex and abstruse (even today it is popularly considered the pinnacle of scientific thinking; in the early years it was even more so), it was rumored that only three people in the world understood it. There was an illuminating, though probably apocryphal, anecdote about this. As related by Ludwik Silberstein, during one of Eddington's lectures he asked "Professor Eddington, you must be one of three persons in the world who understands general relativity." Eddington paused, unable to answer. Silberstein continued "Don't be modest, Eddington!" Finally, Eddington replied "On the contrary, I'm trying to think who the third person is."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_general_relativity#Sir_Arthur_Eddington

 

Relativity aside and since you are an architect, I would expect you to realize that if an building is ten times larger than an replica then the replica is also ten times smaller than the building, so if the building gets eleven times larger than the replica then the replica also gets eleven times smaller than the building.

 

If someone tells you differently, I think you should ask them for clarification and not me.

 

 

The volume and contents inside of the building can be considered to be the inside and contents of the observable universe.

 

Depending on your definition of "demonstrable way", I would say that there is substantial observational evidence that space is expanding relative our definition of the metric length. The relation between "occupants sizes" and "space between them" is changing such that the occupants measure an increase in the distances, more meterstick length are needed to fill up the increasing distance. When all our applied measures is shrinking relative large distances, we can determine that relative sizes are changing.

 

The relative sizes between us and the building is changing whether or not it is the building that is expanding or we who are shrinking.

 

We can't distinguish an external "absolute" related to sizes, such an absolute would need a foundation outside of the Universe to relate against, what we can say is that: relative us the Universe is expanding or relative the Universe we are shrinking.

 

Thank you for addressing the questions I raised. Your comments are interesting and helpful, giving me a better idea of what you mean. I still have comments and questions on the topic which I haven't yet raised here, but some of them may be better suited to other similar threads where, in fact, you offer views and comments directly related to what I have yet to ask and comment on.

 

That said, in looking over the link you presented, I noticed the following article which presents quite a different view-- I wonder: am I correct in thinking that Bunn's and Hogg's views are relevant to the issues we're discussing in the posts just above?

 

(until I can access the full article from a library, I've only been able to read the brief introduction at the link below.)

 

American Journal of Physics -- August 2009 -- Volume 77, Issue 8, pp. 688

"The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift" by Emory F. Bunn and David W. Hogg

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v77/i8/p688_s1?isAuthorized=no

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.3129103

Edited January 11, 2013 by proximity1

[StringJunky]

 

 

(until I can access the full article from a library, I've only been able to read the brief introduction at the link below.)

 

American Journal of Physics -- August 2009 -- Volume 77, Issue 8, pp. 688

"The kinematic origin of the cosmological redshift" by Emory F. Bunn and David W. Hogg

http://ajp.aapt.org/resource/1/ajpias/v77/i8/p688_s1?isAuthorized=no

 

http://dx.doi.org/10.1119/1.3129103

 

 

Here it is: http://arxiv.org/abs/0808.1081 Click on PDF top right.

Edited January 11, 2013 by StringJunky