The Finite Universe

[neutrinosalad]

 

Most of this is very complex and requires a lot of expertise to understand and probably won't be mentioned, except in passing, in the sort of sources you have mentioned so far.

 

Even beyond the complexity. I am finding that a lot of what is being talked about in terms of the construction and operation of the universe is quite literally at the edge of human comprehension.

 

Dark matter for example is believed to be a type of matter that operates on more than 3 spatial dimensions (based on the articles that I have been reading). How can we as mere humans truly understand matter that operates on 3+ spatial dimensions, when our own minds are programmed to only understand and perceive 3 of them?

 

Or even the idea of there being infinite size or length of time. The concept of infinite is at ends with our evolutionary programming since our bodies work based upon a variety of constraints.

 

The inconsistencies are the reason why I find all of this so fascinating. The inconsistencies means that there are groups of scientists working on the bleeding edge of society's understanding of the universe. If these inconsistencies are cleared up and clear models of the universe arise that will mean that entire body of science will have moved forward and humanity will have further unlocked the secrets of the universe.

[Strange]

Dark matter for example is believed to be a type of matter that operates on more than 3 spatial dimensions (based on the articles that I have been reading).

 

I have never heard anything like that.

 

How can we as mere humans truly understand matter that operates on 3+ spatial dimensions, when our own minds are programmed to only understand and perceive 3 of them?

 

That is the great thing about mathematics, it enables us to model our universe of 4 dimensions (3 space and 1 time). And in string theory there are 10+ dimensions.

 

It doesn't have to make intuitive sense - by using mathematics we can still make sense of it.

 

Or even the idea of there being infinite size or length of time. The concept of infinite is at ends with our evolutionary programming since our bodies work based upon a variety of constraints.

 

But mathematics can handle it.

 

The inconsistencies are the reason why I find all of this so fascinating. The inconsistencies means that there are groups of scientists working on the bleeding edge of society's understanding of the universe. If these inconsistencies are cleared up and clear models of the universe arise that will mean that entire body of science will have moved forward and humanity will have further unlocked the secrets of the universe.

 

Agreed.

[Phi for All]

No, that is not my intention. I only know enough about science to be interested in it, and to accept it most of the time. When I discover inconsistencies I try to reconcile them. I'm not here to bore you with the consistencies of science, only what baffles me, even after searching for an answer. You appear to be saying, since I don't know much about science, I should just accept what the experts say, and not question authority. I have no business here. This discussion is only for experts who already understand the intricacies of the big bang.

 

I apologize if I gave that impression. I'm trying to point out that many of your objections come from your perceived ability to spot inconsistencies in very complex subjects, something normally seen in someone who has studied a loooooong time. You also tend to... I'm not sure if "pounce" is the right word or not, but a lot of your posts seem like you're trying to "accuse", or "expose", or otherwise attempt to put science in its place because it did something inconsistent, something that confused you.

 

Your perception of science and scientists seems based on victimhood. Nobody is telling you not to question authority, that you're not worthy of discussion, that you don't know enough. But you have to admit, for someone who says they don't know much science, you're extremely ADAMANT in your outspokenness. You claim to be "baffled" and "searching for an answer", but you sure sound like you know science is WRONG. I would just caution you not to shout so loudly it impairs your ability to hear anything.

[MigL]

Whether the universe ( not just observable ) is finite or infinite is inconsequential.

The only constraint that I can see is that it cannot be bounded, so a finite universe which folds back in on itself is allowed, as is a universe which goes on forever.

The fact remains that only our observable universe can affect us, anything beyond that cannot.

 

There are several ways for a mathematical model to go from finite to infinite, and I gave one such example in my previous post #5. There are others.

Whether the actual universe can act this way is still to be decided.

But consider that a universe ( circa big bang ) the size of an orange ( or even an atom ) is a relative term, compared to the size of the universe today, since a literal term would mean you, the observer, are standing 'outside' the universe to make that measurement; An impossibility, for the same reason the universe cannot be bounded.

[Strange]

Strange: "...I see you mention Michio Kaku: I would take his pop-science stuff with a large pinch of salt. In fact, I would disregard it completely."

 

Why should I? What Michio says is what Stephen Hawking, and Neil DeGrass Tyson, and a number of other very reputable, respected, televised experts ALSO say. It looks like a conspiracy to keep people confused, but it is certainly not intentional, just careless.

 

I have seen very little popular science presentations by any of these. But because so many people have made bizarre claims based on thinks Kaku has said, I have gone out of my way to find articles/videos by him. He seems more interested in being sensational, rather than accurate. He appears to spread a lot of confusion and misunderstanding. (And some of what he says, outside his area of expertise, is just plain wrong.)

[neutrinosalad]

 

I have never heard anything like that.

 

As a forward, this is not directly on topic.

 

Here is the article I was remembering: http://www.nature.com/news/2005/050829/full/news050829-18.htmlthat was in the back of my head when making the statement.

 

Re-reading it, I guess there is speculations that there may be extra "tiny" dimensions that could resolve the gravitational behavior of dark matter believed to exist throughout the universe.

 

Then there is this part of the wiki page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dark_matter#Mass_in_extra_dimensions

 

 

In some multidimensional theories, the force of gravity is the unique force able to have an effect across all the various extra dimensions,^[17] which would explain the relative weakness of the force of gravity compared to the other known forces of nature that would not be able to cross into extra dimensions: electromagnetism, strong interaction, and weak interaction.

In that case, dark matter would be a perfect candidate for matter that would exist in other dimensions and that could only interact with the matter on our dimensions through gravity. That dark matter located on different dimensions could potentially aggregate in the same way as the matter in our visible universe does, forming exotic galaxies.^[16]

 

I guess the extra dimension thing could be shelved into "speculations" and I don't mean to drag the thread more off topic, just elaborating here.

[OConnor_LFC]

Maybe we think it's infinite because we can't reach further than space.