Leave these fields empty (spam trap):
Name
You can leave this blank to post anonymously, or you can create a Tripcode by using the format Name#Password
Comment
[i]Italic Text[/i]
[b]Bold Text[/b]
[spoiler]Spoiler Text[/spoiler]
>Highlight/Quote Text
[pre]Preformatted & Monospace Text[/pre]
[super]Superset Text[/super]
[sub]Subset Text[/sub]
1. Numbered lists become ordered lists
* Bulleted lists become unordered lists
File

Sandwich


Discord #Drugs Channel Now Open

smoked weed and was thinking

Reply
- Sat, 10 Sep 2016 08:08:34 EST KRFHH0CT No.56414
File: 1473509314493.jpg -(71473B / 69.80KB, 768x1024) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size. smoked weed and was thinking
If time and space are different forms of the same thing, and space is possibly infinite, is time infinite too?
>>
Bernard-Ferdinand Lyot - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 11:10:57 EST Y3T9nNnZ No.56415 Reply
Well space may not be infinite.
>>
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 15:53:34 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56416 Reply
Space isn't infinite. Otherwise it wouldn't be expanding.
>>
Clyde Tombaugh - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:32:41 EST rszf0FN0 No.56417 Reply
>>56416
That's not sufficient to assume space isn't infinite. The amount of space between spaces itself is what is expanding, if it were simply a finite volume expanding into a somewhat larger finite volume it wouldn't have the properties it does (space wouldn't be isotropic, we would be able to determine a gravitational center, etc.), as far as we can tell the universe is composed of an infinite number of Hubble volumes. It doesn't require empty space to expand into, since it already is infinite; what is expanding is the space between spaces.
Time is also infinite, since time is a measurement of change in the universe. We know that a universe like ours can emerge from random quantum fluctuations in the void (since this is how we theorize our Big Bang occurred.) Since there is no molecular motion after the heat death of the universe, then there is no time, so even though we may say it takes x number of quintillion years for a new universe to emerge from the void by random fluctuation, that amount of time takes no time at all, since there is no way to measure time. Therefore we can also conclude that the process of universes emerging, dying out, and re-emerging has occurred an infinite number of times, since there is nothing in physics that could stop it once it's started, or change it from a state of having not been started to starting. Thus we can conclude that both space and time are infinite dimensions. From this we get things like chaotic expansion theory, evolutionary inflationary universes, and the like. All this without even bringing in the possibility of alternate realities via the many-worlds interpretation of quantum mechanics.
Everything is infinite. It's so infinitely infinite, that even with all that infinity to work with, you could never understand exactly how infinite it is.
>>
William Hartmann - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:35:13 EST y6KWKtwe No.56418 Reply
>>56417

>We know that a universe like ours can emerge from random quantum fluctuations in the void

going to have to dispute that humans know jack shit
>>
Joseph Taylor Jr. - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 16:53:49 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56419 Reply
>>56417

I remember reading that space itself had a finite volume at all times. Source?
>>
Clyde Tombaugh - Sat, 10 Sep 2016 17:08:18 EST rszf0FN0 No.56420 Reply
>>56419
The hubble volume is always finite for any observer, but only due to the fact that the current universe has only had visible photons for a small portion of time (~13 billion years) the hubble volume, which is what we refer to as the observable universe, thus is always finite, but we know because of the lack of gravitational displacement on that volume that there are other equally massive volumes beyond it.
If the mean curvature of spatial topology is < or = to 0, meaning it is either flat or inversely spherical, then the universe is infinite:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Universe#cite_note-RaineThomas70-116
Recent data from the WMAP satellite confirm the topology of spacetime is flat:
http://www.symmetrymagazine.org/article/april-2015/our-flat-universe?email_issue=725

>>56418
Fine, 'based on our understanding of the principles of quantum mechanics we can deduce that the emergence of a universe via a Big Bang-like process from spontaneous virtual particle emissions in a spatial void is consistent with current empirical findings.' If you're going to question knowledge beyond that, then there's no point in discussing science.
>>
William Herschel - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 04:40:32 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56421 Reply
>>56420

Huh, interesting reads, thanks!

But still at the Big Bang, scientists says that the universe was smaller than an atom. How would this be possible if the universe is already infinite?
>>
George Gamow - Sun, 11 Sep 2016 21:14:09 EST rszf0FN0 No.56423 Reply
>>56421
The answer to that question depends on your interpretation of higher physics theories, whether you want to accept strings or the holographic universe principle or MWI or what have you. It has been suggested that a universe could begin on the inside of a black hole singularity in a higher dimensional reality (i.e. our 3d blackholes have 2d event horizons, our 3d universe could be the event horizon of a 4d blackhole.) Or that our physical universe is an expanding area of false vacuum within a 'true vacuum.' I think the most straightforward answer is that it is conflating different meanings of the point and the universe. The larger meta-universe obviously already existed before our current physical universe did, but since our physical universe is an infinite space when we say that it was all a point we can only mean that it had infinite density and compaction, so much so that there were no distinct particles or physical forces. It would then appear that it relatively quickly entered a phase of 'expansion' close to what it is presently in terms of the separation of forces and matter and energy into distinct particles, although the physical dispersal of matter from each other in the expansion of the space between galaxies obviously had just begun. We know this simply from the fact that we can see all the way back to basically just after the universe began to emit photons, and space is already isotropically everywhere. It's hard to understand, but space itself is expanding all the time, and just at that point it was so compressed that what is now our everywhere was just as if it was a point. But there are of course other possible explanations.
>>
Edward Pickering - Sun, 18 Sep 2016 06:23:56 EST pjhpxsvC No.56437 Reply
>>56421
Singularities are infinite spaces contained in a single point. Don't think about it. Just accept it.
>>
George Hale - Tue, 20 Sep 2016 19:05:45 EST pXC9gCtz No.56442 Reply
1474412745746.gif -(507735B / 495.83KB, 500x379) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56438
>like mathematics and logic, which tell a neat story but have nothing to do with observed reality

I don't think those subjects work like you think they work. Ever heard of Pi?
>>
Fred Whipple - Thu, 22 Sep 2016 11:54:09 EST KkcjZIo6 No.56454 Reply
>>56438
> the big bang happened
No, damnit, the big bang is a process, not an event. We see the universe expanding, extrapolating backwards we conclude that the universe was once small and dense. That's it, the continuing expansion is the big bang; the big is happening, not happened. Our model breaks down when things get really tight, it doesn't describe or even suggest an initial event.
>>
Georges-Henri Lemaitre - Thu, 22 Sep 2016 17:18:52 EST rszf0FN0 No.56455 Reply
>>56453
So you're saying that if all humans died, the laws of physics would break down? Mathematics is the integral foundation of physics, so if it is only true because humans think it's true, we would expect all of reality to break down. The only alternative is to accept that 2+2=4 whether all of us are dead or not. It's not defining the universe, it's discovering and describing a relationship that is already present within the (informational) universe.
>>
Henrietta Levitt - Thu, 22 Sep 2016 20:59:53 EST bU/fEFDX No.56456 Reply
>>56455
It's discovering and describing a relationship between things that we think are different from one another. Without humans (or any other thinking being), 2+2=4 would not hold true because nobody would be around to say one thing is different from the next, let alone add them up in their heads.
>>
Friedrich von Struve - Thu, 22 Sep 2016 21:08:45 EST rszf0FN0 No.56457 Reply
>>56456
It's true that you need a thinking thing to access the information of 2+2=4, but that information is accessible to any thinking thing whenever it may exist regardless of if there was a thinking thing before or not. But that's why I think you can say the relationship still holds true even if no one is thinking of it, since even the destruction of all knowledge about the idea has not altered the idea or its truth value. For example, the law of gravity was still true even before anyone thought of the concept, because the concept merely discovers and describes a reality that was already there, and thus was already 'true.' There's actually a great debate on this very topic going on right now in /pss/ so I will just leave it at that.
>>
Fred Whipple - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 12:48:56 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56462 Reply
>>56455

Disregard the relativists, the guy you're responding to does have a point. Mathematics is at its core just measurement. I have 3 apples, you have 5. And you need an observer in order to do measurement.

It's just like time; we all have a close relationship with it, but without anyone to experience its passage there would be no difference between 100 million years and a second. Everything would happen in an 'instant', even though all events are ordered chronologically and by causality.
>>
Fred Whipple - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:00:12 EST 3t/weoS/ No.56465 Reply
>>56464

That still depends on the existence of an observer. It has nothing to do with the causality of events.
>>
Friedrich Bessel - Fri, 23 Sep 2016 15:51:38 EST 08CSyNx+ No.56466 Reply
1474660298624.jpg -(86380B / 84.36KB, 636x477) Thumbnail displayed, click image for full size.
>>56415
is space expanding, or is this universe expanding?
>>
Edmond Halley - Sat, 24 Sep 2016 04:34:43 EST Kz5Q207u No.56471 Reply
>>56466
Technically both, because they're both part of each other. When the universe expands, so does space. Don't confuse expansion with mere stretching. Space-time didn't exist before the big bang, if there could even be said to be a before. Space-time is a part of the universe, and doesn't exist "outside" of it. Space isn't nothing, it's something (which explains how it can curve).

Really, there isn't anything outside of the universe, hence there being nothing. Well, there can't even "be" nothing, lol. It sounds stupidly simple but nothing is a hard concept to wrap your mind around without going in circles. Don't confuse the entirety of our universe with the particle horizon or hubble horizon either. Some people debate whether particles that can never interact with particles in the observable universe should be considered part of the universe, but they should be for the sake of specificity (that is to say, we already say the observable universe or everything in our particle horizon, etc., in regards to... well, those things).

TL;DR: Essentially, any particular region of space that the universe expands to, the space itself that the matter takes up/inhabits and can take up is expanding with the matter--otherwise, it couldn't exist there. The confusion arises from the colloquial definition of space being used in conjunction with a more physics based definition of space-time.
>>
Nicolaus Copernicus - Sat, 24 Sep 2016 18:30:18 EST rszf0FN0 No.56474 Reply
>>56472
If the universe isn't logical, why does it obey causality, directionality of time, and the like? If there is no logic to the laws of physics, why would they behave consistently at all?
>>
Urbain Le Verrier - Sun, 25 Sep 2016 11:05:55 EST 9wXFDQAd No.56476 Reply
>>56474
The post you're replying to needs some clarification. It isn't that the universe isn't logical. It's that the universe was invented to make sense of ourselves. Everything that we know about the universe was formed in our mind. That's where the logic happens. Without the mind, there would be no definition of anything.
>>
George Gamow - Sun, 25 Sep 2016 18:03:25 EST rszf0FN0 No.56477 Reply
>>56476
Of course, only minds can have concepts or access to any information whatsoever. But we didn't invent or define the laws of physics or the rules of logic, we simply discovered approximations of them to lesser or greater degrees of accuracy.
>>
Stephen Hawking - Mon, 26 Sep 2016 21:43:20 EST X4FAw0QG No.56478 Reply
>>56414

Time remains as it will be currently occuring in its form and matter in the presence under which we have sense in understanding it through our correlation with what we perceive in this istance of moments amounted, though it will always be so in a way of saying perhaps , its difficult to say properly
>>
Charles Messier - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 01:49:47 EST Kz5Q207u No.56479 Reply
>>56478
That was some of the most confusing shit I've ever read. Work on your wording nigga, took me like 3 reads to understand what you were saying.
>>
William Hartmann - Tue, 27 Sep 2016 02:29:03 EST p24Ges2t No.56480 Reply
>>56479

Nigga, it's Stephen Hawking. Give him a break

Report Post
Reason
Note
Please be descriptive with report notes,
this helps staff resolve issues quicker.