Is the universe infinite or finite?

[gnostic]

I never rejected 3D space time because it could not be visualized, where do you get that from? I can visualize 3D space time models easily, but I am saying it is a mental creation and the movement I see is happening in the now, what is called time, and which I call the endless now in this context of explaining why time as a real entity does not exist outside the mind.

But you cannot visualize 4D space?

The 4th being time. We are dealing with universe, so it does concern spacetime.

The question is why you keep trying to leave out "time"?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I can visualize 4D space time.

I didn't leave out time, what I am saying is that time is not a real entity like space, it is mental creation to track changes in 3D space. A clock does not measure anything except its own internal workings.

 

[ratiocinator]

Are we giving false import to the present moment? "We can portray our reality as either a three-dimensional place where stuff happens over time," said Massachusetts Institute of Technology physicist Max Tegmark, "or as a four-dimensional place where nothing happens [‘block universe’] — and if it really is the second picture, then change really is an illusion, because there's nothing that's changing; it's all just there — past, present, future.

The 'block universe' is the natural conclusion from general relativity.

I didn't leave out time, what I am saying is that time is not a real entity like space, it is mental creation to track changes in 3D space.

Whereas the passage of time seems to be a mental constructs (see above), the evidence says that general relativity is a good model, and time is a real dimension.

I didn't leave out time, what I am saying is that time is not a real entity like space, it is mental creation to track changes in 3D space.

And if this were true, we'd expect to see differences between different types of 'clock' in experiments and observations that test relativity. We don't. It affects all physical processes that we've applied it to. Not to mention predictions that rely on the same theory, like gravitational waves.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Some theoretical stuffs have being tested and accepted, while others (theoretical) remained untested.

There are some stuffs in Relativity and in Quantum Mechanics that remained theoretical and untested.

But you need to remember, sciences are not just accepted experimental knowledge...they (sciences) also can be long (and ongoing) waiting game.

Take for instances, the geocentric model vs heliocentric model about Earth-Sun relation.

Geocentric model, although it haven’t been mathematically understood until Claudius Ptolemy, a 2nd century CE astronomer, it have been generally observed and accepted the Earth was fixed while the sun move across the sky, from east to west, since Neolithic times and in Bronze Age of Egyptian astronomy and Babylonian astronomy.

Heliocentric model, is where the Earth and other planets orbit around the stationary sun, have been mathematically formulated by 3rd BCE Greek astronomer Aristarchus of Samos, but not tested through observations.

Despite cropping up from time to time, by other astronomers after Aristarchus in centuries to come, from other Greek astronomers and Hindu astronomers, and even a Muslim astronomer (but who would later retracted) would visualized concept of heliocentric, heliocentric model was highly popular.

So geocentric model on planetary motion, was the accepted concept for millennia. The geocentric model was accepted as science since Ptolemy wrote his astronomy treatise.

Then heliocentric concept was revived once again, during the Renaissance, by Nicolaus Copernicus, again mathematically, but in the early 17th century, the newly developed telescope was invented (by names that I don’t recall) and heliocentric was discovered by Galileo.

But as I said earlier, sciences can be long and ongoing waiting game, not just pioneering or discovering stage, but scientific concepts and theories may take also take a while to be refined and modified/updated.

While Copernicus was correct about the heliocentric concept, he was wrong about the planetary orbits being circular. Johannes Kepler corrected that, proposing that the orbits were elliptical in shapes. Further refinements to heliocentric model was introduced by Isaac Newton, who proposed gravity and gravitational forces were responsible for the planets’ motion around the sun.

So what started by Hellenistic astronomer Aristarchus of Samos, it took over 1500 years to vindicate Aristarchus’ mathematical/geometric concept.

The point looking back at history of geocentric vs heliocentric concepts, that heliocentric was never science, until it was finally discovered and tested by Galileo.

Likewise, it took centuries that started with Newton on gravity, that was later refined by Einstein, with General Relativity in 1915. And it may be further refined in the future with Quantum Field Theory (eg Quantum Gravity), which have chance unifying two opposing theories - General Relativity and Quantum Mechanics.

Ever since Einstein, theoretical physicists have for decades been trying to unify these 2 concepts, including String Theory and Superstring Theory, but these two concepts have become increasingly complex, that they have become unworkable and unwieldy. Einstein himself tried to unify 2 theories, but couldn’t do it.

Quantum Field Theory (QFT) seemed to be the likely candidate to succeed what Einstein started and where String and Superstring theories have failed. But you will never know, because there may even be better alternative than QFT.

Like I said, sciences may (or may not) catch up the theoretical parts, and as I said, it may take times.

And it may take times, for concepts to be refined, modified and updated.

PS

When I look back at, history of gravity, I think Galileo testing falling objects from Tower of Pisa, predated Newton proposing formulating the universal gravitation. But Galileo couldn’t and didn’t describe the forces responsible for things falling.

And while Newton described gravity and its forces as being caused by “gravitational fields”, today “gravitational field” have been dropped, since Einstein described gravitation as being property (or curvature) of space and time.

All fair and well.
But there are 3 levels to this story:
That we can test.
What we can end up with in the future to test.
If there is a limit to what we can test.

In short we are playing:
We can test some things, therefore we can test everything.
And it is as it stands an invalid logical deduction. Now can we test everything in future?
Or rather can we one day in the future fulfill the idea that the human rationality can rule everything? I don't know and I don't have a rational position on it as either a known positive or known negative. So I don't know.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

The 'block universe' is the natural conclusion from general relativity.

Whereas the passage of time seems to be a mental constructs (see above), the evidence says that general relativity is a good model, and time is a real dimension.

And if this were true, we'd expect to see differences between different types of 'clock' in experiments and observations that test relativity. We don't. It affects all physical processes that we've applied it to. Not to mention predictions that rely on the same theory, like gravitational waves.

Ok.

Time as a mental construct works, but we disagree as to its reality beyond that.

The universe is one, do you think it is theoretically possible for some parts to be younger than other parts because time had passes slower in those parts? If not, why not?

 

[ratiocinator]

The universe is one, do you think it is theoretically possible for some parts to be younger than other parts because time had passes slower in those parts? If not, why not?

Yes, of course it's possible. It's not even possible to define an absolute moment in time that applies over distance. The whole idea of simultaneity is relative even in special relativity. So two people moving at walking pace relative to each other on Earth will disagree about what is happening 'now' at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy by several days (relative speed of 4mph gives about a 5.5 day difference at Andromeda).

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yes, of course it's possible. It's not even possible to define an absolute moment in time that applies over distance. The whole idea of simultaneity is relative even in special relativity. So two people moving at walking pace relative to each other on Earth will disagree about what is happening 'now' at the distance of the Andromeda galaxy by several days (relative speed of 4mph gives about a 5.5 day difference at Andromeda).

Does relativity apply to, albeit minutely, say a tennis ball, are some parts getting younger wrt other parts of the ball because time is passing slower in these areas?

 

[ratiocinator]

Does relativity apply to, albeit minutely, say a tennis ball, are some parts getting younger wrt other parts of the ball because time is passing slower in these areas?

Yes, although the effects are tiny. Also, due to gravitational time dilation, your feet are a tiny bit younger than your head because they've experienced, on average, a lower gravitational potential.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not quite along that track, but a question, can we say electrons have age?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ No takers? Well I would imagine electrons bound in old rocks that are electrically non-conductive would be the same age as the rock. But beyond that, I imagine some electrons would have age, perhaps going back to their original creation?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

^ No takers? Well I would imagine electrons bound in old rocks that are electrically non-conductive would be the same age as the rock. But beyond that, I imagine some electrons would have age, perhaps going back to their original creation?

Well, rocks are not for all the time of the universe in the standard model of the universe as per science.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Well, rocks are not for all the time of the universe in the standard model of the universe as per science.

I was asking about electrons, and used the idea of electrons bound inside a rock being at least the age of the rock. The rest was speculation about electrons age going back to the creation of electrons.

So while I have your interest, what is the form of an electron as per your understanding?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I was asking about electrons, and used the idea of electrons bound inside a rock being at least the age of the rock. The rest was speculation about electrons age going back to the creation of electrons.

So while I have your interest, what is the form of an electron as per your understanding?

Not me, you should ask. But form is maybe not the most useful word to use when you talk about electrons.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Not me, you should ask. But form is maybe not the most useful word to use when you talk about electrons.

What would you suggest?

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

What would you suggest?

That you learn basic science as a methodology. Then concentrate on physics. You can't learn that by just asking limited questions about say electrons. They are a part of a bigger explanation than just the question you ask.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

That you learn basic science as a methodology. Then concentrate on physics. You can't learn that by just asking limited questions about say electrons. They are a part of a bigger explanation than just the question you ask.

Oh, I suggest that you don't have a clue what an electron is..."Not me, you should ask." .

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Oh, I suggest that you don't have a clue what an electron is..."Not me, you should ask." .

No, I do have a clue. I have done basic science. But I am not your teacher nor a teacher in science. So there are other better ways than just asking on a forum.

 

[Guitar's Cry]

Both.

It is finite because as conscious beings we have to define it in order to understand it.

It is infinite because measurements are subjective tools for comparing relationships and don't exist outside conscious experience.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No, I do have a clue. I have done basic science. But I am not your teacher nor a teacher in science. So there are other better ways than just asking on a forum.

Take it up with RF's admin if you resent my asking questions. I observe many members asking questions, I would have thought it was ok.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

Take it up with RF's admin if you resent my asking questions. I observe many members asking questions, I would have thought it was ok.

Yes, it is okay. But maybe there are better places than here to ask what an electron is.