Is the universe infinite or finite?

[Ben Dhyan]

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

I know there are some pretty cluey people here who are up to speed on the latest understanding of most science subjects.. From my own reading, it seems electrons are considered to be a dimensionless point, a spherical particle, or a cloud type particle. I was trained in electronics/radio back in the days of thermionic valves, aka vacuum tubes.

And I have literally seen electrons.

I would not be surprised if you did not believe me but it's true. One of the experiments we all underwent in training to highlight the theory of the electron was to take a vacuum tube diode with its thoriated tungsten plated diode electrode and remove the high positive voltage off the anode. When power was applied, the heated filament would cause electrons to be emitted from the cathode in countless numbers and a cloud would build up as they had no where to go. Normally they would travel to the anode but in this case the voltage had been removed. You could see the electron cloud get darker as the maximum emission rate was reached. You had to have light on the other side of the tube to see it, but the theory of the electron as taught matched what we saw. The electron cloud had movement as the convection caused electrons to cycles from the hotter areas to the colder and back again.

So if electrons were particles, the cloud we saw would be that, a cloud of particles. But the if electrons were a cloud of some underlying smaller 'particles", it could still be what we saw. If electrons were dimensionless points, I imagine we would not see them so I don't get that theoretical explanation of an electron. That is why I am interested in the expert's understanding, they are more up to date on this stuff and so I ask.

 

[mikkel_the_dane]

I know there are some pretty cluey people here who are up to speed on the latest understanding of most science subjects.. From my own reading, it seems electrons are considered to be a dimensionless point, a spherical particle, or a cloud type particle. I was trained in electronics/radio back in the days of thermionic valves, aka vacuum tubes.

And I have literally seen electrons.

I would not be surprised if you did not believe me but it's true. One of the experiments we all underwent in training to highlight the theory of the electron was to take a vacuum tube diode with its thoriated tungsten plated diode electrode and remove the high positive voltage off the anode. When power was applied, the heated filament would cause electrons to be emitted from the cathode in countless numbers and a cloud would build up as they had no where to go. Normally they would travel to the anode but in this case the voltage had been removed. You could see the electron cloud get darker as the maximum emission rate was reached. You had to have light on the other side of the tube to see it, but the theory of the electron as taught matched what we saw. The electron loud had movement as the convection caused electrons to cycles from the hotter areas to the colder and back again.

So if electrons were particles, the cloud we saw would be that, a cloud of particles. But the if electrons were a cloud of some underlying smaller 'particles", it could still be what we saw. If electrons were dimensionless points, I imagine we would not see them so I don't get that theoretical explanation of an electron. That is why I am interested in the expert's understanding, they are more up to date on this stuff and so I ask.

Yeah, you are right.
Now here is my point of view as from non-natural science, but still science.
Explain something requires several conditions, where one of them is what is taken for granted. That was tried to by eliminated with logical positivism, but failed. So an electron is that what you say or a theory laden world view.

Just as the word science itself is based on assumptions. And in the end we play what objective reality really is.
As for what science is, here are 5 versions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

It is just like what religion is and thus what God is, can change and what an electron is can change.

But you answered what you want to know: For the standard version of methodological naturalism and axiomatic science, what is an electron?
Ask somebody else how have a higher level than me and then check their answer.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Yeah, you are right.
Now here is my point of view as from non-natural science, but still science.
Explain something requires several conditions, where one of them is what is taken for granted. That was tried to by eliminated with logical positivism, but failed. So an electron is that what you say or a theory laden world view.

Just as the word science itself is based on assumptions. And in the end we play what objective reality really is.
As for what science is, here are 5 versions:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_science#Current_approaches

It is just like what religion is and thus what God is, can change and what an electron is can change.

But you answered what you want to know: For the standard version of methodological naturalism and axiomatic science, what is an electron?
Ask somebody else how have a higher level than me and then check their answer.

Thank you for your constructive comment mikkel_the_dane,

 

[LegionOnomaMoi]

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

Why? Let's suppose, for the moment, that we will not compare Galilean or Newtonian spacetime to the spacetimes of special and general relativity. Those proponents of the block universe view have generally built their cases upon special, not general relativity. The reason for this is quite straightforward. In special relativity, we first see a real need to construct spacetimes (although Einstein initially hated the fact that his teacher Minkowski did so). 4D Galilean and Newtonian spacetimes exist and have been investigated, but it was with the impossibility of any global simultaneity and the ways in which time-like coordinates "mix" with those of space in special relativity that prompted the philosphical, metaphysical, cosmological, etc., interest in the implications of a 4D Minkowski space (or some equivalent).
But General Relativity poses severe problems for any kind of block universe picture. More so, actually, than in the Newtonian picture or in the geometric spacetimes of either Galilean or Newtonian physics (in both, the manifold structure is built about a topological product space combining R3 and R1 where the space-like structure has to be "built" around the global nature of the 1D real-valued time dimension).
In general relativity, spacetime has no kind of global structure an it is entirely unclear if it is in principle possible for a spacetime consistent with general relativity to possess the kinds of features of a "block universe", in part simply because spacetime in GR is dynamic. Moreover, spacetime in GR cannot be linearized nor can it be equipped at any point with some kind of relative coordinate system as in special relativity. The geometrical structures of spacetime are defined only locally.
More problematic are the solutions to Einstein's field equation(s) which allow for closed timelike curves. These dynamics allow for trajectories in spacetime involve acausalities and something like time-travel in ways that are inconsistent not just with a block universe but with any kind of physical principles we have used successfully (or any coherent, logical structure of any dynamical theory or causality itself).
So general relativity is about as opposed to the block universe as one can get. Newtonian and Galilean spacetimes are equipped with an absolute time dimension that is the same for all observers. General relativity prohibits any coordinate system for any observer from being global in any way whatsoever.

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.

Dimensions for good models need not be physical still less metaphysical. Time in general relativity is actually rather terrible from a theoretical perspective as, again, general relativity allows for causal/temporal paradoxes.

Perhaps you are confusing the spacetime of special relativity with that of GR?

 

[ratiocinator]

In general relativity, spacetime has no kind of global structure an it is entirely unclear if it is in principle possible for a spacetime consistent with general relativity to possess the kinds of features of a "block universe", in part simply because spacetime in GR is dynamic.

Dynamic with respect to what concept of time? The manifold doesn't change. A static solution is just one in which the components of the metric do not depend on the chosen time coordinate.

Moreover, spacetime in GR cannot be linearized nor can it be equipped at any point with some kind of relative coordinate system as in special relativity. The geometrical structures of spacetime are defined only locally.

Maybe the 'block universe' gave you the wrong idea. I don't think GR is like SR, but I was discussing with somebody who thinks you can define an absolute time and everything in the universe is the same age. I'm well aware that you can't define space and time coordinates globally. The point was that we are dealing with a 4-dimensional manifold, not a global time that actually flows.

 

[paarsurrey]

Is the universe infinite or finite?

Since G-d is infinite as per the method of "claims" and " reasons" so the universe must be, if I am not wrong, certainly finite as it is deaf and dumb and has never given any claims and reasons in this connection please , I understand. Am I right, please? Agreed?

Regards

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Is the universe infinite or finite?

Since G-d is infinite as per the method of "claims" and " reasons" so the universe must be, if I am not wrong, certainly finite as it is deaf and dumb and has never given any claims and reasons in this connection please , I understand. Am I right, please? Agreed?

Regards

If God and the universe are both infinite, then the manifested universe is the manifestation of God. So there is no separation of God and universe, the two are actually an indivisible one.

 

[firedragon]

If God and the universe are both infinite, then the manifested universe is the manifestation of God. So there is no separation of God and universe, the two are actually an indivisible one.

You mean pantheism?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

You mean pantheism?

If you want to call it that, or panetheism, Brahman, etc., it's all ok with me. I don't call it anything.

 

[firedragon]

If you want to call it that, or panetheism, Brahman, etc., it's all ok with me. I don't call it anything.

No problem.

I have a question on that. Do you think of God as a creator in this model of yours?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

No problem.

I have a question on that. Do you think of God as a creator in this model of yours?

Only in the eternal sense, all manifested universal objects are continually dying and being born, but there was never the creation of time in the sense of a beginning, existence is without beginning or end.

 

[firedragon]

Only in the eternal sense, all manifested universal objects are continually dying and being born, but there was never the creation of time in the sense of a beginning, existence is without beginning or end.

Still, do you believe God is the creator?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

Still, do you believe God is the creator?

Yes, as I explained, stars, planets, people, flowers, etc., are being created continuously and naturally dying continuously. Only the creator endures eternally, all creations have a beginning and an ending.

 

[firedragon]

Yes, as I explained, stars, planets, people, flowers, etc., are being created continuously and naturally dying continuously. Only the creator endures eternally, all creations have a beginning and an ending.

If creation had a beginning, then its not eternal is it? Was not the creator available prior to creation to create?

 

[Sand Dancer]

This question comes out of curiosity to find the arguments of those who make both sides of the word "or". If this is a false dichotomy I would like to hear the other options to this as well.

A few atheists have been making a similar argument to "the universe is infinite" in this very forum when discussing the Kalam Cosmological Argument, which is the reason for this thought experiment if I may put it that way. Now before anyone derails the thread saying "this is a strawman" let me make it clear that this is not an atheists position in general, but a few do make this positive claim, thus what are the philosophical or/and scientific reasonings for this?

I think it depends on what the sun does. If the sun dies, then the universe will die.

 

[firedragon]

I think it depends on what the sun does. If the sun dies, then the universe will die.

Well, I think suns die all the time and its part of existence.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

If creation had a beginning, then its not eternal is it? Was not the creator available prior to creation to create?

Correct, but the creation of a flower does not disprove eternity!

There is no duality except as an erroneous concept in your mind, creation and creator are one and eternal, there was never a beginning.

 

[firedragon]

Correct, but the creation of a flower does not disprove eternity!

I am not talking about the creation of a flower. I am talking about creation itself.

If God is creation and creation is God, was not God there to create creation before creation existed?

 

[Ben Dhyan]

I am not talking about the creation of a flower. I am talking about creation itself.

If God is creation and creation is God, was not God there to create creation before creation existed?

No, eternity means there was no beginning of a creator nor creation. Only material created objects have beginnings and endings, but the underlying mass/energy is never lost, it is eternal like the creation process itself.

 

[firedragon]

No, eternity means there was no beginning of a creator nor creation. Only material created objects have beginnings and endings, but the underlying mass/energy is never lost, it is eternal like the creation process itself.

So mass and energy was not created by the creator?