Digsy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn4250-tantalising-evidence-hints-universe-is-finite.html?page=1 The WMAP data so far suggests that the universe is either very large or infinite. It has been proven that the universe is infinite from short range scans. Weeks claims that the universe is small from the data, because the frequency range drops off our detectable range making it appear to disappear, suggesting a finite universe that wraps back on itself. Spergel is currently running models of Weeks predictions and currently the finite universe idea from the WMAP data doesn't fit in 1/2 the possible universe shape models. I.E the small universe idea with the currenty WMAP data doesn't fit into a football, doughnut or 1/2 the possible universal shapes. Spergel also predicts that it won't fit into any, nor does he thing that Weeks predictions will have any foundations. All the superinstitutionalised supercomputers are currently number crunching to see if from the WMAP data the universe does in fact fold back on itself. I know who my money is on, but we'll have to wait a few months until all these supercomputers have finished calculations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 In the meantime, Spergel's team is continuing to use the matching-circles technique to see whether the Universe might be small and finite but with some other possible shape. Spergel and his team are now working with Weeks to see if they might somehow have missed the circles. Interestingly though that article is 8 years old. Do they have an answer yet??? Conclusively undecided at the moment then... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Interestingly though that article is 8 years old. Do they have an answer yet??? Conclusively undecided at the moment then... I did realise the age of the thread, we'll still have to wait those sarcastic few months though. It hasn't to date answered the question whether the universe is finite or infinite as of yet, which was my point. People can say the universe is finite until they are blue in the face, they can also claim that my soft science is bad, but the fact of the matter is, bad science is to make claims that are unfounded by ANY evidence. What Spergel did achieve was to shoot down Weeks predictions about his finite universe model. Here is another interesting article on how the WMAP evidence might show the inflation model to be flawed. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/recycled-universe/ Back to the original point though the infinite universe theory is as much a possibility as a finite one. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 http://www.dailygalaxy.com/my_weblog/2010/10/-wmap-space-mission-survey-of-the-universe-after-the-big-bang-completed-but-its-results-may-hint-at-.html It also looks like the current big bang model might be under threat as well. Now I'm going to look up what the Planck satellite is up to. Personally I don't think they'll ever find the answer because like I say if the universe is infinite we simply cannot build the technology needed to see its end. I've learned a few interesting facts though, the universe is slightly curved (does not prove that if folds back on itself though, just proves that space bends, which we already knew but now have further evidence of), and scientists are always keen to debunk each other. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Prairie Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Superb thread. I love all the queries and postulations. Going back to the atom idea, since atoms never die, but go on to make up other forms, couldn't it be possible that they retain some particles of information, memory, perhaps? If many of us have atoms that once lived in dinosaurs, it could be said that we have 'memories' of many past people, animals, lives. Also, given that the earth has been hit many times by meteors, we could all be made up at least partly be alien lifeforms. I think we live on in the form of reincarnation, since we are made up of energy/atoms which never die off. Or could we be part of some parallel universes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 I did realise the age of the thread, we'll still have to wait those sarcastic few months though. It hasn't to date answered the question whether the universe is finite or infinite as of yet, which was my point. People can say the universe is finite until they are blue in the face, they can also claim that my soft science is bad, but the fact of the matter is, bad science is to make claims that are unfounded by ANY evidence. What Spergel did achieve was to shoot down Weeks predictions about his finite universe model. Weren't you making the opposite claim, that it's infinite? I'm happy for the status to go back to undecided if that's the current position... Here is another interesting article on how the WMAP evidence might show the inflation model to be flawed. http://www.wired.com/wiredscience/2010/11/recycled-universe/ Back to the original point though the infinite universe theory is as much a possibility as a finite one. It appears so. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Weren't you making the opposite claim, that it's infinite? More stating my belief but I could stretch it to a claim if you like, I have no solid evidence to back it, I will stand by it until I'm blue in the face. I'm happy for the status to go back to undecided if that's the current position... It appears so. Me too, I never agreed with the idea of trying to discredit peoples work because it doesn't fit with some gentleman's club idea of the universe. Some will also argue that my theory is flawed because all the data suggests that time is limited, I.E our universe being 13.7 billion years old (which is a figure I don't question at all and accept as the most reliable figure we have). But in order for the above argument to apply you'd also have to believe that time began with the birth of our universe, which to me is no different to believing that time ends on December 21 2012 because some Mayan built a calendar. Our universal tick (calendar) may have started 13.7 billion years ago, but it does not suggest time itself is not infinite, just that at some point in time an event occurred to which it could now be observed, monitored and understood. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 Cyclone tried debating against me awhile back over my claims that the Russians and Chinese were hacking the crap out of the UK. And he was preaching about how the 128 bit encryptions were the bees knees and nobody on earth had the capabilities of hacking anything, because it's all secure. Given that you've now resurrected that thread, maybe you can retract this statement, or quote the bit where I mention encryption or say that nobody can hack anything. It's a cheap shot when you have to lie about a previous thread to try to score a point... Tried debating, my 6 year old niece is more skilled than you at it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cyclone Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 More stating my belief but I could stretch it to a claim if you like, I have no solid evidence to back it, I will stand by it until I'm blue in the face. Doesn't that put you in the same position you were accusing me of? I'm happy to accept that it's unresolved, you're going to take a stance despite that... Me too, I never agreed with the idea of trying to discredit peoples work because it doesn't fit with some gentleman's club idea of the universe. Some will also argue that my theory is flawed because all the data suggests that time is limited, I.E our universe being 13.7 billion years old (which is a figure I don't question at all and accept as the most reliable figure we have). But in order for the above argument to apply you'd also have to believe that time began with the birth of our universe, which to me is no different to believing that time ends on December 21 2012 because some Mayan built a calendar. Our universal tick (calendar) may have started 13.7 billion years ago, but it does not suggest time itself is not infinite, just that at some point in time an event occurred to which it could now be observed, monitored and understood. Time can't exist before spacetime exists... There's no 'before' it obviously, but it's not something outside of the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Digsy Posted March 10, 2011 Share Posted March 10, 2011 On another thread. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.