Wenn das Universum unendlich ist, hat es unendlich viele Planeten. Aber in was befindet sich das Universum??
(4 votes)
Loading...
(4 votes)Loading...
(4 votes)Loading...Similar Posts
Was würde passieren, wenn eine Nadel mit Lichtgeschwindigkeit auf die Erde zutrifft?
ByAmer08
Würde mich interessieren was es alles ausrichten kann
Welcher Planet ist es gerade so nah an Mond und glänzt zu hell?
ByPokale
ich sehe gerade eine so dicke helle punkt nahe am planet Mond! weisst ihr was das ist?
Georgien 6 stunden vor Deutschland Zeitzone?
(Eigendliche Frage unter dem großen Text) Ich habe neulich jemanden auf Playstation kennengelernt. Wir haben miteinander zwischen durch geschrieben über Playstation Nachrichten und nach einiger Zeit fragte ich, in welchem Land Sie wohnt bzw woher Sie kommt. Sie sagt mir darauf hin in Georgien. Später kam es dazu das Sie meinte, bei ihr wäre es…
Echevria: Was kann ich noch machen?
ByDumby435
Lässt sich da noch was machen?
If the universe is infinite, then it does not necessarily have to have infinitely many planets, the mass could still be limited. The universe is in nothing, because the space expands with the universe and not into a space.
According to the usual theories – especially the Big Bang theory – it is not infinitely large, but in itself closed. Like the surface of a sphere, but not 2-dimensional (ball surface) but 3-dimensional.
“What ” is a concept in the 3-dimensional (something is in a box) or 2-dimensional (the point is in or within a circle). So if the universe has to be in something, then there would have to be more dimensions (and not ‘rolled’ dimensions in the subatomic range see string theory and co) that we or other matter cannot reach (i.e. I don’t mean time).
Either the concept of “in something” does not intervene (also in multiverses) or there are other dimensions that are not attainable for us (probably then not attainable; however, it would be more general)
that’s so wrong.
So it can already be as you describe, that is not excluded, but it is not correct to say that this would be the common theory or somehow would follow directly from the big bang theory.
all measurements to determine a global spatial curvature (which would mean that it would be as described above) have been negative so far, i.e. within the measurement accuracy compatible with zero. the simplest model without further assumptions or parameter is therefore still that of a flat, infinitely large university.
The BB deals with the development of the universe from an initial singularity (i.e. not as it came to it, but the development from this state, usually up to the transparency of the universe, occasionally from some also the time directly after or even until today).
Accordingly, in the radiant diffraction to prestellar fusion and in the case of further cooling of a radiation of 4000 K hot matter, radiation came to the optical region (starting of transparency). Through the expansion of the universe itself, this radiation should become increasingly red-shifted. A corresponding radiation was found in the form of background radiation. A value z of approx. 1000 determined (the size of the space has expanded). Thus, according to the BB, one has a concrete idea of the size of the space at that time, in particular in the form of the standard model of cosmology, of the Lambda-CDM model.
Even if the calculated time of the Big Bang is still in the validation, all common models start from a finite time since the singularity and a finite expansion speed**. This directly follows a finite size.
Of course, there have always been other theories or hypotheses. After model calculations on BB theory, the universe must finally be old and finally great.
But yes, you are right that a continuous global curvature could not yet be determined directly. A non-curved “flat” universe would, however, contradict the current ideas and would be a huge surprise for the majority of scientists.
** In the late GUT and early quarters there was an over-light-fast expansion (this is possible – nothing can be faster in space than the speed of light, the rough, but itself can theoretically expand quickly). This hyperinflation was not part of the “original” BB theory. This has been adapted and refined with time (apart from the fact that it has never been so hot but BB has been used as a spot name, but then has just been taken up by lay people and is now also used in science in part – but that is another topic).
because the heavy elements only had to be incubated in stars. in the initial phase after the “great bang” (a (very unhappyly chosen) designation that the university was about 14 billion years ago in a very dense and very hot condition from which it expanded rapidly) there were still no stars.
That’s very unpleasant to me now. But you’re right, the model I mentioned (which is referred to as the standard model of cosmology) in its calculations is simplified by an uncurved space. According to these calculations, the age of the universe is determined at 13.8 billion years (Lambda-CDM model – Wikipedia)
The main reason why I gave up my own original reflections on an infinite universe a long time ago is the fact that the newborn stars have less and less heavier elements than helium (determinable to the star spectra) as far as one goes back in time. I simply do not see a plausible explanation of why there was almost nothing but helium and hydrogen 10 billion years ago (in contrast to today, even though the two elements of course continue to dominate). A universe that has eclipsed infinitely long without nuclear fusion, the heavier elements, makes even less sense for me. Or a constant cyclical regenerating – which would then also have to work against the energy gradient in order to make light elements from heavy elements again.
that was perhaps misunderstood. read:
…contract up to a ZEIT point on the…
No. that would be completely boring and included in the current models. the standard model of cosmology describes our university exactly as (not because it must be so, but because there are no signs of anything else and we remain in Occam’s razor with the simplest model)
No. for even an infinitely large university can expand, and if we expect to contract backwards up to a point at which all our models collapse (and if one continues to calculate in the frame of the ART up to a “singularity”).
we simply do not know anything about the expansion of the university beyond the observable university, except from the measurements to the global spatial curvature that it must be much greater than the observable university (and perhaps infinitely large, because we can only specify lower limits for the expansion)
the understood “overlight-fast expansion” (or also “underlight-fast expansion” or the exoansion compared to any speed makes my sense). the parameter describing the expansion rate – the Hubble parameter – has the dimensions 1/time. you can’t compare this with a speed (like the speed of the light). as I can not compare kg and meters or grad celsius and seconds.
you can naturally ask how fast (distance per time, so speed) the distance to a far away galaxie grows due to expansion. that can be (with the usual definition of removal in cosmology, but not unambiguous) without further a greater value than the speed of light. but this has nothing to do with an early ära of the university. that is still so (and at any time) today when I choose the galaxie far enough away. to say “in this or that ära was the expansion overlight fast” simply makes no sense.
The belief that there must be a meaningful answer to this question is only due to our limited imagination. What we define as space is only created by the expansion of the universe. So there is no defined answer for us. Similar to the division by zero.
something from nothing or infinite, yes, we cannot imagine
which does not mean that it is excluded
It is not known whether the universe is “in” anything else (in mathematics one speaks of embedding or immersion) or whether it is all there is…
Yes.
but only a part of it is accessible to us in principle.
there is no need to describe the university as something “embedded”. after Occam’s razor you leave something like that completely.
There are different theories. One says there’s nothing
asking what was before the big bang or what “behind” is the university can not be answered by purely 3-dimensional thinking being conclusive. the direct linking of space and time is not only proved by one stone, so there is neither space nor time a finite or infinite.
the true character of our university will remain forever denied to men because of their enormously restricted and the lack of possibilities of spatial/actual research.
The universe is in something.
With us it means: In a pot..
Exact: In the universe. This knowledge is actually already in the definition of the term “universum” !
https://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/universum
A question that can most likely never be answered.