= 27d567bc2d48d9f40e9ccc20ea370b15)
Kawoomba comments on Implications of an infinite versus a finite universe - Less Wrong
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
= 783df68a0f980790206b9ea87794c5b6)
Loading…= b715d02e85f7b3b4ae65ca3d3e450868)
Subscribe to RSS Feed
Powered by Reddit
= f037147d6e6c911a85753b9abdedda8d)
You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.
Comments (43)
That's what I argued on another site a few months ago, but how do you square that with most current reputable sources saying the universe is actually infinite?
This paper gives a lower bound of 251 Hubble spheres, but also leans towards ", the spatial extent of the Universe is infinite" (if the curvature is >=0). Nothing about "just a theoretical construct". As theoretical as all the other laws and the practical inferences we draw from them.
This paper says outright "An infinite universe is compatible with the data at a confidence level of 4.3σ."
Those were the two that came up at first glance on Google Scholar when looking for "size of the universe", they weren't cherry picked, and seemed to be follow-ups from the WMAP data.
From the last paper you linked:
The first paper only estimates the maximum curvature, not the size.
Hmm hmm, thanks. If it turns out that our current physical models imply that the universe is in fact finite, my "concerns" would go poof. You seem to be leaning towards finiteness, if so, may I ask what you base that on?
See my replies to Wei Dai.