Is the Universe Shaped Like a Funnel? 525
DrMorpheus writes "A new theory of the shape of the Cosmos posits that the Universe may be shaped like a medieval horn, according to Frank Steiner at the University of Ulm. This theory, if true, could explain several strange observations about the microwave background radiation. The Universe would be stretched out at one end into a long tube and flared out into a bell at the opposite end. The technical name for this shape is a 'Picard topology'. To quote the article, '...our Universe is curved like a Pringle, shaped like a horn, and named after a Star Trek character. You could not make it up.'"
Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:5, Funny)
Imagine if he'd said, "...and that, my Liege, is how we know the universe to be shaped like a trumpet." Terry Gilliam and Terry Jones might have been Nobel Prize candidates.
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:5, Interesting)
My only next question is has anyone determined the resonant frequency set fot it? It's have to be almost imperceptable in the low end. Jeeze. We're talking about pico Hz here.
Wasn't discovered a few years ago that there was a prevailing low Bb (lots of octaves below the tuba range) sounding through the universe?
"Good Night..." dingdingdingdingding
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:5, Interesting)
Many electronic appliances and lights give off a very low db B-flat hum (at least in the US) because of the 60hz frequency in the electricity here (60hz = Bb). I suppose in Europe it's a different pitch (50hz).
Anyway, because of this constant Bb that we're all subconsciously bombarded with, most people, when asked to hum ANY pitch, will hum a Bb!! (Learned this in a music class at college)
Re: (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Re: (Score:5, Funny)
Are you referring to a tuning hammer or to one you might find in, say, a hardware store? I guess it depends on how good a banjo player your wife is!
(Sorry... my wife plays banjo)
Ooooh, so much for that.
Re: (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:5, Informative)
frequency is a continuous property of a wave... whether you choose to select linearly or logaritmically spaced points is up to you. over large scales (i.e. multiple octaves or decades), it is generally more useful to choose logarithmically spaced points, because you want to treat low octaves with the same number of points as high octaves. over small ranges (here only 3.47 Hz or about 5.78% of the nominal 60 Hz), it makes sense to deal with linearly spaced points, because the imbalance between octaves cannot come into play. in this case, if you played the B-natural against 60 Hz and then played the B-flat against 60 Hz, the resulting beat frequency signals would sound essentially the same, as the difference between them would be only 0.01 Hz.
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:5, Informative)
i.e. if 60Hz is Bb, so is 120, 240, 480, etc....
Primal hum of the electrical grid (Score:3, Interesting)
The USian group centred on a B-flat (multiple of 60 Hz), while the Europeans centred on an A-natural (multiple of 50 Hz).
Hardly qualifies as a controlled study. But still suggestive that the background EMF frequency and device hum has some unconcious influence on the psyche?
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:5, Funny)
> if the whole universe has the shape of a sound
> producing "horn".. (I know, the subject said
> "funnel" but the body says "horn" and I'm a
> brass player)
I am also a brass player*. But that doesn't stop me imagining that the Universe is the shape of an erect penis.
Adds a whole new meaning to the "big bang".
Also explains what the unverse was created in 7 seconds.
*Technically not, I play Sax, which any Trumpet playing purist well tell you is a woodwind instrument, even though its not made out of wood.
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:4, Informative)
A sax is a woodwind, as I'm sure you know, because its sound originates in the wooden reed in the mouthpeice (just like other woodwinds like clarinets and oboes, both of whose bodies can be wood, plastic or other materials), whereas all brass instruments have their sound originate in a brass or otherwise metallic mouthpeice.
This is the same reason that a piano is considered a string instrument (since the sound originates in the vibrating string) as opposed to a percussion instrument (due to the hammers inside that hit the strings) even though it mechanically seems similar to the xylophone.
Re:Of course, Monty Python reference. (Score:3, Insightful)
Not entirely. The universe may be empty to a good approximation, that doesn't mean that it can't support standing waves.
Spacetime itself is elastic (assuming that you believe in General Relativity or something similar to GR) and so can distort in a periodic manner. These distortions are called gra
Nemory (Score:4, Funny)
Investigating this infospace led our schneidics lab to a vast, uncharted category of information science. We all know "memory": you know something that happened. And, unfortunately, "forgetting": you don't know something that happened. And "deja vu": you know something that *didn't* happen. We've planted the schneidics flag in "nemory": you *don't* remember something that *never* happened. We now believe that this "cold, dark information" composes the vast majority of information in the universe. We are currently investigating its application to the rest of the emerging field of schneidics. If you have experimental nemory data, please report it to our lab.
What shap haven't we had (Score:5, Funny)
Re:What shap haven't we had (Score:3, Funny)
Re:What shap haven't we had (Score:4, Insightful)
-B
Re:What shap haven't we had (Score:5, Funny)
The universe is universe-shaped!
Re:What shap haven't we had (Score:3, Interesting)
http://mathworld.wolfram.com/KleinBottle
Re:What shap haven't we had (Score:3, Interesting)
A downward spiral (Score:3, Funny)
-tid242
Re:What shap haven't we had (Score:5, Funny)
Donuts most definitely. There are two things to note. The first is that we don't know what's at the end of the horn. For all we know, there could be another horn facing in the exact opposite direction. The other is that we don't know what's outside the open end either. But it must wrap around and go somewhere. If there are two horns end-to-end and they wrap-around, you've got a bagel or donut depending on what's filling the universe. Then the galaxies are like raisins in a raisin donut, and the remnants of the big bang are like the icing on the top of the donut or sesame seeds on the top of a bagel. Either way the universe is a yummy place to be.
Comment removed (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Funny)
Re:That's ridiculous (Score:5, Informative)
I've read one to many Hawking books.....
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:3, Informative)
Or, in other words, space is curved.
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Interesting)
It might be seemingly infinite in three dimensions, but imagine two-dimenional topology mapped onto a ball. You could go seemingly infinitely in a single direction. Yet the ball has a finite volume. Now apply this to dimension over three....
As for what's outside the universe, there can be only one answer:
Lost socks.
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:3)
Is it dangerous, do I risk tearing a hole in the very fabric of spacetime itself?
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Informative)
I don't think the universe being discussed is "everything that exists".
The shape being discussed is more technically the shape (or topological character) of the geometry of the universe we find ourselves in.
There are many kinds of shapes that are possible, some "space filling" and some not. (I am sure there is a more correct technical term from topology to describe "space filling".)
The question of shape does not address what's in the gaps if it's not space-filling.
In the Star Trek, Euclidean world, the universe is flat, the speed of light appears to be essentially infinite and there is also no physical limit to speed, and simultaneity holds.
This is clearly not the case in our universe, and locally, it's not even flat, but positively curved.
The overally curvature has been debated ever since Einstein released General Relativity, and the answer seems to vacillate between flat and negatively curved.
The article is discussing the simplest kind of negative curvature, but it is taking the discussion to extremes that I have not seen discussed before.
The trumpet shape being discussed is a two-dimensional analog of the actual case in our universe, and is clearly not space-filling.
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Interesting)
Oh yes, that's what they talk about indeed.
No, there is no "space outside the universe" that
migt get filled. It is a question of space-time
"curvature". A manifold does not need to be embeded
in a higher dimensional space to have a curvature.
The question of shape does not address what's in the gaps if it's not space-filling.
there are no "gaps"
The article is discussing the simplest kind of negative curvature
measurements. The simplest form of negative
curvature is the "pringle" (or more common: "saddle")
The trumpet shape being discussed is a two-dimensional analog of the actual case in our universe, and is clearly not space-filling.
because it is a two-dimensional shape embeded in
a three-dimensional space. The universe, i.e. space-time is (most likely) not embeded in a higher dimensional space. (That is even true if
your name is Witten and your space-time has 11 dimensions, still, it is not embeded somewhere)
Cheers
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:4, Interesting)
from math, yes. artificial, no.
I have yet to see an actual demonstration of something been bended without been embedded into space of large dimensions
you can see it everywhere. I'll try to explain
something that would be easy to show in a classroom.
Imagine a piece of cloth lying on a table. the threads from which the cloth was woven define 'straight'. they form rectangular shapes.
Now, draw a triangle on the cloth. if you
add up all the angles, you will get 180 (if you
did draw correctly). Now, let's say the cloth
is a little elastic so that you can strech it
with your hands while it is lying on the table.
With two hands you will stretch the cloth more at
some points and less at others. Now measure and add the angles in your triangle again. The result
will in general be different from 180. if it is
higher than 180 you have created positive curvature, if less, negative. All that while the cloth is still lying flat on the table.
could anyone please present any evidence that there is nothing outside of Universe
I hope you realize yourself, that this is a preposterous demand.
Even if our four known dimensions would be embedded in, say, 11 dimensions
and we just see a brane in this space. The 11-dimensional space would be what we call universe.
Cheers
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:3, Interesting)
imagine you are an ant standing on an infinite rubber plane. every 2 meter there is a pole. now someone streches the rubber plane. the poles will be farther appart from each other. The plane didn't expand or bend in any other dimension as the two dimensions it already occupies.
Now you are asking "How do you stretch a plane that is already infinite"... errr well...
After a couple of semester in math your brain is so fried that you don't try to thi
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Informative)
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:4, Interesting)
A fascinating and eye-opening book.
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:5, Informative)
In fact, on a sphere of radius R, the sum of the angles exceeds 180 degrees by 180/pi * A/r^2, where A is the area of the triangle.
On a saddle-shaped surface, the angles of a triangle are always LESS THAN 180 degrees in a similar way.
Building on these ideas, you can define a precise notion of the shape of a surface entirely from INSIDE the surface, and extend it up to three dimensions (or more) dimensions. This is what the cosmologists are talking about when they talk about the "shape" of the universe.
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:3, Interesting)
If you haven't read Flatland [upenn.edu] it is a gem that illustrates these notions of higher-dimenstional space wonderfully.
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:3, Informative)
The universe is not infinitely large by definition. General relativity describes how the size and age of the universe are related and quite possibly finite. This relates to the "big bang" and the question of whether it will be followed by a "big crunch."
Inside and outside are terms that only have meaning when you divide the universe into parts. When talking about the universe, as you p
Re:Someone enlighten me.... (Score:4, Insightful)
Whether or not the universe actually is curved or flat or banana-shaped is really immaterial. All we really care about is what we can observe, and more importantly, what we can expect to observe in the future. If rules and laws and principles we come up with accurately predict how objects, forces, etc. will interact in the future, then those laws are "correct" as far as we know and as far as we care. Newton's laws of motion and Einstein's laws of relativity are both considered "correct" even though they contradict eachother. They're correct because they can be used to accurately predict the future.
After all, when you drawing out your calculations for how to send a monkey to Mars, it really doesn't matter what shape the universe is if you know for certain that it at least behaves as if its shaped like a donut. Your donut-based calculations will still get chimpy to Mars--and it's the results you're after.
As our perception increases, we notice that our existing models do not adequately describe the reality we observe. So we come up with another (probably much more odd) model that describes the results we see, but that still agrees with the results we've previously attributed to the old model. The new model is considered "correct" and the old model is still considered useful.
Universes Behaving Badly (Score:4, Interesting)
Sometimes the universe just misbehaves and fails to cooperate with your theories, which is when science gets to be fun - either your theories are thoroughly bogus, or they're slightly incorrect approximations, and this influences whether your previous models are or are not useful.
If it is shaped like a funnel (Score:5, Funny)
Um (Score:3, Insightful)
As opposed to the other universe that somebody else owns.
Re:Um (Score:5, Funny)
Sorry - I just have to cut in here.
It's actually our universe. The rest of you will need to pay $699 to live in it.
- Darl McBride
Picard topology (Score:4, Funny)
Picard topology? (Score:3, Funny)
cool, duuuude (Score:3, Funny)
"hey man, did you know the whole universe is shaped like my bong?"
"no waaaaaaaaay! does that mean you could use it to get high?"
The Picard Topology (Score:3, Funny)
Well then (Score:5, Funny)
Then it is all my favorites rolled into one.
The universe blows, is made out of mashed potatoes, and is named after someone i look up to.
Sorry couldn't help myself.
Re:Well then (Score:3, Funny)
Not that kind of blow.
Kirk vs Picard (Score:5, Funny)
Re:Kirk vs Picard (Score:3, Insightful)
Why Classify? (Score:5, Informative)
Since we have no proof of anything beyond the Universe, this is just a chasing of a simple definition. Without the Universe in a 3D viewable environment and being just IT, then we can't define the shape meaningfully.
Think of it like this, we could say the work was flat, but it was not till we were able to look at it from an external view. Think being about 4 miles deep in the Earth and attempting to define the shape of the Earth.
Anyway, I shall crawl back in my hole and wait for those much smarter than me to put me in my place.
Re:Why Classify? (Score:3, Interesting)
Re:Why Classify? (Score:5, Informative)
Without the Universe in a 3D viewable environment and being just IT, then we can't define the shape meaningfully.
Umm... we proved that the world is round based on an "internal" view...
Do you think Ptolemy went up in a space capsule to see the shape of the earth before he told everyone it's round?? In 250 BC, Eratosthenes had calculated the size of the earth to within 10% of its actual size.
None of that was done "externally".
Anyway, I shall crawl back in my hole and wait for those much smarter than me to put me in my place.
I like to think that I did just that
Re:Why Classify? (Score:4, Insightful)
But, that's the thing, scholars knew the earth was round long before were able to see it from space, and long before Colombus made his first voyage. They were able to observe the effects of its shape.
They noticed the horizon, celestial activitiy, etc.
The same types of observations we would use to determine the shape of the universe.
For a geometrical argument:
Say you were able to precisely measure your own motion relitive to a starting point. As you traveled around the earth you would realize you were traveling on a curved surface, and after one trip around the world, you would decide it was a sphere. After two different trips, an oblate spheroid.
At the end of this, you've determined the shape of the earth without ever leaving it.
Re:Why Classify? (Score:3, Insightful)
It also helps explain why Captain Picard got laid so often. "Hey, baby, your talkin' to the guy they named the Universe after..."
As to your example about being 4 miles deep in the Earth, even though you may not be able to "see" the outer surface of the planet, you could still use seismic observation to map the size and shape of the earth f
Re:Why Classify? (Score:4, Interesting)
Because knowing more about the universe allows us to narrow down the possibilities of existence. For instance, if this new story is actually the case, it means that the universe is finite. So far there has been no real evidence that the universe is finite, leaving open the possibility that the universe is infinite. (i'm talking the universe here, not just our hubble volume)
If the universe is infinite, you necessarily have an infinite number of identical copies of you, living exactly the same life you are. You can even make a rough estimate about literally how far you are away from your nearest "twin". (s/he is 10^(10^28) metres away from you) Read the article at scientific american. It is online somewhere, but here is the abstract [sciam.com]
See how physics is so closely tied to philosophy? That's why physics used to be called "natural philosophy". Knowing more about the universe allows us to...well, know more about the universe, and hence, the philosophical implications.
Knowledge is good.
cheers!
Re:Why Classify? (Score:5, Informative)
Since we have no proof of anything beyond the Universe, this is just a chasing of a simple definition. Without the Universe in a 3D viewable environment and being just IT, then we can't define the shape meaningfully.
I'm not a mathematician, but my roommate was and he explained this to me once. These descriptions do not require anything beyond the observable universe to exist, they are merely technical statements comparing the characteristics of our universe to a flat euclidean universe, which are conveniently (confusingly) worded to sound like visual descriptions. The statement "the universe is shaped like a funnel" is still meaningful in that sense, even though no one can ever view the universe from the 4 dimensional perspective that would be required to actually see a funnel shape.
Re:Why Classify? (Score:3, Informative)
Contrarily, there are simple experiments we can do (and have done) to determine the shape of the universe. For instance, let's assume that you and I are two dimensional creatures living on the surface of a sphere. The sphere is very large, and you and I believe it to be infinite in all direc
geometry versus "dark energy" (Score:3, Interesting)
Are we inside a black hole? (Score:4, Interesting)
So, could you have black holes embedded inside the distorted space of another (huge) black hole (almost fractally?).
Are we inside a black hole? I doubt it. (Score:4, Insightful)
Now... our Universe could be just another 3brane in a larger multi-verse of multi-branes. There's nothing that says that a braneworld has to have a certain level of entropy, or that the levels of entropy can't change over time.
Comment removed (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Out side the horn (Score:3, Interesting)
That is, it's not just, that there is nothing outside of the universe, but "outside of the universe" itself doesn't exist.
And of course you have the obligatory Homer quote (Score:4, Funny)
"Mmmmmmm, universe..."
sceptical about all such theories (Score:4, Insightful)
My God (Score:3, Funny)
Symmetry (Score:3, Interesting)
and... "At an extreme enough point, you would be able to see the back of your own head."
This is an example of symmetry, something that is paramount in keeping when explaining shapes of the Universe. Just had to point this out...
A funnel now? (Score:5, Funny)
Slashdot says; the universe is shaped like a doughnut [slashdot.org]
Slashdot says; universe is shaped like a soccer ball [slashdot.org]
I say; the universe is shaped like a
Re:A funnel now? (Score:5, Interesting)
'Alright,' said Ford, 'imagine this. Right. You get this bath. Right. A large round bath. And it's made of ebony.'
'Where from?' said Arthur, 'Harrods was destroyed by the Vogons.'
'Doesn't matter.'
'So you keep saying.'
'Listen.'
'Alright.'
'You get this bath, see? Imagine you've got this bath. And it's ebony. And it's conical.'
'Conical?' said Arthur, 'What sort of...'
'Shhh!' said Ford. 'It's conical. So what you do is, you see, you fill it with fine white sand, alright? Or sugar. Fine white sand, and/or sugar. Anything. Doesn't matter. Sugar's fine. And when it's full, you pull the plug out... are you listening?'
'I'm listening.'
'You pull the plug out, and it all just twirls away, twirls away you see, out of the plughole.'
'I see.'
'You don't see. You don't see at all. I haven't got to the clever bit yet. You want to hear the clever bit?'
'Tell me the clever bit.'
Ford thought for a moment, trying to remember what the clever bit was.
'The clever bit,' he said, 'is this. You film it happening.'
'Clever,' agreed Arthur.
'You get a movie camera, and you film it happening.'
'Clever.'
'That's not the clever bit. This is the clever bit, I remember now that this is the clever bit. The clever bit is that you then thread the film in the projector... backwards!'
'Backwards?'
'Yes. Threading it backwards is definitely the clever bit. So then, you just sit and watch it, and everything just appears to spiral upwards out of the plughole and fill the bath. See?'
'And that's how the Universe began is it?' said Arthur.
'No,' said Ford, 'but it's a marvelous way to relax.'
mmm, donuts (Score:3, Interesting)
At the University of Umm (Score:4, Funny)
PROF: Ummm, a big horn. Next question.
STUDENT: Professor, what causes cancer?
PROF: Umm, breadsticks.
STUDENT: Professor, is Linux going to take over the desktop this year?
PROF: Umm, yeah sure.
DONT YOU BELIEVE IT!
infinitely long and yet finite volume? (Score:4, Interesting)
John Sauter (J_Sauter@Empire.Net)
Re:infinitely long and yet finite volume? (Score:5, Insightful)
There are plenty of examples of phenomena such as this illustrated in a standard calculus text, so you can look for more details there.
Re:infinitely long and yet finite volume? (Score:5, Informative)
On the first meter, it has, say, an area of one square meter (yes, that's quite large for toilet paper
Now, how large is the total area? Well, let's look at it (I'm ommiting the square meter unit for brevity):
The first meter has, as I said, an area of 1.
The first 2 meters have an area of 1+1/2 = 1.5.
The first 3 meters have an area of 1+1/2+1/4 = 1.75.
The first 10 meters have an area of 1+1/2+...+1/512 = 0.998046875.
As you see, as you add up the area meter by meter, the total area gets arbitrary close to 2, without ever reaching it. Therefore the total area is just 2 square meters.
Or to see it differently: When cutting the first meter off, the resulting strip looks exactly the same, just half as narrow. Therefore it has half the area of the original strip, the other half being the cut off first meter, which, as we know, has one square meter. Therefore the whole area is 2 square meters, which clearly is finite.
Re:infinitely long and yet finite volume? (Score:3, Interesting)
Rotate f(x)=1/x around the y-axis and x between 1 and infinity is the horn. Finite volume (Pi something), infinite surface area. It could never hold enough paint to cover the insidde of the can =).
Look at the data (Score:4, Insightful)
A long thin period, followed by a huge flare...that is sort of the shape of a trumpet. These are the guys who tell us that distance equals time, too...not to pretend to be a cosmologist, but isn't it possible that we're seeing a trumpet shaped universe because our input data (i.e. energy) followed a trumpet-shaped distribution curve over time?
Re:Look at the data (Score:3, Interesting)
Yours was my first impression too until I read the first few paragraphs.
Klein Bottle (Score:3, Interesting)
So much for the Big bang (Score:3, Funny)
In the begining... (Score:4, Funny)
In the begining was the words, and they were "Make it so"...
A "Picard topology", eh? (Score:5, Interesting)
Re:A "Picard topology", eh? (Score:3, Informative)
http://arxiv.org/PS_cache/astro-ph/pdf/0403/040
Laboratoire Emile Picard (Score:3, Interesting)
Picard (Score:4, Informative)
This is just a hunch, but I bet "Picard topology" is named after Emile, not Jean Luc.
Ah the geeky irony. (Score:3, Informative)
Explaination from an ast101 prof... (Score:5, Informative)
What do we mean by the topology of the Universe?
We sort of mean the 'shape'. It is easy to talk about 2 dimensional surfaces in a three dimensional universe - planes, spheres, funnels, etc. But the Universe has 3 (large) dimensions, not 2, so it is much harder. Normally, we think of the universe as a 3 dimensional equivalent to a plane - that is, in space, straight lines are straight, never curve back on themselves, and go on forever. Another common topologies which arise naturally from gravity theory are 'spherical' - where parallel lines eventually cross, and you can see the back of your head. The group in questions is proposing that the Universe is a 3d analog to the surface of a horn. Others have proposed 3d analogs to the surface of a doughnut....
How can one possibly determine what this shape is?
If the Universe is actually curved in some way, then light coming from distant objects will be bent on its way to us, distorting the images. For the global topology of the Universe, one wants to use the largest, most distant thing you can look at. The Universe is expanding and cooling. Light takes time to travel, so if you look far enought away, you can look far enough back in time to when the whole Universe was filled with a hot H-He plasma. This is called the Cosmic Microwave Background (CMB). Most recent topology studies have looked at the statistics of the fluctuations of this distant plasma for distortion in the image from what is predicted.
So, is this true?
Could be.... but the evidence is not compelling. The anomalies they are looking at are of rather low statistical significance, and the idea that the universe is just 'straight/flat' and boring still fits pretty well. And unfortunately, for the large scale stuff, the data isn't going to get any better. The problem is, we only have one Universe, and COBE and WMAP have measured the large scales as well as can be measured. The small scale distortions have more potential given upcoming experiments like Planck, and the WMAP year2 data.
Here is original paper (Score:3, Informative)
http://xxx.uni-augsburg.de/abs/astro-ph/0403597 [uni-augsburg.de]
Shows you that you really need to know what you are talking about if you want to make an intelligent comment about this paper.
This explains the question. (Score:3, Funny)
Hasn't it always had that shape???? (Score:3, Interesting)
Explode that shape over time.
Now look at it four dimensionally...
Surely you end up with an r^2 curve rotated through 3 dimensions, with r on the time axis...
Greg Bear beat them to it (Score:3, Interesting)
So there.
Paper Reference (Score:4, Informative)
And by the way, it's named after Emile Picard from 1884, not Jean-Luc from the 25th century.
Re:Sounds (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sounds (Score:3, Funny)
Re:Sounds (Score:3, Funny)
Re:intuition (Score:3)
If the universe is infinite in size, and has been around infinitely long, then it would stand to reason, that when one looked into the sky, every line of sight in the sky would lead to a distant star that has been around long enough for its light to reach us, and if this were the case we would all fry.
Re:intuition (Score:3, Interesting)
Check out the entry in E2. [everything2.com]
It's not necessarily a problem, though and may have various solutions - some of which are mentioned in the write up and the accompanying links. Of course the Big Bang has its own fair share of paradoxes, since it's basically creation ex nihilo. Now that's a philosophical no-no if ever there was one.