PDA

View Full Version : What's beyond the Universe



Pages : 1 [2]

linken39
2006-Aug-11, 11:06 AM
I was looking up beyond the universe when I came across this site with the posts on whether or not the universe was infinant and or what may be beyond. I was very interested to note that all answers were based only on scientific guesses. What about Biblical???
OK science and evolution is correct, but does no one belive in God and the Holy Bible?
Don't you think that somewhere in the after space in some dimension there may be Heaven and Hell? Whatever they may be. I don't mean that is a space where the spirits hang out. But, everything is recycled, right? Where do souls go when they leave the body? Who or what did create life, this thing we call God??? These things are somewhere, right? So what about the spirit world? Where does that fit?
I believe there is much much more that none of us know. There is much more to the universe than just space. I, like everyone else, do not know what is out there and where it all ends and begins and what is on the other side.
Remember, once humans believed the world was flat. They thought when a ship disapeared over the horizon that it fell over the edge of the world. We now know that is not correct.
I don't think we can know the meaning of life until we die and meet God.
But please, don't think that much on this that you decide to slit your wrists to find out, cos once there, you can't come back... or if you do, it is as a new baby with your memory cleaned.
Another thing to think on............. the world, the universe....... the internet.... that/this is a whole new universe in itself, hey?

Ken G
2006-Aug-11, 12:52 PM
There are many spiritual texts, all with different ideas of what might be beyond the physical space. Why would you choose one in particular to mention, simply because it is the one you are familiar with? Note that religion, and your own personal faith, are not appropriate topics for this forum, as I'm sure a moderator will point out shortly.

Wolverine
2006-Aug-11, 07:45 PM
I was very interested to note that all answers were based only on scientific guesses. What about Biblical???

Welcome, linken39. Our discussion forum is dedicated to science -- that's our focus. With the exception of two very specific allowances, we don't discuss religion here, as Ken G noted above. Please take a moment to review our forum rules (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=32864) in that regard.

Thanks.

Frog march
2006-Aug-11, 08:07 PM
the analogy of what is outside the Universe is like that of books(thinking of a book as like a universe), there may be other universes as represented by a book, but what is between books?

01101001
2006-Aug-11, 08:23 PM
the analogy of what is outside the Universe is like that of books(thinking of a book as like a universe), there may be other universes as represented by a book, but what is between books?

That analogy is about as weak as these:
the analogy of what is inside/not equal to/behind the Universe is like that of donuts/numbers/idea (thinking of a donut/number/idea as like a universe), there may be other universes as represented by a donut/number/idea, but what is inside/not equal to/behind the donut/number/idea?

Frog march
2006-Aug-11, 08:30 PM
well, what is behind the donut?

01101001
2006-Aug-11, 09:14 PM
well, what is behind the donut?
About.com :: Inventors, Donut/Doughnut (http://inventors.about.com/library/inventors/bldonut.htm)


Captain Hanson Crockett Gregory was the inventor of the donut with a hole in the middle.
For some reason, that doesn't seem to help me understand the universe any better.

Beards
2006-Aug-14, 06:30 PM
Hi all. This is my first post though I've been reading the forum for ages now. Here's my penny's worth:- I've got this idea that there isn't anything "outside" or "inside" the universe and that it's nature is cyclical.

Indulge me for a minute and try to imagine in the future the biggest telescope ever invented that can "see" further into space than we can at present. Also the most sensitive microscope ever invented that can "see" things that are so small we don't even know they exist. I have this theory that when scientists look into this huge telescope and the tiny microscope they don't see anything new, they simply see an eye staring back at them! In other words the person looking into the telescope sees the eye of the person using the microscope and vice versa!

OK so it's a bit sci-fi but I feel we, as humans, always try to explain things in a way we can understand (as limited by our simple brains) but as we are beginning to see, things are a lot stranger out there!!!

Ken G
2006-Aug-15, 12:03 AM
That is a cute idea, but it's already contra-indicated by observation. We've seen as far as we can, because the universe gets opaque to light if you look any farther than the cosmic microwave background. Now, if we could see all the way back to the Beginning, who knows...

Beards
2006-Aug-15, 09:21 AM
We've seen as far as we can, because the universe gets opaque to light if you look any farther than the cosmic microwave background.

Woah!! This is new to me. Any chance you could embellish a little. Have we actually seen as far as the CMB?
When you say the universe gets opaque to light what exactly do you mean?

Ken G
2006-Aug-15, 02:33 PM
Have we actually seen as far as the CMB?
Sure-- the CMB itself!


When you say the universe gets opaque to light what exactly do you mean?

That far back in time, space was filled with free electrons that scatter light. So light didn't get very far, and none of it made it from there to us without being absorbed. Thus we can't "see" anything from that far back-- the CMB is as far back in time as we can directly see (the rest is done from inferences).

sixo
2006-Sep-26, 09:40 PM
I know litte about astronomy, but have been fascinated by the question ´what is beyond the universe?¨. The question itself points to the ludicrousness of many of our accepted convictions, simple dichotomies such as ´good and bad´ ´something/nothing´. And not just religious knowledge has been based on these essentialist assumptions, but also in science, and in language.

Look at some of these assumptions in the questions, firstly that all things have an end or a limit, and there is something beyond all things. That there fundamentally exists a something/nothing dichotomy. But the concept of endless nothing does not make sense, our minds can grasp it. But we evolve our languages and theories and beliefs even though we cannot answer adequately ¨whats b the universe?¨.

Looking at the responses given people are trying to solve the question by using traditional dichotomies, accepted reasonings, and traditional languages These are all based on questionable faith in language (and by association, science) which can be a faith as dangerous as religious faith when tackling difficult, important questions like this one.

But I think it is more important to look at philosophical issues, and language before the question can be addressed. For example WHY must there be something beyond the universe. If we can´t answer the question is then our reasoning terribly flawed?

When we can somehow think beyond our our minds, and take a different perspective disattached from our own subjective perhaps then we can make leaps in human knowledge. Maybe through chemical experimentation. Maybe not but a radical approach maybe be needed because no-one in this thread has provided even a half adequate answer.

Supposedy written 600 bc, this might give some clue (and I hate religion):
The tao that can be described
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the eternal Name.
(Tao Te Ching)

antoniseb
2006-Sep-26, 09:59 PM
Hi Sixo, welcome to the BAUT forum.

Most of the time philosophy seems out of place on the forum here, but in the case of the question "What is outside the Universe?", you are probably correct that philosophy may be a good place to start.

Thanks.

Ken G
2006-Sep-27, 04:18 AM
Looking at the responses given people are trying to solve the question by using traditional dichotomies, accepted reasonings, and traditional languages These are all based on questionable faith in language (and by association, science) which can be a faith as dangerous as religious faith when tackling difficult, important questions like this one.

But note the inescapable paradox behind this position. You are essentially saying that here we have a question too important and too difficult to be entrusted to language. But of course, the question itself is phrased using language. So you have a conundrum: either the question is well posed using language, but for some reason it's answer cannot be, or the question itself is too profound for language to properly express, in which case... what is the question?


When we can somehow think beyond our our minds, and take a different perspective disattached from our own subjective perhaps then we can make leaps in human knowledge.
Another paradox... thinking beyond our minds. Some put great store in reflecting on paradoxes, but I prefer the scientific approach-- simply limit the questions to those that can be addressed in a concrete manner.


Maybe through chemical experimentation.
I'm gonna guess that would lead to answers that only seemed right to the person on the chemicals.


Maybe not but a radical approach maybe be needed because no-one in this thread has provided even a half adequate answer.
It seems more likely to me that a half adequate answer is a whole impossibility.


The tao that can be described
is not the eternal Tao.
The name that can be spoken
is not the eternal Name.
(Tao Te Ching) Wise words when any answer is not the answer.

LayMan
2006-Sep-27, 10:58 AM
But note the inescapable paradox behind this position. You are essentially saying that here we have a question too important and too difficult to be entrusted to language. But of course, the question itself is phrased using language. So you have a conundrum: either the question is well posed using language, but for some reason it's answer cannot be, or the question itself is too profound for language to properly express, in which case... what is the question?

I would like to agree here: the sheer formulation of the question itself already 'pushes' the answer into a certain direction... After all, there are different kinds of questions, depending on the "questioning pronoun" you start it with (not sure that is the correct grammatical definition of words like 'what', 'where', 'who',...).

After all, things would be a lot different if the question stated was 'Who's beyond the universe?'. But that would lead to religious issues, which - I'm more then happy to concur - are best discussed somewhere else. Not that I hate religion per se, we pretty basically need our moral-ethical systems given that we're all part of the most dangerous species on this planet, I just feel this forum isn't the right place for it (you know, besides the fact that the rules explicitly don't allow it, and if you're not going to oblige to the rules, any discussion on moral, ethics and the likes seems a bit void of content - even borderline hypocrit)...

Or take this one: 'Where's beyond the Universe?', which could trigger some interesting cosmogenetic threads...

But since we're stuck with 'What's beyond the Universe?' on this thread, the first word of that question immidiately implies the answer to be at least regarding 'something'... Regardless of that 'something' being matter or energy, tangeable or not, visible or invisible...

The second word doesn't really pose that much difficulty: 'beyond' means what it means, as in: on the other side, or behind the edge/frontier of the next words to which it refers.

The next and last words, 'the Universe', pretty much 'shape' or 'finish' the answer: it depends on their 'meaning'... If by 'the Universe' you mean literally everything, then the answer is basically simple: nothing. If you use these words to define the observable part of the Universe, then the answer is also easy: the unobservable part of it. If you define a finite space (even if it has infinite properties, or dimensions, or whatever) filled with matter, time and energy with it, then the answer would be 'the infinite, timeless void - emptyness'...

Perhaps you may want to object to this, saying ""Hey, no fair, you're only entitled to 1 answer, if you're just going to sum up every possible answer, you're always going to be right - and that's not the point of it!"... You would be right of course, but then we would need to consider the fact that there are questions to which there are no (valid) answers, and then there are those to which any given answer would be both valid and true...
So first of all, we would need to ask ourselfs the meta-question "is the question 'What's beyond the Universe?' answerable by means of 1 objective, true answer?". I'm inclined to answer that one by a causious no, so pretty much anything goes... Or nothing... Your guesses are as good as mine (actually, I like my guesses better, but I may be biased here)


Another paradox... thinking beyond our minds. Some put great store in reflecting on paradoxes, but I prefer the scientific approach-- simply limit the questions to those that can be addressed in a concrete manner.

Me, I really like paradoxes - they're kind of like the black holes of logic. Besides, I believe physics has its own little brainbusters when it comes to time travel, no?


I'm gonna guess that would lead to answers that only seemed right to the person on the chemicals.

You mean like most answers provided on this forum only seem right to the guys on the mathematics? :D


It seems more likely to me that a half adequate answer is a whole impossibility.

You should be more optimistic, I'd say the cup is half full...


Wise words when any answer is not the answer.

Again, some questions can be answered truely by any answer! Let's say we're in front of 2 tables: on one of them are placed 3 books (readers choice), while the other is empty (well, for all practical purposes that is, disregarding air molecules, dust particles, etc.). 2 (biased) questions at each table:

* table 1
Q1: Are there books on this table?
A1: Yes (true)

Q2: Well then, how many are there?
A2: 3 (true)

* table 2
Q1: Are there books on this table?
A1: No (true)

Q2: Well then, how many aren't there?
A2: ...? (go ahead, fill in any number except zero, it will proof to be true - but it has to be a number, I guess, for instance 'blue' would be hard to accept, don't ask me why, probably because the usage of 'How many' in the question creates certain 'expectations' towards the given answer...).

P.S. If anyone is having a hard time trying to get his mind around what I meant when I said "If you define a finite space (even if it has infinite properties, or dimensions, or whatever)...", just google "Koch snowflake": it's a fractal which has a finite area, but an infinite perimeter. Then try to imagine a 3D version of it... Or a 4D version for all I care... Go nuts! :)

P.P.S. If you're really serious about the question, you really should ask Adam Douglas (no links included, copyright, you know...Although I'm not sure the copyright hasn't expired yet...) :lol:

sixo
2006-Sep-27, 04:48 PM
Ken G I agree with some of your criticism. I am not saying we have a question too important and difficult to be entrusted to language. If we don´t use language what do we use? I only think we need to look at the limitations of language, which are highlighted when trying to answer this question. Some of the answers previously posted didn´t seem to take this into consideration.

Quite right that ´thinking beyond our minds´ is a paradox, and I put it too simply. But it may be possible to be able to think without limitations of our own ingrained experiences, subjectivies and prejudices. And if our minds funcion chemically, why is not feasible that scientific chemical experimentation could increase our ability to reason and tackle questions like this?

Also if you ¨simply limit the questions to those that can be addressed in a concrete manner¨ does that make all the other questions worthless? It would be nice if things were more concrete and concrete thinking is always appropriate, but if they can´t answer a simple question maybe they are flawed.

I used the words ´´half adequate answer´´ deliberately. Anyway my point was to instigate a little abstract thinking.

What is your answer to the question anyway?
Cheers

Ken G
2006-Sep-27, 07:49 PM
I only think we need to look at the limitations of language, which are highlighted when trying to answer this question.
And that's a very valid point to keep in mind as we wrestle with such things. Even in more concrete areas, like trying to understand cosmology observations, we sometimes forget that translating the observations into words changes them in a way that can muddy the waters. We must try to do it in order to achieve understanding, but the understanding may be different from the actual science, or at least a more ephemeral element of that science.


But it may be possible to be able to think without limitations of our own ingrained experiences, subjectivies and prejudices.
I see what you mean now. Sometimes that is called thinking "creatively", and seems to be an important element of genius, although there is at times a thin line between creativity and gobbledygook when people forget to make their musings testable.



And if our minds funcion chemically, why is not feasible that scientific chemical experimentation could increase our ability to reason and tackle questions like this? It is certainly possible, but not usually feasible because the chemical function of our minds has evolved in a careful way, whereas random perturbations to the functioning are more like trying to improve your TV picture by throwing it down the stairs. Not that this never works...


Also if you ¨simply limit the questions to those that can be addressed in a concrete manner¨ does that make all the other questions worthless?
No, it just makes them unapproachable with science. I am content that science is not all things to all people, but it has its uses.


What is your answer to the question anyway?

My first answer would be "science cannot answer this, so I have little to add." But if I were to take off my scientist hat and make a stab, I would say that the importance of this question is in the asking, not in the answering. That may be the most fundamental difference between science and philosophy.

Eif87
2006-Sep-30, 02:28 AM
Hellooo guys, the answer has already been known for a while....there's a restaurant at the end of the Universe :-D

greenfeather
2006-Sep-30, 03:13 AM
ok.. now.. picture space. WHATS UNDER SPACE? i cant explain it lol :huh:

And if you can picture that, try to imagine: "what was there before the universe came into being?"

Or, as we used to say when we were kids, "what was there before God created the universe? And who created God?"

Boy, that used to boggle our minds.

Ken G
2006-Sep-30, 07:01 AM
Hellooo guys, the answer has already been known for a while....there's a restaurant at the end of the Universe :-D
Oh sure, laugh. It won't seem so funny when the Earth is demolished to make way for an interstellar bypass...

Maksutov
2006-Sep-30, 07:36 AM
I've had alot of fun reading this. And i realized this topic was started almost 2 years ago O_o, that does show you how quick our lifes go by.

Anyway i've thought about what people have said alot, and i cant make my mind up on wether infinite or finite seems realistic beyond our universe.
Its hard for me to explain, im sure someone else could explain it better.
But i believe there must be something beyond the universe....Well, beliefs are one thing, and often fly in the face of reliable, objective evidence. But the knowledge I have so far indicates that what is beyond the universe is nothing.

Ken G
2006-Sep-30, 02:04 PM
But the knowledge I have so far indicates that what is beyond the universe is nothing.Some questions are not only impossible to have scientific "knowledge" about, they are not even possible to formulate in a scientifically meaningful way. This is not a "bug" in science, it is a feature. But it is also a limitation, and to deny that limitation does science no service.

Dragon Star
2006-Oct-01, 12:50 AM
Nothing is a funny word to me, because it indicates that it is something.

greenfeather
2006-Oct-01, 02:12 PM
Hellooo guys, the answer has already been known for a while....there's a restaurant at the end of the Universe :-D

What's on the menu?

punkrockbong151
2006-Oct-02, 06:33 PM
My question is,, I have heard the Universe might be definte instead of indifinite. Example like a soccer ball shape. If this is the case, what is beyond that? There has to be something beyond the universe itself? Any idea?

see, i have only been studying this kinda thing for about 2 yrs at the most (since i was 12) and i beleive that all is connected, the universe cannot be just a ball, i mean imagine that, a ball, and u go out side of it, how much space could ther be in between the balls, and would it be opposite of space meaning it would be white space, and how would this look wen u get within a light year of the edge? i doubt u could look out and see the the black end, i'm not sure wats out ther but i'm pretty sure wats not.....

publiusr
2006-Oct-06, 08:25 PM
What's on the menu?

Buckyballs and fugu

Kristophe
2006-Oct-06, 10:42 PM
see, i have only been studying this kinda thing for about 2 yrs at the most (since i was 12) and i beleive that all is connected, the universe cannot be just a ball, i mean imagine that, a ball, and u go out side of it, how much space could ther be in between the balls, and would it be opposite of space meaning it would be white space, and how would this look wen u get within a light year of the edge? i doubt u could look out and see the the black end, i'm not sure wats out ther but i'm pretty sure wats not.....

A ball? I think you may be misunderstanding some of the analogies used to describe the possible "shapes" of the universe.

I know a lot of books use a picture of a sphere, or the Earth, to describe one of the possible "shapes" of the Universe, but you have to realize that they don't mean "The Universe is contained in a fish bowl". They're a simplification, and often times an oversimplification for the intended audience.

The one you seem to be referring to is that of the Closed Universe, which is often portrayed as a sphere. Again, this isn't meant to imply that the Universe is encased in a giant shell, and it's especially not suggesting that you can go up to that shell and look outside. Rather, the sphere shown in pictures is an analogy -- it's saying that a Closed Universe is sort of like a sphere in a certain property. That property is that there is no physical edge, but yet the total volume of the Universe is finite, just as there is no physical edge to the surface of the sphere, but that sphere has a finite and measureable surface area. The surface of the ball shown in the pictures and diagrams is meant to represent the volume of the universe; the surface of the ball has 2 dimensions, but the ball itself exists in 3 dimensions. The volume of the universe has 3 dimensions, but the hypersphere of the closed universe exists in 4 dimensions. 4 dimensions is really hard to draw on a 2D piece of paper, so they stick with ball/globe idea.

With that in mind, trying to look out beyond the edge of the Universe is a little bit like trying to walk off the edge of the Earth.

astromark
2006-Oct-07, 04:14 AM
This over simplification might help or, it might not;
If you could imagine accelerating toward the edge of the known universe you can never reach it. As you go the edge continues to stretch out in front of you. You are part of this universe and can not ever leave that. where you go so does it.
All that is real and of time and matter is part of this universe we are in. We know not of any other. There is nothing you can do that can change that.
I would not expect all if any to agree with this wild assertion of mine. It is based on my own string of thinking which we all know is prone to be wrong.
But, at this point in time it is the conclusion I have come to, and until science puts a clearer image in front of me, will do.

jlhredshift
2006-Oct-07, 12:54 PM
This over simplification might help or, it might not;
If you could imagine accelerating toward the edge of the known universe you can never reach it. As you go the edge continues to stretch out in front of you. You are part of this universe and can not ever leave that. where you go so does it.
All that is real and of time and matter is part of this universe we are in. We know not of any other. There is nothing you can do that can change that.
I would not expect all if any to agree with this wild assertion of mine. It is based on my own string of thinking which we all know is prone to be wrong.
But, at this point in time it is the conclusion I have come to, and until science puts a clearer image in front of me, will do.

Well, I agree. Which poses the thought question of what are the primordial neutrinos defining at this time?

GOURDHEAD
2006-Oct-07, 02:34 PM
This over simplification might help or, it might not;
If you could imagine accelerating toward the edge of the known universe you can never reach it. As you go the edge continues to stretch out in front of you. You are part of this universe and can not ever leave that. where you go so does it. For 10^40 or so intervals of 10^-43 seconds after the big bang the universe is believed to have been largely photonic. Many of these photons must have been at or near the expansion horizon. When they reach it do they stick there or get reflected back; or are they the source of the continuing expansion?

Many posit that the expansion horizon is everywhere, including where we are-wherever that is, while avoiding tackling the problem of the scale at which expansion is nullified by the binding of bound objects and what causes that to be so. Are we into "hyper-epicycling"?

astromark
2006-Oct-07, 07:40 PM
Riding up a steep hill on a push bike. ?
" Hyper - Epicycling " ?
No - This is not what you said.
I think I understand this thought and, like it.
The universe is expanding except the gravity bound clumps of matter.
Gourdhead. Is that what you are saying.?

cray75
2006-Oct-10, 12:54 PM
The 4-sphere or hypersphere (with 6-7 bound up dimensions at every point in space) a nice "simple" mathermatical model that can easily be used to explain expansion, inflation, cooling and collapse. Each slice in the 4-sphere a snap-shot of space, but not quite. This is of course a simplification of the bounded model of our universe.

Outside of it there could be an older expanding universe and inside of it a younger expanding universe. We would never know unless one of them due to some lack of uniformity in its expansion (or ours) intersected with ours.

I think the game Asteroids can explain the finite closed nature of our universe. If you go over one edge of the screen with your ship you come out at the opposite end heading the same direction. And if you just let your ship carry on flying it will end up at the point you started out. There is no inside or outside in this Asteroid universe. To go outside you would have to load up a different game with different rules and possibly boundaries that you cannot cross.

Pandabear
2006-Oct-13, 11:37 AM
I've read through this entire thread and I must say I've enjoyed reading it.
This is more or less my first post here so hi to all of you.

My idea's:

I think it could be very possible that this universe (I don't mean everything
and everywhere there is, but specifically this dimensionset and register of
physics laws) could very well be one of multiple.

The outer boundary of this universe might very well be very similar to the
idea of an event horizon of a black hole. Once space gets bent enough,
and being on the outer boundary would count as a very profound curve,
dimensions would be swapped with the other side, similar as going past
the event horizon would make the radius of the interior swap with the
local time arrow. I believe that effect was quoted as colliding with the
black hole would become as inevitable as next tuesday. Now suppose that
beyond this universe is no dimension at all. No space, no time, no weak nor
strong forces, etc. There would be nothing to swap with. I doubt anything
passing the outer boundary would simply cease to exist though. That would
mean loss of information and probably would violate some other conservation
laws as well, and IIRC that's not possible. I imagine if anything tries to
cross the border, its particles will meet the point where they cannot exist
and therefore be redirected in another direction. Photons and such would
either remain on this perimeter forever, get reflected somewhere else,
or remain on the edge until universal expansion moves the border.

So.. what about those other universes? dimensionally seperated perhaps,
but not by space. Thinking about bubbles moving around in something that
isn't there potentially colliding seems counterintuitive. How can they move
if there's nothing to move in, or for that matter, how can one universe have
a location relative to another one when there is no such thing as a location?
My idea is time. We can't interact with the past except perhaps observe
it's effect, and there is no way to ascertain that the future's there yet.
At any time except now there could very well be no universe as this
universe moves with the Now marker. Now compare the arrow of time as
being a stretch of rails. Our universe being a train, and another universe
being a jiffy (smallest possible unit of time) behind. This universe might
share the time dimension with our universe, but may have entirely different
dimensions, or laws of physics for that matter. There might for example
be a universe where physical laws do allow for the spontaneous creation
and destruction of energy and matter. It could be that time isn't the same
everywhere here either so at certain places some points of space would
share a point and time in our universe. It would allow for matter to be
interchanged freely, and might explain why we got matter here out of
what appears to be nowhere. A lot of the above is just my own theory
though, but it shows that the question of what lies beyond the universe
might not necessarily be limited to contemplating what lies beyond the
universe beyond spatial boundaries..

GOURDHEAD
2006-Oct-13, 01:17 PM
Riding up a steep hill on a push bike. ?
" Hyper - Epicycling " ?
No - This is not what you said.
I think I understand this thought and, like it.
The universe is expanding except the gravity bound clumps of matter.
Gourdhead. Is that what you are saying.?Sort of. If there be a cosmological property driving expansion which observation (or its interpretation from our perspective) seems to support, I wonder about its quantization, if any. We seem to be cobbling up patchwork explanations for what we think we are observing leaving me more focused on the patchwork structure than comprehending what is being posited.

This thread gives meaning to: a semantical klein bottle.

It seems more likely that spacetime is quantized at or below the planck scales of distance and time and "interstitched" with spacetimes of similar scales thus allowing for various levels of weak coupling between
several "existence domains".

Damien Evans
2006-Oct-16, 04:51 AM
What's on the menu?

a pig that wants itself to be eaten!

union
2006-Oct-30, 02:54 AM
It all depends on your concept of nothing.

I read this thread and i thought to myself.. what is nothing?

Someone mentioned that nothing doesnt exist because we cant see it. That sparked a thought that you cannot see something that doesnt exist. It is very well possible that this nothing is all around us.

Picture this. Your in a empty room with a table. Nothing is on the table. You cant see nothing. The word nothing cant explain what this universe "nothing" is. We would have to use some other word to understand.

If it is true that 'nothing' is at the end of the universe it means that you wont be able to see the end. I think of it as being in an empty room, but nothing being able to see any walls and when you look in any direction you only see your back.

Mister Earl
2006-Oct-30, 02:21 PM
Perhaps what lies "underneath" our universe is what we call dark matter, and the effects we see is the result of a one-way effect from the higher/lower dimension to our universe.

punkrockbong151
2006-Nov-03, 06:26 PM
Perhaps what lies "underneath" our universe is what we call dark matter, and the effects we see is the result of a one-way effect from the higher/lower dimension to our universe.

ther is no "underneath" or "over" or "on the sides, ther is no gravity in deep space alone which means ther is no direction or feeling of as u say "underneath",........ dark matter is also beleived to be said as a black hole

Mister Earl
2006-Nov-09, 10:03 PM
By "Underneath" I was referring to a high/lower/connecting dimension that we can't observe directly.

danscope
2006-Nov-10, 12:48 AM
Well, beliefs are one thing, and often fly in the face of reliable, objective evidence. But the knowledge I have so far indicates that what is beyond the universe is nothing.

Hi, Some years ago, we had observed what was thought to be the most distant stars......and then one day, someone focused Hubble ST on a particularly dull, empty and uninteresting part of the sky, and "discovered" many ,many
new "Galaxies" !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! So, the "Observed space time continum"
continues to expand , as a function of technology and curiosity. It would appear
that infinity and material existance are quite beyond any present or future
detection limit. But, how marvelous are the known and observed entities.
How priviliged are we to percieve and ponder the infinite, such as man has done since he first gazed on the night sky.
Best regards, Dan

apocalypse_chick
2006-Nov-10, 05:46 AM
Ive just read through Stephen Hawkings a brief history of time, and have been introduced to many concepts that have never before even crossed my mind. Yes he states in this three alternative theorys: that the universe is folding in on itself like a 'soccer ball', or folding outwards like a saddle, or that it is indeed flat. Either ways the universe is expanding and what it is expanding into i can only guess at. I guess i believe that theres just nothingness which is hard to comprehend, but its known that theres a universe and that the universe is expanding so there are obviously limitations and set boundaries of the universe that are constantly being pushed outwards.
Other universes outside ours? id love to believe it. its so excitingly brain tingling to be unable to comprehend something on that scale.
id like to make a reference to the closing scene of the movie Men in Black where it shows each galaxy as a single marble being played with by aliens. Its all perception, so you never know :razz:

astromark
2006-Nov-10, 08:53 AM
and the cats name was...? I hate it when that happens.
No that was not a galaxy in that marble. It was all of them. The universe.
Remembering it was just a story.
... " Data, make it so...engage." now that was real. Sorry thats a little of topic. I am of the notion that an ever expanding and slowly cooling universe is all there is. Entropy.

danscope
2006-Nov-12, 05:45 AM
It all depends on your concept of nothing.

I read this thread and i thought to myself.. what is nothing?

Someone mentioned that nothing doesnt exist because we cant see it. That sparked a thought that you cannot see something that doesnt exist. It is very well possible that this nothing is all around us.

Picture this. Your in a empty room with a table. Nothing is on the table. You cant see nothing. The word nothing cant explain what this universe "nothing" is. We would have to use some other word to understand.

If it is true that 'nothing' is at the end of the universe it means that you wont be able to see the end. I think of it as being in an empty room, but nothing being able to see any walls and when you look in any direction you only see your back.
Hi, It;s an interesting concept....nothing. And like the zero, it is necessary.
And.....even though nothing exists within nothing....ala space,....still,
light continues to pass through it. And even without , there was light.
Better put on kettle. We shall be here for some time. :)
Best regards, Dan

Jeff Root
2006-Nov-13, 03:01 AM
Martin Gardner devoted some of his articles in 'Scientific American'
magazine to the subject of "nothing". He also wrote some about
"everything".

-- Jeff, in Minneapolis

danscope
2006-Nov-14, 03:58 AM
"Look, Brian: ya come from nothing, ya leave with nothing.....
What have ya lost? ......Nothing!!! So...........
' Always look on the Bright.....side of life! " :) Dan

closetgeek
2006-Nov-15, 04:35 PM
I wish I had the education to give an answer and support it with some knowledge but based on my best understanding, I don't think that kind of knowledge is something we could ever be capable of. If we were to find some sort of boundary, that would indicate that there is something beyond that boundery, even if it were impossible for us to cross. Even a universe that would eventually bring you back to where you started suggests that it is a curve contained in something larger, wouldn't it? Perhaps it is just energy. If Photons are the link between particle and wave, maybe the BBT is backwards. Maybe it wasn't and explosion of energy but an implosion where energy became mass. (there is no basis for that, I am just throwing it out there, ignore that I sound like Jack Handy). My point is, thus far, it is an unanswerable question. I say, pick whatever appeals to you most, whether it be nothing, water, or spaghetti.

danscope
2006-Nov-16, 02:59 AM
Hi, It may just be a function of detection limits. I don't believe that we shall ever be certain about the true nature of our detection limits for the
space/time continuum. There's always some more space,,,,, and beyond that...
maybe more galaxies and certainly more space .....that we just can't see.
But.......for little creatures in our solar system, we sure can see quite a bit!!
I think we can be proud and at the same time humbled by our conscience
knowledge of our present, detectable concept of infinity.
Best regards, Dan

LayMan
2006-Nov-16, 11:26 AM
Actually, the mere combination of the 2 words 'nothing' and 'is' already gets us into trouble, because that implies that nothing 'exists as a being' and thus has a definition. And with 'exists as a being', I don't mean to give it some esotheric connotation: a rock is also a being, just not a living one. And an idea is also a being, just not a tangeable one. And giving a definition of 'nothing' by simply undefining everything else is a bit, I don't know, meaningless?...

Besides, whatever nothing is (oops...), I think it's oval, nullicolored and highly unstable: before you know it, anything starts to happen. :D

arzoo
2007-Feb-16, 02:10 AM
The answer:

%&^%^££"^&&**((&%£$$%£$%£""£$"$£%$

polyamorous1
2007-Mar-14, 07:13 AM
and the cats name was...? I hate it when that happens.
No that was not a galaxy in that marble. It was all of them. The universe.
Remembering it was just a story.
... " Data, make it so...engage." now that was real. Sorry thats a little of topic. I am of the notion that an ever expanding and slowly cooling universe is all there is. Entropy.


I would have to agree with this. As much as I'd like to know the answer, I don't think it will ever happen. I'm not the most educated on this subject, but from what I understand, the edge of the universe is expanding essentially at the speed of light. It's like the Big Bang is still an ongoing process, just billions of light years away from here. Even if we ever develop a way to travel at the speed of light, how do we makeup billions of years in lost time?

I sit and think about this a lot, and my mind just goes bonkers when I even try to perceive what could be beyond the universe. It's almost like we're programmed to not understand. Kind of weird actually...

01101001
2007-Mar-14, 07:27 AM
Welcome to the BAUT forum.


I'm not the most educated on this subject, but from what I understand, the edge of the universe is expanding essentially at the speed of light.

Maybe that's a way to think about the smaller visible Universe, that part we can see and that can affect us. Wrap your mind around a more common expectation of the entirety: there is no edge, no boundary, yet space is expanding.

You might enjoy the Cosmology Primer (http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/index.html) and FAQ (http://preposterousuniverse.com/writings/cosmologyprimer/faq.html).


It's like the Big Bang is still an ongoing process, just billions of light years away from here.

And where the big bang happened is right here, where the tip of your nose is, and mine, and all other points. Everything is the result, space and energy and matter, so it happened, and continues, everywhere.


Kind of weird actually...

Way weird. And weirder.

EvilEye
2007-Mar-14, 08:52 AM
Perhaps the problem in grasping the notion of there not being an outside of the universe is that we are trying to relate it to space, rather than time. The universe is not only an expansion of the physical space, but of time, which is only defined by the relationship between 1 object and everything else.

If you can agree that you cannot step out of time, then the concept becomes quite clear. If you could somehow find an (esoteric) "outer edge" to the universe, you could go no further, because one step or million steps or a billion miles to nowhere is the same distance. You cannot step out of time.

WelshLad
2007-Apr-11, 02:20 PM
Hi, just wanted to ask something.

Is 15BLY the limit of our technology?:confused:

01101001
2007-Apr-11, 03:24 PM
Is 15BLY the limit of our technology?

Fifteen billion years is a limit on the age of the Universe, closer to around 13.7 billion years (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html).

Having better tools now wouldn't make the Universe any older.

(Having better tools in 100 years will make the Universe 100 years older.)

Fifteen billion lightyears is a current limit on the distance light can travel since the beginning of the Universe.

sirChuck
2007-Apr-12, 06:15 AM
Fifteen billion years is a limit on the age of the Universe, closer to around 13.7 billion years (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html).

Having better tools now wouldn't make the Universe any older.

(Having better tools in 100 years will make the Universe 100 years older.)

Fifteen billion lightyears is a current limit on the distance light can travel since the beginning of the Universe.

In my mind the universe is infinite. To me there is no good reason thus far to show the universe needs to have an end to it. Let the simplest answer be the correct one, the 'verse goes on forever in all directions. The stars you base the age of the universe on are in fact only the stars we know of, therefor better tools could in fact show an older universe.

-- Additional Thoughts:

Just as in our solor system with comets and planets going every wich direction at any given time, so too could the galaxys we know about be revolving around something much bigger much further away than we know of.

Many say the universe we know does not revolve around anything. I think this is relative to where we think the center should be. Rather, just because the center does not factually appear to be in the middle of our known galaxys does not mean a center does not exist some where.

Speed of our galaxys vs. a universe with a finite end to it.
How fast would you say the milky way galaxy is travelling through space?
5 miles per second? 100 million miles per second? Totally relitive to what point in space your basing this on right? All of the galaxy's we can see could in fact be moving in direction (a) at 300 times the speed of light, and at the same time be moving in other directions and speeds relative to us.

Because of this possiblity it helps me imagine a never ending universe otherwize at some point in time our galaxy itself would collide with the end. It hasnt that we know of for roughly 15billion years at who knows what speed, and the end of the universe still isnt in sight.

I made a perrrrty picture (1A) to help explain my dimentia. Have a look and give me your thoughts. Thoughts on the concept not the art.

http://www.w2r.com/ep/

By the way i just noticed your user name 0110 1001 did you think about the 2 binary numbers you made, or just happen to come up with a 6 and a 9 :p

WelshLad
2007-Apr-12, 08:10 AM
Thanks sirChuck I think you answered my question (sorry may have been a poorly worded question).:doh:

"The stars you base the age of the universe on are in fact only the stars we know of, therefor better tools could in fact show an older universe".

Thank you.

Ken G
2007-Apr-12, 09:02 AM
The stars you base the age of the universe on are in fact only the stars we know of, therefor better tools could in fact show an older universe.
No, 01101001 is right-- the issue is not how big the universe is (infinite is fine), the issue is how old it is. We don't "base" the age of the universe on any particular stars, we base it on many things, and it all comes out 13.7 billion years old. That's just as true for an infinite universe as a finite one-- your reference to Occam's razor is the basis for this. Even an infinite universe would have no stars older than 13.7 billion years, if one goes on the simplest interpretation of what we see.

All of the galaxy's we can see could in fact be moving in direction (a) at 300 times the speed of light, and at the same time be moving in other directions and speeds relative to us. Of course that's true, but what is the point of asking a question that we cannot know the answer to? Philosophically, perhaps, but it's not of scientific interest.


By the way i just noticed your user name 0110 1001 did you think about the 2 binary numbers you made, or just happen to come up with a 6 and a 9 :p
Now there's a question that does have an answer, if it should be forthcoming!

sirChuck
2007-Apr-12, 09:53 AM
No, 01101001 is right-- the issue is not how big the universe is (infinite is fine), the issue is how old it is. We don't "base" the age of the universe on any particular stars, we base it on many things, and it all comes out 13.7 billion years old. That's just as true for an infinite universe as a finite one-- your reference to Occam's razor is the basis for this. Even an infinite universe would have no stars older than 13.7 billion years, if one goes on the simplest interpretation of what we see.

Initially I was trying to stay on topic of what comes after the universe, but got sidetracked in to the age of the universe sorry for the confusion.

However, I just assumed we based the estimated age of the universe on what we do know. In particular, the stars we know and the charted data of the movements of these stars. Perhaps you could give me some referance to other methods used to determine the age of the universe other than the stars we observe.

Maybe we are talking about two differnet things when we say universe so let me clarify, perhaps I am using the wrong word. To me the universe is everything in our three dimentional space. I dont think you can put an age on the beginning of the universe the way I see it because then you could always ask what was in the universe before it was born?

I think when you say universe your talking about the known universe in wich case you are probably right. 15billion years ago or so perhaps our known universe was born.



Of course that's true, but what is the point of asking a question that we cannot know the answer to? Philosophically, perhaps, but it's not of scientific interest.


In my opinion asking questions is the fundamental epicenter science. Ever since you asked your mom why the sky is blue. At some point it was a question without a way to determine the answer. To switch to philosophy how does this grab you, Who is to say what cannot be known, or what we cannot know the answer too?

Thank you for your input, and I realize I am probably way wrong I am a computer programmer not a scientest.

cheers :)

WelshLad
2007-Apr-12, 12:07 PM
So, 'we' know for certain that there aren't any other stars or objects at say 10Trillion Light Years from us, because all of the evidence points to the fact that the universe is 13.7 BYO?

So, if the universe is infinite, how can it have an age? Kind of goes back to sirChucks last post.

My apologies if this is covering old ground, I have read through numerous posts on this thread and I probably should have picked this up somwhere in all the incredibly amazing answers.

Anyway, just more for me to ponder on, no real need for anyone to post a reply.
Thanks,
Take it easy.:razz:

ArgoNavis
2007-Apr-12, 12:52 PM
In particular, the stars we know and the charted data of the movements of these stars. Perhaps you could give me some referance to other methods used to determine the age of the universe other than the stars we observe.




Olbers Paradox would indicate that the Universe is of finite age and finite extent.

The CMB radiation would indicate that the Universe was once hot and dense. Very hot and very dense. We call this the "Big Bang". The ratio of hydrogen to helium observed in our Universe is consistent with what we know of the physics of this event.

The redshifted spectra of galaxies, and the apparent magnitude of Type 1A supernova gives a Hubble constant which indicates a age of 13.7 billion years for the Universe.

When we look into the deep Universe, the galaxies look like what we would expect young galaxies to look like at a much earlier age in the Universe's history, consistent with us looking back in time.

The ages of stars in globular clusters, as derived from our understanding of physics, are consistent with this.

Space-time appears to be largely flat with insufficent matter in the Universe to constrain continued expansion. This is consistent with the picture above.

As this sounds somewhat like a homework question, you are invited to look these up yourself. Be prepared for lots of reading.






Maybe we are talking about two differnet things when we say universe so let me clarify, perhaps I am using the wrong word. To me the universe is everything in our three dimentional space. I dont think you can put an age on the beginning of the universe the way I see it because then you could always ask what was in the universe before it was born?

I think when you say universe your talking about the known universe in wich case you are probably right. 15billion years ago or so perhaps our known universe was born.





So when you talk about the universe what you really mean is the unknown universe not the known universe.

I don't think that there is much evidence for this unknown universe.

So whatever you want to make up, that's fine.

Over the last few years, our understanding of the physics of the Big Bang has improved up to the first few milliseconds after this event, with some indications of what happened before. I am optimistic that the future will allow us to push back our understandings of the Universe even further.






In my opinion asking questions is the fundamental epicenter science. Ever since you asked your mom why the sky is blue. At some point it was a question without a way to determine the answer. To switch to philosophy how does this grab you, Who is to say what cannot be known, or what we cannot know the answer too?

Thank you for your input, and I realize I am probably way wrong I am a computer programmer not a scientest.

cheers :)


Philosophy seems happiest when it is answering questions to which no-one knows the answer.

ArgoNavis
2007-Apr-12, 01:02 PM
Maybe we are talking about two differnet things when we say universe so let me clarify, perhaps I am using the wrong word. To me the universe is everything in our three dimentional space.




We know from Einstein that space has 4 dimensions - length, height, width and time. Time is the critical dimension, and the question you are really asking is "what is before space-time". The answer is that there can be nothing before time began at that critical moment 13.7 billion years ago. I know that this is counter-intuitive, but much of modern physics is. Irrespective of this, it appears to describe reality quite well.

Cougar
2007-Apr-12, 03:10 PM
The Heavens Declare the Glory of Mathematics.


"If the calculus comes to vibrant life in celestial mechanics, as it surely does, then this is evidence that the stars in the sheltering sky have a secret mathematical identity, an aspect of themselves that like some tremulous night flower they reveal only when the mathematician whispers." -- David Berlinski

danscope
2007-Apr-12, 04:42 PM
Initially I was trying to stay on topic of what comes after the universe, but got sidetracked in to the age of the universe sorry for the confusion.

However, I just assumed we based the estimated age of the universe on what we do know. In particular, the stars we know and the charted data of the movements of these stars. Perhaps you could give me some referance to other methods used to determine the age of the universe other than the stars we observe.

Maybe we are talking about two differnet things when we say universe so let me clarify, perhaps I am using the wrong word. To me the universe is everything in our three dimentional space. I dont think you can put an age on the beginning of the universe the way I see it because then you could always ask what was in the universe before it was born?

I think when you say universe your talking about the known universe in wich case you are probably right. 15billion years ago or so perhaps our known universe was born.



In my opinion asking questions is the fundamental epicenter science. Ever since you asked your mom why the sky is blue. At some point it was a question without a way to determine the answer. To switch to philosophy how does this grab you, Who is to say what cannot be known, or what we cannot know the answer too?

Thank you for your input, and I realize I am probably way wrong I am a computer programmer not a scientest.

cheers :)

*********************
Hi Chuck, You got it right. The simple answer is the best. Infinity,
The universe is infinitly old and infinitly large. This may disturb some people.
Rock and roll disturbs some people. Never the less, it is there.
In brief: You can't put the universe in a can.
Hey...I said that ! You can quote me if you like.
Best regards, Dan

sirChuck
2007-Apr-12, 06:38 PM
Hi all,

Yes I see your point with the age of chemical elements, age of oldest star clusters, and age of oldest white dwarf stars helping to determine the age of the universe scientifically. Note: I am not saying we will find an older star somewhere in the universe than is possible, simply that a star may have existed and died in the universe before our stars came to be therefor adding time to the age of the universe itself.

You are correct without anything to observe in the unknown universe I could make up anything I wanted to support my model.

Perhaps the basic question comes down to this:
Did the big bang create the universe, or did the big bang happen inside the already existing universe.

1) If it created the universe by expanding outward in all directions then yes the universe should be finite and have quantifiable age.

2) If it was simply an event that happend inside the universe then we can not give an age to the universe with the information we have access to.

If we could determine the age of the universe though, and the rate of expansion, shouldnt we then also be able to tell aproximately on a three dimentional grid where the edge of the universe is at any given time? If so then it seems we could prove or disprove the finite universe theory some day with better tools. (maybe not until the universe starts collapsing but still)

---------------

Because it can still be either way we are both making arguments with many unknowns. I just do not see a problem with having the universe be so large it could support multipul big bangs 'gazillions' of light years apart at different times. I think the theory of the big bang is along the lines of all the matter in the universe coming together, but in my mind it could just as easily be all the matter in a section of the universe.

My thinking is misguided and I wont waste more of your time on this subject beyond this post, but I thank you for your scientific input. Very entertaining stuff :) Please post on my 'Speed of Light' topic in the question and answers section.

speedfreek
2007-Apr-12, 06:59 PM
General Relativity describes space-time using the model of a four-dimensional manifold.

In a one-dimensional manifold (or 1-manifold) every point has a neighbourhood that looks like a line. An example of a 1-manifold could be a circle. Wherever you are on that circle, all you can see is a line.

In a 2-manifold, every point has a neighbourhood that looks like a disk. An example of a 2-manifold could be the surface of a sphere. Wherever you are on the surface of that object, all you can see around you is a disk.

The good old balloon model is an example of an expanding 2-manifold. Someone living on the surface of that balloon can only see across the surface, they cannot look up (out of the balloon) or down (into the balloon). They see all points of their universe moving away from them as it expands, but their is no centre of expansion within their universe (the surface of that balloon).

An example of a 3-manifold is a 3-sphere, an object that lives in 4-dimensional euclidean space where every point has a neighbourhood that looks like a sphere. I won't pretend to understand what this object looks like!

If space-time can be modelled as a 4-manifold, I think concepts like the edge of the universe become null and void. Einstein considered that the universe might be finite, but boundless. To me, boundless doesn't mean it goes on forever, it means it has no edge or no bound as space curves back on itself dimensionally. The whole thing expands within itself! ;)

EvilEye
2007-Apr-12, 07:47 PM
I like the idea of the "Fred & Barney" syndrome.

They drive and drive and all they do is pass the same tree, mailbox, house and tree again...over and over.

If you tried to leave Earth on a ship in a straight line toward anwhere (this way, or that way, or over there...), you would theoretically arrive back where you started. You can't look to the "outer edge" of the Universe because there isn't one.

Check this out for proof. Astronomers don't have to choose a direction when trying to look back in time (very far in space)... it is everywhere. No matter which side of the sun we are on, we can look "up" into space and back into time....whether they are in Australia, or in Alaska. Up-Down-Sideways....every direction only points toward the beginning... never the other way.

You can have only history...not future. Not even present.

Ken G
2007-Apr-12, 08:44 PM
That doesn't prove the universe is spatially closed. We will most likely never know, as it seems to be extremely close to the boundary between open and closed, so I suspect humanity will never know if the universe is spatially finite or infinite. That such a fundamental issue might be completely unknowable is a stark reminder of our own limitations.

mugaliens
2007-Apr-12, 09:23 PM
Fifteen billion years is a limit on the age of the Universe, closer to around 13.7 billion years (http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/age.html).


And assuming we could build a 1C spacecraft capable of reaching the edge, by the time we get there we wouldn't be any closer to it than we are today, as it will have expanded another 15 billion light-years distance.

Thus, we're as close to the edge of the universe today as we'll ever be, and that edge isn't defined as a point in space so much as it's defined as the moment of the big bang.

WillC.
2007-Apr-16, 04:23 AM
use my imagination huh? ok...we (the entire universe, possibly multiverse) are one enormous science project, small to the creatures that are performing it, but huge to us..maybe a year for us is 1/1000 of a second to them. maybe were the ones being viewed under a microscope, kinda like we view microscopic life..so thats it, ive solved it..were all in one big petri dish in a science class beyond our multiverse.........second, more plausable theory, its infinite, an infinite number of stars, infinite number of galaxies, infinite number of universi that will eternally recycle itself...but in this lifetime, sadly, we will never know

zurin
2007-Apr-19, 06:35 AM
Maybe our universe is like a glass of soda, if you watch it for awhile you will see our bubble start to form (big bang) but if you keep watching you will see more bubbles starting to form (big bang , big bang, big bang) . Hopefully our soda doesn't go flat anytime soon.

Michael Noonan
2007-Apr-19, 08:08 AM
Given that the bulk of the stars seen at a distance are bounded by their own filaments of density wouldn't a traveller have to escape the filament before travel further out.

If the filament is a component in space as density would it also have a relationship to time.

Would they view their local area as part of an in line filament or see themselves in a galaxy spiral and be blissfully unaware of the filament of density they exist in.

It would add to the challenge of getting to other parts of their system or ours for instance, let alone to an edge.

budman200210
2007-Oct-29, 09:25 PM
Maybe the answer is in the question, "nothing last's forever"??? therefore " if there's "nothing" there it cant end! void!

EvilEye
2007-Oct-29, 11:39 PM
There is no EDGE to the universe. That is what people have been trying to say.

It isn't an object with a center and an outside.

It is a "whole" that is expanding away from the size it once was.

ALL of the universe is wherever you ever were, and ever can be.

The balloon analogy is only an example. But the real balloon of the universe is in 3 dimentions + time, not 2 dimentional like the surface of the balloon.

EVERYWHERE is the center. There is no OUTSIDE.

Noclevername
2007-Oct-30, 03:24 AM
What is outside the Universe? The only accurate answer is, right now we have no idea. Only guesswork.

jonfr
2007-Oct-30, 06:40 AM
My question is,, I have heard the Universe might be definte instead of indifinite. Example like a soccer ball shape. If this is the case, what is beyond that? There has to be something beyond the universe itself? Any idea?

A different universe. Oh, the universe is indefinite from our standpoint. Since we actually can't travel from end to end, given that it is sphere and all, or so I've heard.

Talented_Amateur
2007-Nov-02, 11:02 PM
If our solar system is a spiral within a spiral galaxy, wouldn't it make sense that what we call the universe would also be a spiral? And instead of an empty void, the space beyond our cluster of spinning galaxies is filled billions of other "Universes" all spinning as well. Now lets take it one step further...All those spiral universes are all part of a larger spiral. And if the void of space is infinite, where would those spirals end? Would they end at all?
To assume our cluster of galaxies is all there is... and beyond it is an endless void, to me, seems rather egocentric...it's really no different than our scientist claiming that in a universe filled with hundreds of billions of stars, we're the only intelligent life out there.
On a final note...since the word universe means everything, we'd have to come up with a new term for a cluster of galaxies.

01101001
2007-Nov-02, 11:12 PM
Welcome to the BAUT Forum.


If our solar system is a spiral[...]

It's not.

Or, do you have a special definition of "spiral"?

Grand_Lunar
2007-Nov-02, 11:21 PM
You seem to be interpreting the universe as a fractal, Talented_Amateur.

There is no evidence to support this view.

We do not claim to know that there is nothing beyond the universe. Only that we can not yet describe it with science, nor can we probe into it. We can't do it anymore than we can jump outside of time, as one other user mentioned already.


On a final note...since the word universe means everything, we'd have to come up with a new term for a cluster of galaxies.

A cluster of galaxies is just that...a cluster. Examples include the Virgo Cluster, and Hercules Cluster.

Larger than that, and you get a supercluster.

Incidently, the structure of superclusters resemble a foam, not a spiral.

astromark
2007-Nov-03, 10:02 AM
Once again our ability to comprehend and be understood is getting in the way of this conversation... We all understand the structure of the known universe. That it is very, very big. That it is expanding at a ever increasing rate and, that most of the structures within it are not only spiral but are rotating. Stop there. We know nothing of what or even if there is or can be a outside. My best guess at present would say no.
Explaining every intricacy of this subject is not a place I want to be going to now. As others have very clearly stated... We just do not know it all yet, and may never. For me and my scientific based approach this reality I can except. While for some this is obviously an issue. This question is the very basses of understanding the humility of the human races trivial and insignificant position in this universe.

heavyd49770
2007-Nov-03, 02:13 PM
You guys make me tired thinking of this. The thing that amazes me is that everytime I learn something new or witness something like the new comet this month, it makes me realize how we are just a speck of dust and how none of this really matters at all compared to the power that lies out there.

Am I even making any sense:)

EvilEye
2007-Nov-03, 06:03 PM
That's only because we have a difficult time thinking (without math) outside of our 3 dimentional physicality. It would be like trying to explain a sphere to a circle. Circle says, "Well I'm perfectly round... how much more round can something get?" They try to explain that he is flat-round, and he just can't comprehend the statement. So the Sphere goes on it's merry way and Circle spends the rest of his life trying to understand the statement.

We don't live in a sphere of expanding "stuff" that had a beginning at some point in space and is getting bigger. The entire universe started as a small point... so that you & me and whatever is alllllll the way across the universe now... in ANY direction were all crammed into one place. AND WE STILL ARE... the place is just getting bigger and moving us apart from each other. Not into "where" It's still the same space... just bigger.


"Flat" universe doesn't mean like a record... it means flat in 3 dimentions. Like a cube grid, and as you move through the grid, it eventually folds back into itself.

So try to imagine a 4 dimentional sphere, and you get a better idea.

astromark
2007-Nov-04, 03:28 AM
in[/I] a sphere of expanding "stuff" that had a beginning at some point in space and is getting bigger. The entire universe started as a small point... so that you & me and whatever is alllllll the way across the universe now... in ANY direction were all crammed into one place. AND WE STILL ARE... the place is just getting bigger and moving us apart from each other. Not into "where" It's still the same space... just bigger.

"Yes we do. Hang on to somthing...have you not just said the same thing twice... What is that word 'don't' doing up there?
I am not a circle, I might be a square, only I feel I am that sphear...and I'm stuck in one. Its all we will ever know. Its called the universe. We know it began and we know it is expanding ever more. The words of Albert I., seem to say it best 'Finite but unbound'. If the popular opinion has moved on from this could somebody please tell me." Mark.


"Flat" universe doesn't mean like a record... it means flat in 3 dimensions. Like a cube grid, and as you move through the grid, it eventually folds back into itself.

"So try to imagine a 4 dimensional sphere, and you get a better idea."

OK have attempted to imagine this and am now seeking medical opinion. My sphere has but three dimensions. I now have a certificate that deems me sane. This discussion regarding a four dimensional sphere is erroneous and wrong. yep, both. Please try to explain again. Where is the other direction?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-04, 03:57 AM
OK have attempted to imagine this and am now seeking medical opinion. My sphere has but three dimensions. I now have a certificate that deems me sane. This discussion regarding a four dimensional sphere is erroneous and wrong. yep, both. Please try to explain again. Where is the other direction?

THis suggests that you are a circle:p

astromark
2007-Nov-04, 09:04 AM
No, no, no,

I have length, never enough...
I have depth, But often to shalow...
and width. Far to much of this... And It would seem that I am existing in this time frame right now. :)

So maybe I am not so spherical as rhomboid in shape.... Imagine a egg with short legs.

I have at present no understanding of this four dimensional space... You have not helped yet.

There is no problem with the shape of this Galaxy. Spiral structures I understand.
Groups of galaxies and clusters. super clusters and in general the shape of the whole universe I can imagine.
I do not have a understanding of a folding back on itself. String theories., or multi dimensional concepts. If you do? pass it on please.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-04, 09:49 AM
Like the tessaract?
Hypercube?

If a 2 dimensional man living in flatville were to see before him a series of six squares- arranged in a cross, he may be able to deduce that it can be somehow folded upwards into itself- to form a cube.

However, being 2-dimensional, he would not be able to picture this in his head nor imagine what a cube must look like.

A tessarct is a 3-dimensional representation of a hypercube- a 4-dimensional cube that is bigger on the inside- than on the outside. Us three dimensional beings cannot grasp the concept of how this tessarct can fold upon itself to form a hypercube, we can only guess that to a 4-dimensional being- it does.

I'm not saying that anyone elses post has merit or not, merely pointing out that as a 3-dimensional being, we are incapable of visualizing or understanding a hyper cube or how it's folded upon itself.
Even though a cube is quite easy to us.

Frog march
2007-Nov-04, 01:17 PM
I wonder what a book written in 4D would be like; the letters and words would all be three dimensional but would convey a different meaning when viewed from different angles.
Quite some book that would be.

~lightwaveryder~
2007-Nov-04, 04:20 PM
I wonder what a book written in 4D would be like; the letters and words would all be three dimensional but would convey a different meaning when viewed from different angles.
Quite some book that would be.


there's some neat research on the ancient hebrew letters being a 3 dimensional map of a 4 dimensional object. The example i can think of shows that if you make the letter stand tall and place a candle behind it, the shadow that letter shape makes will intersect with the next letter in the sequence and the whole sequence of letters, arragned in a circle, their shadow is the object being referred to as the 4th dimensional creation of those letters. space beyond and within space, curved,like a mobius.


i can't locate any good 'here it is' images, but the basics can be gone over at meru foundation. (google for link)



~lwr~

EvilEye
2007-Nov-04, 04:37 PM
Like the tessaract?
Hypercube?

If a 2 dimensional man living in flatville were to see before him a series of six squares- arranged in a cross, he may be able to deduce that it can be somehow folded upwards into itself- to form a cube.

However, being 2-dimensional, he would not be able to picture this in his head nor imagine what a cube must look like.

A tessarct is a 3-dimensional representation of a hypercube- a 4-dimensional cube that is bigger on the inside- than on the outside. Us three dimensional beings cannot grasp the concept of how this tessarct can fold upon itself to form a hypercube, we can only guess that to a 4-dimensional being- it does.

I'm not saying that anyone elses post has merit or not, merely pointing out that as a 3-dimensional being, we are incapable of visualizing or understanding a hyper cube or how it's folded upon itself.
Even though a cube is quite easy to us.



You nailed it.

And the problem is "inside" & "outside"

In the 4 dimentional universe, a sphere is not round like the earth with us on the surface. The surface itself is 3 dimentional with no outside or inside.

Regardless of your true direction of travel, (on cosmic scales) you will eventually return to your point of origin.

And in the flat (cube) universe, that folds upon itself.... it is even easier.

The same effect happens. But on local scales, as you move through the grid, you see every cube as perfect at 90o ... but on large scales, the entire collection of small cubes wraps into itself.

One last try.

I can use a level to make a perfectly flat house.

I could even use a level that went all the way around the earth that would show it being flat, but we know it isn't.

Space is the same way. On small scales, everything locally is a straight line. On HUGE scales, they fail. You cannot have an outside or an INSIDE to the universe. It is all encompasing. How much of me was me when I was a baby and how much of me is me at 6 feet tall? All of me. ...regardless of my size.

astromark
2007-Nov-04, 06:40 PM
Having studied graphic desgne... all of these concepts of spacial dimensions I can see... It would appear that the only conclusion one can reach is that sanity is slipping away from some of you. Thank you.:)

Frog march
2007-Nov-04, 08:04 PM
Having studied graphic desgne... all of these concepts of spacial dimensions I can see... It would appear that the only conclusion one can reach is that sanity is slipping away from some of you. Thank you.:)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

Neverfly
2007-Nov-04, 11:19 PM
Having studied graphic desgne... all of these concepts of spacial dimensions I can see... It would appear that the only conclusion one can reach is that sanity is slipping away from some of you. Thank you.:)

Never assume that studies have provided you with an understanding of everything.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-04, 11:25 PM
Having studied graphic desgne... all of these concepts of spacial dimensions I can see... It would appear that the only conclusion one can reach is that sanity is slipping away from some of you. Thank you.:)

Exactly. You are biased by your association with only two- and three-dimensional designs. Your mind has been trained into those narrow grooves of perception. Therefore you assume anyone who thinks outside your particular box has "sanity slippage". It points out how limited our perceptions are, because they come with both physical and mental blinders built right in.

EvilEye
2007-Nov-05, 02:23 AM
Found this... image

hypercube animation (http://www.geocities.com/j_jall/4dcubepov.gif)

shamushow
2007-Nov-05, 02:47 AM
HI, I think we can only be aware of what we are part of. we are a part of this universe.we are a product of it. so what ever is beyond this universe we can never be aware of

shamushow
2007-Nov-05, 02:49 AM
sorry am i off topic ,i thought i replied to whats beyond the universe

Ken G
2007-Nov-05, 03:30 AM
HI, I think we can only be aware of what we are part of. we are a part of this universe.we are a product of it. so what ever is beyond this universe we can never be aware of

That seems perfectly on topic to me, you are just holding to a precise definition of the difference between what we can be aware of and what we can only wonder about. The problem with questions like the OP is it is never clear if the questioner is interested in what we can be aware of, or what we can just ponder about. One assumes on a science forum the former, yet in most cases it seems the latter is the real objective of the question, so little progress is ever made on threads like this one. I think that is more or less what you are saying-- welcome to the forum.

Dragon Star
2007-Nov-05, 03:47 AM
I think this thread has set some sort of unofficial record for necromancies. :lol:

EvilEye
2007-Nov-05, 03:53 AM
personally. I love podering the question.

I would love to experience a 4 dimentional cube/sphere.

shamushow
2007-Nov-05, 04:27 AM
I am saying if what is beyond or outside the universe is is not made of the same stuff as the universe, then we can not ever be aware of it. for we are only aware of our universe because of info being fed to us ,by that which we are part off, the real reality if there is one lies not here.

shamushow
2007-Nov-05, 04:32 AM
you can experience a fourth dimension cube, you just cant know your experiencing it.

astromark
2007-Nov-05, 09:28 AM
This 4th dimension you speak of does not present itself well... where can I see this? why not? Prove to me this is more than just woffling....
This has little or nothing to do with the OP. which clearly asked the question we can not answer. We do not know that there is any 'outside the Universe' This discussion has evolved as they often do into some thing else., and interesting it has been... Thanks for that rolling cube Evil-Eye. As interesting as it is that does not present to me anything that does not work in this three dimensional universe. You can not build it because it brakes the rules of spacial reality as each part alters its dimension depending on what part of the cube it is at... We have all seen the triangle that can not be built. the circle with no end. All of these thing are optical allusions not new spacial dimensions... We live in a three dimensional universe and we have absolutely no knowledge of any other. To state that I am in error about this is not a statement you can make without imagined preconceived false doctrine. Which you sagest I am guilty of... interesting.
I will ask again. Please explain?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-05, 09:32 AM
This 4th dimension you speak of does not present itself well... where can I see this? why not? Prove to me this is more than just woffling....
This has little or nothing to do with the OP. which clearly asked the question we can not answer. We do not know that there is any 'outside the Universe' This discussion has evolved as they often do into some thing else., and interesting it has been... Thanks for that rolling cube Evil-Eye. As interesting as it is that does not present to me anything that does not work in this three dimensional universe. You can not build it because it brakes the rules of spacial reality as each part alters its dimension depending on what part of the cube it is at... We have all seen the triangle that can not be built. the circle with no end. All of these thing are optical allusions not new spacial dimensions... We live in a three dimensional universe and we have absolutely no knowledge of any other. To state that I am in error about this is not a statement you can make without imagined preconceived false doctrine. Which you sagest I am guilty of... interesting.
I will ask again. Please explain?

Michu Kaku who talks about up to 26 diminsions would disagree with you:p

EvilEye
2007-Nov-05, 11:58 AM
The 3 regular observable dimentions are all 90 degrees from each other. The 4th spacial dimention would be 90 degrees to all of those.

heavyd49770
2007-Nov-05, 01:25 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem

:lol::lol::lol:

speedfreek
2007-Nov-05, 06:17 PM
We discussed whether there is anything outside the universe or extra unseen dimensions that our universe might reside in, in another thread - "Bigbang into what?". My post to that thread, here, (http://www.bautforum.com/questions-answers/65609-bigbang-into-what-2.html#post1085496) might be relevant to this discussion, but it is perhaps a bit long to quote in full in this thread too. :)

astromark
2007-Nov-05, 06:19 PM
The 3 regular observable dimentions are all 90 degrees from each other. The 4th spacial dimention would be 90 degrees to all of those.......dinension... dimension.

and therefor could not excist... am I alone in my narrow 3d view of reality?
For if these other dimensions exist at all then that must be the way to zip about space like there's no tomorrow... can you not see the fiction here? this is just gobbledie gook....:)Rubbish.

Noclevername
2007-Nov-05, 06:27 PM
......dinension... dimension.

and therefor could not excist... am I alone in my narrow 3d view of reality?
For if these other dimensions exist at all then that must be the way to zip about space like there's no tomorrow... can you not see the fiction here? this is just gobbledie gook....:)Rubbish.

Apparently Spellcheck doesn't exist either.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-05, 06:28 PM
......dinension...

and therefor could not excist... am I alone in my narrow 3d view of reality?
For if these other dimensions exist at all then that must be the way to zip about space like there's no tomorrow... can you not see the fiction here? this is just gobbledie gook....:)Rubbish.

Astromark,

Imagine the old days, when all people could percieve was a flat Earth. Unless they traveled in straight line for the time and distance required to make it all the way back to the starting point, they would call the idea of a spherical Earth "gobbledygook' and "rubbish."

You are currently rejecting scientific evidence in favor of your preconcieved notions.

To quote the baboon from the Lion King, "Look beyond what you see."

astromark
2007-Nov-05, 06:32 PM
No. I am not wrong here. It is you that has been sucked in to this notion of false reality.. The 3d perception I have is real. Just prove me wrong...
I will be pleased with that outcome.

pzkpfw
2007-Nov-05, 07:27 PM
No. I am not wrong here. It is you that has been sucked in to this notion of false reality.. The 3d perception I have is real. Just prove me wrong...
I will be pleased with that outcome.

The Universe turns out to be a lot more complicated than what we can perceive.

There will be stuff we can never perceive, but perhaps only ever explain mathematically (or otherwise).

I can't perceive protons and neutrons, but I'm not hassling the nuclear scientists about them.

EvilEye
2007-Nov-05, 07:35 PM
Scientists have already proven that certain subatomic particles can flit into and out of existence. Without other dimentions, where do you suppose they come from?

astromark
2007-Nov-06, 07:33 AM
I have no idea... but nor do you. No thats not true... you may know, but have not been able to convey this.
If sub atomic particles appear to zip in and out of existence I have not the faintest idea what is actually happening here. I am not going to be drawn in to the idea of dimensional shifting as I know not of such other dimensions. I challenge the very idea of such. We do not know all of the facts in this case and would be foolish to leap to any definite conclusion. The jury is still out.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-06, 09:07 AM
I have no idea... but nor do you. No thats not true... you may know, but have not been able to convey this.
If sub atomic particles appear to zip in and out of existence I have not the faintest idea what is actually happening here. I am not going to be drawn in to the idea of dimensional shifting as I know not of such other dimensions. I challenge the very idea of such. We do not know all of the facts in this case and would be foolish to leap to any definite conclusion. The jury is still out.

For the most part, you are right.

In your lack of knowledge (No insult intended) on the subject, it would, indeed, be foolish to jump to conclusions.

Theoretical physics is the most fascinating, because it gives us room to speculate and wonder a bit.

However, simply handwaiving it away is foolish too.

I also lack knowledge on the subject and would need to continue studying for quite a while before I could make a serious attempt at conveying it to you.
So Astromark, it seems there lies a choice:

To study up and read and see whether or not you are missing something.

Or to handwaive it away dismissively.

But claiming that you are familiar with three dimensions only, so any other dimensions must be utter rubbish- Is not scientific by any means. It is dismissive, lacks scientific curiosity and is also pompous.

Right now we have clues. Some evidence, but a lot of clues. Particles flitting in and out of space time is a clue. Let's figure out what those clues mean. Follow the bread crumbs and see where it leads.

astromark
2007-Nov-06, 10:10 AM
Yes I except that as its meant... I do want to know more about this subject. You obviously understand me well enough. I will give away the pompous attitude and except that I do not know any where near enough of this to argue about it. Common sense must prevail however. I see a lot of this as non scientific fiction. I have not yet been convinced by anything yet said regarding outside of this universe being in a state we could call real. I have the thought that anything beyond the expanding universe does not yet exist. You already know how I feel about other dimensions. Thanks for your tolerance. If you come across information that might alter my 3d view do not hesitate to private mail me., or post it in here. mark.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-06, 10:45 AM
Yes I except that as its meant... I do want to know more about this subject. You obviously understand me well enough. I will give away the pompous attitude and except that I do not know any where near enough of this to argue about it. Common sense must prevail however. I see a lot of this as non scientific fiction. I have not yet been convinced by anything yet said regarding outside of this universe being in a state we could call real. I have the thought that anything beyond the expanding universe does not yet exist. You already know how I feel about other dimensions. Thanks for your tolerance. If you come across information that might alter my 3d view do not hesitate to private mail me., or post it in here. mark.

I'd like to post it here. Simply put, I'm pretty ignorant about it too.

After reading Michio Kaku's Hyperspace (http://recommended-non-fiction.suite101.com/article.cfm/understanding_hyperspace) book, I only found myself thirsty for more.

transreality
2007-Nov-06, 10:56 AM
Scientists have already proven that certain subatomic particles can flit into and out of existence. Without other dimentions, where do you suppose they come from?

presumeably out of existance doesn't mean they have to exist somewhere when not apparent in our universe... like clouds they could be a local manifestation of the energies/matter/strings of our universe.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-06, 11:02 AM
I was also thinking of a misconception:

In science fiction, fiction and fantasy- Dimensions are referred to as "Alternate Dimensions" where people look like us but have purple hair and tiny elephants that fly and such.
"Alternate Universes" take on this role too- including realities that are exactly like ours- but opposite of ours. Or they all have a Goatee.:p

I do find these concepts rubbish in the extreme.

However, the dimensions we refer to here in this thread is the scientific definition- not the Sci Fi one.

Dimensions in our own reality.

Time is considered a dimension. We do not three dimensionally percieve it- nor do things flit in and out of it.

Dimension refers to an extension of state- not another reality.


ETA: Rubbish in the extreme because of accountable production of events. In order for an alternate universe to have evolved an Earth and humans and the like- would be the same as saying that the bacteria living on my skin is actually little humans building cities- but they are so tiny I canont see that.

Without an inherent reproducing effect- evolution will not magically copy- or reproduce an event or a creature- outside of the framework in which that event or creature evolved.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-06, 11:04 AM
presumeably out of existance doesn't mean they have to exist somewhere when not apparent in our universe... like clouds they could be a local manifestation of the energies/matter/strings of our universe.

Not quite.

Clouds change state and appearance, but the matter and energies involved are all observable through-out and accountable for.

Professor Mayhem
2007-Nov-06, 05:01 PM
People tend to have a very sci-fi/pop-science understanding of what theoretical physicists mean when they refer to "other dimensions."

They are almost always referring to abstract topographic vectors.

EvilEye
2007-Nov-06, 08:00 PM
presumeably out of existance doesn't mean they have to exist somewhere when not apparent in our universe... like clouds they could be a local manifestation of the energies/matter/strings of our universe.


I never said where I thought they came from. I left the door wide open as an example fo things that seemingly cannot be...being.

As far as extra dimentions, I don't think of them as another place.
I prefer to think of them all part of this universe, but invisble to us because we cannot experience them with the senses we have.

And maybe (just a hunch), we never developed higher senses (or even had them and lost them) because the universe would be too exceedingly confusing to exist in a normal everyday manner. Congruency would no longer exist, and we would have to spend all our time making sense of what we experienced from moment to moment.

I don't want to experience a 4th spacial dimention, but it would be cool to know if did exist.

But that has nothing to do with the original argument Astromark was against... that our 3 dimentional universe is flat, but in 4 dimentions.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-06, 09:33 PM
I never said where I thought they came from. I left the door wide open as an example fo things that seemingly cannot be...being.

As far as extra dimentions, I don't think of them as another place.
I prefer to think of them all part of this universe, but invisble to us because we cannot experience them with the senses we have.

And maybe (just a hunch), we never developed higher senses (or even had them and lost them) because the universe would be too exceedingly confusing to exist in a normal everyday manner. Congruency would no longer exist, and we would have to spend all our time making sense of what we experienced from moment to moment.

I don't want to experience a 4th spacial dimention, but it would be cool to know if did exist.

But that has nothing to do with the original argument Astromark was against... that our 3 dimentional universe is flat, but in 4 dimentions.

I think if you could experience 4-D it would seem normal to you.

3-D seems normal to you right?
Maybe a 2-D guy would say what you just said.:p

Imagine a 2-D guy on a piece of paper. (Yes, assuming he is sentient somehow) You poke a pencil through the paper. He will not see a pencil. He will see a dot. then the dot will expand into a circle. Then as the eraser passes the point of observation, he would see the circle rapidly decrease into a dot- then disappear.
Or think of elevation lines on a contour map.

If a 4-D being pushed his "pencil" through our dimension, we would percieve what appeared to be blobs or three dimensional parts of his "pencil" comming into being, then disappearing again without a trace.

EvilEye
2007-Nov-07, 04:54 AM
(snip)
If a 4-D being pushed his "pencil" through our dimension, we would percieve what appeared to be blobs or three dimensional parts of his "pencil" comming into being, then disappearing again without a trace.

Sure sounds like what could be described as a flitting particle. :clap:

astromark
2007-Nov-07, 05:17 AM
Lets state the facts as we know them... thats as I see them...
Three dimensions.
Length, breadth, depth., and I can not let time be forgotten as it does matter as to when you were where.:) good grief I'm confused already...
We have no knowledge of a two dimensional reality, but can envision it.
We have no proof of any other dimensions. ( still looking for this)
Sub atomic particles under special circumstance can be made to disappear and reappear. Where do they go? WE DO NOT KNOW.
I trust I have made myself clear.... I have not a closed mind to this subject.
I am actively attempting to extract more information on this subject. If you can enlighten me further please do.

Neverfly
2007-Nov-09, 11:30 PM
I find it interesting that the greatest scientific minds can only speculate on the make-up of our universe and yet some of you can flat out say my theory of a rotating universe is wrong. Yes, there is no proof, it was only a thought.

There is a clear fundamental difference.

The "greatest scientific minds" are basing their speculations on known evidence, mathematics, principles etc.

Idle speculation that does not account for the math involved, that discounts the known or that does not have a solid foundation- can, indeed, be wrong.

In order to create a theory or model- you start with the known.

You do not speculate to the point where you are basing assumptions upon assumptions upon assumptions.

This enables us to come up with ideas- so we know what direction to look in.

If you lost your wallet- then you don't know where it is- What will you do?
You start with the known- You retrace your steps...

You don't go swimming in the ocean speculating about a pickpocket flying fish.

ETA: Being human, we tend to place almost emotional value on our theories. Having them thrown back as wrong can almost be 'hurtful.'
Take the moment to appreciate that people are helping to guide you toward where you need to be in order to speculate successfully, instead of feeling that your pride has been wounded;)

EvilEye
2007-Nov-09, 11:34 PM
I find it interesting that the greatest scientific minds can only speculate on the make-up of our universe and yet some of you can flat out say my theory of a rotating universe is wrong. Yes, there is no proof, it was only a thought.

The only problem with a rotating universe is that it would have to have a center.

Like a ferris wheel with the point of rotation being at the axis.

The universe was all "begun" at once, and is expanding...

That is... ALL of it is the center, the outside, and the inside. There is no part of our universe that started at a point in space and moved away from THAT point like an explosion. The point itself is growing.

Without a center, it cannot rotate around an axis. To have an axis, there has to be a center.

Can it churn and move around within itself? Sure... that's easy.


Here... take a glass of water and contemplate where the center of the water is without regard to the glass.

It is ALL water. The problem is the glass. We have no glass. Space itself only exists within the universe. Space and everything in it is the water.

It can't rotate, because no matter which way you look, you are looking back into TIME.... not a place. (on large scales)

Edit to add - try to find the center of the surface of a bubble.

loglo
2007-Nov-10, 06:10 PM
If you lost your wallet- then you don't know where it is- What will you do? You start with the known- You retrace your steps...
You don't go swimming in the ocean speculating about a pickpocket flying fish.
:lol: :clap:

astromark
2007-Nov-10, 07:59 PM
Edit to add - try to find the center of the surface of a bubble.

This is good...:)

The point being,. We have no knowledge of what might be beyond the universe. We in fact doubt that there can be a outside.
This will stand as fact until we find another....
We can make the assumption that all galaxies and clusters of are involved in the ever moving gravitational dance... Gravitational forces and motion are curved and the apparent rotation of all the components of the universe is a conclusion of the motion we understand. It does not sagest the whole universe is rotating or even orbiting some mythical central mass. That would not seem to be the case. A very interesting set of questions.

EvilEye
2007-Nov-10, 09:44 PM
Thank you Astromark...

I do have an aside question...

And this is not meant in any way other than helpful. (Because I don't know if you are using a language translator)

Shouldn't "sagest" should be "suggest"?

Neverfly
2007-Nov-10, 11:07 PM
Thank you Astromark...

I do have an aside question...

And this is not meant in any way other than helpful. (Because I don't know if you are using a language translator)

Shouldn't "sagest" should be "suggest"?

:lol:

EvilEye
2007-Nov-10, 11:56 PM
Well! We learn something new every day.

1 definition found

sagest - Collaborative International Dictionary of English v.0.48 :

Sage \Sage\, a. [Compar. Sager; superl. Sagest.] [F., fr. L.
sapius (only in nesapius unwise, foolish), fr. sapere to be
wise; perhaps akin to E. sap. Cf. Savor, Sapient,
Insipid.]
1. Having nice discernment and powers of judging; prudent;
grave; sagacious.
[1913 Webster]

All you sage counselors, hence! --Shak.
[1913 Webster]

2. Proceeding from wisdom; well judged; shrewd; well adapted
to the purpose.
[1913 Webster]

Commanders, who, cloaking their fear under show of
sage advice, counseled the general to retreat.
--Milton.
[1913 Webster]

3. Grave; serious; solemn. [R.] "[Great bards] in sage and
solemn tunes have sung." --Milton.
[1913 Webster]

Syn: Wise; sagacious; sapient; grave; prudent; judicious.
[1913 Webster]

astromark
2007-Nov-11, 02:39 AM
It would appear that some of you have not enough to do... You know I meant saggest..,as any half witted idiot would have notted...:)... and quiet frankly find this sort of 'fun' less than amusing.
I do not mind being wrong. I am in fact very good at it. With humility I can except that I am prone to the odd stuff up with this English language. Its as if my mind and fingers are not well synchronized. I know what I want to say but fail in the execution sometimes. The pedantic need for correction is worse than my original error... I feel offended.:(

Neverfly
2007-Nov-11, 02:43 AM
It would appear that some of you have not enough to do... You know I meant saggest..,as any half witted idiot would have notted...:)... and quiet frankly find this sort of 'fun' less than amusing.
I do not mind being wrong. I am in fact very good at it. With humility I can except that I am prone to the odd stuff up with this English language. Its as if my mind and fingers are not well synchronized. I know what I want to say but fail in the execution sometimes. The pedantic need for correction is worse than my original error... I feel offended.:(

<Givs Astromark a hugg>


ETA: We all get picked on sometimes. Just have fun with it- and it won't get you down:p

astromark
2007-Nov-11, 03:52 AM
This is good...:)

The point being,. We have no knowledge of what might be beyond the universe. We in fact doubt that there can be a outside.
This will stand as fact until we find another....
We can make the assumption that all galaxies and clusters of are involved in the ever moving gravitational dance... Gravitational forces and motion are curved and the apparent rotation of all the components of the universe is a conclusion of the motion we understand. It does not saggiest the whole universe is rotating or even orbiting some mythical central mass. That would not seem to be the case. A very interesting set of questions.

There ya go,,,fixed. :):):)...

Frog march
2007-Nov-11, 07:18 AM
I used to consistently spell "deep" as "deap"; along with other words. Then there is "ect" instead of "etc"

one just gets into these habits.

whitechris1976
2007-Nov-28, 11:49 PM
The universe contains everything. Many people have ideas that there are parallel universes... some where things are all wacky, like gravity repels. I don't know if that's the case, but assume this is the only universe. All the laws of math and science are contained in this universe. Outside the universe, there is no math, no science, no probability and no possibility. There is no time nor space. There can be no existence. That's just my thought.

Ross PK81
2007-Dec-07, 09:55 PM
I'm not convinced...(prob'ly never will be! ;) )

Imagine you're in a spacesuit, just floating, not in space, but in nothing. YOU are all that exists. YOU are the Universe - the end-all & be-all of existence. (This is just as plausible as saying the Universe exists in nothing!).

My question is, what do you see out your visor? Blackness? What?

Can you lift your arm and see it?

Also, if the Universe is "finite", and yet "all there is"...how come there are so many infinities within it? - eg black holes/singularities, the value of "pi", etc...

I can only make some feeble sense out of the Cosmos if I imagine it to be a "finity" expanding within an "infinity". In my mind, there must be a "Beyond"!!! - beyond time & space, sure...but not "nothing"!!!


I think I know the answer, that's if the universe doesn't go on forever and there's nothing outside of it. As for the universe going on forever, personally to me that seems less likely.

Here's my theory, when we think of nothing, it's easy to think of black empty space, which really, is still 'something', we need to go beyond this, and I think I know what it is.

We wouldn't see, or sense anything, not even black empty space.

Can't imagine nothing without it being black empty space? Think about what's behind you, if you're looking forwards you can't see it, not even blackness, THAT is what nothing is. So that's what I believe the outside of the universe to be.

As for traveling into it? I can't see how you can if not even nothing exists, maybe you'd just slow down and then just stop, and that's it, can't go any further. Maybe you wouldn't even feel a hard invisible wall, who knows?

*EDIT*

Maybe you would still see blackness, but it'd be the blackness of the universe, because if you think about it surely you wouldn't be able to cross the barrier of the universe and nothing to see what nothing is, you'd be behind the 'wall' of the universe.

Ross PK81
2007-Dec-07, 10:18 PM
The universe does not exist "within" anything. It is not just that there is a load of nothingness outside of the universe, but that the universe is existance, is space and time. In order for there to be lots of "nothing" outside of it, there would have to be space surrounding the universe - which is impossibe, as then it would then be part of the universe. Things inside the universe are things that are, talk of something outside of it are like saying, "That ball inside the box is outside of it."

Yup I agree, that's how I see it. Nothing is still something, so, when we say nothing exists outside of the universe, we mean, not even 'nothing'.

Ross PK81
2007-Dec-07, 10:23 PM
Faulkner ... i've tried to tell you this before.



If you are floating in space you can't say that you alone are the universe ... whatever you're floating in is the unvierse too. Everything that you are trying to say is beyond the universe is also the universe. The universe isn't in anything at all because then, by definition, what the "universe" is in is the universe too! The universe isn't like a person in shape or dimension. It is wrapped up on itself and expanding into itself.

You have to try and get your head around the idea that the big bang wasn't an explosion in space but an explosion of space!! There was nothing before and it isn't expanding into something else. If it were then that would be part of the universe too. Have that as your starting point and then try to understand. Don't continue to think of the universe expanding into something because it's simply wrong.

I'm not sure though, how could something exist in something which doesn't exist? Say for example if heaven doesn't exist. Then how could you exist in it?

Kaptain K
2007-Dec-08, 03:00 AM
Well put Ross PK81.
f you read (or maybe you have) the whole thread, you'll see (or have seen) that several of us have (in many ways) tried to get that very point across!

Welcome to BAUT!

Bogie
2007-Dec-08, 03:26 AM
Well put Ross PK81.
f you read (or maybe you have) the whole thread, you'll see (or have seen) that several of us have (in many ways) tried to get that very point across!

Welcome to BAUT!I could be wrong but is your point and the point the you mention that several others have been trying to get across in many ways based on the General Theory of Relativity? Or is there more to it?

Kaptain K
2007-Dec-08, 05:22 AM
I could be wrong but is your point and the point the you mention that several others have been trying to get across in many ways based on the General Theory of Relativity? Or is there more to it?
Well in the sense that GR is math, yes.

The math of 4-space does not require a "something" for the universe to expand "into". Once you can wrap your mind around the concept of the universe not requiring an "outside" to exist, you've taken a big step!

Bogie
2007-Dec-08, 05:39 AM
Well in the sense that GR is math, yes.

The math of 4-space does not require a "something" for the universe to expand "into". Once you can wrap your mind around the concept of the universe not requiring an "outside" to exist, you've taken a big step!That is not a difficult concept the way you explain it.

And it is the accepted best theory too isn't it. But like you say it is math and it excludes an "outside" based on the math, but it doesn't exclude the possibility that in the real nature of the physical universe there is an outside. The math is a beautiful thing, the concept is a beautiful concept, but I wasn't aware that the theory built around the math was considered final. It shouldn't be so extraodinary when someone wants to know if there is anything more than math to base the lack of an "outside" on.

Kaptain K
2007-Dec-08, 05:57 AM
I didn't say that an outside was excluded, just that it was not required!

Nor did I say that it was/is the last word. Just that it is the current working hypothesis.

astromark
2007-Dec-08, 10:53 AM
Finite and unbound... For my feeble brain that works fine.

I understand that a expanding universe does not need anything to expand into. Its expanding regardless and taking the space with it.

In this concept. I can envisage other universes with rules of physics different than we know. None of which can I prove or know of... Open mindedness is sometimes hard.

EvilEye
2007-Dec-08, 01:18 PM
In the balloon analogy, we are working with a 2 dimentional surface on a 3 dimentional object. If you just make the flat 2D surface and make it 3, and make 3D - 4... then you see that EVERY point on that surface is moving away from all the other points...but not just on a 2D suface. Away in 3D (or every direction).

There is no outside, because a 3D flat suface not only doesn't require an outside to expand into, but it can't even have one.

I like the other anaology (take away the true confinement of the box) of a marshmallow in a box, and make the box a vacuum. The marshmallow will attempt to fill the entire void, speading in ALL directions.. not just outward, but inward also, with every molecule moving equally as fast away from every other one.

Unbound (take away the box), and the marshmallow still grows until it is no longer recognizable as a marshmallow, and eventually the individual molecules break down into their costituant atoms, and more and more until there is nothing left to divide. The whole is still the marshmallow, but meaningless to any single thing within it. That is the end of the universe "as we know it". It will never come back together because the void it is trying to fill is unbound.

Yes I understand that this is a sucking rather than pushing apart, but the visual is what I was trying to use.

Michael Noonan
2007-Dec-08, 01:27 PM
I didn't say that an outside was excluded, just that it was not required!

Nor did I say that it was/is the last word. Just that it is the current working hypothesis.

Does it also allow an exclusion of an inside as well or just one of the sides of the balloon?

Bogie
2007-Dec-08, 02:19 PM
The intention of these analogies using the surface of a balloon or of raisin bread rising in an oven is to help people understand how the universe can expand in a way that all points move away from all other points at the same rate as the rate of expansion. This is supposed to represent how 3,1 spacetime works in a way that we can visualize it since we can’t visualize 3,1 (4 D) spacetime directly in our limited 3-D perception.

What I never see is a 3-D graphic that shows the same effect in Euclidean space even though it is simple to draw and the results show the same type of expansion. This can easily be done with multiple points and various angles in a sphere, not just three points in a circle like in the following simple example.

This example demonstrates that if the change in radius in % is applied to the distance that each point is from the center, then movement away from every point within the sphere is in exact proportion to the % increase in the radius. This means that no matter which point you occupy, all other points will be moving away from you at the same rate making it impossible to detect the center of expansion even though is one.

It means that we can explain the type of expansion that we observe in the universe using 3-D space. The analogies are great to describe 3,1 spacetime (4-D spacetime) which we can't visualize but we can easily describe the type of expansion that we actually observe in Euclidean dimensions without resorting to analogies.

Draw circle 1 with a radius of two inches and draw two diameter lines crossing at the center and perpendicular to each other, i.e. like cross hairs in the circle and call one line x1 and one line y1. Mark the points where x1 meets the edge of the circle as N and S, N being at the top like compass points. Mark the points where y1 meets the edge of the circle as E and W with E to the right.

Draw circle 2 with a radius of two inches and draw two diameter lines crossing at the center and perpendicular to each other, i.e. like cross hairs in the circle and call one line x2 and one line y2. Mark the points where x2 meets the edge of the circle as N and S, N being at the top like compass points. Mark the points where y2 meets the edge of the circle as E and W with E to the right.

Put points A1, B1, and C1 in circle 1 as follows:
Put Point A1 at the center where the diameter lines cross.
Put Point B1 one inch from the center on line x1 toward the N.
Put point C1 at point W where line y1 meets the circle 1.

Draw a line from point A1 to point B1.
Draw a line from Point A1 to Point C1.
Draw a line from Point B1 to Point C1.

Point B is one inch from point A.
Point C is two inches from Point A.
Point C is 2.236068 inches from Point B.

Then go to circle 2 which represents an expansion of 100% on the radius from circle 1, i.e. twice the radius:

Put points A2, B2, and C2 in circle 2 as follows:
Put Point A2 at the center where the diameter lines cross.
Put Point B2 two inches (100% expansion) from the center on line x2 toward the N.
Put point C2 at point W where line y2 meets the circle 2.

Draw a line from point A2 to point B2.
Draw a line from Point A2 to Point C2.
Draw a line from Point B2 to Point C2.

Point B2 is two inches from point A2. This is a 100% increase from circle 1.
Point C2 is four inches from Point A2. This is also a 100 % increase from circle 1.
Point C2 is 4.472136 inches from Point B2. This too is a 100% increase.

2.236068 times two = 4.472136 i.e. a 100% increase.

You can use a sphere and add as many points as you want and every point will move away from every other point from time 1 to time 2 by the exact % as the % of expansion.

Kaptain K
2007-Dec-08, 09:11 PM
Does it also allow an exclusion of an inside as well or just one of the sides of the balloon?
Again, you are pushing the analogy too far. "Inside" and "outside" are arbitrary distinctions. Think of it as "universe" and "notside", to coin a term.

Noclevername
2007-Dec-08, 09:28 PM
As someone said in another thread, if we replace the word "universe" with "existence" or "reality", it helps to understand it better. What is outside existence? Nothing. It exists or it doesn't. Something is either in (and part of) the Universe, or it is nowhere.

Michael Noonan
2007-Dec-08, 09:47 PM
Again, you are pushing the analogy too far. "Inside" and "outside" are arbitrary distinctions. Think of it as "universe" and "notside", to coin a term.

Thank you Kaptain K,
I am quite interested in the topology of the idea and "notside" is a very useful way to look at the fourth dimension.

What I wanted to get at was quantum indicates an inside so there is one I presume if not an outer.

From a topology is it possible to have the one side in the middle?

Ross PK81
2007-Dec-08, 09:48 PM
Another way of putting it is that it's death but external.

EvilEye
2007-Dec-09, 02:58 PM
I can't find it online, but issue SCA-50607 of Scientific American goes into great detail explaining all of these questions, and on Page 17, there ARE pictures that explain the shapes.

H4p10
2007-Dec-10, 08:41 PM
Well, it doesn't make sense at all to question what's outside the universe. IF there's something at all, we won't be able to get there, not even observe it. Even if we could get there, we'll die instantly, because the laws of our universe, that keep us alive, would instantly stop appliying.

So you can say there are giant turtles one atop another :)

Bogie
2007-Dec-10, 09:24 PM
Well, it doesn't make sense at all to question what's outside the universe. IF there's something at all, we won't be able to get there, not even observe it. Even if we could get there, we'll die instantly, because the laws of our universe, that keep us alive, would instantly stop appliying.

So you can say there are giant turtles one atop another :)I like this post. You could be serious and you could be being facetious :), and your point would be the same, we will never know, alas.

But just out of curiosity, which of the many hazards out there would kill us "Even if we could get there"?

And as for the turtles, I think that idea has some merit :D.

jweezy1983
2008-Jan-15, 08:35 PM
Dark Energy (Antigravity)

The antigravity in the universe over powers the gravity causing the universe to expand at an exponential rate. Dark energy is what lies beyond this universe. If one were to maneuver a ship into nothing but dark energy it would brake apart or disolve, hypothetically. Unless one could create some sort of Anti-Antigravity, lol. (mass and energy divided by c squared)

Louigi Verona
2008-Jan-16, 12:37 PM
Someday we may encounter what appears to be a solid wall in Space. Eventually we might conclude that this was made of absolutely nothing. There would not only be nothing on the other side of the apparent wall, but the wall would simply mark the end of Space itself. The wall would be nothing more and nothing less than simply the absence of any place further to go. It is merely an unfounded mental habit to assume that there is always another side to every wall. This habit is based on our limited experience and may have little basis in reality.

I would say that the existance of total absence is questionable. Because total absence (and total existance) would than be impossible to define in time and space, so you would end up with either of them filling up everything.
I would go for a model when in every point of space you have total existance and total absence merged into a weird unexplainable unity.

Boy, hope I made sense to everybody

Ken G
2008-Jan-16, 06:29 PM
I think you made as much sense as it is possible to make when talking about existence and absence-- the real question is, is it possible to make any sense at all? If one is speaking purely scientifically (i.e., as opposed to philosophically), one needs operational definitions of these terms-- and those very definitions answer the question automatically.

Louigi Verona
2008-Jan-17, 08:02 AM
I wonder where can you get these operational definitions. Things like life, existance, absence are so BASIC, it is really very difficult to actually make a definition of them...

Ken G
2008-Jan-17, 06:30 PM
I agree-- they have meaning outside the realm of science, perhaps even their most important meanings. But science must also use these concepts, and cannot rely on vague common-usage meanings-- we need precise operational definitions, and we have them for those words. The problem comes in when people are not clear if they are using the precise operational definitions, or the vaguer common usages, when they use these words in questions. Put differently, to get a scientific answer, a question must be posed in scientific terms.

trippyhippy
2008-Feb-18, 05:27 AM
Ok well i have been reading all this stuff and its getting pretty interesting, all these theory's are really nice but a lot still doesn't make sense like
"at the end there is antigravity, or Dark matter"
ok
well if at the "end" why is there something..huh
and if its there whats beyond?
i don't know really what to say but i just love the idea that timix stated at the beginning

This is a question that i have always had in my head. There has to be something beoned space i feel. The universe follows the same rales as we do everyday and why wouldn't it?

How i see it is, your looking at a pc screen, that screen is in a room, that room is in a building, the building is on the planit, the planit is in the solur system, the solur sytem is in the galaxy and the galaxy is in the universe and so on :D :lol:

So why would it stop there?? there must be something beond what we know at this point, we just don't know how to see it yet.

Just hope we don't end up blowing our selfs up before we find out! :blink:

The thing that i can't start to get my head round is, i'm sure there is somthing beoned the universe, and there is something beoned that and so on, layer after layer like the pc screen in the room. But for that layer after layer to happen where is it all???

Think of it like an onion (bear with me :D ) you and the pc screen is at the center of the onion and the layers over it are the planit and the universe and so on....... where is the onion to begin with? where is it sitting so it can excist?

Its completely mind blowing trying to make sence of where and why we are.... i suppose thats why we have jobs, watch tv and play video games so don't have too :D fine with me :)

its crazy to think of that and maybe im just going crazy but it makes sense
but in 2003 scientists stated that the universe was finite because if
we are in a 4d if we go some where in it we will entually with time we will come back to the same spot creating a room of mirrors
for instance if 2 light beems were shot out of there earth eventually those lights will go back to the start of were they shot .....wait i don't make sense im going to stop thinking and let other people do it

Fadingstar
2008-Feb-18, 06:14 PM
One thought is to say that beyond the universe there are no dimensions as space-time does not extend that far. As the universe expands so it forces four-dimensional space-time (as we see it) into existance.
This would allow for infinite expansion, and, if you could go to the edge of the universe and beyond it, you would create four-dimensional space around your space craft and so see no change to your own frame of reference in space-time.
One could assume that to just look past the boundary you would see only blackness as nothing exists beyond that point.

Giusto
2008-Aug-05, 10:05 AM
I think something no one has posted yet. I think the universe can be put into a concept of a game map. Universe = Game map. We can roam in the universe but we cant go outside the boundries to something unbelievable that are minds couldnt imagine. the possibilities are endless. it could be heaven. it could be the passage to a black hole that leads you into the past or present. it could lead to a like... 100th dimension of forces we've never placed into imagination. Einstien: Imagination is better than knowledge. it could be... wow my head is hurting lol. But ya hope this helped u but its a idea with flaws such as there are (glitches) to get out of the map (universe). who knows. hope this helps. Bye!!!!

alfred87
2009-Mar-09, 02:14 PM
Guys dont you all feel restless about this, i mean are r not all uncomfertable with the fact that whats gonnahappento us after we die.

WayneFrancis
2009-Mar-09, 03:30 PM
Guys dont you all feel restless about this, i mean are r not all uncomfertable with the fact that whats gonnahappento us after we die.

Not sure why you dug up such an old post but...

Why would I be uncomfortable with the expansion of space time? And what does said expansion have to do with anything that is going to cause my death?

As for me worrying about what happens to me after I die. Well personally I'm donating as much as I can to medicine and science. The rest of me I want to be buried by a nice tree. For the philosophical part I see no point in worrying about death. I live my life the best I can and hopefully I am making a positive impact for those around me.

danscope
2009-Mar-09, 04:18 PM
I like this post. You could be serious and you could be being facetious :), and your point would be the same, we will never know, alas.

But just out of curiosity, which of the many hazards out there would kill us "Even if we could get there"?

And as for the turtles, I think that idea has some merit :D.
*************************
Radiaton. The big killer.
Dan

gzhpcu
2009-Mar-10, 04:58 AM
This is the heck of a long thread, so at the risk of saying something someone else has said before:

I would suggest the term "universe" to include:

All of the observable universe: The comoving distance from Earth to the edge of the visible universe (particle horizon), which is believed to be 46.5 billion lightyears in any direction.

plus (if existant):

Any sections of higher dimensions which interact with the above, causing observable effects.

M311
2009-Mar-31, 06:24 PM
Wow, this thread has been running since October 2003, if it were possible it could run forever and we'd still not know the answer.

Interesting stuff though.

danscope
2009-Mar-31, 07:31 PM
Yes, it's quite like the Universe itself...it goes on forever, which is a long time
for most people. It's a good exercise in awareness.
Press on with your inquiries. They shall serve you well.

Best regards,
Dan

M311
2009-Apr-01, 10:50 AM
I actually watched the Horizon documentary on BBC2 last night where they used mathematics to try and determine the shape of out Universe, they actually arrived at the conclusion that its doughnut shaped, or at least as far we can imagine it to be. This kind of makes sense to me because the object has no one point that can be called the centre and apparently there was no one point where the big bang started ... I guess its as near to a model of the universe we can comprehend, or at least I can.

One interesting point they made that is repeated a lot in such discussions was that if you went far enough out into the universe then you might end up where you started, they also suggested that since light does the same thing then it too might end up back where it started, so imagine if you had some super telescope, you could look out into the universe and see the earth and then zoom in more and see yourself looking at yourself.

The problem I have with that of course is that you would be looking billions of light years into the past and the earth would not have existed ... I'll stop now, my brains beginning to hurt :)

Christoast
2009-Apr-01, 10:56 AM
My question is,, I have heard the Universe might be definte instead of indifinite. Example like a soccer ball shape. If this is the case, what is beyond that? There has to be something beyond the universe itself? Any idea?
Thats like asking where the end of the earth is.

ericoso
2009-May-19, 10:43 AM
My question is,, I have heard the Universe might be definte instead of indifinite. Example like a soccer ball shape. If this is the case, what is beyond that? There has to be something beyond the universe itself? Any idea?


I think our universe I is one in a infinite amount of universes , like giant galaxy's , so if u found yourself at the end of the known universe you would look out and see what would look like distant stars but in reality would be distant universes ore giant galaxy's , which would possibly make up a super universe or (super galaxy) and if you found yourself at the end of the super universe and looked out you would see ! sorry got to go , concrete to mix

danscope
2009-May-19, 05:49 PM
Concrete waits for no one. And concrete build character!
Good post.
At the end of the universe you will find......more universe.
Best regards, Dan

astromark
2009-May-19, 07:20 PM
The evidence of other than the observable is as yet beyond us. So that magic 14 billion light years would seem to be it. We suspect with good reason that is not the end of it. Understand quantum astronomy would have other universes. I remain open to these ideas as our knowledge expands so will our understanding. Some of this is just beyond us yet.

robross
2009-May-19, 10:03 PM
With a thread this large, I'm sure this has been posted already, but I have not had time to read all 15 pages :shifty:

A question like this demands that one first define what they mean by "universe."

In the 1920s we though universe = milky way galaxy. We were surprised to discover that those nebula were really other "island universes", i.e., galaxies. So for a little while, "universe" meant galaxy, and there were lots of "universes" in our field of view.

That idea quickly faded and "universe" became "all the galaxies and space around us".

Today, string theory and QM have further affected what "universe" means to different groups and theories.

*IF* you want to define "universe" as "everything that exists", then there is no logical meaning to the question "what is outside the universe." By definition, nothing is outside, everything that is is the universe.

Some cosmological models include the concept of locally expanding bubbles of space, cut off from other such bubbles. In this context, you could classify our local bubble as a universe, and all the other bubbles as other universes. If this theory is accurate, there would be no way for us to ever interact with these other bubbles so it might make sense to think of many universes, and then the answer to the question would be "other bubble universes exist outside ours", but then "universe" has become a much smaller organizational unit.

In M Theory, or brane-theory, our spacetime is just one "sheet" of many such branes, so like the many space-bubble universes, you could consider our brane to be "our universe", and the other branes would be other universes.

In the QM "many worlds" theory, every time a QM wave-function collapses an alternate universe is spawned. So you could consider all those possible solutions as different universes, or you would group them all under the umbrella of a single universe that encompasses all possible solutions.

So the basic issue is, in order to answer this question, one has to really be specific about what they mean by "universe" when they ask the question.

Rob

teamosil
2009-May-19, 11:44 PM
In M Theory, or brane-theory, our spacetime is just one "sheet" of many such branes, so like the many space-bubble universes, you could consider our brane to be "our universe", and the other branes would be other universes.

That's the answer I find most appealing. That we are in an a x dimensional universe floating in a x+1 dimensional medium. Our universe is infinite in terms of those x dimensions, but we have no concept of the x+1th dimension. Other universes, potentially with entirely different rules of physics and whatnot, also float in that medium. It has a couple big advantages to me. It explains:

1) Why gravity is so weak compared to the other basic forces. The math for gravity would make a lot more sense if we were floating in another dimension that gravitational force leaked out into, but the other forces didn't.
2) Why the universe is expanding at an accelerating rate without resorting to dark energy. If gravity is leaking out of our universe, known forces may be sufficient explanation to overcome the weaker than expected force of gravity at extreme distances.
3) The big bang. It's the only compelling explanation I've ever heard for what caused the big bang to occur. The idea is maybe our membrane collided with another membrane. I visualize it something like our membrane was just empty space and a set of rules of physics and we collided with another membrane that had a radically different set of rules and composition. If you suddenly introduce a totally different set of laws of physics at some point within space, plus whatever composition that universe is made up of, big explosion and what would appear to be the spontaneous creation of so much mass and energy in our universe...

Still definitely far from anything proven or verifiable, but a pretty compelling concept imo.

robross
2009-May-20, 01:36 AM
That's the answer I find most appealing. That we are in an a x dimensional universe floating in a x+1 dimensional medium. Our universe is infinite in terms of those x dimensions, but we have no concept of the x+1th dimension. Other universes, potentially with entirely different rules of physics and whatnot, also float in that medium. It has a couple big advantages to me. It explains:

1) Why gravity is so weak compared to the other basic forces. The math for gravity would make a lot more sense if we were floating in another dimension that gravitational force leaked out into, but the other forces didn't.
2) The big bang. It's the only compelling explanation I've ever heard for what caused the big bang to occur. The idea is maybe our membrane collided with another membrane. I visualize it something like our membrane was just empty space and a set of rules of physics and we collided with another membrane that had a radically different set of rules and composition. If you suddenly introduce a totally different set of laws of physics at some point within space, plus whatever composition that universe is made up of, big explosion and what would appear to be the spontaneous creation of so much mass and energy in our universe...

Still definitely far from anything proven or verifiable, but a pretty compelling concept imo.

I think Edward Tryon said it best, "Our Universe is simply one of those things that happens from time to time."

According to QM, there's a small but non-zero probability that all the particles in the universe will tunnel to the same point in space. After the heat death of the universe, there's plenty of time to "wait" for this event to occur, and since there will be no intelligence to be bored while waiting for it to happen, it doesn't matter how long it will take.

But eventually, it should happen, and the universe should get a free restart.

Rob

teamosil
2009-May-20, 04:05 AM
According to QM, there's a small but non-zero probability that all the particles in the universe will tunnel to the same point in space. After the heat death of the universe, there's plenty of time to "wait" for this event to occur, and since there will be no intelligence to be bored while waiting for it to happen, it doesn't matter how long it will take.

That's a very cool idea. The infinitely improbable becomes certain over infinite time. infinity/infinity = 1. Of course, before we see the next big bang, according to this theory, we are as likely as not to see the universe spontaneously reform itself into a supermassive version of a DVD of Elvis's Blue Hawaii movie. If you consider his entire filmography of 31 movies, odds are we'll see it reform into about 15 of them before the next big bang. :)

But, I'm wary of applying quantum mechanics at the cosmological scale until somebody works out a solid grand unification theory. Do we really know that it is a non-zero probability on the cosmological scale? Also, even if it is non-zero, if there is anything that can happen to a particle which would prevent it from completing the journey to the spot where the next big bang will take place, and if that event has a probability higher than 1/infinity, then the theory would fall apart. So far we've only observed tunnelling happening on the tiniest of scales with extreme infrequency. I'm not sure that I'm ready to believe that there is nothing in the universe that can prevent any particle from jumping to any location across any distance.

But, I don't know much about quantum mechanics. That is definitely a very cool idea... Sounds like a good topic for me to read up on.

TranslatedIntelligence
2009-Dec-11, 01:44 AM
Religion content removed.

I'm open to criticism.

Right so we want to know what is outside of the universe. Stay with me, forget everything around you and imagine you are looking at our milky way galaxy from a ship, no more distractions.

All we see is other galaxies, EVERY single spec of light is a galaxy, not a star. Take an empty container and collect a sample of space and seal it outside the ship, no space escapes this way. The container was transparent, and with your sample of space still inside, it is STILL transparent, not black. So why when we look into space is it black?

Now we travel (for times sake) in a split second the distance that our best telescopes have ventured, still we see galaxies prominently shining defiantly against the jet black backround.

What is causing this darkness in space? Dont we have stars, galaxies, supernovae and black holes emitting light?

For me it appears that all the above HUGE chemical reactions create dark matter, a bi product of positive processes and forces on an otherwise empty void. Dark matter is neutrally allowing not only us to exist but for the very environment for producing matter to take place.

When we look at the darkness it is my belief we are looking at the effects of a baron infinite void. In this void, i believe there is no dark matter no "neutral zone" where anything can be produced. I believe that when i fly my ship into the furthest, coldest, emptiest corner of space, i am starting to reach the end of where dark matter exists. Everything is pitch black and not even the strongest source of light can penetrate the black infinity in front of me.

Effects from the conveyance of the combinations of chemical reactions from distant galaxies and dark matter being propelled by these events, are expanding, and because my ship is stupidly fast i am ahead of the expansion of the known universe, i am into nothing, but i am also dead, the infinity ironically 1cm in front of me has absorbed EVERY single positive transmission, the movement in my muscle's, heat, even the thought processes in my brain have triggered an adverse effect.

Nothing exists outside the known universe without dark matter. It causes a "wave" for existence to hitch a ride on. An analogy could be, we are in the sea. The sea is the unknown, the unprecedented void, and our universe is a bubble, but there are things too powerful in our universe to be a freak chance of the existence of existence.

And somewhere in the sea there is an explanation, another bubble, way away from us. Dark matter creates this bubble, our known universe.

This is my true belief, and as much as my brain can tolerate. As for the "sea", it is truly infinite, and only by dark matter can we survive, take it away and we immediately become shut down by the waiting void. Dark matter is keeping the void of space away from us, if it didn't the energy that EVERYTHING emits would be being emitted in vain before sucumbing to it.

A final note, think of a black hole, its a CONCENTRATED void with undesirable effects of gravity, a positive force amplified. The smaller the black hole, the quicker death would come if you fell into it. With larger black holes you will still perish, but eventually, as the effects are spread out over a much larger area of space. I believe the same theory to apply with the void. No im not saying that we exist inside a black hole, i am saying black holes represent what is beyond our universe, darkness and nothing. As the black holes had matter to consume they have gravity, the void does not, as it does not need an "anchor" because it is everywhere and fills every point in unknown, un imagined and unoccupied cosmos. The void, is lighter than a feather.

Thank you if you took the time to read this, and i look forward to discussing this with other space enthusiasts. As we all know our brain power is limited to what we understand, so in my belief of the edge of the universe i cannot yet explain how we came into existence from such a negative environment. And please bare in mind, this is only my idea of the unknown, im not stating this is what lies beyond.

pzkpfw
2009-Dec-11, 02:18 AM
Welcome to BAUT. Please do check out the rules.

(Note that religion is a bit of a "tabboo" subject (either side of the coin) as it leads to too much trouble. Note that your post does fine without it.)

tommac
2009-Dec-15, 09:27 PM
The evidence of other than the observable is as yet beyond us. So that magic 14 billion light years would seem to be it. We suspect with good reason that is not the end of it. Understand quantum astronomy would have other universes. I remain open to these ideas as our knowledge expands so will our understanding. Some of this is just beyond us yet.

how big ( how many light years ) was the currently visible universe 14 billion years ago?

speedfreek
2009-Dec-16, 12:49 AM
how big ( how many light years ) was the currently visible universe 14 billion years ago?

The observable universe was something around 40 million light-years in radius when it became visible - i.e. when light could first move freely and the universe first became transparent, when the CMBR was released ~370,000 years after the Big-Bang.

north
2009-Dec-16, 02:21 AM
what's beyond the Universe ?

more energy and matter , nothing more , nothing less , for infinity

isn't obvious ? assuming there is beyond the known Universe in the first place , however

WayneFrancis
2009-Dec-16, 02:55 AM
TranslatedIntelligence seems to be promoting a ATM idea that distorts the meaning of commonly used astronomical terms. With that said I will leave the word salad alone.

Andrew D
2009-Dec-20, 01:26 AM
Now we travel (for times sake) in a split second the distance that our best telescopes have ventured, still we see galaxies prominently shining defiantly against the jet black backround.

What is causing this darkness in space? Dont we have stars, galaxies, supernovae and black holes emitting light?

For me it appears that all the above HUGE chemical reactions create dark matter, a bi product of positive processes and forces on an otherwise empty void. Dark matter is neutrally allowing not only us to exist but for the very environment for producing matter to take place.

Actually, for a time after the big bang, the universe was not transparent to photons. Technically, if it were possible look far enough away (13 or so Billion LY + whatever distance has been added by metric expansion since that time) you would see what you could have seen then: nothing. Add that to the fact that light from objects outside our hubble sphere is not visible, and you get a black background.

spacefreak
2010-Feb-09, 06:55 AM
i really think nasa or some space organisation should send humans to outer space that will make so many things clear...as well as know about black hole more. in that lies many mysteries.

01101001
2010-Feb-09, 02:13 PM
i really think nasa or some space organisation should send humans to outer space that will make so many things clear...as well as know about black hole more. in that lies many mysteries.

Welcome to BAUT Forum.

Do you have a question?

You might want to ask how far away is the closest black hole and what percentage of that distance NASA and other space-traveling organization have already sent human travelers. It is small. Amazingly minuscule.

Just in case you think humans will travel to a black hole any time soon.

J Riff
2010-Feb-11, 06:20 AM
Which is a real shame, because Aliens would probably hang around black holes, being the most powerful and interesting objects in the universe. If we could get there we could ask them what lies beyond this universe.

Jens
2010-Feb-12, 08:56 AM
Which is a real shame, because Aliens would probably hang around black holes, being the most powerful and interesting objects in the universe. If we could get there we could ask them what lies beyond this universe.

Except, chances are they're hanging around hoping somebody else will come around who knows the answer to that precise question.

"Look, Gwork, a newbie!"
"Great, Dweel, let's ask him."
"Hey pal, what's beyond the universe?"
"I don't know. Do you?"
"No, I don't know neither. Neither does he. Dang."
"Well sit down, get a Bud, and let's wait for the next guy."

Brown Dwarf
2010-Feb-13, 04:14 AM
More universe!
This was my favorite answer to this question. Way back in April of '04. :)

I think in order to know if my favorite answer is correct or not you have to know what caused the Big Bang. If, in fact, branes are colliding then my favorite answer would have to be made plural.

skyline5k
2010-Feb-13, 05:50 AM
beyond the universe is non rabbits, millions of them

I'm kind of partial to this one actually. :lol:

As well as the "My brain hurts!" remark too. A question like that does make my brain hurt.

Bluevision
2010-Feb-14, 01:57 AM
Outside the universe is... God

Or at least, if there was anything strictly "outside" the universe, it would be God. Or maybe God's just curled up in the 7th Dimension or something.

My question is: If you went outside of the universe, would you exist?

sabianq
2010-Feb-14, 06:15 AM
this is a very strange thread..
it seems out of place on baut...
and who is "guest" ANYWAY?
hmmm...

sabianq
2010-Feb-14, 06:23 AM
m-theory suggests that our universe (the one that we can see with our telescopes) was created by collisions that happens on a dimension larger than ours.

there are branes flowing through the extra dimension outside and when they collide, the release a tremendous amount of energy and the collision creates bubbles if you will of spacetime, these bubbles (or Big Bangs) form to become whole universes like the one we see around us.

universes are created all of the time..
http://www.theory.caltech.edu/people/jhs/strings/str155.html

i was taught a very similar scenario growing up about where we came from..
yes, my childhood was devoid of religion...

TiMiX
2011-Mar-25, 12:53 AM
Wow! this thread is still going how fantastic! I wrote on here over 7 years ago!
Keep up the hard work peeps, some really good thinking and idea's on here.

With the amount of space documentaries on Tv lately it must be sparking some thought's.
I have a few of my own I'm still thinking through.

Great thread, really worth something with the amount of mind hours spent! (:
Keep it going for another 8 years and we can publish it in hard back lol

slang
2011-Mar-25, 01:06 AM
Wow! this thread is still going how fantastic!

For values of still > 1 year... yeah. Welcome back. :)

astromark
2011-Mar-25, 10:11 AM
After careful consideration of a number of papers I have come across I have concluded that I know the answer to this troubling question... and that if I share my answer humanity will implode into a spiral of self destruction having had one of the really big questions stolen from under your noses...removing the goal might remove the will.... Naa, I shall tell.:razz:
The word 'Universe' does for all intent describe the whole of the known Universe. All of it.
Anything that we have knowledge of is part of the greater... Universe. To attempt to conceptualize some place or time outside of the as stated Universe is then also part of it. Its simple. Easy., and provokes no argument. End of story.

Now just in case you are taking breath to want for a discussion or argument... No sorry there simply is not one. I have not said there can not be a great deal more than we know.. We know that. That what we do not know exceeds that which we do.... sigh.
In the Title the word beyond is used... thats the mistake. There never can be a beyond.
The issue for me is that simple. Universe. Thats with a full stop.:cool:

Dalkeith
2011-Mar-26, 02:25 PM
Good points astro

Short point on nothing...

Nothing is usually the definition of something that does not exist...

Cougar
2011-Mar-27, 01:58 AM
I guess I could understand Timix's enthusiasm, since there appear to be some good posts on this thread. But I've learned to skim through posts that are over a year old, especially if the author still has only one post. I did notice the following point being expressed....


"Look, Gwork, a newbie!"
"Great, Dweel, let's ask him."
"Hey pal, what's beyond the universe?"
"I don't know. Do you?"
"No, I don't know neither. Neither does he. Dang."
"Well sit down, get a Bud, and let's wait for the next guy."

At the end of the universe you will find......more universe.

That ties right in to a major theme of the last book I read: A Tear at the Edge of Creation: A Radical New Vision for Life in an Imperfect Universe [2010] by physicist and astronomer Marcelo Gleiser (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marcelo_Gleiser). He points out the mythical quality of a "theory of everything" that would ever be attainable. Is such an ideal needed to continue to investigate the universe? He strongly associated this tendency to humanity's monotheistic background. Current investigations indicate there are 'imperfections' in the universe, otherwise we wouldn't be here. Intelligent life within the universe would appear to be rare. Regardless of whether one is a "naturalist" or a "supernaturalist," we should recognize and make good use of how special is our existence.

Erock
2011-Mar-27, 05:15 AM
It is The Mighty Cthulhu! he lies in wait outside our universe, in the watery Abyss, dreaming....

PetersCreek
2011-Mar-27, 07:13 AM
I think this has run its course. No need to bump old Q&A threads with idle banter.