![]() |
Impossible to answer?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bG73W3Jx2FE Yes this is me asking a question.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
I've never really thought of that, good observation. I wonder how scientists are going to answer this.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Your understanding of the Big Bang theory is a little wonky and I sincerely doubt you fully understand string theory.
To answer your question: no one knows. The question has been asked, but it is an unknowable thing. The easiest answer I can venture is that it's the absence of anything. Not "vacuum", not "space", absence of even that. Think of the difference between the number zero and the value null. Zero is what makes up empty space, null is what is beyond the edge of the Universe. That's my thought on the matter anyway. Others would probably guess at things like other universes or parallel dimensions, but to be honest, I would say that any such things as that would exist at the SAME place in the 3rd dimension, but another place in the FIFTH. One should not be able to reach an alternate Universe by traveling in the third dimension, but I suppose it isn't unreasonable to guess that there might be other "universes" within our reality (thus nullifying the singular value implied by calling it a "universe"). |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Although I'm sure you're not the first person to ask what the stuff the universe is expanding into is, I doubt you will find anything but useless postulation as we can't know and I'm not about to hazard a guess.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
around 1:56, trust me, this question has been asked. you are not the first person to ask what is beyond outside the universe. i have a random book with puzzles, philosophy, etc and there is a short passage talking about it. I don't know the answer to the question but its not impossible to answer. We can come up with an explanation to address the question just like we came up with theories to address the creation of the universe. My two cents after watching your vid is there is nothing outside. By nothing, i mean, absolutely nothing. No atoms at all. Just as the universe started with an extremely dense and extremely small singularity, what was surrounding that? I would say absolutely nothing. Waiting for smarter users to post but thats what my thoughts are. Rubix and Dev post soon please =]
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Ugh, I was just arguing this question recently with my friend richard. There can't be NOTHING. There's no such thing as true nothingness. Put simply, a question like this currently beyond human understanding and will more than likely forever remain so.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
The one true 'nothingness' is oblivion -- the loss of the brain's ability to cognate.
The idea that empty space is 'nothingness' is false as it is truly 'space' and 'real estate' in the terrestrial sense of the world's nations claiming the 12-mile limit of their coast-lines to be their sovereign territory (Russia and some others claim 200 miles.) . If outer space was nothing, then there wouldn't have been any place for the stars and planets to evolve ( just as your house needs a lot to exist on). The concept of our cosmos being a nothingness defies logic. If it were, we would be imaginary as we could not exist in a nothingness just as, contrary-wise, Alice couldn't really exist on both sides of a mirror. Similarly, the theory of 'expansion' boggles the mind as it would postulate that the 'expansion' created its own 'new' space to expand into. If the 'expansion' created its own new space then was there a huge wall to push out of the way? What was behind the huge wall? Already existing nothingness? Hmmm. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
If there is something out there, we would never be able to see it. My physics teacher told us that the rate at which the universe is expanding is faster then the speed of light, which means something is there that we 100% can't see, but we will never be able to know what it is unless we can somehow get out there and grab some of it. Considering we can't come close to the speed of light that's not going to happen.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
This is the first i've heard that the universe is expanding at the speed of light.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Astronomers do not know for sure the value of the Hubble constant. (which tells us how fast the objects appear to be moving away from us as a function of distance).
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
I don't see what is hard to understand about this at all. Think about putting something in a container, In order for it to go into the container there has to be "space" within that container. In other words, in order for something to be in a position in the universe, it has to be occupying empty space, causing that space to no longer be empty. What makes sense to me is that the universe is infinite empty space, not "darkness" though that is how we would perceive it because there is no light, it is just nothing, but can be occupied by matter. When the universe "expands" the constant amount of matter, that is never created nor destroyed, is just spreading out to occupy more of this space than it did previously. When it contracts, say in a black hole, it is condensed to take up much less of this space. That really doesn't affect the "space" though, just how the matter in the universe is arranged within it. I don't see how you can say "there can't be NOTHING", and it is *not* beyond human understanding. We understand it every time we fill up a cup that is empty, or pack a suitcase, or anything similar. The only difference is that on the scale of the universe we let our earthly experiences overpower common sense. Because on Earth when you fill a cup or a suitcase, it was not *truly* empty. There was air, oxygen molecules ect, filling that container. When we place something in such a container it displaces those molecules, basically filling something that was already full with something else. Even the "space" around our planet is not empty. There is light and other forms of matter filling that space. So when we try to imagine *true* space it is harder to imagine. But clearly in all of these situations the matter IS occupying something right? There has to be empty space for something to be able to occupy it. At the most fundamental level the universe consists of empty space and the matter that has always occupied it. If there was NO empty space that matter could never change because everything would be trapped in place because there would be no *room* for anything to do anything. In order for time to progress, for matter to change form, there has to be room for such reactions to occur. There is no "edge" or end to the universe, just locations where matter is and where matter is not. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
It's clear that there is no true "nothingness."
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Please explain how the universe "expands" then. Or how anything ever changes. Clearly you believe that there is *somethingness* so explain how if there is no "space" for this something to move in, it is able to move at all. For convenience sake, imagine a universe that is a 5x5 grid. If this grid is *completely* occupied by matter, then nothing can change, or move, or react. Now imagine the same universe, but that is not limited by the grid. Which one makes more sense? |
Re: Impossible to answer?
If the universe is infinitely large, there is always more room for expansion because matter can never come up against any sort of hard barrier. And even if it did come up against a hard barrier, the question becomes "what is on the other side of the barrier" and no matter how you try to answer that question, it becomes turtles all the way down.
The logical basis for "An infinite universe" is simply the idea that even if the answer is 'nothing' the question is automatically begged either "How much nothing?" or "What's on the other side of -that-?" |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Everythingness in nothingness.
EX: The zero and the whole, the nothingness and the all, the emptiness and the absolute are two names of the same thing. They are interchangeable; they mean the same. The zero is also the whole. The emptiness is also the wholeness. The nothingness is also the everythingness. "expanding" isn't really the best word to describe what is happening to the universe, although that is the word that is often used - a word choice which I think leads to a lot of unnecessary confusion regarding what is already a difficult topic! A more accurate word for what the universe is doing might be "stretching". The difference between "expanding" and "stretching", for me at least, is that an "expanding universe" conjures up an image where there is a bunch of galaxies floating through space, all of which started at some center point and are now moving away from that point at very fast speeds. Therefore, the collection of galaxies (which we call the "universe") is expanding, and it is certainly fair to ask what it is expanding into |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Well that makes just about no sense at all. Care to elaborate how mutually exclusive concepts are actually synonyms?
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
While your theory sounds seemingly simple enough and logical to a degree richard, with no way to fully understand the expansion of our universe, it is unclear as to how you can determine what it is expanding into, or what it's expansion is even doing if that makes sense. To expatiate into true nothingness is just as illogical, as it is logical. Basically, we just don't know and can't ever hope to comprehend it, regardless of whether you believe “we let our earthly experiences overpower our common sense.”
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
The collection of galaxies that make up the universe is moving through space; therefore, the universe is expanding into even more space than it already encompassed. In our new picture, though, the galaxies are just raisins spread throughout the dough - their presence is largely irrelevant to the question of the universe's expansion. What we really care about is the dough, and whether or not it has a boundary.
If the dough does have a boundary, then it is legitimate to ask what is beyond the boundary that the dough expands "into". But for our universe, that is a very complicated question to ask. The boundary at the edge of the dough represents the "edge" of space. By definition, we exist within space and have no way to leave it. So we don't think there is any way to observe or measure what is beyond, unless it had some effect on us that we currently don't know about. It would be really weird to imagine reaching the "end" of space. What would it look like, for example? These are questions that we have no way to give a scientific answer to, so the simple answer is that we don't know! All we do know is that based on our current understanding of theoretical cosmology, the universe does not have a boundary - it is either infinite or it wraps around itself in some way. Observations seem to agree with these predictions in the sense that if the universe does have a boundary, we know that the boundary is so far away from us that we can't currently see it and it doesn't have any effect on us. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Sorry for double post, I didn't want to make the last reply too long, but this will finish what I have to say.
If the universe is indeed infinite, then the simple answer to the original question is that the universe doesn't have anything to expand into. Thinking about infinity is always complicated, but a good analogy can be made with simple math. Imagine you have a list of numbers: 1,2,3,etc., all the way up to infinity. Then you multiply every number in this list by 2, so that you now have 2,4,6,etc., all the way up to infinity. The distance between adjacent number in your list has "stretched" (it is now 2 instead of 1), but can you really say that the total extent of all your numbers has "expanded"? You started off with numbers that went up to infinity, and you finished with numbers that went up to infinity. So the total size is the same! If these numbers represent the distances between galaxies in an infinite universe, then it is a good analogy for why the universe does not necessarily expand even though it stretches. Finally, I should point out that not everything in the universe is "stretching" or "expanding" in the way that the spaces between faraway galaxies stretch. For example, you and I aren't expanding, the Earth isn't expanding, the sun isn't expanding, even the entire Milky Way galaxy isn't expanding. That's because on these relatively small scales, the effect of the universe's stretching is completely overwhelmed by other forces (i.e. the galaxy's gravity, the sun's gravity, the Earth's gravity, and the atomic forces which hold people's bodies together). It is only when we look across far enough distances in the universe that the effect of the universe's stretching becomes noticeable above the effects of local gravity and other forces which tend to hold things together. (That is why, in the analogy of the tape measure I discussed above, the tape measure that you keep in your pocket does not get stretched, while the one that goes between two galaxies does get stretched. I bet some people were wondering about that!) |
Re: Impossible to answer?
This is a silly argument. You are all basically saying the same thing as me, you just don't like the idea of "nothing." Smok3d_0ut you just said there was no "nothing" and then that there is no "boundary" to space. Matter is not infinite, there is a set amount, so if there is no boundary to space but there IS a boundary to matter than WHAT is in the infinite space?
And if there IS a boundary then what is it made out of? Like Devonin said, what is on the other side? Space is just space, if you don't like calling it nothing than call it something else, it means the same thing. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Well, the answer is not currently known.
As a quick note prior to my point, some information on the Big Bang to clear up issues that most people confuse: There was no matter before the Big Bang. There was only energy. Matter and space were created during the Big Bang. Also, the Big Bang was not an explosion per say. Rather, it was an expansion or stretching of the energy that existed at that point. Nothing went 'flying outwards' per say, rather the energy that was there stretched itself. However, the universe *does not* need anything to expand into to be able to expand. If the energy that existed prior to the Big Bang defined the system that represented all of existence, and that system expanded (Which is what happened), there is in fact...nothing outside of the expanding universe. Rather, the Big Bang took everything that exists and expanded it, or stretched it. It's a bit like taking an elastic band. Imagine the elastic band represents all of existence. The Big Bang is equivalent to taking that elastic band and pulling on it, stretching it outwards. To address this further... Quote:
And again, this doesn't necessarily imply there is anything on the other side. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
In so many posts you always say that we can't understand or grasp the idea. It really isn't that hard to use your imagination a little reach. I'm sure you can do it, we can all do it to.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
I mostly bring it up to address the preconceived bias we have to assume that everything expands into something else, but my point was that ...that isn't necessarily the case. However, now I'm self conscious of my potentially poor wording and am going to edit my post ;) |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Haven't any of you played Asteroids? When you reach the end of the universe, you come out the other side *facepalm*
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Sorry if this is mean, but that is flat out ridiculous. What do you think energy is?
Energy can't exist without matter. Matter did not magically appear because of a "big bang" though that may be the beginning of the universe as we know it now. That may be a nice way for people to wrap their heads around a concept that is otherwise hard to grasp. There was NO beginning. A beginning implies that there will be an end and there can be no end when matter cannot be destroyed. All it can do is change and that is all it has ever been doing. This is the same reason that I do not think time exists. To say that matter began at the big bang raises the question, well where did it come from? how did the big bang create it? At some point you have to see that it just was and will always be in some form or another. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Also, energy and matter are the same thing. E = mc^2. I'm not sure how exactly the energy from the early universe became matter, but it probably condensed somehow into electrons, quarks, other "indivisible" particles.... And then those interacted to form atoms. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Also energy and matter are *NOT* the same thing. If the equation was e=m, that would be true. Energy is component of matter. This is how I don't see how energy supposedly existed before matter was "created" by the big bang. Let's see, Let's plug in 1,000,000,000,000,000,000*10^9999999999999=mc^2. Now let's create matter. m=0, cause without matter mass is 0, c=2.99*10^5 so we have- 1,000,000,000,000,000,000*10^9999999999999=0*2.99*10^5 Oh wait, that equals 0. Whoops! Also what you are saying is that energy condensed into "indivisible" particles matter meaning that they are divisible into energy. If energy and matter are the same thing as you and Reach have both claimed, matter did exist before the big bang, but whatever. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
And I should have said this before: The E in E=mc^2 stands for "rest energy." Or the inherent energy an object of mass possesses while at rest. You can't plug in the total energy of the universe before matter existed in its current state into the equation. I mean I guess you could if you wanted to find out how much mass the early universe would take up if it was comprised entirely of matter. The thing is, it was all energy. Which, yes, is the same thing, but a different manifestation of it. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Well, I reread my responses, and I feel like I am kind of being a jerk, so sorry. I am not trying to be rude, I just argue with people about this a lot so I tend to get kind of ridiculous.
I am not saying you are wrong, I just do not understand how it makes sense that energy could exist without matter, or the other way around. It seems like there would have to be a non-zero number for every value in that equation unless E and m were BOTH 0. It seems to me that they are dependent on each-other. But then again, if energy somehow condensed into or transformed into matter than it seems like it would just be a more basic form of matter than the proton or even the quark. If so, then did the energy that was involved in the big bang, do you believe that it always was, or did it originate from something else? It just seems like no matter how far you trace the different forms of "matter" you will always come to a point where it existed in a form that just was. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Quote:
After writing this, I notice that insanefreddy926 talked on the same idea. However, I'd like to add that this idea of the universe doesn't seem very plausible to me as the matter in the universe is moving outward, and yet, we cannot record any instance of matter being recordable from two directions (which would be the case if matter had expanded beyond the "boundary" and begun "coming back" on the "other side"). |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Well isn't the 4th dimension supposed to be time? That really shouldn't be taken into account if you are imagining traveling through the universe because that does not affect the fundamental structure of the universe. If you imagine a three dimensional object, sure you can travel around it and come back to the same point, but you can also travel through it or away from it altogether. I agree with your point that it is unlikely that traveling indefinitely in one direction through the universe would bring you back to the same point. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Also, just because E=Mc^2 doesn't mean you need matter or that matter is necessarily there if you have energy. Sure, it points out the mass energy equivalency but it has nothing to do with what you just said. Quote:
Check your facts before making angry posts. Quote:
The better question would be to ask: Where did the system come from and what exactly is this system that was originally there? |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
I did kind of lose my temper but this still isn't changing anything. If energy creates matter then matter must be composed of energy. It cannot be created without it, energy does not just appear, so where does it come from? But if energy is the potential to do work, and work is force x distance and force is dependent on mass, it seems like without SOMETHING with mass there would be no potential. If energy is the potential to do work then what potential is there if there is nothing to do work on? Either way I trust that you know what you are talking about, so if "Energy *is* matter manifested differently" than matter still existed in the form of energy before the big bang but manifested differently. I think we get caught up on the words too much sometimes. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
So I know this isn't going to be easy, but imagine for just a moment that the big bang isn't actually what happened in the beginning?
Alot of peope argue for the big bang, but its a theory like all theories. This :big bang: has more then religous fervor(or maybe equivalent.). Almost every theory I hear about tries to process the universe through the big bang. So much so that they break the fabric of the universe that they created. anyway more to the point, In the theories I more or less align myself with the universe isn't expanding. it is much bigger then scientists think and all their mathematic number crunching and universe bending principles are just attempts at.. i dont know. Its not everything moving away from us its everything just moving in general. If in fact the BB is correct and if everything is expanding it is possible that the further out you go the more you will accelerate to get there. This is true if we were to look at one side of the universe and it says its expanding and then we look at the other side and it also says its expanding but in the opposite direction. An object will appear the same color if its moving away from us as it will appear if we are moving away from it. Taking that as far as it will go you could say the actual edge of the universe is equal to a force that will propel you to the speed of light. (which is the current "scientific" parameters for our universe) And that the "stuff" the universe is currently expanding to is just a buffer to the actual edge of the universe. For those of you interested in other theories besides the big bang. http://www.holoscience.com/ Check it out if you want. There are alot of articles on there. Also If anyone would like to debate the big bang theory as well I am all game :) just make a thread and I will glady hop to it. I dont have a phD in physics though, so I will only be able to use good logic and resourceful internet data mining for my arguments. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
I agree completely.
I have no idea about the theories you are talking about but obviously the big bang was not the *beginning* because it was caused by something. There was no beginning. (ever). |
Re: Impossible to answer?
After reading through every single post in this thread, you guys just blew my ****ing mind
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
An interesting experiment would be to try and get as far from everything as anything has ever been. (i.e. trying to travel far enough to reach the most remote place in the universe) Can you imagine yourself running into an invisible wall like you sometimes do in video games where you travel too far out into the ocean? It's hard to imagine this and much easier to imagine that you could freely reach any arbitrary distance.
A vacuum of "nothingness" doesn't imply that there is nothing at all within that vacuum, as every point in the physical world contains the potential states of the particles that make up the world according to QM. And it could also be argued that a Higgs potential field (possible originator of mass?), gravitational field, and electric field (and maybe other fields, of course) exist at every point out to the infinite. So a discrete particle itself is not the only physically meaningful entity. Virtual particles "appear in the quantum vacuum, a sea of fluctuating energy, a rich physical reality endowed with a structure and governed by physical laws." |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Dark Matter, maybe?
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Let me point out. For EARTH(sphere) to be "travel in one direction you wined up in the same position" there is "rotation" also gravity. Space it'self does not have gravitons. the Matter inside space does. but not space. Also if I do believe .. space does not rotate ;D
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Also richard. String theory states that ALL matter is simply vibrating strands of "energy" so small that we would Never be able to see a strand. And the entire universe is composed of these, every single bit. 100% of the entire world you know and do not know. :p
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
I've been pondering this for years...
I believe an episode of The Universe discussed this, and I remember reading about what Stephen Hawking had said about this. I'm sorry, but I have no idea how to source Mr. Hawking on that; I can't even remember if it was on television or if I had read it. For the episode, I will look into it. I tivo all of the episodes, but it's been a long time since I saw it. Also, I believe there were tests performed to see if the universe was flat or curved. They used lasers and some sort of trigonometry to see if the result would be distorted (ie, not flat). It turned out that the universe is either flat or so slightly curved that the test was unable to define it. I believe The Universe also discussed this matter... |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
I think that curvature though is to measure if the universe is a sphere or a generally flat plane. If I were to make a guess I would say the universe is a flat plane curving, sort of like the surface of the earth. Whether or not the sides of curving in the same direction(which would lead to a circle) or curved different directions(infinity sign/figure eight). If the planes could ever double back on itself is another question, would the universe look like a parabola or an S? What stops the universe from becoming a sphere(as in filling in the figure eight or the circle)? Alot of questions come up. Quote:
And that second part is one reason why i dont believe string theory. Quanitifying forces attributed to imaginary sources obviously shows how little this universe is understood. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Actually, the curvature of the universe is not a term relating directly to the geometric shape of it, if I recall correctly. It refers to something regarding the average matter/energy density of the universe. A flat universe is one in which the mass/energy density hovers or stays very close to a critical value and therefore, once the cosmos reaches a maximum size, all expansion stops, and the universe stays the same size for the rest of eternity. Curvature can be either positive or negative. Positive curvature implies that the mass/energy density of the universe is higher than some critical value, and therefore, there is enough mass in the universe to make it collapse back into itself after a certain point. Negative curvature implies that the initial expansion forces and the cosmological constant propel the universe outward forever, as the forces of gravity drop off and become too weak compared to the cosmological constant. Under this scenario, the universe expands forever.
I believe the term curvature itself is used because of the way gravity (i.e. mass) causes curvatures and distortions in spacetime according to relativity. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
There are so many different answers you can give to a question like this. Really, the only correct answer is the one you accept.
If you want an answer to what the white on the paper is, well, it's blank. Maybe that part of the universe hasn't been created yet? If you want to go outside the box, you're holding that piece of paper. What is everything outside that piece of paper? What you're asking is to define the unknown... which is, as you said, "impossible to answer", unless you commit yourself to believing a single answer which you perceive as being true. One theory I'm fond of is that outside of the expansion of the universe is simply energy, or force. Eventually, when the universe loses the propulsion from it's initial explosion, this force will slowly push the universe back upon itself. Essentially, when the universe stops expanding, it will de-expand, and eventually collide with itself once again, causing another big bang, and thus, eternal existence is born. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
in case that doesnt make sense... 1 = flat universe/not changing <1 = expanding forever >1 = contracting our universe ~= .05 - .2(known mass) our universe is supposed to equal somewhere really close to 1. (10^15 decimil places) The way i was reading the measure of curvature was talking about the actual shape of the universe not really the distances between points in space and whether or not they are getting closer or farther from each other. If they were trying to measure that a laser wouldn't work. Two things would probably happen. Either light would appear to speed up because the space has shrunk(or slow down if it has grown) or more then likely the effects wouildn't be measureable with them. Either way, i really don't think the universe is expanding or cointracting I think the universe has been this way for a very long time. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
So this made me think for a bit because I am an Atheist myself, but I am thinking of becoming an Agnostic :P It surprises me how "lucky" our universe or "Earth" has been throughout the years -- I mean.. are we the only ones alive? Or are there others? >< |
Re: Impossible to answer?
The only thing keeping the big bang theory a theory is the fact that us people; scientists have not found a location at any proportion/scale where all the forces function together comfortably.
The big bang theory can be a stepping stone to understanding complexities of the universe we never would have reached without the curiosity to know the truth. When it comes down to mathematicians, physicists, scientists etc.. Theories can be proven on one of those terms but it is not absolutely true until it is proven on every system. i.e. I've seen a documentary on the universe where it was proven with deep math that if you take a point in the universe, any point and fold it, there will be another universe. Discoveries like these always flood our minds because they are new pieces of information and to know is a great feeling, but this is something proven on the mathematical system only and may as well be 1 point over worthless. Ignorance is avoiding reality; to learn is part of reality and to believe or imagine is a higher power that can make or break you. A lot of famous physicists and scientists also believe in a god. Logically if you're given the opportunity to believe then why not take it. Personally I stand for knowledge and secondly for what I don't know I can trust with belief, or have "faith" in that thing. Knowledge is said to be the food for the soul, and it is the most powerful and valuable ability. If you've read this post then you can clearly tell I'm pretty philosophical, and I feel that if I were to share my opinions on the universe it wouldn't enlighten most of you as much as what I've just wrote here on this post. I'd also like to say that our fascination with the universe is practically infinite, and so so should the fascination with human life be. There are many things in the universe that have not ever existed, that we have made, on our little planet where the atmosphere extends up for about only 100km. Happy thinking, pce. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Reality can be kind of painful. Unless you are going to be a astronomer or physicist or something it is probably better to just believe what you want to believe because you will never find any true answers. Sure there is nothing wrong with looking, but when it consumes you, all you are left with is an empty feeling. I think this is a reason a lot of people turn to religion, and end up being much happier. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
With respect to the curvature of the universe, you have to be really careful here. When we say the universe is flat, we mean Euclidean - i.e. two straight parallel lines will never cross, angles within a triangle always equal 180 degrees etc. In curved spaces, this isn't the case (For example, if you draw a triangle on the surface of the Earth the angles won't equal 180 degrees).
Most of the misunderstanding of this concept comes from us picturing flat as a piece of paper. This is not really the case with the universe. When we say the universe is flat, we are saying it is 3 dimensional flat space. It's quite easy to describe mathematically, and you can test it, as probes like WMAP have done to determine the universe is in fact flat space! This tells us more about the topology of the universe though than it's global structure or 'shape'. This is not currently known. It could be anything. Some people even suggest it looks like a cone. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Just my 2 cents.
If the answer is NOTHING, the big bang theory is false. If there's nothing, it can't be expanded into, thus a highly concentrated "bead" of matter can't explode or stretch whatever you want to call it anywhere. so since we've all been wtfbigbanging so far in this thread, lets turn to the oscillation theory which states that the universe is kind of 'breathing,' we're just on a really big inhale right now so we think that we're expanding forever. It could start shrinking any time now =D. Another question I'd like to propose.. What would happen if we got to the edge of the universe? Do we knock on it and a bunch of space monkeys pop out and dance and say you won the game, or does your hand pop out on the other side of the universe? Since I've pretty much said that there can't be nothing, alloyus's proposal isn't as frivolous as it seems. Nobody has gone to separate edges of the universe and thrown crap through the walls yet so we don't know the answer to this question. To put a visual in your mind, here's a video: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dSb0PsNq9ao skip forward to 16:20 through 16:40. The example is inverse. The universe would be the inside and it would be like they were running out and ending up on the other side of the dome. We don't know the answer because we've never been to the edge of the universe. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Here is a video that I find relevant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YAXJZj_NXUQ |
Re: Impossible to answer?
lol, my example just so happened to be in Yu-Gi-Oh, but it's a good visual for what I'm talking about.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Some concepts don't seem intuitive at first because we're used to certain exposures. For instance, the types of speeds we witness here on Earth are slow compared to the speed of light, and so the concept of relativity would seem strange at first. Much like we're used to the idea of something expanding INTO something, we would find the idea of nothingness strange. But that's simply what it is -- there is nothing outside of the universe.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Humans always have to think that everything happens on a time line. Don't really feel like elaborating on this because its mostly irrelevant to the rest of my post.
As for the 'Asteroids' theory, I support this, although I believe it to be more of an infinite loop. I.E. In the game Asteroids, if you move laterally into one border, you will come out in the exact same spot on the opposite side. Now, in order for this to be true for the universe, we have to apply this theory in (at least) 3 dimensions, since we DO NOT exist in 2 planes of reality, we exist in 3(or 4, or more, who knows, whatever, not relevant to my post). At least, these are the dimensions that we can so far comprehend. SO if we apply the 'Asteroids Theory' to 3 dimensions, we can assume that any object traveling one direction will (eventually) emerge on the exact same location, on the exact opposite side of the universe. But what is there, at that boundary you reach just before you pop out on the other side? I don't believe its 'nothing' as so many people have stated, simply that its connected to that part of the universe that you end up, after reaching that 'border.' Only, the 'border' is non-existent, as every part of the universe is connected to to the spot on the exact opposite side of the universe. This is where the 'infinite loop' comes in. Say you're moving west on earth, eventually you will end up in the same spot you left from. Now, take that same theory, and rotate that plane and copy it an infinite amount of times, So that no matter what direction you traveled, if you kept going in a straight line, you WILL eventually end up where you started. If you apply this to the universe, then there would truly be no 'outside' the universe, thus, no need to question 'what is outside the universe?' |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
I'm not reading this whole topic atm but I'd like to point out that the universe is not a sphere as in the 3 dimensional object but is actually a four dimensional surface that wraps back on itself.
Think of how you can fold a two dimensional piece of paper into a three dimensional object, and if you travel along the surface of this object you'll never reach the edge because there IS no edge, and if there is no edge there is nothing beyond. Our universe is equivalent to this, only it is a three dimensional sphere that has been wrapped into a four dimensional manifold, and we're on the three dimensional 'surface' and can't leave it. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
well, that sounds good.....but ! hole in your explanation......wouldn't that paper be surrounded by air? so is our universe surrounded by a larger universe? answer that.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
in my view, every single theory has holes, christianity, big bang, string theory, evolution, blah blah blah. it is unfair to take one and try to convince everyone it is the right one.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Saying that every theory isn't completely proven is a meaningless statement. The fact that it isn't completely proven is -why- it is a theory and not a law.
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
The analogy is imperfect, as are all analogies. Don't take it at its face value but grasp the concept I am trying to convey. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Just a thought. Peace, Shay |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
If the space was sitting in something, then obviously that space wasn't the entirety of all space, because there is still more space for it to be in. If we take the whole universe, there is no space "beyond" it because there is no "beyond" it, because we define the universe as the entirety of all space. Also, there is nothing beyond the universe because that literally means that there isn't a beyond the universe. The universe isn't in a vacuum of nothingness, because it is impossible to be inside of something which does not exist. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
So that space extends out for an infinite distance in all directions? That means that outside the current outer reaches of where matter actually is, there is just an infinite stretch of void space that the universe's matter is expanding into?
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
If it ends, what's on the other side of that border?
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
I didn't really mean that it does end. It is just that it seems that somehow it can't end. Here is a universe size comparison video just for further arguments: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2FwCMnyWZDg
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Quote:
I understand your folded space analogy, but your talking about it being infinite from OUR point of view. Someone used the universe as a cup analogy before, said yadda yadda yadda its filled with all our stuff and that's it, lets bend it so it becomes a mobius strip or what have you and tada now it's infinite! . . . . ya, to US. However, it's still in existence somewhere, we just can't see that place from our own perspective. Something exists on the outside of that cup, and if we reach the end of that and there is a barrier, then something is on the other side of that. I know it makes you feel much more insignificant and meaningless when you look at it that way, but I don't see how logic can dictate things just STOP. Logic would dictate to me that things never stop, they go on in all directions for ever. Just a thought. Peace, Shay |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Does anyone here belive in multiverse?
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
The differentiation between a theory and a law has nothing to do with how correct it is. They're only two different ways of formulating a model. Theories have explanatory power and laws have descriptive power. That's really the only difference. Laws can be wrong, certainly. Newton's law of universal gravitation was, in some respects, wrong, and was replaced by Einstein's *theories*. The difference here is meaningless, except that Newton's law is a mathematical description of planetary motion where as the theories of relativity have explanatory power in that they explain how gravity works. I could give another example - if I formulated a mathematical description of energy production within a call, showing it is proportional to some constant times whatever, I would call it a law, though if I formulated a model describing the electron chain and transport mechanisms involved I would refer to it as a theory and a not a law. As such, models such as the big bang or evolution will always be theories. Quote:
Also, the idea of a border to the universe is a bit of a fuzzy concept. I mean, sure, there's a limit to the universe we can actually see because of how fast light travels, but the actual 'border' of the universe would be a very fuzzy thing indeed. I explained one possible scenario in my first post I think. |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Your under the impression that the universe can't be a bubble of space time expanding and existing in something else, that also could house other bubbles of similar types. The expanse of this other stuff universes sit in is either infinite, or is housed in something else, that is either infinite, or . . . . . etc etc etc. Why are you so quick to dismiss this highly likelly scenario? Just a thought. Peace, Shay |
Re: Impossible to answer?
Quote:
Quote:
|
Re: Impossible to answer?
is it at all possible that our entire universe is just being pulled by a super-mega-massive black hole that is still trillions of light-years away?? i realize the chances are quite slim, but hey, i don't see any other definitive answers.
|
| All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:05 PM. |
Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright FlashFlashRevolution