Impossible to answer?

[SM0K3D_0UT]

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!)

[richhhhhard]

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.

[Reach]

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...

And if there IS a boundary then what is it made out of? Like Devonin said, what is on the other side?

The boundary would be made of the edges of the foundation of the universe - much like in my elastic band analogy, the boundary of the universe would just be the edges of the elastic band.

And again, this doesn't necessarily imply there is anything on the other side.

[Izzy]

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.

[Reach]

Originally Posted by Izzy

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.

I'm just saying it's not necessarily easy for any human being to imagine this because everything inside of the universe, when it expands, expands into something. It's not an insult to anyone's imagination, at least not purposely. :P

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

[alloyus]

Haven't any of you played Asteroids? When you reach the end of the universe, you come out the other side *facepalm*

[Izzy]

Originally Posted by alloyus

Haven't any of you played Asteroids? When you reach the end of the universe, you come out the other side *facepalm*

I always thought it would be cool if you could somehow go infinitely straight in anything direction and be able to end up in the same position.

[richhhhhard]

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.

[insanefreddy926]

Originally Posted by Izzy

I always thought it would be cool if you could somehow go infinitely straight in anything direction and be able to end up in the same position.

The universe could be thought of as a "four-dimensional" sphere. We used to think the earth was flat. That there was an "edge" of the world. It is actually a sphere, with no edge. So the universe may be a four dimensional analogue. There may be no edge at all, thus if you traveled in a straight line far enough, you would wind up where you started.

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.

[richhhhhard]

Originally Posted by insanefreddy926

The universe could be thought of as a "four-dimensional" sphere. We used to think the earth was flat. That there was an "edge" of the world. It is actually a sphere, with no edge. So the universe may be a four dimensional analogue. There may be no edge at all, thus if you traveled in a straight line far enough, you would wind up where you started.

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.

I hope I live to see the day that all of these theories are proven wrong. The Earth is composed of matter, that we thought it was flat and found out it was round doesn't say anything about the universe other than we are often wrong about what we believe is true.

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.

[insanefreddy926]

Originally Posted by richhhhhard

I hope I live to see the day that all of these theories are proven wrong. The Earth is composed of matter, that we thought it was flat and found out it was round doesn't say anything about the universe other than we are often wrong about what we believe is true.

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.

I was merely stating a theory which is possible, and giving an analogy for better understanding.

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.

[richhhhhard]

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.

[Afrombean]

Originally Posted by SM0K3D_0UT

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.

This is wrong. You are right to compare and notice different sized infinities, but it is a fallacy to claim that the different sized infinities are equal.

Originally Posted by Izzy

I always thought it would be cool if you could somehow go infinitely straight in anything direction and be able to end up in the same position.

You should be able to in a 4th dimensional figure. Think of the world. To represent it in 2 dimensions, we use a map. But what happens when one reaches the end of the map? You loop back around to the other side. Reason is that even though the two sides of the map appear to occupy different space within 2 dimensions, in reality, they coincide in the third. I suppose this is like the idea of faster than speed light travel using wormholes.

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").

[richhhhhard]

Originally Posted by Afrombean

This is wrong. You are right to compare and notice different sized infinities, but it is a fallacy to claim that the different sized infinities are equal.


You should be able to in a 4th dimensional figure. Think of the world. To represent it in 2 dimensions, we use a map. But what happens when one reaches the end of the map? You loop back around to the other side. Reason is that even though the two sides of the map appear to occupy different space within 2 dimensions, in reality, they coincide in the third. I suppose this is like the idea of faster than speed light travel using wormholes.

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").

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.

[Reach]

What do you think energy is?
Energy can't exist without matter.

Got a reference for that? Energy is potential in a system to do some sort of work, if you want to be technical about it. Matter is energy and vise versa, manifested differently. You don't need matter to have energy - you just need a system, since by definition that system must have some energy associated with it (See thermodynamics)

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.

Matter did not magically appear because of a "big bang" though that may be the beginning of the universe as we know it now.

It's not magic, it's physics bub. Ever hear of a particle accelerator? I mean, come on. It is a well known fact that extremely high energy scenarios create matter, and we do that all the time. Hell, matter phases in and out of reality all the time even in our atmosphere due to high energy collisions.

Check your facts before making angry posts.

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.

The matter stemmed from the super high energy inflation of the big bang. The Big Bang models make this quite clear. Again, see particle accelerators...this isn't a big mystery. Energy *is* matter manifested differently, and energy is a property of all systems.

The better question would be to ask: Where did the system come from and what exactly is this system that was originally there?

[richhhhhard]

Originally Posted by Reach

Got a reference for that? Energy is potential in a system to do some sort of work, if you want to be technical about it. Matter is energy and vise versa, manifested differently. You don't need matter to have energy - you just need a system, since by definition that system must have some energy associated with it (See thermodynamics)

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.



It's not magic, it's physics bub. Ever hear of a particle accelerator? I mean, come on. It is a well known fact that extremely high energy scenarios create matter, and we do that all the time. Hell, matter phases in and out of reality all the time even in our atmosphere due to high energy collisions.

Check your facts before making angry posts.



The matter stemmed from the super high energy inflation of the big bang. The Big Bang models make this quite clear. Again, see particle accelerators...this isn't a big mystery. Energy *is* matter manifested differently, and energy is a property of all systems.

The better question would be to ask: Where did the system come from and what exactly is this system that was originally there?

Well... no.
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.

[dsliscoo]

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.

[richhhhhard]

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).

[Tarrik]

After reading through every single post in this thread, you guys just blew my ****ing mind

[ledwix]

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."