just after the big bang

[Daecon]

The concept of the universe is the all-encompassing everything.

 

The idea of an "outside" of this realm is like an oxymoron.

[Bettina]

The concept of the universe is the all-encompassing everything.

 

The idea of an "outside" of this realm is like an oxymoron.

 

I don't think its a contradictory statement at all. According to Wiki....The universe is the whole spacetime continuum in which we exist' date=' together with all the energy and matter within it.[/i']

 

My personal pov still thinks that our infinate universe is expanding into a larger infinite void. Too many people are quick to say that we are unique and there is no outside, but I just can't.

 

Bettina

[AzurePhoenix]

The concept of the universe is the all-encompassing everything.

 

The idea of an "outside" of this realm is like an oxymoron.

I probably know less about physics than a bar of soap' date=' but here's how it was explained to me in laymen's terms. I don't know if it's even remotely accurate or not, but this is how I understand it...

 

If the Big Bang is true, the universe can't be infinite unless an inifite amount of matter instantaneously exploded into being across infinity. This doesn't seem to be the case, and rather, the matter from the Big Bang is finite is size, but is expanding and could expand for infinity (or until something called the Big Tear?).

 

Also, it was suggested to me that some "theories" suggest our universe is but one of infinite universes all within the eternally infinite multiverse? Relative to us, the universe might continuously expand the same way as mentioned above, but it is at the most basic level of existance ([i']at least, I think that's what the theory states[/i]) the truly infinite and primal multiverse resides.

[qwerty]

how is there such thing as infinite.

 

wouldnt infinite be just a word to explain something too great for us to imagine.

 

How could there possibly be something infinite. there must be limits somewhere

???????

[5614]

One...The center. Everyone says there is no center to the universe, but it was once a singularity.

It was once a singulairty, which then became everywhere.

 

Imagine a dot . became a line | just for no reason, by magic, you cannot point to a part on the line which was the dot, the whole line is the dot, it just magically grew, the dot became the line so the whole line is the dot.

 

Similarly the whole of the universe is that singularity, you cannot point to where it originally was, because the whole universe is the point.

 

There was a singularity and then BANG there was the whole universe, the singularity becamse the whole universe, each and every part of the universe came from that singularity.

 

Two...Since there is no "other room" that its expanding into, what is it occupying. Is it expanding into nothing?

Space-time is infinite. However the we say space is expanding, how can that be right if it's already infinite? When we say expanding we are referring to the "perimeter", this "perimeter" is defined by mass/energy.

 

So chose a direction and travel in that directions for thousands of light years, eventually you will find (in that direction) the bit of mass/energy furtherst from us, that is the "edge" of space. If you fly beyond that piece you are expanding space. The mass/energy/you is expanding into the infinite area of space itself.

(This is hypothetical, it'd be pretty hard to find the furthest single photon travelling away from you, and you could never actually catch it up, but you should get the idea!)

[Bettina]

It was once a singulairty' date=' which then became everywhere.

 

Imagine a dot . became a line | just for no reason, by magic, you cannot point to a part on the line which was the dot, the whole line is the dot, it just magically grew, the dot became the line so the whole line is the dot.

 

Similarly the whole of the universe is that singularity, you cannot point to where it originally was, because the whole universe is the point.

 

There was a singularity and then BANG there was the whole universe, the singularity becamse the whole universe, each and every part of the universe came from that singularity.[/quote']

 

Thanks for the explanation ..... I do understand that but now suppose the big bang being a dot . expanded outward in all directions like a circle O, just becoming a bigger dot. Then the center would be the center of the circle even though there is nothing there. But since there is nothing there, the center only works on paper. Is this close?

I know the "center" is meaningless, but I'm just curious.

 

Space-time is infinite. However the we say space is expanding' date=' how can that be right if it's already infinite? When we say expanding we are referring to the "perimeter", this "perimeter" is defined by mass/energy.

 

So chose a direction and travel in that directions for thousands of light years, eventually you will find (in that direction) the bit of mass/energy furtherst from us, that is the "edge" of space. If you fly beyond that piece you are expanding space. The mass/energy/you is expanding into the infinite area of space itself.

[i'](This is hypothetical, it'd be pretty hard to find the furthest single photon travelling away from you, and you could never actually catch it up, but you should get the idea!)[/i]

 

Maybe its semantics again. Our universe is only infinite if there is no boundary. But like you said, only suppose you could travel faster than photons, if you can travel in one direction and come to an area where there is no longer any matter or energy, wait there awhile, then see matter and energy catch up and pass you, then its that "edge" of our universe that has just passed you.

 

If the "void" or "nothing" that we are expanding into, and yes, I still believe that, It could be an infinite void that has no beginning or edge. What do you think....

 

Thanks for helping me understand even though I am confused by some things.

 

So far I understand what swansont explained to me , what the meaning of "everywhere at the same time" meant, and its not what the statement really implied which is why I was confused but now I understand that part.

 

Bettina

[5614]

The problem with the . going to an O is that there is no gaping hole in the universe like there is the center of the O.

 

If you mean a filled in or solid O then there would be a center, but the universe is not an exact O shaped. It's a squigly O so the outside would seem like it's written by someone with a shaky hand.

 

I'm finding this hard to put into words which make sense, here's a diagram, I'll explain:

 

 

So the black is our universe with the uneven blob on the top.

 

If there were no blob the center would be the red dot, but we've got to account for the extra bumb in the universe.

 

By definition a center must be equal distance from all points on the shape, so I chose 2 points, the dark blue circles, all distances equal from those 2 points is represented by the blue line. The problem with finding the center is that somewhere along that dark blue line is not an equal distance between the two light blue spots. You're always going to have that problem, it's an equal distance for some points, but not for others.

 

Do you see what I mean? The universe is not a perfect circle, there is no point equidistant from all sides of the "edge" of the universe, and we can't define the center of the whole universe (infinite space) because there's no edge and a center is only a center when there are edges, I mean, what's the center of something infinite, or something which is nothing?

 

And if the universe was a perfect cirlce (which it isn't) so we could find the center of it (which we can't) then what would this point represent? Nothing special!

 

Is that clear?!?

 

------

 

And as for the 2nd time you quote/replied... I believe that the emptyness we are expanding into is just more of the infinite amount of space-time that exists within the entire universe (incl. places where there are and aren't matter). So it's like the ball of matter/energy expanding into an infinite area, space.

 

Space itself has no ending it is infinite, when you talk about expanding into you have to define what is expanding, so you can talk about the "ball" of matter (limited to where there is/isn't matter) expanding into space (which is infinite).

[Bettina]

The problem with the . going to an O is that there is no gaping hole in the universe like there is the center of the O.

 

If you mean a filled in or solid O then there would be a center' date=' but the universe is not an exact O shaped. It's a squigly O so the outside would seem like it's written by someone with a shaky hand.

 

I'm finding this hard to put into words which make sense, here's a diagram, I'll explain:

 

[img']http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v601/5614/universe.jpg[/img]

 

So the black is our universe with the uneven blob on the top.

 

If there were no blob the center would be the red dot, but we've got to account for the extra bumb in the universe.

 

By definition a center must be equal distance from all points on the shape, so I chose 2 points, the dark blue circles, all distances equal from those 2 points is represented by the blue line. The problem with finding the center is that somewhere along that dark blue line is not an equal distance between the two light blue spots. You're always going to have that problem, it's an equal distance for some points, but not for others.

 

Do you see what I mean? The universe is not a perfect circle, there is no point equidistant from all sides of the "edge" of the universe, and we can't define the center of the whole universe (infinite space) because there's no edge and a center is only a center when there are edges, I mean, what's the center of something infinite, or something which is nothing?

 

And if the universe was a perfect cirlce (which it isn't) so we could find the center of it (which we can't) then what would this point represent? Nothing special!

 

Is that clear?!?

 

Yes Sir!!

 

Ok....then could it be that the universe had a center when it was infinitesimaly small, but because of inconsistencies, the universe expanded in a way that was not uniform, thus the center is lost. Do you think at one time it had?

------

And as for the 2nd time you quote/replied... I believe that the emptyness we are expanding into is just more of the infinite amount of space-time that exists within the entire universe (incl. places where there are and aren't matter). So it's like the ball of matter/energy expanding into an infinite area' date=' space.

 

Space itself has no ending it is infinite, when you talk about expanding into you have to define what is expanding, so you can talk about the "ball" of matter (limited to where there is/isn't matter) expanding into space (which is infinite).[/quote']

 

Thats my problem. When you say space, you imply everything. When I say space, I mean our own universe. If our universe consists of space,time,matter,energy,and everything else, then when it was just no larger than a golf ball, it had to be in something else.

 

When I look at that "infinite area" as you call it, I don't look at it as being part of what I consider to be our universe.

 

There had to be something that our universe was born in.

 

Please keep talking to me

 

Bettina

[5614]

Yes Sir!!

 

Ok....then could it be that the universe had a center when it was infinitesimaly small' date=' but because of inconsistencies, the universe expanded in a way that was not uniform, thus the center is lost. Do you think at one time it had?[/quote']

When the universe was a singularity, well, does a singularity have a center? I'm heading towards no, but I'm really not sure! I suppose it is possible that once there was a center, near the beginning if the explosion happened uniformly and it was a shape which has a center it's possible, but all this is is a point in the middle a lump of matter, it doesn't represent anything special, so how important is the true answer?

 

Thats my problem. When you say space' date=' you imply everything. When I say space, I mean our own universe. If our universe consists of space,time,matter,energy,and everything else, then when it was just no larger than a golf ball, it had to be in something else.

 

When I look at that "infinite area" as you call it, I don't look at it as being part of what I consider to be our universe.

 

There had to be something that our universe was born in.

 

Please keep talking to me

 

Bettina[/quote']

Before the big bang they say there was nothing but a singularity. I spose it's pretty much impossible to imagine that.

 

When you say "something that our universe was born in" I assume you mean the thing that was before the big bang, well they say it was nothing, at the moment of the big bang all of space (infinite) was created. But what's to say that this infinite space wasn't there before and that the only thing in it would be a singularity, the infinite emptyness except the singularity of energy/mass/everything. Because after all, the infinite space beyond the outermost energy/matter is nothing. Maybe that emptyness and nothing always was there and it's just the matter/energy/everything part of it which changed from a singularity to the energy/matter part of the universe.

 

I think the idea where you are coming from is that the universe is everything up to the point where energy/matter ceases to exist... whereas others look as the universe as infinite with a finite (and expanding) "ball" of mass/energy in it.

 

Technically speaking the universe, space, it's all defined as the infinite thing, the seperation we are talking about, the part limited by the energy/matter perimeter doesn't actually have a name as such, it's all just a part of the universe or space.

[Bettina]

When the universe was a singularity, well, does a singularity have a center? I'm heading towards no, but I'm really not sure! I suppose it is possible that once there was a center, near the beginning if the explosion happened uniformly and it was a shape which has a center it's possible, but all this is is a point in the middle a lump of matter, it doesn't represent anything special, so how important is the true answer?

The true answer is not important anymore. I just wanted to be clear with myself that in the very beginning when our universe was just energy, it indeed had a center. I understand now thru sheer size and non-uniformity, that the center is lost for good and no longer exists.

 

Before the big bang they say there was nothing but a singularity. I spose it's pretty much impossible to imagine that.

 

When you say "something that our universe was born in" I assume you mean the thing that was before the big bang' date=' well they say it was nothing, at the moment of the big bang all of space (infinite) was created. But what's to say that this infinite space wasn't there before and that the only thing in it would be a singularity, the infinite emptyness except the singularity of energy/mass/everything. Because after all, the infinite space beyond the outermost energy/matter is nothing. Maybe that emptyness and nothing always was there and it's just the matter/energy/everything part of it which changed from a singularity to the energy/matter part of the universe.

 

I think the idea where you are coming from is that the universe is everything up to the point where energy/matter ceases to exist... whereas others look as the universe as infinite with a finite (and expanding) "ball" of mass/energy in it.[/quote']

No matter how much I read, I can't get away from believing that before the big bang happened, there was a void. Whether that void was empty or not I don't know but I believe that "nothing" or that "void" was always there. And our universe was born from a singularity that came into existance out of that nothing. I don't know if there are other singularities in that void or not. How can science claim that our universe is the only one when we can only see what is in our own universe. This universe we are in is not infinite and though the outer edges may still be expanding and may expand without end, it still resides in something that is truly infinite.

 

Technically speaking the universe, space, it's all defined as the infinite thing, the seperation we are talking about, the part limited by the energy/matter perimeter doesn't actually have a name as such, it's all just a part of the universe or space.

Almost. That perimeter separates our space,time,matter,energy,etc, (our universe) from the unknown that is beyond our perimeter. I know they all say that there is no void or nothing else but our universe, but I have a very hard time understanding why there couldn't be.

 

Thanks for the replys and most of all the understanding where I was coming from even though I may be way out in left field. I want to learn the facts, but until they arrive, I don't want to stop having my own visions...especially when I lay on my lawn and look up.

 

Me

[5614]

No matter how much I read, I can't get away from believing that before the big bang happened, there was a void.

One of the reasons I prefer quantum physics as opposed to astronomy is the big bang. It's so unclear and even the "theories" aren't certainly correct, and the uncertainty, like what was there before the big bang? I believe it is impossible to know and so I don't go looking for an answer. They say there was nothing, and now beyond the energy/mass perimeter there is nothing, so who's to say that nothing that exists beyond the perimeter wasn't there before the big bang, because afterall it is nothing... but who knows?!?

 

That perimeter separates our space,time,matter,energy,etc, (our universe) from the unknown that is beyond our perimeter

I don't think that's right! Isn't it more that there's our universe (mass/energy AND the infinite beyond)... that's why they say there's nothing beyond our universe, because our universe includes the infinite everything, how can there be something after something which is infinite? It's infinite+1 it don't work!

 

This universe we are in is not infinite

Depends on ya definition!

 

resides in something that is truly infinite.

Yeah, the universe!

[Bettina]

One of the reasons I prefer quantum physics as opposed to astronomy is the big bang. It's so unclear and even the "theories" aren't certainly correct, and the uncertainty, like what was there before the big bang? I believe it is impossible to know and so I don't go looking for an answer. They say there was nothing, and now beyond the energy/mass perimeter there is nothing, so who's to say that nothing that exists beyond the perimeter wasn't there before the big bang, because afterall it is nothing... but who knows?!?

EXACTLY! But, be careful. When I say nothing or void, I mean nothing as a something that is not part of our universe. Consider this nothing as infinite in all directions. There is nothing beyond this void. It is the ultimate vessel of nothing. Endless without curvature or boundaries. It is the bottom layer of the entire scenario. The king of infinity.

 

Now consider this nothing as having wierd particles of energy. Something happens and one of these particles explodes and gives birth to what we call our universe. Our universe is an envelope of another form of energy and matter expanding rapidly into this nothing. This nothing or void does not change as our universe expands and our universe is infinitesemel in this void just as if you blew up a balloon outside in your yard. The balloon did not change the air around it but exists within it.

I don't think that's right! Isn't it more that there's our universe (mass/energy AND the infinite beyond)... that's why they say there's nothing beyond our universe' date=' because our universe includes the infinite everything, how can there be something after something which is infinite? It's infinite+1 it don't work!

[/quote']

Yes it does if your careful with the word infinite. Our universe is infinite because the end is unreachable. If you can never reach the end given any amount of time, then its infinite.

 

I hope I'm not polluting your mind with my thoughts since I go against the grain and I hope I don't get yelled at for spamming nonsense but its my pov only but I will stop if I get told to. Sometimes my dad will stargaze with me on the deck, but when I look up, my mind runs very deep while he tells me how many shapes he can make......which is why we get along so good.

 

Bettina

[5614]

I can see what you mean about the thing which ain't part of the universe and where theres multiple singularities leading to a multiverse, but I don't reckon it's right, there again I'll never prove you wrong and you'll never prove yourself right!

 

The balloon does make a difference, sound waves and the light (you can see it) so similarly if such a thing did exist we'd be able to see it... unless it was too far away etc. I see what you mean but I'm going to chose not to believe it!

 

Yes it does if your careful with the word infinite. Our universe is infinite because the end is unreachable. If you can never reach the end given any amount of time, then its infinite.

You can never have infinite+1. They say the universe is infinite, how can there be something beyond the infinite of our universe/space (the infinite part)... something which is infinite goes on forever and whatever is after it is just part of it, if there's something which is infinite then everything is it, or in it.

 

If our universe is infinite then other "universes" (with energy/mass boundaries) are also within THE universe, so they're not really their own universe, they're all part of THE universe.

 

I believe our universe is infinite, so anything you can physically imagine, if it's real, it's in the universe.... because the universe is everywhere (infinite), so everything is in the universe.

 

hmm, I think that's all just saying the same thing!

[Bettina]

I can see what you mean about the thing which ain't part of the universe and where theres multiple singularities leading to a multiverse' date=' but I don't reckon it's right, there again I'll never prove you wrong and you'll never prove yourself right!

 

The balloon does make a difference, sound waves and the light (you can see it) so similarly if such a thing did exist we'd be able to see it... unless it was too far away etc. I see what you mean but I'm going to chose not to believe it!

 

 

You can never have infinite+1. They say the universe is infinite, how can there be something beyond the infinite of our universe/space (the infinite part)... something which is infinite goes on forever and whatever is after it is just part of it, if there's something which is infinite then everything is it, or in it.

 

If our universe is infinite then other "universes" (with energy/mass boundaries) are also within THE universe, so they're not really their own universe, they're all part of THE universe.

 

I believe our universe is infinite, so anything you can physically imagine, if it's real, it's in the universe.... because the universe is everywhere (infinite), so everything is in the universe.

 

hmm, I think that's all just saying the same thing![/quote']

 

I'm having trouble with the word infinite. How do they know that our observable universe is infinite? What have they based this on. The only thing that is truly infinite is the nothing that was there before the big bang.

 

Bettina

[5614]

Nothing is not infinite, imagine infinite using numbers.

 

So you can have a finite number of digits, so 3 digits e.g. 123 is a finite number of digits.

 

Then you can have an infinite number of digits, these would go on forever and ever, it would never end.

 

And then you can have 0 digits, or nothing, which involves nothing, 0 digits.

 

Nothing = 0 digits

Infinite = digits which go on forever

 

So nothing doesn't equal infinite.

[Severian]

For you to correctly say there is something "outside" you'd need to prove it' date=' since you cannot prove it you cannot be correct

[/quote']

 

There are a large number of true statements which I cannot prove. In fact, I can even prove mathematically that there are true statements that I cannot prove! You are correct in saying that Bettina needs to provide evidence that there is something 'outside' the universe before presenting it as a scientific theory/fact, but not being able to does not enhance the opposing view.

 

The reason you have to prove your idea correct (there is something outside) and I don't have to prove mine (outside doesn't exist) is because it is already commonly accepted that the universe is infinite

 

This is also not true. Whether of not the universe is infinite is an unscientific question which science can never answer (it could conceivably prove it was finite (if it were) but not the other way round). Since we can only ever see to our horizon distance, we can never know what is beyond our horizon therefore, from a scientific point of view, what lies beyond the horizon is an ill-defined question. Of course, scientists use a model where the universe is infinite because it is easier to formulate the mathematics, and there is no consequence to observable quantities, but they do not (should not!) use this model to make statements about physics beyond our horizon.

 

On a similar note, people keep making statements about the universe starting with a sigularity. Can you support this claim with evidence? I am sure you cannot. In most inflationary models, one cannot recover any information from before about the last 60 e-folds, so what happened before this time is unknowable in pinciple. What happened before becomes (almost) as unscientific a question as what lies beyond our horizon.

[J.C.MacSwell]

On a similar note, people keep making statements about the universe starting with a sigularity. Can you support this claim with evidence? I am sure you cannot. In most inflationary models, one cannot recover any information from before about the last 60 e-folds, so what happened before this time is unknowable in pinciple. What happened before becomes (almost) as unscientific a question as what lies beyond our horizon.

 

What is an e-fold? I assume 60 e-folds is the time of the "release" of the CMBR?

[Bettina]

There are a large number of true statements which I cannot prove. In fact, I can even prove mathematically that there are true statements that I cannot prove! You are correct in saying that Bettina needs to provide evidence that there is something 'outside' the universe before presenting it as a scientific theory/fact, but not being able to does not enhance the opposing view.

I certainly cannot provide evidence of anything outside our universe and it was "Bettina theory" not scientific theory. I just have my vision and pov. I hope my line of questioning doesn't upset anyone or get 5614 in trouble for trying to help me, and he has helped me, because I don't want to be thought of as a jerk or get some warnings because I can't prove anything. If it seems that way to anyone, I hope they tell me so I can have a chance to stop.

 

Whether of not the universe is infinite is an unscientific question which science can never answer (it could conceivably prove it was finite (if it were) but not the other way round). Since we can only ever see to our horizon distance' date=' we can never know what is beyond our horizon therefore, from a scientific point of view, what lies beyond the horizon is an ill-defined question. Of course, scientists use a model where the universe is infinite because it is easier to formulate the mathematics, and there is no consequence to observable quantities, but they do not (should not!) use this model to make statements about physics beyond our horizon.[/quote']

I used a poor choice of words. I wanted to imply that our universe is finite because it has a boundary, yet infinite, because the boundary can never be reached. So, I guess my pov then is that "our" universe is finite. Either way, I tend to vision our universe expanding into a void like I previously mentioned. We don't dwell to deep into string theory in school so I can't go into that.

 

On a similar note' date=' people keep making statements about the universe starting with a sigularity. Can you support this claim with evidence? I am sure you cannot. In most inflationary models, one cannot recover any information from before about the last 60 e-folds, so what happened before this time is unknowable in pinciple. What happened before becomes (almost) as unscientific a question as what lies beyond our horizon.[/quote']

 

I don't know what you mean here. I am taught that the universe was very small and hot at one time and for an unknown reason it began expanding

rapidly. We refer to this theory as the Big Bang. This is all I know and until someone points me to a link, I have to go with this.

 

Again, when I say universe, I imply that it is "our" spacetime and everything in it. Not everything outside it. I have a problem with our universe being unique. But then.....I do have yet another theory.

 

Bettina

[5614]

I hope my line of questioning doesn't upset anyone or get 5614 in trouble for trying to help me

We're only discussing possibilities in a scenario which we cannot be certain about! It's not like you're one of the people who just comes along and starts saying cr*p about SR being wrong and such. Hasn't upset me and I don't see on what grounds we could get into trouble.

 

I wanted to imply that our universe is finite because it has a boundary, yet infinite, because the boundary can never be reached.

If there is a boundary and we keep expanding then we will reach it eventually. As we do not know for certain the future of the universe if you say there's a boundary then you cannot say whether or not we will reach it.

 

I'd also like to know what this boundary is, like is it a God built brick wall? Or did he get a builder in who did some cheap plaster work? OK, but seriously I dunno how a "wall" or boundary would work!

 

I am taught that the universe was very small and hot at one time and for an unknown reason it began expanding rapidly.

And I always thought there was a singularity which had a mega amounts of energy which randomly exploded/expanded into the universe.

 

when I say universe, I imply that it is "our" spacetime and everything in it. Not everything outside it.

The official theory is that "spacetime is infinite, space is infinite."

 

The only thing which is officially finite is the distance to the furthest part of energy/matter (which you could only reach if you travelled FTL for a long time).

 

The only way you can have something outside the universe is to have a "wall" or boundary. Again you have to remember that when everyone (other than yourself ) says universe they mean energy/mass + infinite empty space.