Expanding space needs surroundings to expand into. T or F.

[YT2095]

That which we can See and Measure, would be My take on "Observable Universe", and No you Can`t "go into it" either, at least not any faster than the Universe is already doing.

 

for Me a Good indication that our Observable Universe isn`t ALL that there is, would be the Fact that Gravity doesn`t seem to Fit as perfectly as the other 3 Forces.

 

IMO, gravity Should Fit, but US as 3D beings cannot experience it 100%, but rather experience little BITS of it`s effect.

that would say to me that there are likely to be Other places that Gravity is "Hiding" in (that could be either in the Very Large OR very Small).

 

Meaning that I think This universe is surrounded by a Void "Space" or "Area/Zone" that may indeed "House" Other universes and/or Dimensions, where Gravity is Equal to the other 3 forces as well as Other strange manifestations our "Our laws".

 

Gravity after all IS where the idea of Super Symmetry falls apart!

[throng]

As we ponder the question we assume a solid universe, like rocks shooting outward.

 

The universe is movement of energy and the smallest particles are “strange” states of matter.

 

In relative motion, if time stopped, it would take an instant to traverse distance and the traveler would be everywhere at once. The universe would be very very small.

 

Slowing down has an expansion effect as distance takes longer.

 

At infinite speed the universe is infinitely small; at total rest it is infinitely large.

 

I guess there’s an observational frequency, related to time. As distances take longer at a given speed we interpret it as expansion.

[lucaspa]

OK, when the god entity snapped his finger (in my question to Martin) and made our universe with all it's matter, space and time, disappear, he wasn't left in an empty dark void unable to see anything. What he did see, with his god like eyes, were other universes each with their own space, time, and matter. Some were separate from others but some were joined together, and there were universes as far as his eyes could see.

 

Bettina, that is speculation -- both scientific and theological. First, as far as we know, our universe has never disappeared! Did you mean "before it snapped his finger and made our universe appear"? Judeo-Christianity just says that Yahweh is not part of the universe. Now, did Yahweh create many universes or only just one? Both scientifically and theologically we simply don't know. Judeo-Christianity is different from most other religions in that it gives no story for Yahweh. We have no idea what Yahweh is doing when it is not interacting with humans. Is it observing countless other universes? Maybe. Having a beer with the creators of those other universes in some extra-universal bar? Maybe.

 

I suggest you put in qualifiers to your speculative statement, such as "possibly", "maybe", "perhaps".

 

Now, with everything gone, the god entity waits. He sees something pop into existence and pop out just as fast. As he looks around, he sees more of these god particles popping in an out until finally, after what appears to be an eternity, one pops in, stays longer than it was supposed to, becomes unstable, then bang.... a bubble takes shape and a universe is born. In time, another bubble is born, then another. Some spawn from one another while some remain singular in a different part of the mother universe.

 

This seems a different speculation than the other one. Why did you connect them?

 

First, there is no "god particle". That was just a whimisical name for the Higg's boson. It's not really a "god particle" but simply a particle that would make the standard model complete. I'm afraid WAY too many people took it seriously.

 

Second, particles cannot "pop in and out" unless there is a spacetime. As it happens, we do have virtual particles popping in and out of existence all the time everywhere -- even within the atoms of your body. One of the attractions of String Theory is that the math would allow spacetime to also pop into existence like virtual particles.

 

The mother universe is without end. Carry this out as far as you would like....

 

Have you ever heard of ekpyrotic theory? This is a theory for the origin of our universe. It has a 5-dimensional universe that is "without end". However, that theory also gets rid of Yahweh or any other version of deity as creator.

 

I like physicists like Linde and especially Kaku.. who has been my favorite for some time now. His imagination is awesome.

 

Imagination is cool. However, remember that, in science, it is even more important to test the ideas your imagination throws up. Until you do that, you shouldn't take them too seriously. I'm afraid Linde and Kaku may have given the impression that their imaginative ideas have more reality than the data indicates. Since there is no data to indicate that they are real ...

 

As we ponder the question we assume a solid universe, like rocks shooting outward.

 

No, we don't. No one I have ever read EVER said anything about the universe being "solid".

 

The universe is movement of energy and the smallest particles are “strange” states of matter.

 

You forget spacetime. "Movement" has no meaning unless you have space and time in which to move. So, the universe is more than what you say.

 

In relative motion, if time stopped, it would take an instant to traverse distance

 

Actually, I think traveler would never traverse distance and be stuck at whatever 3 dimensional coordinates the traveler was at.

[Bettina]

Lucaspa...

 

Wow.. It took only 6 months for a reply. As a women I should hang up on you... Just kidding.

 

A couple of things. Although I'm very Christian like in the kind of life I lead, I don't believe in any God. The God particle was just my way of inserting an outside observer for a hypothetical question. Anyway, I'm at first year college for nursing which has nothing to do with astronomy and cosmology but I've always been looking for answers to the universe.

 

At the bottom of the science forum page there is a trash can. Right above that is the Pseudoscience and Speculations section and just a hair above that is where I live. I just wanted you to know that before I ask a question.

 

In a different post Martin said he wouldn't have a problem with me stating:

 

So,[Martin] could I get away with saying that the Big Bang was an event that "created" our region of the greater universe that was NOT created along with our BB?

 

So, with that I was reading another of Martin's posts which had a link (below) attached and I listened to Pamela Gay describe the universe. I found her bland but still interesting. She said.....

 

We can only see 4% of the "viewable" universe which in turn is only one ten thousandth of the "whole" universe.

 

So... What did she mean by the "whole" universe?

 

 

http://www.astronomycast.com/astrono...-the-universe/

 

Bee

[Realitycheck]

The mother universe is without end. Carry this out as far as you would like....

 

 

Have you ever heard of ekpyrotic theory? This is a theory for the origin of our universe. It has a 5-dimensional universe that is "without end". However' date=' that theory also gets rid of Yahweh or any other version of deity as creator.[/quote']

 

C'mon Lucaspa, everybody knows that male entities cannot bear celestia. They simply are everything.

[pioneer]

Here is a theory that makes logical sense, although it is not proven. The visible universe is composed of space-time, which is 4-D. Beyond the visible universe is just space, which has one less dimension or 3-D. You can not contract or expand space without time, since what is contracting is space-time. For example, say we had gravity or GR contracting space and we stop time. Space will stop contracting since the entire process is dependant on time. Say we had SR contracting distance and stopped time, distance or space would stay frozen in the state it had been induced to, when the time element was active. Space won't change until there is time.

 

An easier way to see what this is to consider an expanding 3-D sphere that is using a 2-D piece of paper to cover itself as it expands. Near the sphere we will have a transition region that is becoming 3-D but is not exactly spherical, yet. Using this analogy, at the transition between space-time and space, space-time is not fully developed, because it is just getting time added. Based on this theory, one will expect the transition area between space and space-time to look ancient since time is less advanced or not fully developed into the steady state 4-D that was already wrapped onto the sphere. This is consistent with observation at the ends of the visible universe, where we see the universe like is was at the beginning of time or when time appeared.

[lucaspa]

So... What did she mean by the "whole" universe?

 

Bettina, I couldn't get the page to open. It went to Astronomy Cast but then sent me to a page that said the page couldn't be found. It may be my anti-virus software telling me the page isnt safe to opein.

 

So I'm going to talk about how it looks like she got the figure.

 

You know that the universe has been expanding since the Big Bang, right? OK. That is going to become important. Two things:

 

1. Most of the matter in the universe does not shine by its own light. But by observing the motion of galaxies in galaxy clusters, we know there is a LOT of matter out there, because it is affecting the motion of those galaxies. What it means is that only about 10% of the matter in the universe can be seen. In addition to that, there is what is termed "dark energy". We don't know what that is but it is causing the universe's rate of expansion to accelerate. Dark energy is overcoming gravity. It is estimated that 70% of the universe is dark energy. That leaves 30% as stars and gasses and dark matter with only 10% of that as stars and gasses we can see. So that is where she got the 4%.

 

2. The universe is expanding. That means that space is expanding. It's not as though the galaxies are moving thru space, but rather that the space between the galaxies is expanding and the galaxies are going along for the ride. Think of a wood chip in a stream. The wood chip is not moving thru the water, but being carried along by the water.

 

So, what this means is that objects far away are moving away from us faster than light -- because space is expanding faster than light can move thru it. Thus, we can't observe them because any light emitted by them can never reach us. The universe is 13.4 billion years old and so has been expanding for a long time. The volume of the universe where light can reach us from is much smaller than the total volume of the universe. Take that fraction of universe volume we can "see" and multiply by 4% and that is where she got the final number.

 

So she combined 2 different effects to give a final number but apparently didn't explain how she got it.

 

C'mon Lucaspa, everybody knows that male entities cannot bear celestia. They simply are everything.

 

I think you were trying for humor. I'm afraid you missed.

 

The reason it's not humorous is because humor requires at least some truth about the concept being parodied. Here you made a theological mistake. The religion where deity is everything is pantheism. All of the theisms -- and certainly Judeo-Christianity -- have deity separate from the universe. Yahweh creates the universe, but is not the universe. The analogy is that I created this post, but I am not the post.

Edited September 30, 2008 by lucaspa
multiple post merged

[Arch2008]

http://www.astronomycast.com/transcripts/AstroCast-080309_transcript.pdf

 

Bettina, is this the text of the Astronomy cast? If so, then I would like to point out that on page 9, Dr. Gay states that the universe is 100 times larger in each direction than the visible universe. Using the formula for a sphere (4/3*pi*radius cubed) she then states that 100 cubed is ten thousand, when it is actually one million (as she says, one with six zeros). So she should have said that we see 4% of the mass of 1/1,000,000th of the universe. She doesn't elaborate on exactly where this ratio comes from, but the million fold larger space is what she means by the whole universe.

[Realitycheck]

Once a pagan, always a pagan, but only when it suits me.

[Bettina]

@ Lucaspa... I knew that part already. I just want to know what she meant by the "whole" universe and how it relates to this question..

 

So,[Martin] could I get away with saying that the Big Bang was an event that "created" our region of the greater universe that was NOT created along with our BB?

 

 

@Pioneer... Thanks for giving me something to think about.

 

@Arch2008... Yes it is. I have the mp3 and that Pdf file and thanks for the correction to 1/1,000,000th of the whole universe.

 

 

So, by the "whole" universe did she mean the portion that was created by our big bang and by "whole" she did not include the greater universe?

 

Bettina

[lucaspa]

@ Lucaspa... I knew that part already. I just want to know what she meant by the "whole" universe and how it relates to this question..

 

That's what she meant by the "whole universe": dark matter, dark energy, and the part of the universe that is beyond our visible limit (what Arch2008 was referring to). All this came into existence with the Big Bang.

 

As far as we know, there is no more to the universe than what appeared at the Big Bang. Lots of speculation about other "universes" in some larger "metaverse", but no data and, worse, no way to get any data. Linde is one of the better speculators, but that's all it is.

 

So,[Martin] could I get away with saying that the Big Bang was an event that "created" our region of the greater universe that was NOT created along with our BB?

 

No. It's pure speculation that there is any form of "greater universe". So you cannot state this as the fact that you do. Anyone familiar with the state of knowledge is going to hand you your head.

[Bettina]

That's what she meant by the "whole universe": dark matter, dark energy, and the part of the universe that is beyond our visible limit (what Arch2008 was referring to). All this came into existence with the Big Bang.

 

As far as we know, there is no more to the universe than what appeared at the Big Bang. Lots of speculation about other "universes" in some larger "metaverse", but no data and, worse, no way to get any data. Linde is one of the better speculators, but that's all it is.

 

 

 

No. It's pure speculation that there is any form of "greater universe". So you cannot state this as the fact that you do. Anyone familiar with the state of knowledge is going to hand you your head.

 

Speculation is what makes science interesting so I don't mind having my head handed to me. And, when I hear the statement.. As far as we know there is no more to the universe than what appeared at the Big Bang" it gives me the mental image that the Big Bang created everything there is and there was nothing before or after. It sounds to final.

 

Oh well, I think I'll read a little Andre Linde. Thanks for the input.

 

Bee

[Martin]

Oh well, I think I'll read a little Andre Linde. Thanks for the input.

 

Bee

 

Hello Bee,

you've mentioned before that you like Linde's version of cosmology (and imagination, I think you said earlier.)

Why not start a thread about Linde's ideas?

 

Put lots of links to stuff of his you find interesting, including graphics. He has animations at his website that you can link to.

 

Here is his website in case you don't have it:

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/

 

I remember reading his November 1994 Scientific American article with much interest---it had graphics done by his son Dmitri Linde. Since then my view of his ideas changed, but that's another story

 

============================

 

It concerns me that you make noises some times as if you fear disapproval. I think I told you quite some time ago that you shouldn't worry. I don't necessarily like what you say but you ask questions, seem better than average well informed, are not a smart-ass, seem sincere, modest, open to learning etc.

 

So why should I or anyone bug you simply because they disagree? I'm not a Linde-style multiverse fan (never heard anyone propose a way how it could be tested) but if you start a good thread, and bring in information/links, and get other people interested, then more power to it.

 

============================

I've got an idea for you. Put the link to Linde's 1994 SciAm article in your sig (if you like the article) to facilitate access.

the article is called The Self-Reproducing Inflationary Universe

http://www.stanford.edu/~alinde/1032226.pdf

or maybe you know something more up-to-date that you like better as an introduction?

Edited October 2, 2008 by Martin

[Bettina]

It concerns me that you make noises some times as if you fear disapproval. I think I told you quite some time ago that you shouldn't worry. I don't necessarily like what you say but you ask questions, seem better than average well informed, are not a smart-ass, seem sincere, modest, open to learning etc.

 

So why should I or anyone bug you simply because they disagree? I'm not a Linde-style multiverse fan (never heard anyone propose a way how it could be tested) but if you start a good thread, and bring in information/links, and get other people interested, then more power to it.

 

Thank you for the links Martin only it's not disapproval I fear but nastiness. I don't handle that well. Anyway, I just never liked the limit that is placed on understanding. Just because we may never see beyond our big bang doesn't automatically give rights to those that say there is nothing beyond our big bang. That really bugs me. Anyway, I will look at those links you gave me but I'm pretty busy. I gave up my special ed career and enrolled in a nursing college. I've had some kind of calling.

 

Always,

 

Bettina

[Martin]

My mother's younger sister was a nurse. They were close in age and stayed in sisterly contact all their lives. She went to some college in Virginia, I think it was William and Mary. I don't remember where she took her nurse training but I remember she did better than the men in her chemistry classes (this was at a time when it was something to chuckle about). She was nursing in a hospital at Honolulu at the time of the Pearl Harbor attack. There is a family photo of her in a grass hula skirt. After WW2 she worked in a big New York City hospital. I remember patients she had seen thru difficult times would sometimes express gratitude later by giving her tickets to the musicals and chocolates. I remember her passing along extra boxes of chocolates and Broadway show tickets to us as if she had more than she knew what to do with. She wasn't pushy but she was savy and alert and the doctors learned to respect her.

 

You could say she had a professional calling to be a nurse. I cant imagine her being happy in any other career (given the social structure of that time and coming from a small town in rural blueridge Virginia)

 

I'm glad to hear you are busy with schoolwork.

 

I think I probably differ with you about the testability of certain cosmology models, but this does not matter very much at this point. There are models which I would probably say are testable which you would think were not testable. This is not anything to make a fuss about, given the circumstances. (Also it's possible we would both agree that Linde's multiverse scenarios are not testable. But again this is not something we need to make an issue out of.)

Edited October 5, 2008 by Martin