outside the universe

[Arch2008]

You are absolutely correct, Snail. The beautiful thing about the scientific method is that it is the brutal guardian of what we know. So when people like Smolin say, “Well Johnny, you see, there just is nothing outside the universe.” Then the first words out of your mouth should be, “Okay, prove it.”

String theorists aren’t philosophers or gurus, they are scientists trying to answer basic questions, one way or the other. If there is no hyperspace of extra dimensions, then they should prove this. Until then, intelligently discussing hyperspace is not like trying to pick the winner of the Kentucky Derby.

[Martin]

...And since some scientists tend to believe that it's closer to the truth than not then I'll stay a multiverse/bubble theory girl.

 

Bee

 

To quote Lee Smolin: "There is nothing outside the universe"

 

Nice to see you both!

 

Looks like we have to accept Bee as a multiverse/bubble girl.

 

I think Smolin's statement is essentially a definition. I happen to agree with his definition, which I think is classical. The universe is everything.

But I don't want us to have to argue semantics!

 

part of what keeps language alive is the freedom people have to use different definitions. for Bee, universe means something different. It doesnt mean all existence or everything there is. It means OUR PART of everything there is.

 

We know from past experience Bee is sharp and outspoken and has some interesting insights. So we go with this. Just have to be aware that there are at least two meanings of the word floating around in our discussion.

 

Anyway that's my take on it at the moment.

 

... people like Smolin say, “Well Johnny, you see, there just is nothing outside the universe.” Then the first words out of your mouth should be, “Okay, prove it.”

...

 

Well in this case I disagree with you, Arch. I think Smolin does not have to prove that statement because it is a definition. You don't prove definitions, you just decide whether or not to adopt them.

 

Actually it is kind of funny. I don't know where that quote of Smolin's came from. I don't know where Bascule found it.

 

But Smolin is actually the author of what is in my view the best (at least the only testable) multiverse theory to date. His cosmic evolution conjecture is the only multiverse out there I know of that is empirically falsifiable by present available means. He put it out in 1992 and 1993 and people have tried to falsify it and so far it survives. Vilenkin tried to refute it in 2007 if I remember. Measuring a neutron star mass exceeding 1.6 solar would falsify it, but so far no one has a confirmed measurement with enough certainty shoot it down. It's a good durable theory.

 

The bubble multiverse people don't have as much going for them, in my opinion. Better publicity but less substance. Vilenkin is a prominent one of that bunch, so is Andrei Linde.

 

For me, trying to use language as consistently as I can, it's all one universe. If there are bubbles, then the universe has bubbles. Smolin universe is a branching tree of spacetime regions that sprout, allowing gradual evolution of physical constants. OK then the universe is tree-like and time is branching.

 

My own personal taste is for a very simple picture (standard mainstream cosmology LambdaCDM---no need for all that extra baggage.) But everybody can have their own mental image.

 

For me it's all one universe, whatever it looks like, simple or complex. But other people can use words differently and say each piece of it is a universe.

Edited August 23, 2008 by Martin
multiple post merged

[north]

I put this way

 

is there anything in this Universe , our Universe , that we lack , physically ?

[iNow]

Humility?

 

Also, unicorns. Can't forget the unicorns.

[north]

Humility?

 

it seems so it seems

 

Also, unicorns. Can't forget the unicorns.

 

oh I forgot:D

[Arch2008]

The statement is a declarative sentence, "There is nothing outside the universe." As you well know, a declarative sentence must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific fact. Therefore, I am simply pointing out that it should be proven before it is accepted.

[north]

The statement is a declarative sentence, "There is nothing outside the universe." As you well know, a declarative sentence must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific fact. Therefore, I am simply pointing out that it should be proven before it is accepted.

 

the Universe is infinite

 

and infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing

 

so the Universe is not finite

[Martin]

The statement is a declarative sentence, "There is nothing outside the universe." As you well know, a declarative sentence must be falsifiable to be considered a scientific fact. Therefore, I am simply pointing out that it should be proven before it is accepted.

 

Well strictly speaking you may be right. I don't know if L.S. actually said tht, or if he did where and in what context.

 

he might have been defining the term and stating a tautology like suppose he said "the universe is everthing that physically exists and so there is nothing outside the universe"

 

that is a tautology, like saying "all blue things are blue" or some mathematical fact like "all even numbers are divisible by two"

 

But maybe you have caught L.S. in a boo-boo. We should really get Bascule to tell us the context of that quote.

 

the Universe is infinite

 

and infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing

 

so the Universe is not finite

 

North you are still talking about something and nothing. You are talking nonsense. And you are not trying to learn by asking questions. It sounds increasingly like you just have an argument habit. If I see another illogical post like this one I will move it to a more appropriate forum.

[Edtharan]

the Universe is infinite

 

and infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing

 

so the Universe is not finite

The statement: "infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing" has not been proven (and the fact that it has been disprove seems to have been lost on you).

 

This is not a statement of fact as you have implied, but a statement of opinion. I do not disparage others from having an opinion, as long as they don't present it as fact.

 

If yo can provide evidence as to what the evidence against your opinion is wrong, and provide evidence that supports your opinion, then you can use it as fact, but not until then.

 

As there is evidence that disproves your claim, and evidence that supports that Something can come from nothing, until evidence comes along to contradict it, it can be taken as fact.

[north]

The statement: "infinity is proven by the existence something rather than nothing" has not been proven (and the fact that it has been disprove seems to have been lost on you).

 

This is not a statement of fact as you have implied, but a statement of opinion. I do not disparage others from having an opinion, as long as they don't present it as fact.

 

If yo can provide evidence as to what the evidence against your opinion is wrong, and provide evidence that supports your opinion, then you can use it as fact, but not until then.

 

As there is evidence that disproves your claim, and evidence that supports that Something can come from nothing, until evidence comes along to contradict it, it can be taken as fact.

 

its seems I can't continue this " something from nothing " discussion

 

my hands are tied

 

and by the way I asked you a question on the " what happened before the big bang " thread

 

I await your answer

[Royston]

Well strictly speaking you may be right. I don't know if L.S. actually said tht, or if he did where and in what context.

 

he might have been defining the term and stating a tautology like suppose he said "the universe is everthing that physically exists and so there is nothing outside the universe"

 

that is a tautology, like saying "all blue things are blue" or some mathematical fact like "all even numbers are divisible by two"

 

But maybe you have caught L.S. in a boo-boo. We should really get Bascule to tell us the context of that quote.

 

I'm pretty sure Smolin raises the point in 'Three Roads', but my ex is sleeping in my bed at the moment, and I don't want to disturb her to find out (the book is in my bedroom). Martin is right, in fact I remember discussing this definition with Bascule on chat, and he said the same thing i.e it's a tautology. Nothing can exist outside of everything...well thanks for that.

 

What Arch is arguing is that the Universe is all we can currently measure, but that to me is the 'know Universe.' For instance, if we can detect higher dimensions via experiment, then they instantly become part of the definition of know Universe, they were always there, correct ? Therefore they're a part of the Universe, it's just we have yet to find the means of proving their existence through experiment.

 

I was gullible enough back in my layman days, to think that Smolin's statement is a physical principle, it's not, for the reasons already raised. I'm sure we can labour the point till we're blue in the face, but we're discussing a definition, not physics, so if somebody wants to argue the Universe is this, that, or the other we probably won't get very far. It's really a silly word, that's limitless in extent, and can be filled with whatever we care to choose, that we feel is part of the Universe, discovered or yet to be discovered.

[Arch2008]

M theorists explore an 11 dimensional hyperspace where membranes of energy float. The ‘branes’ move as a result of the tension that causes strings to vibrate. This tension causes ripples as a result of angular momentum. A brane and an anti-brane are attracted to each other the way particle-antiparticle pairs are. As they move toward each other, potential energy is created. When the ripples connect between the brane-antibrane pair, they “bang” and the potential energy gets translated into inflation in a new universe. The ripples can connect at many points and at different points in a time that has an effect throughout, not just locally.

 

“There is nothing outside of the universe.”, whoever said it, seems to me to be the antithesis of the above scenario. This statement doesn’t mention a word about M theory, hyperspace or the possibility of multiple universes created by a similar mechanism, but is instead intended to refute them. I think that when one hears “the universe” in this context, the obvious definition would mean everything created by “the Big Bang event” and people saying this exclude the possibility of anything else. It’s also not a tautology, because, as I pointed out, it is really only true for a very narrow set of values. Why wouldn’t there be something in another universe created by a similar mechanism?

I don’t think that Ed Witten would be considered a “bubble boy” or that M theory should otherwise be trivialized by unscientific statements that are quoted before they are examined.

 

P.S., I found this link:

http://www.pbs.org/wnet/hawking/mysteries/html/smolin-1.html

Edited August 25, 2008 by Arch2008

[Martin]

Arch, the link you gave is to something dated 1997. Web material accompanying a broadcast series called Stephen Hawking's Universe that aired in 1997. I guess you'd call it a Science Opinions and Personalities (SOP) television series. It is for sale as a DVD set. I don't need to say this but things have changed a lot in the past 10 years.

 

... I think that when one hears “the universe” in this context, the obvious definition would mean everything created by “the Big Bang event” and people saying this exclude the possibility of anything else...

 

That sounds like a sensible interpretation, but Smolin is the author of an empirically testable conjecture involving many big bang events and many interconnected regions of spacetime. According to this conjecture, black hole collapse in one region can, at least in some cases, give rise to a new region.

He doesn't spend a lot of time advocating the conjecture---since he has other fish to fry---but he has written one book about it and contributed chapters explaining the testability feature to a couple of other books.

 

Some people would call the conjecture a multiverse concept. I don't know if Smolin calls it that.

 

As far as I know Witten is not the author of any multiverse idea, and has spoken out against the anthropic string theory landscape school of thought, a multiverse-related notion. M-theory is not a theory yet---its existence was conjectured in the mid-1990s but no one has every succeeded in formulating it. In any case M-theory is not a multiverse scenario. Witten is no longer working in string theory and did not present a paper at the annual string conference, which occurred this month at Cern. His new research focus is interesting but is just not a part of string/M. I heard him give 3 talks on it---didn't mention string/M until the very end when someone asked him a question about it, and he answered mildly that he still hoped it had something to do with nature.

 

The brane-clash cosmology idea was not thought up by Witten, it was thought up by Steinhardt and Turok. The details have not been worked out. But they have written a book about it called "Endless Universe". You could say that brane-clash was inspired by the talk of extra dimensions in the string/M community. But Steinhardt and Turok's imagined clashing brane universe is formally independent from string/M. Keywords are "ekpyrotic" and "cyclic". Steinhardt has a website at princeton.edu with quite a bit of free material if anyone wants to find out more. Professional interest in it has been waning for the past 2 or 3 years.

 

Bubble universes are a different thing and despite the silly sounding name are associated with tenured professors of international reputation like Andrei Linde at Stanford and Alexander Vilenkin at Dartmouth---a catchword there is "eternal inflation". that is another scenario (based on presumptions about an exotic inflaton physics that has not been observed) which could be called multiverse---it is somewhat fanciful and not known to be testable. but it appeals to the imagination and has gotten a lot of publicity. As a bubble-believer, Bee is in the company of reputable tenured faculty at famous institutions. The term is not dismissive. Bubble-believers themselves use the term bubble. We can't help it if it sounds silly.

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

 

Anyway Arch, your claim is that "there is nothing outside the universe" means that all existence followed from a unique big bang event in our past.

 

I'm sympathetic to that interpretation but I have to admit that it is wrong.

 

There are plenty of people who would say that who do not believe that the BB was a unique event. We have no scientific evidence that it was unique so why would anyone suppose that? Simple skepticism (a scientific virtue) should keep one from believing in BB uniqueness.

 

I personally do not believe that anything outside the universe exists---by definition. the simplest meaning of universe is all physical existence. But I would never claim to know that the BB is a unique occurrence, or that physics does not extend back prior to it. One has to reserve judgment about that, since it is an unresolved topic of current research.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Martin

[Mr Skeptic]

The answer to that question obviously depends on what was originally meant by "universe". I'm assuming that the meaning is not "everything", as then the question would be meaningless. But then we still have our universe, and the observable universe. Outside of the observable universe, we have the rest of our universe, but we can no longer see or reach it due to it expanding faster than the speed of light. Outside of our universe, is probably the same stuff as before the big bang (assuming a non-cyclical universe).

[pioneer]

Our finite universe has space-time, while outside the finite universe is just space without time. Gravity works on space-time not on space that has no connection to time.

[Martin]

So if the universe has a finite size, which i had previously, previously meaning way in the past, heard it didnt, what is outside the universe?

 

I'm assuming that the meaning is not "everything", as then the question would be meaningless.

 

 

Properly understood, Mr. Skeptic, the question IS meaningless.

 

Joshuam based his question on a mistaken understanding that he suffers from. He hears that the spatially the universe might have a finite size---say a finite spatial volume. He draws a false conclusion from this. He incorrectly reasons that a finite volume would imply there is something outside it!

 

False implication! It is not true that a finite spatial volume must have something outside it. But he thinks it must. So he asks what could be outside.

Edited August 25, 2008 by Martin

[Klaynos]

Our finite universe has space-time, while outside the finite universe is just space without time. Gravity works on space-time not on space that has no connection to time.

 

Again I say, prove it.

[Mr Skeptic]

Properly understood, Mr. Skeptic, the question IS meaningless.

 

What if I define "universe" as "everything contained within the same spacetime continuum as we are"? Or is there another word for that? If not, there should be. In any case, words like "metaverse" are less ambiguous for including whatever is outside our own spacetime.

 

Joshuam based his question on a mistaken understanding that he suffers from. He hears that the spatially the universe might have a finite size---say a finite spatial volume. He draws a false conclusion from this. He incorrectly reasons that a finite volume would imply there is something outside it!

 

False implication! It is not true that a finite spatial volume must have something outside it. But he thinks it must. So he asks what could be outside.

 

Yes, it seems likely that he thinks there is an edge of the universe, since he thought that an infinite universe would not have anything outside but a finite one would. But it is still an interesting question, because to answer it we would need to understand the creation of our own universe.

[Edtharan]

its seems I can't continue this " something from nothing " discussion

 

my hands are tied

We can' date=' it is just that you have to abide by the scientific method (and the rules of the forum) to provide evidence to support your claims.

 

If you can't supply evidence, then what you are proposing is not science, but uninformed opinion. You can have that opinion, but it is good if you recognise it as that.

 

The thing about opinions is that everyone has their own . However, these opinions do not necessarily have to be the same as reality. As these discussions are about reality, we need to recognise our opinions,, and leave them behind.

 

Your hands are as tied as mine. It is the nature of logical, rational debate about our descriptions of reality.

 

What if I define "universe" as "everything contained within the same spacetime continuum as we are"? Or is there another word for that? If not, there should be. In any case, words like "metaverse" are less ambiguous for including whatever is outside our own spacetime.

in the word Universe, the prefix "Uni" means "Singular". This (to me at least), indicates that the Universe is everything. Then you can have other words that describe parts of that whole.

 

We could then use terms like Microverse (small) to specify a part of the Universe.

 

So although we live in a Universe, we are only aware of the Visible Microverse (the visible universe). Our space/time might only be a Microverse in the larger Universe.

[Arch2008]

Since we say that the Big Bang event created “the universe”, then any references to the universe would already have a meaning. Something not created by the Big Bang, would then be “outside this universe”. That said, can we prove that there is anything outside this universe? If we cannot interact in any way with what’s outside, then we will never have a scientific definition, because the statement isn't falsifiable. As I have already mentioned, WMAP may give an answer to this question. However, this also presents a challenge if it doesn’t.

Let’s say that we discover something controversial. To prove it requires an accelerator the diameter of the solar system. Assuming that Congress won’t fund our Totally Freaking Large Hadron Collider right away, what do we do in the mean time? Should we just ignore the discovery, or refuse to discuss it or even think about it? Maybe it has interesting applications to other branches of science. Should we only concern ourselves with the “easy science” and ignore anything else? Everything that we know today was once speculation. What should we do with current speculation until it gets to be falsifiable?

[Martin]

Since we say that the Big Bang event created “the universe”,...

 

Who says this? It sounds dated. Do you have a recent source, like something written in the past five years? I'd be interested to know where you are getting this, and who "we" is.

 

I follow mostly professional research---physics and astronomy journal articles. I don't recall anybody saying that.

 

Typically the researchers I read would say the opposite, precisely because they are studying models of the universe which go back in time prior to the BB event.

Edited August 26, 2008 by Martin

[Arch2008]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

Even if something else initiated the Big Bang, the Big Bang created everything in the universe. Besides, my point is, when does recent research become what the rest of us know?

[Martin]

...

So although we live in a Universe, we are only aware of the Visible Microverse (the visible universe). Our space/time might only be a Microverse in the larger Universe.

 

Yes! The key word is visible. The observable part. Now it dawns on me what Arch may have meant. what we can SEE derives from the BB event because our vision is limited.

 

A good astronomy teacher will make sure you never say just universe when what you mean is the observable universe. They run it together as if it is one word "observableuniverse".

 

It is a case where ordinary vocabulary is inadequate, and I think you are pointing this out, Edtharan, by proposing to invent a term. AFAIK the term that is currently in use among working astronomers is this somewhat awkward multisyllable thing: "observableuniverse". I'm recalling sound of lectures. they write it as if it is two words and pronounce it as if it were one word.

 

thinking about it, I have to reflect that our language is NEVER adequate, no matter how we try to fix it up. there is always some vagueness and misunderstanding----we just make do and try to be cheerful about it. Strictly speaking we can't SEE back before a time estimated to be some 380,000 years after the BB, because space was full of glowing partially ionized gas and not transparent enough. So we INFER what came before year 380,000.

 

And now we are beginning to infer back before year zero, back before BB event, just as we already infer back before year 380,000.

 

Edtharan, as a language Conservative, I would be inclined to stick with the awkward "observableuniverse" term already in use by the professionals. Your putting on the prefix Micro worries me---seems like extra baggage, although it is good to remind people that the observable part is likely to be only a small part of the whole shebang.

As a language Reformer (I suffer from both conservative and reform urges), I would focus on your word Visible and incline towards a made-up term like "Visiverse" pronounced vizzy-verse. It has a lively brisk sound, like ginger ale.

 

Besides, my point is, when does recent research become what the rest of us know?

 

That depends in part on you.

If you want to glance at the research literature, the keyword to search with is "quantum cosmology"

 

Here is everything published since 2005, ranked by how often the paper has been cited in other research (a gauge of how important it looks to other researchers). Ranking by citation can save a lot of time, because the most influential stuff is listed first.

 

http://www.slac.stanford.edu/spires/find/hep/www?rawcmd=FIND+DK+QUANTUM+COSMOLOGY+AND+DATE+%3E+2005&FORMAT=www&SEQUENCE=citecount%28d%29

 

Here I just typed in "dk quantum cosmology and date > 2005"

You can vary the parameters of the search.

Most of this stuff is available free. You just click on abstract and when the abstract page comes up you click on pdf. Or you look at the abstract and decide you arent interested and move on.

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

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Bang

...the Big Bang created everything in the universe.

 

the Wikipedia article does not SAY this. I read it. Did I miss something? Let's be careful with our language. The wrong words can mislead and have undesirable connotations.

 

when one models the BB typically you get before the BB there is crud like our crud and spacetime like our spacetime. That is what you'll get mostly if you do the search I mentioned. It is very unmysterious. (the unmysterious models still need confirmation, still need testing)

 

With many of today's models the past extends back before the BB.

 

When I say universe, I don't just mean NOW, I include the past.

 

Consequently, for me at least the BB did not create the universe. the universe is more than just what derives from and comes after that particular event.

 

===========

Do you think that 2007 created 2008? BB is just some moment in the past. I guess you could say that any moment in the past created what we have now.

 

Basically I would suggest you steer clear of the word created. The present does derive from any moment in the past, and in particular it derives from the year 380,000 (the most ancient time we can actually see) and it derives from even earlier conditions we can infer. And we can infer back to ordinary crud and ordinary spacetime before the BB. (the models still havent been tested, a lot still needs to be done.)

Edited August 26, 2008 by Martin
multiple post merged

[Bettina]

...So although we live in a Universe, we are only aware of the Visible Microverse (the visible universe). Our space/time might only be a Microverse in the larger Universe.

 

That's exactly what I believe. I stated it as our universe being part of a larger void but I like this better. So, could I get away with saying that the BB was an event that "created" our region of the greater universe that was NOT created along with our BB? If yes, then I can agree that nothing is outside the universe.

 

Martin?

 

Bee

[Edtharan]

So, could I get away with saying that the BB was an event that "created" our region of the greater universe

I wou8ld still avoid the term "created" however as the BB didn't crate our region (Miniverse), but was an event at the begining of it.

 

It would be a bit like saying that the turning of the key in a car created the car accident.