Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!

[Airbrush]

Exactly correct, there must have been preconditions to initiate a Big Bang. Even though we cannot see, or detect, something does not mean there is nothing there. The "Nothing" before the Big Bang may be like dark matter, something very substantial, yet invisible, and not yet even detectible. For example, higher dimensions that collided to cause the BB, or something else. That something else is not nothing.

[Pip Threlfall]

Quote (originally by Spyman – April 12th)

 

"Scientists have come to some agreement on descriptions of events that happened 10−35 seconds after the Big Bang, but generally agree that descriptions about what happened before one Planck time (5 × 10−44 seconds) after the Big Bang will likely remain pure speculation."

End quote

 

If what was before the big bang is to “remain pure speculation” then to speculate that “awareness of awareness” preceded the big bang must have equal validity as any other speculation.

 

No one doubts that awareness is the very bedrock of scientific investigation for without it there would be no way of knowing that anything existed. I would affirm that behind that awareness is the “awareness of awareness” which is a no-thing, but has the ability to say a thing is and have it be.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Quote (originally posted by StringJunky – April 13th)

 

“In the beginning there was nothing… then it exploded.” End quote

 

‘Nothing’ cannot explode – this is a scientific impossibility!

 

Quote

“There must have been preconditions that initiated the BB but are not known as yet. It’s best to leave its initial state as ‘unknown’ until scientists have some evidence or tangible clues I think”.

End quote

 

I agree “there must have been preconditions that initiated the BB” but how can you be sure they are not known. There are many people that would maintain that the preconditions for matter, energy, space and time can be known.

 

Surely any individual can only say “I personally do not know them”. And why should it be scientists that have the sole responsibility of discovering the unknown. If we are looking at ‘the singularity’ every viewpoint has a part to play.

---

Merged post follows:

Consecutive posts merged

Quote (originally posted by Airbrush – April 13th)

 

“………. Even though we cannot see or detect something does not mean there is nothing there” End quote

 

Even if there is ‘nothing there’ it does not invalidate the observer who is doing the observing, and just because the observer is not a thing does not mean they are nothing. Hence I would maintain the observer is a no-thing, the creator of things. This is backed up by the very latest realisations with regards to quantum mechanics where the observer appears to have an effect on that which is being observed.

[StringJunky]

 

Quote (originally posted by StringJunky – April 13th)

 

“In the beginning there was nothing… then it exploded.” End quote

 

‘Nothing’ cannot explode – this is a scientific impossibility!

 

Quote

“There must have been preconditions that initiated the BB but are not known as yet. It’s best to leave its initial state as ‘unknown’ until scientists have some evidence or tangible clues I think”.

End quote

 

I agree “there must have been preconditions that initiated the BB” but how can you be sure they are not known. There are many people that would maintain that the preconditions for matter, energy, space and time can be known.

 

Surely any individual can only say “I personally do not know them”. And why should it be scientists that have the sole responsibility of discovering the unknown. If we are looking at ‘the singularity’ every viewpoint has a part to play.

 

"In the beginning.....it exploded".... .this was not meant to be taken seriously,hence, the grin. It's a quote from the author Terry Pratchett that I thought illustrated the absurdity of effect without cause in a humorous and concise way.

 

Spyman has pointed out how close we are to the event of the BB in terms of what happened...before that point people can only speculate. I would imagine scientists will eventually extrapolate from experiments and observations of other astronomical phenomena what events preceded the BB moment

 

On your last point, only scientists with the relevant expertise can really make any meaningful statements on the origins and nature of the physical universe...we all have our ideas but the testable ones and the ones built on what is already experimentally confirmed are the only ideas that matter in the long run.

 

From what I've learnt on this forum, the Singularity is a mathematically created artefact predicted by Relativity that is not believed to actually exist in reality. I think to most scientists it indicates the point where that theory breaks down as an accurate description of reality...below that scale Quantum Physics is a better description I believe. The differences between the two disciplines (Quantum and Relativity) predictions at around this scale point is something they are striving to reconcile but, as yet, have not succeeded.

[Pip Threlfall]

In the beginning.....it exploded".... .this was not meant to be taken seriously,hence, the grin. It's a quote from the author Terry Pratchett that I thought illustrated the absurdity of effect without cause in a humorous and concise way.

 

Spyman has pointed out how close we are to the event of the BB in terms of what happened...before that point people can only speculate. I would imagine scientists will eventually extrapolate from experiments and observations of other astronomical phenomena what events preceded the BB moment

 

As you say before the creation of MATTER, ENERGY, SPACE and TIME “people can only speculate”. We cannot even be sure that the universe started with a big bang. It could have been started by a being. I know of no hard science that says that beings are the result of this universe, so the idea that they preceded the universe remains a possibility. Certainly nothing has ever been discovered without an observer to discover it, which makes the observer at least as important as that which is observed.

 

On your last point, only scientists with the relevant expertise can really make any meaningful statements on the origins and nature of the physical universe...we all have our ideas but the testable ones and the ones built on what is already experimentally confirmed are the only ideas that matter in the long run.

 

The one group of people that cannot “make meaningful statements on the origins of the physical universe” are scientists, because science only begins after the universe has been established. So we must look else where for the origin of the physical universe. There are legitimate experiments in the field of humanities and religion that can shed light on origins.

 

From what I've learnt on this forum, the Singularity is a mathematically created artefact predicted by Relativity that is not believed to actually exist in reality. I think to most scientists it indicates the point where that theory breaks down as an accurate description of reality...below that scale Quantum Physics is a better description I believe. The differences between the two disciplines (Quantum and Relativity) predictions at around this scale point is something they are striving to reconcile but, as yet, have not succeeded.

 

 

The singularity may well not exist in reality but all of reality points to it. The whole of reality is relative because every thing is in motion. A singularity would have no motion, no mass, no position in space or time. It would be that which gives everything its meaning. It would be or rather is, THE TRUE STATIC. In the true static all things are reconciled.

[Spyman]

The one group of people that cannot “make meaningful statements on the origins of the physical universe” are scientists, because science only begins after the universe has been established. So we must look else where for the origin of the physical universe. There are legitimate experiments in the field of humanities and religion that can shed light on origins

Please do note that you are posting in the Science & Physics section and such discussions are probably more suited to bring up in the Philosophy & Religion section.

[StringJunky]

Please do note that you are posting in the Science & Physics section and such discussions are probably more suited to bring up in the Philosophy & Religion section.

 

Pip: Like Spyman says, we have to stick to hard science in this section. If you want to discuss origins of a non scientific nature you need to start a thread in P&R.

[Pip Threlfall]

I am not sure I see the difference between science and ‘hard science’. As I understand science it is all to do with measurement, that is quantity, whereas philosophy and religion are primarily about quality.

 

If by ‘hard science’ is meant quality science, then the line between science-philosophy-religion becomes blurred. However if my quest is considered not scientific, I will gladly change forums.

 

Unfortunately I see that I cannot post on Philosophy and Religion until I have made 50 posts (presumably elsewhere on the forum) so not sure what to do.

[StringJunky]

I am not sure I see the difference between science and ‘hard science’. As I understand science it is all to do with measurement, that is quantity, whereas philosophy and religion are primarily about quality.

 

If by ‘hard science’ is meant quality science, then the line between science-philosophy-religion becomes blurred. However if my quest is considered not scientific, I will gladly change forums.

 

Unfortunately I see that I cannot post on Philosophy and Religion until I have made 50 posts (presumably elsewhere on the forum) so not sure what to do.

 

I meant 'hard' in the sense of being demanding and rigorous with regard to evidence which Chemistry, Biology and Physics are...Astro and Cosmo are as well.

 

My apologies for that oversight. P&R is very new and I forgot there is a minimum limit.

[Tnad]

For me space means every thing out there.solar system; other systems(if they are),universe and BEYOND.

Thus I think space ends with our imagination since we can't go beyond and since we can't have limits within it. Note: I believe special cases may occur but it's hard to explain.I prefer simplicity.

[ydoaPs]

These old threads make me cringe a little when I read them.

[Poull]

hay all. I too have stresed over and over about this hole end to space. im not the smartst person but someone please help with a more relistic answer. I belive, there has to be an end. NOTHING can realy go for ever. not somthing that big. people say the universe is ballon shaped. that cant be right. as there has to be something on the other side, particles or what ever it is called. but beyond that. It drives me crazy. for example. there could be a wall, but i brake threw that, then what? i know it sounds silly. But i need an answer of sorts that i can understend

[pink_trike]

Perceptually, we've moved from clans to villages to states/nations to an understanding of continents, the Earth, the solar system, the galaxy, multiple galaxies, and the universe. I think the next perceptual step with be multiversal awareness - dissolving what I believe is an inaccurate perception that "space" and "the universe" mean the same thing. I know this is a "science only" room, so I'll only mention without elaborating that the idea of multiple universes exploding in the vastness of infinite space certainly isn't a new one...it is found in several very complex ancient cosmologies. I think it's likely that in a couple of decades we'll look back at our single universe perceptions as quaint and archaic. And we'll understand that the only "finite" related to space takes the form of mental constructs that block our perception of "infinite", just as "global' and "universal" perception is still difficult for many people to grow into.

[Moontanman]

How could the universe have an end? No matter where you go... you're there!

[pink_trike]

How could the universe have an end? No matter where you go... you're there!

 

In the same way that Earth's atmosphere has an "end"...even though the atmosphere is ultimately inseparable from the larger context within which it exists.

[rigney]

What if Cosmologist, even with every extended model of our universe being examined to completion, find that "it" is cyclical and 'eternal"? Who will profit from that discovery?

[emperor88]

I have started a new blog

visit

http://physics-chemistry-science-technology.blogspot.com/

[insane_alien]

What if Cosmologist, even with every extended model of our universe being examined to completion, find that "it" is cyclical and 'eternal"? Who will profit from that discovery?

 

then we know something more about the nature of our universe.

 

nobody would really profit unless you count a better understanding of our universe as profit, in which case everyone profits.

[pioneer]

It is possible some of the basic assumptions of the BB are not correct, thereby making it harder to speculate all the way to t=0. Relative reference does not always do an energy balance.

 

For example, a black hole forms a singularity in space-time yet space-time not too far beyond the black hole is not fully contracted. The full contraction of space-time is a local effect in space. This is because the mass/energy equivalent of the black hole is finite and not infinite.

 

We have a finite mass/energy universe, therefore one should not expect space all the way to infinity to be contracted at the BB. Far enough away, infinite space barely noticed the BB. The contraction of space-time may have been a local effect relative to infinite space scales. We would need an infinite mass/energy universe, which is not the case. A simple energy balance would tell us this, using the black hole to see a real life example.

 

Another relative reference bias is, we assume space-time is expanding and the matter/energy of the universe; moving, secondarily. However, if we expand a dense mass, the local space-time will also expand due the local GR field changing. We can also have matter moving first and then space-time changing second. We already know matter can bend space-time thereby proving this cause and effect.

 

A simple big bomb version of the BB, by spreading out the initial matter/energy singularity could also expand space-time relative to the initial GR field of the singularity. No mystery matter is needed, to move space-time, so it can then move matter?

 

The question becomes, where does the explosion energy of the big bomb come from, so matter can inflate/expand and pull space-time along for the expanding space-time ride?

 

One logical explanation is a massive lowering of entropy within the singularity. If we look at protons, these can exist for as long as the universe. Yet, if we separate protons into its substructure, the substructure won't last beyond a blink of an eye. The substructural components, by themselves, have a much higher entropy or have more degrees of freedom. They have the freedom to become energy and change phase quickly. Proton lack that extra freedom. If we go from sub-particles, to long-lived composites structures like the proton, the entropy drops drastically. This lowering of entropy released a lot of energy.

 

To get an idea of the energy released, let us reverse the proton within a particle accelerator. We will add a lot of energy over a period of time, to increase the degrees of freedom of the proton innards, to restore all the entropy within the sub-particles; so we can see them. If we then reversed this, all at once, back to protons, all that accelerator and collision energy needs to be released at the same time. Picture this with zillions of protons; we get inflation of the former sub-particle virtual singularity, with the energy expanding the definitive matter, which then expands space-time, locally in infinite space.

 

The next question is, why an entropy condensation? In other words, we start with virtual probability functions; sub-particles somewhere between energy and matter, which are induced into composites that are more conducive to definitive reality; now it is here for billions of years. The initial entropy of all the distinct sub-particles, is much too high to materialize into a universe full of definitive things, simultaneously. What are the odds? Therefore, we first need to neuter all the extra degrees of freedom, before we can built a definitive universe.

 

So what we need is a force that only works on high energy virtual sub-particles and then no longer applies after the entropy condensation into definitive composites which last as long as the universe. Can we reform protons from sub-particles within the lab? That is where I would look for this force.

[Severian]

These old threads make me cringe a little when I read them.

 

I honestly have no recollection of even writing my comments on the first page of this thread.

[hercules]

The more we try to look outwards and search for the answers, the further away the truth becomes.

 

The more we think we know about, the greater thee unknown.

 

This is something we will never get to the bottom of, with all the science, technology, theories, it’s not conclusive..

 

If space ends, where does that end, and then where does that end?... and so on.....

 

then you really think about it, I mean search deep in your deepest thoughts and it actually begins to freak you out!

 

I never was persuaded to conform to any religion, but somehow, I found it myself, not through sermon or by force.

 

You look out into a starry sky and see all those thousands of stars, yet so far away and so infinite...

 

I conclude, if science can’t answer that, then there has to be someone, something that's in charge and put it there.

 

The coincidence of life itself and the creation of the Earth. How it all formed so perfect and in such harmony

 

 

 

 

 

 

[michel123456]

How it all formed so perfect and in such harmony

 

Have a better look around you.

[Airbrush]

I conclude, if science cant answer that, then there has to be someone, something that's in charge and put it there.

 

People usually call that "someone, something" God. Scientists call it a "Quantum Fluctuation". You think God started it all, at the time of the Big Bang, and then took a 13+ Billion year break? When will he do something else? And consider this, God might not be totally in charge, if there is a God. Maybe God is not omnicient, just an ET a Billion years beyond us in technology. Have you ever considered that?

Edited September 20, 2010 by Airbrush

[ewmon]

Are we assuming that we peer into space along a straight line? Could it be an optical illusion?

[MRlogic]

how can space end? say the universe were a room. what is beyond the walls?

 

 

the universe is constantly expanding outward but will eventualy collapse

[IM Egdall]

If the universe where really like a room; there would be a center and an edge. But per general relativity, space has no center, no edge. As a commonly used analogy, think of the surface of an expanding balloon. The universe is represented by the surface (and the surface only). There is no center to the surface of the balloon. There is no beginning or end to the surface of the balloon. Everywhere on the surface is like everywhere else. That's the way we are told to think of our very strange universe. I hope it helps.

Also, observations of Type IA supernovae tell us the expansion of the universe is accelelerating. And this speed-up started some five to seven billion years ago.This is usually attributed to an unknown repulsive force labeled "dark energy". Assuming that dark energy continues to exist in the same amount in the future (a big assumption since we don't know what it is), the universe will not eventually collapse. It will expand forever.

 

REF: "Dark Energy", Physicsworld.com, May 30, 2004. http://physicsworld....cle/print/19419.

Edited September 21, 2010 by I ME