Airbrush Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 When considering how the universe began many will comment on how something cannot be created from nothing. So, an important question would be, What is nothing? Could there ever have been a "State of Absolute Nothing"? I don't think so. http://4everuniverse.yolasite.com/ Scientists use precise, specialized terms. "Nothing" is useless as a term. More accurate would be "nothing as yet identifiable". Or can someone give a better term? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 (edited) Scientists use precise, specialized terms. "Nothing" is useless as a term. More accurate would be "nothing as yet identifiable". Or can someone give a better term? In thiis case you are talking about an initial point or Cauchy surface in spacetime. There is no good word for it and absolutely nothing is known about it, including whether or not it exists. This entire thread is inane. Maybe that is why it is now into its 34th page. Edited January 31, 2012 by DrRocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggerj Posted January 31, 2012 Share Posted January 31, 2012 Scientists use precise, specialized terms. "Nothing" is useless as a term. More accurate would be "nothing as yet identifiable". Or can someone give a better term? Good point. I also have a problem with the word 'Universe' when used by physicists. Is it just the space that is considered the observable universe, or does it also include what may lie beyond it? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
westwind Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Hi. I subscribe to the multiple cosmos idea. Never-ending cosmos. Distances between these cosmos? How far do cane toads keep apart? Our cosmos, 14/15 billion years old? How old are other cosmos? I venture young, mature, old, ancient. Placing our cosmos as mature. So, can the pro-creators of any form of micro-biology travel between cosmos.? Well, maybe the time is not that far away when we develope a means of transporting micro-biological material to the outer limits of our cosmos then away across space to a neighbouring cosmos. westwind. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Santalum Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 (edited) Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? Consider the surface of the Earth Edisonian. Where does it end? Where is the boundary? Answer.......there are no boundaries. The surface of the earth is boundless because it is curved around on itself through a 3rd physical dimension. Yet it is still finite in size. This is an excellent 2D analogy that enables us to begin to understand how the universe might, if Einstein is correct, also be finite in size and yet without any boundaries. Add one dimension to the above analogy and you may have the situation that applies to our universe. The universe may be a 4 dimensional hypersphere, i.e. a 3 dimensional surface curved around on itself through a 4th physical dimension. Like the surface of a sphere in the 2D analogy, the universe may be finite in size and yet still without any boundaries or edges. Like the surface of the Earth, if you set out in a straight line any where in the universe then eventually you will end up right back where you started without ever having changed direction. Where is that 4th physical dimension....no body knows because we are all 3 dimensional creatures trapped in 3 dimensions. But it is clear from mathematics that the existence of a 4th physical dimensions, and even higher ones that that, are entirely possible. Edited February 1, 2012 by Santalum Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Airbrush Posted February 1, 2012 Share Posted February 1, 2012 Good point. I also have a problem with the word 'Universe' when used by physicists. Is it just the space that is considered the observable universe, or does it also include what may lie beyond it? Scientists will make a distinction. The observable universe is called exactly that. "Universe" generally means everything, even beyond the observable limit. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted February 2, 2012 Share Posted February 2, 2012 Scientists will make a distinction. The observable universe is called exactly that. "Universe" generally means everything, even beyond the observable limit. I have found scientists to be sloppy on this point. They often write or say "universe" when they are referring only to the "observable universe". So you have to be careful in trying to understand which one they are referring to. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
PhysicsBurger Posted February 4, 2012 Share Posted February 4, 2012 Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? The earth doesnt "end". You just keep going round until you end up right where you started. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
*puffy* japanisthebest Posted February 6, 2012 Share Posted February 6, 2012 Ever since I was a young boy, I have wrestled with trying to understand space. In particular, I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? ... i found a little solution of my own... the universe repeats... i think that if you reach the edge... you will emerge into the beginning of the universe that you just crossed.......... The earth doesnt "end". You just keep going round until you end up right where you started. yep Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jiggerj Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 I have never really understood how space is supposed to never end. I really don't see how that's possible. Everything ends somewhere. Where one thing ends the next begins. Can people please provide thoughts on this? I'm reading this question as: Where does the realm of Something meet the realm of Nothing? In a spaceship, we've flown to a place where we can go no further. What is there to prevent us from going ever forward? A wall? The inner surface of a shell? Even so, walls and shells can be cut through. The only thing that could truly stop us is a big ol' chunk of Nothing. But, what is nothing? What does it look like? Is it impenetrable? No, nothing can't be impenetrable because Nothing can't be hard or solid; hard and solid define Something. A state of absolute nothing cannot exist. Therefore, the realm of Something cannot end. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
DrRocket Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 (edited) G ... i found a little solution of my own... the universe repeats... i think that if you reach the edge... you will emerge into the beginning of the universe that you just crossed.......... yep Believe it or not that is actually one possible model for space in cosmology. It is properly called the flat torus. In Brian Greene's most recent book you will find it called "Pac Man" space. Greene's name comes from the Pac Man video game, and from the construction of the ordinry 2-torus by indentifying (gluing) opposite edges of a rectangular strip together preserving up, down, left and right. Yoou can do exactly the same thing with a cube, identifying opposite faces, to get what geometers call a 3-dimensional flat torus. But note that these structures have no real edge, just like an ordinary torus (surface of a donut) has no edge. Edited February 12, 2012 by DrRocket Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Temporocitor Posted February 12, 2012 Share Posted February 12, 2012 There must be an eternal vacuum where within all resides. Negative energenesis ad infinitum is the so-called free lunch. Eventually -A x -B = |C| matter is, but is not infinite. Absolute nothing isn't, but is infinite. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
mertol Posted February 21, 2012 Share Posted February 21, 2012 (edited) I like to think about the universe like this: You cannot be at the edge of the matter going away from the center of the big bang at light speed because you can always point a beam of light over that edge. If the laws of physics are the same everywhere and there is no special place in the universe like a place where the big bang happened then this implies that the big bang happened everywhere at the same time. If there is something going away from something at light speed for everything in the universe then the universe is infinite. For every observer in the universe, the space gets progressively distorted the further away from him. Close to the 13.7 billion light years distance everything is going away from the observer at nearly light speed so it is nearly flat. So for every observer, the universe is a sphere with 13.7 billion light years radius where everything near the edges gets infinitely flat and infinitely dense and with infinitely slowed time so you can take this as the limit of the universe although the universe remains infinite nevertheless. Are my thoughts correct? As a speculation: if there is infinite mass and density at the edges of the universe wouldn't that be the cause for the accelerating expansion since the gravity of everything on the edge will pull everything inside the sphere and eventually everything will end up on the edges. But everything is also always in the center of the sphere so the pull is always cancelled out... Thinking about this can make you crazy. Edited February 21, 2012 by mertol Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgsboi Posted February 25, 2012 Share Posted February 25, 2012 Well we can only see as far as the cosmic microwave background. Whether we can see past it or even get past it in the future would be a huge achievement. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
IM Egdall Posted February 26, 2012 Share Posted February 26, 2012 (edited) I like to think about the universe like this: You cannot be at the edge of the matter going away from the center of the big bang at light speed because you can always point a beam of light over that edge. If the laws of physics are the same everywhere and there is no special place in the universe like a place where the big bang happened then this implies that the big bang happened everywhere at the same time. If there is something going away from something at light speed for everything in the universe then the universe is infinite. For every observer in the universe, the space gets progressively distorted the further away from him. Close to the 13.7 billion light years distance everything is going away from the observer at nearly light speed so it is nearly flat. So for every observer, the universe is a sphere with 13.7 billion light years radius where everything near the edges gets infinitely flat and infinitely dense and with infinitely slowed time so you can take this as the limit of the universe although the universe remains infinite nevertheless. Are my thoughts correct? As a speculation: if there is infinite mass and density at the edges of the universe wouldn't that be the cause for the accelerating expansion since the gravity of everything on the edge will pull everything inside the sphere and eventually everything will end up on the edges. But everything is also always in the center of the sphere so the pull is always cancelled out... Thinking about this can make you crazy. Here is my understanding. Yes, according to the big bang theory, it happened everywhere. The "explosion" was the expansion of space itself. But whether the universe is infinite or finite is still unknown. The rule that nothing can travel faster than the speed of light through space is from special relativity. But per general relativity, space itself can (and does) expand faster than the speed of light. Edited February 26, 2012 by IM Egdall Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
life station Posted February 27, 2012 Share Posted February 27, 2012 there are to things in this universe one is space (emptyness) otther is matter or energy both are the same thing known to the science very well ( means mass air gase gravity radiowaves light etc) where there is matter there is no space and where there is space no matter so now you can understand that the end of space is out of question it is endless Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JohnStu Posted February 29, 2012 Share Posted February 29, 2012 Space doesn't end, the question is where does the matters end. Space is just the non-currently-occupied region of matter. If space had a limit then there would be a wall where matters bounce back which doens't make sense because what would be beyond the wall. And no such wall can possible exist unless it is... OMG WE ARE IN A MATRIX! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
owl Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 (edited) Space doesn't end, the question is where does the matters end. Space is just the non-currently-occupied region of matter. If space had a limit then there would be a wall where matters bounce back which doens't make sense because what would be beyond the wall. And no such wall can possible exist unless it is... OMG WE ARE IN A MATRIX! I agree. "Infinite space" is one of my favorite concepts to contemplate. And I've 'thrown in my two cents' on the topic in other threads too. No matter what theoretical "form" one proposes for "the universe," the question/challenge always remains, what lies beyond the defining 'boundary' of any form? Whether there is more "stuff" (matter/energy) or just more space, the concept of an "end" is absurd. Same applies to the 'surface of earth' model of space-as-endless: more space within and beyond the 'surface of the sphere.' Space is volume, not a "surface" anyway. Edit; ps: I liked Jiggerj's cartoon in post 685. "Oh, crap!" ('space closed beyond this point') Edited March 2, 2012 by owl Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
morgsboi Posted March 2, 2012 Share Posted March 2, 2012 Space doesn't end, the question is where does the matters end. So your saying that space has no matter? Did you take things like light and radiation into consideration? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
almondhammer Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 The space that exists with certainty ends where light has not yet traveled. Beyond that is unknown and impossible to know now. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
too-open-minded Posted January 7, 2013 Share Posted January 7, 2013 What is ending? Your applying your own human perception to something much larger than you that you are a part of, the universe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
proximity1 Posted January 8, 2013 Share Posted January 8, 2013 (edited) If you think of "space" as "space-time", and, as such, an unfolding "event," then there is no particular physical "location" outside the event's own limits--i.e. the limit of the space-time event, intended here as a singular process which takes in all physical motion and all energy-matter at once. "Space-time" "extends" as "far" as/as "long" as the "event" is underway. So, the "limit" is found at the expansion's termination (that is, if an expansion is going on, or, conversely, at the collapse's termination, if a collapse is going on) --an undefined and, for us, undefinable space-time limit. What "happens" when (not "where") that "limit" occurs? Of course, I don't know but I (and others) could hypothesize that a corresponding "collapse" happens, perhaps followed by an explosive expansion. And, for all I can imagine, this cyle--explosion, expansion, collapse, may characterize an endless cycle with each "universe-event" (non-localizable) being a discrete and unique event among a unlimited series. Edited January 8, 2013 by proximity1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Civat Posted January 27, 2013 Share Posted January 27, 2013 That is a tricky question! I think it does.. things have to end :/ Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
36grit Posted February 9, 2013 Share Posted February 9, 2013 My take on the subject: To say that the speed of light is a universal constant is to define the universe as a body of time that expands and contracts depending on your local perspective. In my opinion time is an energy and a quantum paricle, and the universe is it's field or expansion plane. Positive and negative energy exist within their own expansion planes. these exist outside of time but anihilation takes time. So outside of the time plane there are planes of positive energy, negative energy, and ofcourse that fastest plane of all, gravity. The atom is compound particle and is created by the interactions of the four known forces within their respective planes, the weak force, the strong force, gravity, and the two electro magnetic planes. Think about the double slit experiment, When we look at electro magnetic energies through a "time plane lenz" we see particles, but left alone they exist inside and outside of the "universe" wherefore we see them as waves. to "freeze" all the planes in a moment of interdimsional time and stand outside of it and look at it an all encompassing entity of planes existing within a three dimensional model, we would see the big bang. We would see gravities expansion plane, then we'd see the strong forces expansion plane, and then positive energies expansion plane, and then negative energies expansion plane, and then the weak forces expansion plane and the different particles being produced by the effects of the faster expansion planes creating particles out of the slower ones which velocities particleize the faster ones in a heated mess of chaos expanding into a time frame order of space, time, possibility, and life. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SamBridge Posted February 10, 2013 Share Posted February 10, 2013 (edited) So even if you have a 4 or 5 dimensional shape that causes the universe to fold back in on itself, in the order of a 4 or higher dimensional, that object would still have a definite manifold or some amount of either definite 3 dimensional surface area or volume, or ect, which would imply that if there is a boundary, that it is a separation between two regions. However, the universe contains all distance in all dimensions, which means there cannot be any distance in any dimension outside of the universe, which means the universe must be infinite in size. This is of course if we make the definition of the universe everything we are capable of measuring or that has the characteristics of our observable universe, I suppose there is some small possibility of membranes or multiple worlds theory, but if this universe is the only actual universe, then it can only possibly be infinite in size, it wouldn't make sense if there was anything outside of it because by its definition it holds everything. Edited February 10, 2013 by SamBridge Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts