morgsboi Posted December 10, 2011 Posted December 10, 2011 Scientists believe that the laws of physics were created in the big bang. But I think the are universal as I don't believe there is an end to the universe. You can't just hit a wall because the question would be, what is behind it. It can't be a sphere because the universe wouldn't be expanding, it would be pulled in by gravity. Try and picture in your head new laws of physics. Not something like opposites and switching them around but actually a new law of physics that doesn't exist. I believe the only outside dimension of the universe are decisions, natural events and so on. If you had seen the title of this but chose not to read it, from our view that would be a "parallel universe" but if it really happened and you chose not to read this it would be our universe through a different path. It exists but it does not exist, this is why I think that this could be the one possible dimension that doesn't fit in with the laws of physics.
Tres Juicy Posted December 13, 2011 Posted December 13, 2011 Scientists believe that the laws of physics were created in the big bang. But I think the are universal as I don't believe there is an end to the universe. You can't just hit a wall because the question would be, what is behind it. It can't be a sphere because the universe wouldn't be expanding, it would be pulled in by gravity. Try and picture in your head new laws of physics. Not something like opposites and switching them around but actually a new law of physics that doesn't exist. I believe the only outside dimension of the universe are decisions, natural events and so on. If you had seen the title of this but chose not to read it, from our view that would be a "parallel universe" but if it really happened and you chose not to read this it would be our universe through a different path. It exists but it does not exist, this is why I think that this could be the one possible dimension that doesn't fit in with the laws of physics. The belief is that the laws vary between causal patches http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Causal_patch
morgsboi Posted December 13, 2011 Author Posted December 13, 2011 The belief is that the laws vary between causal patches http://en.wikipedia....ki/Causal_patch That's not quite what I mean. I am referring to something similar to "parallel universes". The point of it is they are there but they are not as they have not and will not happen. But if the choice you made to read this has put us in a different parallel universe, so to speak.
Tres Juicy Posted December 14, 2011 Posted December 14, 2011 That's not quite what I mean. I am referring to something similar to "parallel universes". The point of it is they are there but they are not as they have not and will not happen. But if the choice you made to read this has put us in a different parallel universe, so to speak. Well, that's a bit different. I don't know
Sorcerer Posted December 24, 2011 Posted December 24, 2011 The universe by defintion means the "one whole" so anything else is just another 'part' of the universe. Sure there are many parts of the universe we cannot observe. Look up Hubble volume. Inflation made the universe expand very fast, the observable universe is ~13.7 billion years old, but the size of the observable universe is ~46 billion light years radius. IMO outside is just another layer if it exists.
morgsboi Posted December 26, 2011 Author Posted December 26, 2011 The universe by defintion means the "one whole" so anything else is just another 'part' of the universe. Sure there are many parts of the universe we cannot observe. Look up Hubble volume. Inflation made the universe expand very fast, the observable universe is ~13.7 billion years old, but the size of the observable universe is ~46 billion light years radius. IMO outside is just another layer if it exists. But what I mean is the "unobservable universe". What I mean by that is something that can exist but we cannot get to. Basically, its not somewhere that you could "travel" to no matter how long it takes and how fast you go. DO you understand what I mean?
michel123456 Posted December 26, 2011 Posted December 26, 2011 But what I mean is the "unobservable universe". What I mean by that is something that can exist but we cannot get to. Basically, its not somewhere that you could "travel" to no matter how long it takes and how fast you go. DO you understand what I mean? No. You were talking about new laws of physics, then about "parallel universe". To me a "parallel universe" follows the same laws of physics. I am not sure a universe with other laws of physics would be compatible with ours.
morgsboi Posted December 26, 2011 Author Posted December 26, 2011 No. You were talking about new laws of physics, then about "parallel universe". To me a "parallel universe" follows the same laws of physics. I am not sure a universe with other laws of physics would be compatible with ours. What that meant was that there can't be a parallel universe we can ever reach, but they still exist as an "if".
michel123456 Posted December 26, 2011 Posted December 26, 2011 What that meant was that there can't be a parallel universe we can ever reach, but they still exist as an "if". Oh. in this case you are talking about a universe of 'if' based on the same physical laws: simply it could happen but didn't happen. Is that it? 1
morgsboi Posted December 26, 2011 Author Posted December 26, 2011 Oh. in this case you are talking about a universe of 'if' based on the same physical laws: simply it could happen but didn't happen. Is that it? Yep, that's exactly what I mean.
michel123456 Posted December 26, 2011 Posted December 26, 2011 The multiverse interpretation is that all possibilities, all "ifes" do happen. I don't know where do those multiverses happen, in which "other spacetime'? Your question enhances the problem. Note: I don't share these ideas. To me all "ifes" collapse into only one reality when the event happens. It is the reality of our universe inside a single spacetime.
JohnStu Posted February 29, 2012 Posted February 29, 2012 Outside the universe, hmm, universe is infinately vast, so there can't be an outside. Maybe they should change the name universe to infinateverse.
sigurdV Posted March 7, 2012 Posted March 7, 2012 Outside the universe, hmm, universe is infinately vast, so there can't be an outside. Maybe they should change the name universe to infinateverse. Theres no proof that the universe is infinitely vast in any direction. Theres no proof that theres no infinity "behind the first: 1 3 5 7 9......2 4 6 8 ...... Theres no proof that the universe has no outside.
morgsboi Posted March 7, 2012 Author Posted March 7, 2012 Theres no proof that the universe is infinitely vast in any direction. Theres no proof that theres no infinity "behind the first: 1 3 5 7 9......2 4 6 8 ...... Theres no proof that the universe has no outside. Everything has an outside as long as it has more than 2 dimensions.
zapatos Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Everything has an outside as long as it has more than 2 dimensions. What evidence do you have that this is true?
morgsboi Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 What evidence do you have that this is true? The fact that 2 dimensions have height and width. 3 dimensions have height, width and depth. Draw a square on a piece of paper. The square will be 2 dimensional (almost) and the paper will be 3 dimensional. If you look at the square, what is the white inside it. It goes out past the square. Hold a ball and look at it. If that represented the universe and you were inside the ball, you would look at the inner skin of the ball and wonder what's out there even if it is just space. For space to be finite, it must have some type of wall or boundary somewhere, but then, what is on the other side.
Schrödinger's hat Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 Hold a ball and look at it. If that represented the universe and you were inside the ball, you would look at the inner skin of the ball and wonder what's out there even if it is just space. For space to be finite, it must have some type of wall or boundary somewhere, but then, what is on the other side. Now look at the surface of the ball. Consider it a 2d space. Where is outside? 4
morgsboi Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 Now look at the surface of the ball. Consider it a 2d space. Where is outside? From the point you are looking at.
zapatos Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 (edited) The fact that 2 dimensions have height and width. 3 dimensions have height, width and depth. Draw a square on a piece of paper. The square will be 2 dimensional (almost) and the paper will be 3 dimensional. If you look at the square, what is the white inside it. It goes out past the square. Hold a ball and look at it. If that represented the universe and you were inside the ball, you would look at the inner skin of the ball and wonder what's out there even if it is just space. For space to be finite, it must have some type of wall or boundary somewhere, but then, what is on the other side. Forgive me if I don't accept your musing about a drawing on a piece of paper as evidence about the fundamental nature of the universe. Just because something seems to make sense within the realm of our everyday experience does not necessarily mean it can be applied to the whole universe. Terms like "it must have" and "everything" should be used carefully. Edited March 8, 2012 by zapatos
Schrödinger's hat Posted March 8, 2012 Posted March 8, 2012 From the point you are looking at. That's another dimension. You have to move perpendicular to your two directions on the surface of the ball to get there. Analogous in 3d Euclidean would be moving in a direction that is not up, down, left, right, forward, back or any combination. There is no outside to the closed 2d space on the ball. It's embedded in a higher dimension, but that is a distinct concept. 3
morgsboi Posted March 8, 2012 Author Posted March 8, 2012 Forgive me if I don't accept your musing about a drawing on a piece of paper as evidence about the fundamental nature of the universe. Just because something seems to make sense within the realm of our everyday experience does not necessarily mean it can be applied to the whole universe. Terms like "it must have" and "everything" should be used carefully. Agreed, thanks for correcting me. That's another dimension. You have to move perpendicular to your two directions on the surface of the ball to get there. Analogous in 3d Euclidean would be moving in a direction that is not up, down, left, right, forward, back or any combination. There is no outside to the closed 2d space on the ball. It's embedded in a higher dimension, but that is a distinct concept. But even with that, the dimension still exists.
Snowman Posted April 30, 2012 Posted April 30, 2012 Well, the universe can't simply end, but It can't go on forever either. Both of those possibilities just don't seem right. Here is my theory, it may sound illogical to you though: I believe that the universe possesses what I call the Pac Man effect. It does not end or go on forever, it simply loops, much like everything else in existence. 1
morgsboi Posted May 1, 2012 Author Posted May 1, 2012 Well, the universe can't simply end, but It can't go on forever either. Both of those possibilities just don't seem right. Here is my theory, it may sound illogical to you though: I believe that the universe possesses what I call the Pac Man effect. It does not end or go on forever, it simply loops, much like everything else in existence. I agree with that. There must be some other dimension that allows it to happen but its beyond our comprehension. Imagine the universe is flat (like how we used to think the Earth was). Now if you flip that over then you have a section of the multi-verse on the other side. Now imagine making a dent in one side (general relativity), on the other side it would be the opposite of that (reversed general relativity). Although the universe isn't flat, it is still a good way of substituting one dimension for another to understand. Well, that's the way I think of it.
questionposter Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 (edited) Scientists believe that the laws of physics were created in the big bang. But I think the are universal as I don't believe there is an end to the universe. You can't just hit a wall because the question would be, what is behind it. It can't be a sphere because the universe wouldn't be expanding, it would be pulled in by gravity. Try and picture in your head new laws of physics. Not something like opposites and switching them around but actually a new law of physics that doesn't exist. I believe the only outside dimension of the universe are decisions, natural events and so on. If you had seen the title of this but chose not to read it, from our view that would be a "parallel universe" but if it really happened and you chose not to read this it would be our universe through a different path. It exists but it does not exist, this is why I think that this could be the one possible dimension that doesn't fit in with the laws of physics. I don't know how much has been answered already, but astronomers already accept that the universe is infinite because they cannot see a physical boundary. And, light fades out at large distances, possibly so large that no matter how much matter there is, even if it's infinite, it will have too low of an energy by the time it get's to Earth in order to see it because it has weakened so much over the large distance, but as more powerful instruments are constructed, the further away we can see into the universe, there isn't really a point where we can just say stuff stops popping up. However, there are alternative theories such as that the universe loops in on itself and that it has a boundary, making it subject to a possible big crunch. In either, a big rip is possible because something can still be happening to local space if we are in an infinitely large universe. Edited May 2, 2012 by questionposter -2
StringJunky Posted May 2, 2012 Posted May 2, 2012 I don't know how much has been answered already, but astronomers already accept that the universe is infinite because they cannot see a physical boundary. And, light fades out at large distances, possibly so large that no matter how much matter there is, even if it's infinite, it will have too low of an energy by the time it get's to Earth in order to see it because it has weakened so much over the large distance, but as more powerful instruments are constructed, the further away we can see into the universe, there isn't really a point where we can just say stuff stops popping up. However, there are alternative theories such as that the universe loops in on itself and that it has a boundary, making it subject to a possible big crunch. In either, a big rip is possible because something can still be happening to local space if we are in an infinitely large universe. The universe can be finite and unbounded; analogous to the surface of a sphere which has finite area but no edge.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now