Space existed before the Universe?

[who_knows]

If the Universe is said to be expanding and of finite size,then there must be something(Space) outside of it for it to increase.

If everything was contained in a vacuum to begin with as the Big bang suggests,then there would be nothing outside of itelf to expand or increase into?Wouldn't it be more correct to say the Universe is finitely bound in infinite space than than to say space is finitely bound in a finite Universe(as the big bang suggests)

[Sayonara]

Please search for other threads on this.

 

There are many.

[nomadd22]

Nope. Space is part of the universe. Not the other way around. Both space and time were created at the instant of the big bang. Applying concepts like "when" and "where" to things not of our universe doesn't really mean anything, since the rules of spacetime are part of the universe, and wouldn't apply anywhere/when else.

[who_knows]

If space is part of the Universe,then it must be continuously being creating.

But there is no observable proof and measurement for this theory.They would have to see where the end of space is to see what is happening.

[luc]

If space is part of the Universe' date='then it must be continuously being creating.

But there is no observable proof and measurement for this theory.They would have to see where the end of space is to see what is happening.[/quote']

 

Have you considered the possibility that space is not continuously created, but stretched instead? Take like an example a plum cake, while is in the oven: it grows in volume and grows...

[bascule]

If the Universe is said to be expanding and of finite size,then there must be something(Space) outside of it for it to increase.

 

Unless the universe is curved and therefore closed and therefore simply wraps back upon itself. But this is rather hard to visualize, which makes it counterintuitive...

[ydoaPs]

so is a lot of qm

[Nicholas]

The universe is neither large or small

It aint expanding into anything!!!

[buzsaw]

Please search for other threads on this.

 

There are many.

 

Hi Sayonara. I heard you were on a trip and don't know if you're back yet. If you are back, my question is whether it's ok to advance this thread by posting on it or should one search for a similar one if interested in the topic? (Maybe Phi can answer this if Sayonara is not back.)

Thanks.

[atinymonkey]

He's not back, and you already have a debate in one of the other threads on the subject: -

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9786&page=5

 

Enjoy.

[Ewen]

I think we're too used to thinking that everything is a part of something greater. The "Universe" is a collective term for everything. Anything that seems to be "outside" of the Universe is just a part of the Universe itself.

[Nicholas]

The universe is not expanding into anything.

It is simply growing larger.

 

If it was then where did it start?

Where is the universe at anyway?

[buzsaw]

He's not back' date=' and you already have a debate in one of the other threads on the subject: -

 

http://www.scienceforums.net/forums/showthread.php?t=9786&page=5

 

Enjoy.[/quote']

 

The two topics are not the same, though they're both about space. I want to make a specific comment about how long the universe and space have existed. I'm not sure how that fits into "space ends??"

[Phi for All]

If you are back' date=' my question is whether it's ok to advance this thread by posting on it or should one search for a similar one if interested in the topic? (Maybe Phi can answer this if Sayonara is not back.)

Thanks.[/quote']This thread has been bumped a few times, so I suppose it's alright to post in it, buzsaw. When Sayonara³ says to Search for other threads, it is in the hopes that people will not keep posting the same arguments over and over. If you have read similar threads and feel your thoughts will not be redundant, please share them with us here.

[buzsaw]

If you have read similar threads and feel your thoughts will not be redundant, please share them with us here.

 

Thanks Phi.

[buzsaw]

Wouldn't it be more correct to say the Universe is finitely bound in infinite space than than to say space is finitely bound in a finite Universe(as the big bang suggests)

 

By definition, the universe being all that exists, I would include existing space, whether finite or infinite, as inclusive in what the universe consists of. If therefore, as I believe to be the case, space would be unbounded and infinite. Consequently, the universe which has unbounded space is unbounded and infinite. The only dimensions and measurements possible in the universe would be things which exist in the unbounded space of the universe.

[buzsaw]

Have you considered the possibility that space is not continuously created, but stretched instead? Take like an example a plum cake, while is in the oven: it grows in volume and grows...

 

But the plum cake (yum) obviously has space outside of itself to expand into. BBers say that's not the case with the alleged big bang and the expanding space of the universe.

[buzsaw]

The universe is not expanding into anything.

It is simply growing larger.

 

For anything to grow larger, more space is required. Space is allegedly expanding for this to happen. I have yet to have anyone show any property of space which makes it capable of expansion. They say the property of space capable of expansion is geometrics, but until something is introduced into space, there's nothing to measure, so the geometrics is relative to things existing in space and not space itself, as I see it.

[BobbyJoeCool]

Think about the universe being the "volume" of a 4 dimentional object...

 

For example, Imagine a sphere made up of a streachy material on the surface. Things exist in 2 dimentions on the surface of this sphere, and can move about the surface area of the sphere... and 2D being on this sphere would be perplexed when it moves in any given direction because it doesn't know that it's actually moving in 3D, because it perceives the "universe" (the sphere's surfcace) as being 2D. Try to visualize that the "universe" is actually a part of a 4D object that exists in a 4D universe (where in theory there could be other 4D objects with other 3D universes).

 

As for expantion... think of what happens to the surface area of the sphere if the sphere gets bigger.... expands now doesn't it?

[buzsaw]

Think about the universe being the "volume" of a 4 dimentional object...

 

For example' date=' Imagine a sphere made up of a streachy material on the surface. Things exist in 2 dimentions on the surface of this sphere, and can move about the surface area of the sphere... and 2D being on this sphere would be perplexed when it moves in any given direction because it doesn't know that it's actually moving in 3D, because it perceives the "universe" (the sphere's surfcace) as being 2D. Try to visualize that the "universe" is actually a part of a 4D object that exists in a 4D universe (where in theory there could be other 4D objects with other 3D universes).

 

As for expantion... think of what happens to the surface area of the sphere if the sphere gets bigger.... expands now doesn't it?[/quote']

 

This's not showing in any way that space has not eternally existed. You're imagining the universe as a sphere and as I stated you're not talking about properties of space perse, but space relative to things which may or may not exist in the universe. Imagining that it's a sphere doesn't cut the mustard, so to speak. The universe may indeed have existing unbounded infinite space in which the things of the universe exist. Imagining it as a sphere, is pure conjecture on your part and on the part of mainstream science, imo, for nobody has observed an alleged outer boundary/edge of the universe.

[darkkazier]

i always thought our universe floated on a membrane in some higher dimension that we do not have access to? Isn't that true? and also wasn't the big bang merely a result of our membrane colliding with another in higher dimensional space? Just my two cents.

[danny8522003]

I saw something about that on a TV documentry, it's known as "The Big Bump" theory.

 

From what i can remember, it states that our Universe collised with another one in a higher dimension as darkkazier said.

 

I found articles on it here and here.

[buzsaw]

i always thought our universe floated on a membrane in some higher dimension that we do not have access to? Isn't that true? and also wasn't the big bang merely a result of our membrane colliding with another in higher dimensional space? Just my two cents.

 

1. uni=one..........one verse. There's only one imo. One has nothing to collide with.

 

2. If the universe is everything existing, there's no membranes not included in the universe and there's no higher dimension. Everything existing exists within the universe. Imo, this attempt to redefine and obfuscate the word universe is counterproductive to coming to a correct and logical understanding of the universe.

[darkkazier]

1. uni=one..........one verse. There's only one imo. One has nothing to collide with.

 

2. If the universe is everything existing' date=' there's no [i']membranes[/i] not included in the universe and there's no higher dimension. Everything existing exists within the universe. Imo, this attempt to redefine and obfuscate the word universe is counterproductive to coming to a correct and logical understanding of the universe.

 

Their is a problem with several areas of the big bang and the Ekpyrotic Universe theory explains it. which is why i said that. and you can have a "universe" floating in a higher dimensional ocean with other "universes" floating in it as well. It would be like a 2-d character on a book. to him that page is his universe, he can't leave it, but to us 3-dimensional beings it is merely one "page" in a series of other pages. Same thing with our universe.

[joerdz]

What puzzles my mind is that time and space and related. Do you think there was such thing as "time" before the big bang?