[Q] what contains universe?

[liberalthought]

hey everyone,

yesterday i was teaching big bang theory to my students,when something came into my mind n i m writing it here because if there is any answers to these then it would b with u guys only :Alien:

we know that the diameter of univere is 10 billion light years.

what comes after that ??any ideas??:Alien:

 

one more thing--we always say that universe is expanding..but had anyone thought --into what or which space is it expanding.

it is even more confusing when they say it is expanding into something though nothing is larger than universe...:):doh:

[Boerseun]

This is a very common question, and a common problem encountered by teachers and students alike.

 

And the reason for this is that you're trying to understand the universe as being 3-dimensional (with time added), same as everything else. You're trying to shoehorn the universe into your everyday experience.

 

The universe is actually a hypersphere, where each and every point is the center. So there is no "border" to the universe into which it's expanding as such - although it certainly is expanding. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but it indeed seem to be the case.

 

Consider a point somewhere in the farthest reaches in visible space, in time almost right at the big bang. At that point, there are no stars, no galaxies, nothing. They haven't condensed yet. But if you were to look at Earth from that vantage point, you will also see a point in space where galaxies haven't condensed yet. But they must have, because you know that Earth exist - and that Earth has a visible horizon 15 billion light years in all directions, whilst from your vantage point the location of Earth is where the universe ends. And so on and so forth. If you were to instantly travel to the edge of the universe, you will find yourself in a spot that would seem to be the perfect centre of the universe, with a visible horizon of fifteen billion light years in all directions. Simply put, you will never find the edge of the universe. Doesn't matter how hard you try. The only way to reach the edge of the universe is to physically travel back in time in the exact point you are finding yourself in right now, all the way back to the Big Bang. And right between the points of Before The Big Bang and After The Big Bang, you will observe the edge of the universe.

 

So the question of what lies beyond the edge has very little meaning, if that edge only exist in time. Because seeing as time travel is impossible, the point is rather moot. The universe is infinite in all directions, in space. But it is clearly bound by fifteen billion years in time.

[analynsarte]

You are thinking beyond but its okay.

 

Well for me, I believe that the universe is not expanding. It is still the same as before. The study, discovery and knowledge is the only thing that is expanding.

 

-------------------------------

Science News and Reasearch

[Boerseun]

Well for me, I believe that the universe is not expanding. It is still the same as before.

The evidence, however, points to expansion.

[arkain101]

The universe is actually a hypersphere, where each and every point is the center. So there is no "border" to the universe into which it's expanding as such - although it certainly is expanding. I know it sounds like a cop-out, but it indeed seem to be the case.

 

I think Boerseun hit the mark here. However, you could say, in accordance to withstanding cosmological theory The universe is considered a hypersphere.

 

A great way to think of this is that time (or more accurately, the source of time) and distance are intertwined. That means, an imagined certain distance away from an observer, say from earth to the distance of the sun, is not only to be considered a great many millions of miles, but is also a seperation of approx 8 minutes of time, based on stardard time units.

 

Where an event is an observable action, we can go on to describe: The sun has a present time. That is, it has a series of 'now' moments, just like we do here on earth. When a now moment happens, ie: a coronal flare up, that event takes an amount of time to be observed on earth. As the information travels towards earth to provide a "future" event for us, relative to the sun and how our mind conceives the linearity of time, the flare up event is a "past" event (as we would describe using our everyday mental conception of time). In other words, if we think of this in our mental conception of time this past event from the sun forms a future event for earth.

 

Time in relation to cosmology does not work the same as our everyday minds conceive time. We know energy is conserved. This means that all events produce other events, and all events are produced from previous events. This is the same as saying, the center of the universe -which is any presently conceived event- is effected by other distant events, and vice versa.

 

From this, we can explain -in respect to a cosmological model and theorem- that things/events neither move into the past or the future. The linear concept of time we've developed and conceive in our everyday 3 dimensional mind is irrelevant in respect to a cosmological model. In replacement of this concept we can say observations are energy and energy is conserved, being neither created or destroyed, but can only change form.

 

Sorry,

 

The linear concept of time we've developed and conceive in our everyday 3 dimensional mind is irrelevant in respect to a cosmological model

 

I should not use the word irrelevant. I would prefer to say, the linear concept of time we've developed and conceive in our everyday 3 dimensional mind, is, based on our intuition, inaccurately conceived in respect to a cosmological model, or understanding...........

 

Finally, if we agree that an observation is produced by energy (ie, light hitting our eyes) then, energy that we observe in our present moment can be considered a present time observation of a past time event, as well as -relative to its source- a potential future event in respect of a distance location receiving that light. This goes on to say that how we discern time when making cosmological observations is with energy and/or information.

 

So we arrive at a final translation that says to us, time is conserved, being neither created or destroyed, but can only change form.

[arkain101]

Allow me to say this now in a much simpler form.

 

 

 

Imagine I am an object you wish to observe. I am about 100meters away from you. We are in a pitch field. I can see you (because you have a candle), but you can not see me. My job as an object is to perform an action, then write and/or draw that action down on a piece of paper, fold it into the shape of a paper airplane, and fly it to your location. You then pick up the paper airplane, and unfold it and find out what I am doing.

 

The first action I perform is I put both hands strait up in the air and shake them. I then write this down on a piece of paper, fold it into a plane, and toss it so that it flies to you.

(For the sake of the argument, these are special airplanes that fly very strait and very far)

You then open the paper and read the action I just performed, as well as small drawing.

 

 

Now, if we consider that the paper airplane is like light that carries information about distant objects, then we can say that the paper is neither created or destroyed, it only changes form.

 

Because the paper contains the information of what I did at a point in time, and you depend entirely on that paper alone to explain the events happened at a specific time in my location, then everything the paper contains is conserved and can only transform.

 

And if we believe energy and time are essentially the same idea (motion creates time, time allows motion) than time is conserved and not ejected or injected to or from the present.

[liberalthought]

Allow me to say this now in a much simpler form.

 

 

 

Imagine I am an object you wish to observe. I am about 100meters away from you. We are in a pitch field. I can see you (because you have a candle), but you can not see me. My job as an object is to perform an action, then write and/or draw that action down on a piece of paper, fold it into the shape of a paper airplane, and fly it to your location. You then pick up the paper airplane, and unfold it and find out what I am doing.

 

The first action I perform is I put both hands strait up in the air and shake them. I then write this down on a piece of paper, fold it into a plane, and toss it so that it flies to you.

(For the sake of the argument, these are special airplanes that fly very strait and very far)

You then open the paper and read the action I just performed, as well as small drawing.

 

 

Now, if we consider that the paper airplane is like light that carries information about distant objects, then we can say that the paper is neither created or destroyed, it only changes form.

 

Because the paper contains the information of what I did at a point in time, and you depend entirely on that paper alone to explain the events happened at a specific time in my location, then everything the paper contains is conserved and can only transform.

 

And if we believe energy and time are essentially the same idea (motion creates time, time allows motion) than time is conserved and not ejected or injected to or from the present.

 

arkain..u r my man...:hihi:

really made everything clear:bow:

thank u sir:)

[enorbet2]

liberalthought you should congratulate your class for asking one of the truly BIG questions since it is particularly a major stumbling block for String Theory or any other attempt to advance UInified Field Theory, such as Quantum Loop Gravity. Background independence is essential to any serious model of the Universe whether Steady State or Standard Model.

 

I found this helpful

Shape of the Universe - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

and also the books of Lee Smolin

 

Lee Smolin's home page

 

and the discussions on NPR between he and Briane Green

 

Lee Smolin and Brian Greene on "Science Friday" show Text - Physics Forums Library

[Jway]

I like to construct the phrase as statement, rather than (only) seeing it as question and thus matter of doubt. Such as:

 

What lies beyond the Universe. Any (and all) ideas.

 

It has taken me several years to understand it from this perspective, even while I thought I got it the first time from just reading the words. I'm still "getting it."

 

I find that questions sometimes answer themselves, when looked at just below the surface.

 

I also find asking the questioner, "what do you think?" goes a long way toward mutual learning / mutual teaching.

[seafrogman]

It is too difficult to explain you, see universosimmetrico.it