What exists beyond the known universe?

[DStickler]

 

I see space as the void, the volume which lies around all matter. Everything else is the matter that occupies space. If you could pull a perfect vacuum in a container such that it was devoid of all matter you would have a sample of space. Outside of our universe I see the same space we have within, thus it is not our space that is expanding, only the matter it contains.

 

 

Perhaps "our space" is nothing more than our little bubble of universal laws expanding into the other space of the room you envision. Like ice crystals expanding on a sheet of glass, the laws which govern us race ahead and "crystalize" our reality onto the surrounding superspace. The baseal Space-Time foam may be identical, but the superspace itself may be nothing more than a blank slate.

 

I wonder what would happen if we encountered another bubble?

[Kent]

i don t really know what is beyond the universe.... I don t know how such speculation could fuel so many posts.

[Queso]

I wonder what would happen if we encountered another bubble?

 

stephan hawking writes about that in the universe in a nutshell

since it's only thoughts and ideas, he doesn't say much. but he imagines it would be "catastrophic"

[DStickler]

Why is the sky is dark at night? Because the speed of light is finite, not infinite.

 

During the fraction of a second that inflation occurred, the Universe expanded exponentially, faster than c. Therefore, even though the Universe is only about 13 billion years old, and even if we don't take superluminal movement of very distant galaxies into consideration, there are stars out past the 13-billion lightyear distance. We can't see those stars - with only 13 billion years of travel, their light has not had time to travel the distance from them to us.

 

So there could be a thousand, a trillion, an octillion, a googol, or any number of stars in the Universe and the sky would still be dark at night. But if the speed of light were infinite, then their light would be reaching us already and we would be cooked at "night".

 

The size of the universe has been calculated at 158 billion light years in diameter. Definitely causing an event horizon which we may never see past if the universe continues it's accelerating expansion.

[Tormod]

All things equate to mathematics, Tormod..... All explained by numbers.

<snip>

All things, on their basest level, require the figures to be correct. :eek:

 

You wrote that all things are governed by mathematics, DStickler. Now you write that they equate to mathematics.

 

I contend that all things can be intepreted by mathematics. But we cannot know that our mathematics constitute the correct interpretation of anything.

[DStickler]

You wrote that all things are governed by mathematics, DStickler. Now you write that they equate to mathematics.

 

I contend that all things can be intepreted by mathematics. But we cannot know that our mathematics constitute the correct interpretation of anything.

 

 

The problem is this; Mathematics are universally pervasive. They can be used to describe all things. There are also some absolutes, such as the speed of light or the Inverse Square law, the equations of which have been calculated and recaculated ad nauseum. The results are reproducable and always the same. Certainly, the speed of light may be surpassed some day, but it won't be accomplished by pushing a craft or object through normal space. The speed of c will always be the speed limit. We can cheat with wormholes or quantum connectedness, but we cannot change the fundamental fact that c=186000 miles per second. Interpretation has nothing to do with it.

 

It's a chicken and the egg problem. Are the equations written into the fabric of space-time, just waiting to be discovered or did the equations come about as a way for us to describe the phenomena? It's a very interesting question Tormod. One that rapidly approaches the hairy area of the metaphysical. Personally, I tend to believe that the equations are waiting for us. The basic simplicity of e=mc2 seems far too elegant to be a construct..... :eek:

[DStickler]

stephan hawking writes about that in the universe in a nutshell

since it's only thoughts and ideas, he doesn't say much. but he imagines it would be "catastrophic"

 

I suppose it could be. Doesn't the Eukariotic(sp?) theory base the creation of the universe on the interaction of other universes with ours? "Brane theory"? An continuing cycle of creation caused by the collision of universal membranes.

 

You would be forced to make some fairly large assumptions (as if any of us aren't, lol) to state that "our" space would be bound by something which would interact violently with some "other" space. Why would the interaction have to be destructive? Say our universe expands, writing our laws onto the fabric of superspace (assuming it is so mutable) and eventually comes into contact with another universe doing the same. If their laws are roughly similar to our own, perhaps there would be a comingling? A ship from our universe might simply notice a change in color as the speed of light slows slightly, or speeds up.

 

If the universal laws are diametrically opposed, the expansion of both may act like the ice crystals I described earlier and simply expand around one another.

[Tormod]

It's a chicken and the egg problem. Are the equations written into the fabric of space-time, just waiting to be discovered or did the equations come about as a way for us to describe the phenomena? It's a very interesting question Tormod. One that rapidly approaches the hairy area of the metaphysical. Personally, I tend to believe that the equations are waiting for us. The basic simplicity of e=mc2 seems far too elegant to be a construct..... :eek:

 

Not a chicken and egg problem at all, IMHO. Mathematics is a language invented by human beings. That mathematics can derive the values we see again and again simply shows that it's a very good way to intepret the physical world.

 

The simplicity of E=mc2 is perhaps also the reason why it is not sufficient to explain everything. A formula does not dictate nature - our intepretations of nature dictate our mathematics.

[DStickler]

Not a chicken and egg problem at all, IMHO. Mathematics is a language invented by human beings. That mathematics can derive the values we see again and again simply shows that it's a very good way to intepret the physical world.

 

But the values are there waiting... No matter where you are in the universe, the values, the final expression of the equations, are the same no matter how they are expressed. If aliens a billion light years away running on base 20 mathematics calculate the speed of light, it's the same end result. If the values, or absolutes, are answerable mathematically, then the equations must be part of the whole. It's the answers to the equations which govern the universe, and how can you have an answer without a question? :eek:

 

BTW- This site is wonderful. It's been a long time since I've seen such great discussions. Thanks for answering Tormod!

[Tormod]

No matter where you are in the universe, the values, the final expression of the equations, are the same no matter how they are expressed.

 

But you see - that is something we don't know! :eek: We can assume it, but not prove it. I agree that it certainly appears to be the same everywhere. I would even go so far as to say that indeed, within our observable universe the laws of nature are bound to be the same. Yet mysterious things happen. Like why is the expansion of the universe accelerating? Do things at the edge of the observable universe (seen from our POV, of course) experience a faster expansion rate than we do? Why does the speed of light appear to be slightly different now than it seems to have been two billion years ago?

 

These questions imply that there are things mathematics cannot explain - in fact, that mathematics is also biased by where we are in the universe (and even, come to that, which universe we happen to be in).

 

To me, these are not challenges but rather parts of the wonders of the cosmos. :P

 

BTW- This site is wonderful. It's been a long time since I've seen such great discussions. Thanks for answering Tormod!

 

Thank you! :) You are very welcome here.

[lindagarrette]

But the values are there waiting... No matter where you are in the universe, the values, the final expression of the equations, are the same no matter how they are expressed.

Very well said. If we could not count on the universal laws, then all our scientific theories would be wrong. Math, as the language of science is the only way we can communicate with each other about our theories. So there can be no discrepancy.

[maddog]

The size of the universe has been calculated at 158 billion light years in diameter. Definitely causing an event horizon which we may never see past if the universe continues it's accelerating expansion.

Where did you get that number ? Would you provide a link or a source ? Please. :eek:

 

Maddog

[bumab]

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?chanID=sa006&articleID=0009F0CA-C523-1213-852383414B7F0147&pageNumber=1&catID=2

 

It's a good article, but it claims the diameter to be only around 92 billion light years.

[C1ay]

The size of the universe has been calculated at 158 billion light years in diameter. Definitely causing an event horizon which we may never see past if the universe continues it's accelerating expansion.

 

Where did you get that number ? Would you provide a link or a source ? Please. :eek:

 

Maddog

 

Take a look at this article. This google. should provide some others.

[haselhurst]

Hello,

I am new here.

And I must admit to being surprised that people still take the Big bang seriously.

I write on the Wave Structure of Matter which, though not yet well known, is clearly the most simple language for describing reality, founded on One thing existing, Infinite Eternal Space.

The problems arise when we start adding things like time, particles, and fields to space (how are they all connected, as reality / matter is clearly connected across the universe).

Instead, we need to consider the Properties of Space - and if we assume space is a wave medium we find that we can explain matter 'particles' in terms of Spherical Standing Waves in Space. See;

http://www.spaceandmotion.com

 

For those interested in a perpetual infinite cosmology that really is very simple and sensible please see;

 

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology.htm

 

and this article (below) has good arguments from Halton Arp and Eric Lerner on some of the many problems of the big bang theory.

http://www.spaceandmotion.com/Cosmology-Big-Bang-Theory.htm

 

Hope this helps,

Geoff

[maddog]

... as reality / matter is clearly connected across the universe....

Can you say a little how matter (particles) are all "connected across the universe". I

assume you mean together. I am interested in that I am finding this as well and curious

of your thoughts. :eek:

 

Maddog

[haselhurst]

Hi Maddog,

You have a great image avatar - very similar to Spherical Wave Structure of Matter.

Would you mind if i copied it - used it on my website.

 

I am stressed about improving website at moment (it has recently jumped up in site stats and now gets about 15,000 page views a day) so I can't spend much time here. Sorry - just found this forum by chance searching cosmology - couldn't resist posting!

 

To answer your question very briefly.

Assume matter is a spherical standing wave in space - this is true of all matter in universe. Therefore, apply Huygens' Principle and it means that all that other matter's Spherical Out-Waves must combine to form our spherical In-Waves. Thus matter is large (structure of universe) not small (particle) - but we only see the high wave amplitude wave centers and have been deceived into thinking they are 'particles'. And obviously all matter is interconnected by spherical In and Out waves in One continuously connected thing, Space existing as a wave medium.

 

Very similar to Einstein's field theory of matter (he rejected concept of particles) - but more simple. i.e. from Einstein's continuous spherical fields in space time to spherical waves in continuous space.

Please see the links in my signature below for more info.

Thanks for replying (hope I am not rude in being so abrupt, i don't use forums much!)

Cheers,

Geoff