What exists beyond the known universe?

[lindagarrette]

Strings don't exist outside their mathematical definition. There is no true depiction of any mathematical construct beyond three dimensions. Strings theory uses the extra dimensions as the domain for defining the algorithme. The Kaluba -Yau and other diagrams are not real and a waste of time and effort, in my opinion. :D

[maddog]

Keep it simple. Beyond the universe nothing exist. the universe is governed by mathematics.If you cant count it it doesn't exist.

 

Were your premise to be true, then this could be proved.

 

Also the whole question is a bit like, "What came before everything ?" Somewhat

nonsensical. However, to take a stab -- First the notion of finite vs infinite sized universe

has been going back and forth the last five or ten years or so. With data from gravitational

lensing of objects more distant by unseen object that are closer, it is now thought that

there was an inflationary period near the beginning of the big bang. The notion of

inflation has been around for about twenty years, yet it has been less than five that this

inflation is accelerating. What this means is that the arguement of black space means

infinite universe is now again fallacious (this changes often). See because the inflation

of the universe is happening at a speed faster than light (> c).

 

Now to say what is beyond is to consider the notion of Wheeler's "Multiverse" where our

universe is like a soap bubble emmenshed between other "universes" in this super-unerversal

foam. It is interesting that the largest know universal structures kind of look like a bunch

of soap bubbles. So who knows.... :)

 

Maddog

[Aki]

Yeah, I've read about the bubble model of the universe, and I wonder, what would happen if two "bubble universes" collide? Would that collision release a huge amount of energy and create another bubble? Or would it cause the two universes to join together?

[paultrr]

Correction: The original inflation period of the Universe was by definition faster than light. The present accelerated expansion, at least by current figures is not quite the same. However, if it continues it will eventually reach a stage where it is faster than light.

 

What a lot of this whole question line boils down to is trying to model or understand what the universe is expanding into to. The choices are rather simple as far as current cosmological models go:

 

1.) Into nothing since the universe is all there is.

 

2.) Into hyperspace with all its varying definitions. This can be modeled with our without multiple universes.

 

Two bubble Universes can collide in theory. To get some idea on such results try searching under colliding branes for a start. In general, prior to modern Brane theory, the thought was that the two would either cancel each other out or perhaps a third state would be formed. Either way, as far as our universe goes its current vacuum state and physics would change. On some levels its possible our universe could be a result of such a fusion of different bubbles to begin with especially when under M-Theory one encounters multiple dimensions mixed together and large dimensions mxed in with compacted ones. If that was the case then you could view our universe as a mixture of say a six dimensional one with a 4 dimensional one.

[lindagarrette]

The "Big Rip: theory makes sense to me. The expansion is shaped rather like a bowl and will continue to accellerate until there is no matter or motion left in the universe. It will be falt and empty.

 

If our species survives the next 19 billion years (and there are serious doubts about this, given our Sun's projected fate) here are some signs that scientists of the future will want to look for.

• A billion years before the end, all galaxies will have receded so far and so fast from our own as to be erased from the sky, as in no longer visible.
  
• When the Milky Way begins to fly apart, there are 60 million years left.
  
• Planets in our solar system will start to wing away from the Sun three months before the end of time.
  
• When Earth explodes, the end is momentarily near.
  

At this point, there is still a short interval before atoms and even their nuclei break apart. "There's about 30 minutes left," Caldwell said, "But it's not quality time."

 

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html

[Ica Stoner]

I like to think of our "universe" not as a universe that was created in a big bang and is expanding it's paradoxical self larger and larger to the inevitable big rip, but rather as a localized explosion of matter into an already exiting reference frame that was present at the time of the "big bang". Of course as a large body of matter, it warps the time/space/human percetion of it as a whole. This however does not mean that outside of this clump time and space are warped/rounded in the same way. There are likely many such "universes" being created, expanding and collapsing, in an infinite field. I find the idea of infinity to be quite netural, and find the idea of trying to explain a closed loop universe much more forced and unnecessary. The idea that there could be no infinte anmount of stars/matter, due to an oven effect, or due to the fact that we should see stars everywhere we look seems illogical to me. Keep in mind that as a person looks at a few stars next to each other in the sky, he/she is not only looking at different localities, but also at different times as well, due to the time it takes light to travel to us. Combined with the extreme distances of said other "universes", and the fact that the stars both here and there are periodocally destroying themselves, and the red shift, and a number of other factors, it becomes more understandable that we should percieve the universe as we do. All of what I have said is actually not what I really wanted to say, though. The topic is: what exists beyond the know universe? Well as you may have guessed, I dont think there is a beyond, rather an infinite reference frame that contains infinite complexity of matter, time anomalies and the like. This is the fantastical part: The whole of this could be brought together under the following organizational scheme: Suppose, that the answers to infinity/extra dimensions etc. are not at "the end of the universe", "on the suface of a balloon", or some other such construction. Suppose that we live with, ar a part of, and contain all of the extra dimensions and infinite reference frames within ourselves, in every rock and every tree. What am I talking about? Think for a minute. Assume the universe is indeed infinite. That said, it would certainly be true that there could be no "largest" object. In an infinite reference frame that contains no largest object, there could logically be no smallest object, because the frame of reference is infinite. Imagine a person standing on an arbitrary celestial object, pointing a metre stick towards "the edge of the known universe". Then imagine another person standing beside him with stick of say double the length. Neither of the ends of either stick could be said to be closer to the edge of the infinite universe right? So which stick is longer? Who's metre is the real metre? This is the sort of problem encountered when dealing with infinity, and relativity in a way too. I noticed toward the end of Cosmos by the late Carl Sagan, that someone ha drawn a picture of a man "popping" out of one universe and into another and it got me thinking. Seems a bit odd to me how our universe is organised into "levels of magnitude" as I will call it. What I mean, is that at our human level of perspective, we see all that is around us (birds, cars, the earth, cells, internal organs, clouds, etc) as being roughly fathomable in terms of size/mass/distance/timescale. However, as soon as one ventures in either direction, macro or micro, we run headfirst into a wall. Atoms and electrons and such are the smallest things, and beneath that there is no level of detail to be seen. On the other side, the universe is dauntingly huge, with no seeming way to possibly ever go anywhere of significance ourselves, let alone understand it as anything more as a random, structurless (on the whole) pardox. Where I am going here is as follows: What if the universe is organised into "levels of magnitude". That is, when we get to the atomic level for example, how can one say that any particular partical is fundamental, only because it seems to contain no finer detail. What if it was only that we had to "jump" to a level unimaginably smaller than our own basic building blocks to discern the true detail. Putting ourselves as observers in this scale, we would certainly percieve our surroundings as something similar to our current universe; vast empty distances, seemingly endless, with gargantuan levels of energy at play in every direction. In much the same way, what we see now in OUR universe/scale/perspective, is only random because the level of magnitude neccessary to find structure would be MUCH higher that even our seemingly gigantic realm. In this way, the "extra dimesions" we seek, are all around us, within us. Infinity becomes not only organised and understandable, but neccessary. Now, I am not saying that you and I could be living in someone else's big toe who lives on a higher magnitude, but th idea IS very compelling, I find, if only for the elegance of it's structure. This infinite duality, macro and micro, would continue happily without end in both directions, and an observer in any level of magnitude would see infinity stretching beautifully before him in all directions. In fact, his infinity would be directly a part of my infinity, as mine would be a part of an observer's on a higher level. We would be sharing the same physical space actually. Though this idea is just that; an idea, it would shed some light on such things as: fractal structure, Pi, and hundreds of other paradoxical mathematical constructions like asymtotic curves for example (just how many lines can be drawn in between the line of the curve and where it approaches the axis? An infinite number, so long as they can be drawn with an infinitely thin pencil. And they will never touch each other, no matter how close to the axis the original outer line gets. Hmmmmm....an infinity of lines in an ever smaller enclosed place that will NEVER touch each other as the space closes in on itself......and I'm supposed to believe that there is a fundamental particle?). So have fun with this "nested universe" scheme, and as far as what exists beyond the known universe: You're soaking in it! :)

[infamous]

Oblivion; What on earth????????????????, could you please speak in english!!!!

[maddog]

All,

 

I have noticed the thread wanders so much it is very hard to understand how it all came

from the question, "What exists beyond the known universe?" However, I am adventerous

and I will take a stab. The biggest flaw I see is that a lot has been harping about what

is "known" or not. Putting aside the word "exist" for the moment, you have "beyond" and

"universe" here. All three word use from know on without quotes have connotations on

what they mean. The word universe is most muddled. What does one mean when you

say universe. Just before about 1920 Shapely had not done his study of Nebulae to also

conclude that universe was much bigger than the milky way and that Andromeda was

just a near neighbor Galaxy [in fact it was Shapely who coined the term Galaxy, I think].

Hubble by 1929 published his finding on the Red Shift. All of a sudden the universe concept

became much bigger indeed. Of what then is the know universe when it keeps expanding

with time. :) If we were to just come to terms and say that we are just speaking about

the universe being know to us as what is visible in the universe. Then what is beyond is

out there, just not visible. Actially, I have read some papers where the thought is just

like this. An article in Sci Am (middle 2004) mentioned a theory (copied from elsewhere)

the aludes to the Big Bang as being more of a wimper and that this process occilates

(ie, over and over). That the BB did not come from a singularity (a single point) which

gets around some problems. That with each iteration not all is destroyed, just some is

recycled. In this case what is beyond could be from before this universe and has been

added to this one.

 

About the only evidence we have, on which to hang ANY theory is the red shift. There is the fact that there doesn't appear to be a star in every possible direction, which eliminates a few possibilities, and the 3K background radiation which may just be the temperature of dark matter, or the light of far red shifted galaxies.

 

There are other things than red shift (3k bkgnd, quasars, galactic luminance studies, etc),

it is just that red shift has the most agreement with data and GR. Though some would

disagree. An astronomer Sandage in the 80's had done an extensive study attempting to

shoot holes in red shift as the "only" explanation. He had a lot of evidence that not all

was right with Hubble's theory. I do see how as we got better instruments some of his

weight withered away. Your comment that 3k bgr is just the Temp of dark matter ??

Say that was so, then I challange to say what is dark matter and why would it be 3 kelvins

in tempurature. :)

 

We did hope that the Hubbell telescope would see the edge of the universe ...

 

This is a silly and meaningless statement (unless you bounding the universe by visibility

again). There is no edge to a universe. For a Reimannian manifold (a closed universe),

it bends back on itself. I suppose you could discern an inside and outside in some 4d way.

 

The BB could have been purely an explosion of matter in an

already existing universe of large, or infinite size. In this version there is an edge

to the matter in the universe. Past this edge of the explosion there is just empty space.

 

Making your universe infinite doesn't by definition give an "edge" either. It did take away

a boundry you have had with finite sized closed universe, not with open infinite one.

 

Also I forgot to mention one the things about quasars (Sandage thought they might be

local objects), is that according to red shift theory was they were true anamolies. Most

were high Z (red shifted) where a few had negative Z (blue shifted). Something was

truely wrong. Knowing these objects were very small (some only light days accross) and

had been estimated generating some 10^66 ergs/sec. Finally, we now consider these as

strong candidates for galactic sized black holes.

 

I had a lot more I wanted to cover. With all the interuptions that went on this evening and

this late hour (my having to be at 9:30 AM mtg tomorrow), I am electing to cover those

discusions at another time {implications to string theory, gamma ray studies, some other

considerations on possible universe configurations, and so forth}... Later.

 

Maddog

[Aki]

If I said there's a pile of crap just outside the boundary of the universe, you can't prove that I'm wrong, although this is very unlikely. So basically, we can say whatever we want, and yet nobody can prove us wrong.

[maddog]

If I said there's a pile of crap just outside the boundary of the universe, you can't prove that I'm wrong, although this is very unlikely. So basically, we can say whatever we want, and yet nobody can prove us wrong.

 

Aki,

 

You started up (restarted?) this thread basically asking (were you asking?) "what lies

beyond the "known" universe. By your own question/statement, it in any way is not

"provable" one way or the other. One can only speculate. To be beyond what is known

is not knowable with the knowledge at present. Only speculation.

 

Your point is ? ;)

 

Maddog

[BlameTheEx]

maddog

 

This thread is on 15 pages. It is no use quoting me from so long ago unless you at least give page or date of the post you are quoting. I need to find the context of my statement and my memory is a long way from photographic.

[Tormod]

I need to find the context of my statement and my memory is a long way from photographic.

 

Oooh...a HUMBLE statement from you, pal. ;)

[paultrr]

We tend to simply term what is beyond if anything is beyond as hyperspace. Generally speaking it is correct that in one way anything beyond is not observable by any standard means of such(perhaps indirect in the case of say extra dimensions). As such it would be proper to term such as unprovable.

[paultrr]

Even if we grant the existence of parallel universes, we're still no closer to answering the question we started with: why is there something and not sheer nothingness? Where did this ensemble of universes come from? If it is from fundamental laws and processes that incarnate themselves in a primordial field, how did those laws or the field with its potentialities originate? The Princeton cosmologist J. Richard Gott, who talks of a mother universe from which other universes emerge, says the mother universe, which is sustained by energy from the quantum world, creates itself and makes the first matter in some way we will never be able to know. We're back to square one.

 

The most fundamental question that modern cosmology is trying to answer is where and how the universe and everything in it came about. Almost all of our modern cosmological models incorporate what we term hyperspace. However, from that point onward how one defines this term varies across the board.

 

Any hypothesis about the ultimate origin and nature of the universe, or multiverse that goes beyond experimental/observational evidence, has to address the issue of whether or not it has an ultimate explanation, an explanation that tells us why there is something instead of nothing. If you say the universe always existed, then you still need to explain the phenomenon of an eternally existing universe. If you speak of what is beyond the universe then you need to define what it means to be beyond the universe.

 

Granted, at the present there is some theory on how to test experimentally the multiverse idea. This may yield evidence in the end run that there is something beyond the universe. But, at the present being beyond the universe simply defines such as beyond our ability to experimentally or observationally test such. Without the ability to test such and untill such time as we can then most of this debate remains within the confines of what we call metaphysics.

 

From a scientific point of view, if we allow the possible existance of something beyond the universe then it is our job to define such and find evidence for the existance of such via observation and experiment. This is where theory encounters the domain of those who observe the universe and those who perform experiments. Unlike in math where the equations can be their own proof, physics and cosmology requires that a theory eventually show experimental and or observational evidence before we begin to accept it. Much of the current research work out there is focused on doing just that . My best suggestion is read up on cosmology and some of the theory and conjecture out there. But keep an open mind untill such time as we begin to find some evidence one way or another.

[arijit]

By changing the dimension you can go beyond it. right now earth is moving from 3rd dimension to 4rth dimension.

By changing the magnitudinal vibration of the place u can create another dimension.

[paultrr]

I started to ignore that comment. However, its worthy of mentioning that such is based upon eastern religious philosophy. At the current time its also popular thought in certain new age groups as well that the earth is changing dimensions. Simply put, there is no scientific support of such. If one actually examines that statement it combines ideas that sound like they come from modern string theory itself. But the vibrations as they are termed by most who subscribe to that idea are spiritual ones. By definition the spirit is not something science has the ability to measure. Its something supernatural and as such beyond natural ability to define and measure. I would suggest, and this is only a suggestion that such belongs more in the philosophy section than here. I'm not downing religion at all making this statement. Religion is about faith more than anything else. But science is about experiment and observation. By observation and experiment this planet is not changing dimensions. In fact, the 4th dimension is part of the framework we call spacetime to begin with. That 4th dimension is time itself. Its hard to change to something we already exist in even if its so common place that we tend to ignore it with our sences.

[maddog]

maddog

 

This thread is on 15 pages. It is no use quoting me from so long ago unless you at least give page or date of the post you are quoting. I need to find the context of my statement and my memory is a long way from photographic.

 

For me this thread is on 4 pages. Of course I might be going through spacetime dialation

or something. :)

 

I don't mean to offend. You are free to go back and reread the whole thread, I did. If u

want some assistance, I believe it was with posts 10-40 or so (first page for me). :)

 

Maddog