trapit Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Let us consider we are having a vehicle than can attain any great speed;in multiples of light speeds(supposing we overcome the effect of mass law that weight becomes infinity at light speed).Now let us travel through the universe starting from the north pole.Can we reach the end of the universe?Can we move constantly in a same direction?Can we make sure that we dont trace a path twice?And if we suppose that we find an end what will be there a metre after the limit??????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kamil Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 Well that all depends if the Universe does have spatial boundaries. If it does, then moving at the speed of light will make one end of the Universe right next tothe other, from your perspective. In other words the Universe would be two dimensional. This is because of length contraction. THough suprisingly the car would be longer than the Universe, since its length is not affected. Actually, i just thought, if the UNiverse had no spatial boundaries, then its length would be infinte. Apllying that to the length contraction formula gives: L'=inf*0 The length of the Universe would then be infinte multiplied by zero. :hihi: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 I agree with Kamil, we don't know if the universe has boundries or not, we don't even know what shape it is if it does have boundies. My best bet it would be rigdy cricle, very deformed still spreading. If what I said is indeed the case, the unvirse is a cirlce, that would mean we can reach the end. There are no real boundies, if you fly out of the unvirse, my guess is you would end up in nothingness and your life will end/stop, since time and space doesn't exist, no time meaning your frozen for all of eternity, no space meaning you can't move, can't see, you're done for. Another scenerio can be is that at such immense and improbable speeds you can rip the fabric of space and create your self a wormhole or black hole....you get sucked in. What happens after is another question, what happens in a black hole? But we can get to that later. But saying the universe is shapless and infinite (which i doubt) then you will be simply flying forever...and ever...and ever. Send me a post card when you reach something interesting. Yet something i feel like i should point out, if the way i said it is right, its sphere, than...there is no north pole. I believe the universe is made out uniformed energy, if this is true, there is no poles to begin with. Hope this helps. I am sure infy has something intereseting to say or some other moderator, they always have something interesting to say. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted January 10, 2006 Report Share Posted January 10, 2006 personally, i dont want to reach the end of the universe. i dont want to see it. i doubt that the human mind at this point in our evolution could even come close to comprehending what is there, if an end were to exist. too much man, too much. regards,tarantism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trapit Posted January 14, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 I dont understand the way we guessed the shape of the universe is spherical.Because sphere is a body coming out of three dimensions.We cant exactly say that there are only three dimensions.seconndly i was in doubt about the fact that there will be no space and time after a certain limit.How can it be?May be we can say that the stars and other bodies we see will exist for a limited space(Because the total energy and hence matter of the universe is constant).But what about the null space????? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 14, 2006 Report Share Posted January 14, 2006 Simply enough...we don't know. So far no one can say with certainty if the universe is infininte or not. WHy some people, like me believe in sphere (not a perfect sphere, but more round than square), is because when the big bang exploded. It pushed things out ward. When you blow something up underwater or blow something up in space, what shape do you get? a sphere. So we can assume that this sphere (it could have deformed) still is ever so expanding. I am sure i got a few points wrong, I am not expert but thats the jist of why most of us believe its sphere. If indeed most of us believe ithe universe is limit. (other wise in quantum mechanics, the multiverse idea would be quite impossible, because as i figure, infinty was stretch over every parrarel dimmension). Um, no as we see it now, we have 12 dimensions. Orginally 11 but with string theory ( m-theory) we get 12. What I personally assume, apperently some people think otherwise, is that whatever is true for last dimension will be true for next. But next will have extra properties. So seeing how the universe is 3D we can safely assume that the sphere is it in is indeed a sphere (which is 3d)....I suck at explaining this.... Null space? You mean the nothingness outside of our universe? Well assuming that the universe is limited, I should be able to conclude outisde it there shouldn't be anything, an opposite of the universe. Nothingness doesn't exist in our universe, because nothingness is nothing, outside our universe things are different. Properties and laws don't exist, no space/time, no nothing. Blankess. There is high chance i am wrong, I am simply giving my idea of how this thing works. BUT then again, there is no way i can be wrong. This non conclusive area of science, so far, we don't have any proof for any idea. So until one prooves otherwise my ideas are just as solid as any theory out there. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trapit Posted January 15, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 15, 2006 Hey sergy,one thing,big bang only says that the materials(i mean the matter)in the universe started expanding,like stars and other heavenly bodies and all other particles(and hence the group of particulate in the universe may be spherical).But u see these bodies must have enough and more space to expand.This space(as i said-null space)was not created at the big-bang.It was existing before that.When the expansion continues the thing happening is only exploring new areas of space.My question was;will this exploration end or will there be a state that the materials of the universe can't expand or move anymore?? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 As I see it, there is no limit, nothingess is nothing, null space is nothing, there is properites, so there is no measurement of how much our growing universe can consume. But our universe will stop growing not because it ran out of space, but because it has too much space. There are many theories on this, i will just pick one. The big crunch, the opposite of the big bang. The theory basicly says that the universe will implode on itself due to it own gravity, so it will collapse on itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trapit Posted January 17, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 Well,so i must understand there is no possible endpoint of the vast universe. Another thing i asked was that Can we identify ourself as moving in same direction or can we make sure that we are not tracing the same path again and again? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tarantism Posted January 17, 2006 Report Share Posted January 17, 2006 woo there is a suggestion! perhaps when you reach the end of the rainbow you simply could pop out of the other side!...anything is possible... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 18, 2006 Report Share Posted January 18, 2006 Well like I said this is not certain area of science, but as I see it, no there is no end point. Unless you count the limitations of the universe itself. What did you mean moving in same direction? There is no real directions space, no up or down, left or right. although it is 3D space. The most direction you will get is "If you're going in linear path, as now, you will need to at 90 degree angle on the next planet, then fly 1.3 light years and you will reach blue star, in that sector you should find giantic planet, that what you are looking for" or "At vector 23023 in sector 0023 of Milky way galaxy, you will find Earth (no it won't work, i just made those directions up". Well that as much directions you will get. It depends on what motion you're going in. Newton first law will make sure you stay in striaght line (stay away from planets). From there it just visuals. You know what? I just don't get you're question, rephrase it please. If you mean the universe itself, no we do not know if its moving, not to mention in a certain direction...unless you can give directions in nothingness. But then again, there is always the multiverse idea you might want to look into for the hell of it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
trapit Posted January 19, 2006 Author Report Share Posted January 19, 2006 As u said "Newtons first law will make sure that we will move along a straight path" ,can we make sure that we dont trace a same portion of the universe again and again?By this i mean that:suppose we see a star say alpha centuri at the begining of the journey,now we travel for 20 months(earth time) or so and one fine moment we see the star alpha centuri on the left of us.This means that we covered the area once.Will this happen? I just mean the motion of a human who started a journey to see the whole universe,not the motion of the universe itself. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 20, 2006 Report Share Posted January 20, 2006 i STRONGLY doubt that can happen, but unless you falll into a wormhole and manage to get through before it closes, it might be possible you will end up in same spot. Or excessed speed of light, and by relativty (sp?) we can say time will rewind in a way, so you can pass the same point in those two ways. None of which has been done before...but then again, no one ever navigated the universe. Well no, there IS a way that not so far fetched. If the universe is closed and if there is enough matter in the Universe, space may have enough positive curvature to bend right back on itself (a reason why it can be sphere). But if you can't exit the univrse into the nothingness/null space, you can probably glide on the sphere, since you will never find an edge. But since we are in 3-D space, a closed universe means curvaure into the fourth dimension, thus no center in our universe, it some what of a paradox. But what i am trying to say in a nutshell, is that if indeed the universe is sphere and no edges, and you can glide on end of it, then yes indeed you can circumnaviage the universe. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brigade Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 hai,am a new member,just found the thread interesting. I just am doubting that,why do we always go for three dimensional geometry to explain universe.Mordern physics says there are 11 dimensions(as to my knowledge). We say null,becoz,the nullness we suppose is a nothingness in the three dimensional space.Cant there be a different meaning in another concept with more than 3-D. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tormod Posted January 22, 2006 Report Share Posted January 22, 2006 There is a lot of confusion in this thread. 3D geometry is perfectly applicable to practial things like how far is it from A to B on a flat surface (for example a map). 3D geometry was the only kind of geometry used up until maybe a century ago since it basically was the only geometry known (this is the simplified answer). Multiple dimensions was something that came into play at a fairly recent time, say end of the 19th century. Einstein's relativity theory was not the first to involve multiple dimensions but I think we can safely say his theories made it obvious that 3D geometry could not explain everything. There is no reason to use 11 dimensions, which comes from M-theory, or string theory, in everyday calculations when there are much simpler approaches. Multiple dimensions are used in higher math. String theory is an as of yet unproven theory with no predictions. There is also no reason to assume that the universe is spherical. What we know (because we can see it) is that the *observable* universe is spherical, and we're at the smack bang middle of it, because it is defined by the light that has reached us since the big bang. Sergey500 has some good replies and there are also lots of other threads here where dimensions, the shape of the universe, and infinity is being discuss. And it would definitely help to pick up a good book on cosmology - for example John Barrow's "The Constants of Nature" or "The Artful Universe". Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sergey500 Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Well Tormod, I feel like i mentioned all that, but that is not of the problem. You said "and we're at the smack bang middle of it, because it is defined by the light that has reached us since the big bang." well i must disagree. You make it sound, or are making it sound, like we are at center of the universe. If you are right of wrong is not my problem, it is that you assume for what sounds like certainty that we are in center. That sounds somewhat arrogant, no offense, but it just reminds me of when we were in center of solar system, until the heliocentric idea game into view we all believed that we were at center, so I just want to point out, its not a good idea to assume the world rotates around ourselves only. You're explaintion to why we can be in the center, would work, but then again, light hits things at different times, what was reached first by the light of the big bang would probably be the closest thing to center, but we don't exacrtly know what that is, do we? We can't say that big bang happened in the solar system, it makes little sense Or I misinterpreted you're sentence. Or, better yet, I am too fatigued with dullness (too bored) at the moment to think of logical arguement. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
brigade Posted January 23, 2006 Report Share Posted January 23, 2006 Can we say that the center of the universe lies at the origin of big bang? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.