Welcome, Guest

Author Topic: Outside the Universe  (Read 22015 times)

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Outside the Universe
« on: February 04, 2013, 04:33:58 PM »
What do you believe is outside of the universe? Another universe? Nothing? But, then you must ask yourself what IS nothing, and how is it possible.


Side note: Is this more complicated than metaphysics or less or about the same types of questions they ask?


Myself, I believe in...uhh...uhhh....this is harder than i thought...uhh...uhhh.
Okay, maybe some kind of totally different spectrum, something not unimaginable, but something that was totally different then our current universe, laws, exsistance! I don't even know how to imagine it. Like, ...
i'll get back to you on this.


Edit: Ah, i found the picture, even though i don't understand it, after reading the article.

« Last Edit: February 04, 2013, 04:51:29 PM by bong »

tuto99

  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Baba Booey
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #1 on: February 04, 2013, 05:16:45 PM »
What do you believe is outside of the universe? Another universe? Nothing? But, then you must ask yourself what IS nothing, and how is it possible.


Side note: Is this more complicated than metaphysics or less or about the same types of questions they ask?


Myself, I believe in...uhh...uhhh....this is harder than i thought...uhh...uhhh.
Okay, maybe some kind of totally different spectrum, something not unimaginable, but something that was totally different then our current universe, laws, exsistance! I don't even know how to imagine it. Like, ...
i'll get back to you on this.


Edit: Ah, i found the picture, even though i don't understand it, after reading the article.


I think the chart suggests that we are a more predictable, stable, and complex universe than other universes.
Anyway, I think that "our" universe is probably one of the millions, if not, billions of other universes out there. But I don't think we're separated from them by huge bubbles of matter, no, I think that we are interconnected to other universes by endless voids of nothing, bound by a huge bubble of endless dimensions. I also don't believe that other universes have different scientific laws. We are bound together by a universal system of laws that contribute to the existence and possibility of this matter-enriched void.

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #2 on: February 04, 2013, 05:27:50 PM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:48:14 PM by phinehas »

Hellpotatoe

  • *****
  • Posts: 230
  • JooJ
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #3 on: February 04, 2013, 05:39:52 PM »
We are bound together by a universal system of laws that contribute to...
Kol, a universal system of laws only works on THIS universe, right? xD

tuto99

  • *****
  • Posts: 533
  • Baba Booey
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #4 on: February 04, 2013, 05:53:41 PM »
Quote
What do you believe is outside of the universe?
 That would require the belief in the supernatural.

"Anyway, I think that "our" universe is probably one of the millions, if not, billions of other universes out there."

Theists use inference as a rationale to explain their beliefs, what do you have other than that to explain yours?
I've watched a few documentaries and read several articles that talk about possibilities of existing multiverses.
But honestly, I don't have much evidence to actually back up my theory. It's just a personal opinion.
We are bound together by a universal system of laws that contribute to...
Kol, a universal system of laws only works on THIS universe, right? xD
...
Well, you can definitely say that, but what I said is just my personal reasoning.

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #5 on: February 04, 2013, 07:24:30 PM »
naw Houndini snuk out of the universe and confirmed what you said tuto, it's just that the documents are top skirit,

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #6 on: February 05, 2013, 07:14:19 AM »
Quote
What do you believe is outside of the universe?
 That would require the belief in the supernatural.
Not really. Let's replace the word 'believe' with 'think'. You don't have to believe in anything to have thoughts, no matter how unlikely. Since no one now or in the forseeable future will be able to know, it can't be disproved, and it's not like it seems to matter.

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #7 on: February 05, 2013, 08:21:23 AM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:48:29 PM by phinehas »

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #8 on: February 07, 2013, 08:06:18 PM »
Not really. How do you explain a limit to space? Assuming your thought of 'nothing outside the universe', there is a particle out there, on the edge... can it not move past this limit? Does it bounce off? Does it disappear? And if it disappears then matter can be destroyed. And if matter can disappear then can it generate at the edge? And if it generates does the universe keep track of how much is lost, and replaces it? Does it keep track of where the particle would virtually be outside of space? What is 'no space' how can space be next to no space?

Then again, how can space be infinite? I don't know, and it probably won't matter for a long time, if ever. But I like to think things loop, that if you went forever in one direction you would end up back where you started, eventually. Whether this factors in time and time returns to the same state when you started your journey...

Wow that's a lot of questions there's so many possibilities it's mindboggling.

Just considering, would a particle bounce off the edge of space would bring up so many problems. If it couldn't how would the particle avoid the edge and what would happen to it. If it could avoid the edge by bouncing off... just... how? If it could not ever reach the edge (like an asymptote) then the particle must know the edge is there or a force is acting upon it...


vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #9 on: February 07, 2013, 08:15:25 PM »
the going in one direction and ending back where you started would be a positively curved space i think, which is finite. a negatively curved universe would also be finite. if we are on a flat universe we should be infinite. in either case i do not think you could reach the edge of the universe.

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #10 on: February 07, 2013, 09:30:23 PM »
there are no particles at the edge because this region is literally new space for things to move about in

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #11 on: February 08, 2013, 04:06:44 AM »
^what do you mean the universe is like 50 bajillion years old how can anything be new

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #12 on: February 08, 2013, 07:10:50 AM »
there are no particles at the edge because this region is literally new space for things to move about in
how is no space new space?

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #13 on: February 08, 2013, 10:28:58 AM »
wait but isn't the 'edge' if it exists, still space? so it wouldn't be no space and so it can't not be new space (but i can't be new space either).

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #14 on: February 08, 2013, 10:50:51 AM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:30:39 PM by phinehas »

Tass

  • ***
  • Posts: 22
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #15 on: February 08, 2013, 11:40:35 AM »
I like how some Scientists are stating that the Universe isn't expanding but it is stretching.

Call it what you will. The real behavior is described by the math of general relativity. Human language is limited. Stretching is probably the better analogy though.

Anything outside the Universe would be supernatural...and they don't believe in that silly concept.)

Everything that exists is by definition "natural". If ghosts were proven to exist scientist would study them and they would no longer be "supernatural", but just a part of our universe.

"The universe" used to similarly be the word for "everything that is", but that is changing. Some scientist seriously consider the ideas of a "multiverse" where "our universe" is only a part of "all that exists". Anyway this is also just words. What exist is what exists.

Therefore the galaxies are not moving away from each other but rather the space between them is stretching.

Not "therefore". General relativity predicted that the universe would be expanding (or stretching or whatever you prefer, in any case that there would become more and more space between everything). Einstein thought that sounded silly and modified his formula even though there was no evidence for it. Later it was found that there indeed is coming more and more space, and Einstein said that modifying his formula had been the greatest mistake of his life.

Space is just a part of the universe and there can come more of it without anything else diminishing. Just the same way as the world in a computer game can be made bigger without it expanding into the outside. (Note: I am not saying our world is a computer simulation, just that the same principle apply)

They use the analogy of dough being the universe and raisins being the galaxies, so when the dough expands in the oven...it's not really expanding, it's simply stretching.  The problem for them of course remains the same...explain what the oven is.

An analogy is just that: an analogy. Analogies go some way to explaining a difficult concept, but eventually they break down. This particular one has been overused, misused and was not particularly good to begin with.

What is true is that the theory of general relativity is the best description of the universe on a grand scale that we have yet. Why does space follow this math? We don't know, but the evidence is pretty strong that is does.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #16 on: February 08, 2013, 02:25:10 PM »
the oven doesn't exist the dough is spontaneously expanding ok

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #17 on: February 08, 2013, 02:37:49 PM »
nah

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #18 on: February 08, 2013, 03:02:44 PM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:29:57 PM by phinehas »

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #19 on: February 08, 2013, 03:10:49 PM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:29:32 PM by phinehas »

atomic7732

  • Global Moderator
  • *****
  • Posts: 3849
  • caught in the river turning blue
    • Paladin of Storms
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #20 on: February 08, 2013, 04:14:45 PM »
the oven doesn't exist the dough is spontaneously expanding ok

Reality states otherwise.  Cause and affect, nothing in the universe has been shown to spontaneously do anything.  So whether the dough is in an oven or an open fire, it's within something and is expanding or stretching because of something.
So explain your version of the outside of the universe because it must not be supernatural, right?

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #21 on: February 08, 2013, 04:49:48 PM »
what if i told you that it's stretching because of dark energy

there is a because in there
a because
because

Tass

  • ***
  • Posts: 22
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #22 on: February 08, 2013, 05:41:39 PM »
Quote
Call it what you will. The real behavior is described by the math of general relativity. Human language is limited. Stretching is probably the better analogy though.

Is this supposed to dispute something I said?  I didn't make an argument that stretching was a wrong word choice.

Didn't claim you did. I just made the point that it doesn't really matter anyway.

Quote
Everything that exists is by definition "natural". If ghosts were proven to exist scientist would study them and they would no longer be "supernatural", but just a part of our universe.

Strawman much. Whatever the Universe is expanding into or stretching from within has not been proven to exist through Scientific observation, so therefore it would be supernatural till otherwise.

I didn't intend to make a strawman. If you interpreted my reply like that then I need to be more clear on your position.

I thought you implied that scientists are silly because we dismiss "the supernatural" out of hand. I disagree with that. We simply study the world. Anything that seems to not exist but somehow still enjoy widespread belief would then be called supernatural or superstitious. A proper scientist would always be prepared to change his or her mind when faced with new evidence.

This fanfic gives, I think, a fairly realistic guess to how a good scientist would react when faced with the world of Harry Potter. And it is quite enjoyable too: http://hpmor.com/

Quote
"The universe" used to similarly be the word for "everything that is", but that is changing. Some scientist seriously consider the ideas of a "multiverse" where "our universe" is only a part of "all that exists". Anyway this is also just words. What exist is what exists.

What oven is the multiverse in?


What do you mean "oven"? The universe is not (as far as we know) in an oven. The universe is not a raising raisin bread, god analogy or bad analogy.

"What exists is what exists"...that's deep..but it doesn't explain anything does it.

It wasn't meant to be deep. It was intended to clear up this (i feel) strange dicotomy of "supernatural" and "natural". I already acknowledged that I must have misunderstood your position on this matter so I would be glad if you could explain to me what you meant by "Cause it's a problem for them to explain what the Universe is expanding into.  Anything outside the Universe would be supernatural...and they don't believe in that silly concept."

Anyway, enough semantics for now, onto the actual science:

Quote
Space is just a part of the universe and there can come more of it without anything else diminishing. Just the same way as the world in a computer game can be made bigger without it expanding into the outside. (Note: I am not saying our world is a computer simulation, just that the same principle apply)

That goes against the laws of thermodynamics.  The computer game is within a computer.  The added information would require added memory to hold it.

Sure. For a computer in our universe. However *if* the universe happened to be a simulation there is absolutely no telling what the physical laws would be in that real world that run it. Just as we could simulate a small universe that had no conservation of energy on a computer; our universe which has, could be simulated by something that hasn't.

Point is we cannot know what the laws governing the universe is from first principles. We have found that the universe appears to be following these laws of thermodynamics, we didn't know that before we looked. A lot of other things than energy appears to be conserved (amount in universe cannot be changed) for some reason: Charge, lepton number, baryon number, momentum, angular momentum. Some, like parity or proton number, has then been to be broken by the weak force. They are usually conserved, but the weak force can change them.

It feels intuitively obvious that space is conserved, that if things are going away from me then they have to be going somwhere. But we cannot know that from first principles. We are evolved among a certain set of physical laws. Trouble is that on the very small scale (quantum mechanics) and the very large scale (general relativity) these laws behave differently, and therefore our intuition and common sense fail us. We therefore has to turn to the strict language of mathematics to try to overcome our biases and understand how it works.

Quote
An analogy is just that: an analogy. Analogies go some way to explaining a difficult concept, but eventually they break down. This particular one has been overused, misused and was not particularly good to begin with.
I'm not the one using the analogy as a means of validating it logically.
 

I am not sure what you mean by this.

Quote
An analogy is just that: an analogy. Analogies go some way to explaining a difficult concept, but eventually they break down. This particular one has been overused, misused and was not particularly good to begin with.
Great that you can dismiss their analogy but that doesn't refute the problem I pointed out about it.  Perhaps you can give a better analogy.
 
I have certainly tried many times. The best I can come up with is turning to computers. You could imagine an infinite spreadsheet in a program like excel. Some cells are empty some are filled Forget memory, we cannot know if the universes resources are limited. Now you could make the computer display all the cells at twice their size. Then cut each cell into four new cells. The spreadsheet is now in a way twice as big even though it is still infinite. Every entry is now twice as far from every other, yet they have not moved.

Now do we know that if we move far enough in one direction we won't eventually reach an edge? No. But there is certainly no strong reason to suspect it either.

...Other than that nagging "common sense" saying "it has to end somewhere.

Quote
What is true is that the theory of general relativity is the best description of the universe on a grand scale that we have yet. Why does space follow this math? We don't know, but the evidence is pretty strong that is does.

Strawman again. I didn't dispute GR, I only pointed out a flaw in the current theories.

GR is the current theory on the large scale of the universe.

It's the same flaw...a world that can only exist in the material can not also simultaneously have no boundary.

I don't understand what you mean here either.

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #23 on: February 08, 2013, 05:46:21 PM »
"What do you mean "oven"? The universe is not (as far as we know) in an oven. The universe is not a raising raisin bread, god analogy or bad analogy."

It was one of vh's analogies, in where the universe was the bread.
vv this
the oven doesn't exist the dough is spontaneously expanding ok

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #24 on: February 08, 2013, 05:52:54 PM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:30:10 PM by phinehas »

phinehas

  • Regular sans EE
  • *
  • Posts: 177
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #25 on: February 08, 2013, 06:04:11 PM »
<censored>
« Last Edit: December 03, 2014, 08:29:14 PM by phinehas »

Tass

  • ***
  • Posts: 22
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #26 on: February 08, 2013, 06:15:50 PM »
"What do you mean "oven"? The universe is not (as far as we know) in an oven. The universe is not a raising raisin bread, god analogy or bad analogy."

It was one of vh's analogies, in where the universe was the bread.
vv this
the oven doesn't exist the dough is spontaneously expanding ok

I know (though vh definitely didn't come up with it) . And I was discussing that Phineas was pushing it past its breaking point.

I'll look forward to your next post Phineas. I was about to correct you on your use of the word theory about your idea, then I realized that you didn't actually use that word. I am glad you didn't, theory is one of the most misunderstood words in science.

I think I should write up an explanation for you guys on what the figure in the OP really means. I'll do that some time.

blotz

  • Formerly 'bong'
  • *****
  • Posts: 813
  • op pls
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #27 on: February 11, 2013, 05:24:05 PM »
i have a theory about theories:
not possible, because you make theories about things, but if you use that definition, then you'd be making a different definiton for theory but you already used theory as the first definition.

Darvince

  • *****
  • Posts: 1842
  • 差不多
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #28 on: February 11, 2013, 06:23:26 PM »
so anything outside of first-order magnitude theory is not fact yet? brilliant.

vh

  • formerly mudkipz
  • *****
  • Posts: 1140
  • "giving heat meaning"
Re: Outside the Universe
« Reply #29 on: February 12, 2013, 02:13:46 PM »
a theory is a thing too so your idea is invalid