Space outside our universe

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Arise62, Oct 6, 2001.

  1. Arise62 Registered Member

    Messages:
    4
    Ok first post so ill try to make it interesting

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    Here's a new take on an old subject.

    Could the space that is ouside the boundery of our Universe have these qualities?

    1. Be multi-dimentional
    2. Be non-linear

    This would mean that at any given point in the space beyond our universe would theoretically contain all space ouside and would be present at any given moment of time.
    Also add that this space would not be a vacumn unlike the space we experience in our universe.

    And to throw in another thought compare the above to the description of God or any other figurehead used in most religions.

    lets call this space X for future referance


    On to the next bit :

    Lets say at the moment of the big bang there was an event not taken into account, lets say at the moment of the big bang there was a shockwave this shockwave I like to call a time eddy (referred herein as Y) Y preceded the expulsion of the finite amount of matter that we have come to know as Stars, Planets etc. Lets call the finite amount of matter Q
    Y has a finite amount of momentum and creates a bubble within X, this bubble is the universe as we know it with Q always trying to fill the bubble that Y creates.
    With Y having finite momentum we can say that it will reach its apex at some point, when this happens X not bieng a vacumn will take charge causing the bubble to move back within itself causing Q,X and Y to eventually try and exist in the same point of space time, resulting in another big bang.

    Well I'm getting tired so if you want me to expand on any points or anything please let me know

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    There is no space outside of the universe and the only similarity between that nonexisting space and god is that neither exist.

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Nope, it is not a lie.

    The current model of the universe is that the universe is not expanding into something - it is simply expanding,

    I may have slightly overstated the case since there is no proof of god one way or the other. But logically since there is no proof that there is a god the default position should be not to believe in the absence of evidence. For instance the default postiion is not to believe that lava monsters live in the center of the earth.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. quantum_wave Contemplating the "as yet" unknown Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    6,677
    Did Space X have a beginning? Is it infinite? What caused the big bang? Were there other big bangs, other shock waves, etc.?
     
  8. sideshowbob Sorry, wrong number. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    7,057
    Define "beginning". Space and time are inextricably intertwined, so time "began" at the same "time" as space did. Colloquial English doesn't do an adequate job of describing the concept.
     
  9. Anthony_ Registered Member

    Messages:
    16
    based in our current phisics and universe understanding there's nothing beyond the universe, maybe a infnite zone of no existence
     
  10. goose Registered Senior Member

    Messages:
    158
    As said previously... Space as we know it does not exist outside of our universe. Neither does time. Both of these 'dimensions' exist based upon the laws of physics held within our own universe. Outside our universe is nothing. You can't even really say that because nothing is the absence of something, and there's not even that. This creates a weird phenomenon in that if for some odd reason you found yourself doing the impossible and wound up outside of our universe, our universe would be both infinitely big and infinitely small. Which also brings up a question of faster than light travel, if you could project yourself 'outside', then theoretically you could come back into our universe at any point. Orson Scott Card (writer of the Ender's Game series) goes into this topic in depth in the 3rd and 4th book in the Ender's series (Xenocide and Children of the Mind). Its thought provoking if you ever get a chance to read it. And well thought out
     
  11. Montgomery Registered Member

    Messages:
    2
    Many times you will receive a ton of unwanted emails after making purchases.



    Arm2teeth.com
     
  12. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Yes. I believe it was founded in 2002.

    No, of course not, it is not that large actually, about 3,000 employees.

    Who the hell knows?

    Who the hell knows?

    What is that suppose to mean? Are you implying that the big bang made a shock wave - because if you are that doesn't make any sense.
     
  13. ChessMaster Banned Banned

    Messages:
    75
    I think string theory says that there could be some kind of multidimensional ''space'' outside of the universe. But apart from this exception, the universe is all there is by definition so there is no space outside of the universe.
     
  14. arauca Banned Banned

    Messages:
    4,564
    Do we really know if there are more then one universe, or the universe have boundary ? I think in our time we are repiting the same path as it was in Pythagoras time , they spiritualised numbers, and in our tome we take the the mathematicians fantasy as if there is some reality or truth.
     
  15. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    actually we don't. we put forward various scenarios based on current theory and observation and use maths to say "what if?". knowing full well that unless we can back these up with experiment or observation they are just speculation. we do these to see ways that we might be able to test them in the future. of course the individual groups working on their "pet theory" will think they are "right" and support their view with vigour.
     
  16. brucep Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,098
    This is the current empirically confirmed theoretical model called 'Eternal Inflation' describing the beginning of our universe and it's continuing evolution described by the classical Big Bang Theory. One prediction of 'Eternal Inflation' is that once inflation starts it must continue eternally. So how would you test such a prediction that 'not only is there more than one universe' but the new universe creation is infinite in extent?
    Eternal Inflation, Alan Guth
    http://arxiv.org/abs/hep-th/0702178

    And the first 'mind boggling' attempt to evaluate the CMBR for any evidence that a collision between our universe and another happened in the cosmological past.
    First Observational Tests of Eternal Inflation
    http://arxiv.org/abs/1012.1995

    Way out there. Love it.
     
  17. EinsteinHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    82
    Idk about that bruce. A plasma Globe type deal would be way cooler than an infinite stretch of nothing. Not to mention those types of opposite forces would keep our universe from merging with another.
     
  18. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    I think the default should be to believe whatever brings meaning to our lives. We can't have enough of meaning after all and given the choice I would rather believe that there is a god than to believe that there isn't. I would also rather believe that my existence doesn't end when I die than that it does, simply because if my existence ends forever when I die then everything would be in vain anyway, including the belief that it doesn't end. Why believe in something that would be in vain if it were true?
     
  19. EinsteinHimself Banned Banned

    Messages:
    82
    I prefer statistics and quantum mechanics to bubbles.

    Lets say we have an infinite number of "geodesic" photons expanding into our empty space. After one second we have a sphere. Quantum mechanics "reflects" 1% of the total energy off the empty space and focuses it into the center of the sphere. After two seconds we have a sphere with 100% energy as a shell and an infinite amount of miniscule reflections that together sum 100% at our point of focus. Directly in the middle we have 50% energy in our free space or a 50% chance a photon might appear in that position.

    Our sphere doubles the positions remain the same but our statistics have changed slightly. Where there was once a 100% shell there is now a 50% energy "differential" between our outer and inner shells and the position of "empty" space we are at. Where there was 50% concentration there is now a 25% concentration (.5*.5), but the point itself has not lost any mass in fact it has only become more compact because the whole sphere has gained 1% of an infinite number of "reflections". This is due to the fact that we are playing with a static idea in percentages as opposed to explosives...

    Reflection is a buzz word for quantum entanglement. Such as: If a billion photons are entangled and they all go separate directions would photons randomly "jump" to any position? Or would they all collectively choose the direct middle?

    Therefore empty space would just be space waiting to materialize or an infinite vat of stationary energy particles. "Reality would be an infinite vat of moving ones."
     
  20. origin Heading towards oblivion Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    11,888
    Why would everthing be in vain if you die when you die. If you don't die when you die then how does that change the meaning of your life anyway? I figure when I die I am going to get some much need rest.

    If believing in god and stuff helps you through life then more power to you - life can be pretty tough at times. I do not care one whit about someones religion unless thier religion impacts me negatively. You know like blowing me up or teaching my kids pseudo science.
     
  21. Cyperium I'm always me Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,058
    How could anything have meaning to me if I don't exist? Everyone would then also not exist when they die, so everything I have contributed in my life would also be in vain as it is only temporary and not continuous.

    Yeah, I guess that's a fair position to have. I don't have anything against people that don't believe in religion as long as they don't take away the hope that religion could be true (as long as it isn't evidenced that it isn't true) and as long as they let people believe what they want to believe unless they are themselves engaging in discussion.

    I wouldn't have anything against science either if it weren't because science makes people think that their religion is false. Science should compensate for bad influences that it might have on peoples private beliefs. Perhaps simply by acknowledging that there is a possibility that supernatural entities exists, but that it won't be found in science. I find that people interested in science (and thus is a good example on the influence that science has) often look down on people with religious beliefs (it is apparent from discussions on these forums, for example). If science inadvertently ridicules religious beliefs then the matter of which science is presented should be changed and the damage compensated for.
     
  22. AlexG Like nailing Jello to a tree Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,304
    People can believe what they want. But if science shows their beliefs to be bunk, it's a problem with the belief, not with science. The other option would be to just stay stupid.
     
  23. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,106
    maybe you just haven't done anything memorable.
     

Share This Page