What created space-time?

Discussion in 'Astronomy, Exobiology, & Cosmology' started by Saint, Sep 4, 2017.

  1. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,323
    We agree that there is space-time, the X-Y-Z axis and time.
    When the universe is expanding, more space-time is created, or more "room" will inherently exist as an outcome of the expansion process.
    The question is, what really created space-time?
    Sometimes we use the analogy of blowing a balloon to explain expansion of universe,
    in order for a balloon to expand when air is blown into it, there must be space for the balloon to expand,
    so that the space inside the balloon can increase.
    So, is there Space beyond space (our universe's space) so that expansion of the universe can happen?
     
  2. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  3. kx000 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    4,280
    Space and time must be there. Nothing can't be taken literally, and Something already let it die.
     
  4. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  5. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,105
    Nobody knows. It's just not a question we can answer right now. The current model can trace the cosmos back to a few trillionths of a second after it began inflating out of an infinitely dense singularity. The problem with questions like—
    • What came before the big bang?
    • What created the big bang?
    • How did it start?
    —is that you're asking questions about causality and liner time. The problem is that time and space itself are products of the big bang. There was no "before" before the big bang. There was no causality. Even now, on a quantum level, causality isn't really something that is needed. This is highly counter-intuitive for us because our brains evolved on the relativistic scale. Our senses and perceptions are adapted exclusively to deal with pressures in the environment and quantum mechanics and cosmology just aren't pressures we faced to survive so we cannot grasp the concept of "non-causality". To us, everything needs a prime mover.

    We hate the concept of no causality so profusely that people do violence to science and logic fighting it. We see these aggression most prominently in people who have little to no training in physics and especially those who are passionately religious. Religion depends on intuitive concepts. Physics is frequently counter-intuitive. It just may be that without time or space or cause, there always was the matter-energy that begat the cosmos. If there is no time nor space, then beginnings and endings are meaningless expressions.

    Currently, scientists admit that they don't have those answers. Not having the answer is an important part of the scientific method. It tells scientists to keep looking and to leave that gap in our ken empty and fill it only with models that pass scientific scrutiny. Until then, we just sigh and wait. Patiently.

    As best as the model of the cosmos tells us, no. There is nothing beyond the cosmos. By "nothing", not even empty space. There's no length, with or height. There's no time. There's no nothing. This is another counter-intuitive concept for us that just doesn't make sense. Everywhere you go in the cosmos is cosmos and the cosmos is all there is. There's no edge of the cosmos that you can puncture to enter into a vast nothingness. Your concept of length, width and height is a product of this cosmos and only exists within it. There's no outside of this cosmos to wander into.
     
  6. Google AdSense Guest Advertisement



    to hide all adverts.
  7. StrangerInAStrangeLand SubQuantum Mechanic Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    12,353
    ^^^
    Depends partly on whether there is a multiverse and/or parallel universes and/or cyclic Big Bangs.

    <>
     
  8. Saint Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,323
    So science can not explain how new space-time is created during expansion process?
     
  9. Michael 345 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    3,095
    I always liked this diagram from when I saw it many years ago

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!



    From memory I think it was something like man putting head through the sky to observe heaven
    I do have trouble thinking there is no "space" beyond our Universe which we are expanding into

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  10. origin Trump is the best argument against a democracy. Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,705
    I believe that is correct. Science can show that the expansion of the universe is occurring, but exactly how is not known.
     
  11. NotEinstein Registered Member

    Messages:
    57
    The difficulty is that we have no idea what's "outside" of the universe (if that is even properly defined), so nobody can know that the universe is expanding into. For a bad analog: take your favorite paint program on your computer. Draw a circle in it. Now scale it up the circle, making it larger. The circle is expanding, and it is clear that it is taking up more and more space. However, nothing inside your computer is actually growing or changing size. The concept of the "size of the circle" has no meaning outside of the paint program.

    Similar with our universe: our concept of size only makes sense inside our universe. Nobody knows what's outside, or even if there is something there. And if there's nothing outside, the "what are we expanding into?" question becomes moot.

    For example, if this entire universe is a Matrix-like computer simulation, it's not even really expanding when looking at it from the outside, just like the circle!
     
  12. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,105
    Well, saying, "Science says" is dangerous. It's dangerous not because it hurts someone, but it misleads people into thinking that science is conclusive and that "science" is some centralized mechanism issuing proclamations. The scientific studies have branches, those branches focus on a specific aspect of nature. People utilized the scientific method (systemic observation, study, analysis, categorize, hypothesize, test, evaluate, formulate, adjust, refine, theorize -- and not always in that order). Anything that is asserted within the fields of science (if done so with an eye towards the scientific method) is always subject to adjustment and review. Nothing is dogma. Dogma is dangerous. All scientific assertions are explicitly open to inspection because the fundamental achievement within the scientific method is "the discovery of ignorance" (i.e. -- nothing we believe is absolutely true and that we start with a place of ignorance rather than knowledge).

    That is a mouth full. Astrophysics can explain the formation of the cosmos from a very tiny fraction of a second (literally millionths of a second) after the "explosion" (describing the BB as an explosion is wrong -- it's really an expansion) began. Before then, there may not have been a "before" at all. There was just an infinitely dense singularity of compressed space-time. After inflation began, that period lasted a period of time so infinitesimal that it's hardly worth mentioning (except that it may well have been the most important epoch in all of space-time). Astrophysicists and cosmologists can break down the details of what happened after that period of time pretty well until our current moment of time. Give or take the minutia, the broad strokes have been worked out.
     
  13. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,035
    What of Cosmic Plasmas in what created the Universe . So if there is no " dogma " why is Cosmic Plasma Theory and evidence of , ignored ?
     
  14. superstring01 Moderator

    Messages:
    12,105
    Ignored by whom? You'd have to name the specific people who ignore it and why. The scientific community isn't a hive orgaism. It's fully distributed amongst different universities, labs, government agencies (around the world) and individuals doing their own work. So when you say something is "ignored", you have to understand, that you're attributing a behavior to a "thing" that isn't real. Science is a word we apply to a process. The wider scientific community is only a thing because we need a phrase to describe the disparate statistical class of individuals who work in the many, MANY different scientific fields.

    So first:
    • Define Cosmic Plasma Theory
    • Define/demonstrate the evidence for this
    • Explain why it should be taken seriously
    I had to google it. Now, I'm not a scientist, but I spend basically MOST of my free time with my nose in one book on science or another (again, mostly pop-science and some deeper stuff). Nothing too abstruse. But with that said, I have to google your theory just to find out what it is. So, with that said, why should it be taken seriously?

    Do you understand how the scientific method works? The proponent of a theory (then a hypothesis) must build a working model and demonstrate it. Then that hypothesis must be published and peer reviewed and withstand repeated review, test, examination. It must be disassembled and understood down to the very last bit of data within it. If it cannot withstand that, then it's got a problem. This is why until just about 30 years ago, Astronomy and Cosmology were barely considered sciences by physicists and chemists. Why would it be? How does one "test" for the Big Bang or Cosmic Inflation?

    Then, we finally got super-computers powerful enough to crunch exabytes of data, super-telescopes, arrays of earth-based telescopes and other mechanisms of scrutiny to finally get the wider scientific community to accept that Cosmology and Astronomy were not arts, but indeed sciences. It's not as snooty as you think. To be a "science" testability and falsifiability are critical. But in the end, if you like a theory and you have the scientific chops to build a working model and submit your paper for scrutiny, then do so. But if you cannot do that, all you have is a casual (and quite uninformed) hunch.

    That's what separates the pros from a dilettante. Sadly, dilettantes frequently confuse themselves with professionals and (cue: Dunning-Kruger) have more confidence than they should. If you cannot explain a theory in exquisite detail and understood every aspect of its underlying mechanisms, you're not able to argue for or against it. All you have is an opinion that you are hoping to be true. Hope, is the first failing of science. There's a saying: "Hope clouds judgment." Science is dispassionate and hope-less. It's not about hope.

    So, again, what is it about Cosmic Plasma Theory that you think should be validated? Can you understand every last bit of it? If not, you're not capable of arguing for it because, well, that's part-and-parcel with defending a theory and withstanding peer review. (Note: I could not do that either.)

    Please Register or Log in to view the hidden image!

     
  15. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,035
    I see , so your not familar with Cosmic Plasmas/ Electric Universe .

    Then go to youtube , search Cosmic Plasmas , especialy , Wal Thornhill . And others really . There you will find your answers to ;

    So first:
    • Define Cosmic Plasma Theory
    • Define/demonstrate the evidence for this
    • Explain why it should be taken seriously
    river , enjoy !!!!
     
  16. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,093
    Plasma/electric Universe theory. Hahahahaha.
     
  17. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,035
    Yes of course some would sluff off this theory . Not surprised really . But of course those that do, know next to nothing about it .
     
  18. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,093
    In your own words explain this theory and the evidence for it and how the BBT is wrong.
     
  19. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,035
     
  20. Boris2 Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    1,093
    yep, just as I thought, you don't have a clue.
     
  21. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,035
    Yeah well I do but how to start to convey this understanding with those who don't .

    Primer , understand Birkland Currents , Hannes Alfeven .
     
  22. timojin Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    2,917

    Is our universe is inside of another universe ?
    I rather think each galaxy is a mini universe universe , if our universe expansion is based on redshift
     
  23. river Valued Senior Member

    Messages:
    9,035
    No

    Redshift has been debunked by William Tifft .

    http://discovermagazine.com/1993/apr/manstopsuniverse206
     

Share This Page