Beyond the universe

[chuchurokit]

Going along with the "no question is stupid" idea here is what I am having trouble comprehending.<br />Since the universe obviously had a beginning, and we are expanding, <font color="orange"> what are we expanding into? </font><br />I mean what is beyond the edges of the universe. There has to be something am I right? I know that we can’t know for sure, and unfortunately the copy of “A Brief History of Time” I just ordered hasn’t arrived in the mail yet. But I’m wondering what is the general consensus if there is one, or if not then some theories. Any help?<br /><br />Thanks<br />Derek <br />

 

[newtonian]

chuchurokit - Actually an excellent question. In astronomy, answers to this question are diligently being studied- that would be theoretical astronomy primarily.<br /><br />Astronomers have different models. Space.com referenced astronomer Loeb theorizing that our universe will one day (if not already) expand into contact with and interact with another universe.<br /><br />The Bible makes a statement that may describe what our universe is expanding into. Consider that the Biblical term heaven is similar to the astronomical term universe. Note that the Bible does not use the word universe since that word implies only one due to the prefix "uni." In contrast, the term "heaven" in the Bible is usually used in the plural, not singular.<br /><br />Here is the Biblical model (statement):<br /><br />(1 Kings 8:27) . . ."But will God truly dwell upon the earth? Look! The heavens, yes, the heaven of the heavens, themselves cannot contain you. . .<br /><br />One interpretation of this statement, hence a Biblical based model:<br /><br />Our universe (= heaven) is but one of many universes (=heavens) within a much larger unverse (= heaven of the heavens). God resides in still another universe (= heaven); He cannot be contained within the much larger universe within which our universe and many other universes exist. <br />You may also find the Biblical illustration of exactly how our universe is expanding enlightening on this subject of astronomical research:<br /><br />(Isaiah 40:22) 22 There is One who is dwelling above the circle of the earth, the dwellers in which are as grasshoppers, the One who is stretching out the heavens just as a fine gauze, who spreads them out like a tent in which to dwell, <br /><br />If you visualize a stretching fine gauze you will have a model which harmonizes with the actual observations of astronomers. <br /><br />Astronomers have, in fact, observed stretching threads and filaments. As with an actual stretching fabric, some threads and filaments br

 

[qzzq]

<i>Since the universe obviously had a beginning, and we are expanding, what are we expanding into?</i><br /><br />Nothing. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>***</p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

qzzq- Yes, some astronomers believe that. Others do not.<br /><br />Can you prove it?<br /><br />Consider, for example, these links on multiple universes:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html<br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-2.html

 

[qzzq]

<i>Can you prove it?</i><br /><br />No, unfortunately, when I was outside the Universe for a bit just last Tuesday, I forgot to bring my camera. <img src="/images/icons/crazy.gif" /><br /><br />There is as much proof for there being nothing as there is for there being zillions of Universes: zilch. Whatevers lurks outside our Universe, it for sure doesn't slow down expansion much, i.e. it doesn't seem to cause friction that slows down expansion. Something that doesn't cause friction can be explained by 'nothing' better than by 'multiverses'. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p>***</p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

qzzq- please note the links I provided.<br /><br />Those deal with the actual math related to actually observed quantum fluctuations. Granted, much of the quantum stuff is theory, but some is actual observed fact.<br /><br />Whether one believes in chance, and hence pure probability, or one believes in Intelligent design, for example: Creation, the math is still relevant and real.<br />Friction?<br /><br />My theoretical model predicts acceleration of expansion.<br /><br />If our universe is expanding closer to the matter contained in the much larger universe containing our universe and other universes (not zillions or infinite, btw), then that matter will have increasing gravitational influence on the matter in our universe, thus causing acceleration.<br /><br />[Edit: that matter would lie in all directions nearly uniformly on average - compare the CMBR (cosmic microwave background radiation - nearly uniform, but not quite. Note that the CMBR we observe is ancient; the possible current interactions even if as close a 5 billion light years from us would not be observed by us for billions of years! Unless some forms of observable (pending scientific advances in observation methods) energy are FTL (= Faster than light)]<br /><br />Granted, I thought up that model on my own.<br /><br />Nevertheless, there are other models that explain the acceleration as independent of gravity - involving some form of invisible energy causing acceleration.<br /><br />Note that the definition of spirit in Hebrew and Greek basically means invisible energy.<br />Therefore the current popular dark energy models are in harmony with the model in Isaiah 40:22. <br /><br />Suffice it to say: there is no proof that acceleration of expansion is solely caused from within our universe, i.e., there is no proof our universe is a closed system, theromodynamically speaking. (Please do not confuse the term "closed" in reference to whether our unviverse will expand eternally or not - I am speaking of thermodynamics,

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">... or if not then some theories.</font><br /><br />http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/<br /><br /><img src="/images/icons/cool.gif" />.. The Cyclic Universe

 

[newtonian]

zavvy - Well, I'm not one to go along with the crowd - unless it is a great crowd (an inside joke).<br /><br />What you are asking is the most popular model? <br /><br />I don't know - theoretical astronomy models of this type change rapidly as does popularity.<br /><br />I can only link some current popular models. Many are linked to the big bang model, but are seeking to describe accurately the cause of the big bang. <br /><br />Astronomers have published a variety of causes that stem from beyond and/or before our universe. [E.g. collision of branes; or Linde's version of inflation invoking scaler fields]<br /><br />I would be interested in noting what other posters say is a consensus - if there is one!<br />Nothing is popular (pun intended - see qzzq's post].<br />

 

[newtonian]

zavvy -While I get to your link, have you read my links?<br /><br />For example, from:<br /><br />http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/generalscience/5mysteries_universes_020205-1.html<br /><br />But Andreas Albrecht, a cosmologist at the University of California at Davis, says the question isn't open for debate. Why? You can't argue with quantum mechanics. "As far as we can tell," Albrecht says, "that's the fundamental language that Nature speaks. Nature doesn't answer questions for certain; it answers questions by giving probabilities."<br /><br />And in quantum mechanics, "There's a possibility that almost anything happens." Including other universes. And if cosmologists are queasy about that, they don't have a choice. "It comes out of the mathematics," Albrecht explains. "It's forced down our throats."<br /><br />The link also shows that the math does not indicate infinite or even zillions (?) of universes. Possibly just a few more.<br /><br />I suspect about 1 or 2 hundred billion universes. [Extrapolating out from 100 billion stars in our galaxy and 100 billion galaxies in our universe]<br />

 

[newtonian]

zavvy - I couldn't get the 2nd level of the link to criticisms by Linde and others and the response.<br /><br />The cyclic universe theory is like a hybrid from the old Oscillating theory and the old Steady State theory, and alternate from the big bang model - correct?

 

[zavvy]

<font color="yellow">zavvy - I couldn't get the 2nd level of the link to criticisms by Linde and others and the response. </font><br /><br />It's working for me... <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" />

 

[mooware]

<font color="yellow">" what are we expanding into"</font><br /><br />Very good question, as has been stated. The short answer is: We don't know.<br /><br />

 

[newtonian]

zavvy - That's nice. It's not working for me. Could you post an excerpt on those criticisms by Linde?