Does Space end?

[rnbexplorations]

Hey,<br /> My friends and I have been talking about space recently and wondering if it ever end. If it does end is there just a wall that stops you from moving further or what.Or can we go through the wall and end up in an entirely new universe. Also what is space, is it nothing, what is nothing?

 

[SpeedFreek]

We can only speculate <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Maybe space curves back on itself in a way that means you can never reach an end.<br /><br />Maybe the edges of space are expanding faster than matter can travel which means we can never reach the end.<br /><br />Maybe there comes a point where there are no more stars and then the blackness goes on forever.<br /><br />What is space? Well some say it is the gap in between things. The space in between stars and planets. But <i> that </i> space, which seems empty, still has all sorts of particles moving around in it. We refer to that space as a vacuum (a place no atoms in it), but a true vacuum probably doesn't exist in nature.<br /><br />What is nothing? Well to me, space isn't nothing as it always has some particles in it. And even if we managed to find or create a true vacuum, it still wouldn't be nothing. If a truly empty space has dimensions (i.e up, down, left, right, backwards and forwards) it cannot be nothing.<br /><br />To me, nothing means: The abscence of everything. No dimensions, no time, no blackness. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[vandivx]

space is one of the properties that ether medium has and that medium is the basic stuff from which everything comes including space<br /><br />ether medium is finite in extent and at the edges where it ends it gets increasingly dense and that density manifests itself in such a way that if you tried to approach that increasingly densier region of space/ether you would be gravitationally reppeled back from that edge, the closer to that end you would come the more repulsive force you would suffer untill you could proceed no more no matter how much you tried, it would be physically impossible to overcome that force and manage to come anywhere near the edge<br /><br />now if you would 'somehow' succeed anyway to get to the very edge to peer outside of universe as in this picture http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Universum.jpg<br />(mind you this is supposed to be look at heavenworks and not outside the universe but you get the idea) you would see utter nothing (and BTW nothing is nothing), if you stuck your hand into this nothing it would disintegrate and vanish as you would be showing it into this nothing as if cleanly cut off<br /><br />that means that outside the ether medium there is no space and so you couldn't peer into it nor enter it (that about your hand vanishing was said tongue in cheek to second power, coming close to the edge in the first place was first order tongue in cheek <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> well I knew you would insist on getting near that edge, all people do), we can only look into space and move into space and we are stuck in this universe for good I tell you<br /><br />my last advice son, remember what happened to that curious cat<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

Welcome to the SDC message board RNB <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />As one theory states, space did not exist before the big bang. The space that is black, that we think is empty, did not exist before there was a Universe.<br /><br />The big bang was the beginning of space and time. Since it's beginning, the galaxies and matter within the Universe have been expanding in all directions. We can speculate that black space is not an empty thing, because it might be the very reason that the Universe is expanding. Galaxies are not moving away from each other under their own power, but rather the dimensions of space are constantly expanding.<br /><br />There is a very simply analogy that used over and over again on this board to describe the dimensions of space expanding. <br /><br />You are baking a loaf of bread with raisins in it. When it exists as dough, the loaf is much smaller, meaning the raisins are closer together. You toss the dough into the oven, and when it is finished, the raisins will be further apart due to the expansion of the dough in the oven. Does this mean that the raisins moved on their own? Of course not, it means that the dough expanded between them, making it appear that they moved. From a raisin's stand point, it didn't necessarily move at all.<br /><br />I don't believe that there is any wall that we can hit if there were some kind of edge to the Universe. Either the material universe goes on forever (galaxies, stars, etc), or space is curved in a way that makes it appear infinite.<br /><br />The curvature can be described like the surface of a sphere. Infinity, by definition, means something with no beginning or end, it is eternal. So, does the surface of a sphere really have a beginning or end? No, so with this statement we could conclude that the Universe seems infinite due to the curvature of space. <br /><br />Speedfreak states it well by saying that the expansion of the dimensions of space might be at a rate that prevents us from ever seei <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[casualphilosoph]

Besides scientist speculating about a closed universe:<br />http://physicsweb.org/articles/world/18/9/3<br /><br />I do not think your assumption is necessary right vanDivx, besides defining a stuff which properties are to have no properties and talking about his denisity and extent, it could also be that in fact by stretching your arm outside the universe this would be the same as extending space to this place(like you can not observe without influencing).(Also consider, If you hypothetical tried to grab the emptiness inside a box you would not succeed because as soon as your arms inside the box its not empty anymore)<br /><br />What lies behind space? Nirvana XD<br />

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Maybe there comes a point where there are no more stars and then the blackness goes on forever. <br />To me, nothing means: The abscence of everything. No dimensions, no time, no blackness. </font><br /><br />Ahem, I'm afraid your contradicting yourself here. To me, nothing could mean: infinite dimensions, infinite time, and the infinite blackness of space (with no energy fields). In which infinity=0. And 0 being a lack of an observation.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Well one of my "maybes" contradicts the other two. They were 3 different speculations on whether space ends or not.<br /><br />[pompous mode]<br />They were not addressing the other question though, the question of what nothing is. So I wasn't contradicting myself with my explanation of nothing, as it didn't relate to my speculations about the end of space. [/pompous mode] <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><br />Does your explanation of nothing mean an infinite empty universe is nothing <b> if </b> nobody can observe it, or <b> because </b> nobody can observe it? But you defined infinity as 0. So thats 0 dimensions, 0 time and 0 blackness. Which is what I said! <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Of course, if there are no dimensions or time for anything to exist in, there can be no observations. Thats a given. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[ianke]

What is this "ether" you speak of? Is this an observable thing or force you can put the test, or is it the "ether" the ancient philosiphers talk of? I am curious as to the modern understanding of this concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alkalin]

Let’s invent some simple math notions that can take care of these issues, such as that space has dimensions, i.e., three space. It may not end with the concept of being empty of matter, but that is where time would not exist as we know it. So if space is to be measured by time, then the extent of the sensible universe is possibly known out to the extent of where time exists. T or time then is directly related to the edge of the universe as we know it and can be computed based on knowing the extent of matter in it. Good luck.<br /><br />

 

[why06]

If you want to know why everyone's imformation on this subject is so speculative... THIS is what you get when people try to speculate the outside of our universe....a universe that for all we know maybe infinite. <br /><br />I mean ask yourself...would you really want the only place we know in which matter exists to be anything less?<br /><br /><br /><font color="yellow">A better question might be if MATTER is infinite? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[acsindg]

In my view the universe ends where the cosmic background microwave radiation volume stops. The space inside the universe is magnetized and experiences time. Outside the CBMR range there is nothing as there is no time to exist in. Look at part 3 of Alternative Electric Magnoflux Universe for more details on the electromagnetic fabric of space which some people call aether.<br />Clive

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>defining a stuff which properties are to have no properties and talking about his denisity and extent<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />one of its properties is the spacial property, I realize it is so new idea that you didn't even register it when I said that in my post<br /><br />space as such is an attribute of ether medium and this particular property of that medium enables us to see through it to see objects surrounding us or to see anything for that matter as well as enabling us to move at the same time<br /><br />that the extent of this ether medium is finite, that is simply the consequence of the fact that nothing can be (physically) infinite - maybe pseudo-infinite as in that Einstein's space curved upon itself but that is not really infinity in the true sense of the word, that's like calling a circle an infinite length because you can move along it without ever stopping, to your hearts desire and then some more<br /><br />vanDivX <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Good point why06! I guess this is all just mind games at that. You can not leave all that there is to go to that which is not. Just saying it sounds a bit odd. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[enigma10]

If matter is infinite in quantity, never destroyed, never created, only changed? What does that say about the creation of the universe? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <em>"<font color="#333399">An organism at war with itself is a doomed organism." - Carl Sagan</font></em> </div>

 

[vandivx]

<blockquote><font class="small">In reply to:</font><hr /><p>What is this "ether" you speak of? Is this an observable thing or force you can put the test, or is it the "ether" the ancient philosiphers talk of? I am curious as to the modern understanding of this concept.<p><hr /></p></p></blockquote><br /><br />for one, there is no 'modern understanding' of this concept, what I talk about is my understanding of it as I developed it as part of my theories<br /><br />modern ideas of ether are either that it doesn't exist (official cannons) or the ideas are almost as bad as the old eighteenth century ideas of it were, only thing I have taken from the ether of those old days is that there is some sort of substratum out there called ether medium, that is all<br /><br />the ether of old was thought to exist in space, that is space was taken as pre-existing whereas I see space as depending on ether (which is more fundamental), being one of its attributes<br /><br />when people ask - where is this ether medium of yours, is it observable, can you test it somehow to detect it to know that it is really there, that is like asking a fish that gets born and dies in depths of ocean which it never leaves - what is it like to be wet all the time - to which a fish would respond if it could that it doesn't know what is it you talk about, or its like that old man looking all around for his glasses while he has them on his nose<br /><br />when people ask as you do, they want some direct or at least indirect proof typical of physical methods of proving something but the problem here is that if something is a substratum of matter then it can't be reasonably expected to be like matter and therefore be susceptible to the same methods of detection and proofs<br /><br />only proof of ether that we are then ever going to have is that our theories will require its existence, that the assumption of it existence will lead to (renewed) progress <br /><br />now everybody will jump up and cry, BUT BUT our theories do NOT requi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[casualphilosoph]

Oh sorry vanDivx thought you wanted to define a before existance, outside of universe state which, if it had space would be contradicting its own definition, trough that assumption I did not read carefully enough and did not see that in the end you corrected your before scenario into that you could not leave space.<br />You should have just said you find a wall thats not penetratable cause of physical law and that you base this claim partially on compatibility with your own theories.<br />Well I can agree with not able to go outside of space(this is the same as not leaving reality) , regarding the wall its one of the possibilities, I can not evaluate the claim cause I am probably not competent enough to understand your theory.

 

[why06]

Goddang Enigma.. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[MeteorWayne]

Is that a compliment? <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#000080"><em><font color="#000000">But the Krell forgot one thing John. Monsters. Monsters from the Id.</font></em> </font></p><p><font color="#000080">I really, really, really, really miss the "first unread post" function</font><font color="#000080"> </font></p> </div>

 

[why06]

To be honest though I guess I would wonder where this matter came from...Or maybe it could just be the consequence of existing in a universe of time, 3 demensions of space, and the Forces such as Gravity and Magnetism? <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[rnbexplorations]

Well if space started with the big bang what was there before the big bang occured, and where did it happen, in space, oh wait there wasnt space until the big bang happend! Also weeman that must be the most ******** analogy i have ever heard, who makes rasin bread anyway?

 

[SpeedFreek]

<font color="yellow"> Well if space started with the big bang what was there before the big bang occured? </font><br /><br />Nobody has a clue, how could they? Whatever was there, or not there, is not part of this universe, so how can we know of it?<br /><br />A lot of people guess that nothing was there and that time started with the big bang.<br /><br />Others guess that this is all part of some eternal cycle, and before this universe there was the end of the previous one.<br /><br />Others guess it was made by an eternal creator. But that still doesn't tell us what was here before it began.<br /><br />How can anything come from nothing, or anything be eternal?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />They were 3 different speculations on whether space ends or not. <br /><br />[pompous mode] <br />They were not addressing the other question though, the question of what nothing is. So I wasn't contradicting myself with my explanation of nothing, as it didn't relate to my speculations about the end of space. [/pompous mode] </font><br /><br />Ok, my bad, wrong interpretation, let's move on.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Does your explanation of nothing mean an infinite empty universe is nothing if nobody can observe it, or because nobody can observe it?</font><br /><br />Funny, how you like to put people inside a box (or box them in). Well, I'm not going to play inside your box. I'm going to play outside! Besides, it's an irrelevant question.<br /><font color="yellow"><br />Of course, if there are no dimensions or time for anything to exist in, there can be no observations. Thats a given. </font><br /><br />Oh yeah? Well, let's see. How good is your String Theory? See if you can wrap your noodle around this:<br /><br />What is outside of BB space, is also within BB space. Otherwise, what did the BB expand into? Because our reality is made from the Wave-Particle Duality, on the quantum level, we're nothing more than a bunch of holograms (energy waves) occupying this BB 4 dimensional space-time. On the quantum level, below the Planck Length (10^-33cm) space and time, most likely does not exist (The Fabric of the Cosmos by Brian Greene pp.350-351). So, the next time you look at, or touch a thick piece of steel or concrete, keep in mind that it's nothing more than a hologram, on the quantum level! Therefore, we are the hologram, or the observations. That's a given. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> How can anything come from nothing, or anything be eternal? </font><br /><br />I think this question is impossible to answer, and impossible to understand, because it is beyond any comprehension of the human mind. The idea of "nothing" seems impossible for us to understand. The idea of something being "infinte" is impossible for us to understand. <br /><br />If total nothingness is not real, that would have to mean that there was another Universe before this one, and that the existence of universes has been eternal. For nothingness to never occur, this universe would have had to begun instantly after the last universe ended.<br /><br />I believe it is possible for "nothing" to have existed before the Universe, and that we just can't understand it because we aren't meant to, it is physically impossible. <br /><br />It would be like trying to fully understand what happened in the world before you were born, without any person, book, or other source telling you of any history. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p> </p><p><strong><font color="#ff0000">Techies: We do it in the dark. </font></strong></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>"Put your hand on a stove for a minute and it seems like an hour. Sit with that special girl for an hour and it seems like a minute. That's relativity.</strong><strong>" -Albert Einstein </strong></font></p> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

Interesting!<br /><br />I really wasn't trying to box you in or anything, I was simply trying to understand what "nothing" meant to you.<br /><br />You said "To me, nothing could mean: infinite dimensions, infinite time, and the infinite blackness of space (with no energy fields). In which infinity=0. And 0 being a lack of an observation."<br /><br />This is pretty hard for me to parse through my simple brain. Infinite dimensions, time and blackness. But infinite means zero and zero means no observation. I wondered what you meant by all that, and what part the observer was (or was not) playing in the equation.<br /><br />I thought it obvious (although it seems you think I may be wrong) that if there is nothing, no space or time or matter, then how can there be an observer, thus my statement about it being a given. <br /><br />My understanding of string theory is, I must admit, not so good.<br /><br />You say what is outside BB space is also within it by questioning what the BB expanded into? I have heard a few ideas on this subject. One is that "whatever" is outside of BB space and that BB space is expanding, pushing "whatever" aside rather than moving through it. Did space-time always exist, and the BB put a curve on it? Or was space-time created with the BB? Or are all these notions really just nonsense created through lack of understanding?<br /><br />I have read articles on string theory or the holographic universe, but I can't get a grip on how the quantum level relates to the macroscopic level we exist in. It seems like the universe sure is strange down there, but what does that mean to us up here? You say we can be thought of as the holograms, the <i> observations. </i> Who is observing the holograms and making the observations? Or is this not relevent, I'm not quite sure. Does your analogy apply <i> only </i> at the quantum level?<br /><br />I hope I don't come across badly in some of my posts, but I get feeling I piqued you somehow and if so I am sorry for that. I knew usi <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[ianke]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts and hypothesis with me. It certainly bares looking at. I think that the merits of your arguments for the ether (or select portions of the ether concept) appear sound at first glance. I look forward to hearing more on the concept. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>