Does Space end?

[ianke]

"Reality is just an illusion, albeit a very persistant one" Albert E. Just for laughs guys. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[Anonymous]

I believe YES..<br />The only thing is it is too big for us to discover.<br /><br />But if we look at some theories...like expanding universe...then...hmmmm.<br />If universe stops expanding at one stage then it could be likely that space has an end, but if never then NO is the possible answer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <strong><font size="2"><p align="center"><br /><img id="a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917" src="http://sitelife.space.com/ver1.0/Content/images/store/9/2/a9529085-d63d-481e-9277-832ea5d58917.Large.gif" alt="blog post photo" /><br /><font color="#339966">Oops! this is my alien friend.</font></p><p align="center"><font color="#ff6600">╬→Ť╠╣є ’ M€ ’<br />╬→ Ðôŵņ2Ëãřŧĥ ๑<br />╬→ ЙДm€ :Varsha<br /></font></p></font></strong> </div>

 

[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 />----------------------<br />yes, that's why I said 'tongue in cheek', thing is people are always most curious about outside the universe but of course there can be no such thing, one can't even think of it<br />space is confined to universe, that is to that ether medium I talk about and naturally we (matter as such) can only exist in space<br /><br />that whole idea about the outside of universe comes from the idea that space is a primary phenomenon (existing on its own and needing nothing for its existence) and exists everywhere without exception, that universe is some assemblage of matter floating in that unending space (universe in that case is being defined by the extent of matter) which is false view IMO<br />===============<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 />---------------------------<br />well, people always think they can penetrate anything <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /> given some new rocket technology or means of travel in general, that's the trouble<br /><br />the conditions at the edge of universe are not some important and settled part of my cosmological views, I thought or should I say mused of that off hand for the sake of completness and to get some frame of reference so to speak for further thinking of it to see if something comes off it, in any case it is not a part of some tightly integrated theory yet that would validate it or at least make it plausible (through integration)<br /><br />thinking of it now I see paralells with Einstein's idea of space which is curving upon itself at the edge of universe, if the <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[kyle_baron]

<font color="yellow"><br />Interesting! </font><br /><br />Agreed. String Theory and Quantum Mechanics are pretty wild.<br /><font color="yellow"><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." </font><br /><br />It's simply 3 seperate and different ways of looking at the nothing that existed, before the universe began. All are equally valid. Infinite, 0, and no observations, when applied to dimensions, time, and blackness. I see now, that putting in the equal sign, was probably not a good idea. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br /> Did space-time always exist, and the BB put a curve on it?</font><br /><br />No, just the "nothing" space that I explained earlier.<br /><font color="yellow"><br /> Or was space-time created with the BB? </font><br /><br />Yep.<br /><font color="yellow"><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</font><br /><br />Agreed.<br /><font color="yellow"><br /> You say we can be thought of as the holograms, the observations. Who is observing the holograms and making the observations? </font><br /><br />I won't say, but I have to keep in mind that I'm talking to an atheist. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /><font color="yellow"><br /> Does your analogy apply only at the quantum level? </font><br /><br />Yes.<br /><font color="yellow"><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.</font><br /><br />I think the friction com <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

When you do this type of thinking remember to consider another view. It was either Dirac or Bohr or some quantum mechanics guru once said which really means an event can't take place without an observer. I still cant sink my teeth into this whole observer idea, there's a missing piece.<br /><br />If you think a little deeper you may come to a realization, well I did at least, even 'nothingness' can not exist without an observer. Even a photon is an observer, and we are probably the ultimate observer. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[ianke]

Hello emperor_of _localgroup,<br /><br />I believe that this might be splitting hairs, but wouldn't it be better stated that we can conceive or comprehend what is outside the universe? Observation implies that it can be studied by experimentation. "There's the rub!" <br /><br />However, the human mind allows for a great deal of understanding when it comes to the unobservable. If it weren't for this, a lot of our scientific theories and hypotheses could not exist. This is what makes this site as outstanding as it is. <br /><br />This then makes questions like this (what is outside the universe?) an important question to ask. <br /><br />Does space end? Not one of us proposes a definative answer. Nobody 'REALLY' knows for sure. It sure is a great question though. <br /><br /><br /><br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Newtonian space and Einseins space are two different things Newtons space is absolute .Works for small distances in cosmic scale.space are two different things.Einsteins space is the real thing.

 

[ianke]

Yes. I agree with you. Einstein has it right. That is his his thought processes and mathematics work best.<br /><br />You might note that Einstein himself was immagining things he never observed imperically. It didn't stop Einstein, nor should it stop anyone else from trying to think otstide the box (no punn intended).<br /><br />While his theories are the best starting place for cosmic research, I do NOT believe that that is the last thing left to question in the universe. The thought process must go on, thank you. <br /><br />Besides, look at the interesting conversation that question has started in this thread alone.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[ianke]

Closed universe:<br /><br />As I understand the current concept of the universe's shape it curves in on itself. Also, that from any given point, you are no closer to an edge than anywhere else. From any direction you go, a straight line eventually curves back to it,s starting place.<br /><br />Open univerve:<br /><br />Space goes on infinitley. <br /><br />Am I correct in thinking that these are the only 2 options that fit Einsteins theory? Am I also correct to assume that the closed version is the most accepted version of the cosmos? <br /><br />If so, then it is impossible to look upon the edge or end in this model. I assume this to be true. However, if the universe is closed, the question of "does the universe end" seems valid. People hypothesize different shapes for it,so why is the question of a hypothetical end become such an issue. Doesn't this model assume a finite overall size? <br /><br />Mind you, I do realize we can not see it. I just believe that the question is valid even if it can not be answered by our current theories.<br /><br />"Whenever anyone says, 'theorecically,' they really mean 'not really.' Dave Parnas<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

General theory of relativity is the main thing.It made some predictions which turned true in all cases and so far no evidence to the contrary.Mercurys perihelion was a matter in question.Classical physicists had talked of another planet near the Sun.With advent of special theory of relativity the anomaly was solved without need of another planet.Eddington in African eclipse covinced the world that lights do bend.Plenty of examples.

 

[ianke]

Ya. OK. What is your point? Should we all just stop asking anything anymore? Hey everyone no more need to question anything. The universe is solved! Is that better? <br /><br />I don't dissagree with Einstein's theories. There is more to be answered though. It answers that which it is intended but general relativity doesn't define all of the cosmic questions. <br />1. How big is the universe?<br />2. How much mass is there in the universe?<br />3. Why don't bird dogs fly in formation?<br /><br />His theories work for a lot of questions, but fail to answer all of them. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[emperor_of_localgroup]

@Alokmohon: The universe is 13.8 billion years old. And we humans seriously started taking 'data' of the universe , say, for the last 5000 years? Do you really expect 5000 years of data will give us the entire history of 13.8 billion years? It is like describing a year of earth's social, political, environmental conditions from 1 sec of data of that year.<br /><br /><br /><br /><font color="red">but wouldn't it be better stated that we can conceive or comprehend what is outside the universe? Observation implies that it can be studied by experimentation. "There's the rub!" </font><br /><br /><br />In my thinking, the universe lost its virginity when the first photon appeared. After that 'nothingness ' is not 'nothingness' anymore. To an observer a 'nothingness' can not exist, because an observer can find various 'properties' of nothingness and can even give a name to it.<br /><br /> <br />Outside this space what is supposed to be 'nothingness' is not 'nothingness' anymore to us, the observers. To us it will be a different type of 'medium', just like our space is a medium. And there probably exist some kind of interface between these 2 media.<br /><br /><br />Yes, you raised a valid question about our mind and unobservables. I dont have a definite clear answer to that dilemma, yet. I dont like to give an answer without thinking, an I'm a slow thinker.<br /><br /><br />casualPhilosopher's link is an interesting read.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <font size="2" color="#ff0000"><strong>Earth is Boring</strong></font> </div>

 

[acsindg]

Hi I think we are missing the point. There is an edge to the known universe which is defined by a limit in red-shift. Beyond this limit the space is not magnetized, thus no observable microwave background radiation. See Alternative Electric Magnoflux Universe Part 3 for more information.

 

[why06]

From what I hear the universe is expaning so fast that galaxies too far away will never be seen because the light they admit can not cross the ever increasing space.<br /><br />It is said that dark energy causes this expansion. Stick around I'm about to start a thread on a viable substitute for Dark matter/energy <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[acsindg]

Hi why06<br />I think the universe is being pushed apart by electrical forces. As light is electromagnetic then for it to be transmitted thro' space the fabric of space cannot be empty as assumed by Einstein and others. It has electric properties which have been defined as permittivity etc but ignored. Clive

 

[weeman]

I agree with what you're saying ACS, the limit of red-shift can be classified as the edge of the Universe. Although, I think in many cases, when people are asking the question, "Does space end?", they are visualizing an actual end to the material universe. <br /><br />When we dive into more specific definitions, then we can come up with more than one end to the universe. <br /><br />Space is in no ways "empty" or "nothing". Like you said, if it was empty, we wouldn't see any light passing through it. Void would be unable to pass light through it.<br /><br />So, what would the night sky look like if Space was indeed a true emptiness? <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>

 

[acsindg]

Thanks Weeman<br />If the redshift is different in various direction then this would mean that we are not in the centre of the universe. If the redshift is different in the same direction then this would mean that the edge of space is jagged <br /><br />Clive<br />

 

[why06]

Okay <font color="red">stevehw33<font color="white">,<br /><br />Heres my 2 cents:<br />The universe is not be considered as never ending in terms of shape and size for those things become very relative. What we should know is weather the universe is infinite in terms of time.<br />Secondly might I say that it is possible that the universe might be infinite from your prospective... matter can only exist within the universe. Therefore I would suspect that it is matter itself that is causing the universe to expand since it needs space-time to exists.<br /><br /><font color="yellow"> -Thanks for the information on expansion <font color="red">steve<font color="white">, you seem to have a nack for explaining this kind of stuff. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <br /></font></font></font></font></font> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div>________________________________________ <br /></div><div><ul><li><font color="#008000"><em>your move...</em></font></li></ul></div> </div>

 

[SpeedFreek]

It is worth remembering that in what looks to be an isotropic universe, just as an object looks redshifted to us, we look redshifted in the same way to them.<br /><br />And just because astrophysicists cannot answer these questions yet, it doesn't stop cosmologists from coming up with theories about these things. Both are within the realms of science <img src="/images/icons/smile.gif" /><br /><br />Saying that the observable universe is all that science should be interested in would only be true if scientists were happy to accept that we at the dead centre of the universe, which they are not. Cosmologists are interested in what the observable universe has become since the light left those most distant object we can see, and whether what we can see is all that there is. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000">_______________________________________________<br /></font><font size="2"><em>SpeedFreek</em></font> </p> </div>

 

[lukman]

In my opinion, space is infinite, but beyond our universe, the space is without time and dimension, we cant see it, we cant feel it, we cant measure it, just like dark matter, although we can sense it because dark matter interacts with gravity.<br /><br />In the end of the universe where space is being expanded, dark matter, matter that dominates universe, interact with the non dimensional space time, the result is 3d space.<br /><br />This is just a non sci tech imagination only, so dont bother if dont agree <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[R1]

I don't think space ends, I think the gravity from the instant the universe began<br />(even if it did or didnt have a beginning) has been expanding and stretching space-time , and this strectching of space-time occuring continuoulsy and fast.<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[weeman]

<font color="yellow"> In my opinion, space is infinite, but beyond our universe, the space is without time and dimension </font><br /><br />If it is infinite, how can there be an end? I actually understand what you're saying, however, if it has no time and dimension, then it isn't space. Beyond the Universe, there is no space, only void, according to your statement. All I'm saying is that I wouldn't use the word "space" to describe something that is without time or dimensions <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /> <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>

 

[lukman]

i am not sure about time, what i mean of space without dimension is space wihtout the 3d dimension for human to see, maybe the space is in something dimension, like string for example. Or you may say dimensionless space is like a raw material of an atomic bomb (you cant iginite fission by exploding the uranium). So, you cant see the space by using 3d eyes, something like that... <img src="/images/icons/laugh.gif" /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> </div>

 

[daniko]

Why everybody accept that "EndOfSpace" must be something that surrounds our space ???<br /><br />An idea occured to me after reading the tread of the two black holes:<br /><font color="orange">Why not the <b>Event Horisont</b> of the <b>Black Holes</b> be the <b>EndOfSpace</b>, <b>TheFenceOfSpace</b>, the line where time and space ends.</font><br /><br />But isn't it so . . .

 

[rfoshaug]

Space doesn't have to end even if it is of finite size.<br /><br />Earth's surface is of a finite size, but there is no end. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff9900">----------------------------------</font></p><p><font color="#ff9900">My minds have many opinions</font></p> </div>