Edge of the Universe

[trustno1fox2]

Then there would be no economic growth. Xd... i just had to say that. <br /><br />We will only experiance ecnomic growth as long as we keep coming up with new ideas. Im trying to apply this to the subject of theretical physics. i know its sounds stupid, but just bear with me a little bit. <br /><br />All i was trying to say is that with out an imagination, there can be no growth for theretical physcs. <br /><br />BTW, ^^ the hypotehical situation that i stated above would be from the balloon model anyhow. <br /><br />

 

[trustno1fox2]

Just an interesting note guys.... <br /><br />whats each of your majors, in college?<br /><br />Me, im an acturial science major at temple university. Graduating next year. Fox School Of Business. <br /><br />I think Eric 2006 and Newtonian are physics majors, because they are good.

 

[vogon13]

I'm a (as Hicup puts it) stupid farmer.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

trustno1fox2 - Interesting questions:<br /><br />1. You posted:<br /><br />"Well, since the universe is expanding, coudlnt we assume that we would not in reality be an "edge"?"<br /><br />Relax - no need to be on edge!<br /><br />Seriously, in view of our limited data or knowledge, it would not be good to assume anything.<br /><br />An edge can certainly expand.<br /><br />2. "Since there is no limit." That would be assuming facts not in evidence. We do not know if there is a limit, and a limit would be an edge of sorts.<br /><br />Beware of circular reasoning - as in the balloon model vs. flat models.<br /><br />Just kidding, btw.<br /><br />3. "It is infinitlyi expanding." Yes, eternal expansion is indicated by current data.<br /><br />However, that does not mean our universe is infinite in mass.<br /><br />A finite universe can still expand infinitely. In that case the infinity is time dependent; i.e. the infinity is dependent on infinite or eternal future time.<br /><br />4. On your last question, you need to define what edge exactly.<br /><br />Consider the edge of our universe's light cone, i.e. the limit that light has traveled since the big bang.<br /><br />Situated at that edge, if that were possible for matter-based life forms, I have no idea what we would see!<br /><br />The problem is whether there is a 3-d edge, or a 4-d edge or whether, in fact, other dimensions are involved.<br /><br />However, here is a clue as to what it would appear like beyond the edge, and beyond the limit of our universe's gravity and hence with no course set by gravity:<br /><br />(Jude 13) . . .stars with no set course, for which the blackness of darkness stands reserved forever.<br /><br />If I inferpret that correctly, it would be black holes ( a dark type of star) that have escaped both the light and gravity of our universe.<br /><br />If gravity is limited by the speed of light, then FTL black holes from the big bang would be beyond the edge of our universe - at least according to one definition of "ed

 

[trustno1fox2]

Thanks Newtonian<br /><br />You said that the universe may be finite in mass. But still expanding. <br /><br />From what i understand that if the universe expanded, (was finite) and expanded to infinity, the only way that it could expand would be to expand what it already has in it (ie, stretching)? <br /><br />Then, by that defnintion, then there would be an edge to the universe, due to the fact that the edge would not be expanding but the center would be expanding, ( assuming a finite universe would have a center). But in here lies a paradox, (when applying flat universe theory) due to the fact that the center is expanding thus the "edge" of the universe must expand outwards. (assuming the universe expands in concentric circle)<br /><br />Now i dont know, but if a universive is spherical, and expands like a balloon, then for it to be finite the expansion would wind up squeezing everything down to a single point (or a line) once again (assuming edge cannot change). <br /><br />If my interpretation is incorrect, do correct me, for this is a very interesting thread, and i dont wish to make a fool out of myself. <br /><br />btw, your last post had a lot of puns. good job.

 

[trustno1fox2]

Also you stated that black holes may exist beyond the edge of the universe.<br /><br />But if you applied M theory to the whole matter of what is outside of the universe then we can make a better picture, but this erases your black holes. <br /><br />According to M theory, wouldnt there just be null space, around it, with other universes floating about, inside this giant blob of whatever. Then, whenever two universis (bubbles) intersect a black hole would form, from wich a universe would be created. <br /><br />

 

[vogon13]

Would our 'time' sync up with a 'time' analog passing on a 'detached' specific item beyond the edge? <br /><br />Would intersecting non-synchronous times generate your phenomena?<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[trustno1fox2]

vogon, im really confused at what you just said, sorry. <br /><br />could you explain it in lay men's terms, im not really good at time, if you know what i mean?

 

[vogon13]

Perhaps two 'non-synchronous' time 'fields' can intersect on the boundary of a particular universe, and the interaction might generate singularities.<br /><br /> No one seems to ever think about time in different ways in explaining aspects of reality that seem mysterious to us. Why would the 'variety' of time we experience be 'compatible' with other kinds of time?<br /> <br />Its' Saturday night, I'm tired, and maybe its getting a little 'wooly' on SDC tonite.<br /><br />Maybe I channeled Nouri for a second there, sorry.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[newtonian]

trustno1fox2 - Your welcome. <br /><br />I do not, of course, have all the answers - far from it! <br /><br />But I try.<br /><br />Ok, your post was fine until you stated:<br /><br />"due to the fact that the edge would not be expanding but the center would be expanding, ( assuming a finite universe would have a center."<br /><br />But the edge is expanding - hence that negates the paradox.<br /><br />The center may not be 3-d - and I know it is mind boggling to try to visualize (in our brains) a 5d or more-d center.<br /><br />A stretching gauze, in 3-d, can indeed have a center - but one could not know if one was in the center since the light cone or visibility horizon will not allow the edge to be viewed from the center, if there is one, as KI suspect there is.<br /><br />In an eternally expanding flat model finite universe with an edge most reference points would have a similar view with all points expanding from it and more distant points expanding faster from it.<br /><br />However, if the reference point was near enough to the edge the view might be different. Also, it is likely that near such an edge the reference point would be expanding well above light speed from us.<br /><br />The universe can be spherical and expand according to a "flat" model, btw. The flatness is partly mathematical, and partly 4-d.<br /><br />In flat models the 4-d spacetime fabric does not curve back on itself. that still allows a spherical 3-d shape.<br /><br />I have no idea what the actual 3-d shape is since I do not know if our universe is a closed system thermodynamically - and also because I do not know if another universe is interacting with ours somewhere beyond our visibility horizon at this time.<br /><br />By at this time I really mean the present tense. Remember that when we view near the visibility horizon, say 14 billion light years away, we are viewing the past not the present.<br /><br />The edge can change. We will not end up with a big crunch - though our local section of universe is

 

[jmeyer]

Perhaps the outline of the universe alters its shape over long, long periods of time. I've been thinking of the balloon theory, then I started thinking about water balloons. <br /><br />When it is squeezed, it changes its shape, however, keeps its edge while only appearing to expand in one direction or the next. Think of what would happen if there were small grains floating about inside the water balloon, and where they might be directed while manipulating the shape of the balloons edge. <br /><br />Dark energy could be the result of the universe's alteration upon itself...a ripple effect or shockwave, if you will. <br /><br />I'm thinking, a currently undetectable multi-dimensional wave that hasn't even gone crest to crest, yet. A single wave that is about 13.5 billion years old.<br /><br />Just ideas.<br /><br />

 

[eric2006]

"I think Eric 2006 and Newtonian are physics majors, because they are good."<br /><br />No, I'm just a petro refinery operator. I'm working on my Mech. Engineering degree though. My math sux so it will be a long time before that ever happens. Newtonian on the other hand is propbably a professor some where. <br /><br />I honestly confess to know nothing. So don't take anything I say here to be relevant or even close to factual. I can however picture wonderful models of how the universe may work in my mind. <br /><br />I also really enjoy reading Newtonian's post. He has a well blended balance of science and faith.<br /><br /> I can't help but to wonder and imagine the inner workings of our universe. It appears to be constructed by a careful hand with great love. I never lost that excitement when I was 12 and got my first meade telescope. I guess it was the same for everyone here.

 

[eric2006]

"Has any-one measured reducing R-S"<br /><br />Yes! - Redshift Rosetta Stone -<br /><br />http://www.thunderbolts.info/tpod/2004/arch/041028redshift-rosetta.htm<br /><br />It took me a while to find it. Sorry

 

[vogon13]

I'm not going to waste a 1/2 hour on the crappy search function SDC provides (sorry Admin) looking for something you've had 9 months to edit out.<br /><br />I did refer to it in my PM to you, 6/15/05, 10:18 AM, btw.<br /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font color="#ff0000"><strong>TPTB went to Dallas and all I got was Plucked !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#339966"><strong>So many people, so few recipes !!</strong></font></p><p><font color="#0000ff"><strong>Let's clean up this stinkhole !!</strong></font> </p> </div>

 

[eric2006]

"A few hundred thousand years later [after the big bang] the temperature had fallen to about 3,000K [from above 10 trillionK {K=degrees Kelvin}right after the big bang]. Protons became able to capture and hold on to electrons to form atoms of neutral hydrogen, because the radiation was no longer energetic enough to separate (ionize) them. Most of the electrons were quickly mopped up, and it became possible for photons to travel vast distances without being absorbed or suffering collisions. During this stage, known as the 'decoupling' of matter and radiation, the universe became transparent." - [bracketts mine] - "The World of Science," by Andromeda Oxford Ltd. (distributed by Britannica) 1991, Volume 8, pages 110-111."<br /><br />Wow....I don't know about you but that sounds like it would have been a beautiful event.<br /><br /><br />"If said matter is expanding FTL, then it would be forever beyond the light of our universe. "<br /><br />Could this be the missing matter that we are searching for? Besides anti-matter (that may or may not still exist freely) this could be a lot of matter. I don't see why there wouldn't have been an equal amount of anti-matter created along with matter. In my mind they would have cancelled each other out. Then we would have no more matter. If the missing matter was really anti-matter that escaped our universe during FTL expansion...why was it the anti-matter???<br /><br />Another question. If there is matter forever beyond the light of our universe- does that mean the gravity in that space and the gravity in our universe would not have an influence on each other? Could this be why the universe may not have enough matter in it for a big crunch? To me if there is an outer edge because of FTL inflation I picture it as a bubble inside a bubble. I still think it would have an influence on our universe. What if the missing matter has just enough sustenance and gravity to slow expansion and start contracting in it's own right? Unless it became it's o

 

[tripcat]

If it has an edge then there has to be something beyond it. Even nothingness, once percieved, is a 'something' occupying space, and therefore part of existence which is technically, the universe. So really we're back to the old question, if nothing is percieved and therefore becomes a something as a part of the universe, does the universe have an edge.<br />The answer is no, unless we can evolve to the point where we're travelling faster that the speed of peception.

 

[jatslo]

Thought travels at the speed of light (c)

 

[newtonian]

tripcat - I think I already posted my model based on 1 Kings 8:27 (and cross-references) where our universe (heaven) may be one of many universes (heavens) within a much larger universe (heaven of the heavens).<br /><br />Just because we cannot perceive this far does not mean these other universes do not exist.<br /><br />Many theoretical physcicists also consider it likely there are other universes, and that perhaps some of these operate with different properties and laws (e.g. different laws of physics, etc.). <br /><br />Consider also that space is in 3-d, and space-time is in 4-d.<br /><br />However, there may be other dimensions both on small scales and on large scales.<br /><br />Compare String Theory, various models.<br /><br />Also compare collision of branes models for the origin of our universe.<br /><br />An edge in 3-d or 4-d does not address distance in some other dimension.<br /><br />Those are but a few of the many reasons to define the word "edge" to make a yes or no answer more meaningful.<br /><br />So what type of edge do you percieve our universe does not have?

 

[newtonian]

jmeyer - Interesting idea. <br /><br />I prefer a flat model (mathematically, and where space-time does not curve back on itself) to the balloon model.<br /><br />There is some evidence a very long time duration wave pattern in our universe.<br /><br />It has to do with the temperature of the IGM (= intergalactic medium). <br /><br />I will need to look up the Scientific American article on this of a few years ago, and then post on this another day.

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - On that redshift Rosetta Stone, it references Halton Arp. If I remember correctly, he is a controversial scientist off of mainstream.<br /><br />That being said, yes reducing red shift, aka blue shift, has been measured - if I understand the question correctly.<br /><br />For example, Andromeda galaxy is blue shifted because we are headed towards Andromeda.

 

[newtonian]

jatslo - ?<br /><br />Well, I am not sure what you are referring to.<br /><br />I suspect Prayer travels faster than light - but that cannot be scientifically studied.<br /><br />In our brain the impulses travel very fast indeed, and by more than one means - but I believe it is slower than light - I will have to research it.<br /><br />How fast are the brain waves traveling that are recorded in encephalagrams (sp?)?<br /><br />On consciousness, again scientists are having difficulty understanding why we are conscious while computers are not - though clearly this is because computers are not souls but humans and animals are souls.<br /><br />I think we have traveled past the edge of thread theme.

 

[newtonian]

Eric2006 - Matter beyond the light of our universe (and some of which may also be beyond the gravity of our universe) would not be what is usually referred to as the missing matter.<br /><br />What is being referred to is dubbed dark matter. Some of this appears to be in galactic halos quite distant from the cores and causing the otherwise unexplained rotational effects in galaxies.<br /><br />The Big Bang model includes an explanation for matter over antimatter - a slight preference for matter, and the rest was mutually annihilated and became energy.<br /><br />And very much energy, btw.<br /><br />I believe the proportion of matter particles surviving vs. those converted to energy to be over a billion times the matter that survived! Of course, an equal amount of antimatter would also have been converted to energy!<br /><br />On the latter question: No, not directly. But Yes, indirectly for at least some of this FTL matter.<br /><br />The matter than is FTL from us, but not FTL from matter near our visibility horizon which is travelling 90% c (c= speed of light) would not influence us directly but would influence said matter near but inside of our visibility horizon.<br /><br />That, btw, is my own model - a sort of domino effect from beyond our visibility horizon.<br /><br />And it may be causing acceleration of expansion - in that very distant matter is trying to catch up to the more distant FTL matter by mutual gravitational influence.<br /><br />It is not an either/or model necessarily. Acceleration could be caused by both the above effect plus the effect of dark energy. In that case, measuring just one effect would not give a correct value or number.<br /><br />To my knowledge, dark energy effects are computed to have an unexpected value, btw.<br /><br />That would argue for another cause in addition to dark energy.

 

[rodrunner79]

I don't think there's an edge to our universe. I think edge is just a figment of our imagination. One would like to think that such an edge exist because the brain cannot accept the fact that there is no edge. Just like saying there is a beginning but no end. My thought of the edge of the universe is that the edge is expanding at the speed of light or greater, therefore, one would have to travel faster. But no matter how fast you are going the universe expands with you as you are part of the universe. But then again that's just my opinion.

 

[trustno1fox2]

Just use Archimedes analogy<br /><br />I beleive that he said that if you archer throws the javelin, and continues, what occurs when the archer throws the javelin at the edge of the universe? does it bounce back, does it stop, or does it continue?<br /><br />Interesting analogy anyhow.............

 

[eric2006]

"The Big Bang model includes an explanation for matter over antimatter - a slight preference for matter, and the rest was mutually annihilated and became energy. <br />"<br /><br />How does that rest on your mind? It does not rest very comfortable on mine. It appears that many days that theories are reworked to work the problems out of them. What's the difference between that and reworking the experiment around to fit the theory?<br /><br />I would suspect that anit-matter would produce anti-gravity.. Anti-gravitons..etc ect.<br /><br />But if anti-particles/particles repulsed each other then I don't understand how they would annihilate each other.<br /><br />Where does science currently rest on anti-gravity? Does the possibility still exist for it anywhere in popular theory?