universe, whats beyond?

[wdv123]

i know that there is so much matter in the universe that space is bent back on itself, It's sort of like how you can bend a wire until its ends touch, you come up with a circle. You can walk around a circle forever without coming to an edge. but if the universe is like a circle (endless) then what is beside it? you can walk around a circle but you can also step of to the side... is the description meant to refer to a sphere?, what is beyond?

 

[qso1]

In the past, I always had the impression the Universe went on forever which would imply in all directions in which case, only a sphere could accomodate this shape wise and have no unexplainable voids. But as it supposedly goes on forever, there would be no definable end boundaries.<br /><br />In recent years however, cosmology has suggested several different theories on the shape, and even definition of the Universe. The big bang suggests the Universe started approximately 13.5 B years ago in a single infinitesmal bang surrounded by well...nothing. No dimensions, no nothing. I'm one of those folks that have a hard time grasping the nothing part. I tend to favor a combined steady state big bang theory which suggests the Universe we know started as a bang inside a steady state larger and infinite entity. The void of space, of nothingness we know by my take, goes on forever. In my variation of several scenarios, the Universe we know is a collection of galactic clusters that banged into existence. There may be others that we cannot see because they are so far away, they are redshifted beyond our ability to see them.<br /><br />Example:<br /><br />Our Universe that we know consists of galactic clusters, the local group we reside in, the Virgo cluster and so on. All the clusters being within a certain proximity to one another that has allowed for definition under my scenario.<br /><br />The next group of clusters could have banged into existence perhaps 3 billion years ago but be much smaller than ours...and at say, 520 billion light years away, too far for us to currently detect. Beyond that, more galactic cluster collections going in all directions infinitely. Without the infinity part...we would still have to ask what surrounds a finite Universe as that proposed in the BB.<br /><br />Thats just my take.<br /><br />But cosmology is only a little further ahead of that in that they have certain mathematical evidence. Evidence so scarce that the theory is always open to new evidence w <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Is it not finite but undboned?We have nothing outside.

 

[qso1]

alokmohan:<br />Is it not finite but undboned?We have nothing outside.<br /><br />Me:<br />Could well be. As I mentioned in my theory, its just my theory. I have no way of knowing and not all scientists agree that the Universe is surrounded by nothing so to speak. There was a recent Discover Magazine article addressing that issue which had a cover image of hypothetical Universes outside that which we know.<br /><br />Since we cannot prove whats beyond the Universe, for that matter there is no mathematical evidence I'm aware of that supports any theory of whats outside the Universe so at this point, its anybodies guess IMO. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[search]

Here is something about it. Short and long.<br /><br />http://www.newton.dep.anl.gov/newton/askasci/1995/astron/AST224.HTM<br /><br />http://www.noosphere.cc/beyond.html

 

[alokmohan]

Sorry it s finite but unbounded.One of key postulates of Einstiens theory.

 

[wdv123]

thanks for the info, it has definitaly helped to answer my question but i still find it difficult to grip the idea of their being nothing as i think most people would<br /> thanks

 

[qso1]

alokmohan:<br />Sorry it s finite but unbounded.One of key postulates of Einstiens theory.<br /><br />Me:<br />Keep in mind I have stated my take is just a theory and just because Einstein says its finite and unbounded...which are contradictory to begin with as stated. But be that as it may, just because he says so does not mean I accept it as proof.<br /><br />And for the record, I accept most of Einsteins theories as I do most of the workings of scientists. But in places where I might differ, I also realize that when I say this to others that they will not consider it worthy for lack of a better term. But I can understand you would readily accept Einsteins theory over mine.<br /><br />But Einstein, you, and I have one thing in common. None of us have ever been off planet, much less at the ends of the Universe to actually see whats beyond. Maybe Einstein can now that hes gone but the rest of us can't. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

It is well established theory to all scientist bar few.

 

[qso1]

alokmohan:<br />It is well established theory to all scientist bar few.<br /><br />Me:<br />You are quite right. But the key word is theory. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>

 

[derekmcd]

A question with many answers and none of those answers may be right. A question that may be unanswerable. However, by definition, the Universe is everything... It's really nothing more than asking "what is beyond the observable". As we grow and see and learn further, we are still seeing and learning what is in our universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

A multiverse is a set of many universes. There are many specific uses of the concept, as well as systems in which a multiverse is proposed to exist in. It can mean:<br /><br /><br />In scientific cosmology:<br /><br />Multiverse (science), a consequence of some scientific theories which results in conclusions necessitating more than one universe. This is often a result of attempts to rationalize the underlying mathematics in quantum theory to cosmology. <br />The Many-worlds interpretation of quantum physics, which proposes an alternative to wavefunction collapse. Every non-deterministic event actually "splits" the world into both branches. <br />Bubble universe theory (also known as Bubble theory), in which new universes bud off from old ones. <br />Oscillatory universe, a theory that the universe undergoes infinite "Big Crunches" followed by "Big Bangs." Each universe succeeds the next. <br />Chaotic inflation theory, which proposes an open multiverse theory. <br />In fiction:<br /><br />Parallel universe (fiction), fictional interpretations mainly used in science fiction or speculative fiction. <br />Multiverse (DC Comics), the multiverse within the fictional setting used by DC Comics. <br />Multiverse (Marvel Comics), the multiverse within the fictional setting used by Marvel Comics. Whether multple universe exists is anybodys guess.<br />

 

[derekmcd]

I understand the Wikipedia definition of Multiverse...<br /><br />It is derived from quantum mechanics and superposition of electrons. If an electron can be in 2 places at once, then why not the Universe... Hence multiverse. Pure speculation and conjecture... there is no real mathematical basis for this hypothesis. At least none that I am aware of.<br /><br />Besides, if one were to claim multiverses based on quantum theory... would not the observer need to be outside the Universe to actually observe this quantum state (is there a contradiction there?)? Thus making it irrelevant?<br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

So there is noting outside universe.The baloon expnding is universe.Ballon remain same.

 

[derekmcd]

Who am I to say? I really don't know and neither does anyone else. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <div> </div><br /><div><span style="color:#0000ff" class="Apple-style-span">"If something's hard to do, then it's not worth doing." - Homer Simpson</span></div> </div>

 

[alokmohan]

Mixing of space and time was one of Einsteins fundumentals.It explains every thing.

 

[ladyleviticus]

vast blackness.

 

[harmonicaman]

<i>"Vast blackness."</i> ???<br /><br />Well; the <i>"Classical"</i> view is that the universe is all contained in an infinitely small Singularity; time is expanding and space is being created within the confines of this Singularity.<br /><br />Anything existing outside of this Singularity is an undefined null set... A "Vast blackness" would infer that more universe exists outside of the Singularity and this is an unacceptable viewpoint.<br /><br />Of course there's Brane Theory and other interesting multi-universe models, but the current Big Bang theory doesn't provide for existence beyond the universe we observe as this Singularity.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />Anything existing outside of this Singularity is an undefined null set... </i><br /><br />That statement sounds awfully mathematical and closed minded to me (thinking inside the box). There's nothing wrong with that way of thinking (purely mathematical or scientific). But the downside is, there's no forward movement of ideas, IMHO.<br /><br /> <i><br />A "Vast blackness" would infer that more universe exists outside of the Singularity and this is an unacceptable viewpoint. </i><br /><br />What's so terrible about it? I think of the "Vast blackness" as Nothing, or of space with no energy fields in it, and no time. IT IS SPACE, that the BB is expanding into, and is INFINITE. Sorry, I have a bad habit of thinking outside the box. <img src="/images/icons/wink.gif" /><br /> <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[yoda9999]

If we discover higher dimensions, would we count them as being part of the universe or beyond it? The LHC and GLAST could soon provide physical evidence of higher dimensions. These dimensions are beyond the normal 3D structure of the universe, but they could still be part of the universe. What is beyond them? Hard to know how we could enter these higher dimensions and find out.

 

[alokmohan]

What all these mean other than mathematical jugglery is not clear.

 

[harmonicaman]

<b>Kyle Baron - </b><br /><br />I was just regurgitating the "Classical" Big Bang/Singularity theory; which, of course, is a mathematical model based on the TOR and E=mc².<br /><br />I'm a champion for the classical viewpoint, just like others in here defend various minority theories (like member <b>Bonzelite</b> is a proponent of Halton Arp's theories).<br /><br />I don't necessarily believe the current mathematical models are correct in all situations, especially in areas of the universe where dimensions are lost or gained; such as in the case of Black Holes, the Big Bang Singularity and the subatomic Quantum Universe. <br /><br />Obviously our mathematical models of the universe are incomplete.

 

[kyle_baron]

<i><br />If we discover higher dimensions, would we count them as being part of the universe or beyond it?</i><br /><br />Your question could be interpreted in different ways. I don't think that there is a right or wrong answer. My opinion is, that if these higher dimensions formed when our so called Big Bang occured, the answer would be Yes, it is part of the universe. And our dimension would be just one of a number of dimensions. If the other dimensions formed, BEFORE our BB occured, then I would have to say No, it's a seperate universe. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><font size="4"><strong></strong></font></p> </div>

 

[christiang]

By theorizing that there is something outside of the universe as we know it, wouldn't that be saying that the universe has an end. I'm also of the opinion that the universe has bent / folded itself into basically a circle, where eventually if you travelled long enough, you would end up where you started. Therefore, you could never really reach and "end" to the universe. However, I guess even if the universe is like an expanding balloon, there could be some kind of area on the outside of the balloon. I don't know much about most of this, but I can't believe there would be any way to truly determine if there is an area outside of the universe balloon. Any ideas?

 

[qso1]

harmonicaman:<br />I'm a champion for the classical viewpoint...<br /><br />Me:<br />I pretty much accept classical theories and accept that they could change as new evidence warrants. I have developed a few of my own. However, I recognize the scientific community has the edge on me in their evidence gathering ability, education, and tools at their disposal. <div class="Discussion_UserSignature"> <p><strong>My borrowed quote for the time being:</strong></p><p><em>There are three kinds of people in life. Those who make it happen, those who watch it happen...and those who do not know what happened.</em></p> </div>