Question What are we expanding into?

[Catastrophe]

IG, you are using a living creature breathing as an analogy so, whilst I like your idea, I do not accept that "space tries to fill it up" is a valid comparison, and therefore do not accept it as a logical conclusion.

Fine as a flight of fancy, but not a scientific conclusion
But I understand that "Nature abhors a vacuum, to which I would add that Nature abhors a singularity. But that is a different question.


Cat

 

[Helio]

It's indeed hard to semantically describe something that doen't exist. Isn't it?

For me the distinction goes to our ability to form questions. If, however, something is beyond the purview of science, then no science question can be asked. So we can't even ask if it exists without being hermetically sealed in imagination.

 

[IG2007]

"Nature abhors a vacuum, to which I would add that Nature abhors a singularity. But that is a different question.

Or, is it?

 

[IG2007]

For me the distinction goes to our ability to form questions. If, however, something is beyond the purview of science, then no science question can be asked. So we can't even ask if it exists without being hermetically sealed in imagination.

So, do you mean to say that reality is unscientific?

 

[Helio]

Or, is it?

 

[IG2007]

I love to burst bubble wraps, not gonna lie.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, to me the question is simple. The Universe is said to be expanding. Go back to my flatlander analogy. The expansion is seen by the flatlander (n) as he perceives the area of his world is increasing. To the observer (n + 1) the expansion of the radius is noted. The radius is beyond the comprehension of (n). Thus the expansion cannot be perceived in that dimension by (n) but is perdectly understandable by (n + 1).

Cat

 

[IG2007]

IG, to me the question is simple. The Universe is said to be expanding. Go back to my flatlander analogy. The expansion is seen by the flatlander (n) as he perceives the area of his world is increasing. To the observer (n + 1) the expansion of the radius is noted. The radius is beyond the comprehension of (n). Thus the expansion cannot be perceived in that dimension by (n) but is perdectly understandable by (n + 1).

Cat

You can't have more than a total of four dimensions, Cat, three spatial dimensions and one temporal dimension. You can't have less than that. Because, the Universe won't work at all if you have less or more than that.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, I am not proposing a scientific theory. I am going on a flight of fancy which, yet, yields me a very valuable idea. If we could perceive in one higher dimension (entirely theoretical) we would understand that expansion not perceived by (n). In this case n = us.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

"the Universe work at all if you have less or more than that. "

How do you know that?

Cat

 

[IG2007]

How do you know that?

Try to imagine a two-dimensional universe or a one-dimensional universe if you can. And you can't have more than three space dimensions, because three dimensions do the work. And you can't have more than one time dimension, because that would literally change the way time works.

Even if you have more than a total of four dimensions in a universe, that universe will not work like our Universe. That would have a totally different set of laws of Physics.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG,
"Even if you have more than a total of four dimensions in a universe, that universe will not work like our Universe. That would have a totally different set of laws of Physics."

How do you know what would work, and what not? Maybe their Physics would be different. In fact, I think it would have to be different.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

How do you know what would work, and what not? Maybe their Physics would be different. In fact, I think it would have to be different.

I just said that.

 

[Catastrophe]

Don't forget that was only my analogy. The point I am making (only from an analogy) is that (n + 1) would understand the expansion whereas (n) would not.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Don't forget that was only my analogy. The point I am making (only from an analogy) is that (n + 1) would understand the expansion whereas (n) would not.

That (n+1) can not imagine the Laws of Physics of our Universe, just like we don't know the Laws of Physics of their universe. (Note the usage of "U/u")

 

[Connor]

How about "space is only expanding relative to time"?

Cat

Aren't time and space technically the same thing?
So, whatever happens to space happens to time, right?

 

[IG2007]

Aren't time and space technically the same thing?
So, whatever happens to space happens to time, right?

I don't think time is expanding. Is it?

 

[Catastrophe]

That (n+1) can not imagine the Laws of Physics of our Universe, just like we don't know the Laws of Physics of their universe. (Note the usage of "U/u")

Yes, you can have theoretical alternatives and 'u' is correct. For each inhabitant theirs would have a capital 'U'.

Cat

 

[Catastrophe]

Connor, I purposely left 'time' out of my analogies.

Cat

 

[Connor]

I don't think time is expanding. Is it?

Pretty much, time is expanding, scientific studies show that 5 min 2021 is not the same as 5 min at the Big Bang.

 

[IG2007]

Yes, you can have theoretical alternatives

So, describe me how a Universe with 10 temporal dimensions would look like.

 

[IG2007]

Pretty much, time is expanding, scientific studies show that 5 min 2021 is not the same as 5 min at the Big Bang.

You can't have "minutes" at the point of Big Bang.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG
"So, describe me how a Universe with 10 temporal dimensions would look like.

Totally beyond my comprehension. Please tell me.

Cat

 

[IG2007]

Totally beyond my comprehension. Please tell me.

Same. Exactly my point. A person in n Universe cannot tell how a Universe with n+1 (n is any whole number) will work like.

 

[Catastrophe]

IG, I believe we are in agreement on this. The only point I see is that different levels of comprehension can give different levels of understanding.

Cat