Question What are we expanding into?

Page 5 - Seeking answers about space? Join the Space community: the premier source of space exploration, innovation, and astronomy news, chronicling (and celebrating) humanity's ongoing expansion across the final frontier.
Jun 1, 2020
1,303
1,080
3,060
It's so hard to get our heads around the idea of a reality that had no beginning and will never end, but that's the 'reality' of it.
Reality without objective evidence isn't real enough to be considered reality, IMO. Things unknowable seem more unreal than real.

As far as the expansion of space is concerned, I believe it is expanding into another energetic fabric of reality that may have very different properties.
That's not an unreasonable suggestion, but it is subjective in nature. Don Meredith, one of my favorite quarterbacks, partly due to his colorful nature, often stated that, 'if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas!'

If I may borrow your comments, it might not hurt to share my view on the two important realms we find - Subjective and Objective realms.

Imagine a vast ocean with an sizeable island in the middle. The residents of the island are able to build remarkable, tangible, structures. The better the science the better the stuff on the island. This island represents science - objective based, firm footings, measurable, etc.

The ocean is the Sea of Subjectivity. It exists and it can be fun to swim in it, but it's very hard to build stuff there.

Then there is the estuary, where the sea (subjective realm) encounters the island (objective realm). This is somewhat rare, as is true on islands, but it happens. For instance, Aristotle's philosophy and religious dogma once argued the Earth had to be the center of the Universe. They might say that's just "reality". But Galileo, while doing science in the estuary, discovered that Venus' disk had both gibbous and crescent phases. This disproved the Geocentric model of Aristotle/Ptolemy/Aquinas. The Geocentric idea was testable, thus in our estuary.

I'm curious if anyone agrees with the above analogy enough for me to repeat it now and then? :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,303
1,080
3,060
What I really wanted to get at was who was the first too suggest that it was caused by expansion of space and not a Doppler shift, and also what lead to that thinking? Or maybe they came up with the expansion of space idea to start with :)
Now that I'm not stuck on an iPhone for posting... :)

It was difficult for me to not see all redshifts as Doppler and not due simply to the expansion of space. Some BB books even used Doppler examples, and without helping the reader get past the Doppler idea and into the cosmological redshift concept.

I finally pushed a question to get my mind past Doppler. I asked, "What would happen to a blue laser beam that bounced off a mirror extended by a billion light-year pole (thus fixed in motion relative the Earth and incapable of Doppler shift)? The response, in essence, was the beam would redshift since the beam travels a great distance through space. Spacetime itself redshifts light. [Added: expansion of spacetime, actually.]

Then I read about deSitter's model where he could take GR and produce this same cosmological redshift. The fact that he left out mass in his model was his problem but unrelated to this redshift point with spacetime, IMO.

Then there is the flatness of our Universe, or almost perfectly flat. If spacetime, with matter, can warp the entirety of the universe enough so that the light from my flashlight could come back and hit me in the back of my head, then it demonstrates (in principle) that spacetime has great effect on light.

Then add the famous 1919 eclipse experiment where GR predicted the bending of light around the Sun by a very specific amount, and this too argues for the cosmological redshift, IMO.

Lemaitre knew all this back then. I'm fairly certain he got to meet Slipher at an annual astronomer's convention. That may be when the light came on for him.

But, unlike Hubble at times, Lemaitre was humble and never asked for the limelight, so we don't hear about him like we should, given the BBT is no small deal.

I should mention that there has been some efforts to honor Lemaitre. The IAU voted to make the Hubble expansion constant renamed to be "The Hubble-Lemaitre Law". [Hubble never once claimed his data demonstrated expansion, so there's a few more posts I could say to help explain why. ;)]
 
Last edited:

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,938
1,836
6,070
"I'm curious if anyone agrees with the above analogy enough for me to repeat it now and then?"

Yes, but with reservations. Why do you use estuary "The tidal mouth of a large river", rather than coastline? Estuary requires river, which brings in complications which may, or may not, be useful.

Cat :)
 
  • Like
Reactions: Helio
Jun 1, 2020
1,303
1,080
3,060
"I'm curious if anyone agrees with the above analogy enough for me to repeat it now and then?"

Yes, but with reservations. Why do you use estuary "The tidal mouth of a large river", rather than coastline? Estuary requires river, which brings in complications which may, or may not, be useful.
Perhaps both should be used as they both interact with each other. Estuaries seem to have a little more mixing action that is helpful to the analogy.

From Wiki, "Estuaries form a transition zone between river environments and maritime environments known as ecotone. Estuaries are subject both to marine influences such as tides, waves, and the influx of saline water and to riverine influences such as flows of freshwater and sediment. The mixing of seawater and freshwater provides high levels of nutrients both in the water column and in sediment, making estuaries among the most productive natural habitats in the world."
 
  • Like
Reactions: Catastrophe

Catastrophe

Approaching asteroid? Is this THE one?
Feb 18, 2020
2,938
1,836
6,070
OK, but estuaries via rivers "go to the heart of the matter" (Good) but coastlines present a larger, broader interface. But . . . . . . . . . it's your analogy to use as you please. :) :)

Cat :)
 
Reality without objective evidence isn't real enough to be considered reality, IMO. Things unknowable seem more unreal than real.

That's not an unreasonable suggestion, but it is subjective in nature. Don Meredith, one of my favorite quarterbacks, partly due to his colorful nature, often stated that, 'if "ifs" and "buts" were candy and nuts, we would all have a merry Christmas!'

If I may borrow your comments, it might not hurt to share my view on the two important realms we find - Subjective and Objective realms.

Imagine a vast ocean with an sizeable island in the middle. The residents of the island are able to build remarkable, tangible, structures. The better the science the better the stuff on the island. This island represents science - objective based, firm footings, measurable, etc.

The ocean is the Sea of Subjectivity. It exists and it can be fun to swim in it, but it's very hard to build stuff there.

Then there is the estuary, where the sea (subjective realm) encounters the island (objective realm). This is somewhat rare, as is true on islands, but it happens. For instance, Aristotle's philosophy and religious dogma once argued the Earth had to be the center of the Universe. They might say that's just "reality". But Galileo, while doing science in the estuary, discovered that Venus' disk had both gibbous and crescent phases. This disproved the Geocentric model of Aristotle/Ptolemy/Aquinas. The Geocentric idea was testable, thus in our estuary.

I'm curious if anyone agrees with the above analogy enough for me to repeat it now and then? :)
Reality without objective evidence isn't real enough to be considered reality, IMO. Things unknowable seem more unreal than real.
Yes but the example - no beginning no end - can be concluded from matter can neither be created nor destroyed. I treat this statement as rock solid, so I treat all the conclusions from it as real, but I accept that is still subjective.

There are a few other things I treat same way, for example- space is Infinite because any boundaries always have another side. No such thing as a singularity because no such thing as infinite density. Also cause and effect seems pretty rock solid.

Can we have a category- rock solid reasoning and logic so therefore almost certain to be real? :)

I'm happy to go through life putting things on a scale between not very likely and highly likely., so I can move on.
I'm curious if anyone agrees with the above analogy enough for me to repeat it now and then?
It's good, it gets the point across, but is slightly long-winded can you shorten it it somehow?:)
 
Now that I'm not stuck on an iPhone for posting... :)

It was difficult for me to not see all redshifts as Doppler and not due simply to the expansion of space. Some BB books even used Doppler examples, and without helping the reader get past the Doppler idea and into the cosmological redshift concept.

I finally pushed a question to get my mind past Doppler. I asked, "What would happen to a blue laser beam that bounced off a mirror extended by a billion light-year pole (thus fixed in motion relative the Earth and incapable of Doppler shift)? The response, in essence, was the beam would redshift since the beam travels a great distance through space. Spacetime itself redshifts light. [Added: expansion of spacetime, actually.]

Then I read about deSitter's model where he could take GR and produce this same cosmological redshift. The fact that he left out mass in his model was his problem but unrelated to this redshift point with spacetime, IMO.

Then there is the flatness of our Universe, or almost perfectly flat. If spacetime, with matter, can warp the entirety of the universe enough so that the light from my flashlight could come back and hit me in the back of my head, then it demonstrates (in principle) that spacetime has great effect on light.

Then add the famous 1919 eclipse experiment where GR predicted the bending of light around the Sun by a very specific amount, and this too argues for the cosmological redshift, IMO.

Lemaitre knew all this back then. I'm fairly certain he got to meet Slipher at an annual astronomer's convention. That may be when the light came on for him.

But, unlike Hubble at times, Lemaitre was humble and never asked for the limelight, so we don't hear about him like we should, given the BBT is no small deal.

I should mention that there has been some efforts to honor Lemaitre. The IAU voted to make the Hubble expansion constant renamed to be "The Hubble-Lemaitre Law". [Hubble never once claimed his data demonstrated expansion, so there's a few more posts I could say to help explain why. ;)]
I finally pushed a question to get my mind past Doppler. I asked, "What would happen to a blue laser beam that bounced off a mirror extended by a billion light-year pole (thus fixed in motion relative the Earth and incapable of Doppler shift)? The response, in essence, was the beam would redshift since the beam travels a great distance through space. Spacetime itself redshifts light. [Added: expansion of spacetime, actually.]
An excellent thought experiment.

It reminds me of a thought experiment I tried to carry out. I learnt, again from this forum, that it's not possible to synchronise two clocks in order to measure the one-way speed of light. So, I also came up with the idea of a clock, one where the dial goes round, attached to a rod and another dial on the other end so therefore the time at each end of the rod is exactly synchronised. So why can't you measure the one-way speed of light using this method? I can't get my head around it any further, any thoughts please? :)
 
Jun 1, 2020
1,303
1,080
3,060
Yes but the example - no beginning no end - can be concluded from matter can neither be created nor destroyed. I treat this statement as rock solid, so I treat all the conclusions from it as real, but I accept that is still subjective.
Ok, but your view on the conservation of energy and matter isn't all that subjective, but how it came to be, of course, is. I'm not sure everyone understands the difference.

Given the strength of the BBT, physics is able to demonstrate that matter was once energy in those early moments. As energy cooled due to expansion, quarks would form, and in accord with E=mc^2, of course. Just prior to this moment is the current end to physics. So, here is where we insert our subjective views. Some of those views are likely reasonable, others less so. My point is that we should make the distinction so we can keep the door open for philosophy and religion to provide answers - for personal satisfaction if nothing else -- where science cannot. Many, IMO, seem to have a hard time making the distinction and, as a result, let pseudoscience gremlins creep into discussions that erroneously attempt to equate their subjective opinions with science.

There are a few other things I treat same way, for example- space is Infinite because any boundaries always have another side.
If, however, space warps itself so that no matter where you go you can't get to any edge even if you could travel at infinite speed.

The balloon analogy demonstrates that no matter where you move along the surface, you will never find an edge.

No such thing as a singularity because no such thing as infinite density.
That's my opinion as well, so why do some physicists like to suggest otherwise? It helps sells books? [I really don't know.]

Can we have a category- rock solid reasoning and logic so therefore almost certain to be real? :)
Well, I'm comfortable with rocky islands. ;)

I'm happy to go through life putting things on a scale between not very likely and highly likely., so I can move on.
Yep, I would give that a 9.5! I even like 2D scales, like the Impact Hazard scale (Torino Scale), which combines destructive force with probability of impact. This should be applied more often for many risk-assessment programs, perhaps more dimensions, as well.

It's good, it gets the point across, but is slightly long-winded can you shorten it it somehow?:)
Agreed.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks
Jun 1, 2020
1,303
1,080
3,060
So, I also came up with the idea of a clock, one where the dial goes round, attached to a rod and another dial on the other end so therefore the time at each end of the rod is exactly synchronised. So why can't you measure the one-way speed of light using this method? I can't get my head around it any further, any thoughts please? :)
Well, yes, it is certainly possible to go in both directions a fixed distance to do time measurements. I've seen this example before.... somewhere. I have considerable difficulty with a lot of relativity, but I do appreciate the simplicity of the foundational arguments, I think.

Not to get too far into SR, but this may help explain what I think is the key element to SR -- c is constant from all reference frames.

Normally, given that speed of light is fixed for both observers (on deck and from the ground), then an alteration of time is the only possible solution. The traveler has a different time experience than those on the ground. But this is only a first step into SR.

[I see I failed to take the square root of the result, but that's easy to see.]

 
Last edited:
May 1, 2021
44
34
60
Most of what you say is interesting but you haven't given any ground for saying why reality is finite, you haven't given any reason as to why the other fabric you suggest we are expanding into is not infinite. :)
I believe all the energy within reality is finite (has a set value or is constant) because the conservation of energy law says energy can only be converted, not created or destroyed. And when it converts to other forms of energy, no energy is gained or lost during the interaction.

I don't see how energy can emerge from nowhere or from nothing. I believe something (energy) had to have always been there in order for anything to exist. That would make reality eternal, not infinite.

I don't believe anything within reality is infinite because all the energy within it has a fixed value, according to the energy conservation law. Nothing gained, nothing lost, no matter how much it interacts with itself, which is essentially what the energy within reality is doing. I don't see anything beyond reality because I don't believe there is a beyond.

Infinity is like an endless void. I don't believe in voids. I see voids and nothingness as figments of the imagination. I also see reality's energy as the manufacturer of time and space. It must have a place to move and time to do it in order to remain active, which is vital to its existence. How energy manufactures time and space outside of our universe may be entirely different involving more dimensions and different laws of physics.

What I see is our universe interacting with a different fabric that has different properties. I don't see it just expanding against this fabric, but also interacting with it. Perhaps what is happening at the macro level is somewhat similar to what is happening at the quantum level. Particles are popping in and out of existence, seemingly temporarily violating the conservation of energy law, but not actually doing so.
 
May 1, 2021
44
34
60
Reality without objective evidence isn't real enough to be considered reality, IMO. Things unknowable seem more unreal than real.

I'm looking at reality from an 'everything in existence' perspective. We know we exist. We must exist in order to imagine our existence is a figment of our imaginations, which can't exist if we don't, even if we aren't what we imagine we are.

That reminds me of something I firmly believe in - life after death. How we got here and where we go from here is anyone's guess, but I believe if we can exist once in an eternal reality, what can prevent us from experiencing another existence or countless existences? We've got an eternity in which to pop into existence countless times and may have had countless existences on other planets in other universes.

Eternity is the key to my belief. A quadrillion years to the quadrillionth power is just a tiny speck of time in an eternity. Are we allowed just one lousy 75-year existence in all eternity? I can't believe that. I don't want to come back to this planet, though. I'm putting in a request for a home on a planet with a 48-hour day and I want to be a vastly superior being in my next life so I can go planet hopping. However, if the planet is full of iPhone addicts, find me another one.
 
Ok, but your view on the conservation of energy and matter isn't all that subjective, but how it came to be, of course, is. I'm not sure everyone understands the difference.

Given the strength of the BBT, physics is able to demonstrate that matter was once energy in those early moments. As energy cooled due to expansion, quarks would form, and in accord with E=mc^2, of course. Just prior to this moment is the current end to physics. So, here is where we insert our subjective views. Some of those views are likely reasonable, others less so. My point is that we should make the distinction so we can keep the door open for philosophy and religion to provide answers - for personal satisfaction if nothing else -- where science cannot. Many, IMO, seem to have a hard time making the distinction and, as a result, let pseudoscience gremlins creep into discussions that erroneously attempt to equate their subjective opinions with science.

If, however, space warps itself so that no matter where you go you can't get to any edge even if you could travel at infinite speed.

The balloon analogy demonstrates that no matter where you move along the surface, you will never find an edge.

That's my opinion as well, so why do some physicists like to suggest otherwise? It helps sells books? [I really don't know.]

Well, I'm comfortable with rocky islands. ;)

Yep, I would give that a 9.5! I even like 2D scales, like the Impact Hazard scale (Torino Scale), which combines destructive force with probability of impact. This should be applied more often for many risk-assessment programs, perhaps more dimensions, as well.

Agreed.
Given the strength of the BBT, physics is able to demonstrate that matter was once energy in those early moments. As energy cooled due to expansion, quarks would form, and in accord with E=mc^2, of course.
Most of this bit all sounds good, but I don't know whether you saw it my other post that I've got opinions about energy not being real, so I'll put a link to it here. https://forums.space.com/threads/time-and-space-and-speed.38086/post-538127 Yours is probably the correct way to write it, whereas mine is just a trivial point, my own opinion.
My point is that we should make the distinction so we can keep the door open for philosophy and religion to provide answers - for personal satisfaction if nothing else -- where science cannot.
I would say say to keep the door temporarily open, as I'm very confident that one day science will tell us the exact full picture, it's just a matter about knowing more physics, that's all.
If, however, space warps itself so that no matter where you go you can't get to any edge even if you could travel at infinite speed.

The balloon analogy demonstrates that no matter where you move along the surface, you will never find an edge.
For something to be warped it has to be real and tangible, this means it must be real world space as I defined in a post above. The only thing that can do this is gravity from matter.

Take the extreme case of a black hole, inside the event Horizon is a place where space is also so curved where you also cannot escape or get to the edge, but in reality there isn't a physical edge it's just a place where the gravity is too hard to overcome. I think this would be the same case in a closed surface universe, you would not be able to get out because you would be gravitationally bound, but just as in the Black Hole, there will still be an outside to it which extends infinitely. In other words warped space hasn't got a physical boundary, so it is still infinite in my opinion.

Extending the analogy of the balloon world to our world would be the equivalent of saying we are embedded in a 4D space, but there is currently no evidence for anything like that. :)
 
I believe all the energy within reality is finite (has a set value or is constant) because the conservation of energy law says energy can only be converted, not created or destroyed. And when it converts to other forms of energy, no energy is gained or lost during the interaction.

I don't see how energy can emerge from nowhere or from nothing. I believe something (energy) had to have always been there in order for anything to exist. That would make reality eternal, not infinite.

I don't believe anything within reality is infinite because all the energy within it has a fixed value, according to the energy conservation law. Nothing gained, nothing lost, no matter how much it interacts with itself, which is essentially what the energy within reality is doing. I don't see anything beyond reality because I don't believe there is a beyond.

Infinity is like an endless void. I don't believe in voids. I see voids and nothingness as figments of the imagination. I also see reality's energy as the manufacturer of time and space. It must have a place to move and time to do it in order to remain active, which is vital to its existence. How energy manufactures time and space outside of our universe may be entirely different involving more dimensions and different laws of physics.

What I see is our universe interacting with a different fabric that has different properties. I don't see it just expanding against this fabric, but also interacting with it. Perhaps what is happening at the macro level is somewhat similar to what is happening at the quantum level. Particles are popping in and out of existence, seemingly temporarily violating the conservation of energy law, but not actually doing so.
I believe all the energy within reality is finite
surely anything that is finite must have a boundary or an edge and it must also exist in a pre-existing space. Since boundaries always have another side, then space must be Infinite whether it's a void or whether it's full of something is up to you.
That would make reality eternal, not infinite.
agreed eternal but why not eternal and Infinite. An infinite universe can still conserve energy because overall you could still have a situation where nothing is overall created or destroyed.
What I see is our universe interacting with a different fabric that has different properties. I don't see it just expanding against this fabric, but also interacting with it.
It looks like a bit of a contradiction, on the one hand you're saying reality is finite and there's nothing beyond, and on the other you're saying it is interacting with a fabric beyond. Also because of the definition of 'Universe' meaning everything that exists, you need to include the fabric beyond as part of your Universe. :)
 
May 1, 2021
44
34
60
D-J-F
"No such thing as a singularity because no such thing as infinite density."

Wow! One thing we agree on.

Cat :)
My perspective: Gravity can only squeeze energy so far, and then it quantum leaps, like our Big Bang did. It looks like this is one of the major roles quantum mechanics plays. This 'last gasp' by all that compressed energy to remain in existence is in line with the conservation of energy law. In order for energy to remain in existence, it must always have freedom to move. It needs space to move and time to do so. Energy must always have an escape route. and since everything in existence is a form of energy, all the energy within reality is essentially interacting with itself. It has all the necessary safeguards to prevent self-destruction.

It has been estimated that there may be as many as 26 dimensions. Perhaps that's how many dimensions energy needs to remain eternally active. To me, that's a lot of energetic fabrics with a lot of different properties.

I don't believe what was outside of the compressed ball of energy was empty space. I believe it was an energetic fabric, but can't imagine its properties or its role. When the Big Bang (or sudden expansion) occurred, it pushed against the fabric that surrounded it and is still apparently still accelerating while doing so. It's as if the universe is being sucked into the fabric surrounding it, but it may be just the way these two different fabrics interact with each other during the current phase they are in before another transformation or quantum leap occurs.

Anyhow, that's my 'mechanical reality' view. I also have an entirely different view that suggests the purpose preceded the universe and that the purpose was to provide a place for life to evolve. That would take an intelligent energy force, not a mechanical one. However, I don't favor one view over another. Like all of us, I am in no position to draw conclusions.
 
May 1, 2021
44
34
60
surely anything that is finite must have a boundary or an edge and it must also exist in a pre-existing space. Since boundaries always have another side, then space must be Infinite whether it's a void or whether it's full of something is up to you. agreed eternal but why not eternal and Infinite. An infinite universe can still conserve energy because overall you could still have a situation where nothing is overall created or destroyed. It looks like a bit of a contradiction, on the one hand you're saying reality is finite and there's nothing beyond, and on the other you're saying it is interacting with a fabric beyond. Also because of the definition of 'Universe' meaning everything that exists, you need to include the fabric beyond as part of your Universe. :)
I don't see edges or boundaries in that sense. I don't emvision a solid, impenetrable wall between our universe and its outer reaches. I don't envision an infinite void beyond it, either. I envision an interaction between two fabrics - our space-time and whatever fabric it appears to be pushing against or spreading out. If there are anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions,

I did not say reality is interacting with a fabric bayond itself because there is nothing beyond it, It is interacting with itself.

surely anything that is finite must have a boundary or an edge and it must also exist in a pre-existing space. Since boundaries always have another side, then space must be Infinite whether it's a void or whether it's full of something is up to you. agreed eternal but why not eternal and Infinite. An infinite universe can still conserve energy because overall you could still have a situation where nothing is overall created or destroyed. It looks like a bit of a contradiction, on the one hand you're saying reality is finite and there's nothing beyond, and on the other you're saying it is interacting with a fabric beyond. Also because of the definition of 'Universe' meaning everything that exists, you need to include the fabric beyond as part of your Universe. :)
You said: "on the one hand you're saying reality is finite and there's nothing beyond, and on the other you're saying it is interacting with a fabric beyond. "

I didn't say reality is interacting with a fabric beyond. The universe, which is an unknown percentage of reality, appears to be interacting with an energetic fabric I believe was there before the Big Bang. In other words, I don't see the pre-Big Bang as a tiny point surrounded by a void. I see what surrounded the pre-Big Bang as an energetic fabric with what may be entirely different properties than what we are witnessing. Bear in mind I'm not convinced there was no energy being sucked into the pre-Big Bang before it expanded. There had to be a catalyst and it could have come from outside that tiny compressed ball of energy.

Although I'm not sold on the idea, I'm looking at reality and the universe from a different perspective. I imagined there are no such things as a 'beyond' everything in existence. No voids, edges, or infinity beyond reality and that everything within reality, including this universe, is filled with energy. Another way of putting it is I don't see how space-time, which is an energetic fabric, can exist without energy to manufacture or create it.

The conservation law tells me there is a set amount of eternal energy within reality. It has always been there and has never gained or lost energy, or value. When I say "within" I'm not putting an outer boundary on reality. I don't see an edge with an infinite void beyond it, even though such a thing is easy to imagine. What I see in this seemingly impossible point of view is a lot of dimensions yet to be discovered (if possible) arranged in such a complex manner that it excludes an edge or outer boundary. I know it's as difficult to wrap our heads around such a possibility as a set amount of energy without the possibility of anything being beyond it, but it's also difficult to wrap our heads around an eternal reality that had no beginning and will never end. I've always said something had to have always existed in order for anything to exist. I don't buy into the "something from nothing" theory. The conservation of energy law prevents me from considering that as a possibility.
 
  • Like
Reactions: David-J-Franks

IG2007

"Don't criticize what you can't understand..."
Apr 5, 2020
643
723
1,760
What are we expanding into?

Same old question. There is nothing outside the Universe to expand into.
Please see Agreed terms help sensible discussion

How did this get to 5 pages?

Cat :)
Because not everyone agrees. There is indeed nothing outside the Universe, that is why we are confused with comprehending the depth of nothing.
 
I don't see edges or boundaries in that sense. I don't emvision a solid, impenetrable wall between our universe and its outer reaches. I don't envision an infinite void beyond it, either. I envision an interaction between two fabrics - our space-time and whatever fabric it appears to be pushing against or spreading out. If there are anywhere from 10 to 26 dimensions,

I did not say reality is interacting with a fabric bayond itself because there is nothing beyond it, It is interacting with itself.



You said: "on the one hand you're saying reality is finite and there's nothing beyond, and on the other you're saying it is interacting with a fabric beyond. "

I didn't say reality is interacting with a fabric beyond. The universe, which is an unknown percentage of reality, appears to be interacting with an energetic fabric I believe was there before the Big Bang. In other words, I don't see the pre-Big Bang as a tiny point surrounded by a void. I see what surrounded the pre-Big Bang as an energetic fabric with what may be entirely different properties than what we are witnessing. Bear in mind I'm not convinced there was no energy being sucked into the pre-Big Bang before it expanded. There had to be a catalyst and it could have come from outside that tiny compressed ball of energy.

Although I'm not sold on the idea, I'm looking at reality and the universe from a different perspective. I imagined there are no such things as a 'beyond' everything in existence. No voids, edges, or infinity beyond reality and that everything within reality, including this universe, is filled with energy. Another way of putting it is I don't see how space-time, which is an energetic fabric, can exist without energy to manufacture or create it.

The conservation law tells me there is a set amount of eternal energy within reality. It has always been there and has never gained or lost energy, or value. When I say "within" I'm not putting an outer boundary on reality. I don't see an edge with an infinite void beyond it, even though such a thing is easy to imagine. What I see in this seemingly impossible point of view is a lot of dimensions yet to be discovered (if possible) arranged in such a complex manner that it excludes an edge or outer boundary. I know it's as difficult to wrap our heads around such a possibility as a set amount of energy without the possibility of anything being beyond it, but it's also difficult to wrap our heads around an eternal reality that had no beginning and will never end. I've always said something had to have always existed in order for anything to exist. I don't buy into the "something from nothing" theory. The conservation of energy law prevents me from considering that as a possibility.
Thanks for Clarifying. Much of what you're saying seems reasonable

Is it right to think of what you call 'our universe' as a pocket universe, to distinguish it from the whole Universe, which is everything that exists? Am I right in thinking this pocket universe and the fabric surrounding it, which you say we are expanding into, is what you are calling all of reality. So in turn, can this be called the whole Universe.

If I'm thinking right so far, my question is, is the whole Universe, all of your reality, infinite or finite? :)
 
May 1, 2021
44
34
60
Thanks for Clarifying. Much of what you're saying seems reasonable

Is it right to think of what you call 'our universe' as a pocket universe, to distinguish it from the whole Universe, which is everything that exists? Am I right in thinking this pocket universe and the fabric surrounding it, which you say we are expanding into, is what you are calling all of reality. So in turn, can this be called the whole Universe.

If I'm thinking right so far, my question is, is the whole Universe, all of your reality, infinite or finite? :)
When I refer to reality, I'm referring to all the energy in existence. It's possible this universe is all there is, but there are so many theories suggesting otherwise, I think it's best to sit on the fence. There's a lot of strange things out there we don't understand like dark matter, dark energy that apparently is still accelerating the expansion. All I can do is wonder whether dark energy is entering our space-time from another dimension or if the fabric of our universe is being pulled apart. I also wonder if the fabric has a point at which it can no longer expand. Does it begin retracting or does it make another quantum leap to become something with different properties? Does the universe eventually curve back in on itself in a complex manner due to other dimensions we have yet to discover? Is there a multiverse or other universes like ours? Are there other universes very different from ours? So many unanswered questions that generate so many more unanswered questions...

While the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself. The laws we know apparently don't apply to what is beyond our universe, if anything is beyond it instead of being another dimension within it.

Whatever was surrounding the point from which the Big Bang emerged couldn't have had the same laws of physics we know or the expansion of space-time at the very beginning wouldn't have been able to exceed the speed of light like it apparently did. That's the way I see it. It's still a fuzzy picture to me. However, I can't believe what was surrounding the pre-Big Bang was an infinite nothingness completely devoid of energy.

The conservation of energy law says all the energy within reality is not infinite, but eternal and finite (fixed) - never gaining or losing value. That doesn't mean there isn't energy flowing into or escaping the universe - not if there is something beyond it or if there are other dimensions within it exchanging energy.

To clarify, I don't believe in voids or infinite areas of nothingness beyond reality. I don't believe space is possible without energy to produce it in the form of a space-time continuum. The idea is as hard to get my head around, as is the idea of the energy within reality having no beginning or no end. That's what the conservation of energy law is telling us. The fact that anything exists at all boggles my mind, but we're here witnessing it.
 
May 1, 2021
44
34
60
that's what makes it fun, watching everyone go round in circles :)
I don't believe 'nothing' can exist beyond the imagination. In other words, I see complete voids as figments of the human imagination. If I'm wrong, I was once nothing - a complete void - and never want to go back to being nothing again. 😷
 
When I refer to reality, I'm referring to all the energy in existence. It's possible this universe is all there is, but there are so many theories suggesting otherwise, I think it's best to sit on the fence. There's a lot of strange things out there we don't understand like dark matter, dark energy that apparently is still accelerating the expansion. All I can do is wonder whether dark energy is entering our space-time from another dimension or if the fabric of our universe is being pulled apart. I also wonder if the fabric has a point at which it can no longer expand. Does it begin retracting or does it make another quantum leap to become something with different properties? Does the universe eventually curve back in on itself in a complex manner due to other dimensions we have yet to discover? Is there a multiverse or other universes like ours? Are there other universes very different from ours? So many unanswered questions that generate so many more unanswered questions...

While the speed of light remains an unbreakable barrier for those of us within the universe, it can’t limit the expansion of space-time itself. The laws we know apparently don't apply to what is beyond our universe, if anything is beyond it instead of being another dimension within it.

Whatever was surrounding the point from which the Big Bang emerged couldn't have had the same laws of physics we know or the expansion of space-time at the very beginning wouldn't have been able to exceed the speed of light like it apparently did. That's the way I see it. It's still a fuzzy picture to me. However, I can't believe what was surrounding the pre-Big Bang was an infinite nothingness completely devoid of energy.

The conservation of energy law says all the energy within reality is not infinite, but eternal and finite (fixed) - never gaining or losing value. That doesn't mean there isn't energy flowing into or escaping the universe - not if there is something beyond it or if there are other dimensions within it exchanging energy.

To clarify, I don't believe in voids or infinite areas of nothingness beyond reality. I don't believe space is possible without energy to produce it in the form of a space-time continuum. The idea is as hard to get my head around, as is the idea of the energy within reality having no beginning or no end. That's what the conservation of energy law is telling us. The fact that anything exists at all boggles my mind, but we're here witnessing it.
Thanks again sorry to go on but Universe theories are my favourite subject

I also take it as sacred that existence is eternal and that you can't have something from nothing and that an infinite void is completely absurd.

I wasn't suggesting for a minute that there was an infinite void, I was trying to ask if your reality, the sort that's full of stuff and fabric, is infinite or finite. :)
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY