outside the universe

[Yuutsu]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=17jymDn0W6U

The Universe: making humans feel insignificant since 13.7 Billion BC.

[Leo Keichi]

What people call the Universe apparently is made of 99% of nothing (vacuum), and 1% of matter. I believe that the extension of matter is measurable, but vacuum is infinite.

Originally Posted by Raiga

And yes, time is a real dimension. The effects of special relativity and general relativity are very well documented. If you go fast enough through space, it affects your perception of time. Space and time are inextricably linked to one another. GPS satellites actually have to make corrections for relativity, otherwise their accuracy would be significantly off.

The elasticity of time is a weird thing. It's like the creator of the universe didn't fine-tune the rules of physics well enough.

Originally Posted by Raiga

I'm afraid I've lost track of what you're talking about. What do you mean by things ahead of us and things behind us? This has nothing to do with a point of origin or direction of travel.

Originally Posted by Raiga

As for "direction of travel" or "point of origin," well, they don't really exist. If I was in a rocket travelling to the left relative to the Earth, I could declare that I'm standing still while the Earth is travelling to the right-- and I'd be correct.

Well, but the point where the Big Bang happened could be a good reference point. So, in Ithekro's example, the things ahead of us would be the things that were further away from the center of the Big Bang explosion.

[Raiga]

Originally Posted by Leo Keichi

What people call the Universe apparently is made of 99% of nothing (vacuum), and 1% of matter. I believe that the extension of matter is measurable, but vacuum is infinite.

I don't think there's a way to measure matter vs. vacuum seeing as vacuum has no mass... if you're going by volume then the ratio is much much greater than that, though what with interstellar dust and gases and whatnot it's a little tricky to define the volume of matter in the universe.

The ratios of stuff in the universe that I'm familiar with are: 72% dark energy, 24% dark matter, 4% normal matter.

The elasticity of time is a weird thing. It's like the creator of the universe didn't fine-tune the rules of physics well enough.

On the contrary, it's very precise and very neat. Far from showing sloppiness, it shows just how organized and interconnected the laws of physics are. It's counterintuitive for certain, but it's no fudge.

General relativity gets weirder, but special relativity follows from the fact that the speed of light remains constant no matter how fast you're moving. Thus time dilation is actually a statement of symmetry in the universe.

[solidguy]

I believe there is something outside the universe, it's almost logical. Something can never appear out of nothing therefore it is only natural that existence always has and always will exist. Unless there is an intellegent designer who created us from scratch but even then we are left with the question who created this designer? and where did he come from? and what was there before he existed?

Sometimes I wonder if we are just living in a matrix like world, something like an advanced simulation. Maybe we are all just living in an aliens dream? I don't know this is just how I feel about the thread

[WordShaker]

Originally Posted by Leo Keichi

Well, but the point where the Big Bang happened could be a good reference point. So, in Ithekro's example, the things ahead of us would be the things that were further away from the center of the Big Bang explosion.

Well, according to the current science (and despite what some self-centered individuals would have you believe ), there is no center of the universe. IIRC, data gathered from Hubble telescope observations show that all objects are moving farther apart from each other at roughly the same speed according to Hubble's Law (Wikipedia page). This is consistent with the current conception of what the Big Bang was--not one big, huge explosion of mass and energy, but the universe spontaneously "popping" into existence, so to speak. Not that it came pre-formed with stars and all, but as a thick "fog" of quarks, leptons, and antimatter that eventually gave rise to the condensed clouds of matter that formed the first stars and whatnot. And, like you say, from that point on the universe just kept on expanding and expanding. Check out this link on NASA's WMAP observations to get a handle on universal expansion.

EDIT: Bah, reading over this thread makes me realize that Raiga has already been over this. Sorry to belabor the point, folks.

[Malkuth]

I agree with what Vexx said, by skimming through the post, in addition there are several documentaries from BBC and Discovery, as well as this site for some introductionary material.

In any case, if you go by the generally accepted theories, it is impossible to perceive what is outside the universe (limited by space-time expansion) and the current theoretical models do not work beyond some time after the Big Bang. Big Bang itself being supported by experimental and observational data decades after the theory was formulated, so even if it not absolutely correct, it is certainly on the correct direction.

Beyond that there is a sub-group of string theories that theorize the existence of energy group fluctuation that when interacting give rise to what we perceive as matter, space, etc. But as all string theories, they follow an inverse scientific method, so from my PoV they are not more credible than your neighbourhood's priest on the subject (... and I am being sarcastic physics majors)

[RandySyler]

Originally Posted by solidguy

if we are just living in a matrix like world, something like an advanced simulation. Maybe we are all just living in an aliens dream? I don't know this is just how I feel about the thread

I remember a Scenes from a Multiverse comic when two scientists are standing above a simulation and the dialouge goes something like this:

"Hows the Universe simulation going?"
"Great...uh-oh..."
"What?"
"They just built their own simulation"

[Jinto]

Originally Posted by RandySyler

I remember a Scenes from a Multiverse comic when two scientists are standing above a simulation and the dialouge goes something like this:

"Hows the Universe simulation going?"
"Great...uh-oh..."
"What?"
"They just built their own simulation"

You could call it a continuum then - or maybe not, since each step into the simulation of an simulation will feature less information thats being used in the simulation's simulation, so this chain is definite, finite.

Originally Posted by Malkuth

...
In any case, if you go by the generally accepted theories, it is impossible to perceive what is outside the universe (limited by space-time expansion) and the current theoretical models do not work beyond some time after the Big Bang. Big Bang itself being supported by experimental and observational data decades after the theory was formulated, so even if it not absolutely correct, it is certainly on the correct direction.

So, the solution would be to not go by the generally accepted theories. Thats all fabricated non-sense. They tweak their model whenever new data is found. This is not what I call a provable theory. This is just modelling the understanding of the universe to the latest scientific data (which basically represents the universe as we perceive it). But its surely (I am almost 100% sure) not representative for the actual universe.

Originally Posted by Malkuth

Beyond that there is a sub-group of string theories that theorize the existence of energy group fluctuation that when interacting give rise to what we perceive as matter, space, etc. But as all string theories, they follow an inverse scientific method, so from my PoV they are not more credible than your neighbourhood's priest on the subject (... and I am being sarcastic physics majors)

Now thats even worse, because this - lets call it theoretical framework of a model - uses so many unknown/certainly unprovable axioms that it can a) be tweaked to look like whatever comes (in terms of new scientific data) and b) disqualifies as a theory for precisely this reason. Or lets just say (and I agree with you completely) its closer to religion then science in my opinion. But then again thats not a bad thing. Everyone can have their own "thoeries" of this universe.

[Malkuth]

@Jinto: Well, I am not exactly a proponent of how physicists work these days, but it's neither my field, nor will their research have any impact to society. But for what concerns answering academic questions like what is there outside of the universe, building up on experimental proven work (relativity / quantum mechanics) is how natural science works, and does not become religion or string theory

But yeah, as I said, not my field, just have an amateurish interest for cosmology, and find hilarious how horrible is some physicists understanding/explainations of geometry and statistics

[Tri-ring]

Interesting way to contemplate the universe is no matter how far we travel, within this universe the values of the physical constants will be the same. This is in a way the same as how Seiyuki elaborated about the world saying no matter how hard Songku tries he will always be playing within the palm of Buddha.
On the other hand outside our universe there maybe one where our understanding of physics does not exist. Another intriguing point is that no matter how close that universe maybe we will not be able to sense it's presence since our understanding of physics breaks down beyond the point of our own universe.

My question while watching one of those science programs is IF our space time began at the point of the big bang and if our space time had been inflating ever since then is the fabric of space time elasticity infinite or will it rupture at some point in time as it stretched out to the limit like an inflatable balloon inflated beyond it's limit?

[Xagzan]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

Interesting way to contemplate the universe is no matter how far we travel, within this universe the values of the physical constants will be the same. This is in a way the same as how Seiyuki elaborated about the world saying no matter how hard Songku tries he will always be playing within the palm of Buddha.
On the other hand outside our universe there maybe one where our understanding of physics does not exist. Another intriguing point is that no matter how close that universe maybe we will not be able to sense it's presence since our understanding of physics breaks down beyond the point of our own universe.

Genuine question, do we know that? If we've never experienced or seen anything outside our own universe, how do we know our understanding of physics breaks down?

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

My question while watching one of those science programs is IF our space time began at the point of the big bang and if our space time had been inflating ever since then is the fabric of space time elasticity infinite or will it rupture at some point in time as it stretched out to the limit like an inflatable balloon inflated beyond it's limit?

Sounds like you're talking about the Big Rip, which could happen if it expands that far, but I think the most generally accepted theory now is a sort of stagnation, where the universe keeps expanding but eventually becomes inhospitable to all life. A dead, dark, empty universe, without even stars or black holes. I think it's believed the Big Rip could happen after that, or it might just stay in that state of heat death forever.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Genuine question, do we know that? If we've never experienced or seen anything outside our own universe, how do we know our understanding of physics breaks down?

Well first of all, I did start with my sentence with a maybe and second IF there is an universe outside our own that consists with the same physical constant then what is the borderline that divides ours from the other?
And how would we know that that borderline is the limit to our own universe when the other side of the borderline utilizes the same physical constant?

Originally Posted by Xagzan

Sounds like you're talking about the Big Rip, which could happen if it expands that far, but I think the most generally accepted theory now is a sort of stagnation, where the universe keeps expanding but eventually becomes inhospitable to all life. A dead, dark, empty universe, without even stars or black holes. I think it's believed the Big Rip could happen after that, or it might just stay in that state of heat death forever.

Expansion of space time means that ultimately all atomic and sub-atomic particles dissipates from one another into the endless expanse.
My question is a bit different considering the fabric of dimensions itself which matter itself is contained.
we know it is very elastic where it can warp to the limit of one of the physical constant, speed of light where it can be stretched beyond it so that not even light can escape but is there a bottom to it or is there a hole at the bottom?
And if there is a hole what does it mean?

[TinyRedLeaf]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

My question while watching one of those science programs is IF our space time began at the point of the big bang and if our space time had been inflating ever since then is the fabric of space time elasticity infinite or will it rupture at some point in time as it stretched out to the limit like an inflatable balloon inflated beyond it's limit?

Welcome to the fun quest that is the search for elusive dark matter, extensively researched by no less a physics luminary than Stephen Hawking.

The idea is simple: that dark matter exerts the counter-force that keeps the Universe from expanding endlessly. But the search for it is still ongoing, so it remains mainly theoretical at this time.

[Tri-ring]

Originally Posted by TinyRedLeaf

Welcome to the fun quest that is the search for elusive dark matter, extensively researched by no less a physics luminary than Stephen Hawking.

The idea is simple: that dark matter exerts the counter-force that keeps the Universe from expanding endlessly. But the search for it is still ongoing, so it remains mainly theoretical at this time.

No dark energy is an unknown source of energy that accelerates the expansion of the universe not a counter force since if there was no dark energy at some point gravity would pull matter inwards to clump together but what we are observing is that far away objects are actually accelerating away not decelerating as conventional physics dictates how matter should react within a gravitational field.

[WordShaker]

Originally Posted by Tri-ring

No dark energy is an unknown source of energy that accelerates the expansion of the universe not a counter force since if there was no dark energy at some point gravity would pull matter inwards to clump together but what we are observing is that far away objects are actually accelerating away not decelerating as conventional physics dictates how matter should react within a gravitational field.

Dark energy isn't the same as dark matter, though their names are confusingly similar. Dark matter accounts for the "invisible" mass of the universe; I presume the counter-force TinyRedLeaf refers to is the gravitational pull this mass exerts.

[Malkuth]

On how do we know that current theories (not the laws of physics, just our models and understanding of them) break down... well, because there are observed and postulated phenomena for which there are no theories explaining them that are supported by experiments. A recent example is the higg's process, by which massless elementary particles can become massive. Classical physics explain this process with an elementary particle, the higg's boson, which has yet to be observed. There are other theories, but also have their own verification issues. That does not mean that any of these theories are wrong, it just means that we can not verify them yet with our current technologically.

On dark matter, is just matter that interacts gravitationally, in other words its particles are massive, but not electromagnetically, therefore dark, hard to observe since we primarily use the electromagnetic emissions to observe the world around us. It's existance supports a number of observations, like the distribution of radial velocities of galaxies, and large-scale structure of the universe.

On the dark energy, well the name is misleading, since it's not energy (in the sense that it produces no work) and the dark comes from dark matter. What is commonly refered as dark energy or negative pressure is a property of space-time to increase (not expand), in other words every moment passing by, there is more space for matter/energy to fill in. This increase has during this era an accelerating rate (third derivating is positive for those who remember high school math).

Now that this is out of the way, the big rip stuff. This accelerating increase in space-time at some point will reach such rates that elementary particles that mediate forces will be slower, for example, should photons move slower than space-time expands, they will in effect remain in the same place, therefore, no light, electricity, etc. At the very distance future even protons will be shred apart because the mediating particles of the strong nuclear force will be slower than the so called space-time expansion.

But all this if the current trend continues, in the past it has significantly varied, the curvature of space, which only recently we are able to begin measuring, the long term distribution of energy and matter, as well as the apparent uniform distribution currently observed holds in the future. Oh! and when all these might happen depends on the dimensionality of space-time.

[Dextro]

Why should anything exist outside the universe? Really why should it? I know we as humans tend to think that the universe is finite (which it sort of is but isn't), and as such something must exist outside it, but we do call it the universe for a reason. Universe is in fact a way to say everything and as such nothing can exist outside of it. It's a difficult concept to grasp and I may in fact be proven wrong in a minute or in centuries but I think that considering such definition works for me.

[Cellatore]

Originally Posted by Dextro

Why should anything exist outside the universe? Really why should it? I know we as humans tend to think that the universe is finite (which it sort of is but isn't), and as such something must exist outside it, but we do call it the universe for a reason. Universe is in fact a way to say everything and as such nothing can exist outside of it. It's a difficult concept to grasp and I may in fact be proven wrong in a minute or in centuries but I think that considering such definition works for me.

Actually I think most humans think the universe is infinate rather than finite. According to Hubbles law the universe is constantly expanding, so technically the Universe can't have an end if it is constantly growing. If we are getting into your last paragraph, then we would be talking about whether a universe does or does not exist (or rather the human definition of a universe). There are many theories that there is a never ending space that can be filled with matter, if one were to believe in that than technically everything we currently can't see would be a universe.

I believe the Universe is a never ending cycle of matter being recycled. Planets and debris are just concentrations of masses that are currently in the recycling process while stars are catalyst that drives a new recycling process to start (where do you think all mass goes when a star explodes). I wish scientists would further look into my theory however with current technology we can't determine the recycling times. Due to the doplar shift all objects we see is relative to the velocity of the earth and other objections. Our physical observation of things that we see is not always the truth. Remember that light, although incredibly quick, still takes time to cross a chasm of space and what we see could have been something from long ago even thousands to hundreds of thousands of years ago depending on the location of the object.

Edit*
If you really think about it, the human language and our forms of communication are also others ways we could think of theories for the universe. If the word universe would never have been "invented" we could have called it another word, or even another meaning. Our entire conception of the world outside of ours could be totally different. Though that would be another topic to fall upon.

[Ithekro]

Still have to contend with work energy lost via heat. Unless that is reclaimed somehow the endless recycling will have a limit.

[Cellatore]

Well the law of conservation of mass and energy states that mass and energy cannot be created nor destroyed. Heat is a form of energy therefor it can't be created or destroyed either. Without the loss of mass there is a constant recycling of the universe.