the universe?

[evoluzione]

um, so this one has always baffled me...

the universe...

...is it infinite?

or is it ever expanding?

'cause it can't be both, right? and if it's ever expanding, what's beyond it?? white space? the fact that there is "nothing" beyond the universe just doesn't compute in my head :rolleyes: :confused:

[medea]

i belive the common thought right now is that it is both expanding and shrinking, there may be too much mass in the Universe for the expansion to go on forever. The gravity of all matter in the Universe combined may cause the inflation of the Universe to slow down, come to a halt -- and after that, the Universe would start shrinking again. And some say that the universe has already been as big as its ever going to get and its been shrinking ever since the big bang.

[evoluzione]

hmmm, thanks, but i'm still none the wiser :(

so what's beyond it? (or am i just being really dumb? :rolleyes: )

[beez7777]

well, the theory that it was at one point infinitesimal doesn't seem to be compatible with the theory that it's infinitely large now, simply because, at one point it had to be somewhere in between. i would think there would have to be a point where there are no more moving molecules, i guess that would be where the "universe" ends. i reccommend stephen hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell," it's a great book, with lots of wicked awesome illustrations, even though i ended up losing sleep thinking about all the crap that i was reading. truly fascinating stuff. i would go deeper into this, but im really tired and i gotta wake up at 4:30 tomorrow morning to go on a school trip to the Antietam battle field. ;) :)

[Vlade]

This reminds me of some code I wrote a while ago, it shows the current volume and how many molecules of water it could hold, here is the code in METAL Basic (im sure you can all port it if you want)

cls

light = 3*10^8 'Speed of light in meters per second
time = 20000000000*365*60*60 'Seconds the universe has existed (estimated)
pi = 3.1415

volume_M = 3/4*pi*(time*light)^3 'Volume of the universe in meters cubed
volume_ML = volume_M*(100^3) ' Converted to milileters for the next calculation

atoms_of_H20 = volume_ML/18*6.02*10^23 'Converts volume to atoms of water

? "The volume of the universe in meters cubed is..."
? volume_M
?
?
? "The universe could hold this many molecules of water..."
? atoms_of_H20

[iGav]

We don't really know.... scientists change their opinion all the time..... Not that that's a bad thing, I was watching something on the Discovery Channel a while ago, saying that the Universe isn't shrinking....... and never will.....

I'd like to think that it's infinite.... but I too can't get my head around what is outside the expansion..... Nothing??? I didn't think you could have nothing.... surely there has to be something....?? :confused:

This is one of those conversations which always benefit from having a few chilled beers, on a mid summers night, looking up at the night sky......

wondering!!

[chibianh]

I believe current research suggests that the universe isn't shrinking or the expansion slowing down at all. In fact, it suggests that the rate of expansion of the universe is accelerating. Galaxies are flying farther apart from each other at an accelerating rate. Here's an interesting article to read, if you haven't, regarding how the universe will end if the universe's expansion is in fact accelerating.

http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/big_rip_030306.html

[howard]

i think this is something we'll never know, at least in our lifetimes. Even the researchers seem to change there mind all the time about what the universe is actually doing.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by beez7777
well, the theory that it was at one point infinitesimal doesn't seem to be compatible with the theory that it's infinitely large now, simply because, at one point it had to be somewhere in between. i would think there would have to be a point where there are no more moving molecules, i guess that would be where the "universe" ends. i reccommend stephen hawking's "The Universe in a Nutshell," it's a great book, with lots of wicked awesome illustrations, even though i ended up losing sleep thinking about all the crap that i was reading. truly fascinating stuff. i would go deeper into this, but im really tired and i gotta wake up at 4:30 tomorrow morning to go on a school trip to the Antietam battle field. ;) :)

In the beginning the Universe wasn't just infinitessimal - this is is a common misconception. In the beginning the universe had zero volume. It was a "singularity" in space (just like a black hole).

What does that mean? That means that by definition at the beginning of the big bang space has zero dimensions, so comparison to our "infinite" 3D space becomes meaningless.

Now I don't claim to know much about this stuff, this gets into stuff that physicists are just starting to develop theories on and that I've just read about in magazines. I read it has to do with dimensions "collapsing". So going from two dimensions to one dimension is analogous to rolling up a sheet of paper into a really skinny tube. But of course this is a flawed analogy because in our real physical world a real physical sheet of paper can only exist in 3 dimensions. But imagine a 3D box actually being squished into a 2D plane. And a 2D plane actually being rolled up into a 1D line. It sounds crazy but mathematicians have already worked out in some detail how these transformations happen....

[MacBandit]

My personal belief is that the universe is like a galaxy and the solar systems within it. That being in my belief there are unlimited number of universes that occupy a large body that occupy a larger body yet and so on and so on.

If my belief is true then the reason the universe is expanding and accelerating is it is being pulled by other universes. Eventually it will combine with another multitude of universes that will colapse and explode and the whole cycle will start over again.

Our view point of space is so small and so narrow there is no way we will be able to grasp what might be beyond maybe forever. Who knows how far we will go and what we will learn. What we do know now is that we know nothing at all.

[actripxl]

Well I think its a shame alot of people keep bringing up the big bang theory. Yes that is what they taught in school years ago and probably still do since people tend to fear change. The reality is there is a lot of new evidence that shows the big bang in effect is wrong heck it was on space.com a few months ago. I can't remeber exactly how the new theory goes but anti-matter(which is a modern concept, big bang being a antiquated one) plays a huge part in putting holes into the big bang. Also when the big bang was thought up none of the technology that exists today was even dreamed.

[lmalave]

Originally posted by actripxl
Well I think its a shame alot of people keep bringing up the big bang theory. Yes that is what they taught in school years ago and probably still do since people tend to fear change. The reality is there is a lot of new evidence that shows the big bang in effect is wrong heck it was on space.com a few months ago. I can't remeber exactly how the new theory goes but anti-matter(which is a modern concept, big bang being a antiquated one) plays a huge part in putting holes into the big bang. Also when the big bang was thought up none of the technology that exists today was even dreamed.

Well, the Big Bang is that, just a theory. But it is clearly the generally accepted theory because of the huge preponderance of evidence supporting it so why would it be a shame to mention it?. That's what science is about, right? Let the conclusions be drawn from the data? And if you find data that doesn't fit, then you try to figure out why, which could lead to a refinement of the theory or a totally new theory. Just like Newtonian physics was found to be an oversimplification of Relativistic physics, and the theory of the atom as the smallest unit of matter gave way to the theories of modern particle physics. And yes, to this day people still gather data that could debunk theories like the theory of Relativity, the theory of Quantum Physics, particle physics, etc.

But you can't just say a theory is invalid because someone somewhere disagreed with it or has data that doesn't support it. That data would have to be verified by additional data from other sources until the preponderance of data debunks the theory.

And from what I can tell, most of the data coming back from instruments like the Hubble telescope just keeps adding more and more evidence to support the Big Bang theory.

[mischief]

"LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING."

:D ;)

I feel that the Universe itself has evolved from a single event the way an open-ended binary equation expands if given 6 or so axes to expand from. This is as much about manifestory "there it is" as temporal "there it was" .

What this comes down to is that presently the Universe is, indeed infinite. Only the contents continue to evolve and pass energy into and out of the basic underlying "hum" that is the essential "chord or key". the highest "octave" of this hum being C and the lowest being the standing pulse of 1 hydrogen atom.

I feel that the Big Bang theory works well on 1 axis (Time) but is woefully inadequate in several other parameters. Personally I think that the theory arose from a direct need on the part of Scientists to "replace" Genesis and in so doing only mimic'd it by way of theorizing hypotheses early on scanty evidence.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mischief
"LIFE, THE UNIVERSE AND EVERYTHING."

:D ;)

I feel that the Universe itself has evolved from a single event the way an open-ended binary equation expands if given 6 or so axes to expand from. This is as much about manifestory "there it is" as temporal "there it was" .

What this comes down to is that presently the Universe is, indeed infinite. Only the contents continue to evolve and pass energy into and out of the basic underlying "hum" that is the essential "chord or key". the highest "octave" of this hum being C and the lowest being the standing pulse of 1 hydrogen atom.

I feel that the Big Bang theory works well on 1 axis (Time) but is woefully inadequate in several other parameters. Personally I think that the theory arose from a direct need on the part of Scientists to "replace" Genesis and in so doing only mimic'd it by way of theorizing hypotheses early on scanty evidence.

Some good points. Have you ever personally felt the hum/energy that everything in the universe resonates and pases? There is an over-ruling energy that ties everything together (not referring to life force or chí).

I think that the problem with the big bang theory is it's to isolated. Some scientists believe it's the one and only where as I have stated before I belive there are a multitude of bodies containing galaxies that we currently call the universe. The definition of universe in itself in my oppiion should be redifined to just include the boundaries of what we know and I think instead of assuming that there is nothing beyond the edge of our universe (the flat earth theory all over again if you ask me) we should assume there are multitudes of universes or galaxy containing bodies beyond our own.

[mischief]

Originally posted by MacBandit
Some good points. Have you ever personally felt the hum/energy that everything in the universe resonates and pases? There is an over-ruling energy that ties everything together (not referring to life force or chí).

I think that the problem with the big bang theory is it's to isolated. Some scientists believe it's the one and only where as I have stated before I belive there are a multitude of bodies containing galaxies that we currently call the universe. The definition of universe in itself in my oppiion should be redifined to just include the boundaries of what we know and I think instead of assuming that there is nothing beyond the edge of our universe (the flat earth theory all over again if you ask me) we should assume there are multitudes of universes or galaxy containing bodies beyond our own.

Yes, actually I have.... and No, I wasn't high on anything.;)

The Parallel theorems: The concept that there are many Universes at differing core resonant frequencies is a favourite of mine too. It allows for better conservation of energy.

[evoluzione]

Originally posted by iGAV
We don't really know.... scientists change their opinion all the time..... Not that that's a bad thing, I was watching something on the Discovery Channel a while ago, saying that the Universe isn't shrinking....... and never will.....

I'd like to think that it's infinite.... but I too can't get my head around what is outside the expansion..... Nothing??? I didn't think you could have nothing.... surely there has to be something....?? :confused:

This is one of those conversations which always benefit from having a few chilled beers, on a mid summers night, looking up at the night sky......

wondering!!



that's pretty much my take on it too. it's interesting to hear everyone else's ideas and theories, personally i'm not sure if i believe in the big bang theory, again, i can't get my head around what was "there" before it. and yeah, the definition of the word universe? maybe it should be changed, after all, we are learning new things every day, thanks in part to hubble.


oh how i wish i could get "Tomorrow's World" on BBC America, is it still going? and is Phillipa Forrester still around??? ;) :p

[iMook]

The main problem with the common perception of the Big Bang Theory is that people think that space-time and the universe are separate. They aren't (at least by today's physics). When the Universe was a singularity, space-time was a "singularity". Thus, to talk about "what's outside the Universe" is a moot point: there is no "outside" that we can know. We live inside our Universe's space-time "system". Thus, we can never reach the "edge" or "outside", for space-time itself is encapsulated in our Universe.

The debate about the possibility of a Big Crunch is possible because the calculations of the Hubble constant up till now conclude that it is very close to the threshold between infinite expansion and Big-Crunch-ness (poor word choice, i know). It's so close to that threshold that the requisite margin of error straddles the line. Thus, we're currently undecided about the far future of the Universe.

The possibility of multiverses has been seriously thought about in scientific circles, but the fact that their existence cannot proven (since it is assumed that each multiverse will have its own space-time-other, laws of physics, elementary particles, etc.) because they most likely will never interact with our universe has relegated the quite plausible to the realm of philosophy, where it has been endlessly debated over the years.

About the invalidity of the Big Bang Theory: The Big Bang Theory has become its own sort of religion, just like Genesis. The fact that it still prospers even when there are innumerable newer, more exotic, theories springing up willy-nilly is a testament to its large foundation of evidence and current near-universal applicability. Every few months, a "new" and "ground-shaking" theory makes itself known in consumer science magazines, threatening to triumph over Big Bang by way of knockout. But, what of them? None of them have survived, because as soon as there's a smidgen of evidence that fits a new theory, another smidgen of evidence crumbles it. Even though there are occasionally holes in the Big Bang theory, its validity has been tested innumerable times, and usually it has not been found wanting.

[Fukui]

Think of the universe as a 3-dimensional mobius, where when you get to one "end" of it, your actually coming out the other side...as example, if you fly in a straight line from the earth from the north pole, assuming the earth doesn't move, you would eventually get back to the earth, only you would arrive from the other end, at the south pole...thats the only way I could see it as being infinite. I you think about it (the universe being the only existence), you really can't get to an "end", since there is nothing beyond it, it just wraps around itself...

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by mischief
Yes, actually I have.... and No, I wasn't high on anything.;)

The Parallel theorems: The concept that there are many Universes at differing core resonant frequencies is a favourite of mine too. It allows for better conservation of energy.

Felt it too. I was just wondering. It is truly an awe inspiring thing. It's not so much that you felt it but that you realize what you are feeling. Everyone of everyday feel it they just don't know what it is or that it's even there.

The multiple universe model has been a favorite theory of mine but I have changed it a bit to fit my theory. I think that the multiple universes can mix and eventually drop into eachother as one. This gives them enough mass to colapse on each other again.

Oh and the mobeus idea that's a good one idea. People don't realize that time and space are bent. It's not just 3 dimensional where X, Y, and Z are straight lines. If you travel in one direction for a long time without re-referencing where you are it is very likely you could come back on yourself do to the warping of space time by gravity itself.

[iMook]

I don't want to sound belligerent or arrogant, but how can it be that universes which do not interact in the least bit suddenly find themselves "dropping into" one another, merging their masses (each of which obeys different laws), and becoming one big Universe with a capital U?

Multiverses with different core resonant frequencies, thus allowing for better conservation of energy. Please elaborate.

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by iMook
I don't want to sound belligerent or arrogant, but how can it be that universes which do not interact in the least bit suddenly find themselves "dropping into" one another, merging their masses (each of which obeys different laws), and becoming one big Universe with a capital U?

Multiverses with different core resonant frequencies, thus allowing for better conservation of energy. Please elaborate.

I never said I agreed with the different resonant frequency idea. I also don't agree that they would all merge into one. I don't think they could all merge into one. They build up too much mass and blow up again before that can happen.

[WinterMute]

I have been assaulting the notion of infinity for years now, if we assume that the universe is infinite, then there's nothing outside it, as it never ends, and there is no effective "outside", only more universe, we may not be able to percieve this endlessness, as it's so far away the light from it has yet to reach us:D

If you favour the expanding universe idea, then what is it expanding into and was that state there in the moments before the Big Bang? If so where did the original state come from?

I really like the multi-verse idea, ever since reading Heinlien's "Number of the Beast" and subsequent books, the notion that there's a universe out there where I'm de-facto ruler of the whole of space/time is very seductive, as is the one where I'm married to Gillian Anderson;)

[iGav]

Originally posted by WinterMute
as is the one where I'm married to Gillian Anderson;)

You mean we're sharing her somewhere in an alternate Universe?? :p :p :p

Wicked! :D

[iGav]

Originally posted by evoluzione
that's pretty much my take on it too. it's interesting to hear everyone else's ideas and theories, personally i'm not sure if i believe in the big bang theory, again, i can't get my head around what was "there" before it. and yeah, the definition of the word universe? maybe it should be changed, after all, we are learning new things every day, thanks in part to hubble.


oh how i wish i could get "Tomorrow's World" on BBC America, is it still going? and is Phillipa Forrester still around??? ;) :p

I think 'Tomorrows World' was axed last year... end of I think.... shame, although I thinked it lost it's way in the later years..... I remember it being totally cool in the early 90's..... some ot the stuff was totally wild.... Phillipa Forrester presents some kind of Sunday morning religious type thing on BBC1.... She's still a fox though!! I remember her presenting CBBC in the early 90's... just after Andy Crane left I think.... :p

[WinterMute]

Originally posted by iGAV
You mean we're sharing her somewhere in an alternate Universe?? :p :p :p

Wicked! :D

Sorry, I was off in the universe where every woman is Gillian Anderson, and I'm the only bloke:D

I died happy;)

Mind, it was also the universe where resurrection was a physical reality.

I died happy regularly:D :D

[iGav]

Originally posted by WinterMute
Sorry, I was off in the universe where every woman is Gillian Anderson, and I'm the only bloke:D

I died happy;)

Mind, it was also the universe where resurrection was a physical reality.

I died happy regularly:D :D

:p :p :p Dirty Boy.... :p

So then, that could mean that there could be a similar 'Universe' for myself and Piper Perabo??

Extremely Wicked!! :D

[WinterMute]

Originally posted by iGAV
:p :p :p Dirty Boy.... :p

So then, that could mean that there could be a similar 'Universe' for myself and Piper Perabo??

Extremely Wicked!! :D

Ohhhhh Yessssss:D :D :D

'Course, there's also a universe where we are both Jo Brand's sex slaves:eek: :eek:

Hmm, this could turn into a "perfect alternative universe" thread.

[iGav]

Originally posted by WinterMute
Ohhhhh Yessssss:D :D :D

'Course, there's also a universe where we are both Jo Brand's sex slaves:eek: :eek:

Hmm, this could turn into a "perfect alternative universe" thread.

Jo Brand..... :eek: :eek: :eek: :
And I couldn't even top myself to escape.... :p

I'll just focus more on the Piper Perabo, Famke Janssen, Natalie Imbruglia, Helen Baxendale, Sandra Huggett, Elise Du Toit Combined Concubine Universe..... :D

Back to the topic at hand though... I still find it quite bizarre that when we look up at the night sky, we're looking back in time..... it's quite amazing when you think about it...

[deryk]

Originally posted by MacBandit
The multiple universe model has been a favorite theory of mine but I have changed it a bit to fit my theory. I think that the multiple universes can mix and eventually drop into eachother as one. This gives them enough mass to colapse on each other again.

I also subscribe to the multiple universe theory called the Ekpyrotic Universe. The idea behind this is that the universe never started as a singularity. Instead it was as it is now. However, occaisionally, different universes, called branes, touch each other and cause the Big Bang.

For more a better explaination of this theory go here: [URL=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html].

[MacBandit]

Originally posted by deryk
I also subscribe to the multiple universe theory called the Ekpyrotic Universe. The idea behind this is that the universe never started as a singularity. Instead it was as it is now. However, occaisionally, different universes, called branes, touch each other and cause the Big Bang.

For more a better explaination of this theory go here: [URL=http://www.space.com/scienceastronomy/astronomy/bigbang_alternative_010413-1.html].

I'm not wild about the multi-dimensional multi-universe theory. I like to base my theory on the grounds of current theory and fact rather then invent some outlandish idea to explain it. I'm not saying I don't find those ideas interesting I would just like more proof.

I'll try to put some more detail on my idea. I think the hang up I am having explaining it is that the word, "Universe", is used to explain and describe everything we know. Well we need to accept the fact there are things beyond the edge of the, "known Universe", that we haven't discovered yet.

I would like to rename the word Universe into the phrase, "Galactic Body". A galactic body is a body in space containg millioins of galaxies such as our known universe. I theorise there are unlimited numbers of Galactic Bodies in space and they can conbine and separate etc.. As I have said before the interaction of one or more Galactic Bodies is what gives them the mass and motion to colapse in on themselves creating a huge singularity that eventually explodes when it becomes to massive creating the Big Bang. All of these Galactic Bodies are in the same infinite space all participate in the same physics and plane of existence and all of them together should be described as the all encompassing universe.