PDA

View Full Version : Podcast: What is the Universe Expanding Into?



Fraser
2007-Mar-20, 05:17 AM
Come on, admit it, you’ve had this question. If the Universe is expanding from the Big Bang, what is it expanding into? What’s outside the Universe? ...

Read the full blog entry (http://www.universetoday.com/2007/03/20/podcast-what-is-the-universe-expanding-into/)

Jerry
2007-Mar-20, 06:49 PM
Normally, I hate to miss a podcast, but this one is unnecessary...


...everyone knows it is Turtles, all the way down.

hrizzo
2007-Mar-21, 12:50 AM
Hope Universe Today will publish that transcript soon. I'll sure put it into Spanish two minutes after I get my teeth on it!

searlesgold
2007-Mar-22, 05:41 AM
I have been looking up at the night sky for many years now and I have always wondered what is beyond all that is lit or shines! Clearly we all can see the black background.....but what is it?

I have posted this subject, I have blogged it every where possible and I will continue to do so! Ya know why? Because "NOBODY" can offer any logical reply with an answer that makes any sense! (nobody!).

Logic and I get along very well together! It comes down to Infinity. If, If we accept the concept of Infinity, then the answer to many things becomes easier to comprehend! The Black Background we see, is simply and nothing more than the COLOR of Infinity or the absence of COLOR?

Remember, Infinity has No Beginning and no End! This is the Definition!
It would be impossible for the Universe to be IN or Out of Anything! That's the Beauty of it all. There is nothing containing the Universe!

I have even asked Very Intelligent Astronomers about this concept. I ended up with a bunch of words they knew I would get lost and I did! But, let me say, apparently nobody has the answer and they hate to admit it!!!

Finally, put it this way, how could we (the Universe) possibly be in something or out of something......if so, my question now is: What is that Something?

Enjoy People,
the G-Man

GOURDHEAD
2007-Mar-22, 01:21 PM
The answer lies in semantics not in cosmology.

wavey63
2007-Mar-22, 02:32 PM
Jsut wanted to say hi all and awesome show. I was into astronomy as a preteen but then music came along... Anyway, I am back and this is THE BEST thing for the amateur or pro. Awesome info!!! Mind numbing sometimes , but that is good, too! I have been trying to catch up on all the podcasts in the past 2 weeks so I think I am starting to get the Canadian accent!!Keep 'em coming!!! As for what is outside "space", it is cool to ponder but in the end, it is all about people wanting a definite answer... something they can hold, see, smell etc... Life is always like that. Sorry ;)

donincardona
2007-Mar-27, 07:45 PM
if you believe string theory then there is something. the higher dimensional universe. here there are many universes. this is called the bulk. no see if you can bend your mind around that. yikes!!

RussT
2007-Mar-28, 08:18 AM
The answer lies in semantics not in cosmology.

Actually, the answer MUST be found in cosmology "IF" GR and QFT are ever going to be unified.

John Mendenhall
2007-Apr-02, 02:44 PM
Finally, put it this way, how could we (the Universe) possibly be in something or out of something......if so, my question now is: What is that Something?

Remember, Infinity has No Beginning and no End! This is the Definition!
It would be impossible for the Universe to be IN or Out of Anything! That's the Beauty of it all. There is nothing containing the Universe!

the G-Man

The order of your two paragraphs has been reversed above. Your own words answer what was your former final question. And I thought your answer rather eloquent, at that.

youriens
2007-Apr-04, 07:50 PM
I believe something lies outside our universe but is of a qualitatively different form not currently describable by modern physics. This I base on critical-point transitions I see all around me: water changing to ice, overloading a slab of concrete, snapping a bridge, climatic change, extinctions in biology, punctuated equilibrium and the Cambrian explosion, warring nations, nuclear fission, star formation and nova, black holes (and what I believe, the Big Bang). In my opinion, these hint at a larger dynamics responsible for the creation of the Universe, one which went through a phase-transition giving rise to our existence.

Critical-point transitions often result in qualitative change. If such a transition was the Big Bang then a qualitatively different type of physics may be necessary to describe the pre-existence. From this perspective, perhaps the expansion of the universe is a trajectory from a stable point this system was in before reaching the Big Bang to its new stable point it will eventually reach: like a vase pushed off a table, the trajectory to the floor representing the entire history of the universe.

The question, "what's it expanding into?" may not apply simply because expansion is a phenomenon we observe in our universe and may not be applicable to describe a phenomenon separated by a critical point such as the Big Bang in the same way, albeit much simpler, that swimming no longer applies past the critical point of freezing.

GOURDHEAD
2007-Apr-05, 01:42 PM
Actually, the answer MUST be found in cosmology "IF" GR and QFT are ever going to be unified.By way of elaboration, the answer to such a question is constrained more by the imperfection of language, imprecise definitions, and our tendency to switch, sometimes unknowingly, both contexts and premises in mid-sentence. If your definition of universe is: "all that is", then you must employ adequate adjectives to modify its various portions about which you wish to speculate or discuss hypothetically. If you posit that there is a domain beyond where mass, charge, space, time and "nothing" exist, or where some other form of the manifestations of existence do exist, and you wish to communicate that idea to the rest of us, you must choose your adjectives carefully. Ambiguity is a formidable adversary.

Some definitions that I find comforting:

Universe--All that is.

Observable universe--The portion of the universe that instruments detect. Different for each observer-especially those in different galaxies.

Physical Universe--The observable universe plus the part we cannot observe because of the displacement of our location from objects that our instruments would otherwise detect/record.

Hyper-dimensional universe--(aka set of multiverses) Terms used by others that are usually poorly defined, of little use, and avoided by me.

Quasi-verse--A term I employ hypothetically to define a region of the universe of three spatial dimensions with expansion characteristics peculiar to itself due to as yet unobserved features of the Higgs Field (Shmoo Field) operating in a Euclidean geometry of infinite volume. My mind has trouble with the first 10^-35 seconds after the postulated big bang, so I have postulated something that offends my mind less.

youriens
2007-Apr-05, 11:25 PM
By way of elaboration, the answer to such a question is constrained more by the imperfection of language, imprecise definitions, and our tendency to switch, sometimes unknowingly, both contexts and premises in mid-sentence. If your definition of universe is: "all that is", then you must employ adequate adjectives to modify its various portions about which you wish to speculate or discuss hypothetically. If you posit that there is a domain beyond where mass, charge, space, time and "nothing" exist, or where some other form of the manifestations of existence do exist, and you wish to communicate that idea to the rest of us, you must choose your adjectives carefully. Ambiguity is a formidable adversary.


Hello Gourhead. Know you meant that for Russ but it helps me too. I'll keep that in mind.

I wish to define some too that I feel comforted by:

Universe: Our existence.

Anaverse: A hypothetical analytic continuation of our universe to a larger dynamic system containing a critical point that could be the Big Bang. Upon breeching this critical point, the Anaverse trajects (suddenly) towards a new stable point on the Equiverse (see below). The analogy I make is the analytic continuation of the Euler product to a larger system which is the Zeta function.

Equiverse: A hypothetical equilibrium surface of the Anaverse, it's stable states. I suggest this Anaverse was somehow pushed past a critical point, and is now moving to a new stable state, the dynamics of that trajectory is the Universe.

RussT
2007-Apr-07, 08:46 PM
By way of elaboration, the answer to such a question is constrained more by the imperfection of language, imprecise definitions, and our tendency to switch, sometimes unknowingly, both contexts and premises in mid-sentence. If your definition of universe is: "all that is", then you must employ adequate adjectives to modify its various portions about which you wish to speculate or discuss hypothetically. If you posit that there is a domain beyond where mass, charge, space, time and "nothing" exist, or where some other form of the manifestations of existence do exist, and you wish to communicate that idea to the rest of us, you must choose your adjectives carefully. Ambiguity is a formidable adversary.

Some definitions that I find comforting:

Universe--All that is.

Observable universe--The portion of the universe that instruments detect. Different for each observer-especially those in different galaxies.

Physical Universe--The observable universe plus the part we cannot observe because of the displacement of our location from objects that our instruments would otherwise detect/record.

Hyper-dimensional universe--(aka set of multiverses) Terms used by others that are usually poorly defined, of little use, and avoided by me.

Quasi-verse--A term I employ hypothetically to define a region of the universe of three spatial dimensions with expansion characteristics peculiar to itself due to as yet unobserved features of the Higgs Field (Shmoo Field) operating in a Euclidean geometry of infinite volume. My mind has trouble with the first 10^-35 seconds after the postulated big bang, so I have postulated something that offends my mind less.

[Ambiguity is a formidable adversary.]

Indeed it is. As are defiitions which are based on misconceptions and preconceived ideas!

Allow me to expound on this.

When GR was introduced, Einstein postulated that there must be a Cosmological Constant (Lambda) holding back the universe from collapsing in on itself, in what he and most people of the time considered a Static universe. When Hubble found the galaxies to be expanding away from us in 'all' directions, LeMaitre and Friedmann postulated that the universe MUST have been smaller and smaller in the past, and so 'shrank the universe down to a point' (GR lookback/time reversal), and the virtually inevitable singular solution (since Gravitational Collapse is inherent in GR*), for the initial conditions for the universe was born...the Planck singularity (more about actually getting all the way back to T=0 below*)

This postulate actually did 2 very important things for cosmology. First, it demonstrated that a singular solution was inherent for describing the initial conditions of how our universe is working, and Secondly, it required/demanded, that 'something' outside our universe must be at work, if we were to be able to describe how our universe is working.

SO, inherent in the Big Bang Paradigms, is a Fractal universe structure, where there is 'something' outside to have a cause/effect for the initial singular solution. BUT, right here, the postulate closes the door on ANY other interpretation of 'what is really happening at the singularity', BECAUSE the postulate says that TIME and the Universe starts right here, so ANY talk of any 'other' postulate is moot, because the universe didn't even exist before this. SO Time starting here is purely Big Bang Theory Dependent!!! In other words, if 'something' else is 'what is really happening at the singularity(s), then Time doesn't necessarily start, all at once, here!

So let's say there is 3, 5, 7 room/level high building and we exist in the middle level (could be any level).

Then here is our preconceived idea> corrected. The Universe is the "Building" and we exist in one level of that building. Now there is 'some' singular connection between each of the levels of that building, BUT how many levels up or down will always remain an unknown, so "all That Is" will always remain out of the reach of science, and will always leave the possibility of GOD in the mix!

BUT, what the Big Bang Paradigms have effectively done, is "CLOSED" the level we exist in and made it impossible, for ANY other interpretations of 'what is really happening there'...at the singularity, and made it absolutely WOO-WOO to even talk about or suggest any 'other' solutions...and we all know what it means to GO AGAINST MAINSTREAM! The FLRW 'inside solution' for a 'spherically expanding' universe DOES NOT match any Black Hole mechanics, theory, or observations in our level/universe...and to this they say...so, why would you expect it to, it's in 'that other universe' where the rules could be anything!
There is a way to see the 'singular solution' where the solution 'matches' exactly with the known Black Hole mechanics, theory, and observations, and we even have the master himself that supplied the solution, BUT they have MADE that solution pure WOO-WOO!

SO, what does all this mean? The current paradigms have absolutely 'closed the door' on the only solution to the dilema of unifying GR and QFT, by effectively eliminating ANY Fractal solution, and reduced the possibilities for String/"M" theory and all the rest to "Parallel universes", or Linde like Inflationary multi-veres, and least likely, now that the accelerating universe is afoot, Cyclical Bang/Crunch universes.

SO, in effect, mainstream, in their very defintions of rigorous, have become totally lost, BECAUSE they have only allowed ONE way of looking at the universe>>>CLOSED, and anything else is just WOO-WOO!!!

How can that possibly be considered "Good Science"?


*If the singularity cannot 'spherically expand' OR release High Energy Gamma Radiation, THEN "any" evidence that they think they have; IE, CMBR, Inflation, ETC, is NOT justification for starting at T=10^-43, T=10^-35 or any other time, as the 'inside solution' for the FLRW equations is absolutely MOOT

* I understand that ECO/MECO, Gravistar, ETC, have been postulated, but IMHO, that is a direct result of NOT understanding what is really going on at the singularity, which is just a 'placeholder' for; 'what really happens there', which is a direct result of the initial FLRW equations of a 'spherically expanding' naked singularity in the first place. In other words, not being able to unfy GR and QFT.

youriens
2007-Apr-08, 07:50 AM
I have been looking up at the night sky for many years now and I have always wondered what is beyond all that is lit or shines! Clearly we all can see the black background.....but what is it?

I have posted this subject, I have blogged it every where possible and I will continue to do so! Ya know why? Because "NOBODY" can offer any logical reply with an answer that makes any sense! (nobody!).


Hello Searlesgold. I made the two posts above to address your concern. I regret not making that clear above as it has placed me in contact with Russ and Gourdhead, two snobs who choose to speak to me by speaking amongst themselves, something I find very distasteful and worthy of the term "to be a snob". The first time I tried to be courteous but that seems futile now.

Anyway, my hypothesis makes sense, is based on observational data, and addresses origins in a logical way. If anyone else disagrees, please have the courtesy to tell me directly

RussT
2007-Apr-08, 10:14 AM
Wecome youriens. I see you only have 11 posts and so are quite new to the Forum.

[Hello Gourhead. Know you meant that for Russ]

Your own words in post #12 answer your apparent dilema here.

I responded to him simply because he was the one that responded to me.

With more time here, you will see that many times several different conversations between different people go on at the same time in any one thread.

Nick4
2007-Jun-07, 04:48 AM
I think that the universe will expand untill everything is so far apart that you cant see anything else and then another big bang will happen. and so on again and again forever.