What exists outside the universe?

[Melkitty8]

Project Light

Layra-chan

The universe doesn't necessarily have to be expanding into anything. It can simply be expanding on the inside, whereby expanding means that the concept of distance is changing, not that the universe as a whole is actually moving outward.
Consider a road. On day 1, we declare this road to be 1 kilometer long and define a kilometer thusly, and define everything that mentions distance in terms of this notion of a kilometer.
On day 2, we declare the road to be 2 kilometers long, and redefine everything accordingly. The road hasn't actually gotten any bigger, but from the point of view of those having to deal with distances, everything is now farther apart.
This analogy is terribly flawed in that it doesn't extend past the idea of redefining distances, but the important part is there: just because the inside of the universe considers itself to be expanding doesn't mean that the universe as a whole is actually getting bigger.

I think what you're trying to say is that the universe isn't getting bigger, but everything within it is getting smaller.

How can anything in the universe get smaller relative to the size of the universe?

[Datenshi-san]

Melkitty8

Project Light

Layra-chan

The universe doesn't necessarily have to be expanding into anything. It can simply be expanding on the inside, whereby expanding means that the concept of distance is changing, not that the universe as a whole is actually moving outward.
Consider a road. On day 1, we declare this road to be 1 kilometer long and define a kilometer thusly, and define everything that mentions distance in terms of this notion of a kilometer.
On day 2, we declare the road to be 2 kilometers long, and redefine everything accordingly. The road hasn't actually gotten any bigger, but from the point of view of those having to deal with distances, everything is now farther apart.
This analogy is terribly flawed in that it doesn't extend past the idea of redefining distances, but the important part is there: just because the inside of the universe considers itself to be expanding doesn't mean that the universe as a whole is actually getting bigger.

I think what you're trying to say is that the universe isn't getting bigger, but everything within it is getting smaller.

How can anything in the universe get smaller relative to the size of the universe?

I don't think that is what he means. What I think he means is something like a balloon that no matter how much air you blow into it, it never gets any bigger even though the amount of particles (or space for the universe itself) is increasing. So outside of the universe it may appear as thought we are shrinking, but really we are the same size. Though its not impossible, it seems too complex to be true. After all, most of our models for things in the past have been so sophisticated yet now they are actually relatively simple by comparison.

[The Zodikosis]

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

[Vannak]

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

[DeathKnell]

Well, traditional thinking was that the universe encompassed ALL existence, and therefore there is nothing outside of it. However, if you want to kind of fudge the definition, what we thought was the universe, may, in fact, be one of many multiverses.

[Melkitty8]

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

That's because we normally think of the known universe as encompassing all of existence, when that may not be the case. People used to think of the solar system as being all of the universe, then the galaxy was the universe, and now we are considering that the universe may be part of a multiverse. We don't know if the multiverse (many universes) exists or not, but we can't rule that possibility out.

[Vannak]

Melkitty8

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

That's because we normally think of the known universe as encompassing all of existence, when that may not be the case. People used to think of the solar system as being all of the universe, then the galaxy was the universe, and now we are considering that the universe may be part of a multiverse. We don't know if the multiverse (many universes) exists or not, but we can't rule that possibility out.

The universe isn't this thing. It's not like a basket we can point to and say "I think this holds everything", and then disprove it by showing an orange exists outside the basket, it's not a line in the sky we say everything exists inside this line- the universe is the term we use to define what holds everything. If something exists, it is inside the universe. It's a definition, not a proposition.
And no one is really considering the multi-verse theory from evidence, only from speculation. And yes, if you want to fudge the definition of universe and existence into making no sense, the universe doesn't hold everything.

[The Zodikosis]

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

[Vannak]

The Zodikosis

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

This is simply not true. While there are plenty of things we can't see, can't distinguish, can't identify, we know for certain that there exists nothing outside the universe because the definition of the universe is the area encompassed by all that exists. To bring into analogy, what real number that is greater than three exists outside the realm of the real numbers that are greater than three. None. It's a contradiction to say something exists outside the universe, thus, the answer to what exists outside the universe is nothing. It has nothing to do with data or "Knowing". If you use the definition of the word "Universe" consistently, then there's no way around it. Regardless of what we may discover about matter and space and time, there exists nothing outside the universe.
What exists outside of the observerable universe is another question entirely.

[Datenshi-san]

Vannak

The Zodikosis

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

This is simply not true. While there are plenty of things we can't see, can't distinguish, can't identify, we know for certain that there exists nothing outside the universe because the definition of the universe is the area encompassed by all that exists. To bring into analogy, what real number that is greater than three exists outside the realm of the real numbers that are greater than three. None. It's a contradiction to say something exists outside the universe, thus, the answer to what exists outside the universe is nothing. It has nothing to do with data or "Knowing". If you use the definition of the word "Universe" consistently, then there's no way around it. Regardless of what we may discover about matter and space and time, there exists nothing outside the universe.
What exists outside of the observerable universe is another question entirely.

People, the question is a hypothetical and purely that. Why is it that people have to be so insistent with their "we have no proof" or "the universe holds all that exists so nothing else can exist outside it"? You have to try and think outside the box, stop relying on "data" after all data is what exists INSIDE the universe! Use what you believe, be imaginative. This is obviously a very open question, one with an infinate number of answers. Someone could say pudding, someone else; another universe, someone else; God. We cannot try and limit outselves to what we know, after all science is the study of the unknown to understand it. After all, was it not Einstein's imagination combined with how he saw and understood the universe which revolutionized modern physics? We cannot rely on data if we want to make a break through, we have to do other things too.

[VorpalNeko]

Datenshi-san

You have to try and think outside the box, stop relying on "data" after all data is what exists INSIDE the universe! Use what you believe, be imaginative.

I'm sorry; I was under the impression that this was the Science & Technology forum. If the you wanted to limit the discussion to only random uninformed speculation, you probably should have posted it somewhere else.

[Melkitty8]

Vannak

The Zodikosis

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

This is simply not true. While there are plenty of things we can't see, can't distinguish, can't identify, we know for certain that there exists nothing outside the universe because the definition of the universe is the area encompassed by all that exists. To bring into analogy, what real number that is greater than three exists outside the realm of the real numbers that are greater than three. None. It's a contradiction to say something exists outside the universe, thus, the answer to what exists outside the universe is nothing. It has nothing to do with data or "Knowing". If you use the definition of the word "Universe" consistently, then there's no way around it. Regardless of what we may discover about matter and space and time, there exists nothing outside the universe.
What exists outside of the observerable universe is another question entirely.

Then maybe that definition is wrong. Defining the observable universe as all that exists when we don't know that it IS all that exists is just arguing from semantics. It's just using the dictionary's definition of the universe as all that exists. Why would the universe by definition BE all that exists anyway? It's just a word we made up to encompass the observable world.

[Vannak]

Melkitty8

Vannak

The Zodikosis

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

This is simply not true. While there are plenty of things we can't see, can't distinguish, can't identify, we know for certain that there exists nothing outside the universe because the definition of the universe is the area encompassed by all that exists. To bring into analogy, what real number that is greater than three exists outside the realm of the real numbers that are greater than three. None. It's a contradiction to say something exists outside the universe, thus, the answer to what exists outside the universe is nothing. It has nothing to do with data or "Knowing". If you use the definition of the word "Universe" consistently, then there's no way around it. Regardless of what we may discover about matter and space and time, there exists nothing outside the universe.
What exists outside of the observerable universe is another question entirely.

Then maybe that definition is wrong. Defining the observable universe as all that exists when we don't know that it IS all that exists is just arguing from semantics. It's just using the dictionary's definition of the universe as all that exists. Why would the universe by definition BE all that exists anyway? It's just a word we made up to encompass the observable world.

Okay, you are an idiot.
The observable universe is defined by a ring around our planet that expands and holds all in the universe we can see.

The universe is a term that describes all that exists. Yes, it's a word we made up (like every other word), it's descriptive of ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. Why would this be the definition of a universe? because that's what words do, they describe things, and some words describe a lot of stuff, and some words describe all things that exist, like the word the universe. The word Universe doesn't describe the observable world, it describes the area of all things that exist. To say something can exist outside the universe is to suggest something exists outside of everything that exists, which means it does not exist, leading to an immediate contradiction. It's the second simplest contradictions possible, (next to the universe is not the universe), I do not understand how someone can not understand this.

[Melkitty8]

Vannak

Melkitty8

Vannak

The Zodikosis

Vannak

The Zodikosis

To condense everyone else's replies into one neat little package: We don't really know, but we can sure as hell make a lot of wild speculations!

Not really. We have a pretty good understanding of what exists outside the universe. The same as what exists inside of a square circle. The question isn't a question, it is not an internally consistent query.

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

This is simply not true. While there are plenty of things we can't see, can't distinguish, can't identify, we know for certain that there exists nothing outside the universe because the definition of the universe is the area encompassed by all that exists. To bring into analogy, what real number that is greater than three exists outside the realm of the real numbers that are greater than three. None. It's a contradiction to say something exists outside the universe, thus, the answer to what exists outside the universe is nothing. It has nothing to do with data or "Knowing". If you use the definition of the word "Universe" consistently, then there's no way around it. Regardless of what we may discover about matter and space and time, there exists nothing outside the universe.
What exists outside of the observerable universe is another question entirely.

Then maybe that definition is wrong. Defining the observable universe as all that exists when we don't know that it IS all that exists is just arguing from semantics. It's just using the dictionary's definition of the universe as all that exists. Why would the universe by definition BE all that exists anyway? It's just a word we made up to encompass the observable world.

Okay, you are an idiot.
The observable universe is defined by a ring around our planet that expands and holds all in the universe we can see.

The universe is a term that describes all that exists. Yes, it's a word we made up (like every other word), it's descriptive of ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. Why would this be the definition of a universe? because that's what words do, they describe things, and some words describe a lot of stuff, and some words describe all things that exist, like the word the universe. The word Universe doesn't describe the observable world, it describes the area of all things that exist. To say something can exist outside the universe is to suggest something exists outside of everything that exists, which means it does not exist, leading to an immediate contradiction. It's the second simplest contradictions possible, (next to the universe is not the universe), I do not understand how someone can not understand this.

I'm not an idiot, I'm just confused.
If, by your opinion science should define the universe as all that exists, then why do we have the concept of a multiverse or parallel universe, and why are theoretical physicists seriously considering the idea of a multiverse, anyway? It sounds like you want them to give up considering the many-worlds interpretation and brane theory as pseudoscience rather than hypotheses that just have yet to be proved or disproved as wrong.

If brane theory and/or the many worlds interpretation are EVER proved as right, then we would necessarily HAVE to reconsider our traditional definition of the universe as containing all that exists, and either expand it to include "parallel universes" or restrict that definition to pertain only to our local observable universe.

[Vannak]

Melkitty8

Vannak

Melkitty8

Vannak

The Zodikosis

All the controversy, in this thread and out, surrounding the simple question of what lies outside the universe is enough to show that we have about an ounce of certainty and the rest is just arguing about definitions and saying "my data is more important than your data!". It may be hard to face, but we actually don't have all the answers yet, you know. We can guess but we don't -know-.

This is simply not true. While there are plenty of things we can't see, can't distinguish, can't identify, we know for certain that there exists nothing outside the universe because the definition of the universe is the area encompassed by all that exists. To bring into analogy, what real number that is greater than three exists outside the realm of the real numbers that are greater than three. None. It's a contradiction to say something exists outside the universe, thus, the answer to what exists outside the universe is nothing. It has nothing to do with data or "Knowing". If you use the definition of the word "Universe" consistently, then there's no way around it. Regardless of what we may discover about matter and space and time, there exists nothing outside the universe.
What exists outside of the observerable universe is another question entirely.

Then maybe that definition is wrong. Defining the observable universe as all that exists when we don't know that it IS all that exists is just arguing from semantics. It's just using the dictionary's definition of the universe as all that exists. Why would the universe by definition BE all that exists anyway? It's just a word we made up to encompass the observable world.

Okay, you are an idiot.
The observable universe is defined by a ring around our planet that expands and holds all in the universe we can see.

The universe is a term that describes all that exists. Yes, it's a word we made up (like every other word), it's descriptive of ALL THINGS THAT EXIST. Why would this be the definition of a universe? because that's what words do, they describe things, and some words describe a lot of stuff, and some words describe all things that exist, like the word the universe. The word Universe doesn't describe the observable world, it describes the area of all things that exist. To say something can exist outside the universe is to suggest something exists outside of everything that exists, which means it does not exist, leading to an immediate contradiction. It's the second simplest contradictions possible, (next to the universe is not the universe), I do not understand how someone can not understand this.

I'm not an idiot, I'm just confused.
If, by your opinion science should define the universe as all that exists, then why do we have the concept of a multiverse or parallel universe, and why are theoretical physicists seriously considering the idea of a multiverse, anyway? It sounds like you want them to give up considering the many-worlds interpretation and brane theory as pseudoscience rather than hypotheses that just have yet to be proved or disproved as wrong.

If brane theory and/or the many worlds interpretation are EVER proved as right, then we would necessarily HAVE to reconsider our traditional definition of the universe as containing all that exists, and either expand it to include "parallel universes" or restrict that definition to pertain only to our local observable universe.

First off, the many words interpretation lays in the realm of philosophy, not physics. A particular physicist might like the many world's interpretation, but it's current explanation lays outside the realm of physics, and is improvable.

The idea of branes as a part of string theory wouldn't mean things exist outside of the universe, just that the universe as we understood yesterday isn't describing the same things it is today. The word retains it's definition, regardless if we think the planet is all that exists, the solar system, the galaxy, the local brane, or the whole collective of brains.

I'm going to describe existence here, and why for something to exist it must be in the universe. First, lets define existence. For something to exist, it must have a measurable or observerable quality (in theory. There are something we can't really observe, such as the big bang, but we can observe it's effects, thus, in theory it's possible to observe the qualities of the big bang, such as expansion of space time). Something having a measurable or observable quality means it exists. Therefore, for something to exist, it must be able, at least in principle, to transmit information to us.

So, if a physicist thinks there's a brane out there somewhere, there must be a way for it to communicate or transmit information to us. Lets say, as many do, that only gravity can travel through branes. If this information is transmitted to us, then, we can say, it exists. It will thus exist with in our universe. This isn't to say that we might not call the area between our branes isn't some kind of "exotic space" that light, matter, and other forces can't travel across, but it exists in our universe; it's just that the way we see the universe isn't the same today as it was before this discovery.
For a contrary example, lets take a many world's interpretation. Lets say, for ease of conversation, that the other "many words" don't interact with each other or our world. Therefore, they do not exist. They cannot influence our "world", we can't lose energy to them, we can't effect them, as far as every thing that exists is concerned, they don't exist and never had and never will.

So yes, if brane theory was proven right, they would exist inside our universe because they exist, and everything that exists does so with in the universe by definition. This is a prescriptive definition, not a descriptive. As i've said before, we do not look into the cosmos and call what we see the universe, we see it and thus we know it is in the universe.