What exists outside the universe?

[I Pee Popcorn]

♪ ♫ ♩ ♬



I've been wondering that for a while too.
Perhaps, there is another universe outside and ours expands because pieces of the other finds it's way here. [I know that is very unlikely, but it's possible.]
I want to try sending a camera outside of this universe and actually see what is out there!






♪ ♫ ♩ ♬

[MiaTheOrigin]

Well what is baffling me is the exact opposite. The void is infinite and the universe is finite. Were a spec of light in infinite darkness. Also this is all assuming that there is a beginning and an end to the fabric of space time. There is no scientific paper or hypothesis that says there is a barrier or end to the fabric of space and time. Meaning it as well could expand infinitely into the void. Only that it is expanding, and that itself is only a theory. That the continual acceleration of velocity of the stars and planets away from the center of the universe is because the fabric of space is expanding.

Hmm... lets organize my thoughts

There is no "end" to the universe in the context that you speak. Only that it is finite in it's content. Think if our galaxy was expanding into the universe. Same concept except our universe is expanding into a void, nothingness, infinite dark. Until there is evidence supporting there is some kind of barrier around the universe that stops use from seeing beyond it's edge and gazing at this multi verse.

There is no "end" to the fabric of space time in the context that you speak. Therefor until this barrier is defined the fabric of space time is infinite like the void.

Lastly it is only a theory that the fabric of space time is expanding. We observed that the galaxy and stars are accelerating away from the center of the universe. In order to maintain the laws of thermodynamic it is theorized that this is because space time is expanding so things are only appearing to move faster but are in fact moving at the same rate. This isn't truth but only a theory to protect the laws of thermodynamics. Or more accurately stay true to the law. So it is possible that there is some kind of free energy about causing this acceleration or unknown force.

[angakkuq]

the Universe is All matter and ALL energy.
there is no OUTSIDE.

[Pflibbitz]

Because we are contained in a three dimensional existence, we think in three dimensions and assume that every volume has a defined limit.

The universe is not contained in that manner and as such has no limits.

It has been calculated the Universe is over 13 Billion Years Old. So our position in the universe should be able to be calculated by finding the edge of the universe in 3 distinct directions and using triangulation.

But, it appears, that in every direction, the same distance, 13 Billion Light Years is discerned. So the oldest objects in the universe appear to be 13 Billion Years Old and are found in all directions from our location.

Extrapolating that information either means we are at the center of the universe, indicating the universe is 26 billion years old and contradicts all research into the age of the universe

OR

The measurement is not possible because there is no edge to the universe and therefore is not contained in or limited by anything else.

[ShojoHana]

Outer Space.

[Deta]

I suggest picking up a book by Michio Kaku. He is good at explaining this stuff to normal people. Once I thought I almost grasped it, and then I had a headache and forgot.

I'm no expert but my interpretation is that the universe that we exist in was one of an infinite (or as other theories state, one of a set) amount of probabilities. So its just random chance that this universe is an expanding universe which will end with a big rip. The "dark energy" which has been accelerating galaxies away from one another will eventually rip atoms apart. The tv said, that in another universe they'd be a different scenario and perhaps end in a big crunch only to have another big bang and re-expand continuously. It seems we are not so lucky. Unfortunately, the universe or the multiverse, is schrodinger's cat, and all we can see is the box. Without observing it, we cannot say what its true nature is no matter how hard we try with mathematics and physics.

There is a humorous short story which deals with this argument. Death and What comes Next . Take from it what you will.

[No place like 127 0 0 1]

parrallel universes?
....does anyone remember this person who claimed to have come from a parrallel universe- posted in extended discussion ????? and soo many people believed him...

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

Scientists and curious minds had better scrutinize what EXACTLY leads to the "Big Bang" theory,
  ie a theory stating our universe is finite in time and space, and "expanding".

THEN, they could consider some other hypothesis, like one considering that...
  ...energy is the only existing physical reality,
  space and time are very separate dimensions,
  and material "void" is anything to synonymous to any actual absence of energy.

c = 299,792,458 m/s is the speed of light in material void,
  but what about space volumes with a far lower energy density...
  ...than what we have or may get on our Earth or in its immediate vicinity ?

Scientists and "curious minds" will consider this when you can actually describe what it means in precise terminology as well as give them a reason to consider it instead of a theory that works rather well with the evidence and current understanding of the universe.

Scientists and "curious minds" however don't often usually care about crackpot ideas, they don't care about the time cube, they don't care about creationism, and they don't care about the idea that magical unicorns are shitting sea shells onto the sea shore. Until such descriptions have a reason to be investigated, shouting random ideas and saying "it explains X!" when it fails to even describe the current body of evidence... are usually, and rightfully, ignored.

[Sir Kain Enable]

Woah, so many different ways of say I dunno. My guess is fudge pudding.

[viper232]

Kaz-Balan

viper232

Scientists and "curious minds" will consider this when you can actually describe what it means in precise terminology as well as give them a reason to consider it instead of a theory that works rather well with the evidence and current understanding of the universe.

I'm pretty sure ancient Aegyptian priests produced quite the same answer...
  ...to anyone trying to formulate any other hypothesys than :
  "The Sun-god Râ travels on His sacred chariot across the sky every day,
   leaving the night to His twin sister Bast".
It worked rather well with the evidence and understanding of the universe
  this extremely evolved civilization had.

And yet just because they were wrong does not mean we are nearly as wrong with our description today. This analogy is, like both you and creationists often do, making a mockery of the relativity of wrong.

If you can't explain what you're even saying in precise terminology, how are "scientists and curious minds" supposed to take it seriously? It's meaningless babble, nothing more.

Quote:

viper232

Scientists and "curious minds" however don't often usually care about crackpot ideas, they don't care about the time cube, they don't care about creationism, and they don't care about the idea that magical unicorns are shitting sea shells onto the sea shore. Until such descriptions have a reason to be investigated, shouting random ideas and saying "it explains X!" when it fails to even describe the current body of evidence... are usually, and rightfully, ignored.

But a FEW curious minds will SOMETIMES ( as what happened to Einstein ) ...
  ...have doubt and uncertainty enough about the official theories
  to have real reflexions about them all, and try and develop other hypothesis.

Einstein came about his ideas because of very glaring flaws with the current interpretation of physics. All he did was say "hey, lets try to re-derive this from a simpler postulate, that the laws of physics remain consistent in different reference frames as no reference frame seems to be special", and lo and behold, he succeeded in re-deriving the transformations that we already had from a simpler set of postulates.

There's a very big difference between proposing a very real set of postulates that would fix flaws with the current interpretation (such as the apparent constant measurements of the speed of light marking a fairly big nail in the coffin for ether theory), and proposing nonsense that is poorly worded based on complete misinterpretations of the physics from someone who doesn't understand the physics, has never derived the physics, has no concept on any of the flaws of the current model and has proposed nothing that would fix any of the flaws and still be consistent with current measurements.

Einstein knew the physics, and his ideas both fixed problems AND explained current data... and were very real very precise statements... his papers were not idle babble, they were substantial.

You... don't know the physics. Your ideas do not seem to fix current problems, but rather they fix what you perceive as problems despite what the evidence indicates. They do not explain the current data. They are not precise, they are open, vague, and I can't even remotely figure out how to build a substantial model from them.

You are no einstein... you don't understand what it means to be a "curious mind" in science. You really are the physics equivalent of a creationist, and you're too blind to see that.

[VorpalNeko]

I'd like to say that it's always amusing to see those who don't even bother to find out even the most cursory information about what the theories they're railing against are talking about (n.b. the big bang theory says nothing about being the universe being finite in space) accuse scientists of being hide-bound, uncritical dolts, but actually it gets old pretty fast.

Kaz-Balan

'm pretty sure ancient Aegyptian priests produced quite the same answer...
...to anyone trying to formulate any other hypothesys than :
"The Sun-god Râ travels on His sacred chariot across the sky every day,
leaving the night to His twin sister Bast".

This as a response to the criticism that your proposals are vague, unquantifiable nonsense?
The radio said, "No, Kaz. You are the priests."
And then Kaz was a zombie.
The irony is delicious.

Kaz-Balan

But a FEW curious minds will SOMETIMES ( as what happened to Einstein ) ...
...have doubt and uncertainty enough about the official theories
to have real reflexions about them all, and try and develop other hypothesis.

"If a theoretical physicists is not wrong at lest half of the time, he's not being imaginative enough." You have some seriously wrong misconceptions about the actual practice of physics. Even without personal curiosity and a desire to seek truth--your utter dismissal of such in physicists is frankly a great insult--physicists also have a lot of other personal incentive to try to find holes in established theories, advance their own, and demolish those of others: it gets them published. It's hard to get funding if all you can say is that some guys decades ago had it all figured out already.

I decided to take a small experiment. I picked a random issue of Phys.Rev.D from the last two decades, which turned out 63(4). A major chunk of it dealt with string theory (itself an alternative to 'official theories'!), but even excluding those, even a quick glance easily reveals a half-dozen papers that were at least in partly critical of the standard Big Bang models, either by finding ambiguities in data or by advancing theoretical alternatives, and about as many that sought to allow the 'official theory' to be tested to yet higher precision, thus exposing it to the threat of falsification. And that's just one issue of one biweekly journal.

By some strange coincidence, one of those contrary papers was Magueijo's [1]. I think the very fact that he's getting published in one of the most prestigious journals, when his variable-speed-of-light pet theory is so utterly contradictory to 'established theories', is hefty evidence against your interpretation of the practice of physics.

[1] I think I called him a crank around here before. If I did, I don't take it back. But at least he's undeniably trying to put something quantifiable on the table (how successful he was at it is debatable).

[viper232]

VorpalNeko

"If a theoretical physicists is not wrong at lest half of the time, he's not being imaginative enough." You have some seriously wrong misconceptions about the actual practice of physics. Even without personal curiosity and a desire to seek truth--your utter dismissal of such in physicists is frankly a great insult--physicists also have a lot of other personal incentive to try to find holes in established theories, advance their own, and demolish those of others: it gets them published. It's hard to get funding if all you can say is that some guys decades ago had it all figured out already.

I decided to take a small experiment. I picked a random issue of Phys.Rev.D from the last two decades, which turned out 63(4). A major chunk of it dealt with string theory (itself an alternative to 'official theories'!), but even excluding those, even a quick glance easily reveals a half-dozen papers that were at least in partly critical of the standard Big Bang models, either by finding ambiguities in data or by advancing theoretical alternatives, and about as many that sought to allow the 'official theory' to be tested to yet higher precision, thus exposing it to the threat of falsification. And that's just one issue of one biweekly journal.

By some strange coincidence, one of those contrary papers was Magueijo's [1]. I think the very fact that he's getting published in one of the most prestigious journals, when his variable-speed-of-light pet theory is so utterly contradictory to 'established theories', is hefty evidence against your interpretation of the practice of physics.

[1] I think I called him a crank around here before. If I did, I don't take it back. But at least he's undeniably trying to put something quantifiable on the table (how successful he was at it is debatable).

I love Magueijo, because though I sincerely doubt he's even remotely correct, at least he understands the physics.

Kaz seems to be under the delusion that criticism of physics from someone who knows nothing of the subject is equally valid and should be treated as valid as someone who has studied the physics extensively. I may agree with the majority of physicists who look at his pet theory and go "wtf", but at the very least I can't pretend he doesn't have a strong grasp of the physics he's arguing against. Kaz... does not quite deserve that respect. (Also I think I've mentioned that exact point to her, him getting published... I'm pretty sure she ignored it. I'm not kidding when I said she's the physics equivalent of a creationist, she's the ray comfort of physics, except doesn't get a pay check with each disingenuous statement.)

Edit: Aww, look at that, she already removed her comments. "EEP, they've exposed me! I must hide the evidence!!!" *remove*
Kaz is so predictable sweatdrop