Edge of the Universe

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

Ideas should never be mocked no matter how crazy they seem. The idea that the earth was round was also a crazy idea but we now know that the earth is round(almost). So, if you're not interested in my idea then simply ignore it.

Im not ignoring it i have nothing to ignore.You made a startling statement with no supporting evidence, the universe is surrounded with water that is not water???

1 Reply

@xris,

xris wrote:

Im not ignoring it i have nothing to ignore.You made a startling statement with no supporting evidence, the universe is surrounded with water that is not water???

I simply stated an idea. Those interested in the idea can ask me about it.

1 Reply

@Alan McDougall,

Alan McDougall wrote:

Sit Neuton,

"crazy"

Precisely!

Nevertheless very powerful thought. Don't you think?

0 Replies

@Ichthus91,

Ichthus91 wrote:

I simply stated an idea. Those interested in the idea can ask me about it.

so what do you want a written invite? it is a debating forum...bring forth your idea..please..

1 Reply

@Axis Austin,

Axis Austin wrote:

This is my first new thread in the Philosophy of Science branch. I admit I'm new and not very educated in this area, hence my question.

Can somebody explain what the edge of the universe would be like? Is it where matter ends? I can understand that idea, but don't think it's correct. Is it where energy ends? Is it where something else ends? What distinguishes the universe from the non-universe? How are they different.

Thanks.:perplexed:

I think i have something that works.
You may call it a metaphor but it has something of an equivalent.
The question always comes up: How can we imagine the expansion of time-space, how can we imagine space expanding like a bubble if there is not a space it can expand into?
There must be something around, at least our mind demands that.
Actually the "Around" could be only a logical something.
It's quite easy: Everyone of us has already seen virtual realities.
Have you ever played a game? An ego-shooter for example, where you run around, killing monsters, etc..
Maybe you know 2nd Life, real people interacting in a virtual reality.
Even more interesting: Really old computer games in which your spacecraft (probably fighting other spacecrafts) when moving over the right edge of the screen reappears on the left edge of the screen. (This is what our universe would be like if space is "flat". But no matter what space is like: )
We all have seen these virtual realities.
Now, i am not saying that reality is like this, but you can easily try to imagine the following:
Imagine a virtual reality that is so huge and complex that it can simulate our whole universe with every atom and every subatomic particel in it.
Imagine there are virtual people like in one of these games. In a universe of such complexity the inhabitants might become intelligent enough to, one day, wonder what their universe is like and want to touch the edge.
What is going to happen if one walks over the edge? Well, depending on the logic of the universe, that is, how it is programmed, the protagonist will wether not be able to cross the border or walk outside and simply disappear.
Wether or not he can cross the border definitely depends on the logical structure of the environment. (I know you're going to ask what is the logical structure of OUR universe, but that it not the issue here. Here the issue is, to overcome the impossibility of figuring the edge of the universe.)
Actually it is not important if the simulation is so complex that it can simulate every atom, or if you are just playing "Doom" or 2nd life.
Whenever you reach the edge you touch in fact an edge that can be compared to the edge of our universe.
You have to see, that this virtual space does not exist in our space. As well as it does not exist in your hard disk.
You may think that it is based on the physical structure of your hard disk but it is not.
Most virtual spaces exist in these days on different servers mirroring each other redundantly. They are based on a logical structure.
These virtual realities are a result of the way a certain number of ones and zeros are related to each other.
It's like that with our universe.
There's no use for a virtual creature to say: "I want to beam myself to your reality"
The logical structure of this creature will not fit our reality.
So if we reach the edge of our universe, there will be no outside, just the way when you touch an edge of space in a game.
The outside is simply not defined. It does not reach into our "real space".
Our "real space" and the "virtual space" are not compatible.
And our "real space" and the "outside reality" are just as incompatible.
Even if our reality turned out to be a (big and complex) virtual reality: It wouldn't make the outside reality superior. It would simply have a completely different logical structure.
And if our reality is not a virtual reality: It is just the same. It actually doesn't make a difference.
The edge of the universe might just be the edge to something that (if exists) has a completely different logical structure.
This idea does not claim to be an ultimate truth.
It simply offers an idea of how things could possibly be, and especially a way of trying to imagine something that we cannot imagine.

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

After reading over this thread I notice that only a few are actually caught up with their physics and astronomy knowledge.

According to the current math the universe edge theory IS what is the current universe model, so all those who claim the universe is infinite need to go back and continue their research before trying to answer questions like;

"Can somebody explain what the edge of the universe would be like? Is it where matter ends? I can understand that idea, but don't think it's correct. Is it where energy ends? Is it where something else ends? What distinguishes the universe from the non-universe? How are they different."

Otherwise we spread false data around.

As for Exebeche's explanation, I have several problems with his video game analogy.

First off, game worlds don't actually wrap. It is an illusion of wrapping but really the player is teleported from one edge to the other giving the sensation of a world bent around itself. If the universe was this way then information would have to travel faster than light as well as matter. We know neither is possible.

The second error you make with your analogy is that virtual worlds are non-physical locations but just ones and zeros. That is not true even in the slightest because ones and zeros are nothing but information. When you stack many of them together you get different "bits" of information. That information is stored in a physical location, ie. the hardrive. A game server might be in multiple locations but still the game world is constructed into either RAM or a swap file memory which is a physical location. I can prove this by simply pointing out or asking this question;

If you increase the size of a virtual world does it require more memory? If you answer yes then it can be said to require a physical location. If you answer no then I would believe your analogy.

0 Replies

@Axis Austin,

There is an abrupt end to the universe and then at an infinite amount of space after that it continues where it left off. No Razz

but seriously, space is an infinite quantity which means the universe does not end. Maybe at times, parts of it may end and go into empty space for who knows how long until another universe, or whatever is out there, comes up. We don't know what is out there, all i know is that if anyone ever tries to make the universe out to be a definite and a set amount of space i can just keep saying "what's after that?" Smile

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

There is an abrupt end to the universe and then at an infinite amount of space after that it continues where it left off. No but seriously, space is an infinite quantity which means the universe does not end. Maybe at times, parts of it may end and go into empty space for who knows how long until another universe, or whatever is out there, comes up. We don't know what is out there, all i know is that if anyone ever tries to make the universe out to be a definite and a set amount of space i can just keep saying "what's after that?"

Sorry in my opinion you have got it completely wrong.Your view of nothing is not nothing its something.Nothing is nothing not something with nothing in it.Space is continually expanding into nothing..not the void but nothing.The universe ends beyond the event horizon.If another universe exists its in this universe.You cant have a space between universes its the paradox of space.As i have asked before,if you have a box with absolutely nothing in it, does the box exist? thanks xris.

1 Reply

@Axis Austin,

Well i say that the box does exist. And that is because space is just an area, even if it does not contain anything in it. And i guess you might have perceived my post wrong because i too agree that nothing is something, its an area if if there is abolsutely nothing contained within it. If the universe ends whose to say that a googlepllex light years away, there i snot another universe?

2 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

If the universe ends whose to say that a googlepllex light years away, there i snot another universe?

You snot another universe? You mean you've snotted one before? Man... I shat a planet once and that was pain the likes I've never known, but to snot an entire universe... You are one tough MF. Laughing

One thing to consider is that there is a finite amount of matter in the universe. The size of the occupied universe must be of the order of the cross-section of the future light cone of the big bang at the age it is at present: there should be a boundary to matter.

I'm not a cosmologist, so I'll welcome corrections, but I know there are a few possibilities:-

(i) The universe is flat and unbounded;
(ii) The universe is flat and bounded;
(iii) The universe is open;
(iv) The universe is closed.

In the case of (i), space exists outside the matter boundary, but this space cannot be occupied. Is space that cannot be occupied actually space? I'd say no. This seems to be a contradiction. (iii) has the same problem.

In the case of (ii), there is an edge to the space itself. This edge must be the matter boundary, since if it were beyond that boundary, it would again be space that cannot be occupied (contradiction), and if it were before the matter boundary there would be matter outside space (contradiction). But if there is a matter boundary in flat space, we can define a point beyond it: there is nothing to stop this. It seems to make little sense then to insist that there is no space beyond the boundary, and little sense to say there is.

In the case of (iv), locally straight lines in space curve back to their start points, i.e. each dimension is like a circle. Thus space is not infinite, but is not bounded either (it has no edge). It allows for expansion (and indeed the tension of the curved space tends to ensure expansion) and need not have unoccupiable space so long as universal expansion is no more than the speed of light (which is as expected).

(iv) is the only one that seems to make sense to me.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Bones-O! wrote:

You snot another universe? You mean you've snotted one before? Man... I shat a planet once and that was pain the likes I've never known, but to snot an entire universe... You are one tough MF.

One thing to consider is that there is a finite amount of matter in the universe. The size of the occupied universe must be of the order of the cross-section of the future light cone of the big bang at the age it is at present: there should be a boundary to matter.

There are a few possibilities:-

(i) The universe is flat and unbounded;
(ii) The universe is flat and bounded;
(iii) The universe is open;
(iv) The universe is closed.

In the case of (i), space exists outside the matter boundary, but this space cannot be occupied. Is space that cannot be occupied actually space? I'd say no.

In the case of (ii), there is an edge to the space itself. This edge must be the matter boundary, since if it were beyond that boundary, it would again be space that cannot be occupied (contradiction), and if it were before the matter boundary there would be matter outside space (contradiction).

The case of (iii) is much the same as (i) and leads to the same problems of unoccupiable space.

In the case of (iv), locally straight lines in space curve back to their start points, i.e. each dimension is like a circle. Thus space is not infinite, but is not bounded either (it has no edge). It allows for expansion (and indeed the tension of the curved space tends to ensure expansion) and need not have unoccupiable space so long as universal expansion is no more than the speed of light (which is as expected).

(iv) is the only one that seems to make sense to me.

First thing, i meant is there not another universe Razz

lol.

In instance "i" what would you call that area of which nothing can occupy? How do you come to the conclusion that nothing can occupy it? And is that still not an area even if it is un-occupiable?

In the second instance i'm just have troubling grasping the concept of a matter boundry because not only there would still be an area after that but in an infinite universe that would go on forever and there could there not be something after the matter boundry?

The fourth idea is an interesting way to describe the universe. And that just made me think to clarify, are we assuming that there is only one universe? And ontop of that are universe? If we are then im having this discussion with the wrong ideas. Anyway do if our universe was like such, what would be after the closing "lines". In addition i propose that this is more or less the "rubber band" theory of the universe but then it would not allow of expansion in more than a 2 dimensional way, in a single dimension which if i'm not mistaken, is a reality (Ex. In a solar system, a planet's center is above the fabric of that system)

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

First thing, i meant is there not another universe lol.

Yeah, I know... but couldn't resist. :devilish:

Yogi DMT wrote:

In instance "i" what would you call that area of which nothing can occupy? ... And is that still not an area even if it is un-occupiable?

I don't think any definition of space that must necessarily be unoccupied is sensible. Space is space for something. It is also worth mentioning that what is expanding in the universe is the space between things. One contender for the cause of this is dark energy. Like anything else, dark energy must lie within the matter boundary. If this energy creates space, it cannot have done so except within that boundary.

Yogi DMT wrote:

How do you come to the conclusion that nothing can occupy it? .....in an infinite universe that would go on forever and there could there not be something after the matter boundry?

This is a consequence of the speed of light being the maximum speed of anything in the universe. This sets up a boundary for how large the occupied volume of the universe is. Essentially this is the distance travelled by a photon that has existed since the big bang: the longest duration possible and the fastest speed possible leads to the longest distance possible. Anything outside that boundary necessarily must be unoccupied, since nothing would have existed for long enough or travelled fast enough to get there.

Yogi DMT wrote:

The fourth idea is an interesting way to describe the universe. And that just made me think to clarify, are we assuming that there is only one universe? And ontop of that are universe? If we are then im having this discussion with the wrong ideas. Anyway do if our universe was like such, what would be after the closing "lines". In addition i propose that this is more or less the "rubber band" theory of the universe but then it would not allow of expansion in more than a 2 dimensional way, in a single dimension which if i'm not mistaken, is a reality (Ex. In a solar system, a planet's center is above the fabric of that system)

Yes, I'm assuming this is the only universe, which is almost certainly a workable assumption even if it isn't true. I'm not sure I followed much of the remainder of that paragraph. In the closed universe picture, the universe is a 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere. Don't even try and picture that. The best you can do is make an analogy (or do the maths, but that involves learning the maths... which is hard): an analogous 2D space would be the surface of a 3D sphere.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Quote:

I don't think any definition of space that must necessarily be unoccupied is sensible. Space is space for something. It is also worth mentioning that what is expanding in the universe is the space between things. One contender for the cause of this is dark energy. Like anything else, dark energy must lie within the matter boundary. If this energy creates space, it cannot have done so except within that boundary.

So then im interested in what you call the lack of space? And if you define space as something that takes up area, which is probably what it is, let's just call it an area. This way, it is a just a set amount of anything, everything, and nothing.

Quote:

This is a consequence of the speed of light being the maximum speed of anything in the universe. This sets up a boundary for how large the occupied volume of the universe is. Essentially this is the distance travelled by a photon that has existed since the big bang: the longest duration possible and the fastest speed possible leads to the longest distance possible. Anything outside that boundary necessarily must be unoccupied, since nothing would have existed for long enough or travelled fast enough to get there.

Well first off, i've had this arguement with a friend, light is the maximum speed of anything we have found thus far. At the speed of light all matter is supposed to turn into energy at that speed. There may well be though something traveling at a greater speed, but i'll leave that for another discussion.

I understand what your saying when you talk about the universe only being as big as a photon could travel since the big bang. But i have a few issues with that, 1) there could be other light sources out there 2) whose to say everything that's anything was in the big bang because this goes against my idea of the universe being infinite and therefore going on forever and 3) there could be other matter out there that has yet to be illuminated by light created from various peices of the big bang.

Quote:

Yes, I'm assuming this is the only universe, which is almost certainly a workable assumption even if it isn't true. I'm not sure I followed much of the remainder of that paragraph. In the closed universe picture, the universe is a 3D surface of a 4D hypersphere. Don't even try and picture that. The best you can do is make an analogy (or do the maths, but that involves learning the maths... which is hard): an analogous 2D space would be the surface of a 3D sphere.

I hate to be a pain, but what's after this one universe Razz

. At this point in time, i am strongly for the idea of there being infinite universes because of the infinite amount of space. As for the dimensional peice i wrote, i was referring to your post about there being "circles" that counts as a gravitional frabric, ect. An that these circle and strech but can they also stretch in other dimensions? That is what i was basically getting at. And i see what your talking about in your last line but that's assuming our universe is a sphere.

1 Reply

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

Well i say that the box does exist. And that is because space is just an area, even if it does not contain anything in it. And i guess you might have perceived my post wrong because i too agree that nothing is something, its an area if if there is abolsutely nothing contained within it. If the universe ends whose to say that a googlepllex light years away, there i snot another universe?

Sorry again but if there is nothing in the box there is no space.You only have space when you have something in it.Your imagining a void not nothing.So before the BB what was there by evidence?If your googlepllex exists it cant exist somewhere else because that would describe the space between them and that would make them in the same universe.Nothing aint something with nothing in it ,thats a void.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

So then im interested in what you call the lack of space? And if you define space as something that takes up area, which is probably what it is, let's just call it an area. This way, it is a just a set amount of anything, everything, and nothing.

A lack of space would require that we cannot define spatial quantities such as position, distance, direction, etc. If space is flat and bounded, we cannot talk of such quantities beyond that boundary. I think speaking of space is a lot more clear and unambiguous than speaking of area. Wiki 'space' to get a grasp of what I am talking about.

Yogi DMT wrote:

I understand what your saying when you talk about the universe only being as big as a photon could travel since the big bang. But i have a few issues with that, 1) there could be other light sources out there 2) whose to say everything that's anything was in the big bang because this goes against my idea of the universe being infinite and therefore going on forever and 3) there could be other matter out there that has yet to be illuminated by light created from various peices of the big bang.
Yogi DMT wrote:

If you hold that space exists absolutely, as per Newton, and that the big bang and inflationary theory only describe the distribution of matter within that space, then it is reasonable that other sources of matter exist, for instance other big bangs within that space may have occurred. Post-Einstein, it is thought that space is not an absolute arena for matter to play in, that matter plays a definitive role in the nature of space. The cosmologist's view is that space was itself created by the big bang, not just matter and energy, and that this space has been expanding between matter. This expansion is empirically inferred from measurements of receding galaxies and background microwave radiation. If space is expanding with time, it necessarily follows it contracts backwards in time just as the distribution of matter does. If space indeed originates with the big bang, then there is no space for their to be any sources of light other than the big bang.

Yogi DMT wrote:

I hate to be a pain, but what's after this one universe . At this point in time, i am strongly for the idea of there being infinite universes because of the infinite amount of space. As for the dimensional peice i wrote, i was referring to your post about there being "circles" that counts as a gravitional frabric, ect. An that these circle and strech but can they also stretch in other dimensions? That is what i was basically getting at. And i see what your talking about in your last line but that's assuming our universe is a sphere.

I didn't assume a hypersphere: I listed the options and gave a logical reason for selecting the hypersphere as the most reasonable. I do not follow what you mean by 'after': spatially or temporally? As per above, space is thought to have originated from the big bang, thus there is no 'after' our space. Time is thought to be a dimension of 4D spacetime, and so too originates from the big bang, thus there is not 'after' our time. There is no need to assume other universes exist, so I can't help support your belief.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

Quote:

A lack of space would require that we cannot define spatial quantities such as position, distance, direction, etc. If space is flat and bounded, we cannot talk of such quantities beyond that boundary. I think speaking of space is a lot more clear and unambiguous than speaking of area. Wiki 'space' to get a grasp of what I am talking about.

I understand where your coming from but i just see space as a constant, if something takes of space then the space is occupied and empty space would be the lack of occupying matter. Position, distance, and direction would still be evident in an area of which nothing is there.

Quote:

If you hold that space exists absolutely, as per Newton, and that the big bang and inflationary theory only describe the distribution of matter within that space, then it is reasonable that other sources of matter exist, for instance other big bangs within that space may have occurred. Post-Einstein, it is thought that space is not an absolute arena for matter to play in, that matter plays a definitive role in the nature of space. The cosmologist's view is that space was itself created by the big bang, not just matter and energy, and that this space has been expanding between matter. This expansion is empirically inferred from measurements of receding galaxies and background microwave radiation. If space is expanding with time, it necessarily follows it contracts backwards in time just as the distribution of matter does. If space indeed originates with the big bang, then there is no space for their to be any sources of light other than the big bang.

What you first described is more of what my theory of space pertains to. Your position is that nothing can exist in an area with no space, am i right? I just don't see how there cannot be space within a specified area. As you said, i support the idea that space is an absolute, matter and mass being variables. I may be a bit confused because i'm seeing space as just an area and cannot see a space that is unoccupiable.

Quote:

I didn't assume a hypersphere: I listed the options and gave a logical reason for selecting the hypersphere as the most reasonable. I do not follow what you mean by 'after': spatially or temporally? As per above, space is thought to have originated from the big bang, thus there is no 'after' our space. Time is thought to be a dimension of 4D spacetime, and so too originates from the big bang, thus there is not 'after' our time. There is no need to assume other universes exist, so I can't help support your belief.

Well assuming your right about space existing from the big bang, are you impling that the only space in the whole universe has come from the big bang? My question is to ask how our universe can possibliy be so limited and have an area that isn't infinite at any given point.

2 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

There is no such thing as infinite.The universe expanding describes the space it creates, before it gets there, there is nothing.The universe is not surrounded by a infinite empty space.If you look back at the very moment the universe was created space did not exist.The word nothing does not describe the concept of nothing.I tried to explain by my empty box.The void you are imagining is not the nothing.

0 Replies

@Yogi DMT,

Yogi DMT wrote:

I understand where your coming from but i just see space as a constant, if something takes of space then the space is occupied and empty space would be the lack of occupying matter. Position, distance, and direction would still be evident in an area of which nothing is there.

Sure, this is a Newtonian absolute, flat, unbounded space.

Yogi DMT wrote:

Your position is that nothing can exist in an area with no space, am i right?

Correct.

Yogi DMT wrote:

I just don't see how there cannot be space within a specified area.

There wouldn't be a specified area either. But, no, I don't see how either: that's why I don't believe in an 'edge' to the universe beyond the matter horizon.

Yogi DMT wrote:

Well assuming your right about space existing from the big bang, are you impling that the only space in the whole universe has come from the big bang? My question is to ask how our universe can possibliy be so limited and have an area that isn't infinite at any given point.

The cosmological view is, yes, all space and time comes from the big bang. There are several possibilities again:

(i) Space originates from the big bang, since which it has always been infinite (and open/flat) and expanding.
(ii) Space since the big bang was finite and bounded but will expand infinitely.
(iii) Space since the big bang was finite and compact (hyperspherical closed universe) and expanding (in hypersphere radius) infinitely.

(ii), as I'm sure you agree given your sentiments above, makes no sense. (i) is infinite and unbounded; (iii) is finite and unbounded, but compact.

1 Reply

@Bones-O,

I would like to say i dont think we know if it will continue to expand for ever.

1 Reply

@Axis Austin,

Quote:

I would like to say i dont think we know if it will continue to expand for ever.

Well I see so many cycles in nature and systems that seem to repeat that I can't help but imagine that the universe expansion and contraction is just another cycle. It makes complete sense to me that it would be but I can't prove it is. I would be rather disappointed (not that the universe would care) if it just expanded forever and everything became cold and lifeless.

SO RECYCLE YOUR UNIVERSE!

0 Replies

Edge of the Universe

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know