the universe and space....?

*momentarily stops her head from spinning*
indeed...iv thought up sum random **** but i think u win the prize for this one...surely in an infant universe all that existed would be space...space isnt so much a thing but a lack of a thing and therefore it doesnt need to be so much 'created' as the thing there before it to be removed...or alternatively never put there in the first place.
the universe is an exceptionally mind boggling thing once we get down to basics, and i dont even hope to explain it...but i think the question shouldnt be so much 'where did the space come from?' (cos if u think about it, if theres a room without people, the space is there to start with - ever decreasing as u put more people into
it.) but instead 'why and how was the space filled with nowhere to fill it from.' its like douglas adams's point about 'in an infinate universe, there is no 'out' to import from'.

btw the 'random ****' comment was just me being impressed - all the best people r random -xx-

You enter the realm of theoretical physics and a bit of guessing with your question.

Current science can track the origns of the universe as we know it to nanoseconds AFTER the big bang. What existed prior to the big bang is entirely speculative though.

The space of the universe as we know it could have existed prior to the big bang as a huge empty void. It is possible that there was a universe before the big bang that had collapsed into a single, enormously dense particle leaving the rest of "space" as a huge, empty nothingness and then after the big bang our unniverse filled that void.

It is also possible that prior to the big bang the universe existed in the form of that minute dense particle in a 2 dimensional space. The Big Bang could have been an event that spawned additional dimensions and several people have theorized that this is what happened. Steven Hawkins theorizes that the dimension of "time" didn't exist prior to the big bang and the big bang event is pretty much universally used as the start of "time" by physicsts.

The new dimension of time theory is pretty simple so applying Occam's Razor seems to fit. Imagine your kitchen table example. You want to make a cake and your table is cluttered. In a timeless universe you'd be out of luck. The table is cluttered and remains that way. In a universe with time your table may be cluttered NOW but over time you can clear the clutter and create space to work LATER. Our universe as we know it may very well be existing in a parallel time to other universes.....

That is interesting. We can drive our selves crazy thinking about where the space for the universe came from or where "GOD" got the space to make the universe. It is my feeling the we as humans cannot fully grasp the concept that there is no beginning or end to something. In our existence, all we know is a universe with time and our lives are based on time. Life begins with the fertilization of an egg and life ends with death. So, for use to ask, "Where or when did the space that the universe is in come from?" is a hard question to answer. There may have not been a beginning and there may not be an end to the space that the universe resides in. It is just something that always was and always will be.

Deep...

Space, as it now seems, is never empty. Even inside what we falsely call a vacuum, there is always a minor form of radiation, with every possible frequency. It's not entirely speculative what might have caused the Big Bang: the Big Bang was probably caused by a disturbance in this vacuum, followed by a self-feeding expansion or inflation of energy.

So space -- in our classic concept of emptiness -- simply doesn't exist. There is always some quantum energy sizzling on in the universe.

Therefore, the answer to your question is: the universe simply has no space. Instead, the universe is a vibrating, energetic whole -- NOT a place where matter floats inside infinite emptiness, but a sea of radiation. Before that sea of radiation, there was potential energy.

pyko, good question. Nothing can happen without space in which to occur, and if absolutely nothing happens, time (which is measured by change) has no meaning.

Space has no meaning without reference points by which to measure it, such as particles of matter or energy. If everything was concentrated in a single point, space "outside" of the point would not be measurable in any way.

We don't know where the universe came from. Best guess is that neither space nor time existed before the big bang. The big bang was an explosion OF space, not IN space, and space simply did not exist prior to that.

According to Einstein's theory, time slows down in strong gravitational fields produced by matter concentrations. If the proto-universe was extremely dense, time would be at a virtual standstill. A random fluctuation might produce a bubble with slightly less density in which time could flow faster and change could occur, allowing inflationary forces to spark the big bang.

Postulating a supernatural being as the initiating force adds an unnecessary complication with no explanation of where a god might have come from or how this god managed to create something out of nothing.

Space; "the final frontier"
oops, sorry; I sometimes can't help myself.

Space must be considered a subjective phenominon.

We perceive space as a place; space is where the universe happens.
But, actually space is the universe; they are interconnected, one and the same thing. And prior to the existence of the (known) universe, there was not, nor did there need to be any space. There was nothing; not existing in space, just nothing.

And if you really wish to do spacial gymnastics, consider a classic black hole;
an "event" in space where everything within reach is sucked in, never to reappear. In where? Black holes are rather enigmatic, as matter, and energy "fall" into the black hole, they "leave" our space as we know it, and go.........

Space is infinity, and it's impossible to search into or out to the outer reaches, because it doesn't exist. Man's only hope to learn about space is by spacecraft only, because we are limited by life span. What we learn from space craft research is how old our universe is estimated to be. How useful that information will be for mankind in the future cannot be determined. c.i.

C.I. a little problem;
I take it by spacecraft only you mean distant unmanned probes;
The only little drawback to that, is how would we get any information back from them as they recede beyond our ability to hang around long enough for the transmissions to arrive?
The only way to investigate beyond our region of the galaxy would be to pack up and go there, as a civilization from generation to generation (with no thought to coming back).

BGW, There's a little problem with logistics such as food, water, medical care, and space of a spacecraft. c.i.

mmm, very interesting replies - I've never thought of it that way, especially about black holes...wonder where the things do get sucked into...

I suppose it can be seen that space and the universe exist mutually, it does make more sense than trying to figure out how space got space to exist...

C.I.; exactly.
The space vehicle would have to be an "Ark" (biblical sense) to provide all the requirements; and there is no telling, if it ever "arrives" anywhere, if it was worth the trip, in so many ways!

As a physicist I can give you the scientific answer. It is a bit strange.

1) The Universe is finite. The universe does not go on forever, nor does it have an infinite amount of space. This was "proven" 500 years ago by a rather neat little logical argument. If the universe were infinite, you would not expect to see a black sky at night. There would be a star at every point that you looked...

Modern cosmologists now have a much more solid proof. They say the universe is finite by looking at the effect of gravity and how the universe is expanding. It is almost certain that this is the case.

2) The natural question is "what is outside the Universe?". The obvious answer is "nothing", but it gets a bit weird here.

According to modern Physics there is *no space* outside the universe. There is no void, there is no emptiness. Literally there is no space... Physicists sometimes say "there is no 'there' there".

Now the question comes up often... well what if I went to the edge of the Universe and tried to step over it. Unfortunately the only answer is "You can't". I mean can't in a mathematically sense (don't take it personally). It is mathematically impossible for you to be at the edge of the Universe, so don't worry about it.

I can show you mathematically why it is certain that "no space" exists outside of the Universe. Sorry, it is difficult to put it into terms of human experience, because we haven't experienced it.

3) The universe is expanding, and has been expanding since the Big Bang. However it is not expanding into Space (or a void or nothingness or anything). All of the "space" is part of the universe. Space expands as the Universe expands.

This means that before the Big Bang there simply was no space (and no void and no nothingness). This is very hard to grasp, but its the truth.

At the risk of sounding arrogant (I'm already over the stigma of "being" arrogant), your nice concisely put commentary merely defines (quite effectively) what current scientific wisdom "thinks" is the meaning of their observations, and mathematical constructs (albeit much closer to the real thing than most uneducated posturing, and mythical conjecture).
But, it is only of use for today's set of knowledge, and assuming (something everyone will agree is not proper procedure) that the observable physical reallity which we are constantly redefining (being extremely careful not to say the "laws" of physics) applies beyond our ability to observe.

Sometimes "seeing" beyond the egde of reality does not involve augmented vision, but a diferent kind of vision entirely!

eBrown

Bo just did an excellent job of pointing out the difference between KNOWING something -- and THINKING something.

There is no reason to assume that you -- or any of your fellow scientists -- KNOW what the universe actually IS -- let alone what it is actually like.

This thing we call the universe may not even be the UNIVERSE -- but merely a tiny, tiny part of it.

To speak with certainty, as you do, about these things is silly.

You normally do not speak in a silly way about things -- and I hope you reconsider what you had to say here.

Assuming we have the technology, vehicle, motive power and fuel, is it posible in theory for the human body to travel beyond the speed of light and would we be traveling back in time ??

well i don't, haven't watched star truck for years

Here here Frank;
except in eB's case I don't think "silly" is an applicable term!
Knowledge can be alluring (don't I know).

Frank and Bo, I read back over my post to see what illicited your accusations of "silliness".

My intention with my post was to give the "scientific view" of the question which I find quite fascinating. To me, the idea there can be "no space" is mind-boggling -- especially given that the math seems to point in this direction. I was hoping that other a2kers would share my fascination of the conclusions reached with modern science.

My use of the phrase "its the truth" was admitedly ill-advised. I should have said that "this is what the math and science actually imply". I retract this phrase.

But, I was not trying to say that science should be taken as the only "truth". Truth, of course, is a subjective term. Science is a method (and in my view a powerful and profitable one) to search for and define truth.

I meant no offense or arrogance.

But the ideas put forward by modern science are powerful and fascinating. They are based on 6,000 years of human thought and a rigorously developed system of reasoning. They have profound ideas about the Universe we live in.

I hope that I can share my love of science (both the knowledge and its quest) in these types of discussions.

eBrown

I got a bit mouthy in my wording of response to your post. I apologize. We are in the same book -- if not necessarily on the same page.

My point really was that each age of scientists always seems to think they HAVE THE ANSWERS.

Fact is, the UNIVERSE is so mysterious -- and we have seen so very, very little of it -- it probably is best to be as circumspect as possible.

Scientists of an earlier age made observations and drew conclusions from the appearances of a still, flat Earth -- around which many other things circled.

They were wrong.

Much of what we think we know about the universe right now will one day be shown to be the mistaken result of limited observation potential -- and incorrect conclusions.

But sometimes I get a little carried away when trying to convey that thought.

Hope everyone has a nice day. I'm off to work at the golf course.