Anyone got any Mind Blowing Questions?

[vampiregenocide]

It sounds like chaotic inflation theory, or bubble universe theory, like I mentioned. And as far as we know there is no such thing as true vacuum, as in 0 matter and 0 energy, there'll always be the higgs field.

True, but even so a vaccum isn't technically matter or a force, its the relative abscence of matter. And so how can that be included as part of the universe? But then the exact definition of a universe is a bit touch and go when you start putting it into the context of other theorised matter.

 

[Zehailiu]

Right, is the universe imbedded in this thing called the vacuum, or is vacuum imbedded in the universe? Don't we have at least one astrophysicist on here? lol

 

[vampiregenocide]

Right, is the universe imbedded in this thing called the vacuum, or is vacuum imbedded in the universe? Don't we have at least one astrophysicist on here? lol

The universe is in space/vacuum. Space = the canvas and universe = the painting. We know there is a bigger picture because space stretches far beyond our known universe.

 

[Zehailiu]

How can you say that when we don't know how far our universe stretches?


Do we?

 

[vampiregenocide]

How can you say that when we don't know how far our universe stretches?


Do we?

We know from studies that it stretches far beyond the known universe, way out into deep space. What is beyond that no one knows, hence the theories that it is infinite etc. Thats why theres no real right or wrong here, its a case of what is more likely. We simply don't have the technology to know for certain what is out that far. Our idea of the universe and its shape is like an ant observing the world; we can only go on what we know by studying how light travels back to us, giving an indication of distance etc. I personally think theres a lot more beyond our universe, and that it isn't an isolated ocurrence. I just can't believe that its just our universe stting in empty blackness, there has to be more.

 

[pink freud]

How can you say that when we don't know how far our universe stretches?


Do we?

We only know about our universe as far as we can see. There is a boundary to the "known" universe because light literally hasn't traveled past it (although the boundary is constantly expanding).

 

[vampiregenocide]

We only know about our universe as far as we can see. There is a boundary to the "known" universe because light literally hasn't traveled past it (although the boundary is constantly expanding).

Yeah this is probably more correct. A lot of photographs have been taken of the farthest known celestial bodies, and by filtering out certain radiation etc the size and shape of our universe has been theorised based on what we can see. We can't see beyond that so at least from what I've seen, it's widely assumed that is the edge of everything.

 

[JBroll]

Well yeah theres space outside the universe, the universe is everything that exists, and since space is a vaccum, and therefore doesn't technically 'exist' it is not part of the universe in the same sense the ocean has coral reefs in it, but isn't actually coral reef itself simply the area that the reef exists in. Space stretches beyond our know universe, which is the point I'm getting at. Obviously our definition for universe would have to be looked at if we found other such 'universes' like ours believed to have been created by an event like the big bang. They would both be technically the universe, though created separately and expanding of their own accord. I think they are calling them collectively the multiverse, if they even exist, it being theory n all. If that makes sense?

You're still redefining things and need to read better sources on 'multiverses' - also, don't forget that physicists can be awful at naming things, so don't put too much weight on first impressions from a name. I'm afraid you're not making sense.

As far as the 'edge of the universe' and size constraints... although we're obviously not taking a tape measure to the farthest corners we can still tell a lot about what shapes and sizes make more sense through other means.

Jeff

 

[Dan]

I Honestly think this is probably the only way i could describe what i think on the topic of the size of the universe.

 

[vampiregenocide]

You're still redefining things and need to read better sources on 'multiverses' - also, don't forget that physicists can be awful at naming things, so don't put too much weight on first impressions from a name. I'm afraid you're not making sense.

As far as the 'edge of the universe' and size constraints... although we're obviously not taking a tape measure to the farthest corners we can still tell a lot about what shapes and sizes make more sense through other means.

Jeff

I'm not redefining anything, the term universe has a meaning that is somewhat open to interpretation. I've seen it used by plenty of people who know what they're talking about in different ways. As for the term multiverse, I was simply using it to better describe what I was talking about, as there is no term that I know of to describe 'two universes' if that is possible depending on your definition of the word. I don't see what doesn't make sense myself, maybe I'm not being clear enough but I believe I am.


Our planet > solar system > galaxy > universe > empty space (theoretically)

What comes after that is unknown. Our universe as we know it could stretch further than we know, or there could be complete nothingness forever. Or, space could in turn be filled with multiple universes like this one, like our universe is filled with multiple galaxies.

That clear up what I was trying to say?

 

[JBroll]

Why would the universe not include the (not actually!) empty space? Do *you* not include the empty space between your constituent fundamental particles? (Think of the legal ramifications of this if all else fails.)

The word itself *should mean* 'total' or 'whole', and anything else is an abuse of the term - what doesn't make sense is an actual physical realization of "Universe - now with 100% more entirety-of-all-that-is!" and since the Big Bang was an explosion *of the universe* (*of space*,*of the entirety of all that is*, whatever you want to call it) and not *in the universe* the entire thing makes about as much sense as a badger made out of purple.

Jeff

 

[JBroll]

I Honestly think this is probably the only way i could describe what i think on the topic of the size of the universe.

This (ignore the heavy math in the middle) is why you need to be careful about that sort of thing.

Jeff

 

[vampiregenocide]

Okay, I think you worded most of that pretty madly, but let me explain it this way.

Our universe is a boat in the ocean, and the ocean is space. Both are separate to one another. The boat is it's own entity in a larger plane of existence, which is the ocean/space. It depends on how far you want to stretch the definition of universe. It includes all forces and matter. Vaccum/space is not a force, and it is not matter (though it can have matter inside it). Thats why I don't think it can be included as part of the universe. I mean this is my opinion mind, but I can't see how it is flawed.

 

[JBroll]

I'm really not mad.

Be careful what you say about vacuums.

The problem with defining the universe as you have is that there's already a word or short phrase for what you're describing and there isn't one - apart from 'universe' - in common use for what I'm describing. Why give two words to one thing and none to the other when both will be discussed? (Also, there's the etymology and traditional use of the word itself, but that's a different story.) I understand what you're trying to call the universe, but not why you would define it in that way (especially because of that whole 'vacuum' problem) or how it helps your big-bang statements.

Jeff

 

[vampiregenocide]

I'm really not mad.

Be careful what you say about vacuums.

The problem with defining the universe as you have is that there's already a word or short phrase for what you're describing and there isn't one - apart from 'universe' - in common use for what I'm describing. Why give two words to one thing and none to the other when both will be discussed? (Also, there's the etymology and traditional use of the word itself, but that's a different story.) I understand what you're trying to call the universe, but not why you would define it in that way (especially because of that whole 'vacuum' problem) or how it helps your big-bang statements.

Jeff

Not saying you're mad, what you wrote was madly set out.

And which point?

And what I am describing is the universe, its just such a term that can be open to interpretation. What is matter and what is abscence of matter? Is abscence of matter technically included in the definition of the universe, if the universe is all known matter and forces?

It fits in with what I said because I was explaining the fact our universe is not an isolated thing. If we think of our universe as a collection of matter within space not part of it, then we open up the idea that there are more universes, and that it is not technically everything, but a collection of everything created in the same manner (a big bang for instance).

 

[Zehailiu]

This (ignore the heavy math in the middle) is why you need to be careful about that sort of thing.

Jeff

I pretty much didn't understand a single word,
can you translate this into english please.


@vampire
Ok i think where your disagreement lie is the definition of space,
if space is SOMETHING, then it would probably be part of the universe, if space is the ABSENCE of THINGS, then the universe is probably a part of it.
I don't think there is scientific concensus on this matter.

 

[pink freud]

Is there gravitational forces in a vacuum? Yes (although to observe them an object must be inserted into the vacuum). A vacuum may be absent of matter, but it is not absent of all things.

 

[vampiregenocide]

Is there gravitational forces in a vacuum? Yes (although to observe them an object must be inserted into the vacuum). A vacuum may be absent of matter, but it is not absent of all things.

Aye, and gravity is part of the universe. However, it exists in space (I don't want to keep referring to it as vacuum). Not saying it is absent of all things, but things exist within it, not as part of it.

 

[vampiregenocide]

@vampire
Ok i think where your disagreement lie is the definition of space,
if space is SOMETHING, then it would probably be part of the universe, if space is the ABSENCE of THINGS, then the universe is probably a part of it.
I don't think there is scientific concensus on this matter.

space is the abscence of things, otherwise it isn't space, its something. and yeah thats my point; the universe is a part of space.

 

[orb451]

Vamp, I think you have it backwards. But that's just me, just my very un-scientific opinion I think space and time are related, if not permanently entwined with one another. I think that space/time exists within our Universe. I believe the big bang was preceded by a big "crunch". I think this is why our Universe continues to expand and eventually, will contract in on itself forming a big crunch, and then another big bang, etc.

I don't know what lies outside that expansion/contraction. I don't know if it's nothingness, another dimension, more Universe's or what. But every thing, and "unthing" that we're able to see, touch, taste, measure or observe, including space, or space/time are all part of the Universe as we know it. In other words, the Universe as we know it is a container, everything is inside that container. Who knows what's outside of the container... I don't think the Universe is in space, I think space is in the Universe.

And again, this is just my *opinion*, just what *I* think, not saying I'm right or that other possibilities couldn't or don't exist.

...I now return you to your regularly scheduled discussion...