Something From Nothing?

Space and time are not separate, and it is space-time that expands, not just space taking time to expand. I'd say that this hypothesis is about as possible as that the universe rests on the back of a giant turtle. In other words, almost anything is possible, but your hypothesis is not consistent with the data we've collected so far. Listen, I too believe that consciousness is what "powers" the universe, but it is still meaningless to speak about "outside the universe," expecially if you want to call it "nothing" and "conscious thought" simultaneously. As far as I can tell, "conscious thought" is not "nothing."

Dark Matter If Omega were greater than 1, we would expect so, however the data indicate that Omega is about 0.05 according to our observations so far. Generally the universe is theorized at once monistically and wholistically, meaning that the universe is considered as the single set of everything which exists. Everything that exists must therefore exist within the universe by definition. More recent multiverse theories propose that what we presently identify as the universe might in fact be just a small patch of space-time amongst (infinitely?) many more similar patches. In those theories, they occasionally speak of our universe being contained by a larger multiverse, however I've always disliked that twist of definitions.

I know space and time are connected so how can it be both expanding and infinite if the expansion implies distance travelled from a fixed starting point...the universe expanding into itself just defies logic.I could also argue the point that since a thought is not observable and has no physical presence then it could be qualified as a non thing. It is only when given substance that it becomes a thing.Would I be correct in assuming that you don't have the means to collect or assess the data needed to solve many of the questions and models i've proposed ?...and with regards to the data you have collected it merely shows you need to collect more of it cos dark matter/energy and brane theory shows you only know as little as anyone else with even a mild interest in cosmology and no formal training at all. I would even argue that formal training in the traditional academic sense actually stifles creative thought and as such value intuition more.If the multiverse can be proven by brane, bubbles or giant turtles then your collective set of everything that exists would have to be redefined into another word that really does include the set of everything including your somewhat limited universe so i can see why you wouldn't want to go there.Please don't take this as a personal assault on your beliefs but as a questioning of your faith in your field of knowledge and please don't deafen me with silence either.Everything I've posted I thought of myself and have found nothing as yet to convince me that it is not outside the realm of possibility or inconsistent with some of the current developing models regarding the universe and beyond.By the way do you believe in GOD ? and if so how do you visualise it ? and where does it exist ? if not then just take heart that at least it believes in you or you wouldn't exist.

quote:

---

Do you mean that it has infinite volume, or that its volume is finite but unbounded? I confess I have a hard time wrapping my head around how a universe could go from infinitely small to infinitely large without being finitely large in-between.

---

I mean a universe of infinite volume. This is one possible model for the expanding universe used by cosmologists. Such a universe does not start out finite and become infinite, so don't worry about that one. An infinite universe is always infinite, even at the moment of the big bang itself. As I said, every point throughout this infinite volume of space reaches infinite density at the beginning, but only finite universes actually get smaller as you wind back the clock.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 01-07-2004]

And you come to know this through your own vast formal, academic training?Or isn't this just a case of "I don't have it, so it must not matter?"How can intuition be a guide to a universe that, from what we observe, resolutely refuses to consistently obey principles we think are common sense?

I know it is hard to get your head wrapped around this and I'm sure not expert enough to be sure I have it right.The universe isn't "expanding from a fixed starting point" that is one misconeption you have. It is an expansion of space itself. It isn't expanding into anything that is within the universe itself. If you asked me to point to the "fixed point" that the big bang started from I would point to anywhere at all. It started right in front of you, and me and everywhere. The idea isn't valid so you get an odd answer if you ask the question.Google this and find a description of it from the "balloon blowing up" analogy. In that analogy the entire universe (all 4 dimensions) corresponds to the surface of the balloon. As far as we "ballooners" are concerned there is NOTHING but the bright red surface of the balloon. The balloon starts off as a dot with no size at all. It is expanded when the "big blowup" happens. If you ask a ballooner (who lives on/in the surface of the balloon) to point to where it started can they point to the middle of the expanding balloon? Nope! There is no such thing within their universe. If there one place in their universe which is "where it started"? Nope! Everywhere is the same.Where/what is our universe expanding "into"? I dunno but I do know it isn't within our universe and can't be pointed to.It appears to defy "logic" because you are thinking within the 4 dimensions of space-time itself and because you don't have the concept right yet AND because it does "defy logic" -- at least the ordinary, everyday logic we are used to.As far as the other parts about what we do and don't know. You are partially right. It seems cosmology has a very good handle (with some issues) on what happened from a fraction of a second on but not much or anything at all before that.Additionally, you're right, the dark energy issue says there is something we really don't understand about the physics. This is fun stuff! We will see what unfolds over the next few years.The brane idea gives us an infinite 11 dimensional space to play with. Is it "right"? Who knows, certainly not me.Does not knowing mean anything from a theological perspective? Not if we take history as a guide. Things that were mysterious in the past have been solved without it getting into a supernatural explanation. Will this one? Don't know. Is it a pretty good bet that it will be (based on history) -- yes!Is it a huge, awesome, amazing mysterious thing to contemplate. Sure as h... is!

---

Common sense isn't

quote:

---

space takes time to expand meaning distance is involved so doesn't that mean the possibility exists that it does have an edge and a centre and a medium which it is expanding into?

---

Err, let's simplify for a moment. Forget the expansion of the universe, as that is probably causing more confusion than need be. Imagine a static universe that is not expanding. There is still no center and nothing that the universe is embedded in.It seems obvious that an infinite universe would have no center, but the same is true for a finite one. That is because the curvature associated with mass allows for space to have an overall curved topology so that there is no edge. The most common analogy is that of a 2D surface. Flat surfaces, such as those on tables have edges and a center. But if you look at a surface that is curved, such as that of a basketball, you'll notice that neither a center or edge can be found. The same is applied to the 3D volume of space.

quote:

---

thus it is expanding possibly to infinity and not infinite in itself.

---

The expansion of space does not necessarily mean the universe is getting bigger. All it means is that the distance between points in empty space is increasing. In a finite universe, this means the overall volume increases. However, this is not so when the volume is infinite to start with. In such a case, any given region of space is an infinitesimal point in this infinite volume. Expansion means that the distance between points in this region will increase, but the region remains an infinitesimal point for the duration of the universe. As well, an infinite universe remains infinite at all times.

quote:

---

I'm not talking about some "place" outside of the universe because that requires a point in spacetime as a reference point I'm talking about some "thing" of which we don't have a frame of reference so let's call it "nothing" yet instil it with conscious thought and power the universe with it.

---

Why would you call a thing "not anything"? Again, basic logic.[This message has been edited by Beercules, 01-07-2004]

I'm sincerely trying to "see" the model you guys have but it requires more logic than i possess at present but I thank you for your efforts in attempting to me enlighten rather than dismiss me as an ignorant asshole out for a bit of attention, however......a balloon and a basketball have a middle and an edge if you look at it from outside of it as a sphere. Being on it you wouldn't know especially if thats all you knew of it.so I'm thinking rather that the universe is the rubbery stuff it's made up of and the "thing I have no name for" is the air that inflated it and that surrounds it. Have you ever sucked bubble gum to form a bubble inside your mouth then suppose that is what is also fueling the constantly expanding balloon/ball/bubble as well as the initial exhalation of breath. For all intents and purposes one would still have the effect of 2 dots on the bubble representing galaxies getting further away from each other.did dark matter/energy exist before it had a name or was it nothing because no one had observed it yet and named it ? For to look at it with einsteins eyes he would have just seen "nothing" and at the current level of understanding it may as well be that.

quote:

---

And you come to know this through your own vast formal, academic training?

---

no...through intuition and observation :-} I hope you didn't waste precious time in college learning masses of redundant information just to regurgitate it ad nauseum to others in the hope that it would give them a false sense of your intelligence.Somethings you just know, you don't know how but you do. Silent knowledge...

By George! I think you've got it! Well, at least as well as any of us amateurs can. But that air inside and outside isn't part of our universe. I'm also not sure if it has to be there in the "real" cosmology (not the analogy). That will take someone who understands better than I. I'd say that we just didn't see it before. The dark energy corresponds to Einsteins cosmological constant I think in an indirect way.We've know that some dark matter exists for decades now. It has a gravitational affect that needed to be explained. The dark energy's affects couldn't be seen until very, very recently. We needed current instruments. And I'm pretty darned sure that no one knows what the heck it is. That's where fun science comes from! It is going to be very, very interesting.

---

Common sense isn't

Er - maybe not, I'm still seeing a therapist over the 'buzsaw' inspired (wrong word for buzsaw) 'age of the Sun' threads.I know more cosmology than probably any other topic in astrophysics but I know my therapy bills will just zoom through the roof if I dip my toe in here.LOL

Eta, didn't you read the fine print when you registered? About the optional mental health insurance? < mumbles...gonna have to talk to Percy again about making that font bigger.....

---

AdminAsgara
Queen of the Universe

The balloon analogy probably does more harm than any other physics analogy I can think of except the tidy/untidy room order/disorder bulls*** for explaining entropy and the 2nd Law of Thermo.

quote:

---

a balloon and a basketball have a middle and an edge if you look at it from outside of it as a sphere. Being on it you wouldn't know especially if thats all you knew of it.

---

The 3D sphere isn't the analogy here - the surface of the sphere is.

quote:

---

so I'm thinking rather that the universe is the rubbery stuff it's made up of and the "thing I have no name for" is the air that inflated it and that surrounds it.

---

The space the surface is embedded in is not part of the analogy.

quote:

---

did dark matter/energy exist before it had a name or was it nothing because no one had observed it yet and named it ? For to look at it with einsteins eyes he would have just seen "nothing" and at the current level of understanding it may as well be that.

---

That doesn't make any sense.

Yes, please get involved. I would love to have someone trying to straighten me out a bit. I promise not to be quite so obtuse as Buz (of course, that's not much of a promise is it? )

---

Common sense isn't

too late you're in, now please deflate my balloon......or at least tell me why the air in it is not part of the analogyyou know you want to...