If the universe was created by the big bang and all the galaxies are made from the debris from this explosion, then this will be a finite amount of matter. Therefore there must be an edge to the universe, so the question is what's on the other side?
-
Nothing.
First of all, it's physically impossible for us - or anything - to travel beyond the edge of the universe. Light has nearly a 14 billion year head start on us, and we can't travel faster than that to be able to catch up with it.
Secondly, since the Big Bang, matter/energy hasn't been expanding WITHIN space, space itself has been expanding (and apparently it's accelerating). Our current understanding of the laws of physics prevents there being ANYTHING beyond the universe - not even empty space.
This has given rise to the theory that there AREN'T any boundaries to the universe, and that it wraps around itself. Consider driving across the surface of a sphere. No matter which direction you go, you can drive for eternity without ever coming to the edge of it. The boundary only exists when you throw in a third dimension - one perpendicular to the surface.
So, if there IS a boundary to the universe, it may exist as a dimension we're unable to traverse. In quantum theory there's a hypothesis that there is an elusive particle called a graviton that is responsible for gravity. They think one of the reasons we can't find it is that gravitons only exist in the known dimensions momentarily and can traverse through higher dimensions invisible to us. The graviton also gets mentioned in the alternate universe hypothesis, and that we could potentially use gravitons to communicate with alternate realities.
50%
Voted for by NoeL-, Dylan Aphex, Xelgaroth.
-
To borrow a quote
At the edge of space is just more space.
In all likelihood, it is MATTER--dust, gas, "starstuff" as it were--that exploded at the Big Bang and expands (and possibly will contract only to explode again). Not space itself. If we flew out passed the farthest reach of matter, we would become the farthest piece of matter and just continue into empty space. I do not think the vacuum of space itself was created through the Big Bang.
This is of course speculation, but I don't see any reason to believe otherwise. There has been mention that when astronauts come in from a spacewalk an odd smell is accompanied with them, almost as if implying space itself has a smell. There could be many explanations for this, but I don't think it changes anything. Either an empty vacuum oddly is accompanied with a smell, or small "starstuff" has a smell (and would smell no more if we went passed its furthest reach), or it's from the metal of the spacestation reacting from the effects of being in space.
Then of course there is the possibility that our UNIVERSE is just another step, like a solar system upgrades into a galaxy--that our entire universe is some sort of container spinning around a series of universes. Impossible to say really, though I kind of doubt it.
33%
Voted for by Weydon, abuyi.
-
hmm
its something thats always absolutely perplexed me, i get caught up in it.
i always have felt how can there not be something beyond the universe we know, ya know.
latest news is that theres a new telescope comming out soon, that will allow us to possibly see beyond the universe we know
though i dont know how that will work with the time-space continuum...
we will see, either way
im so into it, cant wait to see what the news is.
Voted for by bluefreedom.
None of the choices fit your opinion? Add one →
|
Adding your reply:
Registration is required because of issues with spam. It is fast and free! This author would LOVE to get a comment from you, please join!
Xelgaroth
November 28, 2009
Just for clarification, 'cause I'm curious.
Second question: How do you travel "perpendicular" to the surface of a sphere? I'm just curious, not trying to deny the truth of the statement. At least in a platonic sphere shape, is it really possible to travel perpendicular to it? Doesn't a perfect sphere have no/infinite sides? If this is the case, how can you travel perpendicular to any one side of the sphere? Furthermore, even if it was not a sphere-- say it was a cube, how, even then, could you travel perpendicularly to it? Does perpendicularity not by its nature imply direction-- the negative reciprocal of the slope of a given line? Which "way" does a cube go? In any perfectly equalateral object, couldn't any line coming from any direction that intersects with the object not be, conceivably, perpendicular? Or, by "perpendicular", did you really mean "tangential"?
Like I say, just curious.
NoeL-
November 29, 2009
The surface of a sphere is 2D, it's just curved in 3D space. Just like how the Earth is spheroid, yet we only have north/south and east/west - two dimensions.
"Second question: How do you travel "perpendicular" to the surface of a sphere?"
Using the Earth again, climbing a ladder, or jumping, would be movement perpendicular to the surface of the Earth.
"At least in a platonic sphere shape, is it really possible to travel perpendicular to it? Doesn't a perfect sphere have no/infinite sides?"
Fine, you travel perpendicular to the tangent
Imagine you take an orange, cut the skin off and flatten it out into a 2D net. Moving horizontally across the 2D skin is 1D, moving horizontally and vertically across the skin is 2D, and moving horizontally, vertically, and through the skin is 3D.
Xelgaroth
November 29, 2009
Edit | Reply
Yay! I win.
Weydon
November 29, 2009
The surface of the Earth will always seem "flat" to us, and unless we dive into the Earth or fly (which we do) the simplest way to map this out pretending it IS flat, going along this surface and measuring a "height and width" for our location. This is so much the case that until the 20th Century the top thinkers of the world insisted on it in fact being flat. But it's not, and in spite of our simple and extremely accurate surface maps, if I travel from NYC to Tokyo, I am in fact going "deeper" into the third dimension, and will be "deeper" than the people still in NY. I am not taking the surface of the Earth off like a peel, it is remaining in place and I am deeper in the third dimension.
If you take a globe, and put a long flat piece of a wood on top of it, it is the only TRUE flat surface there. If we tried to build such a massive object on Earth, we be "Earth-flat" for MILES AND MILES" but eventually have to build up off the ground. This would seem like we are building it curved like a half pipe, but a view from space would confirm that it is FLAT, in second-dimension, while the Earth is round.
NoeL-
November 29, 2009
Edit | Reply
Ah, no they didn't. Maybe the top Christian thinkers *snicker*, but people have known the Earth is round for over 2000 years (the Greeks figured it out) and an Islamic mathematician calculated the diameter of the Earth about 1000 years ago (and got pretty damn close). Muslim's need to know which direction to face to pray to Mecca, and they have to factor in the Earth's curvature to do so. It was only the influence of the Christian dark ages that propagated the myth that the Earth was flat well into the 17th century at least, but "top thinkers" have known it's round for ages.
"I am not taking the surface of the Earth off like a peel, it is remaining in place and I am deeper in the third dimension."
You're not realising that it doesn't matter whether you take off the peel or not, the surface of a 3D object has only two dimensions.
"If you take a globe, and put a long flat piece of a wood on top of it, it is the only TRUE flat surface there. If we tried to build such a massive object on Earth, we be "Earth-flat" for MILES AND MILES" but eventually have to build up off the ground. This would seem like we are building it curved like a half pipe, but a view from space would confirm that it is FLAT, in second-dimension, while the Earth is round."
Question: does it have to be wood?
Weydon
November 30, 2009
And, yes, I realize that going along the EDGE of the planet, just like going along the edge of a soda can, I only need horizontal and vertical points (a 2-D grid) to locate something specific. But that's only for simple reference, understanding (AND imagining) that I can go along the smooth surface to find which specific point you are talking about. But the can exists within the room. It is 2 inches deep. I can reach one end by a so-called "2-D journey" with my finger, or I can stab straight through with a knife. No, I am not accessing an interdimensional wormhole, I am simply using the third dimension. If you take the peel off the orange and flatten on on a table (a truly flat surface), I can not take this 3-D shortcut. The Earth's surface is not on a table, and the only reason I can't take the 3-D shortcut is because I don't have anything nearly sharp or powerful enough. But if we made a perfect hologram replica of Earth, and I wanted to go from holo-NYC to holo-Tokyo, you can take a your spaceship all the way around with the Orange Peel Method, while I will simply fly straight through with the Third Dimension Method and get there much quicker.
2-D maps are easily understood and extremely accurate based on the understanding that we are travelling along the surface. But we can also go up in the air, or down into caves. Over mountains, or under them. A 2-D map cannot encompass this. You would need more maps to show the cave system. Like in a mall, for instance. We know we can only walk according to gravity, so we will have 3 or 4 maps of EACH floor, even though we are walking along the same longitude and latitude of the Earth.
NoeL-
November 30, 2009
Edit | Reply
*sigh* which is EXACTLY what I said. You're not understanding me
Weydon
December 1, 2009
NoeL-
December 2, 2009
Edit | Reply
It IS a wormhole! (or its lower dimensional equivalent) I know this is very hard to grasp, but I'll do my best.
"I get through the can with a knife, not a portal."
To someone confined to the surface of the can the knife would look (and act, presuming they could walk through the knife) exactly like a portal. They cannot see the 3D knife, only the 2D cross section of the knife that is penetrating the can. Stabbing a knife in and out of a can would look - to them - to be a single point that grows into an elongated triangular shape (or a diamond if it was a dagger), and then shrinks back to a single point (as the knife is retracted).
Have you seen pictures like this before?
The green grid is 4D spacetime - how we see the universe. In this diagram it is represented as a curved, 2D surface - just like the surface of a can. All four dimensions - length, width, height and time - exist ON THAT GRID. All the space above and below that grid is invisible and untraversable to us. We can't jump off the grid, we can't dig through the grid, we are stuck on the grid.
Now, because we cannot see anything above or below the grid, we can't see how it curves. In the same way, someone confined to the 2D surface of a can could not see its curvature. If you were standing on the grid, looking out to the left over where the curve is, you would not see the curve, because all the light coming to you ALSO follows the curve. If you were standing on the top and your friend was standing on the bottom, you could see each other as if you were standing on a flat surface.
If someone was to join the top and the bottom (whether it's with a wormhole, or stabbing a knife through the can) then that join exists in a higher dimension. In this diagram, the 2D grid is our four dimensions, but the picture shows THREE dimensions so that the curvature and the wormhole are visible. The spacetime curves in a FIFTH dimension. Since we can't SEE the fifth dimension, we cannot see the wormhole (or the knife) as a tunnel, only as two holes - a portal.
The problem you're having is that you keep picturing the can in 3D. I tried to help by getting you to "peel the orange" first, but you weren't too happy about that
Weydon
December 2, 2009
Here, I'll provide my own visual aid for the tesseract ray that I invented:
You reach one surface to the other, by use of bending time and space--or in lay terms, but stabbing straight through one side of the surface to the other with a knife.
All of this "shape of space" stuff is all theory that is CONSTANTLY changed. Sometimes there's one universe with the dimensions we are familiar with, sometimes many in String Theory. Sometimes particles whose mass is an imaginary number and can therefore go backwards in time are mathematically necessary for existence to make sense. And then a few years later they don't.
Nobody knows. I think some of these physicists get too wrapped up in the chalk board that they forget to use the tools an average kindergartner possesses. Eyes and common sense. I didn't need to see the math to know that tachyons are laughable pseudoscience when they were announced as the standing theory, and I didn't need to look at the math when they realized they were completely wrong. Nor do I need to see it to know that over half of what's being conjectured about the shape and origins of the universe and String Theory will all be reworked and renounced a 1,000 times over. Much of it will be laughed at by school kids who laugh when they hear humans used to think the Earth was the center of the universe. Only the most basic will stay in place, because they are the only provable parts. N, S, E, W, Up, Down, and everything in between are our third dimension. That's what we move in. That's what we know, and that's what's never been disproven.
NoeL-
December 2, 2009
DUH! Of course they won't, because they can SEE the entire 4D knife! The giant knife isn't moving along any dimension a human can't! If you stabbed a knife through the Earth in the FIFTH dimension, it would probably look a lot like a wormhole. If you can't wrap your head around higher dimensions (or lower dimensions, since you can't seem to be able to imagine 2D either) then it's pointless trying to explain this further.
"All of this "shape of space" stuff is all theory that is CONSTANTLY changed."
Yeah? So? That's irrelevant to being able to UNDERSTAND the theory.
"Nobody knows. I think some of these physicists get too wrapped up in the chalk board that they forget to use the tools an average kindergartner possesses. Eyes and common sense."
You sound like a fundy. You need to realise that you can't see the universe with "eyes and common sense". The universe is massive, we're minute little organisms adapted for living under certain conditions on a minute rock orbiting a minute star. It's like trying to construct a skyscraper with only your bare hands. If you want to get it done you need machinery, scaffolding, tools... mathematics is our machinery for constructing the true picture of the universe that our eyes and common sense are not equipped to do.
"I didn't need to see the math to know that tachyons are laughable pseudoscience when they were announced"
Just like everybody laughed when they first proposed the Earth was round. What you have is ignorance. It's nothing to be proud of.
"Nor do I need to see it to know that over half of what's being conjectured about the shape and origins of the universe and String Theory will all be reworked and renounced a 1,000 times over."
Nor do I need to see it to know that over half of what's being conjectured about the shape and origins of the Earth and Sphere Theory will all be reworked and renounced a 1,000 times over.
Grow a brain.
Will it get reworked? Sure, it's entirely possible, as it's new physics and there's a lot of kinks that need ironing out. But to take that and then claim some kind of foreknowledge of it failing is fucking ridiculous. It might turn out that String theory is a load of crap, it might turn out that String Theory is the greatest universal theory of physics ever conceived. The only way we'll find out is to crunch the numbers, not to sit back and scoff, saying "if the Earth was round, we'd all fall off the bottom! Stupid scientists..."
It's starting to make sense why you're finding this so hard... or maybe it's because you're finding this so hard that you have this disdain for physicists. Maybe it frustrates you that they are able to picture the universe in ways you cannot?
NoeL-
December 4, 2009
Edit | Reply
Xelgaroth
December 16, 2009
Maybe then he'd get the concept that an object existing in the fourth dimension could create a "hole" in three-dimensional space, which would effectively be a "portal" through which one could travel.
NoeL-
December 16, 2009
Xelgaroth
December 16, 2009
NoeL-
December 16, 2009
(by the way, I don't know much either
Xelgaroth
December 16, 2009
Edit | Reply
You may not know MUCH about it, but you display at least a ground-level understanding of the concepts, which is more than most people can say.
Please register or login to comment! It's fast and totally free!