[dieadderalls]

I really want to know what the current scientific consensus is on what is outside of the universe. I understand that this is kind of a dumb question, seeing as there is "nothing outside of the universe", due to the fact that it is all encompassing... Putting that aside (i know that sounds stupid, but for the sake of this argument try to picture it) imagine that by universe I mean all matter and non-matter (dark-matter, anti-matter, matter etc.), what is exterior to that?

imo a vacuum could account for the fact that the universe is expanding and similarly account for entropy. I am not entirely convinced by string theory, but I'm open to it if someone would explain it to me. I'm infinitely more persuaded to agree with the idea of cosmological D/darwinism (not sure if I should capitalise or not), the theory that when stars collapse into black holes they become umbilical cords to new universes, and perhaps our universe is not the "primary universe", and thus we can account for the act of creation which occurred.

idk, help please :S

[lawcat]

dieadderalls, on 12 July 2011 - 04:48 AM, said:

seeing as there is "nothing outside of the universe"

Might I suggest?

dieadderalls, on 12 July 2011 - 04:48 AM, said:

we can account for the act of creation which occurred.

avoid testimonials when speaking of outer space-time.

[dieadderalls]

lawcat, on 12 July 2011 - 08:31 AM, said:

Might I suggest?




avoid testimonials when speaking of outer space-time.

:/

soz it's a difficult concept to convey. i guess what i am meaning to say is that the term nothing is in fact not entirely accurate, that perhaps the idea of a perfect vacuum might make for a better fit. because nothing IS outside the universe, a vacuum IS nothing, so therefore a vacuum IS outside the universe? owait logical fallacy :3

i was hoping for someone to physics it to me (in the most loving sense possible )

[Moontanman]

dieadderalls, on 12 July 2011 - 09:38 AM, said:

:/

soz it's a difficult concept to convey. i guess what i am meaning to say is that the term nothing is in fact not entirely accurate, that perhaps the idea of a perfect vacuum might make for a better fit. because nothing IS outside the universe, a vacuum IS nothing, so therefore a vacuum IS outside the universe? owait logical fallacy :3

i was hoping for someone to physics it to me (in the most loving sense possible )

Did you ever play the old video game asteroids? When the little space ship went off the screen it immediately came back on the screen at the opposite side? No matter how fast you went the space ship just keep reappearing with no time between going off the one side and appearing at the other. For that space ship the screen was the universe and there was nothing outside it.

[dieadderalls]

Moontanman, on 13 July 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

Did you ever play the old video game asteroids? When the little space ship went off the screen it immediately came back on the screen at the opposite side? No matter how fast you went the space ship just keep reappearing with no time between going off the one side and appearing at the other. For that space ship the screen was the universe and there was nothing outside it.

uh... you are still missing the point.

it's a semantic "nothing". also comparing reality to asteroids duernt make much sense to me, is the whole space-time fabric curved around on itself then?

if you continue the asteroids analogy, what if all physical matter is the game which is being played, and another whole universe is outside it? which in relation to a videogame, is true.

[sigurdV]

The first idea was that our environment was all there was...Soon it was occupied inside and outside with entities our modern view ranks along fairy tales.

The route to modern thinking a la Einstein and Planck was long, winding and violent, but now we have a fairly accurate idea of ourselves as contained in a universe either having no outside or succesfully (so far) hiding its outside.

An easy way of visualising the smallest totality of what there might be, is in claiming that the outside and the inside are identical. The universal expansion is then actually taking place inside our universe.

What i dislike with this picture is that there is just one unique thing...the universe!

I prefere our universe being just one of a multitude of universes contained in a "container universe": still unique, or?

Life being part of universes business, I expect Darwinism operating on universes as well as on life. The details are unclear: Lee Smolin has one approach, there might be others:)

The idea that our universe is contained in a vacuum seems to me to be equivalent to assuming it is contained in a universe quite the same as our own... Perhaps its mother universe?

[Qfwfq]

dieadderalls, on 13 July 2011 - 05:56 PM, said:

comparing reality to asteroids duernt make much sense to me, is the whole space-time fabric curved around on itself then?

The dumb asteroids don't matter at all, only what he said about repeatedly traversing the screen. In those old games the global topology is the same as a toroidal surface, think of a doughnut: you can go round and round, going through the hole each time and you can also go round and round the hole.

Now because the game exists within our universe, it isn't the whole universe so it isn't really and truly a universe at all. The same goes with the baby universe idea. It is just like what we already call the observable universe. What "we" inherently can't observe doesn't exist..... but wait, just like J. S. Bell said about something else: "Who the hell are we?"

[belovelife]

i see it like this, if you visualize time as a one way flowing x-axis
every decision that counciousness can make is a potential different direction in our multiverse

but still on the same plane, (like x,y)plane

then any change in z, is another universe altogether

but that is purely theoretical

[sigurdV]

belovelife, on 16 August 2011 - 02:19 PM, said:

i see it like this, if you visualize time as a one way flowing x-axis
every decision that counciousness can make is a potential different direction in our multiverse

but still on the same plane, (like x,y)plane

then any change in z, is another universe altogether

but that is purely theoretical

Id like to see more of your thoughts

Multiple dimensions are hard things to grasp as whole things, so i try to do as much as possible in one dimensional space only. Im thinking of:
1 y = x
2 y = 1/x

Let say they both share "an infinite point" to the right side of origo , then they enter the
y/x territory, 2 being infinitesimally close to x axis . Close to zero 1 comes close and 2 approaches infinity... exactly on zero 1 passes through but 2 returns to infinity and switches to the other side of origo... well...eh... i dont think its easy to visualize. In one dimensional space starting from: x = 1/x = 1 they behave nicer.

But Time! Consciousness makes the difference between the direction and the flow of time...

A complete one dimensional model of time is still waiting to be constructed....

[dduckwessel]

sigurdV, on 13 September 2011 - 11:46 PM, said:

But Time! Consciousness makes the difference between the direction and the flow of time...

Can you expand on this for me please. Do I understand correctly that 'consciousness (of and by itself)' creates direction and flow of time?

[Fluxus]

Moontanman, on 13 July 2011 - 09:04 AM, said:

Did you ever play the old video game asteroids? When the little space ship went off the screen it immediately came back on the screen at the opposite side...?

The thing is, the Asteroids game screen wasn't expanding at a steadily increased rate.

If our universe is expanding, and if you don't happen to subscribe to a multiverse theory, then what is the nature and construction of what we are expanding into? Seems like a reasonable question to me....

[Universal Student]

The OP asks what the current scientific consensus is regarding this point. The only answer that would directly answer the OP would be someone posting the “current scientific consensus”. But since that is available through Google, perhaps the OP would actually prefer hearing our opinions instead.

My opinion differs from what many theoretical physicists subscribe to. I believe the Universe is a lot less complex than some make it out to be. It involves the concept of infinity, which seems to be uncomfortable to many. I believe there is one Universe, and we are in it. The Universe itself extends off into infinity. The Universe appears to be expanding, and a function of that expansion is that the further away an object is, the faster it is moving away (generally).

That situation creates what we call the observable Universe, wherein the furthest objects will eventually be moving away so fast that their light will never reach us. It is probable that some objects are currently so far away, they are beyond the limit we will ever be able to observe. The amount of matter beyond the edge of the observable Universe could be any amount, including an infinite amount, reaching out to infinity. If c really is the limit of velocity, that is something we can never learn.

Hypotheses which assume multiple universes, or “mother” universes, merely push back the concept of infinity one layer. It is still there. Other attempts to avoid dealing with infinity suggest that the Universe folds back upon itself.

[Fluxus]

Universal Student, on 20 September 2011 - 04:48 PM, said:

I believe there is one Universe, and we are in it. The Universe itself extends off into infinity. The Universe appears to be expanding, and a function of that expansion is that the further away an object is, the faster it is moving away (generally)....

Well...

My understanding is that if our universe does continue to expand, eventually entire regions will not be observable by other regions. But I don't believe the evidence indicates it's gotten to that point yet.

Moreover, your scenario doesn't really explain the nature of the region into which we are expanding. AFAIK it's not that the objects within the universe are moving away from a center; rather, spacetime itself is what is expanding. Each point in our universe is equidistant from the Big Bang, and thus each point is at the "edge" of the universe.

Universal Student said:

Hypotheses which assume multiple universes, or “mother” universes, merely push back the concept of infinity one layer. It is still there. Other attempts to avoid dealing with infinity suggest that the Universe folds back upon itself.

I don't think anyone who's dealing with multiverses does so in order to "avoid" infinities. They're trying to explain what is outside of our Hubble volume, and posit that there may be other universes out there.

[Vox]

dieadderalls, on 12 July 2011 - 04:48 AM, said:

I really want to know what the current scientific consensus is on what is outside of the universe.

Would it more entertaining to first ponder what is outside of "You"? So you really find a point where you sees to exist and outside begins?

[Vox]

Qfwfq, on 16 August 2011 - 11:37 AM, said:

Now because the game exists within our universe, it isn't the whole universe so it isn't really and truly a universe at all.

Where "the game" exists?