tronvillain

Don't worry about it. Sammi is one of those people who prefers to write things that sound good to them rather things that would make sense to other people.

Anyway, imagine a line that extends into infinity in each direction from your location with points on it a meter apart. Now, stand in front of one point and hold it stationary, and imagine slowly moving all of the points from one meter apart to two meters apart. From your perspective the dots close to you slide slowly away from you, but the further away from you the dots are, the faster they move away from you, expanding into infinity. Presumably the universe is something like this, except with a few more dimensions.

Of course, the previous example assumes that the universe is infinite in extent. If it is not then the expansion might be "into" something else, or the universe might be curved so as to avoid an edge entirely. In the second case, you should imagine a large circle with points on it a metre apart, and then expand the circle.

Liquidrage

Analogies in physics help us understand processes.
But of course it doesn't mean that is how things actually are and sometimes it helps understand one process but makes another seem more obscure.
Using balls or lines for the expanding universe falls into this category.

Lets suppose for example that the most fundamental particles don't actually exist in 3 dimensions. But in fact, the interactions between these particles create the dimensions that we preceive.
In this were true then there is no need to ask "what is outside of the universe". At the most fundamental level, distance, space, et al are meaningless.

There seems to be some evidence that suggests this is the case.
By traveling at light speed, photons don't experience time.
Nonlocality (Spooky action at a distance) has been verified as existing.
Wave-Particle duality.
It seems the quantum world doesn't play by our rules.

If this is the case then space is a construct of fundamental particles and not something that fundamental particles exist in.

Physicallness is not necessarily an intrinsic property of nature. But instead might be a manefiestation of the processes that occur at a very fundamental level.

In fact, in most of what I have read lately, the ability to give rise to the dimensions is one of the requirements for any fundamental theory of physics.

[ July 11, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Edge just a neat way of saying where the universe seems to be expanding.

Nothing too exotic.

My claims remain the same despite those who cannot understand the juxtaposition of words.

Tron, What can I say about your comments of what Sammi likes and what Sammi does not like. When Sammy writes there is no emotion involved just intelligence. Wait a year or two and my view will seen a reasonable way of speaking to the layperson.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

tronvillain

Sammi:
There is emotion involved in anything one does, whether one is aware of it or not. You may deny them, but your pretensions are obvious.

Starspun

ok tell me where my logic breaks down:

the universe is matter in all its known forms.

0.0000000001 seconds before the 'big bang', the universe was a big ball of matter, packed together consisting of temperatures, due to friction, over 1 trillion degrees F. (not sure on specific temperature, but this baby is HOT!) I imagine the mass to have the diameter of at least 3 milky way galxies placed side by side by side...at least that big, probably bigger.
If my logic hasn't broken down thus far (and it may have with my first statement), outside that searing ball of matter is...what?
Now, if the universe is a separate entity from the ball of matter, then my question is already answered. On that basis, the universe is infinite and all matter resides there-in. But, if the universe IS that big object, then it expanded into something. And, if this is so, then logically, it would seem, there actually is a center of the universe. I speculate the explosion happened from the center of this flaming matter ball ( I assume a spherical object due to the nature of the bodies of the universe, such as stars and planets being round) due to the intense pressure and heat being most intense at that point. without any resistance from the area surrounding the object, the force of the bang would be equal on all 'sides' of the sphere.
Also, would the 2nd law of thermodynamics (entropy) explain the reason for this mass to explode? If explode is the proper way to describe the event. if not, what caused the explosion?
And to go further, why did this ball of matter not implode on itself due to gravity, thus creating a black hole which we observe happening today? Or, did the laws of physics not exist before the big bang, but come about due to the big bang?

[ July 12, 2002: Message edited by: Starspun ]</p>

tronvillain

As far as I know, the concensus is that you've gone wrong with your first statement.

Autonemesis

Starspun, think of a two dimensional analog of three dimensional space: the surface of a balloon. If you were a two-dimensional creature living in the two-dimensional surface of the balloon, you can crawl around the surface forever, never finding an edge, and yet the surface - your universe - is of finite extent.

Now start inflating this balloon. The surface area increases, and points on the surface become farther and farther apart. This is like the expanding universe. You, the two-dimensional creature living in the surface of the balloon, can see that points are getting farther apart, but you cannot indicate the direction of expansion, or its point of origin. It appears to you that everything is expanding away from you.

If you extend the analogy in two-dimensional space to three dimensional space, you may begin to see how the universe can be finite, expanding, and yet there is no outside to expand into, and no edge. What is expanding is space itself.

Liquidrage

Prior to the BB temperature is meaningless.
The instant the BB occurs, then you have your extreme temperatures.
Mass prior could also be meaningless. But as soon as the BB occured we have a mass equal to the universe. Though most of this existed as energy and settled into mass as the cooling process continued.

Outside of this ball there is still nothing. Maybe you all think I'm kookie but to me this is a science question that has already basically been answered. It's really only a philosphical question if one refuses to let go of classical physics and acknowledge duality.

The universe isn't a separate entity from this ball. The universe is that ball.
But your thinking on this is backwards.
If space was separate from the universe then that would be the something the universe would expand into.
But since space doesn't exist without matter (or at the very least a quantum vacuum) it isn't expanding into anything.
You seem to like this stuff a lot and maybe you want to check out a few highly recommended (not just by me either) books that cover this sort of thing.
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0375708111/qid=1026562051/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9493541-9057529" target="_blank">The Elegant Universe</a>
<a href="http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/ASIN/0316328197/qid=1026562210/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/104-9493541-9057529" target="_blank">Schrodinger's Kittens and the Search for Reality</a>
A lot of people read Hawking, myself included, but most of his popular reading lacks the depth to really get your arms around the subject. It's more of a "tour" of of his views then an in-depth presentation. It's good reading, just not a starter to really get into this area of science IMO.

Entropy would not explain the explosion.
Though one could use it in describing what happens starting with the BB by speculating that at the BB entropy was at it's highest and therefor would start to decrease. This has many interesting applications such as why we perceive time to exist and has a flow.
Realistically, the universe could be contracting right now and we might not know the difference.

What caused the BB is still a great unknown.
If you start with a quantum vacuum then inflationary models do the job, but you still need to ask where the quantum vacuum came from.

I would speculate that the laws of physics governing pre-BB are so vastly different from what we understand today that at this point we might as well consider them non-existant.

Black-Hole/Instant of BB analogies are common. Not necessarily 100% accurate, but they are often used because of the common property of infinite density.

[ July 13, 2002: Message edited by: Liquidrage ]</p>

Mr. Sammi

Can I call you fellas and ladies, kooks.

(1) As far as I know, no question has been answered, only theories proposed. A mathematical equivalence function, which is equivalent only to human thought. We cannot take this as gospel as some may be inclined to drive us to believing.

(2) Tron, emotions do not drive everything, who have you been reading and believing?

(3) Some claim only space is expanding, does the universe not consist of space also. Outrage.

(4) You cannot tell ordinary people there is no outside the universe. They will laugh at you. This world shows everything as having an inside and outside. If we cannot find the outside of the universe, then we must continue searching.

(5) However Sammi knows that outside our universe lies INFINITY. Space as we know it and dearly call it, does not exist in infinity.

Lastly, if the universe is expanding, then what are the boundary conditions that cause this expansion. I can say this another way, what are the conditions where the universe is expanding. The universe must be expanding somewhere, some collection of points of demarcation. Is it an edge, a curve, an area, it has to be something.

Sammi Na Boodie ()

Liquidrage

Sammi,

I'm not going to call you a kook.
But you are one of the people that in my opinion are not letting go of the classical world at least in perception.

I consider your
"If we cannot find the outside of the universe, then we must continue searching"
and
"The universe must be expanding somewhere, some collection of points of demarcation. Is it an edge, a curve, an area, it has to be something"
as naive views of a purely classical world.