If all creation, reality and existance is contained within the Universe
And if the Universe is expaning
What is it expanding into ??

Does the concept of 'empty space' exist as a state of existence within reality?
If so, for the Universe to be expanding into it, it's existence (that of 'empty space')must have preceeded the existence of the Universe
If so, where did IT come from???

Or..

Is the State of 'empty space' a state of non-existence?? if so

How CAN there be anything FOR the Universe to expand into?????

The space of the universe itself is expanding. There doesn't need to be something else getting pushed out of the way for that to happen. It makes its own space as it goes is the simplest way to think of it. You don't need space to make room for more space, just make the space and you have more room, voila!

That is if space exists, at least.

ive been pondering the very same question for a very long time.....................................................

Let me try this again. If there were some "space" for the universe to expand into, then that "space" would be part of the universe, and how could something "in" this universe be where it could expand into it? As far as we can tell, there is nothing "outside" the universe because "outside" doesn't make sense. There may not even be a reason for there to be an "outside" to expand into. The reason it's so counter-intuitive is because every second of every day, we only deal with our little tiny comfy corner of the universe, of which I am quite fond, by the way, where there is always a "here" and a "there."

Ahhh... I just thought of something. Have a look at fractals. They may offer some insight. One aspect of a fractal shape is when it's definition is iterated infinitely, the its perimeter is infinitely long while its area always remains finite. Think of the expansion of our universe as being like the perimeter of a fractal: it keeps iterating, getting more complicated, and having a longer length, but never taking up more appreciable area.

My question about the Big Bang is, what was there before the big bang?...nothing?.. Something can't be created out of nothing....Also...and if there was something, then how did the Big Bang create something that was already there?

Not everyone acknowledges the big bang !

So are you saying that the evidence for an expanding universe, the cosmic microwave background and general relativity are all wrong?

I have a big problem with the big bang for at least two reasons.

Firstly, this is a mistake we have made numerous times in history.

First we thought the continents we lived on where the entire universe.

Then we thought the earth was the universe.

Then we thought the solar system was the universe. And then it was the milky way.

And now we've changed our minds yet again.

Oh no, everything within the radiation field remaining from the "big bang" is the universe.

Seems to me like we're making the same age old mistake again.

What if there was a massive explosion for reasons we can't explain yet, WITHIN an existing section of the universe? That could have started the movement of galaxies away from us.



Secondly, the big bang assumes a moment when the universe "began". And defenders of the theory use dangerous words like creation, which becomes ammunition for religious charlatans.

It's a very dangerous theory. It should be attacked vigorously in my opinion.

Sure, our world view keeps growing and growing over the ages, but it has to end somewhere. It might end at the limits of this universe, or it might end at the limits of a multiverse, or beyond.

The reason the Big Bang theory is widely accepted is because the evidence supports it, all the galaxies are moving away from each other, and at one stage they would have all been on top of each other. There's also the cosmic microwave background and the fact that the same elements are found all over the universe.

The theory should not be attacked, but it should be criticized, but for something to replace it it would have to explain all the things the big bang explains.

I'm not sure we'll ever find where it ends. There are some strong suggestions that we can't find the end. Godel's incompleteness theorem comes to mind, as does Russell's paradox, just to name a couple. We will always need to widen the framework to encompass what we understand, and in doing so, we will discover that there is more to understand. This constraint could be built into the fact that we are creatures of the domain that contains us, and to fully comprehend our domain we would have to exist outside of it. But then we would occupy a new, broader domain that we would have to rise above to understand, ad infinitum!



I wholeheartedly agree. An "attack" usually means the attacker has no logical foundation for an argument against a sound theory. "Criticism" implies that the criticizer can make valid points of argument that question the validity of a theories claims.

I point out, though, that the Big Bang Theory (and QM, and GR) is a lot like a sudoku puzzle: everything you've done to piece the puzzle together may make perfect sense up until you try to fill in the last square You then may discover that you can't solve the puzzle because you did something wrong 15 steps back. With the BB, it's the failure to model the very earliest moments of the universe. In GR, it's the absurdity of infinities when modelling space that is being infinitely curved by a gravitational singularity (incidentally, this is the same problem as the BB problem.) In QM, it is the idea that QM requires probabilities to predict observation, and that it is either incomplete or reflects nature the way it truly is, in which case, nature itself is incomplete (meaning that nothing natural can ever model nature.) We may be on a parabolic curve to understanding, able to draw ever closer, while never finding it possible to actually fully understand anything.

Interesting idea - except your post has one mistake : It assume that something can be created from nothing.

If the universe is creating it's own space, then that violates the law of conservation of energy, right?

I'm no expert but i'd say that space is being created by the force of the expansion of the universe.

Wouldn't that mean that the universe is expanding into itself? You seem to be implying the universe is infinite. Otherwise, the universe would have to "end" somewhere. If it is finite, and it has "edges" or "boundaries", where IS this space expanding into?

Also, another odd question. Either 1. The universe exists somewhere, or 2. The universe itself is "in" nothing, therefore exists "nowhere". But does that make any sense? The universe is "no where". Even if the universe is all there is. Nothing more... It would still seem as if "the universe is no where" would be correct. The universe itself is no where..

And what would it look like to the physical eye if you were to reach the edges of the universe? (Assuming it's finite)

The universe is expanding into nothingess. We understand everything through comparisons; it's just that we cannot have anything to compare nothingness to, and so the human mind cannot understand the concept of nothingness.

What I'm trying to say is this : The universe encompasses all that there is. If the universe expands, that means it must have something to expand into. Therefore, space had to be there to allow the universe to grow in size. Ergo, space (Nothingness) had to be created from somewhere, therefore the universe created something new by losing nothing....

A recent theory called the chaotic inflationary theory states that there is a pre-existing region of a larger space-time. So, we are expanding into that.

That would imply that space is "something," and that's an assumption that needs to be examined. Spacetime may not exist as we have currently defined it. We're still dealing with some vestiges of the Newtonian view of absolute space, even if Einstein's GR got rid of the need for absolute time. Besides, I never said new matter or energy are being created. We may find that that space is a side-effect of the difference in information that defines particles, just like a shadow isn't something real, but a difference in where light is falling (lots of information that can be received by the senses) and is not falling (less information to be observed.)

I'm also not claiming that I'm right on this, just that I have fun thinking about these things and there are some intriguing questions that bubble up.

The surface of a sphere is finite, but yet has no "edge", and no "end" except where we arbitrarily mark it for measurement.


"Somewhere" only makes sense where you have space in which to define a position. Even then, you're only marking a position by arbitrarily assigning a label to a spot that is different from other positions that have also been so demarked.


See point 1 above.

But perhaps you'd see a parallel version of yourself in a big cowboy hat looking back at you?

I can reference Russell's paradox again. And also Godel's incompleteness theorem. "There's always something more."

Perhaps the discussion should be "What is the universe?" There are several ways to think of this. Astronomers often qualify their cosmology by referencing "the observable universe," meaning that it's just that part we can see because the universe is old enough for light to have travelled from there to here, and thus be observed. There is the concept you note, which is "all that there is." There could be parts of this universe (or others) that can never be observed, and have no affect on our universe. What about universes that can affect ours but can't be directly observed? Do we need to use the term "multiverse" or "omniverse," or can we include them as being part of our universe because it alone encompasses all that there is? What if the state of "being" in those other universes is somehow inconsistent with "being" in ours? Can we even comprehend what that means? There is always something more.

Just sayin', 'zall. Just sayin'.


OS

But if you keep going in a straight line, eventually(Assuming you are pointed =D) you will pop through. That is what I'm talking about. If the universe is similar, you could "exit" the universe.. But then... where the hell would you be. O_o

Not one of my strong points, but I thought one of the more modern theories had the universe continually expanding and contracting with, perhaps, several big bangs.

Basically at one point all matter and energy is concentrated into an intense "singularity" (not the correct technical term) It flies apart, expanding out to a point where it is in stasis/balance and then comes together again.

There is possibly more than one universe, but I dont think we need to worry our little heads about that, or what exists outside/between them. Even our top mathematicians and scientists are having enough trouble putting this one into a workable model.

The present universe seems to be lacking a part of the energy required for this process of expansion/contraction, and as recently as a few days ago, I was reading about so called dark matter (perhaps what we used to call anti matter) which has been discovered, and may provide the theoretical balance needed for a continual expansion and retraction of the universe.

Try thinking of the universe as one (or more) giant perpetual motion machines where one form of energy causes expansion, and an opposite, or balancing, form causes contraction. If your mind is big enough it will encompass this.

Im not saying this is the case, but it is a comprehensible, and logical, model.

nice thread .. really interesting

No , I'm saying , that 'THE" Big Bang could have been the second , third or even tenth Big Bang .. Einstein would still be right !!

And before that ?? Or was it always expanding ? Is that what you mean ?

Nothingness is still something .

http://curious.astro.cornell.edu/question.php?number=274

This is going to confuse the hell out of everyone, but the universe cannot have a shape or a size. To have a shape or size would mean existence is confined by an outside area of nonexistence, but nonexistence cannot exist anywhere. It can't confine existence.

The big bang, however, can have a shape and size. There might even be other big bangs and we've been using an over-simplified model.

Well I like to combine spirituality and science, and with that I get that it's an infinite potential. If you take spirituality, and the "as above, so below" from the emerald tablet..then you can view quantum mechanics as the all encompassing picture of the world. Energy can come out of nowhere but then it has to leave..this is shown to be true on the quantum scale...happening in "instants" of time. Well we are on a level much higher so it would stand to reason that time which is already an illusion can be misviewed and that would give us the appearance to us that the whole big bang and everything that has come out of it...is just a mere instant in "time". The next higher level would view our existence in such a short moment. And by that you can also sort of visualize how there is that infinite potential. That's what I think at least.

Exactly what I,m saying ! And BTW , welcome to UM !!

You are allowing a philosophical construct to determine your image of what the universe can be.

Here I will do the same , but the opposite.

The universe has a spherical shape, and the centre of the sphere is roughly where the big bang occurred. Before the big bang occured, all matter and energy was contained in a tiny sphere by massive energies. Outside the sphere was indeed non- existence.

Because non -existence does have an existence of sorts, as the complete opposite of existence. So think of all those qualities which exist in existence; energy, matter, time etc. Well, none of them exist in non- existence, but it (non existence) still exists,

It either has no particular qualities, or we, not being able to experience or measure them, simply do not know what they are. Non existence does not confine existence. When the big bang occured, the energies containing the small sphere were transformed into a different form of energy, which propelled existence out wards

Now the area of existence within the universe increased, while the area of non existence decreased. Not that we know the total volume of the universe (if volume is indeed the correct terminology.) But, proportionaly, there was now an increasing volume of existence within the universe.

At some point the energies propelling the existent universe outwards will be "expended" while those trying to pull it back will, first balance, then exceed the expansionist forces. At this point the existent universe will begin to contract again, while the volume of non existence increases proportionaly.

Now that is my philosphical construct. The difference is that not only do I believe that non existence exists, but I can imagine it. I can also imagine infinity. Given the innate potential of the human brain, I do not believe people who say that neither non existence, nor infinity, can be envisaged by the human mind. Perhaps I am wrong, and what I "see" is not infinity or non- existence, but because i believe I can envisage the concepts, my construct of the universe is radically different from your own.

ive explained this in another topic
the universe is expanding like foam but it needs a chemical reaction and its needed component for its chemical reaction is time but after i explained this i went onto the question about the universes end