What is Space outside of the universe and infinity according to Physics?

[Dmitry67]

why? Histroy channel, BBC, pBS nova are making it too the universe series ?
Why saying so?

Because they are confusing people showing BB as an 'explosion', saying nonsense like 'when universe was a size of a tiny ball' without adding *observable* before the universe, confusing people (it never was 'a ball')

My son likes watching it, so I have to sit with him, correcting BS from TV, and it makes me very angry.

 

[Faradave]

As time and space are “relationships” between particles, it is an important question if time and space can have any meaning without particles, or even with just one singularity. It takes two of something (at least) to have a relation.

From Hubble observations of expansion occurring now, science can work backward and see contraction. Some call this “running the movie in reverse”. The problem is, it leads to a “singularity” in the region of the Big Bang (BB) event. The laws of physics do not accommodate infinity very well (energy density, mass density, gravity intensity etc. of the singularity).

So, as Chronos indicates, we do not know the answer to your fundamental questions. Perhaps one day you will be able to tell us!

 

[marcus]

Discovery channel should be banned from making "educational" videos about Big Bang and the other stuff. Clearly, it does more harm than good.

why? Histroy channel, BBC, pBS nova are making it too the universe series ?
Why saying so?

Because they are confusing people showing BB as an 'explosion', saying nonsense like 'when universe was a size of a tiny ball' without adding *observable* before the universe, confusing people (it never was 'a ball')

My son likes watching it, so I have to sit with him, correcting BS from TV, and it makes me very angry.

I sympathize. The media instill misconceptions. Standard cosmology is misrepresented by pictures of an explosion outwards into empty space from some point (called a "singularity"). People are given the false impression that this is how ordinary working cosmologists model the early universe.

Once that graphic image of an explosion is burned into their minds it's hard to get past the block, folks may be more subject to bafflement, may be less capable of grasping standard model expansion cosmology, may give up trying to understand.

 

[Mark M]

energy neither can created nor destroyed, it always transforms from one form to another Where would energy exist if there is no space

You cannot rigorously make such a statement in cosmology. See the FAQ.

 

[audioloop]

And you believe that "everywhere" was created by the BB-correct?

laughs

good joke !

 

[pi = sqrt 10]

The problem, as I understood from Kirankai :
1 - Space is absolute independent of things events and time where we can apply Newtonian astronomy . where there is room for multi- universes as fixed Favorite time reference frames ?
OR
2 - it is a relative space where we can apply Einstein's Astronomy ( the curvature of space-time associated with the big bang ) . where there is no room for the multi-universes and no room for the favorite fixed time reference frames ?

 

[Drakkith]

The problem, as I understood from Kirankai :
1 - Space is absolute independent of things events and time where we can apply Newtonian astronomy . where there is room for multi- universes as fixed Favorite time reference frames ?
OR
2 - it is a relative space where we can apply Einstein's Astronomy ( the curvature of space-time associated with the big bang ) . where there is no room for the multi-universes and no room for the favorite fixed time reference frames ?

Not really. Newtonian physics doesn't describe what space is. It only says what happens to interacting objects. It doesn't include things like time dilation that General and Special Relativity describe. Special Relativity doesn't have anything to do with space either. It only establishes c as an invariant speed and works out the rules associated with that. This results in things like time dilation, length contraction, etc. General Relativity describes space and time with a metric, treating it more like topography, which is what we use to describe things like terrain contours and maps. GR is basically providing us with a way of mapping out paths through spacetime based on the local topography, which is influenced by energy and mass. (Or more accurately, stress and energy using the stress-energy tensor, a mathematical treatment of how spacetime curves)

Notice that none of these say anything at all about multiple universes. It's not that they exclude them, it's that they don't even deal with them.

 

[KiranKai]

It's going to be part of my life's work. People are not understanding what I am referring to.. I would end up giving ideas which I do not want to...which is also according to forum rules.. it's better to stick to current ideas for now.

 

[SJBauer]

Maybe the thread owner should reconsider how to better phrase the question. Space (in and of itself) is a dimensional parameter of SpaceTime, which qualifies unbounded containment or abyss. Consequently it can be stated that Space is a form of infinity. There is no SpaceTime without Space and there is no SpaceTime without Time. Subsequently Time is also a form of infinity. Ergo since Space is a form of infinity, it cannot be defined outside of infinity (actually "outside of infinity" is an oxymoron).

The universe, on the other hand, has been bounded by scientific consensus as that existence of SpaceTime formed from within the Big Bang creation event. Therefore there is an outside to our universe. And while there may be other SpaceTime continuums or dimensional frames of reference outside of our Big Bang creation event, our defined universe would be partitioned from other such realities. Yet what would be the makeup of such a partition?

The answer to that is non-existence. No really, many papers have been written on the conceptual hypothesis for non-existence. By degrees of convergence, Space without Time is non-existent. Ergo, since Space is non-existent outside of SpaceTime, then Space is non-existent outside of the universe (which all fits rather nicely since non-existence is the medium in which our universe was created).

 

[No-where-man]

You cannot rigorously make such a statement in cosmology. See the FAQ.

It doesn't actually say that energy can be destroyed, only that quantity of energy can be diminished or enhanced.
Energy itself is truly indestructible.
And the Big Bang itself requires energy, energy is already in some space, therefore even though Big Bang creates its own space, it is expanding in outside space (empty or not).

 

[Drakkith]

And the Big Bang itself requires energy, energy is already in some space, therefore even though Big Bang creates its own space, it is expanding in outside space (empty or not).

No, this is not consistent with the standard model of cosmology and is not a correct understanding of the big bang or the expansion of space.

 

[No-where-man]

Thanks for answering Kiran. I am glad to hear that you will be learning about Manifolds.
If you are fortunate and have a good teacher it will not be difficult for you. I guessed earlier from your writing that you like mathematics and I am happy to hear this from you directly.

When you come here and ask questions about physics and cosmology you will also be practicing using English, which is a good idea too, or so I think anyway.
=================

I cannot explain why I am curious about this---for some reason I am curious: I would like to know, if you would not mind telling me, what is the word for DIMENSIONS in your first language?

I am trying to understand why you imagine that dimensions must be infinite.

When you study the modern geometry of manifolds you will understand (I think) that frame of xyz dimensions is only used to APPROXIMATE nature's geometry in some specified NEIGHBORHOOD. The xyz frame only works well in some limited LOCAL region.

So to cover the whole manifold we need SEVERAL local maps. One map cannot say it all.
It does not work well enough when one gets too far from the home base. So we need several maps.

And the other thing that is new about manifolds is that where they OVERLAP the maps must be consistent with each other, perhaps allowing for a little distortion. One should be able to understand how to make them match up.

The manifold idea gives us a new conception of space, and of spacetime. So now it is possible for space to have Dimension (LOCALLY) and for space to be without boundary and yet be finite. And for space to be independent and free of any surrounding space. This is what I meant by "autonomous". It does not need to be embedded in any larger space. It can exist on its own and all its geometry can be described by the experience from within the space.

With manifolds we do not need "space outside of space", and space can have finite volume and finite circumference---or it can be infinite. Either one works, with manifolds.

If there is no such thing as space outside the space as space outside the universe, than the universe would never be able to exist in the first place, it would never be created, the Big Bang would never be created in the first place-so yes, there is some space outside the universe, the question is which one-empty or not?
You can't create something existent from something that does not exist-science and scientific reasoning breaks down here.

 

[No-where-man]

No, this is not consistent with the standard model of cosmology and is not a correct understanding of the big bang or the expansion of space.

Than, there is something wrong with that model.

 

[Drakkith]

If there is no such thing as space outside the space as space outside the universe, than the universe would never be able to exist in the first place, it would never be created, the Big Bang would never be created in the first place-so yes, there is some space outside the universe, the question is which one-empty or not?
You can't create something existent from something that does not exist-science and scientific reasoning breaks down here.

Where the universe came from is unknown and possibly unknowable. Please do not make unsubstantiated claims.

Than, there is something wrong with that model.

I'm sorry, here at PF we value highly supported mainstream theories, not personal opinions. Please read the rules.

 

[No-where-man]

Where the universe came from is unknown and possibly unknowable. Please do not make unsubstantiated claims.

Of course it's unknowable, what I'm arguing is that outside the universe there is not nothing, it's definitely something related with space, if science is heading towards this thinking, than I don't if this is still science.
Sure you can argue that space is created in the Big Bang, but is it really true?
What you have is expanding, how is it going to expand anything if you already don't have (empty) space where you can expand in the first place-you can't

I'm sorry, here at PF we value highly supported mainstream theories, not personal opinions. Please read the rules.

As far as I'm concerned you can ban me forever, but if you say, that there is nothing outside the expanding universe, than it's the opposite of science.

 

[Drakkith]

Of course it's unknowable, what I'm arguing is that outside the universe there is not nothing, it's definitely something related with space, if science is heading towards this thinking, than I don't if this is still science.
Sure you can argue that space is created in the Big Bang, but is it really true?
What you have is expanding, how is it going to expand anything if you already don't have (empty) space where you can expand in the first place-you can't

Page 1 of this thread answers most of your questions and explains what a "manifold" is and how it applies to this situation. I suggest you read it.

As far as I'm concerned you can ban me forever, but if you say, that there is nothing outside the expanding universe, than it's the opposite of science.

If so, then so is claiming that there is something outside the universe, as you have done.

 

[No-where-man]

Page 1 of this thread answers most of your questions and explains what a "manifold" is and how it applies to this situation. I suggest you read it.

You mean posted by Marcus? I promise I'll read it, however the only problem I have with this interpretation is finite volume-it again means that universe is not infinite, and if it is expanding in something, something that expands it's already finite in its size and in its volume.
If something is truly infinite than it's truly infinite, it is infinitely small and infinitely large in size, volume, diameter; whatever, there are no any boundaries, limitations, end points or anything like-truly infinite means truly infinite.

Math does work with infinities and infinite values for quite a long time, but the fact remains, there are only abstract concepts and nothing more.

If so, then so is claiming that there is something outside the universe, as you have done.

No, it isn't, there is something, the question is what?
Sure it could be classified like the empty void or similar, but the fact remains, if the universe is truly expanding, than it can't expand in nothing, it cannot expand into something/anything that is not associated with space (or void-empty space), since it has size and volume-which are both finite.

 

[Drakkith]

You mean posted by Marcus? I promise I'll read it, however the only problem I have with this interpretation is finite volume-it again means that universe is not infinite, and if it is expanding in something, something that expands it's already finite in its size and in its volume.
But this is math, does this really work in the real world?
Math does work with infinities and infinite values for quite a long time, but the fact remains, there are only abstract concepts and nothing more.

From post #16 in this thread:

With manifolds we do not need "space outside of space", and space can have finite volume and finite circumference---or it can be infinite. Either one works, with manifolds.


And yes, this math does work just fine in the real world. I believe General Relativity is a testament to that, as is all other uses of manifolds.

No, it isn't there is something, the question is what?
sure it could be classified like the empty void or similar, but the fact remains, if the universe is truly expanding, than it can't expand anything that is not associated with space (or void-empty space), since it has size and volume-which are both finite.

I'm going to need you to work on your grammar. I can't really grasp what you're trying to say here without having to guess, which I'd prefer not to do.

 

[No-where-man]

From post #16 in this thread:

With manifolds we do not need "space outside of space", and space can have finite volume and finite circumference---or it can be infinite. Either one works, with manifolds.

And that's a key problem here-finite volume and finite circumference (a key word is "finite"), if it's finite than there's something outside.

And yes, this math does work just fine in the real world. I believe General Relativity is a testament to that, as is all other uses of manifolds.

Sure it does, it has been confirmed zillion times, what I'm saying is that there is no such thing as nothingness in a real world/universe/outside the universe.

I'm going to need you to work on your grammar. I can't really grasp what you're trying to say here without having to guess, which I'd prefer not to do.

Sorry, I meant to say that size and volume of the universe are both finite.
I meant to say that if the universe is truly expanding, the outside space allows it to do so (yes, space is expanding in the universe as the universe itself does expand, but that wouldn't be possible if there is not any outside space).

 

[Drakkith]

I'm sorry, but your claims are 100% unsupported. They are nothing more than personal opinion.

 

[DennisN]

And that's a key problem here-finite volume and finite circumference (a key word is "finite"), if it's finite than there's something outside.

This is a non sequitur - the conclusion you are drawing (there is something outside) does not follow from your premise (it's finite).

Sorry, I meant to say that size and volume of the universe are both finite.

This is currently scientifically unknown, and you have to accept that.

I meant to say that if the universe is truly expanding, the outside space allows it to do so [...]

There is no "outside space" . *

[...](yes, space is expanding in the universe as the universe itself does expand, but that wouldn't be possible if there is not any outside space).

There is no "outside" space. Space is all there is. *

(* in standard mainstream cosmology, at least)

(I will post some links to some articles which might help, please wait)

EDIT:

I'd suggest you have a look at

• Shape of the Universe
• Shape of the Universe - Global geometry
• Shape of the Universe - Flat universe (as an example)

I'd also suggest having a look at these shapes, which may help you reconsider how you think about geometry;

• Möbius strip
• Torus
• Klein bottle

 

[ZapperZ]

Closed, pending moderation.

Zz.