Is Science Limited in Explaining the Concept of Nothingness in the Universe?

[menniandscience]

hi! my question is simple, and is more philosophical than scientific. if science can not explain (ever) what is the meaning of the nothingness into which the universe expand - by the definition of science as only able to deal with the being (ontology) - then science is not the right instrument we should use

 

[raymo39]

given some peoples current thoughts on the topology of the universe, space curves strangely back on itself at the edge of the universe, which in turn would mean that even if you took a "measuring device" to the "edge" of the universe, youd have a pretty hard time getting out of it to take a look around.

to deepen the idea, how can you travel through something that isn't space? seeing as we must travel through space-time, if space-time hasnt expanded out that far yet, how could we possibly travel there? a more interesting thought in my mind is less about what's out there, more about what would happen if you tried to get there. but unfortunately that can't be answered until we have a sound topological structure that accurately describes the universe and its boundary

 

[Chalnoth]

hi! my question is simple, and is more philosophical than scientific. if science can not explain (ever) what is the meaning of the nothingness into which the universe expand - by the definition of science as only able to deal with the being (ontology) - then science is not the right instrument we should use

As science is the only discipline that deals with the nature of reality and actually bothers to verify its results, if we can't use science, then there's not really much hope of arriving at the right answer.

 

[menniandscience]

As science is the only discipline that deals with the nature of reality and actually bothers to verify its results, if we can't use science, then there's not really much hope of arriving at the right answer.

that might be the case, like i said, scinece can deal only with the universe and not out-the-universe-realm. so maybe a new science for the "nothing" will be developed. because right now you can't scientifically say the universe is growing - because it is undefined - the meaning of growing into the nothing! it is contradiction [unless i am not aware of the new theses about the out side space]

 

[menniandscience]

given ... boundary

well since light speed is the ultimate speed yet the universe is so large obviously we will have to use some kind of wormholes

 

[raymo39]

well since light speed is the ultimate speed

there's a slight problem when you consider this in terms of the universes boundary. Its believed that initially following the big bang, for a currently unknown period of time, the universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light, as the conditions caused the breakdown of our current physical laws at that time. this also provides further topographical issues

 

[Chalnoth]

Its believed that initially following the big bang, for a currently unknown period of time, the universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light,

That language is very, very poor. The units of expansion are inverse time, while speed is distance per time. Saying that the expansion was faster than light would be like saying that 3000 RPM is faster than 30mph. It makes no sense whatsoever!

The basic issue here is that in our very early universe, it appears that it underwent a period of very fast accelerated expansion known as inflation. This expansion, though much faster than it is now, was no more or less "faster than light" than the current expansion of our universe.

 

[rajatgl16]

Its believed that initially following the big bang, for a currently unknown period of time, the universe expanded at a rate faster than the speed of light

according to special theory of relativity nothing can move faster than light, then howz it is possible?

 

[Chalnoth]

according to special theory of relativity nothing can move faster than light, then howz it is possible?

In general relativity, relative speeds are only well-defined at individual points. So one object cannot move past another object at greater than the speed of light (or, equivalently, no object can outrun a light ray). But when the two objects are separated by some distance, the relative speed starts to depend upon what coordinate system you use. This means that far-away relative speeds are arbitrary, and so there can be no speed of light limitation for objects far away from one another.

All that said, I really think that the statement that the early universe underwent faster-than-light expansion is simply wrong. Expansion is not a speed. Expansion is a rate (speed per distance). Because it is a rate, no matter what the rate of expansion, you can stick a distance in there that gives you a speed greater than light. So this statement that the early universe was expanding faster-than-light is not just wrong, it isn't even coming close to illuminating anything that was happening at the time.

What was really going on is that our universe underwent an early period of very rapid accelerated expansion. This is known as cosmic inflation.

 

[magpies]

Why yes I do understand why science can't explain nothingness because it is virtually impossible to get your hands on any of it as it does not exist in the classical sence. I really don't see why some of the aspects of nothingness don't seem obvious cause to me they just are. Like the fact that it has no exact location but it simply exists in all places as a back drop to what does exist. Also the connection it plays with the minds ability to think seems clear to me while just about everyone I talk to does not see it. It's color or lack there of seems also obvious to me. Nothingness would be so clear that you could see forever unubstructed in it but would however look completely black if nothing else existed. When I say completely black it would be unlike anything we have ever seen in this world it would be so black compared to anything that is the color black now I don't really know how to express it or even think I want to be able to.

If you study history for the most part it can be seen as humanitys quest to get over the fear of emptyness/nothingness. The ancients had almost no concept of it and for along time you could get x-xed just for talking about it. Some cultures had a better time dealing with it's existence but I think for the most part ours is miles ahead of any time before. The acceptence that nothingness can even exist is a mind opening view because it allows for a lot of possibilitys that without it you could not have. However I do understand the reason for fear of the topic because it is that important in many areas. It's existence to many is a direct challenge to gods existence and changes a lot for scientific view points so...