Outside spce-time

  • Thread starter garytse86
  • Start date
308
0
Matter can only exist in space-time, so outside space there is nothing, but snce space-time is in "nothing" would our existence be a paradox?
 

Eh

671
1
No, you're just confused with the language. Saying that space-time exists in nothing, is equivalent to saying there is no outside of space-time. It doesn't mean there is a place called nothing. You only get a problem when you reify the nothing.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by garytse86
Matter can only exist in space-time, so outside space there is nothing, but snce space-time is in "nothing" would our existence be a paradox?
Yes, accodrding to the reasoning of something outside
of everything else and if you think the Universe's finite.

Live long and prosper.
 

Tiberius

Originally posted by garytse86
Matter can only exist in space-time,
Well, we don't know that for sure. By space-time I assume you mean the four dimensions we see and know of. Various hypotheses out there suggest there may be other dimensions we can't as easily perceive. So, it's possible there may be all sorts of other stuff outside of out 4D continuum, the least of which may be matter.

Aside from matter, there may be other phenomenon which couldn't even exist in out space-time continuum and which our native brains can't even logically conceive of. It COULD be that our universe is a tiny bubble floating in a sea of infinite dimensions. But who knows. There's no real reason to presume any particular nature concerning that which we could not even in principle ever detect or measure, but it's fun to think about.

My main point is that we don't KNOW for certain that matter can only exist in space-time.

...so outside space there is nothing, but snce space-time is in "nothing" would our existence be a paradox?
1) Again, we don't know what is or is not "outside" of space-time.

2) A lot of people get confused with the word "nothing". They treat it like it is "something" with a name, and that name is "nothing". That's just a word game though. Don't overthink it. The key to understanding nothing is to think of it plain and simple, like a third grader would. Nothing means nothing - period. A helpful way to phrase it would be to say, "not a thing exists outside the universe" for example. By splitting it up into multiple words, you can understand the meaning more clearly and be less likely to objectify the word "nothing".
 
732
2
I think the only way to justify there being something outside of space-time you havet to first concede that it isn't "nothing" that the nothing is in fact something which is simply beyond our ability to explain or put a name on.

Personally I don't believe that there is such as thing as "nothing"
Everything has substance of some sort, weather it's the hydrogen and oxygen mixture we breathe, or the infinite space containing particles, some of which we haven't discovered yet. What if in fact, the "nothing" outside of space-time is an ocean, to use the analogy. Maybe it's water. Of course we couldn't survive in that water without our own environment. Or what if it's a different form us existence that our form of life cannot even exist in. some form of pure energy, or something we can't even concieve of yet. That's what I think the nothin is. it's simply something that hasn't been quantified yet.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
To take a leaf from Wuli... Isn't "outside space-time" a paradox in itself? I mean, our concept of outside is only meaningful with defined spacial coordinates, and hence our whole idea of outside is based on relationships within spacetime. This must cease to be meaningful when who refer outside the system, since we simply have no idea how outside is in such a context.
 
732
2
We can't assume that our space-time is the highest and only form of existence. To do so is to make a vain assumption that we are it. "outside" may refer to an alternate form of existence where our laws of physics simply do not apply.
 
1,927
0
Yes, but by that same token we cannot assume there is something beyond spacetime. All we can do is explore the question in an accepting and humble manner. Accepting of what we can know and meaningfully say on the issue, and humble of the depths of our ignorance.
 
308
0
Eh space-time is expanding and to our understanding entities outside space could be comprehensible. And it is expanding into nothing. That is what I am thinking, could it be a void?
 

Eh

671
1
Well no, because a void is something, namely space. And as I said, the negative statement (there is nothing outside space-time) is a denial of the existence of an outside. You can't have a place without space.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by Eh
You can't have a place without space.
According to the modern scientific definition that statement
is not entirely precise, because science assigns "our" space
additional characteristics.

Live long and prosper.
 

Eh

671
1
So? You still can't have a place without space, by definition.
 

drag

Science Advisor
1,055
0
Originally posted by Eh
So? You still can't have a place without space, by definition.
If I define what I know as space to have some specific
additional charecteristics then what prevents me from saying
that there is some other type of space outside this one ?
 
1,476
0
If our space time is closed and without boundry but finite as in sphere then it may be in a void that is not space as we think of it.
Space time is thought by some to be a characteristic of matter. Where ther is no matter there is no space time, ie. no dimension including time. I refere to this dimentionless void as nul-space.
Yes I know that I've mentioned this before in other threads.
 

Eh

671
1
Originally posted by drag
If I define what I know as space to have some specific
additional charecteristics then what prevents me from saying
that there is some other type of space outside this one ?
There's no problem with that. But it would still be space, though maybe not the dynamic space that defines our universe.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Originally posted by Zantra
We can't assume that our space-time is the highest and only form of existence. To do so is to make a vain assumption that we are it. "outside" may refer to an alternate form of existence where our laws of physics simply do not apply.
What I mean is that our concept of existence itself is defined by the spacetime we live in. It is perhaps very unlikely that they remain valid when we remove this obstruction, as without spacetime, do we really know what existence actually is?
 

Eh

671
1
Probably not so long as we're trapped in spacetime dependant bodies.
 
732
2
Since we're venturing into the world of hpothetical, I was saying IF we could venture outside space time and still find a way to create our own field of space time within that existece so as not to perish.
 

FZ+

1,550
2
Then we would be unable to see or in any way observe "outside" our little bubble. Hence we still have the same problem. Just with a reduced spacetime.
 
1,927
0
Existence is also defined by the meaning we attach to the concept, and that has emotional roots. Exactly how a "feeling" might be perceived as outside spacetime, however, is I agree quite impossible to say.
 

Related Threads for: Outside spce-time

  • Posted
Replies
9
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
26
Views
3K
  • Posted
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
  • Posted
Replies
4
Views
1K
  • Posted
Replies
14
Views
3K
  • Posted
Replies
3
Views
964
  • Posted
Replies
10
Views
2K

Physics Forums Values

We Value Quality
• Topics based on mainstream science
• Proper English grammar and spelling
We Value Civility
• Positive and compassionate attitudes
• Patience while debating
We Value Productivity
• Disciplined to remain on-topic
• Recognition of own weaknesses
• Solo and co-op problem solving

Hot Threads

Top