Shape, structure, and nature of the universe - questions/theories

  • Thread starter E-8
  • Start date
  • #1
E-8
2
0

Main Question or Discussion Point

Hey guys, newbie here! I stumbled upon your forum while searching for an explanation i was looking for in regards to some theories/questions i have about the shape, structure, and nature of the universe... so here goes!

I have some fundamental issues/differences in opinion regarding the current idea of the structure and nature of the universe. I was going to see if you guys (who are probably more knowledgeable about such things, from a physics/mathematic point of view...) could correct me, or perhaps, possibly agree with my line of thinking. As i am technically a "layman" about these things with at least a decent knowledge of physics/cosmology/mathematics, etc...

Anyway, my issues basically boil down to these fundamental and "accepted" points:

1. The universe is INFINITE. (i.e. it doesn't have boundaries)
2. The universe is EXPANDING into... nothing?
3. Assuming points 1 and 2... there is NO CENTER to the universe.

I don't accept any of these ideas. I have a relatively simple explanation that contradicts all of these points, and based on my relatively limited knowledge about such things, couldn't find anything inherently wrong with this theory. So i'll put it as simply as i can:

The universe is only infinite in 3-DIMENSIONS. NOT in 4 dimensions... I like to use the often cited "Balloon example". To something 2-dimensional, on the surface of the balloon, the universe appears to be infinite (in the same way our universe appears to be infinite in 3 dimensions) however, it is obviously a 3 dimensional object. The "universe" to the 2-d balloon dweller actually curves slightly into the third dimension (also in which the object as a whole, is expanding INTO...) Therefore, in 2 dimensions, it in fact, does NOT have a boundary. However, there is a boundary 3-dimensionally... The obvious answer is that the boundary exists AT ALL POINTS ALONG THE SURFACE. So to the balloon dweller, each and every point in it's 2-d existence is in fact, the BOUNDARY. Much the same as our universe but in 1 higher dimension. The boundary to OUR universe... exists at each and every point in our 3 dimensional space. The boundary isn't "out there somewhere", far, far away... nor is it non-existent. The boundary, or "edge" of the universe exists right in front of your eyes... against your very skin, etc... Our entire observable, 3-D universe is simply the SURFACE of a much larger construct, aka a Hypersphere.

In a manner of speaking, you could say that the boundary is simply THE PRESENT MOMENT. As the universe expands into the 4th dimention (time) each and every "present moment" is the new boundary. The FUTURE is what lies just beyond this boundary. It is that, that we are seamlessly, and constantly expanding into...

Does that make sense? I hope so... and let me continue on to point number 2:

Like the balloon example... the universe IS expanding into "something". The balloon dwellers too, could say, that they're universe is expanding spacetime ITSELF. However, we know that the balloon is simply expanding into the air. We believe spacetime is expanding, CREATING itself... but i would argue that the fabric of spacetime is simply stretching just as the fabric of the balloon does (since spacetime has been proven to be a type of "fabric" in a manner of speaking, at the quantum level...)

Also, in regards to the expansion... there are so many unanswered questions such as: what is CAUSING the expansion itself (vaccuum energy, dark energy, some un-named repulsive energy, etc.) and i would posit that the cause and explanation of the expansion itself could be explained by the INNER WORKINGS of the INTERIOR OF THE UNIVERSE. In other words, as i stated before, we exist on the surface of a much larger construct (a hypersphere), so accordingly, one would assume that there is a vast INTERIOR (like the air in a balloon) that we have yet to explore, or ponder. I liken it to the idea of earthquakes...

Earthquakes are obviously felt on the surface of our planet, but their explanations, their causes... would remain mysterious until you investigate the interior of the planet. That's where you will find tectonic plates, the planet core, etc... So most likely, a lot of the weird, unexplainable stuff in our observable universe (i.e. dark matter, dark energy, the cause of expansion, black holes/white holes, etc.) would be explained by the inner workings of the interior of this hypersphere... Just like the balloon dweller wouldn't be able to explain why their balloon expands... we know, as 3-d beings, that it's due to air being blown into the center, pushing everything outward. So we could explain the expansion of our universe as something comparable, based on the processes that are occuring INSIDE the hypersphere... Doesn't that seem reasonable?

Finally, to the third point...

It's kind of self-explanatory assuming you've read my first 2 points. There IS in fact, a center to our universe. But obviously not in the 3-dimensional sense. Like the center of Earth, or the balloon, the center isn't located on the surface. So in our case, the center lies smack-dab in the middle of the interior of our hypersphere. This of course, we could never directly perceive or interact with in any sense (unless we find a way to use a wormhole, or something, to naviate into the higher dimension). The center, in a way (as per my previous comments about expanding into time) would be the far distant past. More specifically, the moment of "creation" (of our universe)... the "big bang".

So what specifically is at the center? Or in other words, what created the big bang? I propose that we're on the other side of a blackhole (a "white hole" as they say). Black holes in a parent universe create new, baby universes, and the wormhole acts as a type of umbilical cord. All the matter and energy being sucked into that blackhole is thrust outward into the interior of our universe, pushing matter, energy, spacetime outward in all directions.

So what do you all think of my long-winded theory? Sorry if it wasn't completely coherent as i just typed this up spur of the moment, stream of consciousness style... But does it blatantly contradict modern physics or cosmology in any way? I like it in an Occam's Razor sort of way... it's a rather simple, kind of "elegant" theory that ties together various concepts like space, time, expansion, the nature of infinity, higher dimensions, black holes, white holes, birth/rebirth/recylcing of energy (stars dying, creating new universes), the fractal nature of existence (universes within other universes via blackholes), etc. and it resolves issues such as: the nature and cause of expansion, black holes, the seemingly infinite nature of our universe, the inherent ugliness of lack of boundary and center, etc. all without any convoluted amendments to current theories which require further explanations...

Any thoughts/feedback would be most appreciated :-)
 

Answers and Replies

  • #2
856
12
I think that what you are saying boils down to the movement of the three dimensions of space through the fourth dimension. ie. time somehow CAUSES the three dimensions of space to expand, and thus the two are in correlation with each other.


My simple reply would be whilst it can never be completely ruled out, in most cases correlation does not prove causation.
 
Last edited:

Related Threads on Shape, structure, and nature of the universe - questions/theories

Replies
6
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
8
Views
722
Replies
5
Views
599
Replies
51
Views
7K
Replies
10
Views
2K
  • Last Post
Replies
2
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
13
Views
3K
  • Last Post
Replies
16
Views
5K
  • Last Post
Replies
3
Views
3K
  • Last Post
2
Replies
31
Views
2K
Top