What's Beyond the Universe? Question Analysis

  • Thread starter Aquw
  • Start date
In summary: Question 2- Motion without time?Secondly, can there be motion without time? This ties in with my next question, so please read question 3 before answering this. Question 3- Is time man-made?I believe that time is man-made, and not a natural phenomenon. I think that time was invented by us to help explain things. Question 4- Time travel?If time is man-made, is time travel technically possible?But if time is NOT man-made, if it
  • #1
Aquw
10
0
Question 1- what's beyond the Universe?

If the universe if finite, there must be something outside it, right? I've heard many people say "it's just time- and no space", but how can this be?

Our Universe is composed of space, so if it's finite, there must be more space outside it.

Question 2- Motion without time?

Secondly, can there be motion without time? This ties in with my next question, so please read question 3 before answering this.

Question 3- Is time man-made?

I believe that time is man-made, and not a natural phenomenon. I think that time was invented by us to help explain things.

However, I'm unsure, so please give me a reason why I'm wrong.

Question 4- Time travel?

If time is man-made, is time travel technically possible?

But if time is NOT man-made, if it actually "exists", is time travel TECHNICALLY possible?


Statements

What do you think about these statements? Do you agree or not?

“The universe is made up of space and time. They are a part of the universe. Beyond the universe, space-time ends. There is no space, no time. So, if we wanted to go outside the universe, we wouldn't be able to, as there is nothing outside it. The u8niverse is everything there is.”

“Someday we may encounter what appears to be a solid wall in Space. Eventually we might conclude that this was made of absolutely nothing. There would not only be nothing on the other side of the apparent wall, but the wall would simply mark the end of Space itself. The wall would be nothing more and nothing less than simply the absence of any place further to go. It is merely an unfounded mental habit to assume that there is always another side to every wall. This habit is based on our limited experience and may have little basis in reality.”

“Is it possible to imagine a universe with no origin, yet a finite age?”
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #2
For question one, what is outside, i guess its all theoretical. If you were to be on the outside of the universe I am guessing you would see the big bang happen and the universal expansion and all that. As for reality, there is no time and no space created yet, so in simplest terms, nothing I guess. It makes you think though! For question two, there has to be time. Motion is a movement through space and time. Question four, a really good book that would help explain this is Physics of the Impossible by Michio Kaku. You cannot really go back in time, however you can manipulate it with motion and gravity. You can relatively slow time down by being close to a large body with high gravitational force, like the edge of the event horizon of a black hole, or by moving at speed close to the speed of light.
 
  • #3
Aquw said:
Question 1- what's beyond the Universe?

If the universe if finite, there must be something outside it, right?

*sigh*

No.
Wrong.
That is a logical fallacy. something can be finite without supposing any edge or boundary or outside to it.

Think of a ring. A perfect circle. Not a ring that is contained in some larger space, but a ring that is all there is.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #4
Aquw, please give us links to the sources of your quotes.

Assuming you found them on line, it would be helpful for us to know what you are quoting and to be able to see the quotes in context. So links to your sources would be great. Thanks.
 
  • #5
Originally Posted by Aquw
Question 1- what's beyond the Universe?

If the universe if finite, there must be something outside it, right?

*sigh*

No.
Wrong.
That is a logical fallacy. something can be finite without supposing any edge or boundary or outside to it.

This of a ring. A perfect circle. Not a ring that is contained in some larger space, but a ring that is all there is.
I disagree with you here.

Yes, a sphere has no edge, but it has boundaries. If you're inside the ball, as we're inside our Universe, of course there's a boundary. And if there's an inside to the ball, there must be something outside of it.

Everything has to be contained in something. If something's not there, it doesn't exist. The space outside of the object can be infinite and totally an uterly empty, but space itself is still "something outside".

And no sorry, I don't have the sources- these quotes were some I found many months ago and saved to my PC.
 
  • #6
and to think, we used to believe the Earth was flat and if you traveled far enough you would fall off the edge...

I have always found that people have a difficult time wraping the grey matter around the concept of 'nothingness'. Perhaps 'infinity' can be just as difficult. But when you stop trying to picture things in your mind and just accept the concept then it becomes easier with things that are so counter intuitive.

Since the subject of time was brought up...

I have a question or lots of questions about time. So help me understand it a bit. I know that it is considered a dimension which is somewhat interchangeable with the other 3 dimensions of space from GR. so that by changeing the speed at which you move through space, you change your position in time relative to a stationary observer. but... I can imagine a universe which contains no matter or energy, would there be a such thing as time in that uninverse? are we required to have motion in order to have time? If so then is there an equivilance of time and motion or of time and energy, and if so then could time be considered to have a wave particle duality? could we envision some experiment where time waves could be detected?


...if there is gray matter, is there gray energy? jk ;)
 
Last edited:
  • #7
Aquw said:
And if there's an inside to the ball, there must be something outside of it.

This is an assertion from ignorance, not a fact. There's no reason why this statement must actually be true.

Anyway, nothing in this thread relates to cosmology -- it's pure philosophy. So, I'm moving it there.

- Warren
 
  • #8
Originally Posted by Aquw
And if there's an inside to the ball, there must be something outside of it.

This is an assertion from ignorance, not a fact. There's no reason why this statement must actually be true.

Sorry, but I disagree here as well. An object must be contained within something, whether it's a liquid, a solid, a gas or an empty space. Space has the capacity to contain things, i.e. our uNIVErse is contained within an empty space.
 
  • #9
the thing is, what is outside our universe hasnt been created yet. The only assumption we can make based on science is there this is nothing there, because it has not been created. We can make philisophical theories, but nothing based on any science.
 
  • #10
TalonD, there is no reason why we are unable to imagine something.

Granted, when we don't know the answer to something, imagining it is very hard, but once we know how something works, we can imagine it.

I do not let my imagination get in the way of what I believe. Just because I don't know how something works, or can not imagine something, it does not mean that my opinons and logic change.
 
  • #11
Okay then, let's assume that there is nothing except space outside our Universe. At the moment, I guess this seems quite likely.

But my point is, so long that there is SOMETHING, our Universe for example, there is going to be something ELSE, and that something else is SPACE. Empty space tthat contains our Universe.

If there is no space in which our uNIVERse is contained, the Universe couldn't exist.

what has yet to be created outside of our Universe remains a mystery, but is also irrelevent. The fact remains that there must be some sort of space outside of the uNIVERSe.
 
  • #12
Aquw said:
Sorry, but I disagree here as well. An object must be contained within something, whether it's a liquid, a solid, a gas or an empty space. Space has the capacity to contain things, i.e. our uNIVErse is contained within an empty space.

You're welcome to disagree as much as you like, but saying something over and over doesn't make it true.

The simple fact is that we have no idea what's outside the universe, or if the concept even makes any sense. If the universe were the surface of a sphere, it'd have no boundary, no edge, and nothing "outside it" in the two dimensions in which it exists. Mathematically, it's well understood that such a two-dimensional surface does not require a higher-dimensional space to contain it -- it's perfectly valid without any embedding at all. Embedding is optional.

There's no reason to believe our universe should be any different from the surface of a sphere. It may be very different, but there are no empirical reasons to think it is. You believe what you believe because it appeals to you, not because it must be true. You might want to consider that carefully.

- Warren
 
  • #13
There is not space outside our universe either. Space has yet to be created. Space and Time are created with the universe.
 
  • #14
if there was space outside our universe then that would be part of our universe also and then it wouldn't be 'outside', so where's your boundary then? is it some membrane? The real point is, none of us know if there is an 'outside' or not. No, an outside is not requred, Yes, it would be conceptually pleasing. But no one really knows for certain.
 
  • #15
How is our Universe like the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is two-dimensional; our Universe is three-dimensional.

I still don't think anyone understands what I'm really getting at- this may be my fault, not explaining very well.

Space is "something", okay? When I say "space", i don't mean like an empty room. "Space" for me is infinite and contains nothing, not even itself. Thus, I suppose you could say that space doesn't really exist. Space is a void.

If something has an inside, that is, if it has some sort of boundary, regardless of its shape, that boundary must have "something" (space) on the other side. That's what a boundary is- a "wall" (for want of a better word) that can be reached from either side. If our Universe has no boundary, it can not be finite.
 
  • #16
Aquw said:
And no sorry, I don't have the sources- these quotes were some I found many months ago and saved to my PC.
The quotes were in a thread at BAUT from 2003.
 
  • #17
Aquw said:
How is our Universe like the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is two-dimensional; our Universe is three-dimensional.

And there are three-dimensional spaces (manifolds, to use the proper mathematical terminology) which are finite and without bound, just like the surface of a sphere. The only difference is that they're harder to visualize -- but we may well live in such a space.

Space is "something", okay? When I say "space", i don't mean like an empty room. "Space" for me is infinite and contains nothing, not even itself. Thus, I suppose you could say that space doesn't really exist. Space is a void.

These statements are vacuous. They're not rigorous, they're not well-defined, and they're not even related to the common meaning of the word 'space.' If you wish to redefine the words as you see fit, and give them imprecise, useless meanings, then you're never going to get beyond arguing about words.

If something has an inside, that is, if it has some sort of boundary, regardless of its shape, that boundary must have "something" (space) on the other side.

This is, again, an argument from ignorance. I could argue the inverse argument just as vehemently, and neither of us would be right.

If our Universe has no boundary, it can not be finite.

This is not so -- the surface of a sphere has no boundary, and is most certainly finite. All you need to do is bump up the dimensionality by one, a simple mathematical task, and you have a model of a universe that is finite, without a boundary, and completely self-consistent.

- Warren
 
  • #18
TalonD, the Universe does not mean every space available. The Universe can be an object (thus with boundaries) within a space.

I do not know, nor claim to know excatly what form these boundaries dicatate.

All of what I have said is not meant to be, nor designed to be "conceptually pleasing". Simple logic dicatates that there is always two sides to a wall, even if that wall is sat in empty space.
 
  • #19
Aquw said:
TalonD, the Universe does not mean every space available. The Universe can be an object (thus with boundaries) within a space.

I do not know, nor claim to know excatly what form these boundaries dicatate.

All of what I have said is not meant to be, nor designed to be "conceptually pleasing". Simple logic dicatates that there is always two sides to a wall, even if that wall is sat in empty space.
Aquw, if you do not intend to listen to the people that have replied that know what they are talking about, this thread will be closed. You do not seem to want to do anything except repeat yourself.
 
  • #20
i don't think what you guys are getting is that at the boundaries of the universe, the big bang is happening. Space is being created. Our universe is being created. Your talking about objects that lie in our universe, but at the boundaries, our universe is being created.
 
  • #21
Evo, no matter how many people disagree with me, my opinions still remain the same. I am not a master of physics, so an unable to explain my views any more than I am.

When people present their views to you, you generally respond with your own views, which is what I am doing. My views don't just change, purely so I won't be repeating myself.

I am dealing as best as I can with the views and opinions of several different people, just as they are dealing with the opinions of myself.

As you know, very little of science, although regarded as fact, is actually 100% definitely true. I greatly admire those who know more than about this subject, but I still have the right to disagree with them where I see fit.

I am sorry that you feel this way, but I also feel that you have no grounds to close this thread, just because I am apparently repeating myself.
 
  • #22
derek.basler said:
i don't think what you guys are getting is that at the boundaries of the universe, the big bang is happening. Space is being created. Our universe is being created. Your talking about objects that lie in our universe, but at the boundaries, our universe is being created.

All of this, every single statement, is completely wrong, and has no relation to accepted, mainstream science.

- Warren
 
  • #23
Warren, but surely the surface of a sphere isn't actually a space- in fact no 2D surface is a space- only the space around it.

And I'm sorry about my more definitions. I am not trying to re-define anything, just trying to make myself more clear, although I'm not sure if it actually worked! I hope you do understand what I mean, anyway.

Please forgive me for being ignorant, if indeed I am, but I still don't see how an object can have an inside, but not an outside. If possible, could you try to explain this for me, bearing in mind that you are undoubtably more knowledgeable on this subject than myself.

---

If our Universe has no boundary, it can not be finite.

This is not so -- the surface of a sphere has no boundary, and is most certainly finite. All you need to do is bump up the dimensionality by one, a simple mathematical task, and you have a model of a universe that is finite, without a boundary, and completely self-consistent.


But you can't just "bump" it up by one. We know our Universe is 3D. Granted, for 4D objects, I guess you'd be right, but this doesn't follow for the Universe.
 
  • #24
Aquw said:
I am sorry that you feel this way, but I also feel that you have no grounds to close this thread, just because I am apparently repeating myself.
I have plenty of grounds to close this thread.

I suggest that you read the guidelines and understand what is required of you.

explicitly stating starting premises or assumptions;
* providing logical or empirical support for such premises or assumptions;
* making subtle logical steps more explicit;
* summarizing previous arguments made on the topic and explaining how they are relevant to your argument;

Remember, also, that our policies for discussion of science and mathematics hold just as strongly in the Philosophy Forums as anywhere else on the site. Overly speculative or incorrect statements within the domains of science and math may be moved, locked, or deleted at the mentors' discretion, and warnings may be issued. In general, there is more legroom for speculation in philosophical discussion, but it must be in the form of a well motivated question or argument, as described above. In particular, even a 'speculative' argument should be logically consistent with well established scientific knowledge and theory.

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=47294”

I suggest that you listen to chroot. It might be a good idea for you to do some reading on this subject instead of repeatedly making baseless assumptions. Questions are welcome, pushing scientifically incorrect ideas is not.
 
Last edited:
  • #25
Aquw said:
Warren, but surely the surface of a sphere isn't actually a space- in fact no 2D surface is a space- only the space around it.

Wrong. A two-dimensional space is no less valid than a three-dimensional space. The reason I employed two-dimensional spaces in this thread is that they're easy to visualize. The three-dimensional surface of a hypersphere is harder to visualize, but is no more "real." Mathematically speaking, they're essentially the same.

And I'm sorry about my more definitions. I am not trying to re-define anything, just trying to make myself more clear, although I'm not sure if it actually worked! I hope you do understand what I mean, anyway.

You're actually making yourself less clear by trying to provide your own definitions for words like 'space.' I encourage you to learn and use the widely accepted definitions, through which your ideas will be much better communicated.

Please forgive me for being ignorant, if indeed I am, but I still don't see how an object can have an inside, but not an outside. If possible, could you try to explain this for me, bearing in mind that you are undoubtably more knowledgeable on this subject than myself.

Again, you're aware that the two-dimensional surface of a sphere is finite, yet without boundary. There is nothing that prevents higher-dimensional spaces from having the exact same qualities.

But you can't just "bump" it up by one. We know our Universe is 3D. Granted, for 4D objects, I guess you'd be right, but this doesn't follow for the Universe.

The universe is three-dimensional, just as the surface of an ordinary sphere (a 2-sphere) is two-dimensional. If you allow your mind to grasp the concept that the surface of a 2-sphere is finite, without bound, then why can you not also grasp that the surface of a 3-sphere is finite, without bound?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/3-sphere

- Warren
 
  • #26
Evo, I am trying as best I can to logically explain my arguments. Unfortunately, where my weakness lies is my knowledge base, which as you have pointed out, is much lower than certain other people on this thread.

I am not making outrageous statements, nor, I'll remind you, am I claiming that I am correct. I made this thread to ask the opinions of other, so as I may learn more on this subject.

I can assure you that my arguments are well-motivated, and although they may not strictly adhere to scientific knowledge and theory, they do have some grounding.

I accept there are people who know much more than me about all this, or otherwise, why would I be here? We're not all master physicists or expert philosophors, and I think this forum as a whole has to remember that, especially those who are in charge of it.

You can't dismiss my opinions purely because you do not agrree with them, or that they do not follow some sort of scientific or mathematical rules- this is a philosophy section after all.
 
  • #27
It is not my opinion that the surface of a 3-sphere is finite and without bound -- it's a fact.

- Warren
 
  • #28
Aquw said:
How is our Universe like the surface of a sphere. The surface of a sphere is two-dimensional; our Universe is three-dimensional

although the baloon analagy is not acepted as a model of the real universe it is still a usefull conceptual tool, so imagine if you can a three dimensional surface of a four dimensional sphere. So in that sense you could say that we are on the surface of the universe rather than inside it. That's wrong probably but it illustrtes the point that there doesn't have to be an outside, and if there is, then it could be some dimension that we are incapable of percieving, being three dimensional creatures. but then four dimensions cause unstable orbits, so I tend to agree with the crowd that there is no outside.
 
  • #29
Aquw said:
I can assure you that my arguments are well-motivated, and although they may not strictly adhere to scientific knowledge and theory, they do have some grounding.

That is precisely why several members respectfully replied in a well informed manner.

Aquw said:
I accept there are people who know much more than me about all this, or otherwise, why would I be here? We're not all master physicists or expert philosophors, and I think this forum as a whole has to remember that, especially those who are in charge of it.

I have yet to see an uncalled for response to any of your posts. I am of the opinion that, by chroot especially, you were treated with a gratuitous amount of patience.

Aquw said:
You can't dismiss my opinions purely because you do not agrree with them,

That has not been done by anyone but yourself so far.

Aquw said:
or that they do not follow some sort of scientific or mathematical rules- this is a philosophy section after all.

You are making a physically observable and a mathematically testable claim. Why would you think that the "scientific or mathematical rules" do not apply?





The concept of a finite yet boundless 3 dimensional mathematical construct is well defined, and appears to fit observational data quite closely. It is a real possibility that the geometry of the universe is indeed finite and boundless.

I would suggest that you read up on the general theory of relativity and the maths involved. Ned Wright's cosmology guide would be a good place to start: http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmolog.htm" [Broken]

It should get you well enough informed of the current consensus in cosmology to better equipped to reformulate your question and seriously consider the concepts posted by others.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #30
People seem inclined to think of the universe as a big jar when they are told it's not infinate because they assume that the up/down/left/right/forward/backward availability of space is something inherent to everywhere, beyond the universe. I think it helps to imagine that space in which you are free to move is a feature specific to the inside of the universe, not the outside, and that deleting the universe wouldn't create a bunch of empty space where the universe once sat, it would be more like turning you calculator off.
 
  • #31
TalonD said:
and to think, we used to believe the Earth was flat and if you traveled far enough you would fall off the edge...

I have always found that people have a difficult time wraping the grey matter around the concept of 'nothingness'. Perhaps 'infinity' can be just as difficult. But when you stop trying to picture things in your mind and just accept the concept then it becomes easier with things that are so counter intuitive.

Since the subject of time was brought up...

I have a question or lots of questions about time. So help me understand it a bit. I know that it is considered a dimension which is somewhat interchangeable with the other 3 dimensions of space from GR. so that by changeing the speed at which you move through space, you change your position in time relative to a stationary observer. but... I can imagine a universe which contains no matter or energy, would there be a such thing as time in that uninverse? are we required to have motion in order to have time? If so then is there an equivilance of time and motion or of time and energy, and if so then could time be considered to have a wave particle duality? could we envision some experiment where time waves could be detected?


...if there is gray matter, is there gray energy? jk ;)

Get it out of your head that time is some THING. In order for time to exist it simply needs to be acknowledge, it's what we use to measure, it's just as good as a ruler, and nothing more, if you have no concept of time, then there is no time, simple events.
 
  • #32
Aquw said:
Question 1- what's beyond the Universe?

If the universe if finite, there must be something outside it, right? I've heard many people say "it's just time- and no space", but how can this be?

Well, the way that i see this is that If, the universe is finite then a location of this space must exist, i.e. your house on the planet, you can't hold a location of space if there isn't sufficient space in which to hold it, thus the universe is finite in which it is held in a location, but this location in which holds the prior location of the location must always be finite and therefore the universe must be finite which, logically is impossible (i.e. you MUST have space to hold space). assuming the universe is infinite, you would need to assume that an infinite amount of space exists to hold the infinite(or continuously expanding) universe, which also will turn up impossible (this is all assuming that the universe isn't just a "4-D" Space-time continuum which many theories suggest - which seems slightly un-real, but the only possibility) so in turn there is nothing beyond the universe, for the universe doesn't exist at all. :frown: which obviously it does, but think about it. :confused:


-- Grog
 
  • #33
There is an old saying that sems apt to many of the posts on this forum and I am no exception. " a wise man knows not, and knows that he knows not. A fool knows not and knows not that he knows not"

and oh by the way, time is a real thing as much as any of the other three spatial dimensions.

nuf said
 

1. What is beyond the universe?

This is a difficult question to answer definitively because our understanding of the universe is constantly evolving. Some theories suggest that there may be other universes beyond our own, while others propose that the universe is infinite and has no edge or boundary. Ultimately, we may never know for sure what lies beyond the universe.

2. Is there life beyond our universe?

We have yet to find any evidence of life beyond our universe. However, given the vastness of the universe and the potential for other habitable planets, it is possible that there may be other forms of life out there. This is an area of ongoing research and exploration.

3. Can we travel beyond the universe?

At this point in time, our current understanding of physics and technology does not allow for travel beyond the universe. The universe is expanding at an accelerating rate, making it difficult to even reach the edges of our own observable universe. However, as technology and our understanding of physics advances, it is possible that we may one day be able to travel beyond the universe.

4. What is the edge of the universe?

The concept of an "edge" of the universe is a bit misleading. The universe is constantly expanding, and there is no physical boundary or edge that marks the end of the universe. Instead, the universe is thought to be infinite and ever-expanding.

5. How did the universe begin?

This is a question that has puzzled scientists and philosophers for centuries. The most widely accepted theory is the Big Bang Theory, which proposes that the universe began as a singularity and has been expanding ever since. However, there are other theories and ideas about the origins of the universe that are still being explored and studied.

Similar threads

  • General Discussion
Replies
2
Views
710
Replies
12
Views
1K
  • Astronomy and Astrophysics
Replies
3
Views
543
  • General Discussion
Replies
5
Views
828
Replies
20
Views
1K
Replies
29
Views
2K
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
7
Views
1K
  • Beyond the Standard Models
Replies
7
Views
390
  • Special and General Relativity
Replies
2
Views
858
Replies
1
Views
906
Back
Top