B What is containing the Universe?

[Spin2win]

Hey i was here for my airsoft problemes but while I am waiting...
What is containing the universe? is nothingness somehting? Or is it simply infinite?how is there an infinity of things? and if life is just a chemical raction from matter how with a spark it suddenly has will, would it mean matter has a less noticeable intelligence?

 

[A.T.]

What is containing the universe?

The universe is per definition all there is.

 

[Spin2win]

Ok thanks so its going forever and ever there is no limit? And when the explosion of the big bang happenned where did it happen? In some place that is also part of the universe?

 

[russ_watters]

Ok thanks so its going forever and ever there is no limit? And when the explosion of the big bang happenned where did it happen? In some place that is also part of the universe?

The name and popular description give the wrong idea. It wasn't like an explosion that happened at a particular place and expanded from there. Sing the universe is all there is, its start had to happen everywhere. Unfortunately this is difficult to visualize without analogies, such as an expanding load of rasin bread or the surface of an expanding balloon. But these of course have limitations.

 

[Spin2win]

Ok i picture it better now.thanks. Still hard to imagine it expend into nothing.like the balloon needs space to expend into no? .Would be easier to understand if it was like : "at the moment of the big bang everything was together and then everything started to shrink very fast".but still, that everything is contained by something otherwise even if expending or shrinking things would still be glue together no?

 

[jbriggs444]

everything is contained by something

'taint necessarily so.

 

[russ_watters]

Ok i picture it better now.thanks. Still hard to imagine it expend into nothing.like the balloon needs space to expend into no?

That's the limitation of the analogy. The balloon analogy works fine mathematically, but when we picture it in our minds its expanding into already existing space, and that's not how it works.

 

[A.T.]

everything is contained by something

Not if the thing is everything per definition.

 

[pinball1970]

if life is just a chemical raction from matter how with a spark it suddenly has will, would it mean matter has a less noticeable intelligence?

Without straying towards the philosophical, yes life is just a certain chemistry, biochemistry. The biochemistry in bacteria is different to what goes on in mammalian life. Also the lines are blurred when you bring viruses into the picture. Are they alive or not?There is no ''spark' that has any scientific meaning. By definition 'matter' does not in itself have intelligence. Brains give rise to intelligence and the animal kingdom has a very large range of them.

 

[Spin2win]

Ok So the universe can create as much space as he wants without "expanding" since its infinite?

Wasnt it a first form of life and from there it evolved into everything we know? , isn't the thing that made the first brain kinda intelligent? I was picturing Frankenstein^^ its dead and after the lightning strikes.. its alive. Or is the matter already alive but we don't notice it because it doesn't move or evolve?

 

[jbriggs444]

Ok So the universe can create as much space as he wants without "expanding" since its infinite?

That is not how it works. Even a finite, closed universe can expand without expanding into anything.

 

[Spin2win]

That is not how it works. Even a finite, closed universe can expand without expanding into anything.

By shrinking everything?

 

[Spin2win]

I guess as Russ said its impossible to picture it without some advance knowledge?
because I am really strugling

 

[gmax137]

I could be wrong, but I doubt that anyone really understands these things in the way the OP would like to understand them.

 

[russ_watters]

I guess as Russ said its impossible to picture it without some advance knowledge?
because I am really strugling

What you can picture is a universe of fewer dimensions, but you have to force yourself to only consider the analogy within its constraints.

In the balloon analogy, the only thing in the analogy is the surface of the balloon. It's a 2d representation of 3d space. You have to ignore the space inside and around the balloon: they do not exist.

The surface of a balloon is finite in surface area, but has no boundaries: no edges (and therefore no center). When it expands, it just expands. There is nothing overtaken, it just creates new area in the old area.

The universe is rather like that, but in 3d instead of 2d.

 

[Spin2win]

So it is creating new space by shrinking everything down? Or is he pulling out new space out of his hat? It really burns me to think that you can add space without either making the whole thing grow or the things we use to observe expension, shrink.

 

[Spin2win]

Also how could something finite be everything there is? I mean doesn't finite means it stops somewhere? How can you know for sure there is nothing outside or inside the balloon?

 

[Spin2win]

How has it no edges if its finite? Like if you add new stuff in a video game even tho it has no boundries no center when you are inside it, the volume of the game will be bigger on your computer. so in some way it is expanding into something no? And my character can't jump out of the screen because there is no screen for him and he will have absolutely no way to find out there is some other place outside his universe. His unique chance might be to realize that if everything there is is finite then it must be contained by something else?

 

[Hugh de Launay]

I think the answer has to be philosophical whenever you talk about the boundary conditions set at the edge of our universe. No one has been there to affirm or deny what is beyond our universe. There could well be an infinite number of other universes like ours. You can call this the ultra-universe. It is a matter of probability: what is the most likely scenario?

 

[jbriggs444]

How has it no edges if its finite?

Because "finite" does not mean having edges. Take the surface of a balloon, for instance. It has no edges. But it you cannot walk infinitely far on the surface without coming back to where you started.

If you've ever played a video game where when you walk off the right side of the screen you come in the left (a toroidal topology), that is a finite playing surface with no edges.

 

[Spin2win]

The thing that's hard to picture is how something finite can be everything there is?
since something finite is by definition contained by something esle

 

[jbriggs444]

The thing that's hard to picture is how something finite can be everything there is?
since something finite is by definition contained by something esle

Show us the definition of finite that makes that claim true "by definition".

 

[Spin2win]

Well isn't something finite supposed to have boundaries? And isn't crossing boundaries the start of something else?

 

[Dale]

How has it no edges if its finite?

This is not that unusual of a property. Pretty much any normal smooth closed shape has it. We kind of laugh at aboriginal cultures that talk about the edge of the world. The world is a finite shape with no edge. You are thinking about the universe in the incorrect aboriginal way.

 

[Spin2win]

In a video game the universe is finite and has no boundaries because it doesn't really exist.

I tought edges and boundaries were the same thing^^

 

[Spin2win]

So, unless our universe is infinite it is contained by something, right?

 

[Dale]

So unless our universe is infinite it is contained by something, right?

No. We have no physical evidence that the universe is contained by something nor any theoretical reason to propose such a container.

 

[Spin2win]

So the universe is infinite? How is something finite not contained by anything?

 

[russ_watters]

So it is creating new space by shrinking everything down?

I'm not really following: when you pull on a rubber band or blow up a balloon, what is shrinking?

Well isn't something finite supposed to have boundaries?

No. Again, if you walk/drive/fly in any direction on Earth, you never fall off an edge/boundary, do you?

I tought edges and boundaries were the same thing^^

They are.

So the universe is infinite?

Unknown. It might be, but it doesn't have to be.

How is something finite not contained by anything?

You are assuming it is contained by (in) something. Try assuming it isn't. There is no reason it has to be and no evidence it is.

 

[Dale]

So the universe is infinite?

That is the best current estimate, although a very large but finite universe is also within the margin of error.

How is something finite not contained by anything?

What does one thing have to do with the other?

 

[Spin2win]

I'm not really following: when you pull on a rubber band or blow up a balloon, what is shrinking?

If you pull on a rubberband you need space to expand so rather you make your raisins shrink and you get free space and without having to expand into anything. But then you told me that the analogy had its limits and that i had to picture just the surface of the balloon rahter than the whole balloon but isn't the surface of the balloon acting like the whole balloon? How does it have no boundries if its finite?

 

[Herman Trivilino]

How is something finite not contained by anything?

Those two-dimensional closed surfaces are examples of things that are finite yet not contained. There is no limit to how far you can travel on such surfaces, yet there is a limit to how far you can ever get from your starting point.

 

[Spin2win]

Those two-dimensional closed surfaces are examples of things that are finite yet not contained. There is no limit to how far you can travel on such surfaces, yet there is a limit to how far you can ever get from your starting point.

But how are they not contained?

 

[Spin2win]

How is something finite not contained by something else?

 

[Spin2win]

Isnt an infinite thing not contained and a finite contained by obligation?

 

[Herman Trivilino]

But how are they not contained?

In the same way that you can travel on those surfaces for years, going as far as you like, never reversing direction, yet never getting any further away from your starting point than you did on the first day.

 

[Spin2win]

There is a limit to how far you get from your starting point because you are coming back to it since there is no edges?

 

[A.T.]

There is a limit to how far you get from your starting point because you are coming back to it since there is no edges?

Yes, that's what it means to finite but not bounded. But we actually don't know if the universe is finite or not.

 

[russ_watters]

If you pull on a rubberband you need space to expand so rather you make your raisins shrink and you get free space and without having to expand into anything.

Huh? Maybe we need to pause for a while so you can put some more thought into this and reread the thread, because that makes no sense...

But then you told me that the analogy had its limits and that i had to picture just the surface of the balloon rahter than the whole balloon but isn't the surface of the balloon acting like the whole balloon?

That isn't what I said. You have to follow the exact construction of the analogy. If you break the analogy, you aren't finding a flaw in the universe, only a flaw in your understanding of it.

I said you consider the surface only. Not the space inside. Not the space outside. They aren't part of the balloon. The balloon - the piece of rubber that is the balloon - is only the surface.

How does it have no boundries if its finite?

Again: if you get in a plane and fly in one direction along the surface of the earth, do you ever run into a boundary?

Your house has walls. They are the boundaries that contain its area. But what if your house covered the entire surface of the Earth? Would it still need walls?

This is hard, if not impossible to picture in your head, so that makes it tough to accept. So at some point, you just need to accept that the same rules that apply in 1d and 2d also apply in 3d.

 

[pinball1970]

Ok So the universe can create as much space as he wants without "expanding" since its infinite?

Wasnt it a first form of life and from there it evolved into everything we know? , isn't the thing that made the first brain kinda intelligent? I was picturing Frankenstein^^ its dead and after the lightning strikes.. its alive. Or is the matter already alive but we don't notice it because it doesn't move or evolve?

The first replicating molecule can only be guessed at but there is real work in this area called Abiogenesis. Google "first life Deep first life deep sea vents" and "RNA world." The first cells were round around 3.5-4 billion years ago and that is the way life on Earth stayed for a few billion years. Too much information tom post in one go you will have to some reading on your own.

Urey and Miller used "lightening" of sorts to make amino acids from basic compounds but that is far as your Frankenstein idea goes.

https://www.windows2universe.org/earth/Life/miller_urey.html

 

[Dale]

How is something finite not contained by something else?

What does being finite have to do with being contained?

Isnt an infinite thing not contained and a finite contained by obligation?

No. Look at the definition of infinite and finite. Is there anything in the definition about containment?

 

[pinball1970]

Or is the matter already alive but we don't notice it because it doesn't move or evolve?

Just one more decent link on life, definitions, first life deep sea vents, RNA world and Urey and Miller.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Life

 

[Spin2win]

Ok but let's say you live on the rubber, if it is infinite, the only thing that could "contain" it would be for example, the infinite capacity computer containing the infinite game? But in the universe of the game there isn't anything like the game containing it since its infinite, but if the game was finite you could imagine that when you press escape and go back to the menu you are entering something that contain it ? So in a finite universe i imagine that there is a direct connexion betwin it and a container that share the same reality, and in a infinite universe it would be something like an other infinite universe not containing it but being parallel to it. Like, the universe of the game is nothing but numbers and electricity, there is no actual connexion betwin it and our world since it doesn't exist. So the game is an infinite universe parallel to our infinite world, It could also be finite being everything there is because it doesn't exist. Like a finite video game could be everything there is but isn't really a universe because its just data in the real one. So if its real and finite something has to contain it no?

 

[jbriggs444]

Ok but let's say you live on the rubber, if it is infinite, the only thing that could "contain" it would be for example, the infinite capacity computer containing the infinite game? But in the universe of the game there isn't anything like the game containing it since its infinite, but if the game was finite you could imagine that when you press escape and go back to the menu you are entering something that contain it ? So in a finite universe i imagine that there is a direct connexion betwin it and a container that share the same reality, and in a infinite universe it would be something like an other infinite universe not containing it but being parallel to it. Like, the universe of the game is nothing but numbers and electricity, there is no actual connexion betwin it and our world since it doesn't exist. So the game is an infinite universe parallel to our infinite world, It could also be finite being everything there is because it doesn't exist. Like a finite video game could be everything there is but isn't really a universe because its just data in the real one. So if its real and finite something has to contain it no?

It is difficult to follow the "reasoning" here.

The rubber might have a topology so that no matter how large a distance you choose, there are always points on the rubber more than that far apart. No container is needed in such a case.

The rubber might have a topology so that there is some distance such that all points are closer to each other than that distance. No container is needed in such a case.

In neither situation do we need to imagine the rubber as being a virtual entity in some computer simulation.

 

[Spin2win]

Its just that from your perspective the only thing that exist is the rubber but how does it make it the only thing there is? I could imagine it if you didnt run in circle.you would just go on forever and tell yourself that's probably the only thing there is unless i am being "contained" in another universe that could create a virtual infinite universe

 

[jbriggs444]

Its just that from your perspective the only thing that exist is the rubber but how does it make it the only thing there is? I could imagine it if you didnt run in circle.you would just go on forever and tell yourself that's probably the only thing there is unless i am being "contained" in another universe that could create a virtual infinite universe

If a thing can never be sensed, measured or detected in any way then its existence is a matter of philosophy, not science. For the person living on the surface of the rubber, nothing other than that surface is relevant. No container is required.

These forums are for discussion of science. If we divert into philosophy, I predict a quick thread close. We are perilously close already.

 

[Spin2win]

Is what you guys mean is that the rubber is stretching forever without cracking? How does it creates space without expanding into something or making the points shrink to infinity without having infinite ways to compress them

 

[jbriggs444]

Is what you guys mean is that the rubber is stretching forever without cracking? How does it creates space without expanding into something or making the points shrink to infinity without having infinite ways to compress them

Space is not a physical substance or fabric that needs to be created. All that is happening is that the distance between objects is increasing over time. [Any cracking of rubber is an implementation detail, irrelevant to the analogy]

You can Google "metric expansion" for some details on what is meant by this.

You could choose to describe the same phenomenon as all of the measurement devices getting smaller and all of the movement speeds decreasing. All of the same experiments would produce all the same results using either description.

 

[Spin2win]

Maybe space isn't a thing but the process of stretching is something no? Dont you need an infinite amount of energy to make things shrink to infinity?

 

[jbriggs444]

Maybe space isn't a thing but the process of stretching is something no? Dont you need an infinite amount of energy to make things shrink to infinity?

No and no.

In any case, Noether's theorem does not assure us of energy conservation in an expanding (or shrinking) universe. So any argument based on energy conservation needs to be more carefully made.