TED Conversations

Michael Klugemischa137@cox.net

This conversation is closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »

If the universe is expanding - what is it expanding into?

what is THAT space called
and why isn't it part of the universe now?

+11
Share:
progress indicator
  • thumb

    Mitch SMith 50+

    • 0
    Aug 19 2012: My vision is that the thing that is more than no-thing radiates from every point and every moment into every dimension.
    These moments and dimensions are infinite in number. For the sake of simplicity I use the word moment - but these, are just points.
    The difference between the thing and the no-thing is 1/infinity - this gives rise to everything and is the expression of the single assymetry.
    Every thing progresses from one point to another along its primary dimensional vector which gets experienced as "time" - regardless of which, and how many other dimensions the "thing" participates in.
    The progress along the primary dimensional vector is set in motion by the assymetry.
    Whether the "universe" that we observe is expanding or not has nothing to do with any "big bang" that can be traced by extrapolating our time vector - because the big bang is happening in each instant and at every point in our observable universe.
    And, as it turns-out, it's not such a big bang - it is the smallest bang possible.

  • chris hegel

    • 0
    Aug 19 2012: Known space around our universe might be someThing that we think of as nothing, but I do think empty space has to exist where all things can be, and has to be endless. Otherwise you would have to explain what are the things that limit space and what is beyond our limits. Three dimensionally, how can there be an end other then empty?
  • thumb

    Sebastian Helenius

    • 0
    Aug 18 2012: The Universe is expanding into itself.

    Space is not as you think it is - some finite stretch that is able to be covered with time.

    It is a globular structure coiling in on itself.

  • Choong Yu Jun

    • 0
    Aug 18 2012: We don't know yet. You should check up the theory about space-time. It generally means space is constantly being produced in the universe. So after so many billions of years, I don't think we know how big has the universe expanded.
  • thumb

    Paila Race

    • 0
    Aug 18 2012: as long as we as human expand in our consciousness so to will the Universe... :)
  • thumb

    Paila Race

    • +3
    Aug 18 2012: The beautiful magnificent boundless unlimited beyond our perception of imagination Universe is expanding cause it just is ... :)

    • Radu Johnson

      • +1
      Aug 18 2012: I don't believe our imagination is limited , we will eventually know the answer to that question. Why do I think that ? Because I just do :) or hope ... ehhh , i don't know what the hell I'm talking about.
      • thumb

        Paila Race

        • +1
        Aug 18 2012: haha :D i believe our imagination is the key to discovering the unknown and creating things beyond what we think we know :) which makes us life forms quite remarkable beings :) haha idk what the hell I'm talking about either haha, but I'm happy :P

        • Radu Johnson

          • 0
          Aug 18 2012: You should be happy , you look like you're from and exotic place or something , I live in Eastern Europe , it's all concrete here , everything is grey
    • thumb

      Ken brown 30+

      • +2
      Aug 18 2012: Actually you guys have a point because I've sat here thinking "If we have to imagine the expansion due to the limit of light reaching us then the only viable answer is that it's expanding only within our minds,it's actual calculated size does not mean that what we see today will actually be there at what they think is the actual size of today's universe at this given moment in time.
      • thumb

        Paila Race

        • 0
        Aug 18 2012: some nice pondering mate :) love that idea...or perspective of looking at it ...
        • thumb

          Ken brown 30+

          • +1
          Aug 18 2012: We can only guess at best what's beyond the deepest detected galaxies and give a projected placement for each galaxy for it's real time co ordinates but that's a prediction rather than fact,we don't know if they still exist or have gone black or are at where we think they are,i'm sure once we get a few more space based telescopes up that we'll be able to expand our sphere of detection but not in any considerable leap of distance.

          If you're interested look up Halton C Arp,the astronomy community has rejected his data but the data is still sound.He questions Hubble's Law, i can't say he's right but it is interesting.
      • thumb

        Paila Race

        • 0
        Aug 18 2012: sounds awesome!...and i have looked him up...he does have some really interesting articles...i enjoyed his article on "is physics slowly changing?" thanks for the heads up :)
      • thumb

        Paila Race

        • 0
        Aug 19 2012: oh wow...thats amazinggg...!

        so many mysteries to this whole expansion deal
        so many great ideas
        its incredible...
        i never really noticed the quasar part of the equation, i always went straight to looking and studying the black holes as they seemed more mystical and the event horizon...
        but this seems rather interesting as well to ponder on...hmm ...
        • thumb

          Ken brown 30+

          • +1
          Aug 19 2012: I use this site to glean what is being published,another person far more knowledgeable than me put me onto it,he use to trawl this site but has probably gone back to his usual haunts arguing the plasma universe theory.

          http://phys.org/space-news/astronomy/
      • thumb

        Paila Race

        • 0
        Aug 19 2012: WOW!!!
        what an AWESOME WEBSITE! i both love astro and physics! i realy love the idea of quantum physics!!!

        so thanks so much!!! awesome awesome awesome!!!

  • Radu Johnson

    • +1
    Aug 18 2012: The universe is probably expanding until there is nothing left. If big bang theory is correct then we all live in debris , or in a "nuclear explosion's" mushroom cloud. Logic tells us the dust will eventually disappear , or the debris will be pushed further apart , but don't start making sandwiches.
    Therefore , you are maybe asking us what is nothingness !
    Hmm ...
    I know , but I am not going to tell you , it's my little secret.
  • thumb

    Christophe Cop 500+

    • +1
    TED AttendeeTEDx OrganizerAssociate
    Aug 17 2012: We don't know the answer to this question.

    So it's speculation.
    Within that speculation, there are some plausible ideas, though some are in conflict with what we do know.

    I follow the mainstream (scientific) interpretation that it's no use talking about space-time outside our universe.
    We can assume that the expansion creates the spacetime as it expands, but we don't need to assume anything to exist "outside" i.e. there is no outside.

    However, if we assume a multiverse, then we have some kind of dimentionalities or fabrics that might be somewhat similar to spacetime. maybe holographic, maybe multidimentional. If so, then it would probably expand in our dimensions.

    If you take the methaphor of a cone on a plane, where the start is the tip, and the cone stretches over a time axis, then you can think of this universe as existing already in that total space-time. Only thing in such a case is that we are currently somewhere along the time line (and not able to move back and fro at our own will), but it all "exists" from an outside perspective. (but then again, that outside perspective might be non-existent...)
    To us, it expands in what is the total shape of our space-time continuum.

    I think that's quite plausible...

    • Radu Johnson

      • 0
      Aug 18 2012: Exactly what I was going to say ...

  • Shane Schuller

    • 0
    Aug 17 2012: "what is THAT space called
    and why isn't it part of the universe now?"

    I think there are universes (plural) beyond our known universe. Together can be referred to as an absolutum. So perhaps as a galaxy consists of a central sun, the absolutum consists of a central sun, with multi universes part of a spur.

  • Mark Gilbert

    • 0
    Aug 17 2012: Here's a really crazy idea which I've come up with through my observations of life. I believe that since life is a continuous cycle, so is the universe. We have solar systems and galaxies which make up the universe as we know it, why wouldn't there then be more universes as it's never ending. Second, really crazy thought...they say our universe is expanding in a conical shape...is it possible...even if ever so slight there there's some giant black hole out there, and we're in one of the pole jet streams that shoots out. Possible? I think so, considering that there are some suns out there that are bigger than our entire solar system put together.

    • Adrinn Chelton

      • 0
      Aug 19 2012: An interesting idea to me is that since super massive black holes aren't very dense locally, the universe itself could be the product of one and everything we see may simply be at the event horizon of it. This would explain why the universe seems to be flat. Time may be something which is experienced as matter passes through this area. In other words we may all be a very long strings of spaghetti, might this explain the arrow of time, impermanence and dark matter too?

  • edd edd

    • 0
    Aug 16 2012: As i know the time and space are define after the big bang so there was nothing before it... i mean NAUGHT...so the existance is limited to the universe... and if there was a bigger space than universe ... where was THAT space placed?
    so its just a circle that never ends...

  • Camden Reed

    • 0
    Aug 15 2012: I think the universe and all of time and space it's self need to be looked upon as an ever expanding never ending 4 dimensional plane that's only borders are that of itself. In that the only extent it can reach is the other end of itself so when time and space (as they are the same but also very different in very unique conditions) come to what may seem like an end it is actually the beginning. I feel that the questions of the universe can only be answered in these paradoxical forms and situations because of the variables and unknowns that we may never find out. Theoretically it makes complete sense for the big bang to have been the rexpansion of a collapsed you universe previous to ours. When anything gains too much mass it will collapse in upon itself forming a black hole in both time
    In space and taking with it all the matter and energy that it encompasses and as Einstein though spewing it out of a "white hole" eIther at a different location in our universe or someone's else's. So what's to stop us from believing we are
    Merely the reciprocated and reformed matter of a previous perhaps larger universe

  • Shane Schuller

    • 0
    Aug 15 2012: The Universe is expanding in consciousness. If all life, and life forms in the absolutum act as a collective consciousness - as in improving its awareness, then it's suffice to assume its expanding in consciousness, making way for more intelligent life and life forms to evolve even higher.

    Just as we find that 'thought' is the first part of creation. Like we create plans, then construct it till completion. Thought went into the project, however along the way, perhaps while consulting others, it improved...becoming more 'aware' of...
    • thumb

      Hipolito Hernanz

      • 0
      Aug 17 2012: Shane, I think you may be on to something here. You are introducing metaphysics into this conversation, which precedes physical science and seems to be making a comeback. The basic question here is whether or not life, and therefore consciousness, is an intrinsic property of matter which manifests itself under appropriate conditions. The problem, of course, is that we don't have enough empirical knowledge to get very far with it. This is a whole new area worthy of a separate talk.

      A good effort in this regard is "The Quantum Self", a book by Danah Zohar, a physicist and philosopher who collaborated with her husband, a psychiatrist. She explores the subatomic world in terms that are accessible to the layman, and proposes a model for human consciousness. I found it to be a great read and I think you'll enjoy it.

      • Shane Schuller

        • 0
        Aug 17 2012: Thanks Hipolito, it sounds interesting, I will check it out.

        I realize there aren't measures (at this point) to verify subjects of consciousness and perhaps what lies beyond the atom.

        Regarding consciousness, is an intrinsic property of matter which manifests itself. I often understand it to be so in that it lies beyond physicality and separated by an invisible membrane of the atom - which is the product of solidified light. Light to be seen as frequencies - when consistency is reached it constructs matter. of course it goes into much more detail but just thought I'd share that.

  • Sandokan Asean

    • 0
    Aug 15 2012: good question. my professor in uni (way back when) said it is expanding into itself, then changed the topic.

  • Dimitris Zolotas

    • +1
    Aug 15 2012: Reality is an illusion caused by lack of alcohol said someone, and I believe that he was right. It's strange how we love to fall in our own mind traps by inventing things so big like universe, god etc and then struggling to explain them logically!!! Good headache to everybody, I’m going for a cold beer. Cheers!!
  • thumb

    jing du

    • +1
    Aug 15 2012: we are limited by our human being's brain.our logic may be not right,why every thing needs an edge?
  • thumb

    Obey No1kinobe 50+

    • 0
    Aug 15 2012: If we took off today and went as fast as current technology goes we would never reach the edge unfortunately.
    Bit hard to find out

  • Gregory A Minahan

    • +1
    Aug 15 2012: It seems to me that the whole drama is much more temporally variable. We speak of the big band "happening" all at once, which, of course, begs the question of what came before. Then we try and break down what may have "happened" in the first units of time, which runs roughshod over our own simultaneous supposition that time, like space, was only just being created. How do you measure something with something that is yet nonexistent?

    Time and space are somehow identical. You cannot have one without the other, and you cannot use one to measure the other.

    Imagine instead that the whole process is ongoing. The bang is forever "happening". Time, along with space, is not so much expanding as accumulating.

    If Einstein was on the mark in supposing that time slows down as we approach the speed of light, then we might conclude that time halts once the speed of light is reached. A photon traveling, naturally, at the speed of light would take "no time at all" to wander freely through the universe. In fact, it might roam playfully about CREATING the universe, outside of time as we know it, accumulating both space and time in its abandon. Then that photon might step into time at will to perceive and enjoy its own creation.

    Just a playful little analogy ...but it helps me to break free of the philosophical conundrums with which science often leaves us.

  • dolly lama

    • 0
    Aug 14 2012: things that make ya go hmmmm .......

    my brain is neither big nor serious enough to provide a PURE science reply.
    being that today we have PURE science to look to, wouldn't it be neat to compare the answers provided by PURE science of universal expansion from 1000 years ago with today's and with what will be "known" 1000 yrs from now
  • thumb

    Tracy Mbabu

    • 0
    Aug 14 2012: thoughts like this make my brain hurt..Just remembering how tiny earth is and how much more is out there yet to be discovered... whoah
  • thumb

    Chung Truong Thanh 50+

    • +1
    TED Translator
    Aug 13 2012: I don't think TED is the appropriate platform to answer this type of question. It's a pure science question. A forum about physics is right place to put this question. Come here: http://www.physicsforums.com/

    I think the question in TED Conversations should be social-oriented.
    • thumb

      Hipolito Hernanz

      • +7
      Aug 14 2012: Well, Chung, we are being very sociable here. What a party pooper you are!

      I looked into the site you recommended, and it is for the *very* serious scientist. We are having more fun here, sort of like a fireside chat after dinner with friends, talking about a fascinating subject without needing a PhD in the stuff. That, of course, until you showed up with instructions for us to pick up our marbles and go to bed. Maybe you should let us decide what is appropriate where, OK?

      • Shane Schuller

        • 0
        Aug 15 2012: Classic...Lol
      • thumb

        Chung Truong Thanh 50+

        • 0
        TED Translator
        Aug 18 2012: Problem with online conversation is that people tend to less kindness to strangers. Throw rock to the person, not the arguments.

        I still think this kind of conversation (about pure science) is misplaced, wasteful and distracted to what we should do and can do on this medium.

  • Pat Mueller

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: said prevoiusly: coldam rice 0Reply
    1 hour ago: Try to imagine something that is not inside something else. That's what it's expanding into.

    Is there anything that is not inside something else? Is "space" or "the universe" the final container?
  • thumb

    Mark Kurtz 20+

    • +1
    Aug 12 2012: Maybe what we observe is only one of many universes! Maybe there is primordial energy for everything and a "center of all" force organization far more powerful than our so called big bang!

    Interesting discussion from everyone. It appears we all are required to wait until our next life station to learn more. Maybe?

  • David Franklin

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: Quantum flux is an event, if even in theory. It had to have been preceded by a prior event. I know of no example wherein there is a singular CAUSAL event, upon which all other effects are observed.
    My sense is that all events witnessed now or that ever were, are EFFECT from prior events, which proceeded from an eternal dynamic state I name a UNIVERSAL CONTINUUM.

  • David Franklin

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: I work with three basic rules that assist me in seeking to understand all these situations, as follows:

    1. Every Event in the Universe, so matter how small or large, was preceded by another event.
    2. Every event is unique.
    3. One can predict a future event(s) if one has sufficient information of prior events.

  • hcdoitsu gotweed

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: Try to imagine something that is not inside something else. That's what it's expanding into.

  • David Franklin

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: Your point is well taken, thank you. But...

    Wasn't matter uniform before the big bang? How could it have been otherwise? How could matter have been any thing else but homogenous plasma?

    Isn't is crucial to the big bang theory, that there was no matter outside the big bang mixture? If there was matter outside the big bang, then this alleged big bang was not homogenous and not a singular, all encompassing, phenomenon exclusive to one point or area? If matter also outside the big bang, how could it be there, exclusive of the Big Bang event? WHere did it come from? Do colliding galaxies suggest different amounts of matter came out of the big bang at different times? and therefore the Big Bang was not a singular event which evenly spread from the focal point?

  • David Franklin

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: There are pictures of galaxies mixing and colliding with each other. IF....the Big Bang is true, how can this be possible?
    How can matter exploding out and away from the same point of origin, with the same increasing velocity collide?
    How could some masses be moving faster or slower than others that would possibly facilitate collision, if all space is expanding uniformly?
    How can any quantity of masses expanding away from the same point, collide with another, when the path of each mass is unique and has no other body of force (gravity) in front of it?
    • thumb

      Stewart Gault 30+

      • 0
      Aug 12 2012: This would be true if there was uniform amounts of matter, but due to the imperfections it's possible for galaxies to slingshot each other into collision courses with others.

  • David Franklin

    • 0
    Aug 12 2012: The word 'Universe' is defined as "All matter and energy, including the earth, the galaxies, and the contents of
    intergalactic space, regarded as a whole."
    THEREFORE, by this definition, the Universe is merely expanding in and unto itself.

    A question I like much better is one that questions the idea of entropy on the Universal scale.
    The question I have asked and have yet to get an answer from any astronomer or astrophysicist is:
    Can you explain how the Universe run UP TO...the Big Bang?
    • thumb

      Stewart Gault 30+

      • 0
      Aug 12 2012: You'd like to listen to Lawrence Krauss then on youtube, he answers just this, and so does Stephen Hawking, The most feasible answer is that instantly prior to the big bang there was a quantum flux which produced all matter and energy in the universe.
Load more comments…