TED Conversations

This conversation is closed.

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?

  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: The beautiful magnificent boundless unlimited beyond our perception of imagination Universe is expanding cause it just is ... :)
    • 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
        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
        • 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
      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
        Aug 18 2012: some nice pondering mate :) love that idea...or perspective of looking at it ...
        • thumb
          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
        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
        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
          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.

      • thumb
        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!!!
  • Jul 23 2012: THAT space is called "Garp", and it smells like a giraffe!
    But seriously, there is a point beyond which all conjecture becomes nonsensical.
    Then it's time to back away, and return to what we love and understand.
    • Jul 25 2012: It seems that for me, and many others, we enjoy this nonsense.
      • Jul 25 2012: Dear Barry Palmer,
        I meant no offense.
        • Jul 26 2012: Dear Andrew Jones,

          No offense was taken, and I am sorry if you took my comment that way.

          This discussion is far more varied and amusing than I ever expected.

          Thanks for your contribution.
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2012: Just at the moment, the idea of an expanding universe is not 100% proven fact.
    There is yet to be a good hypothesis to explain why the expansion appears to be non-linear.
    Accepted belief is all based on the dopler fequency shift explaination of what is observed.
    If it can be proven that photons decay into red-shift, then the dopler/expanding universe idea will become just another false assumption, and the universe will no longer be expanding.
    The un-know-ability of it all is beautiful, the hypotheses themselves are elegant and inventive - and as it all evolves, each new moment is a new and wonderful thing - specially when you observe even the past and future moments drifting from idea to idea.
    There is no "what" there is only "next" and it applies to all moments expanding infinitely into wonder.
    Just jump in - make hyptheses and enjoy!
    • thumb
      Jul 21 2012: Hi, I agree to your idea, but I still have a question : a photon escaping from an intense gravity field (such as a black hole) will see its wavelength increase. Can we imagine that the redshift effect, that we explain by universe expansion, could be the consequence of the total energy density decreasing, due to the expansion of matter in the universe ?

      Indeed, a single photon would "have the impression" to go from intense gravity field to low gravity field (though there is no such gradient in space, as it happens in time).
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: Paul Laviolette has some interesting hypotheses on these things - also, he does not believe that black hole singularities exist. And yes, his model suggests constant generation of matter in the form of subatomic particles (an exception to the Newtonian model).
        Time is always the booger in these things. The notion of before and after seems to suggest some kind of wave-front, but it all seems part of the same thing .. how can a wave propogate through itself?.
        • Jul 25 2012: A function of the probability that it would indeed occur in a closed resolved system in which the probability exists as a function of the resolved whole.
        • Jul 26 2012: "Paul Laviolette ...does not believethat black hole singularities exist."

          I realize what the equations imply, but does anyone really believe that super massive black holes are "infinitely" dense and are smaller than an atom? It seems much more likely that the equations need some adjustments.
        • thumb
          Jul 26 2012: No, I don't think that black holes are infinitely dense, nor do I believe that it is a singularity.
          Does an electron infinitely fall on his proton !
          - If, a black hole can only be defined by mass, movement, rotation and charge, it means that it IS ONLY made of that... PLUS something else : spacetime.

          Entering a black hole converts anything in pure, massive particles of energy : It must be the lowest energy, lowest entropy state of the energy-space-time continuum.

          If I'm right, we must find quantum laws not only for matter and light, but also for space an time : in a black hole, all degrees of liberty are blocked, positions, time, rotations, and even those that separate a particle from another, a particle from a photon or a gluon.

          Perhaps, the Theory of Everything that we seek, is seen in black holes just as the Big Bang.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: As an after-thought: perhaps an oscillation?
        We observe big things getting bigger(more massive) - then we observe them suddenly getting smaller (supernovae).
        If we accept Einstein's work, there would also be time waves in such a system..

        If, for instance, a galactic core mass oscillation occures, it could send a compressional time-wave.
        THose experiencing it would not notice, but all their observations would become skewed - light entering the wave would be affected, but only within the wave.

        It would follow that what we see as an expanding universe is just an artifact of observation.
        If we are, indeed, within a time wave (leaving one?), teh observed light entering from outside teh local time compression would appear blue-shifted. As teh compressional wave passes, we would then see it all red-shift .. but it might take a few million years to observe it ;)
        • thumb
          Jul 22 2012: Thanks for your imaginative response. I think you have indicated a link between gravity and time.
      • thumb
        Jul 22 2012: @ Jon, Well . there has to be .. If E is equal to M times Csquared, then gravity is in mass M and time is in C - which is distance over time.

        Gravity has been demonstrated to occur in waves - and that such waves can be induced by electrcial discharges (E) .. I can't see why time cannot also be subject to waves ..
        If time is subject to waves just as space and energy, then the observer's reference needs more consideration.

        What one wonders is that: if a large time/gravity wave propogated from a single event at a single point, would the observer experience it? Or only the observer's observer? for instance, the time wave would travel with the energy wave .. would the time wave negate the gravitational affect?
        Certainly, we observe energy coming from supernovae .. and there is speculation that gravity waves can travel faster than light under certain circumstances .. given that time is part of velocity, what speed would a time wave travel at? How could such a thing be measured?
      • thumb
        Jul 26 2012: @Paul,
        Yes, it is hard to imagine anything that is not a closed system. Perhaps that is a failure of imagination?
        But, supposing that any system can be closed, one then has to deal with concepts of unity.
        Such unity seems reasonable, but is it necessary?
        Personally, I am attracted to an asymetrical modal of the universe(es?) - that it is the asymetry itself that gives rise to everything - and that the asymetry is so small that you might as well call it 1/infinity. But dealing with singularities does not help much.
        The asymetrical universe allows for an infinite spherical wave propogating in infinite dimensions.
        I am attracted to the idea of probability as a dimension at 90 degrees to time. If that is the case, then probability itself will have rules of continuity - infering another dimension at 90 degrees of both time and probability (in addition to all the other 3 dimensions we are used to).
        One could imagine a spherical time continuum arising from the asymetry of every point existing in in such a multi dimensional framework.
        What then is the rule governing the prohibition of any energy flow from a point to itself, or the one before? Is the rule asymetry itself?
        Expressed like that, are all waves an expression of asymetry?
        This would be troublesome to Newton - a shame he's dead.
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2012: we don't know. what we know that the so called "observable" universe is expanding. as a result of the theory of relativity and our current understanding of cosmology, there is a limit how far we can see. and up to that point, we see expansion. what is outside of that is unknown, but there are these possible solutions i can tell:

    1. no boundary - finite universe. it is like a surface of a sphere for two dimensional creatures. suppose there are bugs living on a ball, and their current observable universe is a dot on the ball. if they could observe the entire universe, they would discover that it is circularly connected, if you look far enough, you can "see your own back".

    2. infinite universe. the universe has no size at all, it goes on forever. the expansion does not mean it gets bigger, it just means it gets more sparse.

    3. there is some sort of boundary to the universe, and the outside is separated from us. it can be a boundary similar to the event horizon of a black hole.
    • Jul 21 2012: What however if we can only observe things through which some form of energy has traveled.
      I personally think that particles are some sort of reaction between 'energy' (not entirely sure what that is except that it has to do with light and radiation) and 'empty space' (outside of our universe which I think is a merger between dark matter and normal matter which totals up to nothing).
      Just like when we try to observe what light actually is it acts like a particle but when we observe light it acts like a wave. Which to me keeps the opportunity there that when light reacts with a photon you can get a particle (aka there is a strong link between pure energy (more pure than light) and the comming into existence of matter).

      So let's say that once an energy wave travels through "nothing" it can seperate dark matter from normal matter while the energy itself is (possibly) not influenced. Then the place where our universe meets with "nothing" is a place where a wave of pure energy is traveling into nothing... creating everything thereafter.

      It almost sounds philosophical when I write it like this... but I'm failing to find the right words at this moment :(
    • Jul 25 2012: Isn't it possible that all 3 are true? So, there is a finite universe that is ultimately connected at its expanding "end" to its also expanding "beginning", making a sphere of some sort. But also, based on the rate at which it grows and distance it would take to lap an instance on the sphere renders it infinite and limitless. At the same time, it also has a boundary in that the aspects of this sphere are not a constant across its entirety - similar to how an ant walking across a sidewalk really only has to cross one "finite" piece of asphalt, but along the way there are dips, cracks, possibly even holes to the "other side" (the Earth beneath the sidewalk).
  • 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
    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...
    • Aug 18 2012: Exactly what I was going to say ...
  • 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?
  • 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.
  • thumb
    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
      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?
      • Aug 15 2012: Classic...Lol
      • thumb
        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.
  • 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?
  • Aug 4 2012: Our space is expanding, but why does that have to mean it is going into "another space"?
    Not sure that makes any sense. We cannot see outside or beyond our universe, our space, so I think not to assume it is more space or another space. But, from within our space, we supposedly see our edge moving away from us in all directions. Perhaps our space is creating more space.

    I think some in science and in metaphysics too, consider this in the same way: potentiality or infinite possibilities.
    This so-called other space is nothing, and only nothing could be infinite in potential and possibilities but only through the manifestation of expansion.

    It all exists or just is really, at the level of classical mechanics and at the quantum level. Yes?

    Are there any theories that it isn't expanding, because we are seeing a mirage of sorts that leads us to believe it is, even though measurements that have been taken seem to confirm it is?

    I believe there is a way to show it isn't really expanding but is a sort of optical illusion.

    But, I'm not really very smart. I like to practice my typing.
  • thumb
    Aug 2 2012: Space implies something that has coordinates, i.e. a place that can be determined. At the big bang, initially, neither space nor time existed, they were created much as everything else was created. Since the universe has been expanding since that time, it only makes sense that beyond the boundaries of that expanding reality, neither space nor time nor anything else has actually made it. Therefore, the universe is not expanding into anything but the same void that the big bang was in.

    What it is, that void, we don't know, but most definitely, it is not empty space or time.
  • Aug 1 2012: Dark energy
  • Jul 28 2012: Consider space respiration. It's really not expanding into more. Consider the possibility of two axis respiration. One axis contracts for a while as the other expands. Consider the possibility of reversing direction, say after a billion years or so.

    Consider our viewpoint from Earth. What a small scene we have from such a tiny planet. Even our exploratory vehicles cannot observe the whole.

    Keep the questions coming!
    • Jul 28 2012: Neat! But what about the fact that expansion is speeding up. I thought we were not expecting the big crunch anymore.
      • Aug 2 2012: Not sure what is the big crunch. Consider the possibilities of relationship to other space bodies and angle of view to each. Maybe we are not speeding up, but our perspective makes such appearance.

        Others are far more qualified to comment.
        • thumb
          Aug 2 2012: The big crunch was the idea that gravity would eventually overcome the expansion of the universe and then we'd all end up hurtling towards where the big bang originated.
          And the increased expansion comes from an increase in red shift observed over the years and it's expanding exponentially
    • Jul 30 2012: Mr. Kurtz, I find your analogy of space very interesting, I often wondered if anyone had the same thought of space. That is awsome :)
      • Aug 2 2012: Well Michael, I am not an astronomer, but I like to visit NASA's APOD daily (astronomy picture of the day) online. I don't know what is pictured there, usually, but do enjoy the ongoing comments from NASA.

        We are here on Earth for such a short time and then we are gone. What of the possibility we will learn a lot more of the Cosmos at our next life station? We are awed now, but wait until you see more from that next viewpoint!!

        Keep thinking of possibilities!!!
  • Jul 27 2012: Imho, you are asking what something is that per definition does not exist. Our perception of "being" includes there being a fabric of space and time to "be" in. The Universe is not expanding into anything, but it's structure is changing in a way we perceive as expansion, measured by the red shift of light from far away objects. It's like asking what would happen if there would be no time - nothing would happen since per definition things don't tend to "happen" when there is no time.
  • Jul 27 2012: There is another way to look at this.

    If all objects are accelerating away from one another simultaneously, you could say that space itself is expanding but you could also say that space is remaining constant and matter is shrinking.

    From our prospective we would be unaware of our shrinking because everything else is shrinking at an equal rate. It would just appear that everything is accelerating away.

    If we are shrinking then the universe isn't "expanding" into anything.
    • Jul 27 2012: Think the ratio of the amount of perceived travel so far, compared to amount stuff would have to shrink to Crete that perception, is off to the amount of everything having long ago disappeared. Remember though, just because matter is not bumping off of anything that does not mean it's not matter (dark matter).
      • Jul 27 2012: What I'm saying is that there is a ratio between the size of the universe and the size of matter within it.

        You can express a change in this ratio by saying that the universe is expanding or by saying that matter is shrinking and you'd be equally correct because they are the same thing.
        • thumb
          Jul 27 2012: Right. The way I figure it, the cosmos is like a machine or organism that produces significance, order, or 'sense' through privately experienced time at the cost of the production of entropy as a kind of topological exhaust (public space).

          It sounds crazy, but I think it works, and it explains the existence of order, life, and consciousness in the universe.
        • Jul 27 2012: I agree in respect to the the ratio of stuff to space being constant in ratio regardless of expansion or retraction. But the amount of space coud not remain "constant" relative to shrinking matter and maintain a ratio. I totally agree though, in a universe of Infinite paradox and subdivision infinite shrinkage might as well be a consideration. Could you frame this in regards to the perception of expansion speeding up? Or in this case shrinkage speeding up?
      • Jul 28 2012: I believe this probably explains the concept much better than I could;

  • Jul 26 2012: A new theory I've come up with. I'm going to stay with Milo Wolf and a Standing State Universe. The New thing I've come up with is this. The Universe is not expanding, it is fixed. Everything within the Universe bubble is condensing. Our solar system is just one of billions with its own Black Hole in the center pulling everything together smaller and smaller. We cannot measure it because everything is relative. Everything is shrinking in such a way the it appears that everything else is moving away form us. There is so much space inside every molecule of energy that this can go on until we reach a singularity a long time from now. At some time in our future we will be a lot denser so that we will exist at a higher frequency much like condensing gas in a pressure vessel. When the density of the matter we are made of reaches higher levels, we will began to experience greater abilities to understand the totality of the universe. This is a brief summary of my conclusion on the subject. What do you all think about that?
    • Jul 26 2012: Not bad. It's funny because you actually stare the exact opposite of a theory I saw on YouTube a while ago stating that everything is actual expanding relative to everything around it and that this is the mechanism of gravity. If you consider it this theory works with one of the deepest contemporary scientific mysteries, dark energy. A term describing the ever inflowing suspect for inflation which does not interact with regular matter but along with dark matter and constitutes 80 percent of he mass in the universe or something like that. We know it exists because it's been proven that the universe is expanding. My interest is peaked however regarding this photon decay I have been hearing about here and it's effect on the Doppler light shift.
      • Jul 26 2012: Is it not true that the universe, its planets, its matter, and every things solid has formed from the condensing of gas into smaller volume of space. It may be that there was a big bang that stated things off but soon after that everything had to condense into what we call our know universe. It's my belief that it is only our perception of the universe that is expanding. It is being reviled to us as we evolve. Some one said once that nothing exist until it is perceived to exist by consciousness. At one time the world was flat, then the center of our universe and so on. Technology for example, is condensing into smaller and smaller periods of time as our world evolves. Could there be such a thing as Dark Matter pressure much like the water pressure on a fish in a large body of water holding everything together? Stars, it seems, are collapsing into their black holes all the time. Besides, if we are moving away from something fixed at great speed, would not the Doppler shift have the same effect even if the other object is not moving?
        • Jul 26 2012: Not so much with the Doppler effect thing. The type of measurement scientists are conducting with light requires the standard candle of a particular type of star ( can't remember the type off hand) which is known due it's proportions and energy state to be a very stable and therefore it's light is a standard like the liter or meter which allows cosmologists to measure the light of other objects in space and measure their relative distance and speed. This is possible because like sound in which sound waves are compressed or extended relative to the listener causing the Doppler effect vrooooooooom! So are light waves extended in the color spectrum regarding the speed of a galaxy or star. Compared to the standard candle cosmologists can measure distance and speed accuratly. So, it appears as if the universe is expanding to cosmologists and physisists at an exponential rate because faster a source of light is moving the more red the light will appear to the observer us thus the term red shift.

          The "measurement problem" backs up you thoughts regarding the revealing of the universe and counciousnesses role in the creation of reality. No one can really say you are crazy for believing in a rendered illusery world for the exact reason people will always be able to say we are in a created one. Consciousness and the interaction of the mind withas a reflection of a whole is the frontier of ultimate knowing not the edge of the universe.
  • thumb
    Jul 21 2012: Imagine empty space is filled with theoretical, invisible particles, ("vacuum particles" ?) and imagine every energy in our world acts as a waves on/around/through these particles. As well as sound waves travel through "air" molecules, energy waves would travel through "empty space" which would be "empty of matter, empty of light, empty of gravity" but not "empty of vacuum" (quite funny expression huh ?).

    Imagine that these theoretical particles all expand in "real empty vacuum", giving "more available empty space" for real particles and interactions.

    Imagine a force that brings these particles closer to each other (gravity for instance, or global energy density, resulting in something like dark matter) and another force the other way (resulting in an accelerated expansion). At the limit, you will have seperate universes that can't reach each other, because there are no "vacuum particles" between them.

    All this is purely imaginary, of course... Reality is more complex, interaction fields and quantum effects lead to really difficult mathematical constructions.
    • Jul 25 2012: Nice try there ate elements of "truth" in what you say pertaining to m-theory an innate expansion. The role of the speed of light in this universe now characterizes our ability to perceive beyond. Also is is now foreseeable that there are regions of space where the laws of physics result in casual formalities separate from those in our pocket. It will be interesting o see what happens when voyager truly enters interstellar space soon.
  • thumb

    Jeff L 10+

    • +1
    Jul 20 2012: The universe will expand the way we want it to. What ever our limited sensory and intellectual capacity can experience is what it will expands to. If our abilities to fathom evolves to greater capacity then we will experience the expansion the universe in that way. For this reason we will allways find what we are looking for. Because we can't find what we can't fathom. Every scientist knows this.....
    • Jul 21 2012: doesn't sound scientific to me though.
      • thumb
        Jul 23 2012: Science is what we can prove through trial and repetition. You can't prove string theory and most call it science. Allow for a greater interpretation or stay strict to the tenant of the field. Either way we can only work with the tools we have. We can fathom the possibility of string theory therefore we can look for it. It's that simple. That in my opinion is science in a nutshell. Fathom and search to prove. Not prove what you can't fathom.
        • Jul 25 2012: Sorry but fact is what we can prove through trial and repetition.
          Science is the search for facts.

          We can explain several things with string theory that we have a hard time explaining with other theories.... which is why we persue ways of discovering if string theory is fact. The search is always called science. Even when a search for fact is done not scientifically (structured/ordered/mathematical/etc.) you can still call it science and get away with it.

          Also all science, in the pure basics, come from describing that which we see... not that which we understand. The describtion we obtain leads to better understanding -> better observations -> better describtions -> better understanding.

          If we already understood it there would be no fun in trying to describe/understand it now is there?
  • thumb
    Jul 19 2012: The general idea is that it creates what it expands into, the LISA satellite will be able to see whether we are a baby universe or if our universe has created a baby universe. But then general idea is the universe creates the space it expands into.
  • thumb
    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.
  • 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
    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.
  • thumb
    Aug 18 2012: as long as we as human expand in our consciousness so to will the Universe... :)
  • 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.
  • 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.
    • 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?