This has always baffled me.

[deldd]

Interesting....of course at the end would be the beginning, since before the beginning he was and after the end he will always be. Time or space has no bearing on he who created them. But why go to the end, when he is just a breath away....

 

[everman]

Milliways!

 

[everman]

Originally posted by: harrkev
Let's use a simple analogy. What is ther at the end of the Earth? The Earth has no edge. It just folds back in upon itself. If you go one direction long enough, you wind up back where you started. The Earth can be considered to be a 2-D surface embedded in a 3-D space.

Similarly, it is believed that the universe has the same properties. Hence it has not edge. Of course, to visualize this would require imagining a 4-D surface, and you can bruise your brain if you try.

On a more serious note...if the above is true, wouldn't it follow that the universe itself is "in" something. But then that would seem to follow for that thing as well, ad-infinitum. So that doesn't seem like a viable solution to me, but I have no business contemplating the meaning of life, the universe, and everything...which is 42 btw.

 

[zugzoog]

Originally posted by: oldman420

Originally posted by: cirthix
nothing is just the absence of matter

Then there would be no difference between an empty section of space and the after edge world?

I think that there could be a difference between the two. Empty space (within our universe) contains nothing (virtual particles aside), however it has the ability to contain "something" (i.e. we can move something into it) and is subject to the rules of the universe.

Outside the Universe, matter (at least from our universe) could not exist. Other concepts (e.g. time, distance) might also have no meaning.

I have no idea how to prove this, but is an interesting concept.

 

[sao123]

The end of the universe seems to be a paradox in itself.

1) The universe is a closed system.

2) The universe encompasses the entirity of the 3 dimentional entity (all matter, all matter filled space, & all void space (3 dimentional null space) ).

3) Therefore nothing 3 dimentional can exist outside of the universe.

4)Yet, we claim that the universe is closed and expanding, which further requires that outside of the universe must exist 3 dimentional void space for the universe to expand into. Thus violating #1 or #3.

 

[ducksoup0]

String theory distinguishes itself from special relativity in its prediction of six tightly rolled additional spatial dimensions. These dimensions have a diameter of about 10^-34 meters.

I've heard this before about string theory, and it has always puzzled me. These string theorists must be using a much different definition of "dimension" than I've ever heard. Geometrically and mathematically speaking, a dimension is just a magnitude. When speaking of multiple dimensions, the measure of magnitude along each dimension is independent to the other dimensions.

So what confuses me about string theory is how someone can make this statement: "These dimensions have a diameter of about 10^-34 meters." Exactly how does a magnitude have diameter? What does it mean for a magnitude to be "tightly rolled?" It is just a magnitude.

 

[ducksoup0]

Here's another one: how can there be a big bang from which everything is expanding and yet no center to the universe? The lack of a "center" in our 3D apparent world probably can be explained by adding another spatial dimension, but then there is a center if you take that dimension into account.

 

[Alistar7]

"When you get to the end of the universe, what do you find?"

I guess it depends which end you are reaching and where you look, I'm almost there now, Ill tell ya what I find when I get there.....

The mighty EU will be building a device to recreate the big bang, assuming they do and manage to control the creation of energy a billion more times more powerfull than the sun we will have alot of these questions answered. Evidence has just come to light that supports/proves E TOR recently....

 

[Mayax]

Hrmm, what's outside the universe? The answer is a lot easier to wrap your mind around than y'all think.

Space is expanding in three dimensions right? Not entirely, time is expanding also. This brings the answer a hell of a lot closer to home.

You're sitting at your desk right now, this very instant. Right now, you have a space-time coordinate that exists and as each second passes away the universe can account for that space-time coordinate. Now, think about yourself next wednesday at exactly 3 pm and what you might be doing. As far as the universe is concerned, that space-time coordinate doesn't exist. We all know it eventually will though.

Now, what exactly is it that's between this second and 3 pm next wednesday? Don't just think about the time, you have to account for yourself and the entire universe along the way.

If you can answer that, that's what our universe is expanding into. No, it's not expanding into time. That would imply that time and the universe exists in the future beyond our conscious recognition of it. Time, along with the universe is expanding into something else. What is it? It's whatever it is that allows you and the universe to come into being next wednesday. As far as we and the universe are concerned, it's "nothing" until we get there and stamp our dimensional existence on it.


And no, 3pm next wednesday holds no cosmic significance. It was picked out of thin air.


So, here's some homework...

What if we're on a collision course with another expanding universe in that "nothing" between now and next wednesday?

 

[gururu]

Originally posted by: Mayax
Hrmm, what's outside the universe? The answer is a lot easier to wrap your mind around than y'all think.

Space is expanding in three dimensions right? Not entirely, time is expanding also. This brings the answer a hell of a lot closer to home.

You're sitting at your desk right now, this very instant. Right now, you have a space-time coordinate that exists and as each second passes away the universe can account for that space-time coordinate. Now, think about yourself next wednesday at exactly 3 pm and what you might be doing. As far as the universe is concerned, that space-time coordinate doesn't exist. We all know it eventually will though.

Now, what exactly is it that's between this second and 3 pm next wednesday? Don't just think about the time, you have to account for yourself and the entire universe along the way.

If you can answer that, that's what our universe is expanding into. No, it's not expanding into time. That would imply that time and the universe exists in the future beyond our conscious recognition of it. Time, along with the universe is expanding into something else. What is it? It's whatever it is that allows you and the universe to come into being next wednesday. As far as we and the universe are concerned, it's "nothing" until we get there and stamp our dimensional existence on it.


And no, 3pm next wednesday holds no cosmic significance. It was picked out of thin air.


So, here's some homework...

What if we're on a collision course with another expanding universe in that "nothing" between now and next wednesday?

nice

 

[imported_jb]

some might say we are in a multiverse and when the edge of our universe hits the edge of another universe in the multiverse, that energy/matter is transfered, light even. seems that some 'might' think that stars/gravity is created when the current edge meets another universe. and isn't our universe expanding at the speed of light? if so, then some other universes could be expected to be expanding at light speed. also, those universes would bounce off of each other at the speed of light inside the multiverse.

i don't really like multiverses tho. a bunch of shrink-wrapped universes? please... and energy transfer during brane collisions? that doesn't explain the creation of the "new" brane/universe, all it does is throw the first sh!t into it. it could just break off of an older brane tho i guess..

 

[imported_StormGod]

Originally posted by: ducksoup0

String theory distinguishes itself from special relativity in its prediction of six tightly rolled additional spatial dimensions. These dimensions have a diameter of about 10^-34 meters.

I've heard this before about string theory, and it has always puzzled me. These string theorists must be using a much different definition of "dimension" than I've ever heard. Geometrically and mathematically speaking, a dimension is just a magnitude. When speaking of multiple dimensions, the measure of magnitude along each dimension is independent to the other dimensions.

So what confuses me about string theory is how someone can make this statement: "These dimensions have a diameter of about 10^-34 meters." Exactly how does a magnitude have diameter? What does it mean for a magnitude to be "tightly rolled?" It is just a magnitude.

Ok, this is explained very well in Elegant Universe but I'll take a stab at it here. We must first imagine flatland. Flatland is a two dimensional universe, one without the dimension we think of as height. Every object is constrained to move around on the same flat surface. Now if we live in flatland we have no concept of up or down because that is insane, there is only left/right and forward/backward. Maybe in flatland they are called desk/ear and lamp/mouse but its unimportant what we call them, there are just the two dimensions. These are not magnitudes or projections along magnitudes they are independent degrees of freedom. If two discs (cause spheres don't exist) are on a collision course, one must move to the ear or to the mouse so that they don't collide. It would not occur to the discs to jump off the ground because to them that dimension does not exist.

Now as contrived and inane as that example is to you and I, image what flatlanders think when observing lineland. Those poor saps are trapped on a string of no thickness and may only move back and forth on the string. There can be no passing of one point by another because linelanders don't know about the lamp/mouse direction, poof bastards!

Now stretch your imagination the other direction for a while. Let?s make flatland sphereland. Still two dimensional still no altitude, but now instead of being trapped on an infinite flat surface with no end we are trapped on the outer (or inner) surface of a sphere. We can still only move in two independent directions. Now image that this sphere is so big that to us it seems flat, sounding familiar yet? So now our two spatial directions curl back on themselves and have a definite diameter. Moving far enough in one direction brings you back to where you start. We?ve now constructed a universe in which spatial dimensions have radii. Now granted, extending this example to 9-10 spatial dimensions 6-7 of which are too small for us to observe is a tough pill to swallow but that seems to be a natural consequence of discussing more dimensions that you deal with in everyday life.

 

[Cawchy87]

Stephen Hawking described the "inflation model" in his book "A brief history of time" . This is describing the universe as a sphere like earth. He compared the "end" of the universe to our north pole. Once you reached the north pole, what is north of it? Nothing. You have to go south no matter which way you go.

At least this is how i "understand" it.

 

[OinkBoink]

..........