# Outside our universe?



## Mad Mark (Dec 16, 2005)

I am new to this forum and have been looking at the various post's asking about what lies outside our universe or what is the edge like?
Firstly tommorow lies outside our universe without that there would be no tommorow.
As for the edge of the universe, well we our on that, or was when I typed this post.
Time an space as you all know are linked,what I do not read from various scientific papers is is how is time linked to the so called dark energy. 
I would have though with the presence of time all matter in our universe would have to ocupy a different place both in it's self and its relative posision to every else in the universe for it to exist in the next moment.


----------



## Mad Mark (Dec 16, 2005)

*Re: Is time constant for all matter?*

Is time the same for a universe made of Hydrogen as that compared to say made of gold?
What is the triggering point for the expansion of the universe to start accelerating again.
Is it the introduction of heavier elements in our universe requiring time to accelerate further in order for the structure of our universe to exist from one moment to the next?


----------



## Jaxom_Ruatha (Dec 17, 2005)

Well welcome to the forum (Sorry I don't have answers to your questions), you should head over to the "Introductions" forum and introduce yourself, I hope you enjoy this board and feel free to participate in all the other topics. (I felt like being the welcoming committee, I hope I am seasoned enough  )


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 18, 2005)

The universe does not consist of hydrogen, but space.
At birth, (by present theories) it was filled with light,
Which light continues, though with wavelength streched
And density reduced. Matter (mostly hydrogen)
Makes up an almost insignificant impurity.
And even hydrogen. the lightest element,
Can, when in sufficient quantity
Warp space and time about itself, preventing light,
or anything this universe contains, excaping free.
A universe of gold, dense, dark and tempor'ry,
would, if subjected to the self same laws
and constants, that do direct our own,
Never acheive time, the big bang becoming a big Phlup
And if physical constants were relaxed enough
Permitting it to last, the who can say what rate
Time would advance, nor universes fate?


----------



## HieroGlyph (Dec 19, 2005)

Heh, 'Chris', you're quite the poet and a pleasure to read. If I happen to stalk you, do not take it the wrong way 

Aye, the Universe, as we try to 'encompass' it, is a manifestation of 'Space-Time'. And to my small mind, what lies beyond it, lacking both is most inconcievable.
HG


----------



## chrispenycate (Dec 19, 2005)

HieroGlyph said:
			
		

> Heh, 'Chris', you're quite the poet and a pleasure to read. If I happen to stalk you, do not take it the wrong way
> 
> Aye, the Universe, as we try to 'encompass' it, is a manifestation of 'Space-Time'. And to my small mind, what lies beyond it, lacking both is most inconcievable.
> HG


Why, thank you kindly- I feel that if I'm going to be incomprehensible, I might as well be elegantly incomprehensible.  
Not that everyone would agree- I once wrote a technical report (1,200 words) in precise iambic pentameter, with rhyming couplets at the end of every paragraph, and got it sent back labeled "what have you been smoking? I want some" Still, I trust no philistines like that hang out here.


----------



## cornelius (Dec 19, 2005)

Welcome, Marc interestig thread. Still don't know, but I'll think about it deeply and read some books.

As you may alredy have noticed, CHrispenycate has the brains around here.


----------



## dreamwalker (Dec 20, 2005)

cornelius said:
			
		

> Welcome, Marc interestig thread. Still don't know, but I'll think about it deeply and read some books.
> 
> As you may alredy have noticed, CHrispenycate has the brains around here.


 
Yeah, and I have the snot.

I like reading about other peoples idea's on how the universe works Mark.
For example your linear representation of time where the present is at the end of the universe. Very inspiring although I could argue with you on that one (don't take it personally, I always argue!)

I don't believe in Dark Energy. As it stands dark energy is currently the resultant device used to allow computer simulations of the current universe to function - in particular so that super clusters and galaxies form as they do. Current candidates are particles called Wimps (weakly interacting particles. eg neutrinoes) and Matcho's (massivily interacting partcles - none have been descovered.)
Personally, I think its just another dead end caused by the way the scienticific community currently thinks in regardes to mathematic thought over pure phylosophical reasoning and that we're overlooking something (probably to do with matter/space/gravity interaction) that is far more fundimental and that when its eventually discovered it will be the next einstien like "ah ha" moment of our time.


----------



## HieroGlyph (Dec 22, 2005)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> ... if I'm going to be incomprehensible, I might as well be elegantly incomprehensible.
> ...I once wrote a technical report (1,200 words) in precise iambic pentameter, with rhyming couplets at the end of every paragraph....


 
Gave me a good chuckle. And how are we to understand what you are talking about? 

A lot of theories and a lot of things as individuals we dont understand, or we havent attempted to explain what is observed in the Universe around us, nor are we able to come up with alternate theories of our own that explain things:



			
				dreamwalker said:
			
		

> I don't believe in Dark Energy. As it stands dark energy is currently the resultant device used to allow computer simulations of the current universe to function - in particular so that super clusters and galaxies form as they do. Current candidates are particles called Wimps (weakly interacting particles. eg neutrinoes) and Matcho's (massivily interacting partcles - none have been descovered.)
> Personally, I think its just another dead end caused by the way the scienticific community currently thinks in regardes to mathematic thought over pure phylosophical reasoning and that we're overlooking something (probably to do with matter/space/gravity interaction) that is far more fundimental and that when its eventually discovered it will be the next einstien like "ah ha" moment of our time.


 
So how would you be able to explain certain observations of our galaxy and others? Are you aware of those observations? Can you fully encompass the movements of stars in a globular cluster that is billions upon billions of years old and still hasnt dissipated? It is one thing to say you do not believe and another to say the theory is flawed.
(Edited a few typos)


----------



## HieroGlyph (Dec 22, 2005)

It may be that the theories we wish to accept are flawed and by rights should exist beyond our Universe - and so _thats_ what is beyond what we think of as _this_ Universe! If a theory like the one about man never walking upon the surface of the Moon is still bandied about by some, then they too, may be living beyond the boundaries of this Universe...


----------



## littlemissattitude (Dec 22, 2005)

chrispenycate said:
			
		

> I feel that if I'm going to be incomprehensible, I might as well be elegantly incomprehensible.
> Not that everyone would agree- I once wrote a technical report (1,200 words) in precise iambic pentameter, with rhyming couplets at the end of every paragraph, and got it sent back labeled "what have you been smoking? I want some"


 
That is brilliant, Chris.  Best I've ever done, I think, is to quote Country Joe and the Fish in an essay on a history exam.  Fortunately, my instructor understood my point and why I chose the particular quote, which was from the famous "I'm Fixin' to Die Rag".  Or maybe it was the time I described a character as a "pompous a*%hole" on an English midterm, which seemed to amuse that professor a great deal.  But I'm afraid that iambic pentameter is beyond my powers of composition.

I like your poem in this thread, as well.  Especially "a big Phlup".  Perfect description.

As far as the topic goes, I've decided just to accept that there is no "outside" to the universe and quit worrying about it, at least for the present.  It makes my brain hurt too much to think about it.


----------



## GrownUp (Nov 3, 2006)

dreamwalker said:


> (massivily interacting partcles - none have been descovered.)


 
Small correction. MACHOs aren't particles, they are dark objects like black holes or brown dwarfs. Astrophysically, yep, these exist.


----------



## Spartan27 (Nov 3, 2006)

This is Spartan27....if I may.....the laws of physics as we understand them, only apply to the things we understand and/or can comprehend.

How can we a finite being (in physical form) understand infinite things.

Once we as humans finally come to grips with that thought, then perhaps we can finally take the next step.

To understand this, you need to understand the limitations of the laws of physics...i.e. like light-speed travel or beyond light speed travel. Einstein, came upon this very problem with his calculations and instead of conceding to the fact that he simply could not overcome the issue, instead said.."so you can't travel faster that the speed of light".

That thought process is absurd...just ask Tesla....(ok so you can't ask Tesla, but there are some very interesting books on the man).


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 4, 2006)

Spartan, this is a question that's been bandied about for a very long time, and I suppose the only answer to it is that, while we may not ever be able to totally comprehend _or_ understand (two different things) the infinite, if the models we have of it continue to be backed by empirical evidence, they are more likely to be true than those based on sheer speculation or intuition or wish-making, etc., and that the best models we have for understanding are those that make use of all the hard-earned knowledge we've gained up to this point, and the discarding of earlier models where they disagree with the evidence ... with the provision that elements of them may be retained or reinstated if new evidence supporting those elements comes to light. This at least gives us a better understanding of the nature of entity than any other procedure... And as for the speed-of-light barrier... that has yet to be broken by anything other than particles, and all observations to this point back relativity on what happens as rate of motion is increased. So far, Einstein holds up remarkably well, and is likely to for some time; all the evidence we have is that this is, in fact, in the nature of entity, not in a lack of our understanding.

This is not to be dogmatic, but simply following the procedure that has proven to be the most fruitful and accurate. After all, one of the main points about science as opposed to belief is that it is based upon repeatable observations, and that it is open to falsification (the possibility that some future case will be at odds with all previous observations, thus proving that an accepted model is not invariably accurate). I think the problem comes in the fact that there's still a lot of the nineteenth-century positivism in the popularization of science, whereas those who are engaged in science know that there is always the chance, however minute, that some new evidence will come to light that will require an overhaul of our comprehension of the universe, and therefore are less prone to be dogmatic.


----------



## Sabina (Nov 12, 2006)

Main question - are parallel universe is exists?


----------



## SpaceShip (Nov 12, 2006)

Sabina said:


> Main question - are parallel universe is exists?


Well, I reckon Chris or j.d. would better answer this than me, but, personally, I shouldn't think so - although the thought that it might is fuel for many a writer.
However, looking at all the info on this thread, it becomes obvious that there is just so much out there, being discovered bit by bit, and the universe being so huge, we are never going to tire of discovery - we are never going to reach the edge of it to do so.  Also, as it is expanding all the time, faster than we could ever discover, we will always have something else to whet our exploratory appetite.


----------



## Robert M. Blevins (Nov 13, 2006)

Just ask Stephen Hawking. The guy knows everything.


----------



## Spartan27 (Nov 13, 2006)

j. d. worthington said:


> Spartan, this is a question that's been bandied about for a very long time, and I suppose the only answer to it is that, while we may not ever be able to totally comprehend _or_ understand (two different things) the infinite, if the models we have of it continue to be backed by empirical evidence, they are more likely to be true than those based on sheer speculation or intuition or wish-making, etc., and that the best models we have for understanding are those that make use of all the hard-earned knowledge we've gained up to this point, and the discarding of earlier models where they disagree with the evidence ... with the provision that elements of them may be retained or reinstated if new evidence supporting those elements comes to light. This at least gives us a better understanding of the nature of entity than any other procedure... And as for the speed-of-light barrier... that has yet to be broken by anything other than particles, and all observations to this point back relativity on what happens as rate of motion is increased. So far, Einstein holds up remarkably well, and is likely to for some time; all the evidence we have is that this is, in fact, in the nature of entity, not in a lack of our understanding.
> 
> This is not to be dogmatic, but simply following the procedure that has proven to be the most fruitful and accurate. After all, one of the main points about science as opposed to belief is that it is based upon repeatable observations, and that it is open to falsification (the possibility that some future case will be at odds with all previous observations, thus proving that an accepted model is not invariably accurate). I think the problem comes in the fact that there's still a lot of the nineteenth-century positivism in the popularization of science, whereas those who are engaged in science know that there is always the chance, however minute, that some new evidence will come to light that will require an overhaul of our comprehension of the universe, and therefore are less prone to be dogmatic.


 
J.D., sorry but in your lieftime as in mine Einstein will be proven wrong. It's not a question of if, but a question of when. Very bright people, are coming to grips with this issue as we speak. 

We cannot assume our science applies outside of the constraints of our known sphere. To do so would be equivalent to believeing the world is flat.

First we say, it can't be, then we prove it can or that very fact. Math and science will not prove everything, this is the point because not everything can be proven with our level of knowledge (this is just a fact). 

Steven Hawkings (i am a terrible speller), has so much as said the very thing I am stating here (so did Milton).


----------



## j d worthington (Nov 13, 2006)

Spartan, I'm curious: Where has Hawking given any indication of this? I've not seen anything myself, so I'd be very interested in seeing the citation on that. As for Milton ... poets are not good sources for understanding the realities of science, as a rule. And so far, all I've come across in any scientific articles has tended to -- as with Copernicus and Newton -- modify (at most) rather than negate Einstein. When we have actual evidence backed by repeated experiment, then there will be grounds for a new model. So far as I know, this is still not the case. If you can provide me with sources to look at, I'd definitely appreciate such, as I find this sort of thing quite fascinating.


----------



## chrispenycate (Nov 14, 2006)

I'n going to agree that Einstein's theories will be proved inexact, and will be superceded (not, I suspect, in my lifetime, but this says more about my life expectancy than the state of physics) If the "quantum entanglement" theory is shown to work, then general relativity shakes, and even special gives a little tremor. But "superceded", not negated; there's too much of it that works for it to be simply scrapped, like phlogiston. Newton still holds sway over most household matters, despite the imperfections that have shown up since; a good theory is modified (hopefully simplified, but frequently not) and acts as the foundation stones for its inevitable successor; inevitable, because human senses and human intellect are ill-adapted to producing absolute truth, so any theory is just that; a theory which may stand until its inheritor appears, or may collapse under the wieght of its own modifications, leaving the field free for some older revied supposition to crawl back out of obscurity to reclaim pride of place.
On the other hand, I have a faith as strong as any religious zealot that the scientific method can and will be adequate for analising and describing situations as long as humanity is around. No proof, note; just confidence. I do not anticipate that our present set of laws will be adequate for the job, or anything so short-sighted, merely that the  _method_ will work, given suficient facts and enough flexibility (so might have claimed a twelfth century alchemist, with every bit as much fervor)
Mathematics can prove anthing in the universe of defined postulates, and nothing in the real world. It can, however, give an explanation why some postulates give certain results (while other results are very uncertain indeed) Physics requires our knowledge of the base conditions to be near perfect for a reliable answer, a condition which does not very frequently exist. So science continues its somewhat irregular asymptotic approach towards understanding. (now, what was that thread about "having to look up words")


----------



## Chupacobra (Apr 8, 2007)

There is no "outside" to the Universe.

It's _all_ outside.


----------



## mosaix (Apr 9, 2007)

Chupacobra said:


> There is no "outside" to the Universe.
> 
> It's _all_ outside.



Chupa I think you may find that it's all _inside_.


----------



## Chupacobra (Apr 9, 2007)

mosaix said:


> Chupa I think you may find that it's all _inside_.


 
It's a debatable point, but I'd say that as I experience it via my senses, which convey information external to myself, then it's still outside. 

The interpretation occurs inside...

...but my head hurts now....


----------



## The Ace (Apr 9, 2007)

Err surely the universe contains everything, so, by definition, there can't be anything outside it.  Or am I just weeing on your dreams again ?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Apr 9, 2007)

I guess it depends. But I am fairly certain that tommarow can not exist outside our universe because tommarow is a statement of time and time is relative. 

I think there are other universes outside our universe. Some are probably not even made with the same chemical makeups we use to define our universe. 

So, what if--since we have never really quantified a beginning or an end to the universe...that all these universes are really big bubbles amid a mass of goo....like a giant lava lamp. And they 'bounce' off each other, sometimes even melding together. Thus, our 'universe' appears to expand and collapse. Say this giant multiverse gooey is so vast that it takes billions of years for us to 'see' one event, like collapsing against another multiverse.

Not likely, no. But possible.


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Apr 9, 2007)

we are incapable of percieving the edge of the universe, if there is an edge, and if that edge is ever reachable

you wouldn't run into a barrier, you'd just carry on through to the opposite end which is connected so there is no EDGE to the universe unless you're outside it

thus to us, the edge exists not


----------



## dustinzgirl (Apr 9, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> we are incapable of percieving the edge of the universe, if there is an edge, and if that edge is ever reachable
> 
> you wouldn't run into a barrier, you'd just carry on through to the opposite end which is connected so there is no EDGE to the universe unless you're outside it
> 
> thus to us, the edge exists not



Thats because we are in a giant goo bubble. Doesn't anyone pay attention to anything I say? I kid, I kid!

But, I believe in the theory of multiple--but not really parallell universes, unless you have both multiple and parallel universes....

I think there are other universes, places with properties cmpletly different from our own, cemicals we could not even begin to understand.


----------



## Chupacobra (Apr 10, 2007)

As space and time are interlinked, is it not possible to say that the real edge of the universe is now, and at any spatial point? A bit like the leading edge of a wave. 

Am I taking this a bit too seriously?


----------



## dustinzgirl (Apr 10, 2007)

j. d. worthington said:


> Spartan, I'm curious: Where has Hawking given any indication of this? I've not seen anything myself, so I'd be very interested in seeing the citation on that. As for Milton ... poets are not good sources for understanding the realities of science, as a rule. And so far, all I've come across in any scientific articles has tended to -- as with Copernicus and Newton -- modify (at most) rather than negate Einstein. When we have actual evidence backed by repeated experiment, then there will be grounds for a new model. So far as I know, this is still not the case. If you can provide me with sources to look at, I'd definitely appreciate such, as I find this sort of thing quite fascinating.



Hawking doesn't. But he uses multiple universe theory to support his black hole inforamation (matter) is lost theory by transporting it to another universe.

Well, thats the short version anyways.


----------



## Chupacobra (Apr 10, 2007)

dustinzgirl said:


> Hawking doesn't. But he uses multiple universe theory to support his black hole inforamation (matter) is lost theory by transporting it to another universe.


 
I didn't realise Hawking had said this. Do you have any links?


----------



## Pandæmonium (Apr 11, 2007)

I'm going to have to agree with Futurama - There's another dimension which is exactly the same but everyone is dressed as Cowboys/Cowgirls ^_^ lol (sorry to lower the tone)


----------



## dustinzgirl (Apr 13, 2007)

Chupacobra said:


> I didn't realise Hawking had said this. Do you have any links?



tons

google: hawking black hole multiple universes


----------



## daisybee (Apr 16, 2007)

There either isn't an outside, or if you consider everything external to yourself as the universe then it is all outside. 
I think.

Sorry, I see Chupacobra has already said this, so I agree!


----------



## Admiral Ryouhei (Apr 18, 2007)

Chupacobra said:


> As space and time are interlinked, is it not possible to say that the real edge of the universe is now, and at any spatial point? A bit like the leading edge of a wave.
> 
> Am I taking this a bit too seriously?


 
of course, you're assuming that time exists as a definable force or dimension, which it can't because time has no elementary mesurement, thus time cannot exist except as a human misperception

and if time equals money, then money does not exist

and since money is the root of all evil, evil can't exist, thus neither can good

and without good and evil there can be no such thing as god, which means there is no afterlife

though, I'm not taking into account our universe's possible extra dimensions which could allow our information/data/energy/soul/mind/psychic what-have-you to exist in an alternate state on a smaller dimension

but one thing is definately clear, time is nonexistant

seconds, minutes, hours, months, days, years, and all the rest exist as a measurement of the speed of the Earth's rotation/revolution, not as the passing of time

which does seem to eliminate time travel as well since the past and future cannot ever exist, only the immediate present survives


----------



## Naryaló S dú (Jul 27, 2007)

It's not logical to even post a response to the question "What's outside the universe" or "What's the edge of the universe like".  There's no possible way to know the answer to the first question.  To the second question, since the unvierse is expanding at a very quick rate, I imagine the edge of the universe would be a complete void with absolutely no matter or light (since the very very very distant light from the inner universe hasn't reached it yet).


----------



## Interference (Aug 23, 2007)

Admiral Ryouhei said:


> thus time cannot exist except as a human misperception



Though neither perception nor misperception can exist without our perception of time.


----------

