Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
dkv

What is Universe ?

Recommended Posts

Hi ,

I am new to this forum and wanted to know the defintion of Universe...

What is Universe ?

I have been discussing at http://www.scienceagogo.com but it appears that no one has far been able to give me the answer.

 

Regards,

Dheeraj

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universe: The collective name for everything that exists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universe: All that is, was, and ever will be.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universe: Everything. space, time, matter(anitimatter) energy, etc. etc.

Universe: The collective name for everything that exists.

REP: Everything is not known.Hence the defintion is incomplete.

============================================

Universe: All that is, was, and ever will be.

REP: What was and what is and what will be are all unknown.

 

Looking for a physical answer.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

REP: Everything is not known.Hence the defintion is incomplete.

 

Just cause we don't know about it doesn't mean it doesn't exist. if it exists then it is part of the universe. say for example we open up a wormhole in some crazy experiment and we discover another "plane" of existence where everything is slightly different then it would still be part of the universe and always would have been and always will be. What does knowing what is or isn't out there have to do with it anyway.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Everything includes Nothing.Isnt it?

Or shall we choose to call Nothing as a concept outside Universe.

Nothing is powerful concept.... it annihilates anything and everything.Much like Vaccum.

 

Anyways if choose to call Everything as something what we have discovered and will discover then isnt it possible to discover Nothing.

Nothing has no identification with anything known and has no capacity to be known.

Understand Nothing as absence of any thought or any kind of Observation.

If we choose to contain Nothing within some Boundary then we will still have something defined by its Boundary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
it annihilates anything and everything.Much like Vaccum

 

Vacuums annihilate stuff????? oh god were screwed the universe is 99.999999% vacuum.

 

Everything includes Nothing.Isnt it?

 

technically nothing isn't a thing. it just has a similar sounding name so people automatically assume that it is an entity.

 

If we choose to contain Nothing within some Boundary then we will still have something defined by its Boundary.

 

who says there has to be a boundary.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Anything that can be intereacted with is part of the universe. This means if this nothing of which you speak can be acessed in some way then it is part of the universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Vaccum is not a Vaccum by Principle.Therefore it is not Nothing.

Let me again explain Nothing - Assuming all to be an expression of Scientific Theory then it becomes obvious that Cause and effect are an intergral part of it.Can an effect manifest without a cause?

Answer is Yes it can... Why a Radiactive Decay Takes Place? No reason other than the by chance.

Similary why a Giant Wave (26 meters high) manifests in Ocean ... No reason other than chance. Chance gets influenced by the Number of Atom or Volume of Water. But the Principle Holds for Individual Atoms as well using Discreet Probability.

 

So we say Decay of Atom happens purely by Chance.

Its nature is to decay and "when" is guided by Chance.

But "why" remains unasnwered as there is no known excat physical thing or event contained in the Universe which can be held responsible for it.

Once we discover the cause we know the event is predictable and it is only a matter time when Experimental and theoretical Developements make it predictable. But when we say it is guided by chance in Principle we admit to the non-existence of Observable and knowable cause.

Thus Nothing remains in Universe and it is realized in Principle.

 

Everything includes Nothing.

Now the question is if as an observer and a true Science Student can you execute a simple logical statement for sake of understanding Universe...

 

Universe includes Nothing. You undertstand Everything and therefore Universe... next you try to understand Nothing.

Nothing means you even forget the thought we carried you far... you forget that there is anything or everything.

Thus knowing Nothing denies Everything.

But since Nothing is part of Universe how can we allow it to deny the Universe itself(which most us believe as Everything).

 

Please undertstand it carefully and you will see that Everything or every event is not sufficient to create the Universe.

 

Accessing Nothing requires forgetting everything (including what I told you).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused with what this all has to do with the definition of "Universe." If it is defined as everything ever, known or unknown, then that's the definition. Where is the problem in that? Why can the definition not include the "nothings", as you put them, of nature?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

These things do not happen by chance. The waves are caused by wind, current, temperature, etc. Radioactive decay is caused by instability and the strong nuclear force (I believe). These are random but there is a reason they happen. I think your view may be a little strange.

What do you mean by nothing? A vacuum? Or what.

 

:Edit: If a vacuum is not a vacuum by principle, what principle are you talking about? Vacuum is the name given to space occupied by no matter. If there is nothing, it is scientifically defined as a vacuum. Maybe you did not know the definition and "priniciple" of a vacuum.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm confused with what this all has to do with the definition of "Universe." If it is defined as everything ever, known or unknown, then that's the definition. Where is the problem in that?

REP: The problem is with defintion of Unknown...Unknown is not known till it is discovered.. Thus the existing defintion assumes Everything

can be known about the Universe.

Whereas I am saying that there are things which can not be known ever.

Thus making the Universe in principle an undefinable identity extending beyond the realms of normal reasoning and observation.

=======================================================

Why can the definition not include the "nothings", as you put them, of nature?

REP: Good question... Hope you have understood Nothing.

Now consider by usual logic a defintion of Universe:

Universe is everything including Nothing... then stop as you say and understand the last word there is indeed nothing.I mean if you really understood Nothingness then you should hold no memory of any kind. You should have a Mind without any thought....

Thus what will be left will only Nothing.. and not everything.

Therefore the defintion results in a collapse of Everything..

However if you continued reading till this point then you know that

you havent understood Nothing.

Nothing is a logical Blackhole.

 

=======================================================

These things do not happen by chance. The waves are caused by wind, current, temperature, etc. Radioactive decay is caused by instability and the strong nuclear force (I believe). These are random but there is a reason they happen. I think your view may be a little strange.

What do you mean by nothing? A vacuum? Or what.

REP: The causes you mentioned are not the causes which can be related to Decay of a Radio Isotope in any way.

Even if you get a detailed picture of Nuclear Force you will not

be able to change its decay distribution .In other words it will not result in improved predictability.

====================================================

If a vacuum is not a vacuum by principle, what principle are you talking about? Vacuum is the name given to space occupied by no matter.

REP: Vaccum is grand lab for Virtual Interaction.The net energy content

at any instant is not zero.

==================================================

If there is nothing, it is scientifically defined as a vacuum. Maybe you did not know the definition and "priniciple" of a vacuum.

REP: Nothing logical and Vacumm is Physical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Hi ' date='

I am new to this forum and wanted to know the defintion of Universe...

What is Universe ?

I have been discussing at http://www.scienceagogo.com but it appears that no one has far been able to give me the answer.

 

Regards,

Dheeraj[/quote']

 

 

Here you go. Make it easy on yourself. Always consult Wikipedia. Worship it. Universe

 

 

The term universe has a variety of meanings based on the context in which it is described. In materialist philosophical terms, the universe is the summation of all particles that exist and the space in which all events occur which has an equivalent idea amongst some theoretical scientists known as the total universe. In cosmological terms, the universe is thought to be a finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. (It has been hypothesized by some scientists that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse.) The terms known universe, observable universe, or visible universe are often used to describe the part of the universe that can be seen or otherwise observed by humanity. Due to the fact that cosmic inflation removes vast parts of the total universe from our observable horizon, most cosmologists currently accept that it is impossible to observe the whole continuum and may use our universe, referring only to that knowable by human beings in particular.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wikepedia .. wonderful attempt.

====

Here I come:

The term universe has a variety of meanings based on the context in which it is described. In materialist philosophical terms, the universe is the summation of all particles that exist and the space in which all events occur which has an equivalent idea amongst some theoretical scientists known as the total universe.

REP:Particles are the not the only thing existing in Universe. There is something called as Wave which is capable of Holding Information... without

ever quoting the number the photons it used.It uses the Space.. without explaing its nature. I assume it holds the particles only.

========================================

In cosmological terms, the universe is thought to be a finite or infinite space-time continuum in which all matter and energy exist. (It has been hypothesized by some scientists that the universe may be part of a system of many other universes, known as the multiverse.)

REP: Matter and Energy comes as a consequence of Universe and not vice versa.Universe has "Unknowbale" component as well.

==============================================

The terms known universe, observable universe, or visible universe are often used to describe the part of the universe that can be seen or otherwise observed by humanity. Due to the fact that cosmic inflation removes vast parts of the total universe from our observable horizon, most cosmologists currently accept that it is impossible to observe the whole continuum and may use our universe, referring only to that knowable by human beings in particular.

REP: Thats an excuse.. quite human I guess.

======================================

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because we don't know about something doesn't mean it's not part of the universe, everything is part of the universe and when we find something new it changes the particular definition of the universe to include that new thing.

 

And just to not a vacuum, is NOT void of particles, it is full of particles which are constantly being created and anihilated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hate to disagree with everyone's definition here, but I have to disagree with everyone's definition :D

 

The universe is a collection of processes, not things! To say that it is merely an assortment of objects and things is confessing "Yeah, I believe in a Newtonian universe."

 

General Relativity, on the other hand, argues that the universe is defined by what goes on within it.

 

It is more like a tennis game rather than the tennis court.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

It is more like a tennis game rather than the tennis court.

 

 

What are they playing tennis with?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Just because we don't know about something doesn't mean it's not part of the universe, everything is part of the universe and when we find something new it changes the particular definition of the universe to include that new thing.

REP: AS I said few things can not be found ever and yet it appears to palying a major role in the activities happeining within the Universe.

Thus "everything" which by defintion gives a sense of knowledge reamins incomplete in its description.

I have my own defintion of Universe.

I give full credit to http://www.scienceagogo.com for making me arrive at this

definition.

Universe is Everything and it is Nothing.In other words Universe holds all the memory(past , present and future) and at the same time has no-memory of its own.

I have given a theroy there called m-theory. It has been appreciated.

Hope you guys will also like have look at it.

====================================================

And just to not a vacuum, is NOT void of particles, it is full of particles which are constantly being created and anihilated.

REP: Yeah I agree.

=================================================

I hate to disagree with everyone's definition here, but I have to disagree with everyone's definition

The universe is a collection of processes, not things!

REP: I do not disagree.But make sure you understand non-linear nature of any and all processes.Thus what you put in may or may not come out of it.An apparent violation of process law may take place.

====================================================

To say that it is merely an assortment of objects and things is confessing "Yeah, I believe in a Newtonian universe."

General Relativity, on the other hand, argues that the universe is defined by what goes on within it.

It is more like a tennis game rather than the tennis court.

REP: Personally I also prefer to discuss Universe as manifestation of Ideas or Thoughts.

==========================================================

What are they playing tennis with?

REP: Who are they?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universe: All known and unknown matter, anti-matter, and empty space that has ever existed in any time period known, and will be known. It is what exsist in the present, past, and what will exsist. Just because we don't know it exsist, then that doesn't mean it isn't their. If it does not exsist and you don't know it does or not it can't be in the Universe. If it does exsist and we don't know this, it is still in the Universe.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Universe: All known and unknown matter, anti-matter, and empty space that has ever existed in any time period known, and will be known.

REP: The unknown I am talking about has to no qualification.

================================================

It is what exsist in the present, past, and what will exsist. Just because we don't know it exsist, then that doesn't mean it isn't their.

REP: If you have read carefully ,I am saying everything exists and at the sme time Nothing(absolutely nothing) exists.The Unknown part always remains as unknown.Which can not be communicated using any means.

==============================================

If it does not exsist and you don't know it does or not it can't be in the Universe. If it does exsist and we don't know this, it is still in the Universe.

REP:Go through the discussion on Nothing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm having a hard time understanding dkv's difficulty with Nothing-ness combined w/ Everything-ness (no offense, dkv; I just can't follow what you're saying). Can someone else who does understand it explain it to me?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I'm having a hard time understanding dkv's difficulty with Nothing-ness combined w/ Everything-ness (no offense, dkv; I just can't follow what you're saying). Can someone else who does understand it explain it to me?

 

He thinks that things we can't understand arn't part of the universe I think... although I don't get it really...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I thought he was just being a nuisance. not unlike the way my brother acted when he was four. eg.

Me: I'm going to get a drink(just saying it randomly)

WeeBro: no your not

Me: huh?

WB: no your not.

Me: but i am

WB:no your not

... ad nauseum

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.