dryan Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 Is the Universe infinitely large? I've heard that it is "expanding," but I'm not sure what that means in terms of size. Mathematically, something infinite can be expanding, yes? If the Universe is not infinite, it is what? Very, very big? I'm not real clear on the basic concepts of this kind of theory, so point me to a resource if you can. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurocomp2003 Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 the local universe(usualy coined teh visible universe) is expanding...meaning that frmo some central point rather than "things moving away by them selves"...the space expands so that things are moving relative to their location. The 2 best analogies that everyone uses is (1)the raisins in a bread made of yeast...The raisins are not actually shifting through the bread...but as the bread expands the raisins move with the space. (2) the dots on a balloon, as air is put into the balloon the dots move (sorry if i made the explanation worst) as for being infinitely large...we are not sure what is on the outside of our local universe. 1) Our universe could just be it(like the bread example) 2) Our universe could be taking over another universe as ours expands. 3) there could be many universes out there.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dryan Posted March 26, 2004 Author Share Posted March 26, 2004 So when it is said that the universe is expanding, they mean the objects in the universe are spreading apart? Is there a word for 'everything,' including the universe? A bigger area than a 'universe,' per se? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Neurocomp2003 Posted March 26, 2004 Share Posted March 26, 2004 yeah spreading...that would be the better word to use...damn physicist terminology. I always say they got the worst wording out there. Like the shortest path realy isn't the shortest path...it should be called the shortest natural path. as for the everything...most would still use the word universe, to differentiate from what we can see they use local. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
moonriver Posted April 22, 2004 Share Posted April 22, 2004 Of course the universe 's got boundry, just you aren't able to see it due to the current technical limitation. "Spreading" is a proper word to describe it with. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 I like the way you say local universe-- if puts into terms admittance how little we know. An interesting theory i have (no way to know if its true but i like the idea) is the pattern of matter repeats: for matter to be three dimensional, it must be made of something smaller that is also three dimensional. Instead of thinking there are infinate different sub-structures, it would be more simple if the order repeats. So maybe several orders down there is a particle that is a universe. A universe made of atoms made of quarks made of muons made of such and such made of universes. . . . . . there would be infinate universes within every area of matter, and our entire universe is an infinately small particle of ONE atom of another universes. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BrainMan Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 Here is a niffty article on the subject: http://www.sciam.com/article.cfm?articleID=00065A99-90A6-1CD6-B4A8809EC588EEDF Which reminds me... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavajoEverclear Posted April 23, 2004 Share Posted April 23, 2004 "An infinite universe would cause infinite inertia. Nothing could ever move."-- thats from that site. Would that apply to my (well not really mine, with all the people on this planet, odds are someone else has nearly the same idea, just no publicicized evidently) version of infinity? "One might still ask what is outside the universe. But this question supposes that the ultimate physical reality must be a Euclidean space of some dimension. That is, it presumes that if space is a hypersphere, then that hypersphere must sit in a four-dimensional Euclidean space, allowing us to view it from the outside. Nature, however, need not cling to this notion. It would be perfectly acceptable for the universe to be a hypersphere and not be embedded in any higher-dimensional space. Such an object may be difficult to visualize, because we are used to viewing shapes from the outside. But there need not be an "outside."" ----- i guess i can accept that Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 So when it is said that the universe is expanding' date=' they mean the objects in the universe are spreading apart? Is there a word for 'everything,' including the universe? A bigger area than a 'universe,' per se?[/quote'] Sure theres a word "multiverse" from The One. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Sure theres a word "multiverse" from The One[/i']. It's not from "The One", it's in "The One". Which is nothing to do with this old thread you bumped. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 It's not from "The One"' date=' it's [i']in[/i] "The One". Which is nothing to do with this old thread you bumped. I dont know what they do in the UK but here a person can say both. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Saying it's "from" a movie implies that's where the concept came from. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tesseract Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 Saying it's "from" a movie implies that's where the concept came from. well then whom came up with the concept? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sayonara Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 I think it was Hugh Everett in 1957. It's difficult to tell now, due to all the noise on the web, but the concept is about 50 years old. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aeschylus Posted May 21, 2004 Share Posted May 21, 2004 In all models of the universe the universe is unbounded and yes an infinite universe can expand, there's certianly nothing unphysical about an infinite expanding unievres. Hugh Everret was the father of the many-worlds interpreation of quantum mechanics, I don't think it's that helpful to say that this means mutiple universe, all it means is that we and presuambly the universe are in a superpostion of states. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now