Where Does Space End? It Must End Somewhere!

[Bluenoise]

Now as I know very little on the subject this is just how I've always pictured it. (I usually refrain from posting my speculates cuz I hate debate but.. ..oh well)

 

I've always had the opposite problem, imagining a universe that ends; That I can't handle. An infinite universe always seemed much more logical.

I imagine it as an infinite universe with an infinite amount of matter and energy in it. I picture the big bang as a cycle of expansion and contraction. Which leaves the problem of how an infinite amount of mater can contract into a sigularity without requiring an infinite amount of time. I see it as the accumulation of blackholes, and as the density of blackholes and mass grows space get progressivley more bent and distorted till it bends in on itself so much that space with all the spacial demensions with all it's infitine matter and energy gets bent into a singularity. At this point it "rebounds" and the universe unfurrles or "flattens out".

 

Like imagine if you had an infinitely big piece of paper and you tried to fold opposite directions in on themselves, till it crumples up into a little ball...

 

Please don't tear me to peices now...

[TriggerGrinn]

Let me explain why I showed the black picture.

 

The universe is the same thing as you are when you are unconcious.

 

Only when a conscious life form that can see is awake, is there such thing as a universe. Only then is there perception of shape, color, distance, size, and time.

 

The universe is an unconcious entity.

 

The same way 100 years can go by in 0.00001 seconds if you were unconscious that long, the universe can end the same time it started if life never existed to validate it.

 

I think that the universe exists because we create it with a consciousness, and our consciousness exists because the universe creates it.

 

Its a relationship as all things are that creates an event, and they depend on eachother in order to be.

 

Thus when you cross out life from the equation the universe is at any point at any time, without any attributes related to a consciousness.

[Bluenoise]

^^ I think you're confusing the word universe with the word reality. Or you have multiple definitions for universe.

 

The universe is a physical thing. It doesn't care whatsoever for our consciousness. (unless you don't believe in a physical universe and you're trying to pull some Descarte "I think therefore I am", arguement that the universe doesn't actually existe, which is completely off topic and you should start a new thread in philosophy)

 

Our reality is due to our conscious perception of the universe (as well as ourselves, thoughts, everything)

 

Universe does not equal reality.

[Quantoman]

i equate the universe similar to the earths atmospheric cycle.

 

you have energy becoming matter and matter becoming energy.

 

big bang = matter

 

black hole = dark energy

 

why and which started frist??? = good question.

 

i see,, for each black hole you may have a big bang

in a sub universe, and each sub universe you will have

a black hole.

 

a cycle is infinite if you are not the one who initiate it...

[[Tycho?]]

i equate the universe similar to the earths atmospheric cycle.

 

you have energy becoming matter and matter becoming energy.

 

big bang = matter

 

black hole = dark energy

 

why and which started frist??? = good question.

 

i see,, for each black hole you may have a big bang

in a sub universe, and each sub universe you will have

a black hole.

 

a cycle is infinite if you are not the one who initiate it...

 

No.

[TriggerGrinn]

^^ I think you're confusing the word universe with the word reality. Or you have multiple definitions for universe.

 

The universe is a physical thing. It doesn't care whatsoever for our consciousness. (unless you don't believe in a physical universe and you're trying to pull some Descarte "I think therefore I am", arguement that the universe doesn't actually existe, which is completely off topic and you should start a new thread in philosophy)

 

Our reality is due to our conscious perception of the universe (as well as ourselves, thoughts, everything)

 

Universe does not equal reality.

 

 

No I think we misunderstand eachother.

 

I am not saying either or is the cause.

 

Allow me to cut and paste a previous post of mine to save some time:

 

 

~~~~I think when you break it down to the absolute basics between the two sides of subconscious and conscious being the ruler, we get this decision, or these choices:

 

1)

In terms of the subconscious ruling the human, the part of the mind that goes unoticed to the conscious self-ware part (me, us);

 

In this we have the universe being a fundamental thing, a real thing, and our consciousness and everything attributed to it is considered an illusion that infact is ruled and controlled by long built of mechanisms in the brain via evolution. In that when we die, its forever gone like a long sleep.

 

2)

In terms of the conscious mind, the self aware self, ruling the human body / having control over reality, we tend to consider the only thing that is truly real is the mind, the awareness, the conscious. And the universe and everything material in it, both mass, and energy, is a grand illusion.

 

 

So in each case we determin one factor as reality, and the other as illusionary.

 

We do so equally and oppositely, but which one do we decide? For each reality has something attributed to it that apparently isnt real, or doesnt exist.

 

This developes a bit of a logical conundrum, in that, how can something that is an illusion in a reality system, (ie; the illusion of a mind in a ever lasting real universe) exist if it is considered not to exist?

 

Where if you decide the universe is the only thing real and you accept yourself as aware, you've just claimed the universe has the ability to create things that a) dont exist b) illusions and c) follows a design.

 

And vice versa,

 

If you think that it is only your mind that is real and the whole human experience and the universe itself is a grand illusion for the entertainment of the conciousness, than you have claimed the consciousness has the amazing ability to act as the medium in which reality plays through, in other words, creates amazing virtual experiences.

 

 

 

Now to get to summing this up, after alot of considerations on this type of subject, mathamatically, logically, and experimentally I conclude that It is not about making a choice between the two.

 

Each option of what is 'fundamnetally real' contains the same flaw that something illusionary is happening along with it.

 

Because of this, I tend to conclude that you can not have one with out the other. You can not have a universe without a consciousness. You can not have an awareness without some kind of universe.

 

This can be shown in many forms. A value of 1 simply can not exist. You always need a set, or pair of 1's in order to have reality.

 

Its a 1:1 relationship. The universe is a singular system, and the consciousnes is a singular phenomina. These two interact to self proclaim one another.

 

In the same way gravity does not exist unless there is a minimum of two objects to attract eachother. Motion can not exist without a reference point to compare with.

 

There must always be a minimum of two things, an equal opposite counterpart relationship in order to have something happen, in complete respect to this reality.

[Quantoman]

^^

No.

?tycho..

 

yes.

[[Tycho?]]

you have energy becoming matter and matter becoming energy.

 

Matter does not change into energy very much, certainly not anywhere near as much as the opposite happens.

big bang = matter

This makes no sense.

 

black hole = dark energy

This is just blatantly wrong, a black hole is made of matter, it has nothing to do with dark energy.

why and which started frist??? = good question.

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you're still talking about big bang and black holes, then big bang came first.

i see,, for each black hole you may have a big bang

in a sub universe, and each sub universe you will have

a black hole.

 

Uhhh, sure, whatever you want.

a cycle is infinite if you are not the one who initiate it...

What?

[Quantoman]

The Big Bang Theory is the dominant scientific theory about the origin of the universe. According to the big bang, the universe was created sometime between 10 billion and 20 billion years ago from a cosmic explosion that hurled matter and in all directions.

 

it takes energy to make matter, an atom is in motion, and motion = energy.

 

In physical cosmology, dark energy is a hypothetical form of energy that permeates all of space and has strong negative pressure.

 

when a black hole tear the fabric of spacetime i think dark energy may

leak into the tear...

 

which may answer why our universe continue to expand..

 

i did mis-stated my idea tho.. you are RIGHT.

 

I'm not sure what you mean here, but if you're still talking about big bang and black holes, then big bang came first.

 

do you also know why?

 

Uhhh, sure, whatever you want.

 

ahh, RIGHT agian.

 

What?

 

what???

[Bluenoise]

 

No I think we misunderstand eachother.

 

I am not saying either or is the cause.

 

Allow me to cut and paste a previous post of mine to save some time:

 

 

~~~~I think when you break it down to the absolute basics between the two sides of subconscious and conscious being the ruler, we get this decision, or these choices:

 

1)

In terms of the subconscious ruling the human, the part of the mind that goes unoticed to the conscious self-ware part (me, us);

 

In this we have the universe being a fundamental thing, a real thing, and our consciousness and everything attributed to it is considered an illusion that infact is ruled and controlled by long built of mechanisms in the brain via evolution. In that when we die, its forever gone like a long sleep.

 

2)

In terms of the conscious mind, the self aware self, ruling the human body / having control over reality, we tend to consider the only thing that is truly real is the mind, the awareness, the conscious. And the universe and everything material in it, both mass, and energy, is a grand illusion.

 

 

So in each case we determin one factor as reality, and the other as illusionary.

 

We do so equally and oppositely, but which one do we decide? For each reality has something attributed to it that apparently isnt real, or doesnt exist.

 

This developes a bit of a logical conundrum, in that, how can something that is an illusion in a reality system, (ie; the illusion of a mind in a ever lasting real universe) exist if it is considered not to exist?

 

Where if you decide the universe is the only thing real and you accept yourself as aware, you've just claimed the universe has the ability to create things that a) dont exist b) illusions and c) follows a design.

 

And vice versa,

 

If you think that it is only your mind that is real and the whole human experience and the universe itself is a grand illusion for the entertainment of the conciousness, than you have claimed the consciousness has the amazing ability to act as the medium in which reality plays through, in other words, creates amazing virtual experiences.

 

 

 

Now to get to summing this up, after alot of considerations on this type of subject, mathamatically, logically, and experimentally I conclude that It is not about making a choice between the two.

 

Each option of what is 'fundamnetally real' contains the same flaw that something illusionary is happening along with it.

 

Because of this, I tend to conclude that you can not have one with out the other. You can not have a universe without a consciousness. You can not have an awareness without some kind of universe.

 

This can be shown in many forms. A value of 1 simply can not exist. You always need a set, or pair of 1's in order to have reality.

 

Its a 1:1 relationship. The universe is a singular system, and the consciousnes is a singular phenomina. These two interact to self proclaim one another.

 

In the same way gravity does not exist unless there is a minimum of two objects to attract eachother. Motion can not exist without a reference point to compare with.

 

There must always be a minimum of two things, an equal opposite counterpart relationship in order to have something happen, in complete respect to this reality.

 

Hmmm I have to say that I disagree with what you're say virtually 100% on every item.

We're just going to have to agree to disagree as I don't see us coming to any consensus on even the fundamentals that the arguement you're proposing is based on.

I think I'm just to hard science, and you're to philosophical for us to find any common ground on the subject.

Though I respect your point of view I just completely disagree with it.

[TriggerGrinn]

yah understandable..

 

I'd really need to support this more clearly, I wouldnt just take someones philisophical thoughts as fact either.

[Quantoman]

^^thats a weired philosophy... never thought of the ying yang theory..

 

LOL,, J/K

 

nice post.

 

envy

[fredrik]

Granted that I didn't read the entire thread except for the last posts - about universe, and reality I tend to agree with the ideas of TriggerGrinn.

 

Sure, the universe has as a "physical basis". But still, without an observer it has no meaning. IMO, the observer and the subject is central. I think to ask yourself if the universe would have existed and been as real even if there were no observers to observe it is something that can never be falsified, and thus has a status similar to "choice".

 

In as much as time would have no meaning without change, I think reality would have no (objective) meaning without someone observing it. And more important, the actual observation does influence the system.

 

In quantum mechanics, the concept of observation is essential. Observation is the basis of our *knowledge of reality*. And what we do not know, we can only guess. And something that by status can not even be falsified, is simply a matter of choice.

 

So I think the observer and the reality are entangled up in each other. One without the othre makes no sense, more than time without change makes sense.

 

/Fredrik

[Pi_314]

Here is a slightly diferent view of the universe than triggergrin, if it were possible to see it, and it isn't, but here it is if you could.

 

Since we are within the boundries of existence, we will see the universe as unbounded, and seemingly infinite. If we could travel the speed of light, we would still garner the same information of an infinite universe. That is because the universe is an ongoing process by which it's boundries are increasing at C. Thusly we could never approach these boundries any closer than we are now, no matter what direction we choose.

 

The universe is no more than the definition of nothing. It is a conceptual definition by fiat i.e there is no other alternative. This is to say that reality is not a physical enerprise. Physical existence can only be brought on by conceptual means. In other words ... we think we are physical entities.

 

The answer to the question of where does space end? {would be} At the boundries of our universe. It really is that simple! One might ask how far is it to the boundries? It may be so that this is impossible to determine. This could be analogous to the approach of the speed of light, wherein an infinity of energy is required to hit the speed limit. We could say that we observe 99% of the universe, but in reality that last 1% is a trillion times the size of what we consider to be 99%. hence we may never know.

 

Hows that for barging in with a first post on these forums?

[TriggerGrinn]

Let us assume you can place yourself inside a singularity. (if you are not familiar with this concept, imagine yourself in a place with no time or space).

 

How is, a)space and b) time, confirmable? measurable? detecable? concievable?

 

To remove oneself from the singularity you must seperate that singularity without seperating it. You must devide it while keeping it whole.

 

The process to do this in our mind is to take the singularity, and apply a mirror inside it, and consider each image a real image. The mirroed image and the non mirroed image.

 

remove the mirror, and leave behind the two objects.

 

When these two objects unite, they become a seperate and unified singularity, that is, its own seperate from the universe, singular unit of space-time. We may call this light, made of both an (negatron) electron and an positron.

 

When the two objects seperate, they create the function of singularity into the observation of space and time. However these two objects are not seperate, and they must be whole, they must be entangled.

 

So you ask, does the universe have a limit?

 

We must consider that

 

1) there are worlds of units of singularity (light), that yet are a part of the same world that we can not observe

 

and

 

2)there are worlds of mirrored singularity limited to there very range of which they can push outwards, or "suck" singularity into what we call the observable universe.

 

Thus how big is the universe? It is as big as any set of mirrored singularity.

 

Is there an edge? No. The edge you think is there is never reachable, as you attempt to reach it, it changes with time, it changes position.

 

To observe light is to observe a collapse of unit of mirrored singularity, (photon), and of which creates a buldge of mirroed singularity in the atoms of the frame of observation, "sucking" or "filling" like a little ballon with mirrored singularity delivered by the photon.

 

A photon can be passed through a stencil of a incredibly complex image, and in one photon and contain that information in its own singular unit of space and time, containing as much as what we say is a 1mb of data for a typical electron operated computer.

 

The summerized answer: The universe is infinite by all means in relation to our restrictions of observing it, because it is only as big as the photon you observe it to be.

 

That is, as someone said, the start of it is the end of it, and the end of it is only the start of it.

[young-albert]

according to eniestien,matter bends space..so what woud happen if you put more and more stars to it...it will cuve and curve untill...untill it encloses it self....i.e.universe has a shape of a sort of sphere....you will run out of new places to see but you will never find a end...that's what i think..pls correct me if i am wrong..

[Martin]

....i.e.universe has a shape of a sort of sphere....you will run out of new places to see but you will never find a end...

 

Ned Wright (one of short list of world's top cosmologists) in a recent paper gave a "best fit" shape of the universe.

According to this paper there is a shape of expanding space which is the best fit to the data.

 

Go here

http://arxiv.org/abs/astro-ph/0701584

and click on PDF.

It is a january 2007 paper based on all the latest data from all the different kinds of observation.

 

It is like you say, in fact.

Space, in his best-fit picture, is a kind of sphere called a "three-sphere" with a radius of curvature which is approximately 130 billion lightyears.

 

A three-sphere (math symbol S³ ) is the 3D analog of an ordinary two-sphere---eg. the surface of a balloon. it has no boundary. It has no end. There doesn't have to be any larger space for it to sit in---although I suppose there could be.

 

This three-sphere is getting larger----distances between widely separated pairs of points are increasing. Also it is only spherical "on average"-----if you look closely at any one spot it is "bumpy"------concentrations of matter (stars, galaxies) curve it so it has like puckers and dimples and maybe even zits like black holes. but don't think about that. The main overall shape (in Ned Wright "best fit" picture) is a big three-sphere.

 

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

 

But in Science, you don't always use the best fit model. You can also use a GOOD ENOUGH fit, if it makes the math easier and is not actually statistically ruled out by the data. There may be some theoretical reason to prefer a different model. Ned Wright does not rule out the model where space is infinite.

 

The data is ALSO CONSISTENT with the case where space is infinite and (on average) flat. Flat in a 3D sense of having no overall curvature----normal 3D space in other words. This is not the best fit to the data but it is a good enough fit that it cannot be excluded as a possibility, given that the data has some statistical uncertainty. This infinite flat 3D space is also expanding-----in the same way as the other: meaning that distances between widely separated pairs of points increase.

 

At least for the time being, many, perhaps most, cosmologists prefer to work with the inflinite flat space picture.

 

That is OK, because for practical purposes there is almost no difference between a very large three-sphere (radius of curvature 130 billion LY) and an infinite uncurved 3D space. From our perspective it would be very difficult to distinguish the two and say which one we are in.

 

Nobody works with a model of spacetime where space is bounded. No mainstream professional cosmologist, I mean. Space doesn't "end" anywhere in any of the prevailing models of space that cosmologists use. I think you, "albert-junior", were already well aware of that, but I mention it anyway for clarity because of the name of this discussion thread.

[Wearden]

How can Space end? What is going to end the millions if miles of Stars, Galaxies and Black Holes? A Wall? A vast Ocean floating around helplessly?

[Martin]

How can Space end? What is going to end the millions if miles of Stars, Galaxies and Black Holes? A Wall? A vast Ocean floating around helplessly?

 

That's right, Wearden. I think you may be coming in at the end of a discussion and we may already have settled that.

 

Nobody, as far as I know, no scientist anyway, supposes that space has a boundary. Probably you don't need to supply additional arguments about that.

 

what seems to puzzle some nonscientists, however, is the idea that space may be FINITE even though it has no boundary.

 

If you use a mathematical model, like a 3D sphere, then it's easy to construct a finite-volume space that has no boundary (if you go far enough in any direction you come back to the point of departure, but you never see a wall).

 

However some people still find that idea confusing or unintuitive. they are stuck on the infinite space picture and don't understand how you can have a finite space with no boundary.

[Wearden]

Yeah, Sorry i did come into the Topic a bit too late.

But hey, I have another possibility.. What if the Universe is like the World? A Sphere, You may, In Space be going around in Circles like you would on Earth if you went in one Direction for about 1 Year.

[weknowthewor]

the universe dosent have any end, if any end was possible, then till now it would had been discovered by our great scientists!!

[on30francisc]

how can space end? say the universe were a room. what is beyond the walls?

Beyond the walls is either another room, hallway, or perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge (and fog). Maybe beyond our space, and this is my speculation, is another spacetime.

[TriggerGrinn]

Research these 3 areas and you will find yourself a satisfactory answer.

 

(i)The behavior and source of light (electromagnetic radiation)

(ii)The behavior and source of matter or mass (quantum physics)

(iii)The behavior and source of consciousness and/or self-awareness and the perceptions intwined with it.

 

These are the 3 main catagories of existence in relation to observablilites that I have found. If there are others please mention. If not, seek in these to find your truth.

[ydoaPs]

Beyond the walls is either another room, hallway, or perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge (and fog). Maybe beyond our space, and this is my speculation, is another spacetime.

 

That does not help. You've just added a barrier of unknown nature to separate two regions of spacetime. Where does the other region end?

[DZane]

Beyond the walls is either another room, hallway, or perhaps the Golden Gate Bridge (and fog). Maybe beyond our space, and this is my speculation, is another spacetime.

 

Just like in The One. A Multi Verse without the Different Dimension part so there are no different versions of you.