Quizzes & Puzzles1 min ago
What is BEHIND our universe?
21 Answers
I think the universe is but a substance of the same qualities,like,say,the water in somebodies glass.However,after each substance there has to be its border with ONE MORE substance,& then the other substance itself.Our world is so,so why not the universe?Any ideas what the other substance is?Thanks
Answers
Best Answer
No best answer has yet been selected by dimamuzhetsky. Once a best answer has been selected, it will be shown here.
For more on marking an answer as the "Best Answer", please visit our FAQ.
Why do you think that?
We live in a tiny corner of the Universe, most of us only experience medium temperatures, slow speeds, weak gravity - a very limited range of experience.
To try to draw analogies of the entire Universe from such limited experience is like a toddler trying to understand rocket engines based on experience from Lego bricks.
Your idea that everything has to have a border is like that - it is stuck in the notion of 3 dimensional geometry.
A ball has a limited surface area but has no border to its surface area.
In the same way a 4 dimensional Universe can be finite but have no boundrys.
Whether it has this shape or not is uncertain - it depends on how much matter there is in it - currently the smart money seems to be on it not being closed in this way.
But that certainly doesn't mean that it has a boudary. The Universe may well be infinite.
The fact that we can't comprehend an infinite Universe is no bar to it being so.
"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine" - J B S Haldane
[PS if there is a something - it's de Sitter Space]
We live in a tiny corner of the Universe, most of us only experience medium temperatures, slow speeds, weak gravity - a very limited range of experience.
To try to draw analogies of the entire Universe from such limited experience is like a toddler trying to understand rocket engines based on experience from Lego bricks.
Your idea that everything has to have a border is like that - it is stuck in the notion of 3 dimensional geometry.
A ball has a limited surface area but has no border to its surface area.
In the same way a 4 dimensional Universe can be finite but have no boundrys.
Whether it has this shape or not is uncertain - it depends on how much matter there is in it - currently the smart money seems to be on it not being closed in this way.
But that certainly doesn't mean that it has a boudary. The Universe may well be infinite.
The fact that we can't comprehend an infinite Universe is no bar to it being so.
"The Universe is not only stranger than we imagine but stranger than we can imagine" - J B S Haldane
[PS if there is a something - it's de Sitter Space]
I find that any piece of the matter is consisting of about the same parts.First goes the core,which is too hot,too liquid & changing its shape freely under immense pressure levels,then-magnet field that produces the gravitation with 'planets",which orbit the core.This are:the solr system;an atom;a human being;a tree.So why not spreading this tendency to the rest?Matter NEEDS this form for existance.The description of our universe matches descriptions of water with a small additions of sugar-1 cubic metre of space-WATER to 3 atoms-SUGAR MOLECULES.We NEED universe to be incomprehensive to compensate our own hard lives,but the truth is a simple thing of no fake greatness.As we are but microbes upon a sugar molecule's surface
For that matter what's in front....bit deep this one....!!
If we accept the theory of the Big Bang then the Universe is not in a stable state and continually expanding, can we be certain if it's stopped expanding. Our knowledge is similar to the universe, always expanding therefore before until we can prove what's there it all hypothesis.....
Anyway...enough of that, I'm too busy with these wormholes they keep skipping into the void rather then getting me back to Gallifrey ;-)
If we accept the theory of the Big Bang then the Universe is not in a stable state and continually expanding, can we be certain if it's stopped expanding. Our knowledge is similar to the universe, always expanding therefore before until we can prove what's there it all hypothesis.....
Anyway...enough of that, I'm too busy with these wormholes they keep skipping into the void rather then getting me back to Gallifrey ;-)
I certainly didin't intend to be impertinent, but my question to you as to "Why" was intended to solicit and understand your view of our universe.
Fact is (at least currently) the universe had a beginning known, I'm sure you're aware, as "The Big Bang". While it wasn't big (at least to begin with) and certainly wasn't a "bang", that's the nearest most us can come in understanding the nature of that creation event. It apprently came from nothing ("ex nihilo" for the Latin speakers known to lurk about). Any and all speculation as to what "preceeded" that singularity is the basis for much of our philisophical, religious and pseudo-science thought and discussion today.
But one fact is indisputable... at 10-^43 seconds (Planck time or Tp)before any evidence of the Big Bang existed there was .... nothing, nada, zip... zilch. At least insofar as we can ever determine.
We can have a grand exchange of name calling or even civilized discussion in which we present our various theories about what came "before" but that's about all... because the current and future state of science (and, I believe that won't ever change since it was a one time event and therefore unknowable to us) limits any possibly meaningful investigation. In my humble opinion, that is...
Fact is (at least currently) the universe had a beginning known, I'm sure you're aware, as "The Big Bang". While it wasn't big (at least to begin with) and certainly wasn't a "bang", that's the nearest most us can come in understanding the nature of that creation event. It apprently came from nothing ("ex nihilo" for the Latin speakers known to lurk about). Any and all speculation as to what "preceeded" that singularity is the basis for much of our philisophical, religious and pseudo-science thought and discussion today.
But one fact is indisputable... at 10-^43 seconds (Planck time or Tp)before any evidence of the Big Bang existed there was .... nothing, nada, zip... zilch. At least insofar as we can ever determine.
We can have a grand exchange of name calling or even civilized discussion in which we present our various theories about what came "before" but that's about all... because the current and future state of science (and, I believe that won't ever change since it was a one time event and therefore unknowable to us) limits any possibly meaningful investigation. In my humble opinion, that is...
William Lane Craig postulates "..."The recent use of such vacuum fluctuations is highly misleading. For virtual particles do not literally come into existence spontaneously out of nothing. Rather the energy locked up in a vacuum fluctuates spontaneously in such a way as to convert into evanescent particles that return almost immediately to the vacuum." Further "...The microstructure of the quantum vacuum is a sea of continually forming and dissolving particles which borrow energy from the vacuum for their brief existence. A quantum vacuum is thus far from nothing, and vacuum fluctuations do not constitute an exception to the principle that whatever begins to exist has a cause."
Having said that, my direct knowledge of quantum physics is exactly equal to Planck Length...
Having said that, my direct knowledge of quantum physics is exactly equal to Planck Length...
Latest Posts
Brexit Hit To Uk Trade Less Than...
News5 mins ago
Crosswords7 mins ago
News13 mins ago
