Welcome to
Science a GoGo's
Discussion Forums
Please keep your postings on-topic or they will be moved to a galaxy far, far away.
Your use of this forum indicates your agreement to our terms of use.
So that we remain spam-free, please note that all posts by new users are moderated.


The Forums
General Science Talk        Not-Quite-Science        Climate Change Discussion        Physics Forum        Science Fiction

Who's Online Now
0 members (), 219 guests, and 0 robots.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Latest Posts
Top Posters(30 Days)
Previous Thread
Next Thread
Print Thread
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
I am sick of all these misunderstandings that occur in discussions about the universe. This topic is meant to solve this problem once and for all by deciding on a general definition for everything.

Can everyone please just explain what they mean when they say "the universe". Then we can start working on a general definition...

.
A
Anonymous
Unregistered
Anonymous
Unregistered
A
IMHO,the universe is everything that exists, from the germy dirt between your toes to the furthest star or star cluster and everything around, under, above and in between.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
U
Superstar
Offline
Superstar
U
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 540
Everything within your lightcone is your universe. Everything that inflated from the Big Bang is the universe. There is a rather a lot of it overall, and most of it probably plays by different rules.


Uncle Al
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/
(Toxic URL! Unsafe for children and most mammals)
http://www.mazepath.com/uncleal/qz3.pdf
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Amaranth,
What about the multi- universe theory?
If the big bang is true, this universe is finite.
So it's not really EVERYTHING that exists...

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
H
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
H
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 7
Quote:
Originally posted by Rob:
Amaranth,
What about the multi- universe theory?
If the big bang is true, this universe is finite.
So it's not really EVERYTHING that exists...
Rob,

your last remark suggests that you think that beyond the universe that is presumably formed by the Big Bang, something can exist.
According to most established theories, this is not the case. Beyond our Universe, there is nothing, neither time nor space, according to the current BB theory anyway. So even to characterize that which lies beyond the observable universe with "nothing" is 7 characters too much.

If multiple universes exist, a possibility not excluded by the inflationary BB theory, they much likely reside in other dimensions than those we dwell in.


Regards, Hugo
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Rob:"other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist."

The best explanation I was give to pretty much the same question was the following: those people (stringists in principle, but also multiversists) need also to earn a living.Go figure.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Rob: other dimentions, what a load of crap. Give one reson why we should assume that other dimentions exist.

Obviously you cannot comprehend the concept of more than 3 spatial dimensions. As Pasti said, string theorists believe that on a micro scale, the universe has infinite dimensions "curled up". Its almost impossible to picture, as humans think in a 3 dimension spatial world but mathematically, it is possible.

Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
R
Ric Offline
Member
Offline
Member
R
Joined: Aug 2005
Posts: 44
'The Hitch Hiker's Guide to the Galaxy has, in what we laughingly call the past, had a great deal to say on the subject of parallel universes. Very little of this is, however, at all comprehensible to anyone below the level of Advanced God, and since it is now well-established that all known gods came into existence a good three millionths of a second after the Universe began rather than, as they usually claimed, the previous week, they already have a great deal of explaining to do as it is, and are therefore not available for comment on matters of deep physics at this time.
One encouraging thing the Guide does have to say on the subject of parallel universes is that you don't stand the remotest chance of understanding it. You can therefore say "What?" and "Eh?" and even go cross-eyes and start to blither if you like without any fear of making a fool of yourself.
The first thing to realize about parallel universes, the Guide says, is that they are not parallel.
It is also important to realize that they are not, strictly speaking, universes either, but it is easiest if you try and realize that a little later, after you've realized that everything you've realized up to that moment is not true.
The reason they are not universes is that any given universe is not actually a thing as such, but is just a way of looking at what is generally known as the WSOGMM, or Whole Sort of General Mish Mash. The Whole Sort of General Mish Mash doesn't actually exist either, but it is just the sum total of all the different ways there would be of looking at it if it did.
The reason they are not parallel is the same reason that the sea is not parallel. It doesn't mean anything. You can slice the Whole Sort of General Mish Mash any way you like and you will generally come up with something that someone will call home.
Please feel free to blither now.'

From "So long, and thanks for all the fish" by Douglas Adams

laugh


"The first Human who hurled an insult instead of a stone was the founder of civilization." -Sigmund Freud
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Amara,
prove that this is mathematically possible.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
P
Senior Member
Offline
Senior Member
P
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 201
Rob, there are countless books on the issue. Try Polcinski's String theory, or Clifford Johnson's book.The latter deals beautifully with compactifications.

If you want to picture it, roughly speaking, imagine a plane tangent to a sphere, than make the sphere very very small. This is simple to picture. The difficult thing to picture is that at every point in your spacetime you have such a plane tangent to a microscopic sphere.

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Have a read of Briane Greene's "The Elegant Universe" and you'll see what I mean.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Greene's books are excellent. I highly recommend them.

Also the November issue of Scientific American.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
Is this what you mean by dimentions in maths?
x^1 = we can picture - 1D
x^2 = we can picture - 2D
x^3 = we live in - 3D
X^4 = we can't fathom - 4D
x^n = forget it! - nD

Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
A
Junior Member
Offline
Junior Member
A
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 16
Nope, imagine an extra dimension as a curve in space. I'll use Brian Greene's 'ants on a hosepipe' analogy. Normally with our perception of 3 spatial dimensions, we can specify the position of a point with 3 co-ordinates. But if there was an ant on a hosepipe, we can also specify its location with an extra dimension, a value of position on the curve.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Take a look at the article in November Scientific American. One interesting aspect of it is that it is seemingly impossible to distinguish between a projection of two dimensions and three with gravity.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
I never quite understood that example, and I still don't. Is the hosepipe supposed to be a representation of space-time or something. Anyway, no matter how complicated a shape gets, it's still 3D.

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
Rob wrote:
"... no matter how complicated a shape gets, it's still 3D"

No it isn't. It is indistinguishable. That is the point. The two are equivalent.


DA Morgan
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
R
RM Offline OP
Superstar
OP Offline
Superstar
R
Joined: Oct 2005
Posts: 560
what's equivalent to what?

Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
D
Megastar
Offline
Megastar
D
Joined: Oct 2004
Posts: 4,136
A projection of 2D without gravity can be equivalent to 3D with gravity.

Read.


DA Morgan
Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5

Link Copied to Clipboard
Newest Members
debbieevans, bkhj, jackk, Johnmattison, RacerGT
865 Registered Users
Sponsor

Science a GoGo's Home Page | Terms of Use | Privacy Policy | Contact UsokÂþ»­¾W
Features | News | Books | Physics | Space | Climate Change | Health | Technology | Natural World

Copyright © 1998 - 2016 Science a GoGo and its licensors. All rights reserved.

Powered by UBB.threads™ PHP Forum Software 7.7.5