Does space ever end?

[Saturlight]

I know you guys are into links and stuff...so I wondered on behalf of myself and others, if there were any links to space not ending.

It seems impossible for it to not end, and impossible for it to end.

If it doesn't end, then how can something go on forever, with no beginning or end. If it started, then it must end, with a start and a end, and the end must be towards the end of the middle.

If you take the view that there was no start, that space, time and the universes out there, always existed, then how is that possible. If it always existed, then can you get your head round that?

If it didn't always exist, then it started, but what was there before it started. And did something replace it? Maybe. Who knows.

I take the view that space, time and the universes out there, always existed, and with that there is no start or finish, either time-wise, or distance-wise.

What ya think?

 

[Lancelot]

I always find it easier to think of, as being a 3 dimensional model of this 2D example.


L.

 

[Saturlight]

Yes, but if you put a 3-D cube on a table...what surrounds the table and what's below and above is in itself an extension to the space the 3-D cube occupies. Therefore, the total mass is more than the 3-D cube, and beyond. In effect, the 3-D cube is what "we" and the telescopes see, ie, the stars, and that. So..emm...what ya think?

 

[Lancelot]

This model is limited by the 3 physical dimensions that we are able to percieve, I know where you're coming from but if you want to keep thinking of 'what's outside the box' then you can spend a very long sunday afternon



L.

 

[spiney]

The universe has no "outside", and spacetime itself is curved.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curved_space-time .

Whether the universe is open or closed is, I believe, currently unknown.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Closed_universe .

Note that we're talking about space-time, as revealed by special relativity, as space-by-itelf doesn't exist!

According to Hawking and Penrose, as you go back towards the start of the universe, space and time topologically merge, so time doesn't have any "beginning" .....
http://www.fu-berlin.de/info/einstein_lectures/2005/vortrag.html .

 

[PCD]

Space is something we see or feel with our senses or imagine with our mind. When we die there will be no senses, no mind, no imagination and therefore no space any more ! There is nothing absolute, except as relative to our existence !

Looking at it another way, space is defined by distances between objects; when there will be no objects there will be no space.

Regards, pcd.

 

[spiney]

Space as absolute, as Newton put it "God's Sensorium", may be contrasted with space as relationships, the Leibnizian view.

Kant thought that space was a pre-condition of any experience whatsoever (transcendendtal, a priori). As he said, can you imagine just a right hand on it's own? (try, and you'll find you're imagining it inside a set of pre-existing co-ordinate axis ....!).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy_of_space_and_time .

 

[Saturlight]

This model is limited by the 3 physical dimensions that we are able to percieve, I know where you're coming from but if you want to keep thinking of 'what's outside the box' then you can spend a very long sunday afternon



L.

Yup, got it in one. . Thanks, Lance. ;)

 

[Saturlight]

Space is something we see or feel with our senses or imagine with our mind. When we die there will be no senses, no mind, no imagination and therefore no space any more ! There is nothing absolute, except as relative to our existence !

Looking at it another way, space is defined by distances between objects; when there will be no objects there will be no space.

Regards, pcd.

I can see that, because when I snuff it, it won't be an issue.

 

[T_G]

There is no space. The earth is flat, swimming on top of the deep ocean and at the edge there are vicious sea dragons killing everything. The sky is a huge glass dome and the sun is a ball of fire spewed out of a dragons mouth.
And when you die, you find out that all your life you have been worshipping the completely wrong thing, as will be told you by a small half naked amazonian tribesman on the gates of heaven.

 

[spiney]

There's a Garry Larson cartoon, that has Colonel Sanders (inventor of Kentucky Fried Chicken) arriving at the gates of heaven, and standing in front of - and guarding - them are two giant chickens, he says "uh oh .....".

I think the sun is probably a hot lump of coal, replaced each day (when it burns up, night comes ..... ).

http://www.theflatearthsociety.org/forums/ (great fun!).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth_Society .

There's also the fact that there can be no final answer, "who made God?", etc ..........
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Turtles_all_the_way_down .

 

[Saturlight]

I joined the flat earth society and was banned because I said the earth WAS flat. Apparently, I am not supposed to agree.

 

[Salty25]

I like the 'Multi-verse' idea, anyone know what I'm on about, I dont really fancy explaining that? Heres a Wiki - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse_(science)

 

[spiney]

Multiverse is from the "many worlds" interpretation of quantum mechanics, instead of the wavefunction just "collapsing" (statistically, arbtarily), instead the universe endlessly splits, to form an - ever increasing! - infinity of universes ........

Mainly a sci fi idea, not really taken seriously by most practising scientists.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Many-worlds_interpretation_of_quantum_mechanics .

 

[JTA]

excuse me, the multi-verse is the practical outcome of the current Grand Unified Theory which says that our universe is but a small spagegtti-like structure (infinitely thin but endlessly long) in 10-dimensional space (also called M-space). This M-space is filled with other structures which all form a true universe on their own. It's when these structures collide in M-space that the energy released by this this collision will create a 'big bang' in both universes, unfolding matter in all 3 dimensions, to create a 'visible' universe within the 10-dimensional super-structure.

 

[spiney]

Er ...... no!

 

[JTA]

what do you mean ...... no?
I know it's pretty fantastic but this is where quantum physics have arrived to for the moment. Mathematically it all makes sense, even if it is pretty uncomprehensable, and no, I don't understand it myself, this goes way over my abilities, but I've read a few good books about the subject and I've watched some pretty good documentaries, and it's amazing the things they come up with. (I won't even mention the miniverse, shall I :-) )

 

[spiney]

The parallel universes - as postulated by Everett - are (in theory) obsevable. At the moment, there are experiments in quantum computing, where - in theory - a system can be in several different states simultaneously, only possible if there really are parallel universes.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quantum_computing .

Whereas, bubble universes - if they exist - are not reachable from this one, hence not observable (and each would have its own multiverse).

Otherwise, only in sci fi, eg, Number of the Beast (Heinlein).
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Number_of_the_Beast_(novel) .

Do you mean "bubble theory"?
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multiverse .

 

[JTA]

I do not think there is a difference between "parallel universes" and "bubble universes" : they are both outside of our own universe, from which we can never escape as it is growing at the speed of light, so neither parallel nor bubble universes can ever be reached from within our own universe.
What might be observed are the side-effects of this parallel/bubble universe as it is close to our own universe. Some say gravity is a force which is influenced by a nearby universe, hence it's apparent weakness, but if you ask me, this is all pure mathematical speculation.

 

[PCD]

I like this thread. Will it ever end ?

As I said before, everything exists in the domain of conceptual reality. We are like toads at the bottom of a well looking up - with our limited senses is it possible for us to truly concieve what is up there ? For example when we say something is curved, we mean it is curved in relation to something we consider straight. How do we know the straight item is actually straight and there is not an unknown law of optics which makes it appear straight to us ?

Thats enough waffling for now I think. I need another puff !