Deep Sight:

Beneli. . . .? ? ? ? ?

Exactly! That's 'science' for you!!

beneli:


Does anything conceivably exist outside the universe?

Yes and No-whatever exists 'outside' the 'universe' is outside our comprehension. So it's not concievable to us, really. Having said that, the understanding is that our universe is just one of many so called 'universes', each with their own scripts and laws. Even within our own 'universe' at the level of quantum mechanics, the laws and scripts played out there are quite different to the ones we can understand using 4-dimensional calculations. Some suggestions are that cosmic holes may be the gateways to these other universes. But these are just suggestions. It is also suggested that inbetween the 'universes' could be higher dimensional spaces, but certainly not 'nothing'.

This is fine. My take exactly. . .

 
  3. Is the universe the same thing as spacetime,

No-spacetime is just the 4th dimension. The 'universe' is a lot more than the 4 dimensions, according to mathematics and theoretical physics.

  4. or does it exist within spacetime.

No-see the answer to 3.

Existence as a whole may well be a whole lot more than 4 dimensions, infinite dimensions even. But the universe. . .?

Here's what Wikipedia says -

Three-dimensional space is a geometric model of the physical universe in which we live. The three dimensions are commonly called length, width, and depth (or height), although any three mutually perpendicular directions can serve as the three dimensions.

[edit] Details
In physics, our three-dimensional space is viewed as embedded in 4-dimensional space-time, called Minkowski space (see special relativity). The idea behind space-time is that time is hyperbolic-orthogonal to each of the three spatial dimensions.

In mathematics, analytic geometry (also called Cartesian geometry) describes every point in three-dimensional space by means of three coordinates. Three coordinate axes are given, each perpendicular to the other two at the origin, the point at which they cross. They are usually labeled x, y, and z. Relative to these axes, the position of any point in three-dimensional space is given by an ordered triple of real numbers, each number giving the distance of that point from the origin measured along the given axis, which is equal to the distance of that point from the plane determined by the other two axes.

Note the highlighted portions. I am at odds with your suggestion that the universe (i.e: this universe) is alot more than 4 dimensions.

This is because as stated above, we live within a three dimensional space (See the image in my next post below).[/b]with time as a 4th dimension.

I am entirely happy to accept however, as stated in the first part of your post, that outside [b]THIS universe, there may well be a multiverse or infinite dimensions. Remember what i termed "Z."

Addendum: There is a lot of talk of the 'universe expanding'. I think that is where the problem is for some. If there is nothing like 'nothing' then what is the universe expanding into? Well the simple answer to that, a view which some scientists hold, is that the 'universe' is not expanding!  What is expanding is 'spacetime' and NOT the universe per se. Outside of 'spacetime' exists 'space' not subject to our understanding of 'space' and 'time'. This 'space', however, is still within the 'universe'.

NOW THIS IS WHERE I HAVE SERIOUS PROBLEMS.

Can the intangible quatity called time be said to expand, or be expanding? I doubt that.

It is a verifiable, documented and observable fact that the universe is in fact expanding.

In this regard i am mindful of the balloon model which envisages objects moving away from each other because of the inflation of space within the balloon. So i can uncerstand the ideas about spacetime expanding. Nevertheless i do not accept that idea. This is because space and time are infinite, self existent quantities that cannot in the real sense of things be said to expand.

The universe which consists of matter, is within this infinite space in the same way as other universes may be within the same infinite space. Doubtless there may be different twists to the observation or experence of spacetime in different universes or even in different parts of one universe, but there is absolutely no reason to suppose that space ends at the borders of THIS universe, as space by nature is infinite and boundless. Also such a supposition will raise the question you asked, which i have pointed at severally - "into what is the universe ([b]this universe) expanding?"[/b]

If you state that spacetime is expanding the same poser could be raised - into what is spacetime expanding.

I postively deny that spacetime may be said to expand and i state that the universe of matter exists within and expands into self-existent and infinite space and time.

Thus you are somewhat correct when you say - (as amended by me below)

Outside of 'spacetime' this universe exists 'space' not subject to our understanding of 'space' and 'time'.

But dead on wrong and incongruous when you add -

This 'space', however, is still within the 'universe'

Oops. . . That's a complete logical reverse. Perhaps what you should be saying is that[b] the multiverse exists within infinite space and time.[/b]

This is the 3-dimensional image of space in which we live i referred to above -

I think our 'disagreement' is in our understanding of what constitutes the 'universe'.

While i am of the (obviously uninformed) opinion that the 'universe' is not a 4-dimensional entity, and that bubbles of 'spacetime' exists within a wider universe, your take, if i am not wrong, is that these my bubbles of 'spacetime' is infact the universe itself.

I am no physicist or Mathematician. I am just a fan of Stargate (SG-1 and now Stargate Universe), but i do understand that in particle physics things can be in more than one space at the same time! Now how do you explain that, if 'spacetime' is the universe? Again, i understand that the talk these days is that 'gravity' seeps into 'space' which lies outside of our 'spacetime' continuum. If that's what they are talking about, then where on earth does it seep into?

I am told that higher dimensions exist in theoretical physics. I have also heard that 'gravity' is not what we once thought it to be (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Graviton) and that it actually seeps into these higher dimensions (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fifth_dimension), not exactly subject to 'spacetime' physics. For me, this space is still within our universe!

That space is also where i believe 'spacetime', not the universe, is expanding into!

To add to the above.

The word 'expansion' (http://ardictionary.com/Expansion/6515) may not be the exact phenomenon going on. I think we use it for want of a better word, seeing that by nature 'expansion' is really a 4-dimensional concept i.e. spreading out in 3-dimensional space in a time continuum. Perhaps it would be more accurate to say that 'spacetime' is 'seeping' into unknown space. In other words the 4th dimension is encroaching into other dimensions!

Now that's 'simpler' to understand, isn't it?!

To add to the above again. Sorry.

I use the word 'space' for want of a better word. Perhaps the word should be 'thing', when not part of 'spacetime'! Obviously Particle Physicists and Mathematicians are trying to use terms understandable to everyday people to explain what they think is going on. The fact that scientist don't all agree is irrefutable, but for theoretical purposes, the dialogue is still interesting. Obvioulsy most of these hypotheses will end up in the dustbins of history as more information comes to light. And then come back again to be refined, only to be again discarded!

I am of the opinion that we will continue to search and find 'answers' which will only open up newer questions. The 'Truth' if it is out 'there', will always remain hovering on the other side of our comprehension as long as we function within the boundaries of 'spacetime'. We lack the capacity to fully understand anything outside of these boundaries, just like the 'simple' concepts of 'nothingness' and 'eternity' will ever remain a paradox to us, calculated only in mathematics and physics but never quite understood.

All we are left to do is to exchange ideas and concepts, which may have little to do with the 'truth'.

Just a mild correction -

beneli:

your take, if i am not wrong, is that these my bubbles of 'spacetime' is infact the universe itself.

NO: THAT IS NOT MY TAKE: My take is that space and time are infinite and self existent contancies within which matter exists and expands.

@Deep Sight: About 23 hours have passed since you asked me a question that I eventually answered after almost 4 hours, and 7 hours since i posted a reminder but I haven't heard your own rejoinder views. I refer to the Atheists' Holy Day thread:

https://www.nairaland.com/nigeria/topic-363977.32.html#msg5095959

So I imagine that you either misunderstood what I initially said, or you just do not wish to pursue the matter. In my high respect of your opinion across these threads, I would have liked to identify the loophole you said you saw in my argument. But in either case, it's all good.

@Topic: No comment.

deleted. Redundant post!

Beneli? ? ? ? ?

How would the Universe end?

@beneli, amazing! Thank you so much for your simplicity and stright to the point inputs on the subject.

Deep Sight:

This is because as stated above, we live within a three dimensional space (See the image in my next post below).with time as a 4th dimension.

Time is not the 4th dimension and is not described that way. The 4th dimension is a single continuum called spacetime, it is not called just 'time'. It is meaningless to describe time as the 4th dimension on its own.

One reason why I love physics.


             [flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></[/flash]

darling, whatz up? I sneaked in here thinking you'd be long gone to sleep. . but your satellites are all alert?  I was sacred once. . now I'm getting really, really scared!

@Viaro: I hardly ever sleep. A growing bad habit.

Deep Sight:

Beneli? ? ? ? ?

I had posted something which i realise is not exactly relevant. I will try to put my thoughts together and start it as a new discussion. It's about exploring the 'fabric' of eternity (and infinity). But if people think that it will be interesting, they can set the ball rolling!

^^I look forward to that new discussion.

mavenbox:

@Viaro: I hardly ever sleep. A growing bad habit.

Don't worry - it's common with very enlightened minds.
Hope you're having a great weekend?

Okay, I haven't really followed this thread in much detail, I got lost with all the talk of wormholes and cosmologies etc that I couldn't relate to the title to the thread, ie how the world would end.

However I would like to make just one small contribution to the matter that circumvent all the spacetime stuff.

When we ask how the universe will end aren't we making a big presupposition that history, and the processes that make up history, are linear (or tangential)? In other words that they start at a certain point and proceed up until another point and then stop there.

What about the possibility that process could be cyclical? Ie. that points could be revisited creating a loop that means that things will go on forever with every event recurring at some point or the other.

viaro:

Don't worry - it's common with very enlightened minds.
Hope you're having a great weekend?

So we are using insomnia to big ourselves up now. na wa o!

Me too I don't always sleep well, but I tend to view it more as a problem.

viaro:

^^I look forward to that new discussion.

The discussion about the 'fabric' of etentity (and infinity) almost follows from this one. It probably will begin at the point this one ends. So maybe we should backtrack to the original question: How will the 'universe' end?

I think the discussion so far has shown that there is no consensus about what 'the universe' is. 

One camp, the group to which i belong, subscribes to the understanding that 'spacetime'-that which was birthed at the so called 'big bang'-is not the same thing as 'the universe'. So i will argue from the perspective that the 'universe' is NOT bounded by 'space' and 'time', and is therefore, self-existing, eternal and infinite. And if that is the case, it cannot end. 'Ending' by definition would be a 4-dimensional concept. The only thing that will and can end, is really 'spacetime'.

So how will 'spacetime' end then?. My opinion is that it will gradually 'expand' beyond its 'breaking point' into a dimension where time does not exist. We have already raised the point that 'gravity' may be seeping out into a dimension that is higher than the 4th dimension. A dimension, which, as postulated earlier, 'spacetime' itself is also expanding into.  This expansion will continue until spacetime' is completely swallowed up by the 'fabric' of this higher dimension, which for want of a better word, i will call 'infinity'.

So, in a nutshell, the universe itself will not end. But 'spacetime', which is but 'debris'-or if you prefer, creation-of this 'infinity', will gradually become one with that which formed it, and in the process cease to exist for a moment in 'time'; perhaps being birthed again 'sometime' in a future or a present or a past that we, 4-dimensional creatures, will never be able to comprehend.

Beneli. . . ? ? ? ? You've got something very intreresting cooking there. . . I like very much. . .

Save to state that time is definitely an intangible infinite constant and can never be said to "end."

Ditto space.

viaro:

One reason why I love physics.


             [flash=500,400]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x_tNzeouHC4&color1=0xb1b1b1&color2=0xcfcfcf&hl=en_US&feature=player_embedded&fs=1"></[/flash]

The statement in 4.32-4.35 about the electrons behaving 'as if they are aware that they were being watched' raises some very interesting questions such as:
1. could the 'fabric' of the universe itself exhibit 'intelligence'?;
2. is man's so called 'consciousness' something that is not unique to man and 'biological' entities alone?.
3. Could 'intelligence' exist' outside of the 4-dimension, seeing that at the level of particle physics, the laws of the 4th dimension are not obeyed?

These are questions, which one should attempt to answer in the topic about the 'fabric' of infinity and eternity. Perhaps, we could move the video and the questions to the new topic. What do you think Viaro?

Beneli i think that using the word "fabric" in the context if infinity and eternity is an insurmountable contradiction.

Deep Sight:

Beneli. . . ? ? ? ? You've got something very intreresting cooking there. . . I like very much. . .

Save to state that time is definitely an intangible infinite constant and can never be said to "end."

Ditto space.

The bolded part akes us back to the ancient philosphical question of 'what is time?'!
My take on it is that time, is a function of the speed of light, is finite and will therefore 'end'. Infinity begins at the point where time 'ends'.

beneli:

These are questions, which one should attempt to answer in the topic about the 'fabric' of infinity and eternity. Perhaps, we could move the video and the questions to the new topic. What do you think Viaro?

Goodness me! Are you kidding me? Lol. I actually had the very same thing in mind and in a sort of way it seems as if we have a cloned mind about these things!   My world!!

Please feel free to move, remodel, or whatever! I just can't wait!

Talking about having similar ideas, the very things (and more) you have highlighted were the things I had in mind when I opened another thread - Of Singularities and Infinities - but slowed down because it seemed the discussion would just spiral out of shape and enter a blackhole of its own. So a separate thread as you proposed would/might just be the thing. Good thinking, beneli.

quote author=Deep Sight link=topic=362859.msg5104138#msg5104138 date=1260716969]
Beneli i think that using the word "fabric" in the context if infinity and eternity is an insurmountable contradiction.
[quote][/quote]

I use 'fabric' because there's hardly anything else on earth we could use to describe it! Scientists have used phrases such as the 'god particle', so perhaps we should call it God. I still prefer 'fabric' for now, though.

viaro:

Time is not the 4th dimension and is not described that way.

Altogether and absolutely wrong Viaro. I'll let Wikipedia speak, not me -

Spacetime
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

In physics, spacetime (or space–time; or space/time) is any mathematical model that combines space and time into a single continuum. Spacetime is usually interpreted with space being three-dimensional and time playing the role of a fourth dimension that is of a different sort than the spatial dimensions. According to certain Euclidean space perceptions, the universe has three dimensions of space and one dimension of time.

viaro:


Talking about having similar ideas, the very things (and more) you have highlighted were the things I had in mind when I opened another thread - Of Singularities and Infinities - but slowed down because it seemed the discussion would just spiral out of shape and enter a blackhole of its own. So a separate thread as you proposed would/might just be the thing. Good thinking, beneli.

Rather than duplicate threads i think we should simply ressurect that thread so some of the things already said there needn't be repeated.

Deep Sight:

Rather than duplicate threads i think we should simply ressurect that thread so some of the things already said there needn't be repeated.

I agree.