The Structure of the Universe

[indie]

My brother and I had an interesting conversation about this during the drive back to Vegas. He (an ISTJ) said that he cannot comprehend the universe as anything but something that can fit into a neat little box. I suspect that most S's can't comprehend it as anything but that. It just doesn't fit into their sensibilities. He said something along the lines of "It doesn't make sense that the universe doesn't end. It *has* to end."

I then attempted to explain to him the various theories of quantum mechanics where there are infinite universe bubbles existing in various states where the energy of the whole is partly a function of its parts and where there are different realities where the outcomes are not dependent upon action (work) but upon states of consciousness.

So, RE the structure of the universe. . . it made me think about the word itself. When my brother speaks of the word "universe" he is referring to something that can fit into a neat little box. But when we NP types think of the word universe, I suspect we think of everything that is and isn't and that is beyond.

Anyway, I just wanted to make a poll. . . so here it is. What do you think of when you hear the word: "universe"?

[Sackanaka]

I think Marvel comics.
Seriously, that's the first thing I think of.
Then I see a bunch of stars and stuff that I see in picture books "for kids and adults."

Regarding your post, it made me think of three things:
1) Futurama: The Farnsworth Parabox
2) One of the pages on http://www.exitmundi.nl/
3) Reading a science magazine, they had an article stating the common fallacy of thinking the Big Bang as some kind of bomb-explosion with schrapnel flinging out into (preexisting) space. Current theory suggests that there was no space; the bang created space. Which ties into the idea that the universe is expanding/shrinking. But since this is this forum, I'm sure others can shed even more light upon the topic.

Sackanaka's Universe:
Everything you care to acknowledge of its existence, potential or otherwise, and follows rules you let it follow, potential or otherwise.

That or Zen ;).

[indie]

Reading a science magazine, they had an article stating the common fallacy of thinking the Big Bang as some kind of bomb-explosion with schrapnel flinging out into (preexisting) space. Current theory suggests that there was no space; the bang created space.

Here's where I question the first law of thermodynamics: matter (energy) can neither be created nor destroyed, it can only be transferred. THAT law is where it gets hairy, because it is defined by boundaries (open/closed) systems. . . what if human understanding is tainted by definition of the boundaries. Perhaps the study of boundaries, both on a mega and a micro level would give some answers.

[Serotonin]

I like to think of it as the realm of human knowledge, yes.

But that is expanding, just like the universe.

Maybe a perennially enlarging amorphous box....

[MacGuffin]

I have this limitation on my thinking that everything has boundries. I have a hard time thinking of something without them.

I see everything like a Venn diagram.

[Sackanaka]

Psst.. take off the helmet.

[jyakulis]

I always thought that would gradually begin to contract forming at the center again. I thought I read that somewhere who knows. I think of it as an evolutionary type process that takes an amount of time uncomprehendable. That's at least how I tend to look at travel through a worm hole (time travel). I think that's why it's can happen. BUT I don't think you get teleported to another universe or like get whisked away far distances. I think of it as opening a door and walking through it. You arrive at the same place at essentially the same point but you are warped through time. So, in terms of the evolution of the universe you are at another point in the CYCLE but not a different point in all of space (did that make sense :huh: )

How the contraction begins to occur I don't have any ideas bout this. I can only speculate. I don't really know enough physics anyway. But I think it's kinda cool to think about all the galaxies colliding on one center point again and again and all the energy exploding again and again. But they prolly wouldn't be galaxies anymore just a bunch of black holes by the time they got back. Perhaps reaching some critical amount of mass at the center point when the energy is so high that it necessarily must explode again. Maybe this number is necessarily infinity so then maybe it can't contract. I dunno all I know is it's expanding because of red shift data. GOD now I'm just confusing myself. Anywho, still trying to figure out a model in my head that's acceptable to myself.

[Friendly_Julius]

I always thought that would gradually begin to contract forming at the center again. I thought I read that somewhere who knows. I think of it as an evolutionary type process that takes an amount of time uncomprehendable. That's at least how I tend to look at travel through a worm hole (time travel). I think that's why it's can happen. BUT I don't think you get teleported to another universe or like get whisked away far distances. I think of it as opening a door and walking through it. You arrive at the same place at essentially the same point but you are warped through time. So, in terms of the evolution of the universe you are at another point in the CYCLE but not a different point in all of space (did that make sense :huh:)

How the contraction begins to occur I don't have any ideas bout this. I can only speculate. I don't really know enough physics anyway. But I think it's kinda cool to think about all the galaxies colliding on one center point again and again and all the energy exploding again and again. But they prolly wouldn't be galaxies anymore just a bunch of black holes by the time they got back. Perhaps reaching some critical amount of mass at the center point when the energy is so high that it necessarily must explode again. Maybe this number is necessarily infinity so then maybe it can't contract. I dunno all I know is it's expanding because of red shift data. GOD now I'm just confusing myself. Anywho, still trying to figure out a model in my head that's acceptable to myself.
It's been endlessly discussed by physicists. There isn't enough mass in the universe (unless the hypothetical "dark matter" is real) to pull this universe back together. Our name is Huuumpty. Pronounced with an Uuumpty.

[moni]

I chose "unable to comprehend"...

There's so much about the universe that humans don't know yet... and it feels like we will never truly know how it came about. I imagine the universe as being endless.... and that it may be possible that that there was no beginning to it, and maybe there will be no end. It's hard to think of something to have just exist with no beginning, since everything we see in life has an alpha and an omega. Hmmm, I'm not sure how to exactly explain this...

Maybe there really is a whole lot more about the universe that humans will never be able to comprehend based on our intelligence level. I don't know... I was thinking about Dogma for a moment, where a human's head would burst if he/she were to hear "god's" voice... our sensories aren't strong/good enough to take it.

[Forloren]

I think I have gotten to a point where I can begin to think of something without boundries and not having my brain break on me.

I kind of view the universe as limitless space and time. But since my understanding of space and time is so limited, I really can't define it. I've got a constantly changing idea in my head though. When I figure it all out I'll let everyone know.

-Forloren

[jyakulis]

It's been endlessly discussed by physicists. There isn't enough mass in the universe (unless the hypothetical "dark matter" is real) to pull this universe back together. Our name is Huuumpty. Pronounced with an Uuumpty.


Yeah I mean essentially everything is going to eventually become a black hole. But at the edge of the universe there are things called quasars. But I mean I think it's a little naieve to say that quasars are the edge of the universe. Aren't they the furtherest object that can actually be OBSERVED. What are these quasar....could this be the dark matter? I don't think so just throwing that out there. Each galaxy could even become a black hole. Is there nothing at the center point or is mass still there? Are quasars dead galaxies maybe? They have to be MASSIVE if they are the farthest known object in space we can observe. Maybe they are dying galaxies who knows. Or do the galaxies revolve around it, for instance, like our own solar system? The possibilities are really endless. The dark matter you spoke of. I've read briefly on this but it was a long time ago. What do they hypothesize the function of the dark matter is exactly?

Finally a universe/physics debate...wish there were more of these happppy

[Boneca]

I chose the option that the Universe is matter. But I'd also like to include energy in that (although the two are essentially the same).

Without energy/matter, there wouldn't be anything, since space is defined as the distance between objects (thus requiring matter) and time is essentially a measurement of change (which requires an energy flux). And since space and time are the only dimensions we can understand, anything beyond that is equal to nothing (to us at least).
Therefore I conclude that the universe is matter and energy.

[jyakulis]

http://www.answersingenesis.org/tj/v11/i3/quasar.asp

http://www.union.ic.ac.uk/rcc/astrosoc/articles/DarkMattersandQuasars.pdf

[jyakulis]

Here's one for the believers out there :)

all the known galaxies mapped out enjoy

I figured I'd throw in the visual to suck you in....here's an actual article....though I've read more recent mappings and I don't know if this still holds true...I'll have to look into it.

http://www.realtruthmag.org/articles/july-mtu.html

[Dman]

For practical purposes, the Universe = everything observable/detectable

Can also be described as encompassing everything observable and unobservable

The problem people have when trying to define it as "fitting inside a neat little box" is when you ask what is on the outside of that box

[Dman]

Here's one for the believers out there :)

all the known galaxies mapped out enjoy

I figured I'd throw in the visual to suck you in....here's an actual article....though I've read more recent mappings and I don't know if this still holds true...I'll have to look into it.

http://www.realtruthmag.org/articles/july-mtu.html

I hope you're joking

[jyakulis]

I hope you're joking

Heh not really....my astronomy professor actually introduced it to me. I figured I'd bring it up.

[Dman]

Heh not really....my astronomy professor actually introduced it to me. I figured I'd bring it up.

Would you mind doing me a favor and ask your astronomy prof if he/she ate a lot of paint chips when younger

[hemanthraz]

None of the models of the universe can explain all of the phenomena in a consistent manner.Yeah sure with a lot of mathematical juggling and slinging of infinities they can be beaten into submission, but what would that prove, just that scientist X was right?

All the theories are approximations and theories made to fit the facts [which is a huge job], so we can use the model necassary for our purpouses. If the universe is indescribable i fail to see how anyone could remain interested. We define the universe as what we experience, anything else is just in an undefined state.

[jyakulis]

Would you mind doing me a favor and ask your astronomy prof if he/she ate a lot of paint chips when younger


LOL.....I'm glad I credited that post to him than myself.

[Google Monster]

Our universe is a giant ball of string. hehe, or so thats what string theory purposes. I don't believe that of course. My universe is much more stable and doesn't involve uncertainties. But I live in a wild predictable universe where gravity does not exist so I'll keep the details to myself for now.

[j4ck]

My universe is much more stable and doesn't involve uncertainties. But I live in a wild predictable universe where gravity does not exist so I'll keep the details to myself for now.

Hmm. You are joking, right?



http://www.realtruthmag.org/articles/july-mtu.html

I generally stop reading something either after I see the words "quantum leaps in knowlege", or "information superhighway". :)

I really don't know how far we have come in putting together the large-scale structure of the (known) universe, but the closest I can find to something like this is like what is simulated here (http://niri.ncsa.uiuc.edu/virdir/universe/public/)...which is the sort of thing I expected to see.

It is my understanding that what we don't exactly know the large scale structure of the universe. After all, knowing the distrubution of matter in the universe helps answer big questions concerning its behavior in the future, as well as how galaxies and clusters form. Take a look at the run down given by this guy (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/myresearch.html#lss) at Berkeley. Note the link he provides to Probes of Large Scale Structure (http://astron.berkeley.edu/~mwhite/probes-lss.html#galsurv).

[PonderBee]

The universe exists and evolves without boundary. Whether or not humans can understand, or define and categorize the the universe as a whole or in parts does not serve to limit the universe.

[flan2dave]

The theory that states infinite amount of universes spontaneously form in every instant and every bit of space doesn't seem satisfying to me. If all the particle's paths are represented in the other universes, why is it our universe gets the paths of least energy (for the most part, small scale occurences of energy potential wall breaches regularly occur)? One verse of the multiverse is special, while the rest cleans up for the special one. I haven't read about this much, maybe I'm far off about the implications of it, so I'm just throwing this out here for the sake of discussion.

[Shai Gar]

i chose is not a structure but a state of mind. since i think that each universe is a mind, and all sentient beings inside it are simply the physical exertions of other universes(minds) trying to contact that universe. all of those contacts are responded to in kind with the universe being yet another mind that is inside each of us and ... fuck it is all in my book

[PsiKik]

I have always visualized the big bang not as an explosion but more of a baloon expanding. The Universe is all of existence.

[Dman]

I reiterate from an old thread that the big bang was simply the creation of a black hole in another “level“ of our universe. What we know as our universe is all contained within that black hole. All the matter/energy we see actually came from this other level of universe, and when the black hole collapsed, it created the big bang – thus our universe as we know it – which is ever expanding as more and more material is consumed by the black hole. As the black hole acquires more mass, our “universe” grows, fed by this additional material being absorbed. This also explains why there was such a severe inflationary period in the beginning that has subsequently slowed down. Conceivably the expansion rate can slow down as less mass is being acquired; and conversely speed up as an event such as absorbing another black hole is consumed.

There are many other behaviors of our universe that can be explained by this phenomena.

The black hole that created our universe is in another universe which is obviously much larger than that which we observe, and that universe is also the inner workings of a black hole. And so on. Infinitely larger = infinitely smaller.

[Dman]

Boy, that one kills threads every time

[indie]

The black hole that created our universe is in another universe which is obviously much larger than that which we observe, and that universe is also the inner workings of a black hole. And so on. Infinitely larger = infinitely smaller.

Interesting theory. So you are defining the word "universe" as an entity that exists in and of itself, separate from another entity that created it? What defines the boundaries between the two?

[Edmond Zedo]

Interesting theory. So you are defining the word "universe" as an entity that exists in and of itself, separate from another entity that created it? What defines the boundaries between the two?
Baby, he may act sure about it, but he isn't. The fundamental nature of the universe and potentially beyond is relatively mysterious to all.

[Lee]

Baby, he may act sure about it, but he isn't. The fundamental nature of the universe and potentially beyond is relatively mysterious to all.Speak for yourself, I know all the answers, I am just not tellin :P

btw the true nature of the universe: incomplete.

[Edmond Zedo]

Speak for yourself, I know all the answers, I am just not tellin :P

btw the true nature of the universe: incomplete.
You just think it's incomplete, like Admiral Ackbar.

[Dman]

Interesting theory. So you are defining the word "universe" as an entity that exists in and of itself, separate from another entity that created it? What defines the boundaries between the two?

I suppose it would require a different definition of the word universe (a-universe? nah). One description would be each “universe” contained within the black hole, I guess you could call the “universe” that contained all of them a multiverse.

They are only separate in the way that the inner workings of an atom is separate from that which is outside the atom. It’s akin to the concept that our observable universe is just an atom in some other vast structure.


Baby, he may act sure about it, but he isn't. The fundamental nature of the universe and potentially beyond is relatively mysterious to all.

No! It’s all scientifically valid!


(Truth = it was just something I thought up on the spur of the moment one day, but so far it seems to work at a real basic level (read = hocus pocus with no real studying done) but I still think it’s an interesting concept. – but don’t tell anyone)

[SheepDog]

For practical purposes, the Universe = everything observable/detectable

Can also be described as encompassing everything observable and unobservable

The problem people have when trying to define it as "fitting inside a neat little box" is when you ask what is on the outside of that box
I was thinking that myself.



The universe exists and evolves without boundary. Whether or not humans can understand, or define and categorize the the universe as a whole or in parts does not serve to limit the universe.
Human understanding may be finite, but it's not useful to project our inadequacies onto the universe.

[songbird36]

The universe must necessarily be infinite IMO, because if not, then what do we call what is outside it?

I don't agree that it's everything "observable or detectable" because a lot of it consists of empty space - of "nothingness".

I'm not sure if it has shape - some people have tried to suggest that it operates like a kind of endless spiral that eventually returns back to the same point.

[MacGuffin]

The universe must necessarily be infinite IMO, because if not, then what do we call what is outside it?
Outside? Who says there is an outside? Or infinity?

[Geoff]

Yep, it is merely an opinion. We could all be in a giant's snowglobe, or computer simulation. So we havent 'found' an outside just gives us a theory as to its extent. With multiple explanations.

-Geoff

[flan2dave]

I don't agree that it's everything "observable or detectable" because a lot of it consists of empty space - of "nothingness".

There is no truly empty space, you can either observe microwave background radiation, or activity at the quantum level (such as particles being created and annhialated in short time intervals).

[indie]

I suppose it would require a different definition of the word universe (a-universe? nah). One description would be each “universe” contained within the black hole, I guess you could call the “universe” that contained all of them a multiverse.

They are only separate in the way that the inner workings of an atom is separate from that which is outside the atom. It’s akin to the concept that our observable universe is just an atom in some other vast structure.

Exactly. That's mostly what I was referring to, the definition of the word itself. (And how ironic is that?)

The concept of boundaries between matter and space is simply fascinating. On one level, we have an atom, composed of a nucleus and a "cloud" of electrons. . . but where does the "space" between the atom and the space beyond begin? In other words, what separates the division between them?

The Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle basically iterates an assertion of limitation of accuracy upon the measurability of "observabilitiy" of the movement and position of particles. If that is true, there is no way to tell where matter ends and space begins. There's no way of knowing exactly "where" that electron is at any given time. On another level, we have our human eyes and brains that convice us not into the wall or the garage door because those represent divisions of space . . .

Perhaps our eyes and brains are what limit us in our view and comprehension of the structure of the universe.

[philonightmare]

I see the universe as incomprehensible to humans. We never fully understand everything there is, let alone an entire universe. We still don't understand every little neuronal connection that exists in our brains.... Perhaps explanations exists, yet are unavailable to us? Don't exceptions to the "rule" exist when one does not yet know every rule there is to know? Until we can claim to know everything there is to know, rule-wise, then I don't think we can say there are any definite answers.

[Geek Engineer]

Sorry I take my vote back and go with the second one option.

I was thinking I had a different answer and as I explained it I realized it was basicaly saying the same thing. The universe is mearly the limit of what we understand at any given time. It is ever changing in a way based on human knowlege and our understanding of the universe at the time.

Well I had better hit the hay. Good night all and don't stay up too late now. I will be dreaming of the universe.

[indie]

Very interesting. I just noticed that "Mr. Physics" himself (Hypnos) voted for the second answer . . . we win!

[Wilde Mutton]

In my opinion, those were all extremely valid options that were displayed on the poll. I, however, chose to put my money down on "something we cannot comprehend". Agnostically speaking, how can we even be sure that a universe exists (let alone anything, but despite the fact that this wouldn´t actually be digressing since the nature of any ontological and/or epistemological query is something a logical flow of analytically philosophical reasoning brings us forth to before even getting to the subject at hand I´ll just leave it at that)? It seems to me sometimes that there are actual dimensions whose existence can be mathematically proven (if you´re of the Platonist school of thought, this idea would certainly seem extremely realistic) but which we can never comprehend existing (thus exemplifying [unless I´ve completely misread my Kant] that wonderous sort of knowledge which is both a priori and synthetic). At least to me the thought of more than, say, four dimensions (those being length, width, depth and time, or any other such fourth member which somehow relates to the objects found characterized by those three aforementioned ones [characterized in a direct way] in some intrinsic, metaphysical way) brings about more than just slight difficulty; I cannot for the life of me fathom such meta-metaphysical bonds. Surely it isn´t then so far-fetched to conjecture that the/a universe as a concept might be similarly unattainable?

Editing

Well, yeah, pretty much the same as the comment about us possibly not being able to understand some things , them being out of our reach (which I only just noticed...). NB: the slight implications of an external authority vs. the idea of this process being open to future change, perhaps via evolution.

[Dman]

The problem with accepting “something we cannot comprehend” as an answer is that it infers we shouldn’t try to understand it since it is futile. I realize this is probably not the point you were making, but quantum physics is but one example of something I’m sure people would have said is also something we cannot comprehend, but where would that type of thinking have taken us? I refuse to believe there is anything we can never comprehend – that is what challenges us to think and explore and discover.

I’m also waiting for Hypnos to explain to us the Grand Unified Theory once and for all (in laymen’s terms of course) and capture that Nobel prize – what do you think, is superstring theory the answer?

[Wilde Mutton]

You´re right, it does create that defeatist attitude of which you spoke, but writing it, I was concentrating more on trying to understand something but not accepting the possibility, however slight, that we can never comprehend the issue at hand. If we can - great! Perfect! But what if we´re wrong? The acknowledgement of such a possibility brings with it much needed intellectual humility and also a sense of searching for answers for the sake of searching for them.

[crofbe]

The problem with accepting “something we cannot comprehend” as an answer is that it infers we shouldn’t try to understand it since it is futile. I realize this is probably not the point you were making, but quantum physics is but one example of something I’m sure people would have said is also something we cannot comprehend, but where would that type of thinking have taken us? I refuse to believe there is anything we can never comprehend – that is what challenges us to think and explore and discover.

I’m also waiting for Hypnos to explain to us the Grand Unified Theory once and for all (in laymen’s terms of course) and capture that Nobel prize – what do you think, is superstring theory the answer?

Immanuel Kant, baby. But see, even he seeks to reconstruct metaphysics after he destroys it.

[CENTIPEDE HEAD]

I read that the universe is not only expanding, but recent findings indicate that it is accelerating in the expansion. That always raises the question: What is the universe expanding into? One of Stephen Hawking's theories was that the universe has no boundary or edge. For example, in a two-dimensional sense, you cannot fall off the edge of the earth. Still, the earth IS finite. If you travel far enough on the earth you end up where you started. Similarly the universe may be finite in three space and one time dimension, but without boundary, edge, or singularity.

[indie]

I suppose it would require a different definition of the word universe (a-universe? nah). One description would be each “universe” contained within the black hole, I guess you could call the “universe” that contained all of them a multiverse.

A different definition from what definition? I tried to include every possible definition I could think of at the moment, and there are a limited number of poll options . . . .

(Maybe quantum mechanics has conspired against our collective understanding in the meantime?)

;)

Seriously, though. . . "definitions," by definition, have boundaries. When we attempt to explain things that theoretically "have no boundaries" (like universes or a-universe) with words that "have boundaries" we begin to run in circles. Boundaries, by definition, exist. Boundaries of words cannot explain things that do not have boundaries. When we begin to use words like "boundaries" to explain a "lack of boundaries," things stop making sense.

And I'll stop now, because I'm not making any sense, in the sense that the word "sense" has a boundary.

[trendal]

My brother and I had an interesting conversation about this during the drive back to Vegas. He (an ISTJ) said that he cannot comprehend the universe as anything but something that can fit into a neat little box. I suspect that most S's can't comprehend it as anything but that. It just doesn't fit into their sensibilities. He said something along the lines of "It doesn't make sense that the universe doesn't end. It *has* to end."

When confronted by either of these viewpoints (the universe: fits in a box, the universe: must have an "end") I usually use the following retorts:

"The Universe is the box. We fit nicely inside."

and

"Does a circle have an end?"

[Tlalocone]

I think the 'visual-material universe' is made out of two components(Matter, Darkmatter)and the hyatus between those two.

[abathur]

Hrm...

I don't think the status of the universe as infinite or finite necessarily dictates that there is no container in which we may place it... it just dictates what that container may or may not be. I've (at least lately) been thinking of the universe itself as a container of undefined size, containing undefined contents--sitting inside another container, time. More succinctly: The universe is all that lies inside the boundaries of the passage of time. Perhaps that is cheating... perhaps only time will tell?

Not that I'm basing that on anything other than my own uneducated musings.

[Google Monster]

I think the expansion of space is more like the extraction of matter. In the sense that space follows the law of conservation and ultimatly space is always the same. The more space expands means less mass and more energy. Less mass and more energy means acceleration. Hence the universe is expanding and accelerating.