Space - is it infinite?

It's expanding into an infinite nothingness and when I say nothing I mean a space that doesn't currently exist. The edge of the big bang as it travels out into this area then creates the space as it goes.

Or something...
 
p4radox said:
So if these other universes exist, and are in some way linked with multi-dimensions, then if we say space is infinite it can only be infinite within our dimensions/universe.

That doesn't sound too clear. Whether space is infinite depends upon our definition of infinite. If you take it to mean "without end" yet still accept the existence of other universes then our universe must end somewhere in order for another to begin.:confused:

edit: if anyone can understand what I've just written, congratulations.
Click to expand...

No, you're thinking about it in the wrong way.

The idea behind the multi-verse is part of multi-dimensional theory as explained previously. Each universe exists in a different dimension. Our universe can be infinitely in size, just as others that are in different dimensions can.
 
The Universe I am assuming we are talking about the matter within, is finite. This matter is explanding due to dark energy (so the theory goes) and will continue to expand into "space" until all the energy is finally used up and the universe will dim and fade. Trouble is, we do not know enough about "The big bang" and can only see a few hundreds of millions of years after the effect. Seeing as we cant actually prove the big bang, it is a theory, it is really no better than saying God created everything. The truth is we just simply do not know, we can theorise given the evidense we observe which seems to point to a singulartity of infinite density. but where did that come from, who put it there? Maybe some things are beyond our understanding, limited by our 3d view of the Universe. It could be a bit like trying to describe red to a blind person.
 
if space is infinite, what is it expanding into, and if it isn't when will it stop expanding. If it does stop that would mean eventually we coule potentially travel to the end of the universe, but what will be there, is it some sort of brick wall with a sign saying "end of universe please turn round"
 
I watched a documentary once, which had a theory that there are indeed many other Universes. In fact, an infinite amount of these ever-expanding massive globes all contained 'somewhere'.

It then went on to explain that the 'Big Bang' could well be two Universes colliding and, with that collision (due to the immense power and size of two Universes), atoms or 'matter' was crushed and mixed as one. The energy produced simply EXPLODED into an ever growing darkness which we call our Universe.

Whatever is outside of our Universe (and all others) provides us with whatever matter happened to be at the collision point. In our case, we were given varying amounts of natural elements, which make up everything we know in our Universe. Gold, Silver, Carbon, etc.

Maybe other Universes have more elements, maybe not. To be honest, I don't seriously 'study' this stuff, but it's quite interesting and I will take any oppertunity to watch a new documentary on the subject. :)

OvertoneBliss aka Human No. 6,000,000,043 of Universe No. 300,000,384,584,394 :p
 
platypus said:
But if you travelled somewhere at the speed of light, you'd get there before you got there, so would never need to go there because you'd already be there. In that regard, space is infinite.
Click to expand...

So you get there before you get there...isn't that time travel? :confused:
 
hamesy said:
So you get there before you get there...isn't that time travel? :confused:
Click to expand...

Indeed it would be. Travelling at the speed of light does not mean you get there before you left, far from it. Light has a speed...that's it just like anything else. Light travels at about 300million meters per second, if something was 600 million meters away then you get there in 2 seconds, simple. Of course seeing as it is impossible to get to the speed if light then its not an issue ;)

- Pea0n
 
Pea0n said:
Indeed it would be. Travelling at the speed of light does not mean you get there before you left, far from it. Light has a speed...that's it just like anything else. Light travels at about 300million meters per second, if something was 600 million meters away then you get there in 2 seconds, simple. Of course seeing as it is impossible to get to the speed if light then its not an issue ;)

- Pea0n
Click to expand...

There is a thoery which states when you aproach the speed of light, time will slow down relatively. Also mavity affects the passage of time. The closer you are to a large gravitational pull, the slower time will run, relativley. For example, the GPS satalites time clocks run slightly faster than they do on Earth and have to be constantly reset. This is because they are further away from the pull of mavity and time runs faster.
 
johnnyfive said:
Did you guys know the moon is moving away from us an inch every year. So we will eventually lose it. I bet the sun would explode before then though probably :)
Click to expand...
Aye it'll probably crash into the Earth as the sun expands in its later life, actually.

I imagine their closeness to the sun is partially why Mercury and Venus never captured moons.

Zefan said:
Time passes more slowly where there's less mavity too.
Click to expand...
I didn't actually know this one. :D
 
Yes but its all about relativity.

On the point of travelling at the speed of light. The faster you go the heavier a mass becomes. Accelerating a mass to the speed of light is impossible. The only thing that travels at the speed of light is light itself as it has no mass. Some situations like the photo electric effect show light has a particle however it is actually a wave. Dubbed a wavicle ;) It has therefore got a state duality. Only waves can reach the speed of light not particles and mass creates particles in effect.

Also as you said, yes the faster you go then time appears to get slower. Again the important point in this is relativity. Certain particles (i forget the name now) have a half-life of about a hundredth of a second. These are emitted from stars and come down through our atmosphere. The thing is, because they travel so fast they (to us at least) are not destroyed until after just over a second.

Several experiments with this have taken place, most notably with 2 atomic clocks. 1 was left on the ground and the other was taken up in a plane and flown very fast around the world. upon landing there was a time difference of a few seconds between them, all because one clock had travelled at a faster speed than the other.

- pea0n
 
Pea0n said:
Several experiments with this have taken place, most notably with 2 atomic clocks. 1 was left on the ground and the other was taken up in a plane and flown very fast around the world. upon landing there was a time difference of a few seconds between them, all because one clock had travelled at a faster speed than the other.
Click to expand...
Aye I knew about this experiment it was very interesting.

I wonder what the effect would be of travelling at the speed of light to the nearest star about 4 light-years away. Four years would pass to you, but how much time would actually pass for the universe in standard time? And yes let's say for argument's sake you had a magic device that lightened the mass of you and your space ship to absolute zero, like Star Trek warp drive. ;)
 
The major difference would be the age difference, other than that if it WAS possible I don't see much issue :) And iirc its the other way around, the people on the space ship would age a lot slower, everybody else would get older faster (or the "correct" speed if you will), so you could travel that fast and get there and back in 8 years. you wouldn't have changed age much but everybody else would be

- Pea0n
 
Pea0n said:
The major difference would be the age difference, other than that if it WAS possible I don't see much issue :) And iirc its the other way around, the people on the space ship would age a lot slower, everybody else would get older faster (or the "correct" speed if you will), so you could travel that fast and get there and back in 8 years. you wouldn't have changed age much but everybody else would be
Click to expand...
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

I know the trip would take four years from your perspective and you would have aged four years, what I am asking is how much time would have passed for everyone else outside the experiment.
 
I don't think mankind can truly understand "nothing" and therefore we see the universe as all encompassing. We will however experience nothingness when we die but we won't because we will be nothing!

These kind of subjects can rely fry your brain if you think about them too long.
 
Ulfhedjinn said:
Sorry, maybe I wasn't clear.

I know the trip would take four years from your perspective and you would have aged four years, what I am asking is how much time would have passed for everyone else outside the experiment.
Click to expand...

He explained that it would be the reverse, people inside the craft would age at slower than normal.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom