It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

What is past our Universe?

page: 3
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 09:34 PM
link   
I have a pet theory that kind of explains why we can't quite grasp the theory of there being "something beyond" the edge of our universe, but to explain it I'll need to "go down" a dimension, and use a 2D or "flatland" model to explain it. The big problem as I see it with truly understanding many of the physical effects we observe in our own universe are that as we ourselves (or at least our physical bodies) exist in 3 dimensions then we are always looking to initially fit our understandings into the same planes of space. Within our 3 dimensional universe, true 2 dimensional events exist. A good example of this is a shadow, a truly 2 dimensional artifact. If we were to come across a 2D "Flatland" and wanted to communicate with beings living in it (that happened to speak english of course), we could look down at them and talk, they would hear us but not be able to see us as they have no idea of what "up" is so thay can't look up at us. They literally have no "up". However, they would be able to comprehend and experience your shadow, an object that has absolutely NO third dimension. This is useful to us as a concept of interaction with higher dimensions as we ourselves in the third dimension cannot comprehend the fourth even though beings living within it would be able to keep tabs on us as easily and unobtrusively as we would on the 2 dimensional flatland guys. The thing is, our science can actually make a physical sculpture which is a shadow of a four dimensional object. These shadows are solid 3D shapes to us. Okay, so understanding the 2d "Flatland" model, what if their universe was stretched over the surface of a 3 dimensional sphere? This makes sense to us because we see 3d spheres made by nature all the time, especially in explosions which is what it is generally accepted started everything in the first place. Now if this 2d flatland is stretched over what we understand to be a 3d sphere then if a little 2d fellow sets off in a straight line he will eventually return to his starting point. This occurance will make absolutely NO sense to him as, having no concept of this third dimension that is an explicit part of the construction of his universe, he has just been going dead straight. We, as obnservers in out 3 dimensional space could sit & watch him as he makes his journey around what we can percieve as a sphere. I hope I'm making sense here.
I think it's perfectly possible that a similar thing is a fundamental part of the construction of OUR universe. In some way which we can unfortunately never intrinsically understand ( because we are just not built for 4 dimensional comprehension), our universe has a similar relationship to a 4d piece of geometry that has the same effect. Thus, if you set off in a straight line I believe you will eventually return to your starting point.

Just a quick interjection here, there is a popular mis-conception that time is the fourth dimension. this is a myth. Please try to discourage this mis-information as it is not only untrue, it is a hinderance to thinking. Is our third dimension somehow "time" to the 2nd dimension? Of course not. Okay, back to my theory:

As far as the big bang goes, I believe this to be a 3d event and as such is comparable to a pond-ripple on the surface of the flatland sphere. Just because we happen to be inside the big bang event doesn't mean that there aren't a load of old planets and cosmic dust outside it too. Why shouldn't they? The only thing we know about it for sure 100% is that it was a massive explosion. Explosions of all sort of sizes happen all over the place day in, day out and there are "things" outside all of them. The "edge of space" as it's currently understood can be easliy explained as not really being the big "creation" deal it's currently credited with. Of course, we know it happened and it has left lots of planets, stars and galaxies and whatnot behind but they might have been there already, then the Big Bang crazy massive random cosmic event happens, blows them all to pieces and over the billions of years they re-form into a load of new planets, stars & galaxies. I know planetary creation is a little-understood aspect of cosmology but from what I understand about how matter gathers together in space, this scenario does make sense.

Just one other thing to think about: Gravity. I truly believe gravity to be an effect of some higher dimension inherent in the "hidden" (ie. higher dimensional) construction of our universe. This does upset me quite a bit because it may mean that we can never truly understand it, just sort of deal with and manipulate it's effects, but then again maybe that would be enough. Part of me hopes I'm wrong about all this higher dimensional construction of the universe, as it would mean that we are never going to be able to understand it, but then again perhaps that's what magic mushrooms are for
-joke, not condoning drug use.

I've seen gravity described with an example taking space as a stretched rubber sheet, and areas of gravitic mass (planets usually) simulated with heavy ovjects placed on them. They cause the sheet to dip. then, if a marble is rolled across it's path will be distorted by the diips in the surface of the sheet, it bocomes attracted to the mass bodies.
If I'm correct about the construction of our universe then our 4d sphere has these dips in it's surface and the gravity we experience may be only a part of a true 4d (or perhaps higher) phenomenon.

Thanks for reading this, it's my first post so sorry for waffling




posted on Dec, 3 2005 @ 10:43 PM
link   

Originally posted by Eddie Peoples
Thanks for reading this, it's my first post so sorry for waffling


That's an excellent first post, there Eddie, and I know what your saying. It would be impossible for us to understand or interact with a higher dimension. That is why I question the theory of a multi-verse myself. Otherwise your post was a good contribution, and food for thought.

Welcome to ATS



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 04:57 AM
link   
NOw i might be looking into this wrong but a shadow isnt a 2d shape, the space between us and the shadow are in actual fact part of the shadow, and if you reall ywant to go into it a shadow isnt a shape its where light cant reach its just a darker piece of space. NO offence or anything im just pointing it out.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 06:02 AM
link   
But if there is "something" beyond our universe which we can not comprehend, then what is beyond the thing that is beyond our universe? and where does it all end? how many levels of existence are there?

It is really amazing that we, as humanity, can not formulate even the smallest idea of what the universe is, and why it exists.



posted on Dec, 4 2005 @ 07:15 AM
link   
Hello again everybody,

Shenroon: The actual shadow could be composed of a couple of separately define-able pieces if you like, but the actual area of light occlusion on the surface is a phenomenon visible in our experienced 3D universe with literally no thickness, hence a true 2D event. You are of course correct in that the shadow consists of more than just the directly observable effect, but that's the whole thing about extra dimensions being involved that are unobservable from a certain perspective. In this instance you can actually visualise the construction with the reference of the "exotic" extra dimension because in this instance we happen to live in it. I believe if you happened to be a 4D being you would be able to understand and explain our own universe in similar ways that would make complex phenomenon only partially understood by our own science, but only to your 4d peers. Us 3D guys would simply not be able to get it.

This is a bit off-topic, but one of the things that I'm finding really weird about the universe is that there is in fact no actual colour other than that of reflected light. Get down small enough and the properties of light change and everything is colourless. You simply don't get red, blue & green atoms. I find this incredibly strange, and again shows how a perspective shift can change so much. It's still the same matter behaving in exactly the same way. If we were all living at an atomic level, from your perception there would be no colour in the universe. If you take our current place in the universe and somehow shift it all kinds of weird things could happen. If you took the atomic sized people who only have ever experienced a universe of black & white, the then just scaled them up to our level and suddenly everything pops into colour, imagine how incredible this would be for them. Everything is still the same, all the atoms, matter, everything is still exactly the same it's just that the observation point has changed and suddenly you get a previously un-imaginable shift. They would have never been able to understand colour until thew saw it. Actually, a thought just occured to me, if they had never experienced colour perhaps they would dream in colour and make it up in their heads? That would be strange for them...Who knows what we're missing out on?



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:23 PM
link   

Originally quoted by Eddie Peoples

Just one other thing to think about: Gravity. I truly believe gravity to be an effect of some higher dimension inherent in the "hidden" (ie. higher dimensional) construction of our universe.


Actually, you’re not alone in that belief, Eddie. The notion has been floating around for some time now. And if it turns out that there is some truth to it, then it may be helpful in our quest to understand that other 96% of the Universe we currently know nothing about, and call dark energy for lack of a better term; the strange force behind the accelerating expansion of the Universe. There are a few folks who think that it’s possible the expansion is in fact the result of gravitational forces being brought to bear from a higher dimension(s). I guess you could say we’re being sucked into another dimension.

Welcome to the board, BTW. You have some interesting ideas …


[edit on 12/9/2005 by netbound]

[edit on 12/9/2005 by netbound]



posted on Dec, 9 2005 @ 11:57 PM
link   
havent read the posts but let my give my theory

take a look at the magnetic fields of a magnet. the never ending strings that it has. this is much like the shape of our universe but on more dimensions. instead of it being x,y it would be x,y,z and time. my idea would be that the curve in space causes a balloon effect, except for the fact it wouldnt be 3d like a balloon. now since i havent nearly completed my astrophysics and mathematics reading yet (i still have at least 2 year worth of learning to do in reading) i would say gravity has something to do with this curve. first all give you a better understanding of this curve i talk of.

image a cone for a moment, at the very tip of this cone is a point that is the size of one string from string theory. (go on strings being the smallest things in the universe.) *[EDIT: this cone has no bottom to it, it simply curives more and more like a melting v, the two top points curve around to the eventual point where its done a 180 in degrees]* when something hits this point it will start to curve. the direction which it starts to curve will depend on its direction of travel most likely. as it travels on the surface of this imaginary cone it curves around more and more. trying to go straight would be like trying to hit something with a repeling force that can deflect anything, including energy. so no matter where you hit it, how hard you hit it, whatever you hit it with, it will start its curve to the direction its traveling on. trying to image this cone woulf be hard because of the unfathomable amount of cones there are, each causing the same effect. now your ship wouldnt actually 'curve' but your path of travel will. look back at the magnetic fields of a magnet to understand this.

now after you understand the actual curve, then you focus on whats outside this multi-dimensional balloon. truth is its impossible to reach. reason being, eventually your path of travel will have sent you in another direction. the bountries are then set, without ever crashing. whats beyond these bountries may very wall be the other side of the universe curving around in a way of a balloon but with more dimensions. every point curves like a balloon to the other side, but the shape will not be a balloon. a balloon curves on an x y type plane, the universe curves on an x,y,z plane. thus making its shape undetermind, since this shape cannot be represented in a physical form.

as i progress further in astrophysics and mathematics im sure i will have a better detail involved. im only 16 and am learning all this on my own time so bear with the lack of mathematics and possible knowledge involved

[edit on 10-12-2005 by grimreaper797]



posted on Dec, 12 2005 @ 02:10 PM
link   
I am glad to see that someone hear knows of Flatland (and presumably then, Carl Sagan as well).

I've done this thought experiment before - trying to think and percieve in my mind "what is beyond the universe".

If you actually want to know, the answer is pretty boring... there seems to be nothing. You would see infinite darkness. This is because nothing leaves the universe - not even light. The universe does indeed curve around 4-dimensionally, as has been stated in this thread. Just as if you were 2-dimensional, travelled straight along a massive ball, and be perplexed as to how in the universe you arrived back where you started - so too would you feel perplexed when, after travelling 4-dimensionally around our universe, that you arrive back where you started.

However, let's then pretend that light CAN leave the universe. In this case - things are still pretty boring. All you would see, once outside the universe, is a point infinitely small, and a speck of light. This is because, outside of the universe, there is no "where". There is no spatial dimesions, and so space as itself is meaningless. This is why, outside the universe, there is literally "less than nothing". Since there's no where outside the universe, you couldn't see a top of the universe, or a bottom, but only everything at once. You would see this point of light, because everything has to exist in nowhere.

Congradulations, you have a singularity.

Revert back to the fact that light cannot escape the universe, and that there'd be no indication to something outside the universe that the universe was there, then you have what is commonly referred to as a black hole.

And thus, you are starting to see the impossibities that are.

If the universe doesn't seem to exist outside the universe, and (due to Bing Bang Theory) the universe came into being, assumingly, into this non-existance area outside the universe, then where did the universe come from? Heck, how is the universe still here if, outside the universe, it can't exist? How is there an inside to the universe if it's an infinitely small point when viewed from outside the universe?

These are questions that we cannot hope to answer.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 06:35 PM
link   
First of all, forgive me if anything I saw is blatantly wrong or anything, I am only a high school student trying to grasp at the ideas you guys are floating around here. Alright, here goes nothing.

I think that as the higher dimension you go, the more one you are with everything. When you reach the highest dimension you are everything and therefore the universe. I believe that we are simultaneously living in every dimension yet we can only comprehend up to the 3rd. I mean what is space? This is what I'm really unsure of. I was under the impression that space was a vacuum, which makes the travel of light very interesting. (Nevermind anti-matter or whatever) Perhaps space is that actual 4th dimension that we just can't comprehend yet. I think our brains control this and as we evolve we will slowly enter into the 4th dimension. Kinda like how you pass out from too much pain etc., your brain protects you from what you are not ready for.

If this is true than the forth dimension can't be time. Time would be simply something created by man because if the universe is infinite, it has no beginning nor end and time would be moot. If my theory is true then it would kinda be like the quote (Can't remember where this is from, 1984 perhaps?) I think, therefore, I am. Also, if the universe is expanding wouldn't time be......skewed or something? I'm not sure of anything.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 07:41 PM
link   
Well Morphene, I'm glad to hear that a high school student like yourself is interested in the universe. I myself am only second year university (and not in physics).

You are correct in that space is really the 4th dimension. This is why it's called space-time. A higher dimension would run perpendicular to all current dimensions - so something running perpendicular to space is time - it moves at a right angle to it, and can only move in two directions (forward or backwards through time). In truth it IS a physical dimension, and is the one required for our existance.

Now, as for becoming one with the universe - I somewhat doubt that, but there's nothing I can do to prove or disprove that, so believe what you will. I do believe our soul exists on the 4th dimension, and that because of this we can move through time. But I stress that this is our soul - and not our bodies. Our bodies are limited to the three dimensions of space, while our soul is another "body" (or an extension of our body) that exists in time. If the soul can affect the body, or can affect the 3-dimensional universe whilst not in the body, that is the important question that comes into focus.

There may be dimensions higher than this (current String-Theory recognizes possibly 11 dimensions - most of which are extremely tiny and only affect things at miniscule levels, which is still incredibly important as the strings would then be the foundation of reality) - but going up in dimensions will not make you the universe, just another part in an even LARGER universe than the one before it.

Imagine a square. The area for the square is A = L * h. However, the surface area for a cube is SA = L * h * 6. Although the cube takes up the same 2-dimensional space as the square, the cube has a much larger area for a creature of 2-dimensions to explore. That's not even getting into the extra space we call Volume, which doesn't exist at the 2nd dimension.

That just got me thinking... it would then be possible for there to be a volume-type measurement for space-time! Something like the amount of time inside the boundaries of space, or that there's extra 3-dimensional space (ie, the supra-verse) on top of time.

Things to ponder.



posted on Dec, 20 2005 @ 08:23 PM
link   
Multiverse -
you leave one and go into another.
just Like galaxies. Universes are the same . Strung along with gaps in between.
But not all Universes have gaps in between them.
some are mixed and Collide in there own way , just like Galaxies do .

theres a saying , that a large object moving is hard to detec
wether its moving , or how fast its moving . and may appear not to be moving.


[edit on 20-12-2005 by Briggs]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 04:34 AM
link   
A theory that fits everything is that we may be just part of a computer program....but if that is so then wot is outside this computer program? Would they be part of a universe or another computer program...i spose the thing is that no matter what theory u look in to there is always the question...where/how does it end



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 08:22 AM
link   
Yarium, I liked your theory of the soul, this occured to me too but i didn't post it because it does sound a bit "hello...", but I'm completely with you on that one
I do have a problem with the 4th dimension being described as time, although I liked your explanation of how it fits onto an axis in a way we can understand. I do think that this is erronous though, as the higher dimension can cast a shadow onto a dimension lower than itself. We can observe a 2D shadow in our 3D world & completely understand it (the shadow that is, the thing that is casting it is impossible to visualise to us). Physics has described mathematical models that enable the physical construction of numerous shapes from the 4th dimension, and the intrinsic properties of some of these give clues to construction of up the the 6th dimension. All of these are concerned with geometry, albeit largely incomprehensible to us, as these models are only a litteral shadow of the actual object. Got to keep that in mind when looking at them. Check out this website, this guy's using the mathematical formulas for 4D shadows with a rapid prototyping machine to make physical 3D objects of the shadows of 4D objects.


www.georgehart.com...


Some very cool images on here, but the maths do not describe any of the actual dimensions as time. Time is a very weird thing for sure, but I personally think it's a whole other massive bag of big, fat worms



[edit on 21-12-2005 by Eddie Peoples]



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:35 PM
link   


you guys crack me up . why are you trying to make it harder than it has to be ?.



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 02:50 PM
link   
Biggs,
, we make it harder than it needs to be because that's where we need to go to expand our understanding.

I was just readng "A Short History of Nearly Everything" (and AWESOME book by the way - and a perfect Christmas gift!), and it was talking about science at the turn of the 20th century. At time, nearly everyone thought that the universe had pretty much been figured out. They had measurements, both qualitative and quantitative for nearly every substance, element, and force, and how they all mixed together

People believed the following century would bring an era of scientific refinement rather than giant leaps in theory.

And look what followed... relativity, quantum theory, string theory, and practical uses for almost all of them, plus an insane amount of inventions based on the findings in science from the century before.

The next step is looking at the universe in a level beyond what we can see, and which we have very poor means of measuring.

For example, in the multi-verse theory, outside of the universes are more and more universes, like galaxies in our universe. However, the supra-verse theory is that there are many other 3-dimensional universes that exist seperated from us in a physical dimesion/distance that we can't see.

Take a box, and hold it up to the light, and you get a shadow on the floor. Take another box (of the same size or smaller) and hold it above or below the original box. The shadow will seem to be unchanged. Our universes overlap each other constantly, but are fractionally seperated from us in another physical dimesion like height, width, or length.

However, is this next dimension time? Maybe, maybe not. Maybe we're seperated not by the 4th dimension (time) but by a fifth dimeion... which is something even wierder for which we have absolutely no comparison (at the least we can say time can go forward or backwards... but a fifth dimension would be like saying time going up or down...)



posted on Dec, 21 2005 @ 03:02 PM
link   

Originally posted by Morphene
First of all, forgive me if anything I saw is blatantly wrong or anything, I am only a high school student trying to grasp at the ideas you guys are floating around here. Alright, here goes nothing.

I think that as the higher dimension you go, the more one you are with everything. When you reach the highest dimension you are everything and therefore the universe. I believe that we are simultaneously living in every dimension yet we can only comprehend up to the 3rd. I mean what is space? This is what I'm really unsure of. I was under the impression that space was a vacuum, which makes the travel of light very interesting. (Nevermind anti-matter or whatever) Perhaps space is that actual 4th dimension that we just can't comprehend yet. I think our brains control this and as we evolve we will slowly enter into the 4th dimension. Kinda like how you pass out from too much pain etc., your brain protects you from what you are not ready for.

If this is true than the forth dimension can't be time. Time would be simply something created by man because if the universe is infinite, it has no beginning nor end and time would be moot. If my theory is true then it would kinda be like the quote (Can't remember where this is from, 1984 perhaps?) I think, therefore, I am. Also, if the universe is expanding wouldn't time be......skewed or something? I'm not sure of anything.


OK-----------------------

First of all Dimensions are not higher or lower..As you also say , were living in every Dimension ? and that we can only comrehend up to the 3rd .
Unless your trying to put Dimensions on a spiritual level , if so then dont confuse science Dimension with Spiritual .

As for comprehending only the 3rd Dm , Not true , the worlds leading physicist yamaguche ? and hawkins have alrdy described higher Dm's.

Space is a Vacuum, wich is lack of pressure . atomosphere, you can create a Vacuum in a Light bulb for example. - Simple -


Light speed is constant - max and min , If your thinking light speed travel?.
as of right now , NO . gravity effects light . Check out Einsteins study on it.
not to mention a million other studies done on it.

not sure why you say space is 4Dm , can you explain ?.

i dont think your brain stops you from learning anything , you can be lazy and it can be hard , but you can learn .
Take into account kids that are a very young age and go on to graduate college at age 10,12,15, and so on.
one thing they have in common IS - at a very young age they wer constantly being taught.. So a 8 month child is speaking perfect english.
at the age of 2 is alrdy playing the piano and being taught mathematics.
THese studies have alrdy been done . Check it out.

Time was not created by man , not realative anyways.
everything has a time span , its called rythmic resonance or something like like.

The Universe is Infinite ? - All Speculation as of now.

I think therefore I am - -17th centrury French philosopher René Descartes



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 03:49 PM
link   
What is beyond this universe? More universes and lots of empty space. Look at the atom, mostly space with some tiny particals. Look at the solar system, mostly space with 9 planets spaced millions or billions of miles apart. Look at the galaxy, mostly space with billions of stars spaced light years apart. Look at a cluster of galaxies, mostly space with galaxies spaced 2 million lightyears apart. Look at the universe, mostly space with galaxy clusters spaced tens of millions of lightyears apart. So beyond the edge of this universe it is probably many billions of lightyears to the edge of the next universe. Big bangs are events that happen occasionally throughout infinite empty space. But what happens when the edge of one universe collides with the edge of the next one?

[edit on 22-12-2005 by Aquaman]



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 04:13 PM
link   
There is no "outside". What is north of the nolrth pole? How far do you have to travel east before you are west? The universe is modelled by modern science as a complex geometric entity, involving multiple dimensions. But ultimately the models create a finite (and vast) but unbounded nature to the universe. Different models require different numbers of dimensions, but all more than the 3-4 we are used to in everyday life.

It does not have to be a nD universe contained within xD space. The model is actually of an xD universe, which defines all xD space itself. There are no other dimensions for it to exist "in".

People compare it to the surface of a sphere, like the earth. This is useful as far as it goes, but the common-sense in us shouts that we know that the earth is *really* a 3D object and that the surface is therefore not *properly* a purely 2D thing. So forget about spheres and mobius bands for a while as we're 3D and I certainly find it as hard to imagine living in a 2D universe as I do living in a 9D one. Just accept that one can model a geometric universe that has no edges.

The very notion of "outside" implies a continuance of a dimension. What is "outside" of a jug? Well, the jug is in 3D space so we mean, what part of 3D space is outside the jug. What if all 3D space was inside the jug as a matter of definition of axiom? The original question is problematic becuase it includes in its own words concepts which are mutually exlusive. One may as meaningfully ask what is to the right-hand-side of time. It just doesn't make sense, and the correct answer is to reply that "time isn't like that".

Unless you have studied advanced maths this will not be easy to grapple with, and you'll have to take it on faith, much as our forefathers at some point had to take it on faith that they wouldn't fall off the edge of the earth when they sailed far enough.

Cheers.

Rob.



posted on Dec, 22 2005 @ 06:40 PM
link   
Hi Guys, you really need to keep in mind the simple fact that a 2D universe could be observed and explained by our 3-dimensional selves in ways we could never make clear to our 2D cousins. I really believe that this could also be the case with ourselves and some 4D guys looking at us that we are completely unable to observe. Likewise, they could be observed by 5th dimensional beings, and so on. Mathematics currently understands 11 such diemnsions, with us being the 3rd. I think this is likely to change in the future, and I would expect the number of dimensions to increase rather than decrease.

Taking this as read, it is completely clear that a force (say, gravity) which we experience in 3 dimensions could act through a 2D "slice" of our universe. To the 2D guys living in this "flatland", they wouldn't be able to grasp the rules of this except in the most general/relative of situations, and that would be a very strange thing for them. A 3D force acting within a 2D world. Why can't we have 4D forces acting on our 3D world? Do you think the 11th dimension is a universe devoid of all sorts of forces?

Also, the speed of light IS NOT A UNIVERSAL CONSTANT.

Have a bit of a read about Photon Trapping. Granted, balck holes are very strange things and there's a hell of a lot we don;t know about them but current understanding shows photons (light) to be affected by gravity (albeit massive gravity ie. a black hole), suggesting photons to have mass. This has been proved, lightspeed is NOT a constant, sorry. Therefore E=MC2 CANNOT be valid as C (speed of light) being stood-in for the universal constant cannot be an absolute.

If you want to know more, have a read about Photon trapping in Semiconductors.

adsabs.harvard.edu...



posted on Dec, 23 2005 @ 05:25 AM
link   
Ok, I've been trying to wrap my head around this for about 20 minutes (I've postulated this very question before and still came to the same answer: see theory below) and I honestly got light-headed. However, in the process I think I've forged a few more synapse connections.

Here's my simple theory: We simply cannot comprehend "infinte", therefore we can't truly say "what is beyond" or "how big is the universe".

My simple theory quite cleary shows that I'm not as capable of abstract thought as most that have demonstrated on this thread, but perhaps the simplest answer may be the best...?



new topics

top topics



 
0
<< 1  2    4 >>

log in

join