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
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