What space did the universe expand into?

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip

At present, observations are consistent with the universe being infinite in extent and simply connected, though we are limited in distinguishing between simple and more complicated proposals by cosmological horizons. The universe could be infinite in extent or it could be finite; but the evidence that leads to the inflationary model of the early universe also implies that the "total universe" is much larger than the observable universe, and so any edges or exotic geometries or topologies would not be directly observable as light has not reached scales on which such aspects of the universe, if they exist, are still allowed. For all intents and purposes, it is safe to assume that the universe is infinite in spatial extent, without edge or strange connectedness.

en.wikipedia.org...

In all appearances, the universe is infinite.

in all appearances to a plankton its lake is infinite..

reply to post by ImaFungi



Be careful to take ideas form someone with Google knowledge. Because they usually don't understand what they read.

A vacuum consists of a minimum of two things.

1. A empty space.
2. Matter.

A empty space is not a vacuum, but a neutral space. Only when matter appears inside this space does a vacuum force appear. A vacuum is compared to a atmosphere of pressure "1 bar". There are a few ways to measure a vacuum and to determine its purity. The purer the volume of space is the closer it is to absolute zero pressure. In other words neutral. The less matter there is inside this volume of space the closer to absolute neutral the volume of space is. That is what vacuum is all about.

If a empty space is always neutral. It must be the matter that exists within that neutral space we measure negative vacuum force of.

Originally posted by spy66
reply to post by ImaFungi

 

A vacuum consists of a minimum of two things.

1. A empty space.
2. Matter.

A empty space is not a vacuum, but a neutral space. Only when matter appears inside this space does a vacuum force appear. A vacuum is compared to a atmosphere of pressure "1 bar". There are a few ways to measure a vacuum and to determine its purity. The purer the volume of space is the closer it is to absolute zero pressure. In other words neutral. The less matter there is inside this volume of space the closer to absolute neutral the volume of space is. That is what vacuum is all about.

If a empty space is always neutral. It must be the matter that exists within that neutral space we measure negative vacuum force of.

Lol. Can you provide a source for any of the junk you just said? literally NONE of it is factual. NONE.

Please re-read my post on vaccums. I think i explained myself well enough to debunk 100% of what you said, OH and the kicker is everything I claimed can be souced by hundreds if not thousands of peer reviewed sources. You wont find one. Not one.

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

Any thoughts?

Fancy worded title. Completely misleading. The big thing here is they have found a way to make QCD calculations almost as easy as QED, which will have thousands of tech applications.

As for the virtual fermions(quarks) and virtual bosons (gluons) that they said make up most of our mass, this is already the standard picture. These virtual particle pairs are constantly going in and out of existence at a stupid fast rate, giving them the appearce of solid mass.

the last paragraph about the higgs contributing a small amount to mass, thats retarded casue virtual particles, if they had mass would get it from interacting with the higgs field too.

They are entering and exiting reality as we understand it, that does not mean that they are exiting reality.

Any thoughts?

No you got the wrong picture.
And im not patient enough to go through all the steps to make sense of virtual particle pairs.

Actually....

Up and down quarks are the lightest of the possible six flavors of quarks that appear to exist in the universe. In addition to the proton's three resident quarks, the peculiar rules of quantum mechanics allow other particles to appear from time to time. These ghostly particles usually vanish in a tiny fraction of a second, but it's possible that they stay around long enough to influence the structure of the proton. Nuclear physicists set out to catch some of these ghostly particles in the act. They determined that the nextlightest quark, the "strange" quark, would be the most likely to have a visible effect.

According to Doug Beck, a professor of physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the spokesperson for the G-Zero collaboration, one way to see these strange quarks is to measure them through the weak interaction. "If we look with photons via the electromagnetic interaction, we see quarks inside the proton. And then, if we do it with the weak interaction, we see a very similar, yet distinctly different view of the quarks. And it's by comparing those pictures that we can get at the strange quark contribution," Beck says.

Ghostly Strange Quarks Influence Proton Structure

Any thoughts?

reply to post by ubeenhad


Do you think the vacuum the material universe resides in/is of... is infinitely "large",,is all that has always existed,, in the format that "what exists must exist in" ,,,

In an Infinitely large area of vacuum.. what caused our relatively massive universe to exist in a specific portion of the infinite vacuum? how did so much more then quantum fluctuations .. appear,, and continue to appear.?

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by Kashai

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

It's confirmed: Matter is merely vacuum fluctuations

Any thoughts?

Fancy worded title. Completely misleading. The big thing here is they have found a way to make QCD calculations almost as easy as QED, which will have thousands of tech applications.

As for the virtual fermions(quarks) and virtual bosons (gluons) that they said make up most of our mass, this is already the standard picture. These virtual particle pairs are constantly going in and out of existence at a stupid fast rate, giving them the appearce of solid mass.

the last paragraph about the higgs contributing a small amount to mass, thats retarded casue virtual particles, if they had mass would get it from interacting with the higgs field too.

They are entering and exiting reality as we understand it, that does not mean that they are exiting reality.

Any thoughts?

No you got the wrong picture.
And im not patient enough to go through all the steps to make sense of virtual particle pairs.

Actually....

Up and down quarks are the lightest of the possible six flavors of quarks that appear to exist in the universe. In addition to the proton's three resident quarks, the peculiar rules of quantum mechanics allow other particles to appear from time to time. These ghostly particles usually vanish in a tiny fraction of a second, but it's possible that they stay around long enough to influence the structure of the proton. Nuclear physicists set out to catch some of these ghostly particles in the act. They determined that the nextlightest quark, the "strange" quark, would be the most likely to have a visible effect.

According to Doug Beck, a professor of physics at the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign and the spokesperson for the G-Zero collaboration, one way to see these strange quarks is to measure them through the weak interaction. "If we look with photons via the electromagnetic interaction, we see quarks inside the proton. And then, if we do it with the weak interaction, we see a very similar, yet distinctly different view of the quarks. And it's by comparing those pictures that we can get at the strange quark contribution," Beck says.

Ghostly Strange Quarks Influence Proton Structure

Any thoughts?

And? Point?

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

Do you think the vacuum the material universe resides in/is of... is infinitely "large",,is all that has always existed,, in the format that "what exists must exist in" ,,,

In an Infinitely large area of vacuum.. what caused our relatively massive universe to exist in a specific portion of the infinite vacuum? how did so much more then quantum fluctuations .. appear,, and continue to appear.?

Hard questions.
There isn't an answer for that yet. As far as we know you cant have a vaccum without space, cause thats what a vaccum is, space in its lowest energy form. Basically the closest you can get to "no action"

reply to post by jiggerj

Yeah...he is wrong 100% Split Infinity

Originally posted by ImaFungi

Originally posted by NiNjABackflip

At present, observations are consistent with the universe being infinite in extent and simply connected, though we are limited in distinguishing between simple and more complicated proposals by cosmological horizons. The universe could be infinite in extent or it could be finite; but the evidence that leads to the inflationary model of the early universe also implies that the "total universe" is much larger than the observable universe, and so any edges or exotic geometries or topologies would not be directly observable as light has not reached scales on which such aspects of the universe, if they exist, are still allowed. For all intents and purposes, it is safe to assume that the universe is infinite in spatial extent, without edge or strange connectedness.

en.wikipedia.org...

In all appearances, the universe is infinite.

in all appearances to a plankton its lake is infinite..

Not if there's plankton where the water ends.

reply to post by jiggerj

Some theories have Two Quarks and a Gluon...another Three Quarks and two Gluons...another 2 Quarks, 1 Gluon and a Antiquark!

Regardless of whatever combinations occur...the Math dictates it must occur in MORE THAN A SINGLE UNIVERSE WITH 10 or 11 Dimensions. There has to be a Bigger System at play here and that would be the Multiverse. Split Infinity

reply to post by ubeenhad


I am not saying your sources are wrong. I am saying you are wrong. You don't know what a vacuum is, because you have read something you don't understand. A simple fact.

You don't know that a empty space is neutral. And you don't know when it becomes a vacuum. If you cant think on your own, Just keep on being someone else's bitch and read. But do us the courtesy of trying to at least understand what you read before you spill your garbage.

reply to post by EarthCitizen07

OK...I really don't get the last part of your post. I am leaving in a few hours. I am having a Private Convo with a Person who may someday be my replacement but there will be someone in between Myself and Him. He is exactly what we are looking for...a person who is NOT A HOT HEAD and is capable i the field. Now as far as my being Humiliated and some Sacrificial Video...WHAT THE HELL IS THAT ALL ABOUT!?

Look...My Girl is Crying her eyes out and I am giving her space. I have no animosity toward you and why would I?

But you are looking in the wrong places for whatever inner Demons you have. By tomorrow I will be getting ready to make a DEAL with people who do not like us all that much...but they are people who use others to gain. We are giving them a choice...take the deal...or there will be issues! Split Infinity

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by ImaFungi
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

Do you think the vacuum the material universe resides in/is of... is infinitely "large",,is all that has always existed,, in the format that "what exists must exist in" ,,,

In an Infinitely large area of vacuum.. what caused our relatively massive universe to exist in a specific portion of the infinite vacuum? how did so much more then quantum fluctuations .. appear,, and continue to appear.?

Hard questions.
There isn't an answer for that yet. As far as we know you cant have a vaccum without space, cause thats what a vaccum is, space in its lowest energy form. Basically the closest you can get to "no action"

ok,, but does "space" with no energy exist? what would space with no energy consist of? ( this is what i mean by are we biased,, attempting to measure these things when we are quantomly formed energetic entites,, measuring with energy, the quantity of energy of areas of energy,,,

obviously space exists and a whole lot of it,,,, from the space between an atoms nucleus and its electrons to the space between you and i right now,,, to the space between stars,, to the space between galaxies,,,, but if all this "space" has detected levels of "energy" "in" it.. because there is no such thing as "nothing",,, and it is assumed all the large dense regions of energy came from the fundamental quantum fluctuating space regions,,, I still have a hard time comprehending what the quantum existence and nature of reality is like,,what it is composed of,, where it started,, etc...

I dont know what im getting at,,,,something to do with there is an equal and likely chance the universe is something completely different then what we can currently imagine,, in its scale,, ability,, true nature,, and its containment..,,

before the material universe we are familiar with began forming,, ( and this pertains to the OPs thread topic) do you think the space that existed,, is/was similar in nature to the "brand" of "space" we are familiar with in interstellar and attempted near vacuum volumes?

reply to post by ubeenhad


These quantum fluctuations interact with matter, and they are functional to its structure. The Universe is an object that as a whole, has a mass, where invariably separateness is not really the issue (EPR Paradox).

Not all quantum fluctuations are non-random. If that were the case, matter as we understand, it would be missing a component to its structure. The Universe is expanding into space-time, the matter inside of it with sufficient mass to fold some space-time around it, space-time being a substance/fabric. Which explains why quantum fluctuation can occur.

The virtual quark has to go somewhere......

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

These quantum fluctuations interact with matter, and they are functional to its structure. The Universe is an object that as a whole, has a mass, where invariably separateness is not really the issue (EPR Paradox).

Not all quantum fluctuations are non-random. If that were the case, matter as we understand, it would be missing a component to its structure. The Universe is expanding into space-time, the matter inside of it with sufficient mass to fold some space-time around it, space-time being a substance/fabric. Which explains why quantum fluctuation can occur.

The virtual quark has to go somewhere......

Any thoughts?

No space/time is expanding. not the universe is expanding into space time.

As for the clown shoes, Im done talking to you. You didnt say how I was wrong, you just ramble. I

Originally posted by ImaFungi

I dont know what im getting at,,,,something to do with there is an equal and likely chance the universe is something completely different then what we can currently imagine,, in its scale,, ability,, true nature,, and its containment..,,
?

Thats entirley possible. All sorts of things point to us missing a big part of the mechanism.

Originally posted by ubeenhad

Originally posted by Kashai
reply to post by ubeenhad

 

These quantum fluctuations interact with matter, and they are functional to its structure. The Universe is an object that as a whole, has a mass, where invariably separateness is not really the issue (EPR Paradox).

Not all quantum fluctuations are non-random. If that were the case, matter as we understand, it would be missing a component to its structure. The Universe is expanding into space-time, the matter inside of it with sufficient mass to fold some space-time around it, space-time being a substance/fabric. Which explains why quantum fluctuation can occur.

The virtual quark has to go somewhere......

Any thoughts?

No space/time is expanding. not the universe is expanding into space time.

As for the clown shoes, Im done talking to you. You didnt say how I was wrong, you just ramble. I

(b) If the universe is finite, the expansion just described increases the overall size of the universe. However, a more useful marker of the expansion is to consider any two objects, say galaxies, that are being driven apart by the expansion of space. You can think of them like two poppy seeds in a muffin that’s being cooked and as the dough expands, the poppy seeds move apart from one another. In this way of thinking, the expansion of space is reflected in the distance between two such galaxies growing larger and larger over time. And that characterization of the expansion holds true whether the universe is finite or infinite. So, when we speak of space expanding we mean that the distance between objects in space increases over time, even if there isn’t a useful sense in which the overall size of space is growing (as would be the case for an infinite universe).

worldsciencefestival.com...

I have no reason to insult you because you really have no idea what you are talking about So i will simply pitty you for you inability to present respect to others, in a public place.

An obvious point is that the Universe is expanding into more space-time.

Any thoughts?

Originally posted by Kashai
An obvious point is that the Universe is expanding into more space-time.

Any thoughts?

Well i guess your clown shoes too then. I was actually talking about spy66.

Yup. And I OBVIOUSLY know nothing compared to your vast intelligence.

Did you really just say that. space/time is not inflating with the inflation of the universe? The universe is inflating into space?
I refuse to respond to any more of your posts until you admit your an idiot for saying that.
Did you even READ the quotes YOU just posted. THEY JUST CONTRADICTED DIRECTLY WHAT YOU SAID. Normally, i wouldnt care, but it literally says space is expanding. How do you miss that? ARE YOU KIDDING ME. This is a joke right? One of my colleagues has had an account this whole time huh?

( i would love to include sources, but it wouldn't make a difference. Your just gunna ramble on with your pseudononsense.)

reply to post by ubeenhad


And I refuse to respond to yours unless you admit you are an idiot for suggesting otherwise

With exception of what is below.

The Universe as created 13.7 billion years ago is any where in size from 40 to 185 billion light years in circumference. Clearly there is more space and that is what the mass of the universe is expanding into.

Then of course there is the matter of what it expanded into during the big bang and subsequent expansion at faster than, that of light.

Are you having a problem with that?

Any thoughts?

PS: You do not seem to understand the fundamentals of Physics, this is what is making your responses so inadequate.