/sci/ - Science & Math

My question is two fold. Has this already been thought up (I assume it has)? If it has, what is the name of the theory? If not, does it make sense/sound plausible? Could very well just be the sleep deprived ramblings of a college student.

Also, do feel free to rip this apart in any way you deem suitable.

The universe doesn't expand "into" something. It contains all space.

>The implication would be that the big bang has happened infinite times in different parts of this infinite void

>Has this already been thought up (I assume it has)?

I'm very certain there is a similar theory, but I can't recall the name of it.

>>5064634
There's been no conclusive proof the universe is finite, although, we do know that the known universe is finite.

>>5064637 again,

I think the traditional big bang theory and what you seem to be describing are both discussed here:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=LF_xkseFTLg

>>5064645
I'll give it a watch, thanks anon.

>>5064622

Closest thing would be multiverse theory.

Though just being able to travel in a certain direction nonstop until you reach a new universe seems boring as fuck. Ive always thought of there being barriers between these universes, similar in structure like say a fuck ton of marbles on a plane with entire universes with in that you cant exit out of with normal means.

Eh

Infinite is such a small minded word. We don't know what lies beyond the black veil behind the stars.

But infinite? Never ending? - such concepts are entirely too human and too narrow.

Our humanity is our handicap as of yet.

y-you mean somewhere... me and my waifu are living happily together... th-thanks OP

>>5064693
The notion of 'infinity' seems to be beyond our 'humanity handicap'

>>5064693
Pardon me, my scientific terminology is lax. I meant wibbly wobbley never ending stuff.

>>5064707
Just because you cannot see the bottom of the well does not mean it goes on forever.

Small children with yet developed brains entertain the idea of infinity.

Rationality should keep you open to the possibility of something you can't even imagine, just because our 'humanity handicap'.

>>5064707
Seems more like a cop out. Like a religious nutter explaining something with 'god dunnit'.

>>5064718
If it is infinite, you can keep running the line of argument:
>but just because you cant see the bottom of the well does not mean it goes on forever

It's an irrefutable statement. Infinity is refutable.

I'm not closing myself off from the idea that the universe is finite, but there are only 2 answers: it is either finite or infinite. Both concepts are within our ability to 'rationalise'.

>>5064724
Making any assumption without evidence is a 'cop out'.

Why should infinity be any less credible than a finite universe? There isn't enough to suggest either.

>>5064718
>Small children with yet developed brains entertain the idea of infinity.
And some don't. What's your point? Because some child 'entertains the idea' it can never be right?

>>5064725
Irrefutable statement? More a statement from the sceptic not assuming he knows the ends but the clear beginnings.

There are many more answers.
It could be that the universe continues on and becomes something else at some 'point' and goes around or up or sideways or inwardly.

Question is if this should be called infinite or not. I think not because it's a fantastical term.

>>5064729
There is more to suggest that our universe is finite, because we know it had a beginning.

And we have to start with what we can observe, not toy around with ideas like infinitum because we do not see further than our technology allows us to.

>>5064734
The idea could be right, but accurately it will be simplistic and unfinished.

>>5064738
We know the observable universe is finite and will die. We have no way of knowing, at this point in time, if the outside universe had any definitive beginning or end.

>>5064742
What makes you so sure there even is an 'outside universe'.
We simply do not know at this point, and to speculate on it as if truth is not very constructive at all, 'dude'.

>>5064750
We know that the universe as we know it is expanding.

Logically, it would need someplace to expand.

It then follows that there is space outside our universe.

>>5064753
Your logic is then flawed because it's not based on good observation, but speculation.

For sake of argument it could be that there is space our universe is expanding towards, or it might be something we haven't seen before.
Could even be something that is pushing our universe from expanding, but failing since our universe is expanding faster - then it's not space but matter(?)

Withhold yourself from thinking you know. Observation is key.

>>5064753
It's not an expansion like how a balloon expands. It's a metric expansion, which means it's an intrinsic change in the way we measure distance in the universe.

The universe can't be infinitely big because quantum mechanics and the law of large numbers.

Every point in space with a finite chance of having a particle there would definitely have one; there's an infinite amount of particles (from the infinitely large universe) trying to shove themself into that point with whatever tiny, tiny, tiny piece of their wave equation that exists there.
We don't see infinity particles everywhere, so there must not be infinitely many particles in the universe.

>>5064698
Somewhere I'm banging your mom. Think about it anon.

>>5064778
What are you even saying, that the meter itself is changing size?

>>5064753
Unless it didn't need a place to expand into because that space was being internally created discreetly by chaotic radiation from all the entropic bodies contained in the universe.

This or a number of other possible explanations could potentially explain the expansion and how it doesn't need space to expand into.

b

Very interesting thoughts.

Is the space "outside" the universe even space in the common sense of the word? Isn't this the entire "non-existence", with the known universe being the "existence"? What would one observe if he were to stand between the two points of existence?

About the "hitting" another universe part:
If we assume, that there is an infinite amount of universes and that time is infinite, shouldn't the big bang as we know it happen again necessarily?
Infite time+infinitesimal chance=100% chance ?
Wouldn't that mean that everything we're experiencing right now, has already happened before, is happening right now, and will happen again in the exact same way (and an infinite number of other possible scenarios)?
>>5064623
>Also, do feel free to rip this apart in any way you deem suitable.

>>5065087
Yes, you're thinking of something similar to the multi-verse theory,
It has already been thought of,and yes it is interesting. Although there's no real point talking about it because thus far we can't prove or disprove anything.
Good to think about though.

I take back what I said, talk about it as much as you want, content is good. Yes it implies that every single thing has an infinite number of possibilities that could happen, which do happen, have happened, and will happen.
Each with their own -verse which separates off from the current. This is also a counter argument to "The Grandfather paradox" interestingly.

>>5065162
We Steins;Gate now

we're not expanding into anything. space is being inserted between already existing space.

womp womp

so universal expansion is caused by the gravitational forces of the universes puling each other apart. got it.

>>5065240

>>5064899
Not the meter, the metric. A metric is a function that is used to measure the distance between two points in some (usually) vector space, denote d(x,y). One of the more common metrics is the Euclidean metric in n-dimensional space. Let x = (x_1, x_2, ..., x_n), y = (y_1, y_2, ..., y_n). Then d(x, y) = sqrt( (x_1 - y_1)^2 + (x_2 - y_2)^2 + ... + (x_n - y_n)^2 ). When n = 2, you get the usual formulation of distance thanks to the Pythagorean theorem, and when n = 1, you get the absolute value function.

Now, assume there is some parameter t : d_t(x, y). One way you could view the metric expansion is to say d_t1(x,y) < d_t2(x,y) : t1 < t2. In other words, the *way* we measure distances between points is changing, not the meterstick we measure them with, but that doesn't mean the volume being taken up by space is increasing, or that that volume is expanding into something else.