/sci/ - Science & Math

[Anonymous No.4574217]

by definition, the universe is everything. it is expanding into nothing. what IS nothing?

[Anonymous No.4574220]

> it is expanding into nothing.
No. It is everywhere, and it is expanding.

[Anonymous No.4574222]

>definitions made my humans

I think I see your problem here

[Anonymous No.4574224]

Inflation doesn't need a reference.

[Anonymous No.4574228]

the universe will keep expanding until it rips at the seams. once it rips, more universes will be made from those tears. its infinite.

[Anonymous No.4574229]

there has to be an edge. what is outside of that edge?

[Anonymous No.4574230]

>>4574228
>the universe will keep expanding until it rips at the seams.
The big rip would require inflation that accelerates without bound. Maybe.

>once it rips, more universes will be made from those tears.
This does not sound like the big rip at all.

[Anonymous No.4574232]

>>4574229
unoccupied area but not nothing

[Anonymous No.4574233]

>>4574229
>>4574232

No, there is no edge and no center. The big bang was not an explosion of matter at some point in space - all space was energetically dense, everywhere, and then all that space rapidly expanded, everywhere.

There is no center or edge, any more than the surface of the Earth has a center or edge.

[Anonymous No.4574234]

>>4574217
It's not expanding into anything -- the space between objects is just getting bigger

[Anonymous No.4574235]

Ask Lawrence Krauss. no seriously watch one of his lectures or read one of his books

[Anonymous No.4574236]

>>4574232
it just cannot be that simple

[Anonymous No.4574239]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7ImvlS8PLIo Heres one, now be enlightened

[Anonymous No.4574240]

>>4574236
y u make it so compricated?

[Anonymous No.4574241]

If it is not expanding into anything, then by having no external reference, it is not getting bigger, but is instead become progressively less dense.

[Anonymous No.4574243]

>>4574241
Distances between objects are increasing at a rate proportional to their separation. Call it what you want.

[Anonymous No.4574246]

a real life example: chew some bubble gum, flatten it and slowly pull it apart. what happens after its stretched thin? it breaks. thats how the universe is going to end ;_;

captcha: icianta francesco!

[Anonymous No.4574251]

>>4574217
nothing is the lack of anything.
expanding into nothing means the nothingness will go away due to something being there.

[Anonymous No.4574252]

>>4574246
Only if inflation accelerates forever.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Big_Rip

[Anonymous No.4574253]

>>4574251

dark matter and dark energy

[Anonymous No.4574255]

nothing is something, OP

[Anonymous No.4574260]

>>4574255
if it's something, then what is it?

[Anonymous No.4574261]

>>4574260

dark matter and dark energy

[Anonymous No.4574262]

>>4574252
one thing is acceleration being so strong that it surpasses every other known forces
ANOTHER IS
space itself tearing up.
after big rip, there would still be space and uncoupled particles lying around and getting infinitely faster from each other

[Anonymous No.4574263]

>>4574262
Yeah, guess which one has any basis in physics.

[Anonymous No.4574264]

>>4574260
it depends on when you look. sometimes its a dead cat and sometimes its alive. often times tho, its a troll face.

[Anonymous No.4574265]

>>4574261
if i was immortal, and had the ability to fly and decided to fly straight up and eventually ended up in "nothing" what would i be experiencing? where would i be?

[Anonymous No.4574267]

>>4574265
In the space between galactic clusters. Pretty dark, quantum fluctuations to keep you company.

[Anonymous No.4574279]

eternal inflation/multiverse theory
/thread

[Anonymous No.4574290]

Space is expanding into the future- which already exists. Matter is attracted to matter past and future by the laws of nature. 'Nothing' cannot exist because something already does exist. If you believe in determinism.

[Anonymous No.4574484]

>>4574265
Your part of the universe. How do I word this. . . If you moved farther form the "center" of the universe then anything else had as of that time then the universe would be that much bigger. Because you are the universe and you had just willfully expanded it a bit more.

[Anonymous No.4574487]

>>4574279
This. Your idea of "nothing" is in reality a fractal metaverse.

[Anonymous No.4574491]

>>4574487
wot

[Anonymous No.4574497]

> into nothing

No, we are not inside the balloon. 3D space is the surface of the balloon. Atoms are moving further apart uniformly.

[Anonymous No.4574547]

I have a question:

Let assume the world is curved, and in the shape of a cylinder/ball/balloon/whatnot, in that case going far in any direction just loops you around, I get that.

But what if the universe doesn't curve around, that would mean there is an edge. What if something at that edge tried to accelerate out of it?

I understand that spacetime itself is 'getting bigger' and that nothing is actually moving outward (the wording is weird, but this is the best way i can say it. It's not so much moving away, as just more spacetime going into the middle); However what if something pushed the boundry? Would spacetime expand in that direction? Would the thing cease to exist due to a lack of physics?

[Anonymous No.4574563]

>>4574547

I understand where you're coming from but that question is really hard to answer or even try to think of an answer

Read about white holes, i don't quite remember the whole story, but the theory is that our universe is a white hole.

[Anonymous No.4574569]

>>4574217
>it is expanding into nothing

LMFAO. Nope.
Where do you get such shutty ideas form? How old are you?

[Anonymous No.4574585]

>>4574217

Our perceived difference between "something" and "nothing" is as as our conception of "Position." These ideas can only describe our universe so far before they become exceedingly useless.

[Anonymous No.4574587]

>>4574217

Our perceived difference between "something" and "nothing" is as errant as our conception of "Position." These ideas can only describe our universe so far before they become exceedingly useless.

[Anonymous No.4574593]

>>4574547
>But what if the universe doesn't curve around, that would mean there is an edge.

Your understanding of geometry is fucking laughable. Not everything works in analogy to the simple shit you know from euclidean geometry. You make tons of shitty assumptions, that are just plain fucking wrong. You make conncetions between concepts WHERE NONE FUCKING EXIST.

To actually try to understand shit, you need a fucking great grasp of geometry, topology, etc. You have neither, so you will not be able to understand shit, nor will shit make anysense to you.

If you are really interested in shit like this, just wait until you get a chance to learn the shit you need. Until then, DONT FUCKING FILL IN THE BLANKS WITH YOUR FUCKING IGNORANCE!

\thread

[Anonymous No.4574596]

>>4574593
You must be a thrill to hang out with.

[Anonymous No.4574599]

>faggots thinking nothing means white vacuum like in matrix

nothing means no space no time no color no silence no existance

[Anonymous No.4574600]

>>4574599
Nothing doesn't exist.

[Anonymous No.4574601]

>>4574600
that's the point nigger

[Anonymous No.4574602]

>>4574601
Prove it.

[Anonymous No.4574607]

>the universe is expanding
According to our observations. But what we're observing is 13 billion years. Who knows, maybe the universe is imploding on itself and we just haven't seen it yet. Maybe the universe is already in the process of disintegrating right now. Maybe some alien race has accidentally created some quantum singularity which can move faster than light and has already adsorbed 90% of the universe and we can't see it's effects yet because it's mover faster than what we can see.

[Anonymous No.4574612]

>>4574290
This makes sense. I prefer to think the universe is self-contained rather than adhere to nonsense multiverse theory.

[Anonymous No.4574620]

>>4574607
Maybe russell's teapot is the vanguard of a multi-dimensional invasion fleet.

[Anonymous No.4574638]

>>4574607
>But what we're observing is 13 billion years

No, that is not correct. Not everything we observe in space is 13billion years old. Where the fuck do you get that bullshit from? There is some limit to how far back we can observe, but that doesnt fucking mean everything we observe occured that far back.

Jesus fucking christ, did you grow up in a fucking cave?

[Anonymous No.4574643]

One question, related to this one, that has always bothered me is if energy conserved, then where did the original energy come from? It couldn't have come out of nothing.

And if before the Bigbang there was another universe which crunched, where did the energy from that universe come from? And so on, ad infinitum. It makes just as much sense as saying it was created by a god, lol.

Quantum vacuum fluctuations don't explain this, since they don't create or destroy energy.

[Anonymous No.4574646]

>>4574638
The oldest thing we can observe is the spherical surface called the surface of last scattering. This is responsible for the Cosmic Micorwave Background radiation.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cosmic_microwave_background_radiation

[Anonymous No.4574653]

>>4574643
>energy conserved

This is a fault assumption. Why the fuck do you assume energy is conserved?

Energy conservation is not some "first principle" or "universal law". Energy conservation is in fact a "derived" property, from more fundemnetal properties. Energy conservation only applies to certain types of systems, with certain unique properties.

Laws they we take for granted, like energy conservation, actually do not apply to alot of shit.

[Anonymous No.4574656]

>>4574643
>Quantum vacuum fluctuations

Also, certain types of quantum vaccum fluctuations do create energy. It really depends of the system.

[Anonymous No.4574661]

>>4574643
>Saying "magic" did it makes as much sense as actual scientifc models

[Anonymous No.4574674]

>>4574653
Are you implying the universe is not a closed system, so energy could be lost or gained?

[Anonymous No.4574681]

>>4574674
Nope. An "open system" is not the only way to get a "nonhomogenous time".

Certainly, you can have a closed universe with nonhomogenious time. In fact the big bang would suggest that as such is the case.

[Anonymous No.4574684]

>>4574661
No, only the idea that if the universe is a closed system and the energy is conserved, then where did the original energy come from?
A previous universe doesn't cut it, since the same question would apply ad infinitum. So the idea of a conserved amount of energy which was always there makes just as much sense as religion, which we already know it doesn't make any sense.

[Anonymous No.4574687]

>>4574684
>where did the original energy come from?
the total energy of the universe is 0.

[Anonymous No.4574690]

>>4574217
>by definition, the universe is everything.
That is not true.
>it is expanding into nothing.
This is one way of looking at things
>what IS nothing?
Nothing.

[Anonymous No.4574696]

>>4574687
>Universe energy is zero

Any empirical study you can link to support this theory, this geuss? I think I read that the only reason we have matter in the universe is because after the bigbang there was slightly less antimatter, so this made it possible for matter:antimatter proportion to remain positive.

[Anonymous No.4574701]

>>4574684
I don't think you have a good grasp on reality.

The concept of "Energy" is something we came up with to aid in our understaning of the universe. It is a "conserved" quanity in many everyday systems, hence we find it useful to talk about energy, and include it in our analysis of these types of systems.

We know for a fact though, that that doesnt mean energy is FUCKING ALWAYS CONSERVED! we can devise countless senarios and systems THAT DOENT OBEY CONSERVATION OF ENERGY.

So, basically energy is a very fucking useful concept, if you use it properly. You are not using it properly though dipshit. You are assuming conservation of energy is fundemental, and then bitching that nothing makes sense to you.

You need to stop with your bullshit preconcieved notions, and actually take some time to learn physics and understand shit with an open mind.

[Anonymous No.4574711]

>>4574696
the total energy density is related to the curvature which is related to how spots on the microwave background radiation gets distorted which can be measured becasue we know how big they should be
vid explaining:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfOL_oGgRVk
just Google it, i Don't know where to get the paper.

and i dont know what antimatter has to do with it.

[Anonymous No.4574718]

>>4574696
Energy is gauge invarient. The actual number IS FUCKING MEANINGLESS, as long as you are consistent in your calculations.

Does that even make sense to you? Basically, there is no "universal scale" for energy. It is all man-made.

If you say you have a system (that obeys conservation of energy), you can call the "level" of this energy anyfucking thing you want as long as it is consistant through your equations/ process.

You will get the same exact results, the same exact physics, the same exact dyanamics, etc, regardless of the SHITTY MEASURING SCALE you use to define the "quanity" of energy.

The same shit applies for voltage, and mass, and alot of fucking shit in the universe. The numbers are meaningless, it is they way that they realte to eachother that is important.

Get it?

[Anonymous No.4574723]

>>4574701
>>4574701
>The concept of "Energy" is something we came up with to aid in our understaning of the universe. It is a "conserved" quanity in many everyday systems, hence we find it useful to talk about energy, and include it in our analysis of these types of systems.

are you fucking retarded? energy is DEFINED as the conserved quantity conjugate to time. its always conserved as long as time is homogenous at that point and infinitely near that point in time. that includes every system no mater how exotic unless time symmetry is broken (like at the bog bang maybe).

you cant argue a definition is wrong.

[Anonymous No.4574727]

>>4574718
this post makes no sense. the units may be arbitrary but the 0 isn't, its determined by relativity.

[Anonymous No.4574740]

>>4574723
>always conserved as long as time is homogenous

But time is not homogenous in our models of the the big bang.

Even in the most basic models (Friedmann–Lemaître–Robertson–Walker metric) time is inhomogenous!

FUCKING DURRR! That is the fucking point!

[Anonymous No.4574751]

>>4574740
any model where the variation in time can be determined (meaning any model based on GR) can be rewritten in terms of a homogeneous "time" coordinate. the conserved quantity related to that is then energy, and it differs by normal energy by some terms that are due to the gravitational field hense why the gravitational field can carry negative energy) the total energy is still conserves, you just have to take gravity into account.

[Anonymous No.4574754]

>>4574727
No, actually the zero is arbirtary for a system like energy (for the shit you are talking about).

There is a shift invarience. It doesn't fucking matter where you put the "0" level at. Stop being fucking retarded!

Just think about when we convert from Celsius to Ferinhert (both system are fucking arbitrary). The fucking "0's" doesnt matter any more then the rest of the numbers. They can be scaled and shifted to another fucking arbitrary system.

[Anonymous No.4574764]

>>4574754
wat? curvature is proportional to energy, how can you just add constants?

[Anonymous No.4574766]

>>4574751
LMFAO.

Gravity is already taken into acount in the metric dupshit. How the fuck do you think there derive the mertic tensor? They derive it from the Einstein equations, which depend on gravity/matter/mometum and even the cosmological constant (in some models).

Knowing how "energies varies" as a function of time, in in no way the same thing as "conservation of energy". Energy is not fucking conserved in most models to describe the big bang (or an expanding space time). That doesn't mean that we can't get shit done though.

[Anonymous No.4574774]

>>4574764
"Curvature" is proportional to a "particlar type" of energy scale. That doesn't mean it is proportional to all types of energy scales though, right? Get it?

Is is basic albegra kid. Just think about it. Physics like to use Kelivn, because the Kelin scale is designed to relate directly to differerent concepts in physics. Chemists use Celsius because that scale relates to particlar concepts in chemist (certin properties that are used repeatedly). Both scales are valid. Both scales can be transformed to eachother.

[Anonymous No.4574777]

>>4574774
Kelvin is a temperature scale, not energy. And temperature scales have a fixed zero that is not in any way arbitrary.

[Anonymous No.4574783]

in my opinion, we are way too ignorant to even try to comprehend something that lies beyond our reach of simple observation, in terms of what lies "beyond the universe". There are too many things that wouldn't make sense in our reality, or that we can't prove in our reality. Therefor, we may not know much of these answers without a doubt for a long time, if not never. For this reason, it seems stupid to argue over it, rather, take in everyone's ideas, and make new ones yourself. We don't even completely know how our universe works yet, so there is no possible way to understand "outside our universe"

[Anonymous No.4574788]

>what IS nothing?

Jordan Carver's tits.

[Anonymous No.4574787]

>>4574569
>>4574593
>>4574638
>>4574646
>>4574653
>>4574656
>>4574681
>>4574701
>>4574718
>>4574740
>>4574754
>>4574766

Living the dream

[Anonymous No.4574789]

>>4574751
I would love for you to show me how "energy" is conserved from the FLRW Lagrangian.

Hint: It can't be done.
Yeah, you can derive a few things that are conserved. But none of them are energy. Energy is defined at the conserved quantity resulting from the time component of the Euler-Lagrange equation.

The time componet of the Euler-Lagrane equation in the FLRW metic does not lead to a conserved quantity, because of the scale factor "a".

In fact we know "a" varies in time, and "a" ends up being associated with the Hubble Parameter and redshifts.

[Anonymous No.4574793]

>>4574787
Fuck yeah!

[Anonymous No.4574794]

>>4574774
fuck you are retarded. at first i was thinking you knew what you were talking about but after this exchange with this guy i can see you are just some retard that keeps changing what he is talking about every time you are proven wrong.

[Anonymous No.4574798]

>>4574217
> Jordan Carver is a expert on space

[Anonymous No.4574799]

The universe won't expand into "nothing," it will just become incredibly diffuse with matter spread out over incredibly vast distances. I personally find the thought sad and terrifying.

[Anonymous No.4574803]

>>4574794
>implying I was ever proven wrong

Go to any physicist and ask them about energy scales. They will tell you the same shit kid. It isn't that hard a concept to get.

When you actually derive what "energy" is. It is a fucking constant of integration. It has no fucking value, it is up to you and put it in by hand and choose a fucking scale if you want. This is basic physics kid.

[Anonymous No.4574806]

>>4574265
you seem to be having the same problem most people have when they think of nothingness. i bet youre thinking of the universe and this dark 2 plane area and then outside of it everything is white and theres nothing... but the reality is, everything is black and empty just like the spaces between all matter in space, the only difference about this new empty space is just that its, well, empty. planets, stars have not expanded into that area

[Anonymous No.4574807]

ignorantfag here. Im thinking OP doesn't mean "expanding into nothing" more or less, something to do with entropy. Don't be harsh, im only in 8th grade

[Anonymous No.4574815]

less faggotry

more hq pics of huge tits

[Anonymous No.4574818]

>>4574815

[Anonymous No.4574823]

The 'nothing' are the bounds of a black hole. Yes, our universe is inside a black hole locate in another universe.

[Anonymous No.4574840]

>>4574217
anyone who tells you what it is, is full of shit because we cannot know. but i can say that its definitely not nothing, its something

[Anonymous No.4574851]

what happens if you go into the nothing outside the universe?

[Anonymous No.4574857]

Gee, I came here to see the pics and ended learning how the universe works. Fucking brilliant.

[Anonymous No.4574862]

>>4574217
Space-time is expanding, but not in the simple shitty way you think of expanding. It is not expanding into anything.

Grow the fuck up and stop thinking in such simple shitty terms.

[Anonymous No.4574866]

>>4574857
Welcome to /sci/

[Anonymous No.4574869]

>>4574851
How fucking old are you?

[Anonymous No.4574872]

>>4574869
18 and a half

[Anonymous No.4575026]

>>4574701
Nope. I havent' said conservation of energy is a fundamental law, fuckwit. I said that if we consider two premises, that:
A) in closed systems energy is conserved
B) there is no "something outside the universe", so the universe globally might be similar to a closed system, then:
It follows that the energy and momentum in the universe should be conserved, even though gravity and energy cancel each other out. Where from could energy increase in the universe if locally, in closed systems it always is conserved?

Does quantum vacuum fluctuation create and destroy energy or not? -- maybe that could answer the question whether the universe came out of nothing and grew out of nothing. Which also means it could return into nothing.

[Anonymous No.4575061]

>>4575026
>A) in closed systems energy is conserved

But your first premise is wrong. I won't indulge your nonsense if your premises are flat out bullshit. How about we just say it was magic? If that a fucking good premise for you?

[Anonymous No.4575934]

>>4575061
First law of thermodynamics, energy cannot be created or destroyed. Under which common circumstances and to which degree, is this not true?

>>4574857
Now that you know, we can't let you leave.