[ 3 / biz / cgl / ck / diy / fa / ic / jp / lit / sci / vr / vt ] [ index / top / reports ] [ become a patron ] [ status ]
2023-11: Warosu is now out of extended maintenance.

/sci/ - Science & Math

View post   
File: 87 KB, 1080x1080, 1519759041770.jpg [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9557092 No.9557092 [Reply] [Original]

If space is infinite, what exists outside the bounds of our universe? Surely it cannot be an infinite void. If one were to venture far enough, he is bound to find something.

>> No.9557109

Did you ever have one of those weird water filled balls that had a donut hole in it, so that when you picked it up it would just roll through itself and you would drop it? That's how the universe is shaped in all directions. It just wraps around itself in a way, so just like on Earth if you traveled far enough you'd end up in the same place. The only way out is extra dimensions or some shit

>> No.9557118

>>9557109
Any proof of this or are you just talking out your ass?

I'm genuinely asking, by the way, because I thought space was infinite.

>> No.9557242

>>9557092
There is nothingness* in the absolute sense because Space is being created as it expands. (*it’s a concept difficult for many to understand, it’s not an empty room but a nonexistent area, the Universe expands creating area, I.e. Space). There isn’t a place outside our Universe.

>> No.9557256

>>9557118
what he said is the meme taught in popsci books

>> No.9557266

>>9557092
If the universe were isotropically infinite, every line of sight would end on a light emitter and the night sky would be as bright as the sun.

>> No.9557267

>>9557118
everyone here is talking out of their ass

as far as is known,
>what exists outside the bounds of our universe
is a nonsensical question also
>cannot be an infinite void
why? sure it can, it also very well might not be
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shape_of_the_universe

as far as is reasonably guessed, the big bang happened everywhere, all at once and the universe has been rapidly expanding at an accelerating rate ever since. if you try to imagine the big bang from a 3rd person point of view, you're doing it wrong. there is no "outside" the big bang.

>> No.9557272
File: 3.41 MB, 800x600, ezgif-2-77ed3adb7c.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9557272

>>9557092
Who knows anon, it's not as if God is care free and blowing bubbles now, is it?

>> No.9557283
File: 3.87 MB, 432x243, Bbls.gif [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9557283

>>9557272

>> No.9557287

matter becomes more and more dense until it's unsurpassable

>> No.9557680

I like to think that outside the bounds of the universe lies an infinite field of hot quark-gluon plasma. If all black holes are actually balls of this plasma, then perhaps the universe as we know it will eventually be consumed by black holes. Once that happens, the universe would be back at its starting point prior to the big bang, ready to start the cycle anew.

>waiting for someone to call me a brainlet

>> No.9557691

>>9557118
Nobody knows - but there is a way to test it
https://youtu.be/YPuOt0JUZBY?t=1m50s

>> No.9557697

>>9557266
Only if it was infinitely old, and wouldn't expand
the 2cm/s per ly that it currently does

>> No.9557716

I hate that people imagine our universe as some kind of bubble with a physical boundary. What is space? The absence of something. So if there's nothing outside the "boundaries" of our universe, then yes. It is nothing but empty space.

>> No.9558533

>>9557680
The first generation of stars after the Big Bang were most likely millions of times larger than the largest stars we know of, they had practically wall to wall H2 and He2 in the 100 million year old universe. They would have lived a short life and formed supermassive black holes, which attracted the dust and gas from their deaths as stars to create galaxies.

I don’t think it’s going to be possible to fit all the parts back together again to create a singularity again. Whatever disturbed them in the first place is still present.

>> No.9558537

>>9557092
>lipstick

BEGONE THOT

>> No.9558567

>>9558537
Where do you live that there are women who don't wear lipstick? It seems pretty well universal, which I've always thought is kind of weird. I don't get why women like smearing paint on their face so much.

>> No.9558589

>>9557092
this girl is really grimy

she needs to shower, stop dying her hair, go outside in the sun and lose about 20 pounds so her proportions arent so weird

>> No.9558703

>>9557092
>If space is infinite
It isn't.
/thread

>> No.9558714

>>9557092
Nothing is infinite, just very big/small.

>> No.9558830

>>9558714
We don’t know that.

>> No.9558905

>>9557716
If there's an infinite empty space it's naive to assume that our universe is the only matter present.

>> No.9558911

>>9558714
If space has a boundary, what is at the boundary? If it has a boundary, that also means that space must be "contained" within some order medium.

>> No.9558943

>>9558905
Is there something outside our universe is the question. The answer is no if you think 3 or 4 dimensionally. If you think multidimensional then automatically that becomes part of our universe so NO. If you are asking what is beyond the big bang then that is the realm of the spiritual.

>> No.9558990

>>9558905
Again the problem you’re having is with the definition “empty”—it isn’t. There isn’t empty space outside of Space. At the very edge of Space, it’s creating Space.

>> No.9558993

>>9557092
Nothing exists outside the Universe, and it's not an infinite void as 0 != infinity

>> No.9559045

>>9558911
What you seem to be suggesting is that there is a point where spacetime isn't smooth, an edge of sorts. I doubt there is such a place. There may be discontinuities but I don't think it's not smooth anywhere.

>> No.9559065

>>9559045
My question is whether or not space is finite. It could be smooth and still be finite but in the case that space is finite, it must be "contained" within another medium. If it is infinite, then what precludes the possibility of finding another "universe" if you travel far enough? If you define universe as being a collection of mass.

>> No.9559079

>>9559065
Think on this.

"An important consequence is that coordinates are not numbers anymore, but functions, which depend on the resolution.[14] For example, the length of the Brittany coast is explicitly dependent on the resolution at which one measures it

>> No.9559082

>>9559079
That's gibberish to me my dude.

>> No.9559084

>>9557266
>every line of sight would end on a light emitter
Not if it is (or was) expanding at ftl speed

>> No.9559101

>>9559079
>the length of the Brittany coast is explicitly dependent on the resolution at which one measures it
But at any given resolution it is finite

>> No.9559116

It and many other simple question about the universe defies logic and cannot be answered by the same because logic is a tiny sub set of what you're trying to describe. This causes you to bump into limitations in your reasoning, but it's not a limit in what you are reasoning about, but actually a limit in your reasoning capabilities.

>> No.9559120

>>9559116
>tfw too smart to understand the universe

>> No.9559125

>>9558714
>>9558703
Why don't you guys give me your experimentally measured values for omega and what experiments you did to obtain those values.

>> No.9559132

>>9557092
>If one were to venture far enough, he is bound to find something
Not by the big bang standard. There's just no more matter out there. "Nothing" means no boundaries either, but then again also no space so I don't fucking know

>> No.9559167

>>9559101
until the next resolution where it is more defined and a larger number.

>> No.9559179

>>9559132
I’m thinking as the curve of time smooths out it just happens to be where Space is being created so it is a fury of energy being released so if one would be able to get near enough to see it, it would be an undefined light racing away.

>> No.9559181

>>9559167
But still finite. And there is also a limited amount of resolutions. See Planck lenght.

>> No.9559185

>>9559181
True
In our defined physics point.
I admit that.
Would fractal dimensions change that? Or just shift it to a partial dimension?

>> No.9559210

>>9557092
>Surely it cannot be an infinite void.

why not?

>> No.9559211

>>9559185
>Would fractal dimensions change that?
No. Because that isn't a thing.

>> No.9559243

>>9559211
Chaos theory
Weather
Static
many others

but I bet you define that as nothing
just math that works

Each gets the choice to choose.

>> No.9559519

>>9559210
Because to assume that the visible universe is all there is because here we are is the same logic and to assume our galaxy is the only galaxy. Why should we assume that there's nothing beyond the visible horizon of the big bang? What precludes matter from existing far far away, or a separate big bang occurring far away, assuming infinite space?

>> No.9559558

space is infinite in size but not in mass

>> No.9559587
File: 60 KB, 250x226, 250px-Hopf_Fibration.png [View same] [iqdb] [saucenao] [google]
9559587

at the outer limits of space time it probably cycles back so there is no end like a hypersphere.
At the inner limits there are fractal dimensions and chaos theory. Planks constant may not be valid there or may just be valid in 3-4 worlds.