What is the Universe expanding into..

[volume knob]

My guess is a something like a giant electron shell

 

[JacquesToo]

If the current belief is that the universe is infinite, then if you travel long enough in one direction you will end up where you started. Simply really.

If you can grasp this concept, you can grasp the "edge of the universe", or why the universe is infinite.

You effectively are the edge of the universe.

I think you might have the cat by the tail.

 

[SNR]

I believe you were the one to bring up tachyons which are theoretical correct?

OK?

 

[SY]

If the current belief is that the universe is infinite, then if you travel long enough in one direction you will end up where you started. Simply really.

Incorrect as well. Your speed is limited by c due to the fundamental way the universe works. As you're traveling at <c, the universe continues to expand- it doesn't suddenly freeze because of your trip.

The other posts remind me of the dope-smoking scene in Animal House.

 

[SNR]

Incorrect as well. Your speed is limited by c due to the fundamental way the universe works. As you're traveling at <c, the universe continues to expand- it doesn't suddenly freeze because of your trip.

It is this infinite expansion that catches up to you, semantics really. Infinity is not a linear direction.

I'm sure you have heard this one.

The bartender says "What can I get for you?", a neutrino walks into a bar.

 

[DF96]

I think it will be a tachyon, not a neutrino. Neutrinos have difficulty getting served in bars, as nobody notices that they are there and they can't stay long as they are always in a hurry to be somewhere else.

 

[Philosophil]

Let's try a pragmatic approach. C.S. Peirce, the founder of modern Pragmatism, claimed that the best way of making clear the meaning of difficult notions was to see how they relate to action or conduct (in a very general sense). Here's a quote from Peirce's early work, "How to Make Our Ideas Clear":

"Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then the whole of our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of the object." (Peirce, Charles Sanders: Pragmatism[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy])

Now if the current scientific/mathematical theory of space is a good scientific theory then it should have predictable results that "have practical bearings." Thus the best way of making clear the current theory of space would be to simply specify the kinds of practical bearings it would have, e.g. the predicted results for space travel, or the predicted results for observing or measuring objects in deep space, and so on. So maybe outlining some of the practical, predictable results would be a good way to make sense of the current mathematical theory in ordinary language.

Phil

 

[Philosophil]

Science also says that anything that can happen, could theoretically happen. The chance might be ridiculously small, but even if you were to carry on in one direction forever, there's still the possibility that all of your atoms would suddenly teleport themselves back from whence they originally came and you'd be back where you started.

Of course it'd take some inconceivable amount of time for the probability to come up statistically, but if the universe is infinite...well you get the point.

This openness to novel possibilities is actually a crucial element of modern science, one that even a lot of scientists sometimes forget (in their more dogmatic moments). The lure of deductivist, a priori lines of thought is perhaps the strongest impediment to this sense of openness and the provisional nature of scientific accounts. Of course, just because scientific theories should be taken as provisional doesn't mean that we should not accept them as more or less true (or truthful). As the old saying goes, you shouldn't throw the bay out with the bathwater.

Phil

 

[DF96]

"Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then the whole of our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of the object." (Peirce, Charles Sanders: Pragmatism[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy])

OK if Pragmatism is true. Misleading if Pragmatism is false.

For me, science provides explanations. As a consequence of those explanations, it also provides predictions - what Sanders seems to call 'Effects'. Predictions without explanations seems to me to be more like the 'rule of thumb' end of engineering rather than science, yet I realise that many scientists seem content with this. David Deutsch talks about this.

 

[Philosophil]

OK if Pragmatism is true. Misleading if Pragmatism is false.

For me, science provides explanations. As a consequence of those explanations, it also provides predictions - what Sanders seems to call 'Effects'. Predictions without explanations seems to me to be more like the 'rule of thumb' end of engineering rather than science, yet I realise that many scientists seem content with this. David Deutsch talks about this.

Peirce's pragmatic principle (as it is sometimes called) does not cover the nature of explanations (which he covers in others aspects of his work), but with meaning. It is a simple rule or guideline for trying to convey or determine the meaning of some term (or proposition, and so on).

Phil

 

[DF96]

It may be a useful way of approaching meaning for a term new to the hearer but it seems rather restrictive. Maybe he has redefined 'meaning' to be a rather narrower concept than most people would understand by it?

 

[Kastor L]

Hmmmm.... putting aside the drugs and whatnot for just a second and getting back to the physically measured expansion of the universe and what it's expanding into, it should be noted that everywhere is the center of the universe and that there is no edge

This is incorrect.


If you drop a coin into a still pond, then the ripples expand outwardly at any point in the pond, however there is still an outermost ripple.

The outermost ripple of our universe is around 13 billion lightyears away. That place isn't a center, if the farthest star is only 1 lightyear away looking to the east of the position, while the farthest star is billions of lightyears away looking to the west.

 

[nezbleu]

This is incorrect.


If you drop a coin into a still pond, then the ripples expand outwardly at any point in the pond, however there is still an outermost ripple.

The outermost ripple of our universe is around 13 billion lightyears away. That place

Away from what? Do you think you are in the center of the universe?

 

[cogitech]

Away from what? Do you think you are in the center of the universe?

That's what I was thinking.

"Centre of infinity" is an oxymoron, since there are infinite "centres".

 

[famousmockingbird]

I think he is trying to say that the farthest we can see into the past is 13 billion years, hence the light that has traveled to us from every direction.

http://map.gsfc.nasa.gov/

 

[nezbleu]

The universe ... has the shape of an egg on its side

...A teardrop?

My guess is a something like a giant electron shell

You're all wrong, it's shaped like a, what's that thing called, that thing with no center and no edges... Oh yeah, a universe! It's universoid shaped!

 

[Kastor L]

Away from what? Do you think you are in the center of the universe?

Hi

Away from where the initial explosion happened, there ought to be a 3D model of it on YouTube somewhere.

No, we are far away from the center, after all ~13 billion lightyears is only found in a certain part of the sky AFAIK, not all parts, there is a specific farthest star, afaik, will look for it's name now.

Edit: http://edition.cnn.com/2013/10/23/tech/innovation/most-distant-galaxy/

 

[NorthStar]

The Shape of the Universe ...

My guess is a something like a giant electron shell

Or the shape of an eight (8) on its side, and in 3D? ...Infinite dimensional.

* Does it move?

 

[famousmockingbird]

I see now that it was only one part of the sky and not all.

z8_GND_5296

A name only a scientist could love.

 

[NorthStar]

Bobilosophy

Let's try a pragmatic approach. C.S. Peirce, the founder of modern Pragmatism, claimed that the best way of making clear the meaning of difficult notions was to see how they relate to action or conduct (in a very general sense). Here's a quote from Peirce's early work, "How to Make Our Ideas Clear":

"Consider what effects, which might conceivably have practical bearings, we conceive the object of our conception to have. Then the whole of our conception of those effects is the whole of our conception of the object." (Peirce, Charles Sanders: Pragmatism[Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy])

Now if the current scientific/mathematical theory of space is a good scientific theory then it should have predictable results that "have practical bearings." Thus the best way of making clear the current theory of space would be to simply specify the kinds of practical bearings it would have, e.g. the predicted results for space travel, or the predicted results for observing or measuring objects in deep space, and so on. So maybe outlining some of the practical, predictable results would be a good way to make sense of the current mathematical theory in ordinary language.

Phil

Hi Phil, I like your perception and would like to ask your opinion on a link (Theory) that I posted yesterday (post #85, page 9):
=> Say What? Higgs Boson Theorist Claims Universe Shouldn't Exist - NBC News

Bob

P.S. By the way Phil, what is exactly (in) your avatar?