Now, I was thinking,“Is there an end to space? Do you hit a brick wall or what?” We can only see so far, but whats beyond that? We just don’t know. If it goes on and on then there would HAVE to be paralel dimensions right? Well, I was wondering what some of you brains thought about all this.
I think the brightest minds in the world don’t have a clue about this yet, much as a monkey can’t solve a rubics cube.
Our current cosmological models have a parameter called “omega” which is some sort of ratio involving matter density (in the models anyway). This parameter determines whether or not space is globally “anti-curved” (???, no easily definable analogy), “flat”, or “curved”, in which case it would eventually curve back in on itself, forming a hypersphere. (Actually, a hyper-hypersphere if time is considered as one of the dimensions involved). Any one of these is possible under the model. However, I think based on the current astronomical data about the distribution of matter and energy along the cosmic background, astronomers find omega to be surprisingly close to 1 (surprisingly, because we don’t see anywhere near the density of matter near our own galaxy that could cause this), meaning that the universe is likely “flat” and goes on forever (at least until you run into the big bang. (remember, looking at great distances in space is also looking at great distances in time via the finite speed of light) Perhaps “will go on forever once the big bang moves on from where it will be” is more accurate) on a global scale.
Of course, our current cosmological model is probably pretty flawed at the moment. It does have a lot of unknowns, and still manages to produce results which don’t quite match what we see (hence all the discussion about “dark matter” and “dark energy”). Dark matter and dark energy are basically astronomers saying “gee, our model would produce this type of universe, if only there were several times the concentration of matter and energy that we can actually account for”
The universe is thought to be infinite in the sense that the surface of a sphere is infinite. I.e. if I start walking east on a planet, Ill pass by where I was but would never reach a “end”. The surface of the sphere can be thought of as a infinite 2d surface on a 3d object. Similarly, the universe is a infinite 4d surface on a who knows what.
String theory has many interesting things to say about what is “outside” of what is perceivable by humans- that is, outside of the infinite universe.
Ok, put it this way. We all know that the galaxy is expanding, but from what? Well, It would be only logical to say we started from a point in space.(The point of where all of what we know started.) But a point is defind as a point in all of what we know, so were all expanding. Will are galaxies collide in a global like cosmos or just keep going.
The current thought is that the universe is “flat” and will go on forever in both space and time. (Of course, for quite a few years it was thought that it was anti-curved, saddle-shaped, ect. That it would rapidly diverge and undergo a sudden (cosmologically speaking) heat death. These things are still pretty tenative) There’s just enough energy to hold it together and not enough to curve it back in on itself. So it will exponentially approach a final expansion of some sort and hang around that state. As to the hubble expansion, it’s not dependent on your reference frame. Any spot in the universe is moving away from any other spot in the universe at a speed proportional to it’s distance. (Thus the hubble constant) (and individual galaxies aren’t expanding. They hold together pretty well gravitationally. It’s primarily an intergalactic phenomenon.)
ii) Don’t just ask questions. Bring something to the discussion.
Asking “WOAH…LIKE…COULD WE BE LIKE…IN THE MATRIX???” does not make you a philosopher. Honestly. Asking questions is great, as long as you have studied to some extent the topic that you are talking about. Have the decency to go and read some philosophy before asking questions that any old schmoe could ask. There’s no need to try and look cleverer than you actually are, this isn’t a contest. We’re here to educate and be educated.
-Imp
We wouldn’t be educating anyone if no one asked the questions from which the discussion would be generated. Answers without questions don’t get discovered.
That said, I would also reccomend astro-physicists and astronomers as sources for information on these things. They’ve looked at the universe through telescopes and applied what we know of physics to attempt to explain it, so I’d personally pay more attention to them on this question than to philosophers.
I think the point is about constructive conversation. If we were with Wittgentein, sitting in silence and staring at a tree in his garden then yes, we are doing philosophy, but we aren’t having a constructive conversation. Asking open-ended questions doesn’t stimulate discussion as much as offering a provisional answer or offering a basis on which to try to construct an answer. We’ve known this since the Greeks.
iloveben, thats really something new i havent seen, hard to think its in a cycle like that, but they got the evidence
HH,
Evidence? I think flirting with a theory is hardly evidence yet one theory (mental acrobatic X) can be quite pleasant to watch.