Space bigger than the Universe?

[ulfus]

In a recent article at www.astronomi-kaf.se/Spanaren (our Swedish site, with an english section) I put forward the idea that our Universe might just be a material part in an otherwhise empty, omnipresent Space.

In all cosmology books, tv programs, astronomy films and presentations the general assumption seams to be that the Universe and Space is one and the same. Suppose it is not.

Suppose Space, i.e. the empty black space out there and even in between the particles/strings in matter, is not something that exists as such, but merely a state of emptyness, of nothing, of non-existence "before" anything starts to exists. Then as Big Bang occured, that part of "Space" became our Universe.

Would anyone out there approve this theory?
ulfus

[Attiyah Zahdeh]

Hi Ulfus
Please where was the space before the universe appeared?

[Sp1ke]

a state of emptyness, of nothing, of non-existence "before" anything starts to exists

Ulfus, your description sounds like there's nothing to space - it is empty, nothing's there, it doesn't exist. What's the difference between something like this outside the universe and in just saying the universe is all there is? What practical difference would there be? Could you ever detect the presence or absence of your "space"?

[Cougar]

In a recent article at www.astronomi-kaf.se/Spanaren (our Swedish site, with an english section)....
Your link was "not found."

....I put forward the idea that our Universe might just be a material part in an otherwhise empty, omnipresent Space.... the general assumption seams to be that the Universe and Space is one and the same. Suppose it is not.... Suppose Space... is merely a state of emptyness, of nothing, of non-existence "before" anything starts to exists. Then as Big Bang occured, that part of "Space" became our Universe.... Would anyone out there approve this theory?
I'm normally strongly skeptical of ATM ideas put forward on this board, but the way you've presented this has me sort of pulling for your "supposition." Or at least the implausibility of your idea is not immediately apparent.

I suppose that normally in this ATM section you would be asked to provide some sort of support for your idea, which can then be judged against what is observed. But in this case, since this is clearly not a mainstream view, I don't have a problem with putting such an idea forward as a question or an undeveloped supposition.

IS such a thing physically feasible? IS there any way to rule it out? DOES it conform with what we observe?

Unless there's some way you can get around it, I'm afraid your idea fails that last question. Current thinking, based on observations at particle accelerator labs, has it that the space around us is infused with energy fluctuations or virtual particles or whatever you want to call it. It ain't empty.

I also don't know if there's any way to rule something in OR out if it takes place beyond the visible universe.

[Thanatos]

The 'beginning' has no scientific roots. Modern physics, both QT and GR, break down at the putative singularity in big bang models. Scientists meres force fit their models to accomodate observational evidence in this universe. But that is not a bad thing. Their models, while probably incomplete, predict the majority of phenomenons observed in this universe.

[FG77]

Suppose Space, i.e. the empty black space out there and even in between the particles/strings in matter, is not something that exists as such, but merely a state of emptyness, of nothing, of non-existence "before" anything starts to exists. Then as Big Bang occured, that part of "Space" became our Universe.
This is a little bit similar to the hypothesis of my father. He says, that our part of space was before a very big black hole. The rest of the universe is a "gas" of black holes. But read yourself. his (mine) thread at this forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38438)

[ulfus]

Thanks for your views, all of you.

I know the idea of nothingness and a Universe sailing along in it can be quite difficult to ”visualize” at first, and possibly even wrong as I am well aware of. However, bear with me, and let me explain what I mean before you bin my thread here too soon.

By nothingness we philosophically mean something that does not exist. Subsequently you ought not be able to perceive it either. But suppose that we, as perceiving beings, actually can. Suppose we can “see” nothingness by the absence of things. We could do so because it might be just a pitch black empty void, similar to what you would see looking at black holes. Suppose too that this nothingness is actually the black space out there! And more over, that our Universe, since it is SOMETHING, actually exists "in the middle" of this black nothing. Because the empty space is not a physical dimension, but a state of non-existence, it ought to be omnipresent, everywhere, as a “starting” condition.

How about Space in our Universe then? Ok, the space in our Universe is not completely empty. We know that. However, that could be because of the influence (pollution) and proximity from matter, of course. But in principle, it would be the same Space. If so, it would also be part of ourselves, since it permeates our own bodies as the empty distances between the elementary particles. Weird? Possibly, but interesting I think.

How do we measure empty Space? Not a clue, it might be impossible.

If this concept of Space has some truth in it, it could lead to very interesting views and explanations to our Universe, in my view. The Universe and Space would not be quite the same thing, for a starter.

Sorry about the web link. Look at www-astronomi-kaf.se and then choose “Spanaren” and english version.

regards
Ulfus

[ulfus]

This is a little bit similar to the hypothesis of my father. He says, that our part of space was before a very big black hole. The rest of the universe is a "gas" of black holes. But read yourself. his (mine) thread at this forum (http://www.bautforum.com/showthread.php?t=38438)


Interesting article. I will study it. Thanks.
Ulfus

[bigsplit]

Thanks for your views, all of you.

I know the idea of nothingness and a Universe sailing along in it can be quite difficult to ”visualize” at first, and possibly even wrong as I am well aware of. However, bear with me, and let me explain what I mean before you bin my thread here too soon.

By nothingness we philosophically mean something that does not exist. Subsequently you ought not be able to perceive it either. But suppose that we, as perceiving beings, actually can. Suppose we can “see” nothingness by the absence of things. We could do so because it might be just a pitch black empty void, similar to what you would see looking at black holes. Suppose too that this nothingness is actually the black space out there! And more over, that our Universe, since it is SOMETHING, actually exists "in the middle" of this black nothing. Because the empty space is not a physical dimension, but a state of non-existence, it ought to be omnipresent, everywhere, as a “starting” condition.

How about Space in our Universe then? Ok, the space in our Universe is not completely empty. We know that. However, that could be because of the influence (pollution) and proximity from matter, of course. But in principle, it would be the same Space. If so, it would also be part of ourselves, since it permeates our own bodies as the empty distances between the elementary particles. Weird? Possibly, but interesting I think.

How do we measure empty Space? Not a clue, it might be impossible.

If this concept of Space has some truth in it, it could lead to very interesting views and explanations to our Universe, in my view. The Universe and Space would not be quite the same thing, for a starter.

Sorry about the web link. Look at www-astronomi-kaf.se and then choose “Spanaren” and english version.

regards
Ulfus


I share something similar to your idea. It is 3D space alone without the 4th dimension. In such a space there does not have to be "nothing" persay, just nothing according to GR and QM, all you have to do is deduce a state where the 4th dimension does not exist. To do so there can be no mass differencial only homogenous distribution of all energy and there can be no differencial charge. In such a reality there would be no GR or electrodynamics, but you could still have energy in a single bodied system. So this would be nothing according to GR and QM as such space would be static and monistic. But on the other hand there is something that it could be, a homogenous brane where time itself means nothing and thus according to current astronomy and cosmology mainstream it is nothing.

When the Big Bang and inflations say that spacetime actually grows and does not exist outside the universe, this may very well be correct, but that does not mean that space without time does not exist...although such a thought is just being explored through the theory of S-brane decay, this may be an answer to just what the singularity that banged was and is. However, as you admitted within our Universe, if it is a closed system within an infinate space, there is no such "nothing" or empty space within our "universe".

[gzhpcu]

A string-theory based cosmology, ekpyrotic universe, says just that: the pre-existing space was a brane.

See: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/npr/

Animation: http://wwwphy.princeton.edu/~steinh/brane.html

[north]

gzhpcu

I've thought of this years ago( about 15yrs).

the problem I have, is that so far they have not presented this theory three dimensionally( and to be honest neither did I at first).

but now I would think that instead of two sheets of branes coming together, it would be better if the picture would be at least should be represented as two spheres of branes combining.

further when the two spheres combine they create a type of friction. hence Cosmic Plasmas.

[bigsplit]

An amazing thing about the universe and GR itself is that hydrodynamically, your would expect the heavier mass objects to dissolve into the less mass of emptier space. The reality is counter intuitive hydrodynamically speaking, but it is verifiable by gravity itself, attracted in direct corrolation to mass. Is it the mass itself that things are attracted to, when we know hydrodynamically it makes no sense?

Another counter intuitive thing occurs concerning GR. As objects move faster they experience time slower. It would seem intuitively that the faster things move the quicker entrophy would occur and the experience of time would accelerate. But, this is clearly not the case.

What does hydrodynamically make sense is that the greater the GR potential a mass has, the weaker it time gradient (slower the clock ticks) becomes. It is as if the smaller slower mass with the greater time gradent (faster ticking clock) wishes to move towards the larger masses with the lower time gradient in an attempt to reach equalibrium of time, but not mass density.

A strange, but wonderful mind game this all is.

[north]

An amazing thing about the universe and GR itself is that hydrodynamically, your would expect the heavier mass objects to dissolve into the less mass of emptier space.

why would you think this? what is your definition of hydrodynamics then?


The reality is counter intuitive hydrodynamically speaking, but it is verifiable by gravity itself, attracted in direct corrolation to mass. Is it the mass itself that things are attracted to, when we know hydrodynamically it makes no sense?

again explain further!

Another counter intuitive thing occurs concerning GR. As objects move faster they experience time slower. It would seem intuitively that the faster things move the quicker entrophy would occur and the experience of time would accelerate. But, this is clearly not the case.

actually I see this as, the faster objects go the more "concentrated" or focused an object is.

What does hydrodynamically make sense is that the greater the GR potential a mass has, the weaker it time gradient (slower the clock ticks) becomes. It is as if the smaller slower mass with the greater time gradent (faster ticking clock) wishes to move towards the larger masses with the lower time gradient in an attempt to reach equalibrium of time, but not mass density.

A strange, but wonderful mind game this all is.

explain a little clearer. can't quite grasp what you are geting here!

[Cougar]

By nothingness we philosophically mean something that does not exist.... (O)ur Universe, since it is SOMETHING, actually exists "in the middle" of this... nothing. Because the empty space is... a state of non-existence, it ought to be omnipresent, everywhere, as a “starting” condition.

Ok, the space in our Universe is not completely empty. We know that. However, that could be because of the influence (pollution) and proximity from matter, of course. But in principle, it would be the same Space. If so, it would also be part of ourselves, since it permeates our own bodies as the empty distances between the elementary particles. Weird? Possibly, but interesting I think.

Well, although "empty" space in our neighborhood is infused with virtual particles (not to mention the cosmic background radiation), one might certainly imagine that these fleeting energy fluctuations (and electromagnetic waves) have to occur somewhere... or that there's some empty nothingness between the sea of virtual particles, through which the EM waves self-propagate.

But whether this view is accurate or not, as you said, it may be more a philosophical question than a scientific one.

How do we measure empty Space? Not a clue, it might be impossible.
One pertinent way is to determine the density of the "energy" (whatever it is) per some unit volume. In a vanishingly small volume, is there still any energy? Might be tough to check at really small scales. (Hence the more philosophical question rather than scientific.)

If this concept of Space has some truth in it, it could lead to very interesting views and explanations to our Universe, in my view.

I don't know about that. I may be having a sudden lack of imagination, but I don't see that it really adds much.... :o

I'll get back to North's sphere branes and Bigsplit's 3D-brane colliding with a 1-D time brane, which actually sound kind of interesting.

[gzhpcu]

gzhpcu

I've thought of this years ago( about 15yrs).

the problem I have, is that so far they have not presented this theory three dimensionally( and to be honest neither did I at first).

but now I would think that instead of two sheets of branes coming together, it would be better if the picture would be at least should be represented as two spheres of branes combining.

further when the two spheres combine they create a type of friction. hence Cosmic Plasmas.

I thought they did, quote from the source I cited:

The model is based on the idea that our hot big bang universe was created from the collision of two three-dimensianal worlds moving along a hidden, extra dimension.

[bigsplit]

As far as mass is concerned, hydrodynamically, you would expect that the higher density mass would spread out into less dense space, but gravity prevents this from occuring.

If you look at "time" in a gradiant model where the faster the clock moves the greater gradiant. The higher time gradient is attracted to the lower time gradient hydrodynamically with the the goal of reaching equalibrium. This explains gravity in a sense hydrodynamically using the effect of mass on time and not mass itself.

So in effect the universe is seeking to bring the time gradient into equalibrium and in so doing it forces mass together as the motion of this time gradient moves hydrodynamically from the lower mass values with the higher time gradiant towards the higher mass values that have the lower time gradiants hydrodynamically.

[north]

I thought they did, quote from the source I cited:

but the thing that is interesting to me is this;

how does each brane have three dimensions but at the same time does not include space as a fundamental dimension. explain. if not you then them!

it is odd to say at the very least. then they include "space" later, causually as a dimension. this makes no sense. space is critical and fundamental to any existence of anything. to denote space as after thought is actually quite astonishing really.

[RussT]

What you are really asking here is...how are GR and QFT unified, and it DOESN"T and CAN"T happen at T=0 or T= 10 ^-35 or T= 10 ^-43!!!

In other words, the Big Bang says that 'all' the baryonic matter (light) and 'all' the darkness (space) got here all at the same time! This did not happen...the Big Bang did not create the darkness (space)!

[north]

What you are really asking here is...how are GR and QFT unified, and it DOESN"T and CAN"T happen at T=0 or T= 10 ^-35 or T= 10 ^-43!!!

In other words, the Big Bang says that 'all' the baryonic matter (light) and 'all' the darkness (space) got here all at the same time! This did not happen...the Big Bang did not create the darkness (space)!

I'm not sure how to understand what your saying.

but I will say this. matter and space are simultaneous. one does not happen without the other, it is impossible.

[Bogie]

I'm not sure how to understand what your saying.

but I will say this. matter and space are simultaneous. one does not happen without the other, it is impossible.I'll toss out a refinement to that "absolute". Space is made up of vacuum energy and matter energy.

"Empty" space, if defined as the abscence of matter, becomes vacuum energy. It will suck matter into it if it can. Vacuum energy is not as strong as "gravity" so gravity can pull matter from space leaving vacuum energy.

Vacuum energy comes into play when matter is moving. When matter is moving out of it, it slows the exodus, and when matter is moving into it, it accelerates the advance.

This only works if space (vacuum energy and matter energy) is infinite.

[north]

What you are really asking here is...how are GR and QFT unified, and it DOESN"T and CAN"T happen at T=0 or T= 10 ^-35 or T= 10 ^-43!!!

In other words, the Big Bang says that 'all' the baryonic matter (light) and 'all' the darkness (space) got here all at the same time! This did not happen...the Big Bang did not create the darkness (space)!

Russ

in my last response to you in NO way supports BB.

and I agree BB did not create space(darkness?). but that matter does.

inotherwords what was trying to say is that, there was never a time when space, matter, plasma did not exist. since it is impossible for "nothing" to produce any form of any form at all.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
I'm not sure how to understand what your saying.

but I will say this. matter and space are simultaneous. one does not happen without the other, it is impossible.

I'll toss out a refinement to that "absolute". Space is made up of vacuum energy and matter energy.

a "vacuum" does NOT and should NOT imply, any sort of energy in and of its self, it is simply NOT necessary.

why? because matter simply "FLOWS INTO" this vacuum. this does NOT automatically imply that A space( empty of energy/matter) draws the energy/matter into this space. only that energy/matter can FILL this space under its own. as naturally as water or gas does. it is in the very Nature of energy/matter to do so.

"Empty" space, if defined as the abscence of matter, becomes vacuum energy. It will suck matter into it if it can. Vacuum energy is not as strong as "gravity" so gravity can pull matter from space leaving vacuum energy.

above

Vacuum energy comes into play when matter is moving. When matter is moving out of it, it slows the exodus, and when matter is moving into it, it accelerates the advance.

above again

This only works if space (vacuum energy and matter energy) is infinite.

look, the reason that space can "SEEM" larger or be concepted to be larger than the Universe is that there is to each atom and deeper further, every sub-atomic particle a certain amount of "space"(minimum space) needed in order for any form of plasma or particles to exist in the first place.

energy/plasma/matter needs ROOM. simply put.

space is just ROOM for the fundamentals of reality to exist. ROOM does NOT need any type of energy implied to it at all, really.

[gzhpcu]

but the thing that is interesting to me is this;

how does each brane have three dimensions but at the same time does not include space as a fundamental dimension. explain. if not you then them!

it is odd to say at the very least. then they include "space" later, causually as a dimension. this makes no sense. space is critical and fundamental to any existence of anything. to denote space as after thought is actually quite astonishing really.

Researchers have focused on branes that exist in 5 dimensions. In this model, the other 6 dimensions are tightly curled up and can be ignored.

Other universes—also represented by branes—may be floating through the fifth dimension. These branes would remain invisible because particles and light can't travel through the fifth dimension. (the end points of open strings are tied to the brane) However, gravity can couple matter across that dimension (the graviton is a closed string).

In the ekpyrotic scenario, the fifth dimension is finite in size and bounded on either side by a three-dimensional brane. One of these boundary branes was the surface that was to become our own cosmos, and the other represents another universe. So, according to the theory, the 3D brane which is our universe, is just the surface membrane of a 4D space. As such, it is our 3D space.

[Bogie]

a "vacuum" does NOT and should NOT imply, any sort of energy in and of its self, it is simply NOT necessary.

why? because matter simply "FLOWS INTO" this vacuum. this does NOT automatically imply that A space( empty of energy/matter) draws the energy/matter into this space. only that energy/matter can FILL this space under its own. as naturally as water or gas does. it is in the very Nature of energy/matter to do so. If you believe this, you must not be an advocate of the cosmological principle which refers to a cosmological constant (called vacuum energy density). The shape of the universe (open, closed or flat) depends on the value of the vacuum energy density. In a "flat" universe, matter and vacuum energy would be in balance and the cosmological constant would be at critical density.

look, the reason that space can "SEEM" larger or be concepted to be larger than the Universe is that there is to each atom and deeper further, every sub-atomic particle a certain amount of "space"(minimum space) needed in order for any form of plasma or particles to exist in the first place.

energy/plasma/matter needs ROOM. simply put.Space is the place where everything occurs. I didn't mean to intimate that there was any completely empty space. That is why I but quotes "" around the word "empty". It isn't really empty. Space is occupied by energy. Energy can take the form of matter energy or vacuum energy. The cosmological constant is at critical density when matter energy and vacuum energy are in balance. If they are not in balance the universe will either collapse of expand forever.

space is just ROOM for the fundamentals of reality to exist. ROOM does NOT need any type of energy implied to it at all, really.Empty room does not exist according to the cosmological principle. Space is composed of matter energy and vacuum energy. Any given space has a mix of the two according to my understanding of the cosmological principle .

[north]

Originally Posted by north
but the thing that is interesting to me is this;

how does each brane have three dimensions but at the same time does not include space as a fundamental dimension. explain. if not you then them!

it is odd to say at the very least. then they include "space" later, causually as a dimension. this makes no sense. space is critical and fundamental to any existence of anything. to denote space as after thought is actually quite astonishing really.

Researchers have focused on branes that exist in 5 dimensions. In this model, the other 6 dimensions are tightly curled up and can be ignored.

Other universes—also represented by branes—may be floating through the fifth dimension. These branes would remain invisible because particles and light can't travel through the fifth dimension. (the end points of open strings are tied to the brane) However, gravity can couple matter across that dimension (the graviton is a closed string).

In the ekpyrotic scenario, the fifth dimension is finite in size and bounded on either side by a three-dimensional brane. One of these boundary branes was the surface that was to become our own cosmos, and the other represents another universe. So, according to the theory, the 3D brane which is our universe, is just the surface membrane of a 4D space. As such, it is our 3D space.


however I look at branes physics differently.

first both branes must have three fundamental things in common length,breadth and depth.(3D) they therefore exist and they therefore have space( which is also common to both, inotherwords occupy the same space).

and when these branes collide they bring what at first was would be considered 6D down to three(time is not a true dimension). since neither has what I would call " a uncommon dimension" so to speak. the 6D combine to become 3D. quite Naturally. this a simpler view.

then when these branes collide they cause a friction ( hence galaxies,stars etc,etc...).

[north]

Originally Posted by north
a "vacuum" does NOT and should NOT imply, any sort of energy in and of its self, it is simply NOT necessary.

why? because matter simply "FLOWS INTO" this vacuum. this does NOT automatically imply that A space( empty of energy/matter) draws the energy/matter into this space. only that energy/matter can FILL this space under its own. as naturally as water or gas does. it is in the very Nature of energy/matter to do so.

If you believe this, you must not be an advocate of the cosmological principle which refers to a cosmological constant (called vacuum energy density).

its not a matter of belief its a matter of chemistry. any state of matter will occupy an empty space if it can. especially in a high energy state(plasma) gaseous or liquid state.



The shape of the universe (open, closed or flat) depends on the value of the vacuum energy density. In a "flat" universe, matter and vacuum energy would be in balance and the cosmological constant would be at critical density.Space is the place where everything occurs. I didn't mean to intimate that there was any completely empty space. That is why I but quotes "" around the word "empty". It isn't really empty. Space is occupied by energy. Energy can take the form of matter energy or vacuum energy. The cosmological constant is at critical density when matter energy and vacuum energy are in balance. If they are not in balance the universe will either collapse of expand forever.Empty room does not exist according to the cosmological principle. Space is composed of matter energy and vacuum energy. Any given space has a mix of the two according to my understanding of the cosmological principle .

the thing is Bogie is Vacuum energy is not based on the Vacuum its self or in and of its self.

this I think is a misunderstanding of what a so called "vacuum energy" really means.

lets look at this further.

first, what to you does "vacuum energy" really mean? you keep using this term but as of yet is really undefined.

[Bogie]

its not a matter of belief its a matter of chemistry. any state of matter will occupy an empty space if it can. especially in a high energy state(plasma) gaseous or liquid state.





the thing is Bogie is Vacuum energy is not based on the Vacuum its self or in and of its self.

this I think is a misunderstanding of what a so called "vacuum energy" really means.

lets look at this further.

first, what to you does "vacuum energy" really mean? you keep using this term but as of yet is really undefined.http://www.astro.virginia.edu/~jh8h/glossary/vacuumenergy.htm
Vacuum Energy Density
The amount of energy per unit volume associated with empty space itself.

Although the idea of empty space having a nonzero energy associated with it seems a strange one, this idea is at the root of the cosmological constant and inflationary cosmologies.

-----

Space is filled with energy, and the energy permeating space takes one of two forms; "matter energy" or "vacuum energy". The two together equal total energy. "Matter energy" and "vacuum energy" are directly related to each other, i.e. they both increase or decrease together.

"Matter energy" is based on e=mc^2, i.e. matter and energy are proportional to the relationship where the energy contained in matter is equal to the mass of the matter times the speed of light squared. It takes a lot of energy to make matter.

-----

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

Energy density is the amount of potential energy stored in a given system or region of space per unit volume or per unit mass, depending on the context. In some cases it is obvious from context which quantity is most useful: for example, in rocketry, energy per unit mass is the most important parameter, but when studying pressurized gas or magnetohydrodynamics the energy per unit volume is more appropriate. In a few applications (comparing, for example, the effectiveness of hydrogen fuel to gasoline) both figures are appropriate and should be called out explicitly (hydrogen has a higher energy density per unit mass than does gasoline, but a much lower energy density per unit volume in most applications).

Energy density per unit volume has the same physical units as pressure, and in many circumstances is an exact synonym: for example, the energy density of the magnetic field may be expressed as (and behaves as) a physical pressure, and the energy required to compress a gas may be determined by multiplying the pressure of the compressed gas times its final volume.

-----

http://www.astro.ucla.edu/~wright/cosmo_constant.html

-----

http://csep10.phys.utk.edu/astr162/lect/cosmology/solutions.html

Later, when Hubble demonstrated that the Universe was actually not static but expanding, Einstein realized that he had missed a tremendous opportunity. If he had possessed sufficient confidence in his original equations, he would have predicted that either his theory was wrong or the Universe was expanding or contracting, well before there was experimental evidence of the expansion.


North, these are a few links that can help put together the concept in a working fashion if you think about it.

I have taken it a step further by making a model that quantifies the energy of space, i.e. shows how vacuum energy and matter energy are related. I propose an elementary energy wave/particle and define how it relates to the energy in space.

[gzhpcu]

however I look at branes physics differently.

first both branes must have three fundamental things in common length,breadth and depth.(3D) they therefore exist and they therefore have space( which is also common to both, inotherwords occupy the same space).

and when these branes collide they bring what at first was would be considered 6D down to three(time is not a true dimension). since neither has what I would call " a uncommon dimension" so to speak. the 6D combine to become 3D. quite Naturally. this a simpler view.

then when these branes collide they cause a friction ( hence galaxies,stars etc,etc...).

I am not sure I follow you, in what you see differently. A 2D brane (say a sheet) represents the boundary of a 3D brane (say a sphere), as a 3D brane forms the boundary of a 4D brane. So, the boundary brane I spoke of have length, breadth and depth, and have space. Yes, the 3D space would be common to both, just the 4th dimension separates them.

Why do you need more than an additional spatial dimension?

[north]

I am not sure I follow you, in what you see differently. A 2D brane (say a sheet) represents the boundary of a 3D brane (say a sphere), as a 3D brane forms the boundary of a 4D brane. So, the boundary brane I spoke of have length, breadth and depth, and have space. Yes, the 3D space would be common to both, just the 4th dimension separates them.

okay this is my problem. a 2D brane "sheet" simply does not exist( it has no depth) and therefore to me seems a more mathematical concept, than a concept based on reality.

depth>space is the same to me not seperate.


Why do you need more than an additional spatial dimension?

why would you think that I have an additional spatial dimension?

[gzhpcu]

okay this is my problem. a 2D brane "sheet" simply does not exist( it has no depth) and therefore to me seems a more mathematical concept, than a concept based on reality.

depth>space is the same to me not seperate.




why would you think that I have an additional spatial dimension?

Well, I will not argue with you on the 2D brane not existing, as I agree IMO that it is more of a mathematical concept. I have been arguing the same thing about QM and its 0 dimensional particles.

I thought you had an extra dimensional spatial dimension, because you stated when these branes collide they bring what at first was would be considered 6D down to three(time is not a true dimension).

I had spoken of 5D (one of which is time), whereas you speak of 6D.

[Sam5]

In a recent article at www.astronomi-kaf.se/Spanaren (our Swedish site, with an english section) I put forward the idea that our Universe might just be a material part in an otherwhise empty, omnipresent Space.

In all cosmology books, tv programs, astronomy films and presentations the general assumption seams to be that the Universe and Space is one and the same. Suppose it is not.

Suppose Space, i.e. the empty black space out there and even in between the particles/strings in matter, is not something that exists as such, but merely a state of emptyness, of nothing, of non-existence "before" anything starts to exists. Then as Big Bang occured, that part of "Space" became our Universe.


That’s an interesting question and I think this is an old debate. Is space itself “something” or is it “nothing”? If it’s “something”, then when did it come into being, but if it’s “nothing” then it could have always existed. If the universe before the BB was “no nothing”, then what was that “no nothing” like, as compared to the “nothing” of empty space, which was "something"? If matter all disappeared we would presumably still have “space”, i.e. "nothing", but if matter and “space” disappeared, what would we have?

[gzhpcu]

According to Wheeler, space is not "nothing".

A good overview from Wikipedia:

The foam is a qualitative description of the turbulence that the phenomenon creates at extremely small distances of the order of the Planck length. At such small scales of time and space the uncertainty principle allows particles and energy to briefly come into existence, and then annihilate, without violating conservation laws. As the scale of time and space being discussed shrinks, the energy of the virtual particles increases. At sufficiently small scale space is not smooth as would be expected from observations at larger scales.

[north]

Well, I will not argue with you on the 2D brane not existing, as I agree IMO that it is more of a mathematical concept. I have been arguing the same thing about QM and its 0 dimensional particles.

I thought you had an extra dimensional spatial dimension, because you stated



when these branes collide they bring what at first was would be considered 6D down to three(time is not a true dimension).

I had spoken of 5D (one of which is time), whereas you speak of 6D.

I speak of 6D because it is common to BOTH branes.

individually both branes have length, breadth and depth.(3Dx2) hence their reality.

whereas time as a dimension is a concept invented by us Humans to understand relationships between this or that interactions between plasma/energy/matter or action(s) by plasma/energy/matter.

but in and of themselves plasma/energy/matter do not consider time at all. they just interact and act amoung themselves and this governs the end result.

[north]

gchzpu

I think I understand what your saying about a vacuum in space.

for instance, if I got you right, your saying that there are puddles, very large puddles,ponds,lakes or even oceans of this condensate, virtual particles, bubbling in and out of existence. which could cause a vacuum, which draws matter into this state in space.

the thing is that, there would have to be an imbalance between the virtual particle creation and non-creation. otherwise if the a balance is perserved beteen creation and non-creation then any matter that might be drawn into this point of space would be kicked out or have no chance to be drawn in, in the first place.

and the investigation of this phenomenon would have to take place in all of known space to be found to be a true foundation of the cosmological constant.

[gzhpcu]

I speak of 6D because it is common to BOTH branes.

individually both branes have length, breadth and depth.(3Dx2) hence their reality.

whereas time as a dimension is a concept invented by us Humans to understand relationships between this or that interactions between plasma/energy/matter or action(s) by plasma/energy/matter.

but in and of themselves plasma/energy/matter do not consider time at all. they just interact and act amoung themselves and this governs the end result.
What I meant was something else: I will try and explain with an analogy. Imagine two sheets of paper (2D branes), very close to each other. The sheets have zero thickness and are purely two dimensional objects. They are separated by means of a third spatial dimension.

In the colliding brane (universe) scenario, we have two 3D branes very close to each other, and separated by a fourth spatial dimension. Adding time, this results in a 5D model.

[bigsplit]

What I meant was something else: I will try and explain with an analogy. Imagine two sheets of paper (2D branes), very close to each other. The sheets have zero thickness and are purely two dimensional objects. They are separated by means of a third spatial dimension.

In the colliding brane (universe) scenario, we have two 3D branes very close to each other, and separated by a fourth spatial dimension. Adding time, this results in a 5D model.

What about a single brane (3D) that decays into two interacting branes of opposing charges generating time itself?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16486680&dopt=Abstract

[north]

What I meant was something else: I will try and explain with an analogy. Imagine two sheets of paper (2D branes), very close to each other. The sheets have zero thickness and are purely two dimensional objects. They are separated by means of a third spatial dimension.

does this not seem a contradiction, 2D branes have zero thickness, which means that these 2D branes don't exist in the first place but can be seperated by a third spatial dimension.

think about it. something that does not exist,in reality, can be seperated?

hmmm....

In the colliding brane (universe) scenario, we have two 3D branes very close to each other, and separated by a fourth spatial dimension. Adding time, this results in a 5D model.

3D implies space, Naturally.

time is not even a real dimension.

[north]

What about a single brane (3D) that decays into two interacting branes of opposing charges generating time itself?

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=16486680&dopt=Abstract

and would these two interacting branes consist of? one and a half dimensions? one and half charges!!??

please!!!

time is not a real dimension either.

[gzhpcu]

does this not seem a contradiction, 2D branes have zero thickness, which means that these 2D branes don't exist in the first place but can be seperated by a third spatial dimension.

think about it. something that does not exist,in reality, can be seperated?

hmmm....



3D implies space, Naturally.

time is not even a real dimension.

If you look at a cube, the opposing faces are seperated. The faces are just the boundary between the actual physical cube and the surrounding space in which it finds itself. This is just an exercise similar to Abbott's Flatland (which also doesn't exist) to understand higher dimensions.

You keep repeating that time is not a real dimension, but this depends on the definition of "dimension". Time is not a spatial dimension, but is considered a dimension by Einstein's space/time continuum. If the term bothers you, just consider spatial dimensions plus time. Without time, just static pictures, with time, a film.

[bigsplit]

and would these two interacting branes consist of? one and a half dimensions? one and half charges!!??

please!!!

time is not a real dimension either.


Come now North, you can do better than that. They are both three dimensional space with oppositely charged energy. There was no change in dimension, just a change in charge. The electrodynamics that followed the decay of the timeless brane is when dynamics began.

[north]

If you look at a cube, the opposing faces are seperated. The faces are just the boundary between the actual physical cube and the surrounding space in which it finds itself. This is just an exercise similar to Abbott's Flatland (which also doesn't exist) to understand higher dimensions.

I understood what you were driving at before, about higher dimensions, I just think that they are not necessary and nor do they make sense.

You keep repeating that time is not a real dimension, but this depends on the definition of "dimension". Time is not a spatial dimension, but is considered a dimension by Einstein's space/time continuum. If the term bothers you, just consider spatial dimensions plus time. Without time, just static pictures, with time, a film.

I disagree

its not time that allows movement or flow. it is the movement,flow, of the matter in the Universe and there interactions and/or actions which allows us to come to this concept of time. time is an after result, not the cause of the result.

[north]

Originally Posted by north
and would these two interacting branes consist of? one and a half dimensions? one and half charges!!??

please!!!

time is not a real dimension either.

Come now North, you can do better than that. They are both three dimensional space with oppositely charged energy. There was no change in dimension, just a change in charge. The electrodynamics that followed the decay of the timeless brane is when dynamics began.

how then does a three dimensional brane split into two three dimensional branes? and why?

[gzhpcu]

I understood what you were driving at before, about higher dimensions, I just think that they are not necessary and nor do they make sense.



I disagree

its not time that allows movement or flow. it is the movement,flow, of the matter in the Universe and there interactions and/or actions which allows us to come to this concept of time. time is an after result, not the cause of the result.

Not what I said. Time is a measurement of change, certainly not the cause of change.

[Nereid]

In a recent article at www.astronomi-kaf.se/Spanaren (our Swedish site, with an english section) I put forward the idea that our Universe might just be a material part in an otherwhise empty, omnipresent Space.

In all cosmology books, tv programs, astronomy films and presentations the general assumption seams to be that the Universe and Space is one and the same. Suppose it is not.

Suppose Space, i.e. the empty black space out there and even in between the particles/strings in matter, is not something that exists as such, but merely a state of emptyness, of nothing, of non-existence "before" anything starts to exists. Then as Big Bang occured, that part of "Space" became our Universe.

Would anyone out there approve this theory?
ulfusIs there any experiment, or observation, that we could do - even if only in principle - that could test this idea?

[gzhpcu]

Forgetting about colliding branes for the moment: in respect to the above mentioned scenario, doesn't Einstein's BB imply a tremendous warping of space? Isn't it supposed to be space that is expanding, not the galaxies which are moving away from each other in a static space? How can this problem be circumvented in a non-M-theory-based cosmology?

[bigsplit]

how then does a three dimensional brane split into two three dimensional branes? and why?

North, you have known my idea for years now. The split is charge not dimensions, why.....well speculatively to find its lowest rest mass or "lazy neutron" concept.

[spacemanspiff]

First, let me say that I do not understand a great deal of what has been said in his thread. And I have not read many of the posts on the second page . I am not a scientist and have not read a great deal about these theories.
However, going back to the original post I have always held an idea almost the same as this one regarding the universe. Simply put and with no scientific theories to explain, what I've always thought was that space, that is the large black void we think of as space is infinite. But the universe, that is the collection of matter, stars, galaxies etcetera that we occupy is finite. Just as you could leave our solar system and eventually reach another, and you could leave our galaxy and eventually reach another. I've always thought that if you traveled far enough you would eventually leave our universe. Pass the last star in the last galaxy and enter the empty(reletivly speaking, I suppose it would not be completley empty) space beyond the physical limits of our universe. And that space would just keep going, on and on without end. And who knows, if you travel far enough maybe you might reach a knew universe.

Simple and unscientific I know, but that's me. I just don't understand all the theories of vacuum energy and matter energy and all the rest and my math skills are practicaly nonexistent.. BTW what is a Brane?

[bigsplit]

BTW what is a Brane?

They're theoretical thinga mo jigs.

Here, wiki can explain it better than I.

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

[gzhpcu]

First, let me say that I do not understand a great deal of what has been said in his thread. And I have not read many of the posts on the second page . I am not a scientist and have not read a great deal about these theories.
However, going back to the original post I have always held an idea almost the same as this one regarding the universe. Simply put and with no scientific theories to explain, what I've always thought was that space, that is the large black void we think of as space is infinite. But the universe, that is the collection of matter, stars, galaxies etcetera that we occupy is finite. Just as you could leave our solar system and eventually reach another, and you could leave our galaxy and eventually reach another. I've always thought that if you traveled far enough you would eventually leave our universe. Pass the last star in the last galaxy and enter the empty(reletivly speaking, I suppose it would not be completley empty) space beyond the physical limits of our universe. And that space would just keep going, on and on without end. And who knows, if you travel far enough maybe you might reach a knew universe.

Simple and unscientific I know, but that's me. I just don't understand all the theories of vacuum energy and matter energy and all the rest and my math skills are practicaly nonexistent.. BTW what is a Brane?

The classical Big Bang theory proposes that space/time and matter came into being at t=0. Based on Einstein's General theory of Relativity. The expansion of the galaxies, in this theory, is due to the expansion of the intervening space, not the galaxies moving in a static space.

A newer cosmological model, based on M-theory (strings and branes), proposes that two three dimensional branes (i.e. universes) very close to each in a fourth spatial dimension, periodically collide, causing Big Bangs. In this scenario, space exists prior to the Big Bang.

Branes are n-dimensional membranes. A 0-brane is a 0 dimensional point, a 1-brane is a one dimensional string, a 2 brane is a 2 dimension brane (membrane, sheet), etc. These are proposed by M-theory.

[Cougar]

Forgetting about colliding branes for the moment: in respect to the above mentioned scenario, doesn't Einstein's BB imply a tremendous warping of space? .... How can this problem be circumvented in a non-M-theory-based cosmology?
It's certainly not Einstein's Big Bang. He thought the universe was static, as it well appeared prior to Hubble. And from observing the acoustic peaks etched in the CMB, we have confirming evidence that space is not positively or negatively curved. Rather, it is flat.

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.

[north]

Not what I said. Time is a measurement of change, certainly not the cause of change.

agreed.

[gzhpcu]

It's certainly not Einstein's Big Bang. He thought the universe was static, as it well appeared prior to Hubble. And from observing the acoustic peaks etched in the CMB, we have confirming evidence that space is not positively or negatively curved. Rather, it is flat.

I'm not sure what problem you're referring to.

Yes, certainly, sorry I mistakenly termed it Einstein's BB. He believed in the static universe, as you said, searching for a cosmological constant. What I meant to say was that his GR states that gravity is a geometric distortion of space. The scenario I was referring to was the first post in this thread, i.e., of a pre-existing space into which the universe expanded.

[publiusr]

So If I were to travel at great speed (nearly as fast as light) what would I see, except for the rest of the universe moving away from me and everything getting darker..and darker...