Sparty On

Expansion of the Universe

  
By:  Sparty On  •  Science  •  one month ago  •  81 comments

Expansion of the Universe

So, as pretty universally accepted by science, if the Universe is everything and is expanding.   What is it expanding into?

Tags

jrBlog - desc
[]
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
1  Kathleen    one month ago

That’s a good question. I wondered that myself, it’s kind of eerie.

There must be something before the universe in order  for it to expand into it. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
1.1  author  Sparty On  replied to  Kathleen @1    one month ago
There must be something before the universe in order  for it to expand into it. 

Lol .... can't be, because if the Universe is everything, there is nothing for it to expand into .....jrSmiley_98_smiley_image.gif and yet ..... it is expanding.   And it can't be expanding into itself otherwise it wouldn't be expanding.

It's a real brain teaser

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
1.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  Sparty On @1.1    one month ago

It’s the kind of thing when you have a bunch of friends sitting around a campfire talking about the fun things. jrSmiley_4_smiley_image.png

It is a interesting subject.

Here’s one... Is the universe everything?

 
 
 
Snuffy
Junior Quiet
1.1.2  Snuffy  replied to  Sparty On @1.1    one month ago

Not really.  If you accept that the universe is everything then it can never be expanding because it's already everything. The internal pieces may be moving further away from each other so the used footprint is expanding but the universe itself is not. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
1.1.3  author  Sparty On  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    one month ago

It's pretty well accepted by science that the Universe is expanding and that there is nothing known beyond it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
1.1.4  author  Sparty On  replied to  Kathleen @1.1.1    one month ago

Yes, according to most scientific theories it is everything.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
1.1.5  Kathleen  replied to  Snuffy @1.1.2    one month ago

So the stars and planets are moving out from the Big Bang and the universe is just infinite then. 

Did the Big Band create the universe? If so, then it could be expanding from that.

Just guessing here.....

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2  evilgenius    one month ago

It will continue to expand until it starts to shed parts into new universes. 

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1  author  Sparty On  replied to  evilgenius @2    one month ago

What new universes if ours is everything?

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.1  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @2.1    one month ago
What new universes if ours is everything?

The key part of your question is "IF ours is everything." All we can do is mathematically model what we know to help us understand what we think might be. To remove some possible paradoxes multiple universes are more than plausible (mathematically). If my original supposition is incorrect then it would logically follow that it would just keep expanding until all the stars burn down and all possible life is extinguished and still continue to expand in the cold by itself with nothing to observe it.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.2  author  Sparty On  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.1    one month ago
The key part of your question is "IF ours is everything."

Yes it is but it is generally accepted by our current science that our Universe is everything.  

Sure, there will be different theories and opinions out there but most of the stuff i've seen and read consider our universe to be everything.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.3  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.2    one month ago
Yes it is but it is generally accepted by our current science that our Universe is everything. 

Generally accepted by whom? 

...but most of the stuff I've seen and read consider our universe to be everything.

That's interesting. There are more theoretical physicists than experimental physicists, but then again I suppose the bulk of what's published for mass consumption would be experimental stuff. Science that can be observed, tested and repeated. The other stuff is math heavy and difficult to explain for mass appeal. I tried to explain string theory to my aunt once... It didn't go well. LOL!

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.4  author  Sparty On  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.3    one month ago

It's an easy google search if you haven't read up on it.   First link to pop up when i just googled it:

Not going to dump loads of data here.   You are welcome to search yourself and bring differing theories here for discussion.   As i said, they are out there but "the everything" theory is the closest thing to general consensus that i have found in my travels.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.5  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.4    one month ago

Discovery is the McDonald's of science. 

You are welcome to search yourself... 

Oh... really? I have your permission? 

The models of Universal expansion were written in the 1920's. After Hubble was published, Einstein dropped his work on a cosmological constant. His work was based on a perfect, flat universe. Alexander Friedmann's work on a dynamic expanding universe used a negative curvature of space using a positive, zero and negative curvature. His work was published a decade before Roberton's. 

While it's largely excepted that the universe IS expanding the rate of expansion is still being debated. One group says the rate of expansion to be 73 km/s/Mpc with an uncertainty of 2.4%. The second is slower at 67km/s/Mps and an uncertainty of 1%. Mathematically they are both correct AND if we factor in dynamical dark energy in a field that changes over time it would show that the Universe's expansion rate changes over time depending on when/how you measure it. So both equations could be correct AT THE SAME TIME.

BUT if we go back to Hubble's Law.  That tells us Hubble's constant is only in space, not in time, the radius of the Hubble sphere may increase or decrease time intervals. This would suggest that while Discovery tells you the universe is always expanding, it could ultimately be contracting instead. OR both, or neither. As any given galaxy may be moving at a different rate of speed and in any direction all while it may also be expanding or contracting depending on its own forces.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
2.1.6  author  Sparty On  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.5    one month ago

I only popped that in there because it showed up first in the search but feel free to start another thread with supporting evidence.   I eat this shit with a spoon.

All i ask is that you include a link for sourcing.   Not that i don't trust your opinion. jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif  

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.7  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @2.1.6    one month ago
All i ask is that you include a link for sourcing.

I've read dozens of sources since I discovered the internet and free time at work, on physics and quantum physics. I may start on a mass media article like Forbes or Discovery, move to wiki to wiki and then to an edu site. There are massive amounts of edu pages devoted to physics, though they are math dense and I can barely follow along. 

My favorite unprovable theory is multiverses. Probably only 5 people on the planet would understand that math. It's way, way, way over my head. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.8  evilgenius  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.7    one month ago

If we go with the big slurp idea - the universe is in a false vacuum and at any moment could flip to a true vacuum and all matter would be ripped to it's lowest energy state (vacuum decay) OR instantaneously destroyed without warning. That sounds fun!

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
2.1.9  evilgenius  replied to  evilgenius @2.1.8    one month ago

Here is a really cool article from back in 2018 that applies to our conversation. 

 
 
 
Just Jim NC TttH
Senior Principal
3  Just Jim NC TttH    one month ago

IMHO the only justification for saying that it is expanding is due to the fact that we discover more and more about the magnitude of it and therefore, our PERCEPTION is that it is expanding only because we are finding more out about it. In other words, our definition of the universe is ever changing.

Hope that makes sense to all.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
3.1  author  Sparty On  replied to  Just Jim NC TttH @3    one month ago

It does and is a reasonable possibility imo

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4  TᵢG    one month ago

This is ultimately definitional.

If the universe is infinitely large then we now must deal with the intuition defying notion of infinity.   This goes nowhere because we do not fully understand infinity and infinity has paradoxes (i.e. it is unsolved).

If the universe is finite then expansion is intuitive but that means there necessarily is something outside of the boundary of the universe.   This brings up the notion of a multiverse where our universe is one of many spawned in a greater multiverse (which is typically viewed as infinite).

Another notion is the concept of 'known universe'.   We can only speak scientifically about the observed expansion of the known universe.   What is beyond the known universe is beyond our knowledge.   Thus the known universe can be expanding within the greater universe (known + unknown).

As with most things, the specific semantics of the words we use makes a big difference.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
4.1  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4    one month ago

Don't disagree but such notions challenge the current generally accepted science.  

I believe the universe is "everything" but our current scientific understanding of "everything" is sophomoric at best.   Like as you say using "infinite" and trying to wrap your head around the true meaning of that term.   It's pretty heady stuff.

So our universe if expanding, is expanding into itself imo.   The part we don't understand and/or haven't discovered yet.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1    one month ago
I believe the universe is "everything" but our current scientific understanding of "everything" is sophomoric at best. 

That is your chosen definition.   As someone oft states:   opinions do vary.

And our understanding of reality is indeed sophomoric (likely even worse).

Like as you say using "infinite" and trying to wrap your head around the true meaning of that term.   It's pretty heady stuff.

Nobody can claim to fully understand infinity.   Not as long as mathematical paradoxes remain unsolved.

So our universe if expanding, is expanding into itself imo.   The part we don't understand and/or haven't discovered yet.

Certainly possible.   I prefer the multiverse concept.   It seems to me that imposing a limit on reality makes no sense.   If there is a limit then what imposes the limit?   The notion of a limit begs the question of what is outside of the limit.   Thus, even though infinity is impossible to fully comprehend, it seems to me that our universe emerged from a singularity and has been expanding ever since as a finite part of a greater multiverse.   The notion that all of reality is ultimately the formation, destruction and repurposing of substance into new universes seems consistent with what we currently know.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
4.1.2  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.1    one month ago
That is your chosen definition.

Not mine but a largely accepted theory in the scientific community today.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
4.1.3  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @4.1.2    one month ago

Sparty, you used the words "I believe".   It is reasonable for me to then take what you believe as your chosen definition.   Of all the definitions you have chosen one that rings most true to you.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
4.1.4  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @4.1.3    one month ago

Yes, i believe that based on what i've read and researched from the scientific community at large that is a lot more knowledgeable on the topic than i.

 
 
 
JohnRussell
Professor Principal
5  JohnRussell    one month ago

Whatever exists is the universe. Speculative theories that represent mathematical possibilities are not part of the universe, yet. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1  evilgenius  replied to  JohnRussell @5    one month ago
Speculative theories that represent mathematical possibilities are not part of the universe, yet. 

Because we don't know something doesn't necessarily mean it doesn't exist. Unless you want to say that the speculative theory that the world was round by Pythagoras wasn't true until Magellan actually sailed around it.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.1  Kathleen  replied to  evilgenius @5.1    one month ago

“ Because we don’t know something doesn’t necessarily mean it doesn’t exit”

Many would argue with you on that with a certain subject. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.2  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.1    one month ago
Many would argue with you on that with a certain subject. 

Very few people will argue that lack of knowledge means that the subject does not exist.   We have no information whatsoever about intelligent exolife.   Is that an argument that no intelligent exolife exists?   And, where you likely were going, we have no information about a sentient creator.   Does that mean no sentient creator could possibly exist?    (Nobody on NT argues that no sentient creator could possibly exist.)

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.3  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.2    one month ago

Then we should be open to all possibilities when it comes to the universe and some other subjects as well. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.4  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.3    one month ago

Well of course.   If something is not absurdly improbable (e.g. little green martians) then it should not be dismissed.

A sensible way of proceeding is to follow the evidence to identify what is most likely true while holding open the possibility of that which is not logically absurd yet unevidenced.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.5  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    one month ago

Personally i find any allusion that we are the only intelligent life in the universe to be incredibly arrogant but that is an entirely different conversation.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
5.1.6  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.5    one month ago

I think there is other life. Just to far away.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @5.1.5    one month ago

Agreed.   In addition, the notion that the entire universe exists only to provide an environment for human beings to exist just makes me shake my head.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
5.1.8  author  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @5.1.6    one month ago

Our just smart enough to stay the f away from us.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.9  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @5.1.6    one month ago

Seems to me that with the awesome size of the universe coupled with the fact that the known universe operates on the same physics which produced life on Earth, it is likely that exolife exists.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.10  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.7    one month ago

Personally I agree with you, but the Fermi Paradox must be equally valid until we know definitively. 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.10    one month ago

There could have been all sorts of exolife that never progressed to the stage where interstellar travel was possible much less traveling far distances within our galaxy.   And when we go outside of our galaxy the technological hurdles are profoundly exacerbated.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.12  Kathleen  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.4    one month ago

I was referring to something more realistic. I don’t think they fully understand what dark matter is, and the mention of parallel universes too. Too much we don’t have answers to. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.13  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.11    one month ago

True, but won't really know until we can progress past our own front lawn, cosmologically speaking. Until then all probabilities are equally valid. I was hoping that we'd be farther along than uber rich guys just brushing the edge of space. 

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.14  evilgenius  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.1    one month ago
Many would argue with you on that with a certain subject.

Does that subject have a mathematical probability? 

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.15  TᵢG  replied to  Kathleen @5.1.12    one month ago
I was referring to something more realistic. I don’t think they fully understand what dark matter is, and the mention of parallel universes too. Too much we don’t have answers to. 

We do not have a clue what dark matter or dark energy is.   But we have evidence that it exists.

Parallel universes are mathematical speculation that is grounded in physics but remains speculation nonetheless.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
5.1.16  TᵢG  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.13    one month ago

I do not see all probabilities being equal but I agree that most anything not proven false (disregarding the logically absurd) must be recognized as possible.

 
 
 
Kathleen
Professor Principal
5.1.17  Kathleen  replied to  evilgenius @5.1.14    one month ago

I don’t know...

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
5.1.18  evilgenius  replied to  TᵢG @5.1.15    one month ago
We do not have a clue what dark matter or dark energy is.   But we have evidence that it exists.

Primer on Dark Matter - 

In 1930 an Swiss astronomer Fritz Zwicky observed that some galaxies were spinning too fast to stay held together. Since he was a big asshole no one paid him any attention. In 1962 Vera Rubin made the same observations with the same conclusions. Since she was a women the other physicists patted her on the head and told her to fetch them a beer. She flipped them all the bird and went back to work and by 1978 studied 11 spiral galaxies that defied the known laws of physics. To make this work (and we can observe it does work) there has to be more matter in the universe than we can account for. Thus science dubbed that "dark matter". 

For our topic today we can also throw in Dark Energy - an energy that pushes galaxies apart - a way for physics to explain why the expansion of the universe is increasing (inflation theory).

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6  Ender    one month ago
What is it expanding into?

The void?

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1  author  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @6    one month ago

What void?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
6.1.1  Ender  replied to  Sparty On @6.1    one month ago

The void of nothingness.  Haha

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
6.1.2  author  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @6.1.1    one month ago

Lol .... Neil d Tyson?   Is that you?

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
7  Ender    one month ago

Speaking of big bang, I wondered if there was nothing and then the big bang, what caused the bang to begin with.

I mean, for an explosion, there has to be some kind of material there to explode.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
7.1  TᵢG  replied to  Ender @7    one month ago

Well, as you know, the 'Big Bang' was a pejorative so-named by Fred Hoyle who considered the theory to be ridiculous.

Best we can tell there likely was quantum fluctuation during the Planck epoch (first 1043 seconds) which triggered a massive expansion followed by cooling and combination of substances to form matter and thus cosmological bodies.   Science is confident on how the universe unfolded after the Planck epoch but can only speculate prior to that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
7.2  author  Sparty On  replied to  Ender @7    one month ago

I was looking for the head exploding emoji earlier, they must have gotten rid of it but it applies here as well.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
8  author  Sparty On    one month ago

It's rum-thirty, you kids play nice in here like you have been.   Later

 
 
 
Greg Jones
PhD Expert
9  Greg Jones    one month ago

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10  Buzz of the Orient    one month ago

For a long time I've thought of the solar systems of the galaxies of the universe as being like molecules, atoms and electrons in the many galaxies of the universe, which in turn is a mere particle in an existence that is so much greater it is beyond our comprehension, and then that greater existence is only a microscopic entity in something far greater than it, and on and on....the never-ending story.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
10.1  TᵢG  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    one month ago

Funny how that very thought crosses my mind on occasion too.

 
 
 
Ender
Professor Principal
10.2  Ender  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    one month ago

I had actually thought that as well.

We are simply miniscule things, attached to a much larger being.

 
 
 
Buzz of the Orient
Professor Principal
10.3  Buzz of the Orient  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    one month ago

@ TiG and Ender

It kind of makes one feel awfully insignificant, and there are a lot of people who are unable to accept that.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
10.4  author  Sparty On  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    one month ago

Ah yes, the MIB theory ..... (Men in Black movie)

 
 
 
SteevieGee
Senior Silent
10.5  SteevieGee  replied to  Buzz of the Orient @10    4 weeks ago

Our galaxy is just a virus.  The big bang?  Just a sneeze.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
11  Nerm_L    one month ago

An unsatisfying simplistic answer is that the universe is displacing different physics.  

According to our physics the Big Bang created space and time or spacetime.  Matter and energy is conserved which means the Big Bang did not create or destroy matter and energy.  According to our physics, the universe is not expanding into space but rather is creating space in which to expand.

Existence, using our physics, requires a presence in space and time.  Since the expansion of the universe is the result of space and time being created then it follows that our existence is displacing nonexistence.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1  author  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @11    one month ago

So .... according to our Physics, if we assume matter can neither be created or destroyed, how is the Universe creating more space to expand into?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.1  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1    one month ago

Space is not matter.

If you take two tennis balls and move them further away from each other, you have not created matter.

The universe expansion is measured in terms of galaxies moving further away from each other.   No matter is being created within the universe to accomplish this, but the volume of empty space is increasing.  

The question is not about matter, but back to your question of what is on the other side of the boundaries of our universe.   That is, what is our universe expanding into?

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
11.1.2  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @11.1    one month ago
So .... according to our Physics, if we assume matter can neither be created or destroyed, how is the Universe creating more space to expand into?

That's a question that is still being researched.  The answer has not yet been discovered.  What is space?  What is time?  What is spacetime?

The major effort to discover the makeup of spacetime involves particle physics rather than astrophysics.   

The expansion of spacetime can be demonstrated with a rubber band.  Snip a rubber band (so its a length of rubber) and mark the middle.  Now stretch the length of rubber.  The free end will move away from the fixed end faster than does the middle.  As our ability to see farther into the universe improves then we should observe a greater rate of expansion if the Big Bang created spacetime.  And that's what has been observed.

If the universe is expanding into something that our physics can describe then we've gotten the physics wrong.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.3  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.1    one month ago
Space is not matter.

Poor choice of word.   Lets say "known" matter and energy.   I have a hard time imagining that "space" is made of "nothing."   Then we get into conversations about topics like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, of which our understanding is barely in it's infancy.

If you take two tennis balls and move them further away from each other, you have not created matter.

That doesn't really work.   Forget the fact that those tennis balls are moving in the known universe and say the universe is a room with four fixed walls and a fixed ceiling and floor .   An immovable "fixed" space.   Tennis balls can't separate (expand if you will) past the walls unless somehow the walls are no longer fixed and expand outward like the universe is alleged to be doing.   Another imperfect analogy but closer i think 

That is, what is our universe expanding into?

Yes, that is the question.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
11.1.4  Nerm_L  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.2    one month ago
The major effort to discover the makeup of spacetime involves particle physics rather than astrophysics.   

Just to stir the cesspool for the fun of it; if we use science to search for God then God would be infinitely tiny rather than infinitely large.  Spacetime could be the finger of God.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.5  author  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.4    one month ago

Lol, lets be careful here.   I really don't want this one to turn into another religion v no religion poo flinging contest.  

Already have too many of those.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.6  author  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.2    one month ago

I really enjoy discussions like this but they make my head hurt.

jrSmiley_9_smiley_image.gif

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.7  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.3    one month ago
I have a hard time imagining that "space" is made of "nothing."   Then we get into conversations about topics like Dark Matter and Dark Energy, of which our understanding is barely in it's infancy.

Think of it this way.   Space, alone, might very well be an outline / scope of void;  that void, however, contains matter that is sporadically sprinkled throughout.   The scope of the void (the boundaries) can increase without introducing new matter.

Dark energy (as best we know) is seen as that which increases the volume of space (expands the boundaries of the greater void).    Dark matter is that which explains unexplained gravitational phenomena.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
11.1.8  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.5    one month ago
Lol, lets be careful here.   I really don't want this one to turn into another religion v no religion poo flinging contest.   Already have too many of those.

Sorry, sometimes the bear has to be poked to get its attention.

The point is that our existence depends entirely upon spacetime, according to our physics.  It's not the matter and energy we are composed of that's important; it's the space and time we occupy that makes us who we are.  If we were not present in space and time then we would not exist.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.9  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.7    one month ago

Again, i still have a hard time wrapping my head around "space" being made of nothing.   I think in time we will discover it isn't "nothing."

I hope i'm alive if/when that discovery is made.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.10  author  Sparty On  replied to  Nerm_L @11.1.8    one month ago

No worries, i thought about doing the same but those conversations just don't usually go well here so left it alone.

Conversation is cooking along just fine without it don't ya think?

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.11  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.9    one month ago

Understood.   Science is replete nowadays with concepts that defy intuition.

I tend to look at this mathematically.   That allows me to intuit a void with dimensions.   Basically I see space as a perfect vacuum with dimensions.   The dimensions can increase (or decrease) and that makes no difference to space itself.   However, when space includes matter (e.g. galaxies), an increase in the volume of space causes the galaxies to move further apart (more void between them).

To me, that is intuitive.   But, sure, the counterintuitive notion of some modern science is part of the intrigue.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.12  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.11    one month ago

I hear ya but mathematics calculates/measures/derives known, quantifiable things.   Not sure how you do that with nothing.

Now i sound like a Seinfeld episode.

One my mathematical epiphanies came around Calc-4 in college.   I was having a hell of time understanding something when it hit me than some genius, Newton or whoever, more less invented/created the mathematics that became calculus a long, long time ago.   I don't know why but it made it easier from that point forward.

 
 
 
Nerm_L
Masters Principal
11.1.13  Nerm_L  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.10    one month ago
No worries, i thought about doing the same but those conversations just don't usually go well here so left it alone. Conversation is cooking along just fine without it don't ya think?

Yep, the conversation seems to be progressing a peaceful manner.

I admit I like to shake the conventional wisdom tree and see what falls out.  The point is it's the infinitely tiny that makes the universe what it is.  It's not the stars, galaxies, black holes. or dark energy and matter.

 
 
 
TᵢG
Professor Principal
11.1.14  TᵢG  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.12    one month ago
No sure how you do that with nothing.

Mathematics, in general, is a formal language for expressing concepts.   It has no problem expressing the notion of a void (nothing) or infinity — both of which are not part of our common intuition.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
11.1.15  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.9    one month ago
Again, i still have a hard time wrapping my head around "space" being made of nothing. 

There are all kinds of things in the void. 

Space is not empty. A point in outer space is filled with gas, dust, a wind of charged particles from the stars, light from stars, cosmic rays, radiation left over from the Big Bang, gravity, electric and magnetic fields, and neutrinos from nuclear reactions.

....

Even if all these things could be removed and blocked out from a certain region of space, there would still be three things we could  never  remove according to Dr. Genz: (1) vacuum energy, (2) the Higgs field, and (3) spacetime curvature.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.16  author  Sparty On  replied to  TᵢG @11.1.14    one month ago

I understand where you're going but it doesn't work in my world.   Math works in reality and fact in my mind.   Do the math right or the bridge collapses type of thing.

Never liked the theoretical stuff, still don't.   Why i have trouble wrapping my head around concepts like this.

 
 
 
evilgenius
Professor Guide
11.1.17  evilgenius  replied to  Sparty On @11.1.3    one month ago
Forget the fact that those tennis balls are moving in the known universe and say the universe is a room with four fixed walls and a fixed ceiling and floor .   An immovable "fixed" space.   Tennis balls can't separate (expand if you will) past the walls unless somehow the walls are no longer fixed and expand outward like the universe is alleged to be doing.   Another imperfect analogy but closer i think 

The "walls" of the void are not fixed. 

That is, what is our universe expanding into?
Yes, that is the question.

IF we are talking expressly expansion, just more of the same. As I posted way up above there are other theories, though.

 
 
 
Sparty On
PhD Principal
11.1.18  author  Sparty On  replied to  evilgenius @11.1.17    one month ago
The "walls" of the void are not fixed. 

For the purposes of my example, they are fixed