there must be something outside of the universe!!!

I believe that our universe is just a bubble of matter and energy in an eternal, endless, constantly expanding space. Space (aka vacuum) possesses energy that, due to quantum fluctuations and the Uncertainty Principle, can spontaneously produce stuff. If an area of vacuum is at slightly higher energy (aka "false vacuum"), it can spontaneously decay to a lower energy state, and produce an universe.

en.wikipedia.org...

So to answer the question, what is beyond our universe, - more universes!

Jordan River
This topic is always interesting to me. Space must have an outside. Idk what, another dimension, another universe or parallel worlds. Idk.
The big bang can be considered equivalent to a dot on a peice of paper. With a line that represents time.! So a line is present ,past and future. So what the hell is the peice of paper???????? Furthermore, what the hell is the pencil?
although, this is not my master topic, i know for a fact that there is one equivocal truth about the universe. Everything moves!!! Planet moves, plants, peopleo, comets. Teutonic plates. Nothing is still. So whats in the background must move our universe. One big clock

edit on 2-2-2014 by Jordan River because: (no reason given)

Well lets start with something exists outside of our universe it might have been another universe or as quantum mechanics believes whats called a quantum foam. See people misunderstand the singularity in the big bang they think of it like a black hole.Well it wasn't because there was one major difference even though it had infinite mass and density there was no space for it to be in . Space wasnt created until after it expanded meaning there is definitely something outside our universe.My fovorite has to deal with quantum loop gravity it suggests that our universe is the result of a quantum bounce, determined by the gravitational collapse of a previous universe.

I like thinking nature recycles instead of just allows entropy to move to zero and then nothing. Also if we were spawned off another universe means are laws of physics would be the same as the old. Now using the Higgs Boson and what we have learned its likely we were created in another universe. The higgs boson is 126 billion electron volts, or about 126 times the mass of the proton. Meaning its unstable and creates what's known as a vacuum instability which could allow another universe to spawn in ours killing all of us. See the vacuum of space is directly related to the mass of the higgs and its lower than expected mass creates a problem below the planck scale space time is itself unstable. What does spacetime look like at the quantum level? Probably a quantum chaos.

Ya'll need to look into brane theory probably M-Brane theory. it is the quintessential what is outside this universe theory. And it even has a way to cosmologically test it because it makes a prediction about how an outside universe might leave it's imprints on this universe in a way we can observe with space telescopes.

reply to post by stormbringer1701


M Theory is interesting, even in it's non predictability, perhaps that is the nature of the Universe beyond certain levels, or perhaps there is an equation, yet to be realised, that can tie up those loose ends and give more predictable results. I certainly believe that dimensions are imperative to understanding the complexities of the Universe and beyond.

M-theory

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the 4 common dimensions (11D st = 7 hd + 4D). Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories (10D st = 6 hd + 4D) and supersedes them. Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes.

This idea is the unique supersymmetric theory in 11 dimensions (11D), with its low-entropy matter content and interactions fully determined, and can be obtained as the strong coupling limit of type IIA string theory because a new dimension of space emerges[clarification needed] as the coupling constant increases.

Drawing on the work of a number of string theorists (including Ashoke Sen, Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Michael Duff and John Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, initiating a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

In the early 1990s, it was shown that the various superstring theories were related by dualities which allow the description of an object in one super string theory to be related to the description of a different object in another super string theory. These relationships imply that each of the super string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory, proposed by Witten, and named "M-theory".

Originally the letter M in M-theory was taken from membrane, a construct designed to generalize the strings of string theory. However, as Witten was more skeptical about membranes than his colleagues, he opted for "M-theory" rather than "Membrane theory". Witten has since stated that the different interpretations of the M can be a matter of taste for the user, such as magic, mystery, and mother theory.[1] In the TV adaptation of The Elegant Universe, Witten suggests the M as also meaning 'matrix', along with Leonard Susskind guessing it as meaning 'monstrous'.

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.

We can speculate all day about what might be outside our universe.

But since we can never prove which speculation is correct according to the laws of physics as we know them today (which don't even allow us to see the edge of our universe, if there is such a thing), we may never know which speculation is correct. Maybe none of the speculations are correct.

It's interesting to think about, but does it make any difference, to anything?

Colonizing another planet so humanity won't be destroyed when a cataclysm like the one that wiped out the dinosaurs occurs, now that's something lofty to think about. Someday we might actually be able to do that, and it might make the difference between whether our species survives or not.

theabsolutetruth
reply to post by stormbringer1701

 

M Theory is interesting, even in it's non predictability, perhaps that is the nature of the Universe beyond certain levels, or perhaps there is an equation, yet to be realised, that can tie up those loose ends and give more predictable results. I certainly believe that dimensions are imperative to understanding the complexities of the Universe and beyond.

M-theory

In theoretical physics, M-theory is an extension of string theory in which 11 dimensions of spacetime are identified as 7 higher-dimensions plus the 4 common dimensions (11D st = 7 hd + 4D). Proponents believe that the 11-dimensional theory unites all five 10 dimensional string theories (10D st = 6 hd + 4D) and supersedes them. Though a full description of the theory is not known, the low-entropy dynamics are known to be supergravity interacting with 2- and 5-dimensional membranes.

This idea is the unique supersymmetric theory in 11 dimensions (11D), with its low-entropy matter content and interactions fully determined, and can be obtained as the strong coupling limit of type IIA string theory because a new dimension of space emerges[clarification needed] as the coupling constant increases.

Drawing on the work of a number of string theorists (including Ashoke Sen, Chris Hull, Paul Townsend, Michael Duff and John Schwarz), Edward Witten of the Institute for Advanced Study suggested its existence at a conference at USC in 1995, and used M-theory to explain a number of previously observed dualities, initiating a flurry of new research in string theory called the second superstring revolution.

In the early 1990s, it was shown that the various superstring theories were related by dualities which allow the description of an object in one super string theory to be related to the description of a different object in another super string theory. These relationships imply that each of the super string theories is a different aspect of a single underlying theory, proposed by Witten, and named "M-theory".

Originally the letter M in M-theory was taken from membrane, a construct designed to generalize the strings of string theory. However, as Witten was more skeptical about membranes than his colleagues, he opted for "M-theory" rather than "Membrane theory". Witten has since stated that the different interpretations of the M can be a matter of taste for the user, such as magic, mystery, and mother theory.[1] In the TV adaptation of The Elegant Universe, Witten suggests the M as also meaning 'matrix', along with Leonard Susskind guessing it as meaning 'monstrous'.

M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.

edit on 3-2-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

String theory is kinda disappearing less and less physicists are exploring this i think its probably a dead end.See not only is it unprovable like you point out but they keep trying to patch it to explain things we know or learn. Its really starting to look like that quilt that has been in the family for generations with strings and patches hanging off everywhere. Its end started with the KKLT paper which indicated that string could not tell the difference between millions of alternative versions of physics. It was something along the lines of 10-500 alternative string vacua.The big thing means its not falsifiable and its not predictable both requirements for a valid theory.So IMHO string theory was a dead end and time to backtrack and look at other possibilities.

If anyone wants to look into it here is the paper.

arxiv.org...

theabsolutetruth


M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.

actually though colliding branes are something that can be tested. and string theory can too to a degree. there is a type of "frozen in artifact" from strings that can by emulated e.g; in condensed matter physics and in Bose-Einstein condensates. the tolpological defect species of monopole is a string end artifact because according to several of the various monopole candidate theories predict this sort of monopole. there are several monopole species in various theories and at least one of the critters has to be correct because the universe as we know it cannot exist without there being at least one of them. this is because the monopole was used by Dirac to explain the reason why there is quanticization of electric charge. no one came up with a better explanation so the need for monopoles still exists even though they are hard to detect by their very nature. also though no real monopole has been found several forms of synthetic monopole have been made or have arisen spontaneously.

brane collisions are something predicted by brane theory can be seen by huge voids in the large scale filament structure level of the universe. if astronomers find one of those it is a smoking gun.

dragonridr

String theory is kinda disappearing less and less physicists are exploring this i think its probably a dead end.See not only is it unprovable like you point out but they keep trying to patch it to explain things we know or learn. Its really starting to look like that quilt that has been in the family for generations with strings and patches hanging off everywhere. Its end started with the KKLT paper which indicated that string could not tell the difference between millions of alternative versions of physics. It was something along the lines of 10-500 alternative string vacua.The big thing means its not falsifiable and its not predictable both requirements for a valid theory.So IMHO string theory was a dead end and time to backtrack and look at other possibilities.

If anyone wants to look into it here is the paper.

arxiv.org...

edit on 2/3/14 by dragonridr because: (no reason given)

actually string theory's fortunes wax and wain. developments in successors to the feynman analysis techniques deal directly with types of string derived super gravity. n=4 n=8 and stuff like that. here is dixon trying to explain it but there are should be a link to thier sakurai prize winning papers on their application. it's vey interesting because it links gravity to the strong force and thus is a link between relativity and quantum gravity:

www.preposterousuniverse.com...

stormbringer1701

theabsolutetruth


M-theory (and string theory) has been criticized for lacking predictive power or being untestable. Further work continues to find mathematical constructs that join various surrounding theories. However, the tangible success of M-theory can be questioned, given its current incompleteness and limited predictive power.

edit on 3-2-2014 by theabsolutetruth because: (no reason given)

actually though colliding branes are something that can be tested. and string theory can too to a degree. there is a type of "frozen in artifact" from strings that can by emulated e.g; in condensed matter physics and in Bose-Einstein condensates. the tolpological defect species of monopole is a string end artifact because according to several of the various monopole candidate theories predict this sort of monopole. there are several monopole species in various theories and at least one of the critters has to be correct because the universe as we know it cannot exist without there being at least one of them. this is because the monopole was used by Dirac to explain the reason why there is quanticization of electric charge. no one came up with a better explanation so the need for monopoles still exists even though they are hard to detect by their very nature. also though no real monopole has been found several forms of synthetic monopole have been made or have arisen spontaneously.

brane collisions are something predicted by brane theory can be seen by huge voids in the large scale filament structure level of the universe. if astronomers find one of those it is a smoking gun.

Magnetic monopoles have not been created we have created simulations of them There’s more a mathematical analogy and cool one at that. But they're not magnetic monopoles. And m theory predicts their existence but so does many quantum theories so its not really proof of m theory.

dragonridr


Magnetic monopoles have not been created we have created simulations of them There’s more a mathematical analogy and cool one at that. But they're not magnetic monopoles. And m theory predicts their existence but so does many quantum theories so its not really proof of m theory.

I did not say monopoles would prove m Theory. i said if we find a certain species of monopole it would be proof of strings. synthesized (pseudo if you prefer) monopoles have both been deliberately created and have actually arisen spontaneously in experiments that were not looking for them. thus far these created monopoles have all been string type monopole like. though i think the latest one of necessity was point particle like now that i think of it. so you have a bunch of string like ones and one particle like psuedo monopole

My current thinking is along the lines of "M-Theory". I tend to visualise flat membranes, each membrane being another Universe/Multiverse/Parallel Dimension floating around each other and occasionally interacting. The interaction can be described as the Big Bang - wherein the membranes occasionally bump into each other and a massive transference of energy and matter occurs from one to the other, creating a "Big Bang" within the receiving membrane.

That's about as simply as I can put it from my perspective.

sligtlyskeptical
I think the universe is a looped system. Once our telescopes can see far enough we will be able to see ourselves. Once this is understood it will throw a bunch of theories on the distance of objects in space into the recycle bin..

Could be right.

Perhaps this is where massive black holes dump the energy and matter they vacuum up during their lives.

Super compress everything that goes in, wormhole the result to the center of the Torus shaped Universe which has a continual big bang type event, continuously spewing the now rapidly expanding matter out from the center and back around the torus...to eventually be consumed, super compressed and funnelled back into the continuous big bang event to be recycled once again, and again and so on.

Who knows eh?

This kind of stuff goes way over my head but my brother used to say that there were two voids with rips in them, one filled with matter and one empty.

The matter would spew out into one side filling out the empty side reaching the point where it gets so fill it starts poring back into the side that had the matter which is now empty and it just cycles forever..

I personally think that we are living in conciousness or that is the glue of everything that is.

www.universetoday.com...

^ possible signatures of brane collisions or other types of universe collision.

and later...

nextbigfuture.com...

to the person who thinks if you had a powerful enough telescope you could see yourself in any direction: currently all the evidence points towards a topology that is flatter than a pancake. the universe's curvature is known to within 1 percent tolerance as of last month. also the evidence is that expansion is accelerating. this points to an open universe. so the evidence supports a universe where you could not see yourself like that. Though a decade or so ago that was definitely a possibility because everyone thought the universe was closed; whether spherical, torus or saddle shaped. those shapes have pretty much been ruled out now.

karmajayne
This kind of stuff goes way over my head but my brother used to say that there were two voids with rips in them, one filled with matter and one empty.

The matter would spew out into one side filling out the empty side reaching the point where it gets so fill it starts poring back into the side that had the matter which is now empty and it just cycles forever...

One of the points of the Big Bang Theory is that the Big Bang was not an intrusion of matter inter empty space -- it was an inflation of space itself. Not just the matter that resides in space, but "space".

Don't think of it as stuff (matter) going into a "place", but the actual creation of the "place" for stuff to be. According to the Big Bang, the singularity prior to the big Bang was not a thing sitting in space, but rather it was all of space itself -- the entire universe. There was nothingness (not even empty space) outside of the singularity, because empty space is NOT the same as nothingness; empty space is a place where you can go. You can't go to "nothingness".

You can think of the big bang as the expansion of empty space. The matter that filled that space simply followed; the expansion of empty space gave the matter a place to be.

another way to tell if your universe's collision insurance rates are about to go up.

physicsworld.com...

testing brane collision behavior in a metamaterial in the lab:

www.technologyreview.com...

I think it's just the same thing over and over and over and over, -With different variations, of course!

reply to post by Jordan River


It's probably more darkness and void of any light.

lostbook
It's probably more darkness and void of any light.

There is no such thing as "void of light" and "darkness". Light exists everywhere. There are two things, which are really one. Visible light and invisible light. That is all the universe consists of.